SoVote

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/2/23 3:58:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do believe it is more about fundraising for the Conservative Party. Let me give an example. Conservative after Conservative stood up and talked about a rape, an assault, that had taken place in the province of Quebec. Then they turn to the Government of Canada to blame it, as if that person is not serving one day in jail as a result of that sexual assault, and as if we are the ones to blame. It was a provincial court, a provincial prosecutor who ultimately made that decision. Ottawa is working with provinces to deal with a wide spectrum of issues, including bail. The Conservatives are convinced they need to blame Ottawa. Ottawa has nothing to do with that case, yet several members stand up and use that. I do not support what has taken place there. I suspect the member does not support what has taken place in Quebec. Why do they use that specific example when they know it is misleading?

166 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Feb/2/23 3:59:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I will point out to the member. First and foremost, the Criminal Code in this country is a responsibility of the federal government, and any amendments, consequential or otherwise, that are made to it fall under the Minister of Justice and Attorney General in this country. With one fell swoop of a pen, they can change laws, bring them to Parliament, we can debate them and they can pass. Second, the prosecutor in Quebec is actually blaming Bill C-75 for that situation. I want to address an issue he brought up, because I have heard this today. Liberals talk about fundraising. We are the voices of Canadians. The fact is that they are accusing us of using this for fundraising, but we are actually being the voices of Canadians. When this member says that, he does a great disservice to police chiefs, police officers, police associations, premiers and others who are calling for bail reform. They are not sending out fundraising letters. They are asking us to do something about a broken system.

182 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/2/23 4:00:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the member is very passionate about this topic and has a big heart in this space. New Democrats want to be sure all parties work together in the upcoming justice committee hearings on bail reform. We look forward to those conversations. My question to the member is around other solutions for preventive measures that can be taken by the government, if he has some to share with us.

75 words

Mr. John Brassard

Feb/2/23 4:01:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there are other measures that need to be taken in terms of mental health, drug addiction and all of that stuff. We are talking right now. I think most of those stakeholders I referenced earlier such as those police chiefs, are talking about those violent criminals who are let out on bail after committing violent crimes with guns and who oftentimes, as we have heard and seen through the stats, will get out on bail to repeat those violent crimes. That is what we are talking about. There needs to be a whole approach to dealing with violent activity and violent crimes in this country, not the least of which is dealing with mental health and other related issues as well. For the safety and security of our communities and of the police officers we charge with looking after our communities, we need to fix the bail system that has been broken since 2015.

161 words

Mr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC)

Feb/2/23 4:02:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Liberals talking about rumour mongering and about fundraising. I wonder if the member can talk to us about how victims feel hearing those kinds of comments.

31 words

Mr. John Brassard

Feb/2/23 4:02:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, they probably feel the same way I felt today hearing this type of response from the government. It has been shameful, and quite frankly, I have been embarrassed for the Liberals every time they stood up and talked about fundraising letters with absolutely no thought to victims, police officers and their families who have been impacted by this. As I said earlier, we are the voices of Canadians. The Liberals seem to be the voices of their caucus.

