Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the judges that are presiding over the type of criminal cases we are talking about today are provincially appointed judges.

Second, I would like to say that the issue of complexity and the length of trials when it comes to the cases the member referred to are things that have to be taken into consideration. I will not be able to talk about what the upcoming bill will have, but I know that is a concern that is shared on this side of the House. The Liberals think it is very important for us to make sure that none of those types of cases are being dismissed or withdrawn, so there should be upcoming provisions to address that issue.

[Stephanie McLean, Liberal, Secretary of State (Seniors)]

Mr. Speaker, I have a background in law, and I started my career doing criminal defence work. I also had the good fortune of spending a summer in the Crown prosecutor's office as a law student. During that time, I had the opportunity to volunteer with a great organization called the Elizabeth Fry Society, an organization that helps women who are at risk of becoming criminalized. Through that experience, but particularly my time with the Elizabeth Fry Society, I learned a lot about those who are at risk of criminalization. I learned that the indigenous population is at a higher risk of criminalization.

My question for the hon. secretary is this: What can be done and what are we doing to ensure that folks are not at risk of criminalization and not subject—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good question. I talked about the root causes of crime, and I consider that to be extremely important. Of course, interactions with law enforcement, systemic discrimination and what brings somebody to become criminalized are all very important factors.

This government has invested heavily in housing and mental health with respect to the transfers to the provinces. Once again, this is a shared area of responsibility. The provinces deliver these supports to Canadians, and I think it is very important.

Our gangs and guns funding was also key in providing a lot of organizations supports for young people who are at risk of offending. That, I think, is another important—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

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

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

Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to one of our staff members, Stephanie Rennick, and wish her a happy birthday. She did not tell us, but it was revealed nevertheless.

I listened with great attention to my colleague's speech. I have never heard so many Liberal talking points that, with all due respect, say absolutely nothing. To say we are aligned with the Liberal government on justice could not be further from the truth. Former ministers of justice Arif Virani and David Lametti told us that we, as Conservatives, are out to lunch. They said, “You don't get bail. The system is working.” That is what they told us, so it is wrong to say that we are aligned. We wanted to act years ago, but they stood on faith and stood on their heels.

I have a bill on intimate partner violence, Bill C-225, which would recognize it and save lives.

Are the Liberals prepared to support it, yes or no?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are aligned on many issues, and that is upsetting the member quite a bit, it seems. We are bringing forward tough laws, and Bill C-2 is a prime example. There would be a lot of tools for law enforcement to crack down on fentanyl and organized crime.

I would hope that the Conservatives support Bill C-2. It has been recommended by police agencies across this country, and I feel that it would be detrimental if we do not give them the tools to lay charges.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people often say that the Conservatives put forward simplistic solutions to highly complex problems, but their proposal today makes some sense. It is true that we have a duty to protect our communities and it is also true that a growing number of repeat offenders are being released into the community awaiting trial, including people charged with violent crimes against women. Maybe we should try to find a better balance in all this, while still upholding the presumption of innocence so cherished by our system and among our values.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. How do we strike the right balance between respect for basic rights on the one hand and public safety on the other, especially in the case of criminals who are violent toward women?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about conditional sentence orders. There are certain conditions that could be put in place when there is interest to public safety. However, we found, as I mentioned, that in many intimate partner violence cases, the offender recommits the offence.

It is important to have data and statistics, which is why I would like more statistics from the provincial level. For example, we have put reverse onus in place for firearm offences, but we still do not know whether that reverse onus is having an impact on having less bail in those circumstances. Collecting more data on crime statistics and on how the courts are dealing with the Criminal Code would provide us with comprehensive material so we are able to act on and implement proper, comprehensive reforms. Working together is very important.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to dig in a little more on prevention.

My colleague mentioned how important prevention is, and how it has to be part of this bill and other bills the government brings forth. I have been meeting with many national organizations representing women in different spaces, and they are also advocating not only for prevention but also support.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague on those two points.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important. I agree with my colleague that every effort should be made, whether it is to help victims of violence or those who are vulnerable because of their upbringing and living conditions, and who could be susceptible to getting into a life of crime. We should try to prevent these types of circumstances from happening and learn from the past; otherwise, we will be digging ourselves out of a very deep hole.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord.

