Debates of Sept. 18th, 2023

Criminal Code

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful speech. He raised several points.

This bill is not nothing. It enacts a reverse onus. The Bloc Québécois said that it will support this bill. However, does the member believe that Bill C-48, as it now stands, passes the constitutional test that he spoke about earlier? If so, why? If not, why?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question.

It is something that may not be obvious to those who are watching us today. When our government took office in 2015, we reversed a previous practice. When the previous government knew that a bill might violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it had a member introduce it as a private member's bill so that it would not be scrutinized by the legal experts at the Department of Justice.

We abandoned that practice. As the member must know, every bill introduced in the House must withstand the scrutiny of the charter. Nothing is perfect. It is always possible that a judge may find that the bill is not perfect and decide to strike down a certain aspect of it. Generally speaking, these bills are very carefully scrutinized to ensure that they comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove.

Before I begin, I want to recognize one of the people in my community of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. That would be one Ethan Katzberg, whom I met about a year ago. Over the summer, Mr. Katzberg became the world champion in the hammer throw. This is an incredible accomplishment for anybody, but more so for somebody of his young age. He is in his early twenties. We are so proud of him. Under the tutelage of Dylan Armstrong, a medallist in the Beijing Olympics, Ethan has really made Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo proud. I thank him for his contribution and congratulate him.

I also want to recognize a young man who passed away over the summer. His name is Reid Enzo Ross Davidson. I believe he has a relative who works on the Hill here. He was the grandson of somebody I look up to immensely, Enzo Lizzi, who is a pillar of our community in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and also a pillar of our Italian community. I wish his family, Michael and Lisa, and his partner, Georgia, condolences through what would be a difficult time. Mr. Davidson was only 24 years old when he passed after a motor vehicle accident.

To me, one of the critical elements that we should be focusing on here is the number 246. By my math, and I was never really good in math, it has been about 246 days since the premiers asked the government to act on bail. We are just now debating this bill at second reading. The NFL playoffs came and went; we had a Super Bowl champion crowned and a new season started in that time. Hockey playoffs came and went. The Stanley Cup was awarded. This actually happened even before we found out that the Prime Minister himself admitted to staying in a $6,000-a-night hotel when he went for the Queen's funeral.

That is how much time has passed. In fact, between the time that the Liberal government tabled the legislation and the time that the premiers had written their letter, it was about 112 days by my math. It had really reached a crescendo at the point when the premiers were begging for bail reform.

The Minister of Justice tells us that they are ready to move lightning fast to get this done and that when there is a problem, Liberals act. Members will have to forgive me for asking this: How long does it take for Liberals to act? Is it 246 seconds, 246 months or 246 days? What is it?

How many police officers need to get hurt on the job for Liberals to act? How many shopkeepers need to have things stolen from them or to be the victim of a robbery? How many women need to be the victim of intimate partner violence at the hands of somebody who should not be on bail? I once heard someone, a Liberal, say they could look at one's calendar and tell me one's priorities. Let us look at the Liberal calendar.

For 246 days, this issue has languished. I remember that it was over the Christmas break last year when the then minister of justice told us there really was not a problem with bail. Constable Pierzchala was killed, allegedly by somebody who was on bail at the time. I expected that the government would return with bail legislation. If we want to talk about common sense, that would have been the common-sense thing to do.

Sometimes there are inflection points in society, and the expectation is that government will act. However, the Liberals came back and told us there was nothing to see, the system was working as it should and dangerous people would be detained. Unfortunately, the premiers did not agree. More importantly, Canadians do not agree.

The issue with bail, in my view, has really come to a head. I receive letters. I believe many of my colleagues receive letters.

Not too long ago, I was in my colleague's riding of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, and we had a public forum about bail and crime. I was amazed to see that crime was so out of control that, in a small community of about 4,000 people, customers were having to press a buzzer to be allowed into a store because there was such a concern.

