Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2023

Opposition Motion—Bail Reform

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Public Safety; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, The Environment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

I want to talk about a word that seems to have escaped the Liberal government since it took office eight years ago and that is “consequence” or being accountable for one's actions. The Liberals seem to have a really hard time being accountable for their actions. Even though it has been eight years, they seem to have a really hard time taking responsibility for being in power. They seem to have a really hard time owning up to the mistakes they have been making for the eight years that they have been in office. Perhaps that explains why they have hard time asking others to be accountable for their own actions, which is even more serious when it comes to crime.

Let us look at this government's track record when it comes to failing to be accountable. It will likely explain the Liberals' position on today's opposition motion.

In 2016, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner found the Prime Minister guilty of breaking ethics laws. The Prime Minister apologized, but suffered no consequences. In 2018, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. He apologized, but suffered no consequences. Just apologize and move on.

In 2019, the Prime Minister once again violated the Conflict of Interest Act, this time in the SNC‑Lavalin case. The Prime Minister says he took responsibility for his actions. However, he suffered no consequences. In 2021, again, the Prime Minister and, this time, the then Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau, were charged under the Conflict of Interest Act and Mr. Morneau was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Morneau suffered no consequences.

In 2022, in a file currently before us, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act for giving a lucrative contract to her best friend. The minister suffered no consequences. She rose in the House, said that she apologized and that she would take responsibility for her actions. What does taking responsibility for one's actions mean to this government? What does ministerial responsibility mean? It means absolutely nothing.

This week, I asked the Prime Minister a question about the case of a rapist who received a 20-month sentence to be served at home. The Prime Minister stated that it was none of our business and that it was not the responsibility of we, the politicians, to manage the law. The Prime Minister has forgotten one thing: He and his government created the law that resulted in this individual receiving a 20-month sentence to be served at home. That is the reality. Those are the facts, and I want to present them to my Liberal colleagues and even my colleagues who belong to other parties. I encourage them to listen carefully to the meaning and the words of the motion that we moved today. I will read the motion, which is important.

(i) violent crime has increased by 32%, (ii) gang-related homicides have increased by 92%, (iii) violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily, (iv) increasing daily acts of crime and violence are putting Canadians at risk, (v) five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year

We are not asking for anything major. We are asking that something be done to help victims and to help Canadians feel safer. Here is our first request:

(a) fix Canada's broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by Bill C‑75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend;

I want to repeat those last few words: “which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend”. That is one of the effects of the legislation from Bill C‑75 that we are talking about today. Our second request is this:

(b) strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail;

In all honesty, how can anyone oppose this? Someone explain to me how the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois could disagree with that. Our last request is as follows:

(c) ensure that Canada's justice system puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of violent, repeat offenders.

It is just common sense. We know that the Liberals will vote against it, but I do not understand why the NDP and the Bloc will vote against it. There is absolutely nothing partisan about this motion, absolutely nothing negative for Canadians in general. It is meant only for violent criminals, who unfortunately are too often released and commit crime after crime. This is a direct consequence of Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5.

I know the parties supported Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75. Unfortunately, it is now time to make amends. Past mistakes can be corrected. Why are the NDP and the Bloc Québécois not voting for this motion in order to correct this situation?

We are not the only ones saying this. The premiers of all the provinces, including Quebec, have signed a letter calling on the federal government to do better on bail to prevent tragedies from occurring, dangerous criminals from being put back on the streets, and women, children, men and families from being sadly affected by violent crimes committed by individuals who should be behind bars and not on the streets.

That is exactly the point of the motion we moved. It is entirely consistent with the letter that Canadian provincial and territorial premiers sent to the federal government. Unfortunately, the government seems to have chosen to turn a deaf ear.

I get that the Liberal government does not want to admit the Conservatives are right, so let us listen to someone else. I am talking about the famous case I mentioned earlier, the individual who sexually assaulted a woman and was sentenced to 20 months to be served at home with his cellphone and Netflix. That kind of sentence for that kind of crime is totally unacceptable.

Here are some quotes from the article in La Presse:

A Crown prosecutor chastised the [Liberal] government for its recent law opening the door to house arrest for sex offenders.

Right now, [the Prime Minister] and [the Minister of Justice] probably have some explaining to do to victims of sexual assault, said Crown prosecutor Alexis Dinelle after the hearing.

This is a direct consequence of Bill C‑5 becoming law, and I am asking the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to make amends for that today.

The article goes on to say the following:

Until last November, a judge could not impose a sentence to be served at home for sexual assault. Hard time in prison was the norm for such crimes, and sentences ranged from 12 to 20 months for assaults similar to this one.

