Debates of Sept. 18th, 2023

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, my colleague can count on the Bloc Québécois to support any legislation that is consistent with the values and interests of Quebec, including Bill C‑48.

That is not to say that I plan to give carte blanche. We will study the bill, and then we will see. Some amendments will probably be necessary. I look forward to hearing what the minister and some of the experts have to say on the matter.

Obviously, this legislation is not immune to legal challenges. Detaining someone before their trial could be construed as an attack on the presumption of innocence. We will have to wait and see how the courts interpret this and whether such a course is acceptable in the kind of free and democratic society provided for in section 1 of the charter. We will work on the matter in committee and ensure that the legislation comes into force as quickly as possible. We need it.

Now, I would ask my colleague the same question again: Does he plan to work on judicial appointments?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you and all my colleagues in the House again, especially the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord. I greatly appreciate his contribution to the public debate based on his experience as a lawyer and parliamentarian for nearly eight years. We will soon be celebrating this anniversary.

My colleague spoke at length about the official opposition, and so I would like to set the record straight. The first Liberal carbon tax, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, gave the federal government the power to impose a price on carbon for the first tax. The hon. member also forgot that the second Liberal carbon tax, which his party supports, would also be imposed in Quebec and, more importantly, drastically increased. Those are his colleague's very words. As a third point, let us not forget that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of legislation that gives the federal government veto power for a few hydroelectric projects, for example, those that Quebec could have.

Let us talk about the bill itself. Reference was made to last year's famous G‑4 amendment on firearms, which was hundreds of pages long and covered several dozen hunting weapons. I would like to ask the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord to tell us who, on November 24, 2022, said, “I almost get the impression that the definition in G‑4 was written by the Bloc Québécois. I know that's not the case…but I must say that it meets the Bloc's expectations.”

Who gave this enthusiastic support to amendment G‑4?

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

Mr. Speaker, it was I who said the words quoted by my colleague, whom I salute and also respect very much. I freely admit that it was me, but I was not talking about the list at that time. We were talking about the definition. We said that it was a good idea for the bill to define what was being prohibited.

The government cannot just prohibit whatever it wants. It must be specific. We wanted the bill to be even clearer. We were against the list. We worked so hard. Again, it was my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia who was working on it. It is a good thing she was there. Otherwise, if we had had to rely on our Conservative colleagues, Bill C-21 would have passed as is or would simply been defeated.

That said, I will come back to the bill. I am not surprised that the Conservatives are opposed to it. The Conservatives are against reintegration and rehabilitation. We have heard it many times. We saw it in committee, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for example, which I have sat on for some time. They are against that and, as I said earlier, they are against anything that does not come from their leader. I will not dwell on that too much.

I just want to reiterate that this bill is essential and that the issue of its constitutional validity will probably be raised in committee. Then we will see whether the bill has to be amended, but, yes, we will work to make sure it is passed quickly and comes into force as soon as possible. We need it, just as we need judges. I look forward to hearing the new Minister of Justice tell me, before Christmas, that he has filled all those positions.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard broad support for the bill from all parties in the House. It is supported by premiers across the country, and it addresses urgent concerns in our communities. Given these points, would my colleague from the Bloc support swift passage through this place so that the bill can be brought into force and start to take effect as quickly as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I would also be happy to work with him and anyone from the third opposition party who is on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who will be studying this bill with us.

To answer his question, yes, the process will go quickly, but we are not going to botch the job. It must be done right. I want to look at it. As I said, I have concerns about certain aspects of the bill from a constitutional perspective, such as the fact that, if someone has previously been charged with certain offences, that could be held against them at a bail hearing, even if they were acquitted. That is a bit questionable, in my view. I am not saying no to this bill, but it is not an automatic yes. We will need to look at it properly.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his brilliant speech. It is clear that the summer vacation did him good, because he is really in fine form today. His speech was really relevant and enlightening.

He raised one point several times in his speech that I would like to come back to. It is the issue of public confidence. Our justice system is based on public confidence. It is a key element. This immediately led me to reflect on something that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord also mentioned. Right now, there is a problem with the justice system. It is that the federal government is not appointing enough judges. That is what led me to reflect on public confidence and judicial appointments.