My colleague in the NDP, in referencing what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, said that people are just being arrested for shoplifting, and it is no big deal. Sometimes that shoplifting is very expensive. My colleague should tell that to a person who runs a small store and is losing a couple of thousand dollars a month of their livelihood. That is $24,000 a year. That might be the difference between making a car payment, being able to afford a mortgage or putting food on the table and not doing so.

When people trivialize the import of some crimes, saying that they are not serious offences and are just breaches, with all due respect, I would say that breaches of court orders are serious offences. The court has said something, and somebody is willfully and deliberately saying they think otherwise and are going to choose otherwise.

This is obviously a subject I am passionate about; it is something I dealt with a lot formerly as a Crown prosecutor, as well as something I taught. That is why, when I was first elected, I promised to bring in a private member's bill on bail, which I did almost immediately in Bill C-274. It essentially said that if offenders have three indictable offence allegations with penalties of 10 years or more, the offenders will be presumptively detained, except in exceptional circumstances. The reason for this is that exceptional circumstances are often why legislation is found to be unconstitutional for outlier cases. We build in what is called a “safety valve”; in doing so, we make the legislation constitutional. Bill C-274 talked about three serious allegations at different points in time.

Then there was Bill C-313, which was another private member's bill. That bill was in direct response to the alleged killing of Constable Pierzchala. It proposed to change the reverse onus. This is the way I see it. We are talking about reverse onuses; people have gone into what a reverse onus is, so I am not going to get into that. What we are attempting to do right now is to expand the reverse onus.

There has been widespread discussion about supports, but I believe the next step for Parliament to take is to discuss changing the nature of the reverse onus, and here is why: Let us say that we have a medication that is supposed to be working and has been working to varying degrees, but we want to apply it in a more widespread manner and hope it works better. To me, that is what we are looking at with the reverse onus, which we hope works, as opposed to changing the treatment in itself. Perhaps we have to get to the target of the reverse onus, because right now, from what I have seen, the reverse onus is not necessarily doing what it is supposed to do. That is something I encourage Parliament to consider as we move forward.

I want to acknowledge another constituent of mine. Mr. Glenn Fieber passed away at 84 years of age. I went to school with his children. May eternal light shine on Mr. Fieber. I extend my condolences to his family.

The last person I wish to recognize is Mr. Ron Maguire, another person from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo who passed away recently. He was known as Mr. A&W because he started working at A&W and then built up A&W restaurants. He received the key to the city and the Freedom of the City. My condolences go to his wife, Lynne, and his daughters, Kristi and Robyn.

It has been a pleasure to talk about bail and bail reform. I hope we can continue to have reasoned discussion in hopes of making Canada safer.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments; I look forward to working with you on the justice file going forward. I was very pleased to hear your enthusiasm about moving forward at such a rapid pace today.

My—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that he is to address his questions or comments through the Chair.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, since the member is interested in moving so quickly, will he go back to his lobby, speak to his colleagues, rally behind his leader and agree to get this bill passed today, as he promised he would do upon the return of Parliament?

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

Madam Speaker, I not only want to get this bill done, but I also want to get this bill right. There are a number of people who have things to say on this bill, and I am not going to tell them to be quiet. It is time for us to debate this bill. If the Liberals wanted it passed so quickly, why did they wait 246 days for it to come? They waited that long, and now they want us to pass it expeditiously, without any sort of discussion.

With that being said, I welcome my colleague to his new position. I look forward to working with him, perhaps even on making this the best bill possible.

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

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging when we have all political entities inside the House supporting legislation. As I indicated earlier, at the end of the day, it is about making our communities safer. That is really what it is all about for me; I know that is what it is about for my colleagues. That is what our constituents want us to do.

With all the different stakeholders, whether provincial or territorial jurisdictions, political parties of all stripes or law enforcement officers, I believe that there is a great deal of momentum in passing this legislation. A lot of consultation was done to bring it before us, and we have had it informally and in the form of the written bill for quite a while now. Can the member provide an explanation for why, by passing the legislation, we would be making our communities safer?