Without any fanfare, the Liberal government's Bill C‑5 made it possible for offenders to serve a sentence in the community for sexual assault.

It is not me or the Conservatives who said that. It is a Crown prosecutor who has to live with the consequences of the passage of Bill C‑5.

For these reasons, because I hope that my colleagues from all parties want to protect Canadians who have been the victims of violent crime and prevent new crimes from being committed, I encourage them to help us make the necessary changes to ensure that violent repeat offenders stay behind bars and not in our communities.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, today's motion calls on our government to ensure that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences cannot easily get bail. That is already the case. It is also the case for organized crime offences, arms smuggling and trafficking, sexual assault, robbery, extortion with a firearm and drug trafficking.

I would like my opposition colleague to tell me what the motion would change.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not allowed to use documents to illustrate what I have to say, but I do have numerous documents that indicate inconsistencies in what my colleague is saying, unfortunately. I know she thinks everything is perfect. That is what we have been hearing from the Liberals for far too long. They say everything is fine, there are no problems, and they are doing what needs to be done.

Unfortunately, there are victims. Five police officers were killed in the line of duty in a single year, most of them by repeat offenders. Most femicides are committed by men who were previously convicted. Something is wrong with our system. Denying that will not fix it, but adopting motions and taking measures like what we put forward today will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to comment on what my colleague said in his speech, when he asked why the Bloc Québécois will not vote in favour of today's motion.

He is right that there are several elements in the Conservative motion that we agree with. For example, the increase in violent crime in recent years is undeniably true.

However, point (a) of his motion is not entirely true, not to say downright false. There is nothing in Bill C-75 that requires judges to release repeat violent offenders. What the Conservatives are suggesting is false.

There is no point in searching high and low to figure out why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this. If the Conservatives really want to make changes to certain provisions of Bill C-75, I invite them, with all due respect, to introduce a bill to amend certain provisions of Bill C-75. I think that would be better than waiting for either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to agree with this motion.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing sets us apart from the Bloc Québécois. One day, we will be in power and we will be able to introduce bills. We will then be able to correct the provisions spelled out in Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois will never be able to do that.

The Bloc Québécois should ask itself some serious questions about certain positions it has taken in the past weeks and months. For example, there is Bill C‑21 and the amendments it supported to ban certain firearms. That happened. It is true.

It also supported Bill C‑5, which is directly responsible for the release of this rapist to his home. The Bloc Québécois should ask itself these types of questions when it is time to support and adopt motions.

The Conservatives have a solution. It is not perfect, but it is a starting point. I hope once again that the Bloc Québécois will make amends and support our motion.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the conversation we are having today is really important. I would have liked to have seen the Conservatives expand this to look at other areas.

In August, I had the pleasure of going to Agassiz and visiting two federal institutions, the Mountain Institution and Kent Institution. I had a chance to talk with both program officers, who work within the institutions, and parole officers, who deal with inmates on the outside. They are crying out for resources. I think with the important work they do with inmates, that kind of work is incredibly important and has much more of an effect on increasing public safety.

Would my colleague agree with me that those program officers and parole officers in Correctional Service Canada need more resources so that we can have a more effective justice system?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, they need a law that would allow them to do their jobs correctly. That is the responsibility of the federal Liberal government. It does not want to play its role. Unfortunately, there are victims everywhere in Canada who suffer because of that.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak to this motion, sponsored by the member for Fundy Royal. It is an important debate we are having today, and I appreciate listening to the members and their various perspectives on this issue.

It is clear that Canada's justice system and, more specifically our bail system, is indeed broken. Canadians do not need to take my word or the word of my colleagues on this side of the House. They just need to turn on the news on any given day for the reality to confront them.

I was shocked. Canadians across the country were shocked to hear that a young, respected OPP officer, Constable Greg Pierzchala, was tragically killed in the line of duty. He was killed just two days after Christmas. He was shot after responding to a call for a vehicle in a ditch west of Hagersville, Ontario, in the county of Haldimand, which I represent.

The people who knew him best said that he was a example of service over self. He was a loving brother and a gifted athlete. He was just 28 years old. He had his entire life ahead of him. Thousands of officers and first responders came out in the pouring rain to honour this fallen officer at his funeral in his hometown of Barrie.

We know that one of the accused of this heinous crime was out on bail after being charged with multiple offences. In 2018, he received a life prohibition from owning firearms. In 2021, he was charged with several firearms offences and assaulting a peace officer. He was later released on bail with conditions but failed to appear in court. On September 6, 2022, a warrant was issued for his arrest and additional charges were laid. He, once again, failed to appear.