Today we have before us a Conservative motion asking us to proceed with an expeditious study of a bill that attacks the most fundamental rights of our fellow citizens.

Who in the House protects every person's right to liberty? Who in the House protects every person's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law in a fair and public trial by an independent and impartial court? Who in the House protects every person's right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause? We will do that. The Bloc Québécois will oppose this Conservative motion.

We have several reasons for doing so. Firstly, expediting the study of a bill that threatens our fundamental freedoms would represent a departure from democracy and a dereliction by the legislature of its duties, which we will fight against. Secondly, the Conservative bill also proposes some superficial amendments to the Criminal Code that would change nothing. Thirdly, the Conservative bill is inconsistent with sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and as such it raises constitutional questions that call at the very least for serious study.

Before detailing our reasons, I would like to say a few words about the sense of insecurity that some of our fellow Quebeckers may be feeling and that the Conservative Party is trying to exploit. Of course, every time a crime makes the headlines, we are all shocked and outraged. When the news broke yesterday of the murder of a gangster who was gunned down in broad daylight in a Laval coffee shop, that was exactly our reaction.

It should be pointed out that when they are arrested, the suspects will not be released. The Criminal Code already stipulates that anyone charged with murder must remain in custody while awaiting trial. Still, the feelings of insecurity among some of our fellow citizens is understandable. We in the Bloc Québécois are proposing a number of measures to tackle criminal organizations, such as establishing an organized crime registry, similar to the terrorist entities list. This would make it easier to prove cases where a crime is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization. We also propose facilitating the seizure of assets by means of a reverse onus, to prevent the depletion of assets when an individual belonging to an organized crime group is arrested. In addition, we propose prohibiting criminal organizations from wearing their emblems or symbols. Right now, criminal organizations parade around with total impunity and actively promote their organizations.

We are calling for the creation of a specific offence to criminalize the recruitment of young people into crime. As we saw recently in Quebec, this has become the new modus operandi for organized crime. This is ruining lives and destroying families and we must get tougher with those who are exploiting our youth.

In response to legitimate security concerns, the Conservatives are calling for a jail not bail act. Some people might find this reassuring. However, imagine if a police officer arrests someone and accuses them of committing a crime. Even if this person says they did not commit the crime, they will be put into prison where they will spend many months in remand pending trial before they can prove their innocence. Does this still feel reassuring?

If the government puts more people in jail before they are found guilty, do people still feel more secure, or does that rather open the door to a new form of insecurity and the risk that one could end up in jail on trumped-up charges for a crime they did not commit? That is what the Conservative bill is all about. It is an attack on the right to liberty and the right to the presumption of innocence.

I would like to come back to my reasons. First, we are being asked to fast-track this bill. The motion actually calls for an “expeditious...study”. Obviously, we do not agree with that. We will not pass a bill that attacks our fundamental freedoms under closure. They will plead urgency, but if we fast-track a bill that will result in greater injustice rather than greater justice, can we really say we served the common good?

Second, certain aspects of the Conservative bill are nothing more than cosmetic changes. I will not get into the specifics. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the bill seeks to amend subsection 515(10), which provides guidance for judges when determining whether or not to release an accused person. We are being told that public protection must be one of the criteria, but it already is. As I learned during my legal studies, normally, “Parliament does not speak in vain”.

For the record, but also to enlighten the House, subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code already sets out the circumstances in which an accused may be detained. An accused is a person who has not yet been convicted. Anyone can see why it is important to have those criteria in place: charges may prove to be false. Sometimes the police receive complaints that turn out to be unfounded. It always comes back to the presumption of innocence. The basic premise of our criminal justice system is that the state must avoid perpetrating an injustice, even if that means some cases are not brought to justice. That is how our justice system works. It would rather prevent injustice than act too hastily.