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

Madam Speaker, any time that we can tighten up bail, this is something we need to look at in this House. Clearly, Canadians of all political stripes of all occupations and socio-economic statuses are telling us and begging for us to do this. Therefore, when my colleague asks why we should be doing this, that is the reason. It is also the reason I brought forward Bill C-274 and Bill C-313, which I really feel fell on deaf ears with the Liberals.

I again come back to this: When we talk about passing this so quickly, why did we not debate it before we left for summer? Why did it take 246 days to bring this legislation forward after the premiers wrote their letter?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo had a good summer. I know his area was also affected quite heavily by smoke.

I heard the exchange with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I know it is tempting in this place to paraphrase what another member has said, and in some way, make their comments seem less responsive to public will.

I just know that when my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke commented about offenders who were shoplifting, it was not to trivialize what they were doing. Rather, it was to clarify a statistic used earlier in this place by a different member, who categorized a large number of offences as due to violent crimes. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke was merely providing a factual context that a lot of those crimes were not violent. I do not think he trivialized them.

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

Madam Speaker, in response, I do not believe that my hon. colleague who mentioned this was providing any sort of evidentiary basis or any sort of statistics to prove that.

Whether something is trivialized is obviously in the eye of the beholder. My point was that, when we talk about different things, it is my view that these types of offences can become very serious. We are not talking about dealing with people who have one-off offences. Nobody is asking to lock people up and throw away the key for somebody who messes up.

We are looking at a subset of serious offenders who disproportionately commit a significant number of offences. I believe our leader will be the next prime minister. When he says we should be targeting these people who have committed a disproportionate number of crimes, that is not something to trivialize. Those are the people we should be addressing in our legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, Canada's criminal justice system is broken.

Earlier this year, Leger, a polling company, polled Canadians on how they feel about public safety in this country. A significant majority, two-thirds, feel that they are now less safe than they were before the COVID-19 pandemic, and most Canadians think that provincial and federal governments are doing a poor job of addressing crime and public safety.

Another shocking statistic comes out of British Columbia. In B.C., people charged with violent crime committed while on bail pending trial on previous charges are released on bail again 75% of the time. That statistic comes from a recent review on bail hearings done internally in British Columbia the last couple of weeks of 2022 and the first few weeks of 2023.

The B.C. Prosecution Service, the crown prosecutors, asks for pretrial detention, but the judges deny that, so the accused are again free to go out and commit another crime. We have been hearing too much of that.

Public safety is taking a back seat to the rights of the accused. However, let us not blame judges. They are bound by the law. One B.C. mayor, the mayor of Nanaimo, who is a former provincial NDP cabinet minister, was quoted in The Globe and Mail in April: “The judges are applying the law as it exists.... The law needs to be changed. It diminishes public safety and destroys public confidence in the justice system. This needs to be fixed, yesterday.”

Unfortunately our new Minister of Justice does not have that same sense of urgency when it comes to bail reform. Shortly after being appointed to his new position, he acknowledged the obvious saying, “there's a sense coming out of the pandemic that people’s safety is more in jeopardy.” He then added that he thought “that empirically it's unlikely” Canada is becoming less safe.:

Our Minister of Justice has his head in the sand. Other law enforcement agencies are doing what they can to face the crisis in confidence in our criminal justice system and public safety. For example, the British Columbia government has directed their prosecution service to push for more restrictive bail conditions in cases where public safety is at stake.

However, these efforts are being blunted by the federal Liberal government's legislation, which requires judges to release detainees at the earliest possible opportunity and on the least onerous conditions. That catch-and-release bail system thinking, which needs to be fixed, is based on Bill C-75, legislation from the 42nd Parliament, passed just before the House rose for the summer four years ago, in June 2019.

It is poorly thought-out legislation. It is the Liberal government's response to its understanding of what the Supreme Court of Canada said in a series of cases about defending and protecting the rights of accused people to reasonable bail and the presumption of innocence. It is poorly thought-out legislation.