The news of the tragic death of Officer Pierzchala shook our small community.

The Liberal government has had eight years in power, and if it were competent and its policies actually worked, we would not be hearing these tragic stories time and time again, over and over again.

I take issue with the words of the Minister of Justice, who, earlier today said that he discouraged members from wasting this opportunity with empty rhetoric designed to inflame the fears of Canadians.

My constituents' words are not empty rhetoric. Are the letters that I received from people all over the country inflammatory rhetoric? Are the pain and the cries coming from the families of victims across this country empty and inflammatory rhetoric?

Canadians do not need to be inflamed. They are actually afraid. Many Canadians are living in fear because our criminal justice system, specifically our bail system, is broken.

Constable Pierzchala was the fifth officer slain in a period of just months last year.

Since 2015, when the Prime Minister took office, violent crime has gone up 32% in Canada. Since 2015, gang-related homicides have increased by 92%. That is double. Out of the 44 shooting-related homicides in Toronto in 2022, 17 of the accused were out on bail at the time that they were alleged to have committed these offences. In 2022, in Toronto, 50 individuals received multiple firearms bails and 11 individuals had five or more previous firearms convictions. In Vancouver, the same 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in one single year. These are profoundly startling statistics.

We have 13 premiers now unanimously calling on the Prime Minister to do something about our broken criminal justice system. They have all called for urgent action and meaningful changes to the Criminal Code, particularly when it comes to firearms offences. Instead of focusing on criminals who are terrorizing our streets, the Liberals have watered down the consequences for the violent criminals who have impacted our communities. They have diverted precious police resources to focus instead on law-abiding firearms owners, including hunters, farmers and sport shooters.

How do we solve this problem? First, we need to prioritize the rights of victims by ensuring that repeat violent offenders stay behind bars and are offered some hope of rehabilitation before they are released. We need to recognize the brokenness of our criminal justice system and, specifically, our bail system.

As a lawyer, when I left Bay Street, for a short time I practised criminal law, and it was so disheartening. It was so frustrating to see the same people go in and out of jail. I knew at that time that something was wrong with our system. We need programs to reform and restore those who can be rehabilitated. We need a bail system that keeps violent offenders off the street, and we can do both.

There is something wrong when nothing can be done for people who commit violent offences to ensure they are rehabilitated before they are permitted to re-enter society. It should not be accepted that violent offenders can go back on the streets within the same hour of their arrest. This is not compassion. This is sheer recklessness.

At the same time, we need to work together with provinces to come up with compassionate solutions that will meaningfully reduce recidivism and keep Canadians safe. We must invest in local community resources and centres that work with at-risk youth. We must increase access to rehabilitation and counselling resources within the criminal justice system to give offenders a chance to be rehabilitated so their return to society does not put communities in danger.

There is nothing compassionate about letting somebody out on bail who has a history of violent crime when there is no evidence of change and when there is no evidence of rehabilitation. All this does is terrorize the communities with more crime, creating more victims. I remind the House that oftentimes those communities are racialized communities.

I have a young teenage son not much younger than Constable Pierzchala. Every mother's heart was broken with the killing of this young officer. I cannot imagine the pain this family has endured. His death was tragic.

I remind everyone in the House that Canada's revolving bail system must be changed. We owe it to those who have lost their lives, such as Constable Pierzchala, his family and my constituents, to make the needed reforms. Canadians deserve better. Victims deserve better. Our streets once again need to be safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in her speech the need to invest in communities and community organizations. I note that every time our government has tried to make significant investments in community programming, the Conservative Party has voted against them.

I am wondering if the member could explain why her caucus has consistently voted against measures meant to keep our communities safe and allow young people to have an outlet outside of crime.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not oppose meaningful investments in communities. In fact, we believe in the compassionate way of reducing recidivism. I remind my friend that it was this side of the House that passed a recidivism bill last year.

Our main issue is waste. Our main issue is the fact that we have diverted millions of dollars away from dealing with violent crimes and into focusing on law-abiding firearms owners, like hunters, sport shooters and farmers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the impulse. I understand the intention behind this motion, given the proliferation of firearms these days and the rise in violent crimes in recent years. There is no ill intention here. However, making the provisions of Bill C‑75 harsher is based on the ideology of law and order.

Experts, including Carolyn Yule of Guelph University, are currently studying this issue. She studies the bail system. She says that, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest that a harsher approach to bail would necessarily improve public safety.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the individual who took the life of Officer Pierzchala was out on bail. He had a lifetime prohibition on having a firearm, yet that was not a deterrent.