The Criminal Code already stipulates that accused persons are typically released unless they are accused of serious crimes, in which case they can be detained. That is possible under the current system. We have to fight this idea that our system is a revolving door: arrest people, give them a slap on the wrist, let them go so they can commit more crimes and then see them again two days later. That is not how it works.

Subsection 515(10) states:

the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court

If the person is considered likely to flee from justice, they can be detained. That is already provided for in the Criminal Code.

(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public

It is already there. We are being asked to add something that is already there.

(c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including

(i) the apparent strength of the prosecution's case,

(ii) the gravity of the offence,

The Conservatives' bill also refers to this issue. They would like detention to become automatic for certain serious crimes. However, judges and Crown prosecutors already have all the necessary tools at their disposal under the Criminal Code to recommend detention for an accused, even if they have not yet been found guilty, when the charges are very serious. This is already possible when certain circumstances are met, such as the use of a firearm. These elements can be cited under the current system.

Paragraph 515(10)(c) also states:

(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment.

The Conservatives' bill may be intended to reassure the public, but it has the potential to create injustice. In addition, it seeks to add elements that already exist in the Criminal Code.

In closing, it is important to note that the Conservatives' bill clearly contradicts some sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 7 states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty

Section 11 states:

Any person charged with an offence has the right:

...

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty...

(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;

This bill raises a number of significant constitutional issues. Evidently, we will not be expediting it.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could talk more about the fact that the Conservatives want to pass this bill quickly, under a gag order, without giving it reasonable and normal consideration, as we usually do. What implications might such an approach have?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question, because there is indeed a risk.

If this bill passes and I am still a criminal defence lawyer, I will certainly challenge its constitutionality from day one. It will be challenged on the grounds that it contradicts the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If this bill is rushed through, we will not have the opportunity to discuss it. Changes can certainly be made, but if we rush things, we run the risk of winding up with less robust legislation that will be ripped apart by the first judge to take a closer look at this situation.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that bail reform legislation is needed?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Québécois believes is that we need to crack down on criminal organizations. That is the priority. We need to find ways to make their lives more difficult because these people destroy lives and make people feel unsafe. How can we do that? The proposals we have put forward will help to accomplish that.

As for the rest, we went over subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code. Having argued this in court, I can say that judges already have quite a few legislative tools that they can use to make informed decisions and to weigh the various interests at stake, including the protection of the public, the risk of reoffending, and the right to liberty and to be presumed innocent.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, would the member from the Bloc Québécois agree that there is a direct correlation between the changes the Liberals made to bail provisions in the bail and sentencing reforms and an increase in crime in Canada?

The reason the Conservative Party is putting forward motions, as we have been since the return of the House, is to address these very real concerns for small businesses and victims of crime. Women, especially, have seen an increase in the amount of sexual assault and intimate partner violence, which have been caused directly by the changes in the laws put forward by the Liberal government.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the underlying causes of crime are very complex. Would legislative changes impact certain individual cases? We cannot rule that out. However, the clients I represented, who were accused, never took the time to read the Criminal Code before committing a crime. Essentially, they were people who were suffering from addictions.

We know that there are environmental factors that also need to be addressed. I am talking about the housing crisis, overcrowding, addictions and mental health issues. I think that, when it comes right down to it, the best way to fight crime is to have a state with a social fabric like Quebec's, which could perhaps be further improved.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk to us about the fact that the Conservatives are moving a motion on a bill that has yet to be assessed by the law clerks or even found in order.

The Conservatives are trying to use this motion to muzzle the House of Commons. That approach seems rather unusual to me, and I would like my colleague to talk to us about it.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, criminal law is always a fascinating topic of study, because two principles are pitted against one another: the imperative need for society to prevent crime versus the imperative need to avoid devolving into a police state where individual freedoms become meaningless.

It is vital that we proceed with caution. The law clerks will probably ask the Conservatives whether they want to invoke the notwithstanding clause for this bill. That kind of discussion could take place in committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by our Conservative colleagues' motion is of particular concern to me today.