What is the result of Bill C-75 four years later? Is it general support for this catch-and-release? Absolutely not at all. As a matter of fact, we have a letter signed by 10 provincial premiers and three territorial premiers, from all political parties, unanimously telling the Prime Minister that our bail system is broken and that it needs to be reformed and fixed urgently.

The premiers are hearing from their citizens and reacting to deep concerns from the public about the perception that the criminal justice system favours the accused at the cost of the public. Here is what the premiers said: “We write to urge that the federal government take immediate action to strengthen Canada’s bail system to better protect the public and Canada’s heroic first responders.”

That letter was initiated at a meeting of the attorneys general from across the country in October 2022. It asks for reverse onus. They are saying reverse onus for repeat violent offenders would be one way to fix our criminal justice system. Reverse onus ostensibly makes it more difficult for an accused person to be let out on bail. They said, “This is just one proposal for much-needed reform”.

They are asking for general reform of the bail system. Certainly, the police services and the people I talked to across the country over the summer have been saying the same thing.

Between the time of the meeting and the writing of the letter in January, there was another tragic event in Canada that underlies the need for urgent bail reform. OPP officer Greg Pierzchala was shot down and was killed. He did not make it home after his shift on December 27, 2022. He was responding to a traffic call. He did not stand a chance. They opened fire on him, and he died on the scene.

His boss, OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique, stated that one of the two people who were charged with his murder was out on bail at the time. He had been banned from owning any firearms for life since 2018. Three years later, that same person was charged with several firearms-related offences and assaulting a police officer.

He was released on bail on a number of conditions, including remaining in his residence under his mother's care, not possessing firearms and wearing a GPS ankle bracelet, which he somehow removed. His trial date was set for September 22, but he failed to appear. There was a warrant for his arrest.

At the justice committee, when we were studying this, we had chief of police Darren Montour of the Six Nations Police Service, which was charged with supervising this killer's bail conditions. One witness had this to say: “What we've seen with the increased release of people on bail conditions is effectively a downloading to the police services of jurisdiction to become professional babysitters”. Darren Montour added, “We don't have the manpower or resources to do that.”

Commissioner Carrique of the OPP said at a press conference, “Needless to say, the murder of Const. Greg was preventable. This should have never happened. Something needs to change. Our police officers, your police officers, my police officers, the public deserve to be safeguarded against violent offenders who are charge with firearms-related offences”.

Premier Doug Ford, shortly thereafter, said, “OPP Commissioner Carrique's comments on the tragic killing of Constable Grzegorz Pierzchala is the latest plea for the federal government to address the revolving door of violent criminals caused by our country's failed bail system...Too many innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of dangerous criminals who should have been behind bars — not on our streets. Enough is enough.”

I agree with that, as does the vast majority of Canadians.

That is why we are here today debating Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code on bail reform. This is the government's response to concerns expressed by many Canadians, including the premiers. The premiers' letter captures the public perception, what we have all been hearing on the ground, but let us now see whether Bill C-48 captures that same mood.

There are a number of preambles in the introduction of this legislation. I am just going to read two of them that I think are informative. The fourth one reads, “Whereas a proper functioning bail system is necessary to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system, including in the administration of justice”. I agree with that.

The eighth paragraph in the preamble says, “And whereas confidence in the administration of justice is eroded in cases when accused persons are released on bail while their detention is justified”.

I would say that this sounds good. This is certainly a step in the right direction. This is a recognition that Parliament needs to find a balance between the rights of the accused and the protection of the public.

What would Bill C-48 actually do? It would introduce a reverse onus for serious offences, with serious offences defined as an accused person being charged within the last five years on something that would have had a 10-year sentence. However, I think the bill is too narrow. I do not think this legislation addresses all the concerns that we are hearing from the public, and more work needs to be done.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to get my hon. colleague's opinion that this is a good bill, but it is not good enough on its own. Does he agree with me that our justice system is quite complex, and the provincial governments also have to make much-needed improvements to make sure that the justice system serves well?