The family of Officer Pierzchala is listening and watching. When we say there is no hope of keeping someone behind bars and attempting to rehabilitate that person, and that the only thing we can do is put them back on the street to commit another violent crime and take another life, it is a travesty of justice.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I happened to be in the House when the Conservatives were in government. I was there when the Harper government dismantled the network of community prevention centres and crime prevention programs across this country, even though evidence showed that, dollar for dollar, this was the best way to reduce crime and lower the number of new victims.

I want to talk about the current issue of bail. We recognize that justice requires protecting both public safety and the presumption of innocence. It forms the foundation of our legal system. As a lawyer, my hon. colleague knows that nearly two-thirds of those in provincial jails right now are awaiting trial, and the vast majority of those detained have never been convicted of anything. She would know that the current bail system results in far higher rates of pretrial detention for indigenous people, racialized Canadians, new Canadians and low-income Canadians, mainly because they usually lack the resources to fight.

The current bail law allows a prosecutor to argue that a person should not get bail if they present a flight risk or a danger to public safety. Could the member tell us why that law is not working today and how she would change it?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked in the Jane and Finch community, where many programs were funded by the Harper government for community policing, so I beg to differ on that.

I acknowledge that our bail system needs to be reformed both for those people who may be overrepresented in it and for the victims of crime.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my Conservative Party colleague from Lakeland. Not surprisingly, I will be sharing my time, but not the same views.

I want to put all this in context. Today is the Conservative Party's opposition day. The motion was moved by the member for Fundy Royal. It is a direct attack on Bill C-75, which was passed in 2019, three years ago already.

The Bloc Québécois feels that Bill C-75 is a good bill overall, but there are some flaws. We do not believe that there is such a thing as a perfect bill, to be honest. Eventually, at some point in the future, there will be amendments, additions or deletions made to certain elements of Bill C-75.

The day is winding down, and we have been discussing this bill all day. Everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the Conservative motion. Yes, we know there are real problems when it comes to crime, but the solutions proposed by the Conservative Party are not the right ones we need to make the changes that we will eventually have to make.

As we have been seeing all day, this bill really gets people fired up. Everyone's emotions are running high, and everyone keeps firing off demands. This bill also opens the door to a lot of misinformation. Certain groups of people hide behind their ideology, which, sadly, has nothing to do with science. Others adopt a more sensationalist approach and, as in the current case, appear to be electioneering.

The motion is based on individual cases. All day, we have been hearing about two or three specific cases: murdered police officers and a man accused of rape who is serving his sentence at home. I do not want to downplay these situations, but I do want to point out that these are all individual cases the Conservatives are talking about here today, cases they are using as justification for upsetting the apple cart and going back to square one with Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois is against that. We want to move on, and we will vote against the motion.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that there is a bit of bad faith involved in moving this motion and that our Conservative colleagues are trying to create a false sense of security. Repealing Bill C-75 as it was passed is not going to enhance public safety. That is just not true. Let us keep in mind that we are talking about laws, justice and social justice. The Bloc Québécois supports victims. We will always side with the poor and with victims, and we think that, in this case, it is inappropriate to pursue the repeal of Bill C-75.

The Bloc Québécois hopes that we can take a sensible, reasonable and balanced approach to such important bills. We are well aware that Bill C-75 is not a cure-all, but it meets a lot of needs.

Of all of the misinformation our Conservative colleagues are spreading, there is one allegation that really irks us. They are saying that Bill C-75 requires judges to release violent repeat offenders who can then go out and commit other crimes. That is obviously misinformation, and it is easy to prove it. The Conservatives keep making this argument, but it does not hold water for the Bloc Québécois. It is not true at all. Judges still have the final say in the cases they try.

Another thing that is based on misinformation is the presumption that the Canadian justice system puts the rights of violent repeat offenders ahead of the rights of law-abiding Quebeckers and Canadians. That has been repeated all day, but it is totally false. It is clear that the claim that the bail system puts the rights of repeat offenders ahead of the rights of other individuals is a complete falsehood.

Another claim that keeps coming up is that the bail system is bad. To us that is a false claim. Bail is a way of finding a balance between the presumption of innocence, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and public safety. That is why we think that statement is false. They are talking about things that do not exist, that are not there, that are purely made up.

Again, this is a very delicate exercise.

On what are the Conservatives currently basing their claim that we have to take an axe to Bill C‑75? Are they relying on empirical data? No, they did not present any empirical data today, absolutely none. Are they relying on peer-reviewed studies? No, they did not present any such studies today.