It reminded me of some newspaper articles I saw this summer that said people with Liberal connections are very likely to be appointed judges, more so than people of other affiliations. It made me wonder. I am not saying that this is still the case, but if we have a government that makes these kinds of decisions and sometimes appoints people on a partisan basis, what effect could that have on confidence in the justice system?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I saw him this summer, and I know he worked hard as well. He did not just kick back and relax. I am glad to see him here today for this debate on the issues that concern us, namely Bill C-48, which is no trivial matter.

My colleague is right. The Liberals have a lamentable habit of using something they themselves dubbed the “Liberalist”. That is appalling. This is neither desirable nor even reasonable in a self-respecting free and democratic society, a society governed by the rule of law. Judges must not be appointed based on their membership in a political party. That is the kind of thing that happens in what is commonly referred to as a “banana republic”. I should hope that the Canadian federation does not see itself as a banana republic. I can say that Quebec certainly does not. I want the federal government to get serious and not make partisan appointments.

Yes, judges must be appointed. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is calling for it, and so is the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec. Everyone has been worrying over the past few months and wondering what the government is waiting for. It has gotten so bad that people are being set free because there is no time to hold trials. Is that acceptable? Is anyone in Quebec or Canada okay with that? I can say that in Quebec, the answer is no. I cannot speak for Canada, but I would be shocked to find anyone in Canada who would say yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in support of Bill C-48 today.

I did not think we would get the bill to this stage as quickly as we have in this Parliament. One of the reasons we did so is that the justice committee recognized the public concern about repeat violent offenders and problems with bail. It conducted hearings last year and came up with a series of recommendations that helped inform this bill. Therefore, today, we have something before us that the justice committee has already considered, that the premiers have been calling for and support, and that has broad support in the law enforcement community.

Today, we have heard many people talk about things other than bail reform. However, when we talked about bail reform, we heard the minister say that the government is prepared to proceed expeditiously. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the official opposition supports the bill. I heard some more ambiguous things from the last speaker from the Bloc Québécois, but he still said that the Bloc supports the bill. Therefore, the question I have been asking in this session is this: Since we have this broad support for the bill, are we serious about moving expeditiously? Maybe the bill does not have everything that everyone wants, but certainly there is broad support, as well as an urgent need to make the public more confident in our bail-reform system.

Since the leader of the official opposition personally gave me credit for a crime wave on Vancouver Island, I have to take a moment to say that I have dedicated my entire life to working to help keep communities safe. I say that as someone whose professional career was in teaching criminal justice before I came here. Therefore, for him to say that I have somehow supported measures in a deliberate manner that provoke criminality or a crime wave is really quite personally offensive.

What we get from the Leader of the Opposition is talk about common sense. I want to point out a piece of common sense that contradicts most of what he was saying today. Over the last 30 years, we have tripled the number of people in pretrial detention in this country. If detaining more people caused a decrease in crime, we would have way less crime than we have today. Therefore, common sense would tell us that detaining three times as many people does not solve the problem.

Bill C-48 would not cast a broad brush, as the Conservatives are asking for. Rather, it has some narrow and targeted measures aimed at repeat violent offenders; New Democrats are in support of those measures. This means that it would insert a definition of “repeat violent offender” into the Criminal Code so that we would know whom judges should be looking at when it comes to denying bail. It would also create some additional reverse onus categories. “Reverse onus” is a technical term meaning that when it is proposed to put someone in pretrial detention, in certain cases, that person has to show why they should not be detained.

Therefore, the bill would add to the list of offences. It would not create a new category; there are already lots of reverse onus provisions in bail. However, it would add illegal weapons, including handguns. That is an important provision, which I definitely support. People have to go to a lot of trouble to possess an illegal weapon; they do not accidentally possess a handgun. Therefore, if someone has a charge that involves a handgun, they should have to show the judge why they should be released and why they are not a threat to the public.