80 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Feb/2/23 4:03:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and I know that everyone will want to stay tuned for the hon. member's comments after mine. With regard to the discussion today and Canada's criminal justice system, I wish to note that a sibling has been a police officer in Canada for over two decades. I am very proud of my brother, who has served with much pride the citizens of Vancouver as a police officer in many different capacities. To him and his colleagues, obviously, may there be blessings by the one up in the sky, and may they please stay safe in everything they do to keep us safe. I appreciate the concerns raised by the member for Fundy Royal about Canada's bail system. I welcome the opportunity to discuss how Canada's bail legislation works, particularly how it deals with violent crime and repeat offenders. The bail regime in Canada contributes to public safety and builds trust in the criminal justice system by allowing accused persons to be held in pre-trial custody where there is just cause to do so. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all accused individuals have a right to their freedom and are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Section 11(e) of the Charter provides that everyone charged with an offence has the right “not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause”. Section 6 of the Criminal Code further affirms the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court of Canada has shared important decisions on bail and relevant Charter considerations. The Court noted the following, for example, in the 2015 St. Cloud decision: “in Canadian law, the release of accused persons is the cardinal rule and detention, the exception”. In the 2017 Antic decision and the 2020 Zora decision, the court ruled that, for the vast majority of offences, interim release is favoured at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous grounds, although there are plenty of circumstances under which the Crown can persuade the court that certain conditions are required or that the accused should remain in custody pending a decision in their case. Subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code sets out the three reasons an accused may be denied interim release. First, where the detention is necessary “to ensure his or her attendance in court”, which is known as the primary ground. Second, for the protection of the public, including victims and witnesses, and when it is likely that the accused will “commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice” if released. This is called the secondary ground. Protection of the public is very important and is central to this ground. Many factors may be taken into account when the court considers this ground, including the accused's criminal record, whether the accused was on interim release or on probation at the time of the charge, the accused's personal situation and any interference with witnesses or evidence. The court may also consider the gravity of the offence and the strength of the Crown's case based on the principle that the more serious the offence and the more likely a conviction, the greater the need to protect the public. The third reason why an accused can be refused bail is if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including the apparent strength of the prosecution's case, the gravity of the offence, the range of sentences for the offence and whether a firearm was used. That is called the tertiary ground. In St-Cloud, the Supreme Court noted that the scope of the tertiary ground “has been unduly restricted by the courts in some cases”. The court stated that the tertiary ground is separate and independent from the other grounds and that it should not be interpreted narrowly or applied sparingly. It should also not be limited to exceptional circumstances. The general rule is that a Crown prosecutor who seeks to have an accused temporarily detained must persuade the court that there are grounds for detaining them. However, the Criminal Code includes a number of provisions under which the onus is transferred to the accused. When those provisions apply, the accused must demonstrate that there are no primary, secondary or tertiary grounds for their detention in custody. That is what is called a reverse onus. Although the reverse onus represents an exception to the fundamental right to bail, it does not mean that the accused cannot obtain bail. It simply means that the accused must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that their detention is not justifiable. The provisions for reverse onus play an important role in the criminal system because they make it possible to strike a balance between the right of the accused to have a reasonable opportunity to secure bail and the need to protect the safety of all Canadians. To ensure the protection of the public and reduce recidivism in the criminal system, provisions for reverse onus focus on certain types of recidivism and certain serious offences. For example, when an accused does not appear in court or breaches a previous pre-trial release order, reverse onus will apply. The reverse onus of proof also applies when the accused is charged with certain serious offences. The reverse onus of proof generally occurs when a person is charged with murder or attempted murder. However, other serious offences such as gun trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery or exporting drugs also fall under reverse onus of proof provisions. The reverse onus of proof also applies to offences involving the activities of a criminal or terrorist organization, as well as the Security of Information Act, which includes economic espionage and communication with a terrorist group. In order to protect Canadians against gun violence, reverse onus of proof provisions apply to offences involving firearms when the accused is subject to a firearms prohibition order. I thank my colleagues for listening to me deliver my speech in French today. I am very pleased to have had this opportunity.

1058 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 4:13:03 p.m.
Watch

I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his French. The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

18 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Feb/2/23 4:13:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech sounded like a chapter out of a criminal law textbook, but it did not touch at all on the reality of what Canadians are hearing, feeling and seeing on the streets. Twenty-four out of 44 gun-related murders in Toronto were perpetrated by people who were out on bail on firearms-related charges. Surely there is a crisis in Canadian cities and surely the member opposite would see that amending the catch-and-release rules would be a justifiable limitation, justifiable in a free and democratic society, pursuant to section 1 of—

100 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 4:14:11 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

7 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/2/23 4:14:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question from my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove with regard to keeping Canadians safe and making sure Canadians feel safe in their homes, on their streets, with their children, at the mall, at the skating rink or wherever they may be. In that vein, I look forward to discussions between the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada at the federal level and all pertinent authorities and their provincial representatives, working together to strengthen any laws that need to be strengthened and ensure that Canadians are always kept safe in their communities.