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

Madam Speaker, the bill is a step in the right direction. I think it does respond in a manner to what the premiers have been asking for, but it is very narrow. The premiers have also asked for a much broader discussion on bail reform, and I feel that this legislation does not capture that. However, the bill is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his great intervention on bail reform.

With the Liberal's Bill C-75, which was soft on crime, they allowed so many criminals back on the street. They went back so far in time that they actually reversed a lot of the bail requirements for things such as committing a crime with a firearm, which started under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. They even undid things that were done on mandatory minimums going back to the Liberal era of the seventies and eighties.

I would ask my colleague if he really believes that, because of Liberal ideology in Bill C-75, the hug-a-thug approach, it has ultimately resulted in what we have today with an increase in violent crime of over 32%. The city of Winnipeg, where I come from, is now one of the most dangerous cities in all of North America. It all has to do with the bail reform, and how the Liberals have always stood up for the criminal and never stood up for the victim. It is time for jail and not bail.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague completely.

The problem with Bill C-75 is that it favoured the criminal and did not find the right balance between the rights of the accused and public safety. Also, there is the perception that the public has in the fairness of our criminal justice system, which is the problem.

In Vancouver, and this stat has been mentioned a number of times, 40 people were responsible for 6,000 negative interactions with the police. This is just a revolving door. This is insanity. This needs to be fixed.

Bill C-75 caused that problem. Bill C-48 is a step in the right direction, but it would not solve the underlying problems.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the average person on the street would probably agree with the principle that someone who has repeat offended at some point would require a reverse onus for bail. However, I am thinking of one of the cornerstones of the rule of law system in our country, which is the presumption of innocence. We have a right to walk the streets and have liberty, and if the state charges us with a crime, we have a right to be presumed innocent and not to be deprived of our liberty.

I am wondering how my hon. colleague squares that notion with the concept of reverse onus, where somebody who is accused would have to justify why they would retain liberty instead of being incarcerated pending a trial and pending conviction of the crime, which has not yet occurred. Does he have any concerns in that regard?

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

Madam Speaker, of course we all stand behind the age-old principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail. However, I am going to talk again about the 40 people who have been responsible for 6,000 interactions with the police, which is 150, on average, per person. At some point, perhaps they lose their right to be free on bail.

The problem with Bill C-75 is that it gutted the court's ability to punish people who breached bail conditions, which is why people keep coming back time and time again with no consequences. The public is losing confidence in the criminal justice system because of that revolving door insanity.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent, after consultations with all parties, for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment today, Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[An hon. member]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There does not seem to be unanimous consent.

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, this is just to confirm that the NDP denied unanimous consent to my—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not to confirm.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nepean.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I would like to speak to the bail reform bill, Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Canadians deserve to feel safe and be safe. We have a critical issue that affects the safety and well-being of our communities. It is the need to strengthen our bail laws and tailor them to focus on violent repeat offenders and intimate partner violence. It is an issue that strikes at the very heart of public safety and the preservation of justice. That is why we introduced the bill, which is a targeted reform to our bail laws and is designed to focus on violent repeat offenders, gun and knife violence and intimate partner violence.

Bail laws, at their core, exist to strike a delicate balance between individual rights and the collective safety of society. They ensure that individuals accused of crimes are not unjustly incarcerated before trial, upholding the cherished principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. However, this balance can be challenging to maintain, especially when dealing with violent repeat offenders and those accused of gun and knife violence or intimate partner violence.

We developed this bill by obtaining expert advice and adopted an evidence-based approach to put Canadians first and address public safety concerns in our bail system. We have a legitimate concern that violent offenders may pose a significant risk to the community if they are released from custody while awaiting trial.

Bill C-48 would strengthen the law by targeting repeat violent offenders who use weapons when committing crimes and those who have a history of violent offending and firearms-related crime. Violent repeat offenders are individuals who have shown a pattern of engaging in dangerous and harmful behaviours repeatedly. They pose a clear and present danger to our communities. Strengthening bail laws in those cases is not about denying their rights but about prioritizing public safety.