The body of a young woman, Gabie Renaud, was discovered in my riding this week. I offer my deepest condolences to her family. I must say, I am shocked and dismayed by this incident. Her partner, the man who allegedly killed her, was on his 16th parole violation. I do not get it. I think we need to change the way things are done. This is unacceptable to me.

This is not the only case. Earlier today, I read that another woman in Saint‑Charles‑sur‑Richelieu was murdered yesterday. It is endless. We cannot just sit back and do nothing in the face of incidents like this. We have to get to work and find solutions. I am in.

What are the solutions? Our colleague from the Conservative Party is proposing one solution. I thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj for his intervention, which was just before mine. He said it very well. The bill has not yet been introduced. We cannot say at this point that we are in favour of a bill that we have not read, since it has not been introduced, but that should be introduced eventually and should close certain loopholes. It does not work like that. We must do things in the right order if we want to be effective. The Bloc Québécois cannot support the Conservative motion today. That being said, again, there is great concern, and it affects us all. We are deeply troubled by situations like this.

Now, I am not ready to give up on the principle of the presumption of innocence. I believe that it is essential in a free and democratic society. I would not want to live in a society where a person is presumed guilty until proven innocent. That happens in other parts of the world, but I do not want that here. The presumption of innocence may cause turmoil and suffering, but it is my humble opinion that we would have even more turmoil and suffering if the presumption of innocence did not exist. We should not get rid of it. As the saying goes, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The bathwater does need to be changed, though.

My colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj also spoke about criminal organizations. I have been in this House for 10 years, and I am about to table my third bill aimed at combatting criminal organizations by creating a registry of criminal organizations with associated consequences, such as a reverse onus for the seizure of property and a ban on support and displays of support for such organizations. It would be similar to the list of terrorist organizations, which is working well. We should copy that idea and use it to fight organized crime effectively.

It is true that femicides like the ones I was talking about are not related to organized crime, but this registry would be one way to fight crime.

With regard to religious exemptions, we saw such an incident again last year when a preacher was shouting something like, “Allah, kill all the Jews and don't spare a single one”. That kind of thing has absolutely no place in a society like ours. How can anyone look at that situation and decide that nothing can be done? Come on. That is our job. We need to address this.

We agree with the Jordan decision and the principle of trial within a reasonable time. I agree with that. It does not make sense for someone to wait 10 years to be found guilty or innocent of the crime they were charged with. There are strict time limits. The Supreme Court examined all that and introduced time limits in the Jordan decision. Yes, they must be complied with.

Unfortunately, the provinces do not have the money to comply. They do not have enough courtrooms, judges and personnel to hold trials within the time limits. More money must be invested in the justice system. I often say that too. Justice is the backbone of a society. If people are denied justice through the courts, they will take matters into their own hands. That will lead to anarchy. We do not want that either.

It is important to respect the Jordan time limits, but to do that, the federal government will have to appoint judges and fill vacancies within a reasonable time. That is something else we are going to tackle.

Money also has to be transferred to the provinces so that they can administer justice more fairly and be more efficient when it comes to laying charges and proceeding to trial. The federal government also has a part to play in that. The health transfers to the provinces are unsatisfactory, and the same goes for the transfers for education and justice. When is this going to be fixed? When are changes going to be made in the way money is spent here to ensure that it goes where it is most needed, namely to the management of provincial institutions like the health system, the education system and the justice system? All of that is important.

Concerning bail, a solution has to be found, as I was saying. I do not know the exact figures, but at least 90% of femicides are committed by men. That is shocking, shameful, disturbing, troubling, and any number of other qualifiers one may care to add. However, my colleague was right to say earlier that of all the clients he represented as a defence lawyer, not one of them had read the Criminal Code before committing a crime. I do not imagine anyone is surprised by that. It should be obvious.

Yes, we can add provisions to the Criminal Code, but above all, we must act. We must act by being more vigilant. Why are repeat offenders being released when the Criminal Code already states that public safety has to be taken into consideration in bail decisions? I have not read any of these cases in particular, but I am sure the judges are not stupid. If they decided to release these individuals, they must have had good reasons. I would be interested in finding out what they are, but there must have been reasons.