In addition, the bill would increase the reverse onus in cases of intimate partner violence. Again, we know that when there has been intimate partner violence, it is usually not a one-time incident. When people are charged more than once, this bill would make it much tougher for the offender in an intimate partner relationship to get released, which is something that New Democrats definitely support. It goes along with our proposal, which is now a private member's bill, Bill C-332, sponsored by the member for Victoria.

Bill C-3s32 calls for making coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner relationships a criminal offence. That would move the goal posts in the Criminal Code; instead of having to wait for broken bones and bruises, a pattern of behaviour that leads to such violence would be a criminal offence. This would allow earlier intervention and prevent much of that violence from happening in the future.

Therefore, this bill goes together with our proposal on coercive and controlling behaviour to help provide better protections for those who suffer violence in intimate partner relationships. In this country, we continue to lose women to violence; every six days, one woman is killed by an intimate partner. This is part of the urgency of this bill and why I believe that we should deal with it expeditiously.

There is a third piece in this bill that I think no one else has talked about today. It is a piece that came up in the hearings we held at the justice committee. In addition to the real problem we have with repeat violent offenders getting bail, which this bill I believe will solve, we have the problem that we detain way too many people in Canada and at far higher rates than any comparable countries around the world. Why is this a problem? There are two reasons it is a problem.

One is the injustice. One-third of the people who are detained before their trial are never convicted but found innocent. What happens to people who are detained and held in jail before the trial? Most often they lose their job. Often they lose their housing. They lose custody of their kids. There are all kinds of negative impacts for people who are not found guilty of anything. Therefore, we need to improve our systems so we are detaining the people who need to be detained and not detaining other people. Who are the people who are over-detained? Disproportionately they are poor, women, indigenous or racialized Canadians.

This bill adds a provision that would require judges to look at community-based bail supervision programs, which are very successful. The John Howard Society has been running them in Ontario. I am looking through my notes, but I am pretty sure I am right. The success rate of the John Howard Society programs, as limited as they are in Ontario, is about 90%. What does a 90% success rate mean? It means that those people who are on community-based bail supervision have a caseworker assigned to them, they will not commit another offence while they are on bail and they will show up in court when they are supposed to. In the meantime, they can maintain their jobs, housing and custody of their kids. Even if they are eventually found guilty, they may not serve prison time. Therefore, having a community-based bail supervision program would help maintain that coherence of families.

Here is the kicker in all of this. Those who serve even limited time in custody before trial are far more likely to reoffend. If we are actually worried about public safety, one of the best things we could do is get people into community-based bail supervision programs where they are put in touch with the services they need, whether mental health services, substance abuse programs or upgrades to their education. If people are in a community-based bail supervision program, they can get that assistance, which will help lead them out of whatever problems they were in to begin with. When they are in pretrial custody, they are in the provincial system and there are no programs available to them. There are no mental health programs, no addiction programs and no education programs while they wait, with the current delays in our trial system, up to six months for a trial. If we are really interested in public safety, we need to put more people into community-based bail supervision programs, which Bill C-48 would now mandate as an option to be considered by the judge. That would require the Liberal government to provide the upfront funding to get community-based bail supervision programs more widely available across the country.

Now all members will say that the New Democrats are demanding more spending, but guess what? It costs about one-third the amount to put people into community-based bail supervision compared to putting them into custody. Therefore, we need upfront start-up funds for community-based bail supervision, which ultimately would produce huge savings in addition to better public safety outcomes and avoid injustice to those who are eventually found not guilty of the offence for which they were charged.

These are the reasons that I think we need to proceed expeditiously on this bill. We need to get a commitment from the government to help fund community-based bail supervision programs.

I know this bill is going to pass. We had the hearings. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord who spoke before me said that he wants to examine the bill. The bill is the result of the hearings we already held at the justice committee, so I do not think there is a need for that detailed examination. Maybe the other opposition parties will decide we have to go to committee and do it all over again, and I am prepared to do that, but we could proceed expeditiously, get this bill passed and get a better start on making Canadians safer.

I am not saying that the concerns that Canadians have about repeat violent offenders are unjust. There are many tragic examples that all too often are exploited in this House for political reasons, and I have sympathy for those families, but we have to pass Bill C-48 to prevent the release of violent offenders.

