Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals formed government in 2015, this country has had a steady and alarming increase in major crime. Violent crime is up 55%, homicides are up 29%, sex assaults are up 76%, firearms offences are up 131% and extortion is up a whopping 330%. The government’s tireless efforts to prioritize the rights and freedoms of the accused at the express expense of victim and community safety is the problem.
In 2019, the Liberal government initiated bail reform in this country by amending the Criminal Code to introduce the principle of restraint, which immediately instructed judges and justices of the peace to prioritize the release of the accused at the earliest opportunity and under the least restrictive conditions. Contrary to a false Liberal narrative, neither the Supreme Court decision in the Antic case nor its decision in the Zora case instructed the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to add the principle of restraint.
From the perspective of a former Crown attorney, the amendment meant that regardless of the nature of the charge committed by the accused and its impact on the community or victim; regardless of the accused's criminal record, which could show a pattern of breaching court orders or being found guilty of the same offence; and, most important, regardless of the number of prior bail orders the accused may already have been subjected to, the government instructed judges and justices to release the accused.
This was the origin of catch-and-release, which we now have in this country, where repeat violent criminals circulate through the justice system with regularity, offering up false promises of bail compliance.
In 2022, the government weakened the criminal justice system again and exposed Canadians to immense risks with the passage of Bill C-5. Notwithstanding the long-established position of the Supreme Court that mandatory minimum penalties do not necessarily violate the charter, the Liberal government repealed mandatory minimums for serious gun crimes and violent crimes and expanded house arrest for all drug offences and serious violent crimes.
In 2023, after hearing from numerous stakeholders regarding the stolen vehicle crisis, the Liberal government brought in Bill C-48, its second attempt at bail reform. A core feature of the bill was to introduce a number of new reverse onus provisions to gun offences and other serious violent offences. The key messaging was that this meant that violent repeat offenders would be detained and that the bill would contribute to the safety of Canadians. The opposite happened; the rising crime state clearly establishes that the bill failed miserably in achieving its goals.
Over the course of the last four-plus years, we have heard from premiers of all provinces and territories, police chiefs, presidents of police associations, mayors from across the country, and several victim advocacy groups, pleading for the government to exercise its number one priority: to keep Canadians safe and to implement immediate bail reform.
What was the response? David Lametti, the former minister of justice, proudly proclaimed that he did deliver bail reform. He was completely oblivious to the crime and chaos happening all around him. Lametti was later fired, and the government appointed Arif Virani. His first comments after his swearing-in were to remind Canadians that it was all in their heads that Canada is less safe. He too reminded Canadians that he delivered bail reform, through the passage of Bill C-48.
In the 45th Parliament, we have heard from the public safety minister that our Canadian bail system is sound and is working as it should. Later we heard from our justice minister, who blamed the provinces for the bail problems we have, and he said that Canada is not the Wild West. That was on the very same weekend when there were violent home invasions that led to the deaths of homeowners.
Canadians and our stakeholders could not wait any longer. A recent Abacus poll conducted this past September showed that 79% of Canadians felt that it is too easy for serious offenders to get bail. That is precisely why my colleague from Oxford introduced the jail not bail act. I would like to take this opportunity to point out, notwithstanding the false narrative from the Liberals, that law enforcement unconditionally endorsed the bill as offering the best opportunity to rebalance the bail system to prioritize community safety over the release of repeat violent offenders.
What would the bill do? The principal feature would be to repeal the principle of restraint and replace it with the principle of public and community safety. The practical effect would be to end the default to release culture, which has created the bail crisis we have in this country. The priority is the safety of communities and victims, not the release of repeat violent offenders. This is a marked distinguishing feature of Bill C-14, which would still preserve, to various degrees, the principle of restraint.
The bill also creates a list of major offences that would trigger a presumption of detention, regardless of whether it would be a reverse onus charge. For major offences, peace officer release is unavailable.
The bill expands reverse onus to several violent offences, including firearms, sexual offences, kidnapping/trafficking, home invasion, break and enter, robbery, extortion and arson offences.
The bill adds surety and non-resident safeguards, which are completely absent in Bill C-14. It bars naming as surety anyone convicted of an indictable offence within 10 years. It also requires consideration of non-residency and flight risk, and it mandates passport denial for non-residents upon release.
Another significant feature of the jail not bail act is an adjustment to the risk threshold analysis under the secondary grounds for detention under section 515 of the Criminal Code. The current test is whether detention is necessary for the protection and safety of the public, including victims or witnesses, or to prevent the commission of a further criminal offence based on the substantial likelihood of such an event occurring. “Substantial likelihood” has been defined in case law as a real and significant probability of a particular outcome occurring. This was never viewed as an onerous test from Crown counsel; they often asked the justice to consider the criminal record of the accused and to look for patterns of conviction either for the same offence or a conviction for breaching a court order, such as bail, probation and conditional sentences.
The jail not bail act lowers that secondary ground threshold from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonable foreseeability” in assessing risk of reoffending or interference with justice.
We have all heard about the tragic yet preventable murder of Bailey McCourt, a young Kelowna mother who was bludgeoned to death by her ex-husband with a hammer in broad daylight. She was murdered the very same day, and within a few hours, of his being convicted of assault and uttering threats. He was released on bail pending sentencing, with the obvious condition that he not have contact with Bailey.
Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, provides for the expiry of the interim release of an accused upon their conviction of an indictable offence while they await sentencing. The finding of guilt by a justice expunges the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by the charter. This provision in the jail not bail act is simply common sense.
This country has long awaited real immediate bail reform. The Liberal government created the mess we find ourselves in. Do we now really expect it to provide the solution when it had the last 10 years to reverse course on its hug-a-thug mentality to exercising its number one priority, which is the safety of all Canadians? Law enforcement across this country has hailed the jail not bail act as the common-sense solution to keeping communities and victims safe while ensuring repeat violent criminals are kept in jail where they belong.
I urge all parliamentarians to set aside their political ideology and make it their priority to pass Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. As I have said numerous times inside and outside the House, and in town halls right across this country from coast to coast to coast, community and victim safety ought not to be a partisan exercise. Let us get this passed.