In that case, what can we do? We can, of course, tighten the criteria for release, but the question would be how to do that. The Conservatives want to invert the principle and switch from the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt. There has to be some space between the two. Reason should be able to navigate between these two principles. I encourage everyone to give this matter more thought.

There is also the issue of minimum sentences. Our Conservative colleagues keep coming back to this issue. As the Supreme Court has found, adding minimum sentences to just about everything in the Criminal Code is unconstitutional. The government had to backtrack on this matter. The previous government had to reverse what the government before it had done. I hope we will not be playing this game forever, constantly going back and forth depending on which party is in power. We need to find a reasonable path forward.

I have tried to make suggestions in the past. For instance, I proposed that when a minimum sentence is established for a certain crime in order to send a clear message to the public, courts should still have the option to choose a different sentence in exceptional circumstances. If, for any reason, a judge hears evidence during a trial and determines that a minimum sentence is not the most appropriate penalty, he or she could depart from that provision of the law. The judge could therefore waive the minimum sentence. That is one possible compromise, but not the only one.

I came up with a compromise, and I am not the only one with ideas. I am sure we can come up with others. We need creative solutions to move forward, instead of constantly going back and forth, which gets us nowhere and undermines public trust. It is certainly not the best way to convince criminals to stop committing crimes.

I have just said a lot in a short time. As I said, it troubles me and makes me uncomfortable when I see crimes like the ones that have happened this week. I am thinking, for one, of the unfortunate crime against Gabie Renaud in Saint‑Jérôme, in my riding of Rivière-du-Nord. It is so difficult. I feel completely useless. I cannot understand why we have not been able to make progress sooner and prevent situations like this. I hope we can work on it, but unfortunately, our Liberal colleagues will have to agree to revisit the principles they have established, and our Conservative colleagues will have to agree to revisit theirs. We must stop shifting from the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt. Justice and common sense must find a balance between the two.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, and I want to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Gabie Renaud and all the people of Saint‑Jérôme. Things like this should never happen.

I am the chair of the Liberal women's caucus, the largest women's caucus ever. Violence against women and femicide are unacceptable and are a cause of great concern for us.

What improvements does my colleague think need to be made to ensure that these crimes never happen again in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, of course, we can work on the Criminal Code. However, a large part of the issue falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. In Quebec, we need to invest in prevention efforts, but we have no money.

We run deficits year after year. Where does the money go? I am not the minister of finance or even the finance critic, but we need to revisit how we do things. The federal government must take responsibility. It cannot just take the money and run when it is hardly even involved in managing things that affect people's everyday lives. What people in Quebec and across Canada care about in their daily lives is health, education, roads and justice. Money needs to be invested in those things.

Sooner or later, the federal government will have to sit down with the Government of Quebec and the governments of the other provinces to find ways to provide funding for efforts to fight the heinous crimes being carried out in our communities.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord in expressing condolences to the family of Gabie Renaud. My colleague also mentioned other cases that prove the number of femicides is growing.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women agreed to study a report from the last Parliament on gender-based crimes, particularly crimes against women. What we heard from victims and survivors is that eliminating the time limits is more important to them than minimum sentences. This is of utmost importance in cases involving sexual assault and violent crimes against women. The Jordan decision should not apply. Witnesses talked to us about this, and we will talk about it again in the report.

Not only does the Bloc Québécois agree that the Jordan decision should not apply, but we actually introduced a bill, Bill C‑392, to ensure that prosecution of these crimes is not subject to such time limits and that victims can be heard. I would like my colleague to comment on how important the Jordan decision issue is and on reintroducing this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the good question she asked. That is a concern. She was right to mention it. As I said earlier, I believe in the principles set out by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision. They are essential and they must be preserved. However, until we can try people within the time limits set out in the Jordan decision, we have to ensure that the justice system is allowed to deviate from these time limits in special situations, including cases involving femicides like the ones I mentioned.

We cannot let people walk free without first standing trial. This would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. People would lose all trust in our justice system, and that may be the worst danger of all. We are going to come back with a bill similar to the one we introduced before.