Let me say the other part of this. New Democrats continue to call for on-demand mental health and substance abuse programs.

When the Conservatives like to talk about the 6,000 rolling, revolving-door incidents in Vancouver, those are not violent crimes. Those are people who are poor, who shoplift, who are drug-addicted or who have mental health issues. If we could get, first of all, better support in this time of increasing costs for all Canadians who are poor, if we could get better mental health programs and if we could get better substance abuse on-demand records, then we will have progress in making communities safer.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech and I think it is important to underline where the fault line actually is in this debate. I think there would be agreement throughout the House that a young person who makes a mistake should have a second chance. Of course, there are many cases where it is legitimate for a person to have bail.

We have highlighted these cases of repeat violent offenders who continue to get bail. Somebody who commits a violent crime is on bail for that violent crime and then goes out and kills someone. Clearly, there is a problem in those cases of extremely violent offenders getting bail and committing those offences again. It is a problem that owes a great deal to a decision made by the government, supported by the NDP, to make changes to the bail system when it first took office.

We are not talking about the many instances where bail is legitimate. We are talking about these cases of repeat violent offenders.

I would like to hear from the member why he does not support our position of reversing those changes, to actually get back to somewhere we were previously on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the member is mixing bail with all kinds of other questions in criminal justice and the Criminal Code. What I do have to say, and I want to emphasize it once again, is that while there are a few cases, and they are not very numerous, of repeat violent offenders reoffending, they are serious and we need to act and take care to make sure those do not happen again.

Bill C-48 addresses those. The police associations across the country say that it does. Premiers are satisfied that it does. I am not sure why the Conservative Party is not satisfied that it would deal with that problem.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my NDP colleague's speech, which seemed to go beyond partisanship. He certainly made an effort to rise above partisanship in his speech.

In it, he mentioned that he thinks too many people will end up in pretrial detention, also known as remand. That would have a major impact on the lives of potentially innocent people, who would no longer be able to pay their mortgage, who would lose their job, and who would lose their relationship with their family and children. Nevertheless, one of the consequences of Bill C‑48 is that it would increase the number of people in pretrial detention.

We think that this bill is worthwhile and that it should be studied because there are some criteria that are worthy of consideration. However, as our justice critic, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, said, the fact remains that the lack of judges is one of the main reasons for how slow our justice system operates. All of these people in pretrial detention are waiting for a trial, but they are not getting one and, in some cases, they are being remanded unfairly. Sometimes, the solution does not necessarily involve changing laws. The government opposite also needs to appoint judges.

Does my NDP colleague agree with that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address something that the member said, which is that Bill C-48 would result in more people being in pretrial detention.

Precisely because it allows the option of community-based bail supervision, the opposite would be the case. This bill would actually result in fewer people being detained before their trials. That is the important aspect that New Democrats argued for and convinced the government to include in this bill.

If we are interested in public safety, as I said, yes, we need to deal with repeat violent offenders. We also need to deal with recidivism. The way one deals with recidivism is to keep people out of jail, keep them in their employment, keep them with their families and provide them the supports they need to be productive citizens in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my thanks to the member for his words today. I have had the pleasure of working with him on the justice committee for many years. I want to thank him for his hard work on intimate partner violence, and for his words today in support of this bill.

He has raised, a number of times today, the need to get this bill urgently passed. The leader of the official opposition has stated publicly that he is in favour of this.

What kind of message does it send to the public if the Conservatives do not follow through on that commitment?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I do look forward to working with the hon. member as the new parliamentary secretary for justice.

I want to be a little less partisan. The question is not what the public will think about any one party here if we do not get this done. It is what the public will think about us as parliamentarians as a whole. I think we have a responsibility, when we see a large degree of consensus and these large public concerns, to act as expeditiously as possible.

As I said, the justice committee already held hearings and those hearings informed the bill before us today. There is no reason, in my mind, that we could not proceed expeditiously. If members have other things they want to see, let them bring forward private members' bills. Let the government bring forward additional bills.

However, we have a bill today that has broad support from premiers, law enforcement and the public, and seems to have support from all the parties. Let us get the job done.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to welcome everyone back after the summer to a new session. I thank the member for his great presentation.