99 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/2/23 4:14:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about justice, about real problems on the streets, about the increase in violence, our discussions must be guided by the idea of justice and what is right. A fair balance means not distorting certain elements. As much as we are sympathetic to the Conservatives' motion that refers to certain realities, they are masters at crafting motions that only they can vote for. They distort certain things, and of course we cannot support something that distorts reality. My colleague talked specifically about Bill C‑75, which passed. If the prosecutor does his or her job properly, what happened in Ontario should never happen. The burden of proof regarding bail lies with the accused, not the Crown. Could my colleague comment on the Conservative view that Bill C‑75 should be repealed because it does not meet the reverse onus?

145 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/2/23 4:16:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Quebec. The Conservatives' solutions are too easy and do not take into account the reality that exists in our country. Bill C-75 was adopted following a binding Supreme Court decision. There is a reverse onus in Bill C-75 with regard to bail. At the same time, our government's top priority, like any government's, is to keep Canadians safe and make sure they feel safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. I know in my community this is an important topic, and we will not rest until we know that police officers have their resources. We must also remember that the Conservative Party of Canada was the party that cut CBSA's budget. We are now putting more money into CBSA to make sure illegal arms do not come into Canada, do not harm our citizens and are kept away from criminals. We will make sure we arrest those criminals and support our police officers day in, day out, hour by hour and day by day.

181 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Feb/2/23 4:17:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is an important conversation. We recognize that the early release of people pretrial who are violent or repeat offenders is a real concern. We have heard from municipal leaders and premiers who have come to Ottawa. They are waiting for concrete proposals to be presented to this House that we can consider. We have also heard from police that the gap in supports for mental health and people living with substance use is causing a real issue. We have been waiting for the mental health transfer, $4.5 billion over five years, which the Liberals still have not delivered. They would not even let my bill go to committee, to listen to their own expert task force, to talk about solutions when it comes to the substance use crisis. When are the Liberals going to deliver on mental health and a real plan to tackle the substance use issues facing Canadians in our country?

157 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 4:18:41 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, we are out of time, and that will have to stand as a comment as opposed to a question. Continuing debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