By focusing on comprehensive risk assessments that take into account an offender's history and propensity for violence, we can ensure that these dangerous individuals are held accountable for their actions, while respecting the rights of others. We also need a stricter approach to bail for violent offenders to act as a deterrent. This would discourage individuals from engaging in violent criminal behaviour in the first place, as they may be less likely to receive pretrial release. This bill would send a strong message that judges ought to seriously consider the public safety risk posed by repeat violent offenders at the bail stage, while ensuring that the fundamental charter right to bail remains intact.

Bill C-48 would also strengthen the government response against intimate partner violence offences by expanding the reverse onus on these offences. The harrowing reality is that countless individuals suffer in silence, trapped in abusive relationships. Strengthening bail laws to protect victims and potential victims of intimate partner violence is not just a legal obligation; it is a moral imperative. We must provide a safe path to justice for survivors, ensuring that those accused of such heinous acts are not released to perpetrate further harm.

The bill would create a new reverse onus for accused persons charged with a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon where the accused was previously convicted of an offence of the same criteria within the past five years. A reverse onus for bail presumes that the accused should be detained pending trial and requires them to demonstrate why they should be released. A reverse onus does not mean that an accused will not be able to obtain bail. It means that the onus of proof has shifted to the accused, reflecting our intent that it ought to be more difficult to obtain bail in these circumstances.

One of the provisions of this bill is new considerations and requirements for courts regarding an accused’s violent history and community safety. Bill C-48 would add a requirement that courts consider whether an accused person has a history of convictions involving violence when making a bail order. It would also require courts to state on the record that the safety and security of the community were considered when making a bail order.

Bail reform has long been the subject of federal, provincial and territorial collaboration because of shared jurisdiction over bail laws and their implementation. Bill C-48 responds directly to calls for reform from the provinces and territories. This bill is the product of collaboration with the provinces and territories. Hence, we have wide and unanimous support for this legislation from all provinces and territories.

The bill has benefited from input from mayors, police, parliamentarians, indigenous leadership and the legal community. Bill C-48 is part of our broader strategy to ensure the safety of all Canadians and is an example of what we can achieve when we work together.

Let me put on record the support this bill has received from key stakeholders.

The Premier of British Columbia said, “From the British Columbian perspective, this is a huge priority. We need this bill passed. This is something that has wide support, all-party support, all-premier support, and action needs to be taken.”

The Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, said, “I'm urging the federal government to use this time to quickly pass their bail reform bill.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated:

We commend the federal government for acting on the urgency for legislative change and for recognizing that our...amendments were not calling for a complete overhaul of Canada's bail system....

We are convinced that the legislative changes put forth in Bill C-48 will go a long way to help eliminate the preventable harm and senseless tragedies attributable to violent and repeat offenders across Canada.

The president of the Canadian Police Association stated:

Front-line law enforcement personnel have been asking the government to take concrete steps to address the small number of repeat violent offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences that put the safety of our communities at risk. We appreciate that [ministers] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.

The Ontario Provincial Police Association stated:

Our members appreciate the virtually unprecedented consensus that formed calling for concrete action on bail reform, and we’re glad to see the government has responded with the introduction of Bill C-48. We look forward to working with all stakeholders and Parliamentarians to see this legislation pass quickly.

The president of the Toronto Police Association said:

Our members recognize that our Charter ensures we all benefit from a presumption of innocence, but for too long the current balance has put the rights of an accused well above the rights our communities have to public safety and security. Ensuring the public maintains its confidence in the administration of justice is paramount, and I believe the introduction of Bill C-48, and the clear message being sent by the government that public safety remains a top priority, will help victims of crime, as well as all Canadians know serious, repeat violent offenders can and will be held accountable for their actions.

I would like to end my speech by quoting Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, who said:

We see the federal government’s tabling of Bill C-48...as a good first step, but this cannot be the only solution. Provincial and territorial governments must now look at their own justice systems and make needed improvements. Our justice system is complex, with many interrelated challenges and flaws that cannot be addressed through legislation alone.