One thing I am always asking people to be considerate about is indigenous issues. We all know that there are increased numbers of indigenous offenders.

Can the member describe how this bill would not increase barriers around access to justice for indigenous peoples?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Nunavut, for her tireless advocacy on behalf of indigenous people and northern residents in Canada.

I want to point out that one of the areas where there is a severe lack of social services when it comes to things like addiction treatment and mental health services is Nunavut. By providing for community-based bail supervision, this bill would allow a lot of people who are maybe, for the first time, in conflict with the justice system, to find a way to keep their housing, their contacts with family and their employment, and not end up in further conflict with the law.

That means that the federal government would have to step up and help provide the funding to the Government of Nunavut to make those necessary social services available in communities across the north.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

We talk about reverse onuses and the member mentioned perhaps we should be looking at different things and different private members' bills if they are not in this legislation.

The issue of firearms and repeat firearms offenders is one of significant concern. Does he agree that those who have repeatedly used firearms should also be targeted by a differential reverse onus, perhaps one that is ramped up from the current one? As he said, those who go to acquire an illegal firearm are, themselves, going out of their way to commit crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am a bit perplexed by the question, since Bill C-48 specifically addresses the question around the use of illegal weapons in the commission of crimes and it creates an additional reverse onus.

That means there are additional requirements of those who have been found in possession of illegal weapons. They must demonstrate why they are not a threat to public safety and why they should not be detained before trial.

That is exactly what Bill C-48 is doing. That is exactly what the bill is responding to, which is the demand from the premiers. That is exactly what law enforcement asked for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did raise, with the minister, the same issue that my colleague has raised, which is the lack of services in pretrial detention. We should attend to that issue.

I want to know if he has more clarity than I do on the position of the official opposition. I appreciate he is exhorting us not to be partisan, but I am frankly confused. I thought the hon. leader of the official opposition said publicly we need to get this bill passed as quickly as possible, but on a direct question from the Minister of Justice, he seemed to duck the answer.

Does the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke have more insight on whether we will have all-party collaboration today to get the bill passed today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her concern about the lack of services in pretrial detention because it is a very important part of public safety.

I am no expert on the internal workings of the Conservative Party, but it does seem peculiar when its leader, who has said that he was prepared to get this done in a day, no longer seems prepared to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to what I believe is really important legislation. This legislation is being supported not only by me, but also by the minister and the government. From listening to the debate so far in the House, I understand that the principles of the legislation are being supported by all sides of the House, whether one is a New Democrat, a member of the Bloc, possibly a Green, and I have not heard the Greens speak to the bill yet, but I anticipate they will be supporting it based on other observations I have made, or even a member of the Conservative Party.

The leader of the official opposition gave an interesting speech. He has maybe taken a bit of a variation on reality to try to reflect things as being in a relatively negative state here in Canada, but the essence of what he was saying about this particular piece of legislation was in good part supportive, as the Minister of Justice pointed out when he introduced the legislation this morning.

Members have had the opportunity to go through the legislation to see the benefits of passing the legislation. The Leader of the Opposition was actually very supportive of the legislation to the degree that at one point he gave the indication that he would be prepared to sit until midnight for the legislation to be passed. There were a couple of questions posed to the leader of the official opposition because there was a sense of the potential to see the legislation passed relatively quickly and whether he would still entertain that. One of his short answers implied yes. It would appear Bill C-48 has the support of all members of the House.

Before I go any further, I want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

It is not just members of Parliament who are in support of bail reform. Bail reform has been on the agenda of politicians of all political stripes and from all levels of government for a number of years now. A great deal of consultation has taken place on dealing with the issue of public safety as it relates to bail reform. The legislation before us has substantial support across the country. Provinces and territories have signed on in support of the legislation.

I understand ministers of justice and premiers from different regions of the country have all indicated very clearly that they would like to see this legislation ultimately become law. I heard there are a number of members who would like to see the legislation pass second reading so we can bring it to the committee stage to see if there might be potential changes made to reflect what the consultations led to.

