Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.
I am pleased to speak today on issues that continue to impact the safety of our communities and the fairness of our criminal justice system, namely the operation and reform of Canada's bail system.
In recent months, communities across the country have voiced deep concerns about the ability of the criminal justice system to respond effectively to repeat and violent offenders. Let me be clear: These concerns are valid and they demand a serious, coordinated response.
That is why I welcome the opportunity to speak today not only about the federal government's past and ongoing efforts to strengthen bail laws but also about the collaborative work under way with provinces and territories, and the government's intention to table new legislation this fall.
I will begin by speaking about Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which was introduced by the member for Oxford. Bill C‑242 includes provisions to expand the reverse onus provisions for serious offences.
I am pleased to see that there is common ground between the Conservative opposition and our new Liberal government, which was elected on a promise to crack down on repeat and violent offenders. Our election promise responds to a concern shared by many Canadians that individuals who pose a serious risk to public safety should not be released without rigorous judicial oversight. It also reflects the desire to ensure that the bail system takes into account concerns about reoffending and violent offences that communities across the country have raised.
However, while Bill C‑242 aims to overcome fears that individuals who pose a risk to public safety will be released without judicial oversight, the way it is drafted raises serious concerns about whether these measures could actually be effective and whether they comply with the fundamental principles of justice and proportionality.
There seems to be one crucial element that is clearly missing from this bill. Frankly, I am, at the very least, relieved. It seems the Conservatives have finally opened their eyes because they have flip-flopped on the controversial “three strikes” proposal. This kind of rhetoric may score political points, but, in reality, it solves absolutely nothing. Everywhere it has been applied, particularly in the United States, it has failed and has been ineffective at protecting citizens or reducing crime. It seems the Conservatives have finally realized this, as they chose not to include it in their own bill, Bill C-242.
However, this flip-flop raises fundamental questions. The Conservatives owe Canadians an explanation. They need to tell Canadians why they have changed their minds and publicly acknowledge that this proposal was not only misguided but also dangerous. Canadians deserve a clear answer. They deserve to know why an idea inspired by the far right in the United States, entirely incompatible with Canadian realities and our justice system, was ever even considered acceptable by the same people who claim to prioritize public safety and the public interest.
Therefore, I hope, following my remarks, a member of the opposition will rise and offer an explanation and perhaps even an apology to Canadians. Yes, they could offer an apology for even considering such legislation inspired by foreign, far right, extreme models rather than laws designed for Canada and made in Canada, laws that reflect our communities, our values and our justice system.
Let us now take a sombre look at the Conservative record when it comes to criminal justice.
In 2008, the Harper government passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, imposing a mandatary minimum sentence for firearm offences. The Supreme Court struck this down in R v. Nur, calling it “cruel and unusual”.
In 2012, they doubled down with the Safe Streets and Communities Act, extending mandatory minimums for drug offences. In R v. Lloyd, again, the Supreme Court struck this down.
In 2009, they pushed through the so-called Truth in Sentencing Act, limiting judicial discretion on credit for pre-trial custody. In R v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, it was struck down again for being overbroad.
In 2011, they introduced the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. The Supreme Court invalidated it in R v. Bissonnette, ruling that stacked parole ineligibility violated human dignity.
In 2013, they passed legislation making the victim surcharge mandatory and non-waivable. In R v. Boudreault, the court ruled it “unconstitutional” and “cruel and unusual” for the poorest and most marginalized offenders.
Most recently, the mandatory minimum for reckless discharge of a firearm, another Harper-era invention, was struck down in R v. Hills in 2023.
The list goes on, but allow me to focus on the real action that the new Liberal government is taking. Most recently, Canadians sent the federal government a clear message. They are concerned about repeat and violent offenders and want to see urgent action. This is why the new Liberal government is firmly committed to introducing a bill this fall that will build on previous legislative reforms to strengthen Canada's bail and sentencing laws.
This forthcoming legislation will once again be shaped by strong intergovernmental co-operation. This renewed collaboration among the federal, provincial and territorial governments reflects a shared commitment to public safety and a recognition that meaningful change depends on coordinated action across jurisdictions. By working together, our governments can ensure that our bail laws are not only stronger on paper but effective in practice.
The provinces and territories also play a vital role in collecting and sharing bail data. Leadership in these areas is essential to improving the system as a whole. Bail data collection does not occur at the national level. This responsibility falls to provincial and territorial governments. Without consistent and comprehensive data from all jurisdictions, it is difficult to assess how bail laws are working, what gaps exist, and what changes are needed.
Canadians deserve a bail system that protects communities while respecting rights. They deserve a sentencing regime that holds offenders accountable while promoting rehabilitation. They deserve to see all orders of government working together not just to pass laws but to implement them in ways that make a real difference in the lives of all Canadians. The government intends to do just that.