Of course, we have heard plenty of anecdotes about individual cases. We have been hearing about the same cases all day. However, that does not justify a major reform of a bill like Bill C-75. It is not possible and it is not logical. In a system like ours, to begin with individual points like this and reshuffle the deck would be madness. We could go round in circles forever.

Canada has a population of 35 million people. What do these individual cases represent out of 35 million people? I do not want to minimize the cases that have been put forward, but we cannot decide these things based on individual cases.

What is both interesting and useful about research and science is that they provide for studies to be done on large numbers of individuals. This is what validates research and why it can be presented and shared with some degree of certainty. Not all research results are perfectly accurate. At times, there are contradictory findings from one study to the next, but overall, this is what can be expected.

I want to touch on a couple of pieces of research. Earlier, in a question, my colleague referred to Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Guelph. She is an expert in this area and has spent part of her life studying bail. The findings of her studies, of which there are several, suggest that a tougher approach to bail would not improve public safety.

That said, she is just a scientist, just a girl who does research and has spent most of her life studying this topic.

Furthermore, Jane Sprott, a professor of criminology at Toronto Metropolitan University, says that there is no reliable way to predict who will commit a violent crime, regardless of the type of crime. She says it would be fiscally irresponsible and unrealistic to increase the number of people in remand. This is related to what we are talking about today. She also states that pre-trial detention hurts a person's chances of not reoffending and their social reintegration. This is obviously contrary to Conservative values. I would also like to share one other small study, but I do not think I will have enough time.

Seeing as people are making assertions based on nothing, here is a big one: From 2006 to 2015, while the Conservatives were in power, crime rates dropped. Dig no deeper, and that sounds great. Three cheers for the Conservatives. The problem is that as soon as they lost power, crime rates started going up.

Is it fair to say the Liberals were responsible for what happened in that first year or two? No. It takes time for a law—

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

We have to move on to questions and comments. The hon. member will be able to share more information in a bit.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I enjoyed. He helped clarify what is going on with the flimsy arguments we have been hearing from the Conservatives all day. He talked about misinformation, especially when it comes to judges' obligations.

Does my colleague think judges are performing their duties justly and proportionately?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, absolutely. I believe in our justice system. It is not perfect, but I believe in it. Judges are not normally appointed overnight. There is a series of steps. There is a selection process. These individuals have a great deal of experience. I have complete confidence in our system.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I got to know my colleague from the Bloc quite well last year in Europe. However, I would like him to reread the motion. He made a statement that was factually incorrect when he said that our motion is calling for the complete repeal of Bill C-75. The motion does not state that. It states that we want to repeal those aspects that are allowing violent repeat offenders to get out there and commit additional violent crimes and murders.

My question is simple enough. Does the member agree the bail system does need reform and, as all the premiers have called for, including the premier of la belle province, we need that reform immediately and it needs to happen now?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get that question from my colleague.

I would like to give an example. I did not have time to do so earlier. The incarceration rate of the United States is the sixth highest in the world. It incarcerates criminals in droves. It incarcerates 505 people per 100,000, compared to 85 per 100,000 in Canada. Are things better in the United States? Is there less violent crime than here in Quebec or in Canada? No, absolutely not. It is increasing.

Here is another example. There were 213 mass shootings in the first 145 days of 2022 in the United States. There are shootings in Canada, but we do not see numbers like that, even if you calculate it per capita.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the bail situation in this country does require examination. I think I speak for all my constituents in saying that we all believe that the protection of the public is paramount in these cases, but equally so is the presumption of innocence. When someone is charged with a crime in our legal system, we must assume they are innocent.

The current bail law says that a prosecutor can apply to have a person incarcerated prior to trial if they can establish that the person presents a threat to the public. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can tell us why that is not happening. If, as the Conservatives say, dangerous people are being let out on bail, why is it that prosecutors in this country are unable to demonstrate or persuade a court that those people should not be let out on bail?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, preventive detention exists. A person can be detained longer if a judge has sufficient grounds to do so. That exists.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Quebec said in his speech that Conservatives are not putting forward any data. I would ask him to read the motion once again. There is some data put in there. One important fact is that of the 44 firearms-related homicides in the city of Toronto, 24 saw the person charged with the crime being out on a firearms-related bail, so that is a very significant fact. Also, Constable Pierzchala has been mentioned a few times.

Could the member comment on the lack of data? He was wrong on that.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning the numbers.

That said, we need to understand what is behind those numbers. We need to understand why bail was granted to people during trial or while awaiting trial. We need to allow time, but we need to see if there are reasonable grounds.

When this happens, assessments are made by criminologists to determine whether an individual is dangerous.