Mr. Speaker, I just saw two Liberals stand up. It appears they want to take up time here. Actually, one of them was the member for Winnipeg North. I really enjoy his interventions on the law.
We are talking about the law today. One of my favourite aspects of our banter in the House with the member for Winnipeg North is Bill C-2. It was really interesting to hear him talk. He will often get up and, dare I say, pontificate on the law when it comes to these issues. On Bill C-2, he repeatedly told us, and let us call it pontification again, about how somebody needs a search warrant to get access to mail. However, in the legislation, it clearly says, “The Corporation may open any mail” to see if it contravenes the legislation.
The member for Winnipeg North should be applauded for his zeal in this regard. I love not only how often he says something but also the fervour with which he says it. Unfortunately, the problem is that his officials contradicted this very thing. We spent literally days in the House of Commons debating about mail. I hope that, when the member gives us exhortations on the legal front, he has done his homework this time.
The member tells us he was right the first time. I do not want to say someone is wrong, but I would say he is wrong.
I will go on to something a bit more serious. I learned that a person from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, Fred Sawada, recently passed away. He was an uncle to one of my friends, someone I went to kindergarten with, Kristy Sawada. He was a brother to her father, Jack. They did a lot for the community. They ran service stations, one of which was a few blocks from where I grew up. My deepest condolences go to Fred's family. May perpetual light shine upon him.
I would also like to take this time to recognize Ari Jyrkkänen, a young man from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola who contributed tremendously to democracy. In the last year, he was someone who was of great help to me. I want to give him a shout-out. His father, Ken, is a veteran of our Canadian Forces. We thank him for his service. We thank the family for all they have done. I wanted to give him a shout-out.
I was on the phone with a prosecutor not long ago. One thing they said is deficient in this bill, and perhaps the member for Winnipeg North already knows what I am going say, is regarding section 525 of the Criminal Code. This varies from region to region, but section 525 is on a review of bail. The principle is that nobody should be languishing in custody after charge approval.
Back in the day, for instance, in my prior career, I saw a murder file from 1984, I believe. The file was about this thick, which is what a theft file now looks like. Trial dates were set, I think, on the third or fourth court appearance. In other words, people got to trial. It got done. Now people do not get to trial, oftentimes, for a year and a half or two years. It was this mentality that beckoned the Jordan decision.
I am not here to give a discourse. I am here to raise this issue. We have this antiquated law that says there should be a bail review after 90 days in custody. This is assuming a person has only one file, because section 524 operates this way: Let us say somebody is in custody on an indictable matter, such as robbery. They have a bail hearing at day 81 of detention, which can happen. Counsel can just put it off. The person says they want to apply for bail at day 81. If that person is detained at day 81, by virtue of the operation of section 525 and how it has been interpreted in British Columbia, I am told, that person can then have a review of their bail nine days later.
Obviously, this is completely antithetical to what we intend. If they want to have a review of bail, it should be an appeal of bail. A review and an appeal are two very different things. An appeal is saying that the judge messed up. A review is meant to address this ongoing languishing that we do not want people to do when their matter has not gone to trial yet. To me, this is something that needs to be addressed.
I will go on to sex offences. I am trying to think of how many times I have said this in the House. I rose in the House and questioned former minister Lametti about this very issue of house arrest for sex offenders. In fact, I put it to him in committee that there was a mother who offended against her own child. She facilitated an offence. It was absolutely disgusting. Thankfully, it was overturned on appeal. That mother got house arrest. I have said it no less than, probably, 20 times. I gave a speech on this very issue of house arrest for sex offenders two weeks ago. Every single time, the Liberals looked the other way. “There is nothing to see here. There are no issues.” We were constantly told it is the provinces' fault: “Look this way. Look that way. There is no problem with bail. We have it figured out.” Former minister Virani and former minister Lametti actually told us there was no problem.
Yes, I am speaking with a great deal of passion, because I cannot say how many victims have suffered as a result of that inaction. The Liberals will say that the provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. Yes. However, Mr. Speaker, do you know what? The provinces interpret the laws we make in the House. Those ministers, along with many of the people in the House right now, told us we were out to lunch. Hopefully, one of them will be permitted to get up on a question. This is on sex offences against children and house arrest. This is absolutely nuts.
Another aspect we need to look at for clarification is in the reverse onus provision itself. I will be candid. Reverse onuses typically have their place, but, again, we have heard from the Liberals so often about them. Here is the issue with the reverse onus: Typically, though not always, when an accused person is in a reverse onus, in my experience, they are actually in two, three, four or five reverse onuses. We could have somebody who is subject to literally 10 reverse onuses, so we have to recognize that.
The second issue with the reverse onus is that, oftentimes, it will apply to indictable offences only. When the issue was changed in sentencing to say that just about every summary conviction offence could get two years less a day, I believe the motivation behind that was to put more things in provincial court, which operates in a more streamlined manner. Okay, that is fine. There is no issue there, but what that means is that the Crown will proceed by indictment. For those watching, if they do not know the difference , it is felony versus misdemeanour and summary versus indictment. Then we have hybrid offences; the Crown can elect which is which. The whole point was so that the Crown would elect summary.
The reverse onus says that, if somebody has committed an indictable offence, they are in a reverse onus. What about somebody who has 80 convictions, but the Crown expects to seek 18 months of jail, which is fairly serious jail? If they elect to proceed summarily, that person, according to my information, in certain provinces and depending on the jurisdiction, will no longer be subject to the reverse onus provisions. We have a stymying of legislative intent there. This is something I really hope the Liberals deal with.
The last thing missing from Bill C-14 is Bailey’s law. Let us hope the Liberals do not heckle us on this, this time. The reality is that we need to pass legislation on intimate partner violence. We need to create a specific offence on intimate partner violence. We need to recognize the scourge and the plague that is intimate partner violence. I exhort the House, in the strongest language possible, to pass Bill C-225 with the urgency it deserves.