The House is very much open to having the legislation pass. I am curious whether or not, at the end of the day, we will be able to see the legislation pass because we have had a fairly solid green light that the Conservatives would support its quick passage. Having been here for a while, I am going to remain a little optimistic on that point.

It is not just the politicians who support this legislation. I want to read a couple of quotes. Law enforcement officers are often the ones who are on the front line looking for changes, and I thought it would be good to share some of the things law enforcement officers are saying regarding Bill C-48.

Canada's police associations in general welcomed the government of Canada's action on bail reform. Associations representing Canada's frontline law enforcement personnel released the following statements welcoming the introduction of the bill, Bill C-48. I would like to quote a couple of them, if I may. The first reads:

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, and we appreciate that [the former minister of justice] and [the former minister of public safety] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.

This is something that was reported and commented on by Tom Stamatakis, who is the president of the Canadian Police Association.

Mark Baxter, the president of the Police Association of Ontario had something further to say—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thought I would interrupt the hon. member for just a moment to say that, although it is great to be back in the House of Commons, seeing all of our friends again and talking about the summer, I would remind folks that, if they would like to have those kinds of conversations, they should take them outside or try out the new time out booths at the back to see how they work. Then we will be able to listen to the the debate that is happening on the floor right now.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North does have the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that lulled the volume, but let me go on with what Mark Baxter, the president of the Police Association of Ontario, had to say:

Police personnel haven’t just been asking for a “tough on crime” approach, we have been advocating for a balanced approach that includes prevention and rehabilitation, but also recognizes that a small number of repeat, violent offenders need to be held accountable for their actions. Bill C-48 is a step in the right direction, and we sincerely hope the Courts will use these new measures that are being introduced by the government in cases where circumstances warrant.

The last quote I would like to refer to is from Jon Reid, the president of the Toronto Police Association. He 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 believe that reinforces the messages we are hearing from politicians of all political stripes and at all levels of government that recognize we want our communities to be a safe environment for our constituents. Bill C-48 is a progressive piece of legislation that has had extensive consultations. It would make a profound and positive difference by ensuring the communities in which we live are safer. That is why I believe we should look to the Leader of the Opposition and hold him to his word when he spoke of it having a quick passage.

I believe the intent of the House of Commons is to see this legislation passed in a quick fashion to allow it to go to committee. I have not heard anyone say that the principle of this legislation is something they cannot support. With that type of support for Bill C-48, I would conclude that it is the type of legislation that should get passed through the House to allow the committee to do the fine work that it does.

We need to remember that this is all about keeping the communities that we represent safer. To me, that is so very important. That is why I stand today with my colleagues in support of the legislation with the hope of seeing it passed in a relatively quick fashion.

Community of Orléans

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we commence this parliamentary season, our goals remain clear: to serve Canadians from all political backgrounds and effectively address their needs and concerns.

I also want to wish Orléans students a successful back-to-school experience.

May the school year be rewarding and successful for everyone.

Turning our attention to the vibrant community of Orléans, I want to thank the 400 people who came out to my corn roast and barbecue on August 24, as well as the organizations participating.

They all contributed to its success.

Lastly, I would like to express my support and my sincere condolences to the Moroccan community in Orléans and Canada, as well as to the people of Morocco, following the devastating earthquake that struck Morocco.

My thoughts go out to my parliamentary assistant, Mahdi, and his family, who are originally from Marrakesh.

The Economy

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I met with people across the country this summer, I heard the same message over and over again: young people locked out of the housing market who cannot find a place to rent and who now believe they may never be able to own a home of their own; families that have to renew their mortgages, thanks to the Liberal-NDP deficits, inflation and interest rate hikes, are afraid of losing their home; and seniors, thanks to the carbon tax, cannot afford healthy food and to pay their upcoming heating bills.

Canadian seniors, families and young people are the ones who are paying the price of the NDP-Liberal coalition and all their failures.

Canadians are hurting, and after eight years of inflationary Liberal-NDP spending and punishing carbon taxes on heating, eating and everyday life, it is easy to see that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

To restore the Canada where young people could afford a home, to restore the Canada where seniors could afford to eat and heat their homes, to restore the hope of a better tomorrow, Canadians' only hope is a Conservative government.