37 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/2/23 4:18:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a great deal of the debate on the motion that has been brought forward by the Conservative Party today. Suffice it to say, if members have not detected it in my questioning of the Conservative Party, they will find that I am somewhat disappointed in the Conservative motion that we have before us. I have had the opportunity to act in many different capacities over my parliamentary career, whether it was as a justice critic in the province of Manitoba or sitting in a quasi-judicial youth justice committee as a chairperson and as a board member, dealing with the issues surrounding things like parole, bail and so forth. I would like to reflect on the things I have done in the past and, more importantly, reflect on what I believe based on discussions I have had, whether it was with law enforcement agencies, officers, constituents or the many different stakeholders out there. I will try to summarize it all by saying that we are all concerned about safety in our communities. We all want to feel safe in our communities, and I think we all have a responsibility to do what we can. I would suggest to my Conservative friends across the way that, yes, there have been some tragedies that have occurred where real lives have been affected in a very profound negative way because of criminal behaviour. One does not have to belong to one political party over another in order to understand and appreciate the severity, the emotions, the anxiety and the blame that take place. I appreciate that and I am very much concerned about victims, not only today's victims, but the ways in which we, as a government or as parliamentarians, can advance the minimizing of future victims by investing. This government has invested literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of resource dollars and others in non-profits and other levels of government, whether provincial, municipal or indigenous communities, and so much more in terms of dealing with issues such as dysfunctional families, alcohol and drug abuse or addictions and investing in communities, health centres and issues such as mental health. These are all things that I have a holistic approach to. We want to prevent crimes from happening. We realize that criminals will eventually leave jail, and we are discouraged by that revolving door. At the end of the day, we have a system in place. It is not perfect, and I myself have some very serious issues with some of the things I have seen over the last number of years, but those years go beyond just this government. If one listens to the Conservative Party, one would think that people who were out on bail or on probation when Stephen Harper was prime minister were never in violation or never committed any crimes. However, not that much has actually changed. The Conservatives make reference to Bill C-75, but that bill did not make it easier to get bail. I would argue it might have even been the opposite. However, the digging and taking advantage of tragedies that have occurred, those high-profile cases, and trying to say that the system is broken, well, that is something the Conservative Party leadership is trying to say on all issues. They are trying to convince Canadians that in every way society is broken because of what has taken place over the last seven years under this administration, and they are wrong on all accounts. Let us be very clear on that. When the Conservatives say it is broken, which they say about everything because that is the theme of the Conservative Party, they are wrong. They are saying some numbers today to try to get Canadians worried and try to convince them that things are broken. To those who are following the debate, I would suggest they do not listen too closely to what the Conservatives are spreading in terms of misinformation. I went to Statistics Canada. Listening to the Conservatives, one would think there is crime in every corner and everywhere we look. Stats Canada, in 2021, said the violent crime rate did increase 5%, while property crime rates decreased 1%, following a large decrease in 2020. The property crime rate was the lowest it has been dating back to 1965. The Conservatives talked about homicides. They said that is where we have really seen this huge, dramatic change and that is why the whole system is broken. Let us look at the first three full years of Stephen Harper. During the first three years, and this comes from Stats Canada, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the numbers were 608, 597 and 614 for the number of people who were murdered. For our first three full years, the numbers were 616, 667 and 662. Our population might have grown by a million, but that is a side point. The point is that the system is not broken. The example that many of the members stand up and talk about is the issue in the province of Quebec. I am upset about it. I am very upset about it. I think anyone who assaults and rapes a woman should have to spend time in jail. That upsets me, but it was a provincial court that made the decision and it was a provincial prosecutor. That is still to be determined. Is the prosecution going to appeal that decision? I would hope so. I am not in a position to make that decision. That is why the minister himself has said we are working with provinces. Here is a newsflash: We have been working with the provinces on bail reform since well before the Conservatives raised the issue within the last few days. In fact, back in October, the Minister of Justice and the department were actually working on consultations. During the last couple of days, those discussions have been even more amplified. Conservatives do not care more than the Liberals care about the victims of some of these crimes we are hearing about. Our prayers, best wishes and condolences go out to the families that have been so profoundly impacted by it. Today, we have the Conservative Party taking a look at those tragedies and putting together a motion. All one needs to do is take a look at the word “broken”. How often do they use the word “broken” nowadays? It is a political spin message, to try to give the impression that the Conservatives want to be tough on crime. It is interesting that the critic for the Conservatives said that under Stephen Harper the number of days in jail actually went down from an average of 126 to 105. She implies that when they were in government, the number of days in jail went down, yet they are really tough on crime. It is because they are in opposition. The wording they are using is to help them, as an opposition party, get a few more headlines and create more false impressions, at least in part, in order to be able to raise more money for their coffers. It is no reflection on the law enforcement officers, the non-profit organizations, the victims or anything of that nature. I would suggest they might even be taking advantage of that situation. We are trying to deal with it in a very real and tangible way, with legislative changes and budgetary measures, which is making a difference. We will continue that dialogue.

1265 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/2/23 4:29:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the louder the member for Winnipeg North gets and the angrier he gets, the better we seem to be doing with speaking on behalf of Canadians. For him to suggest that the Conservatives are taking advantage and trying to peddle something, instead of being the voice of Canadians, is disgusting, quite frankly. Also, we are speaking on behalf of the 13 premiers and on behalf of police chiefs from across the country. However, I did hear something interesting that the member who spoke before the member for Winnipeg North said. He said he was going to consult with all the justice ministers across the country and come back with bail reform. Does the member have the courage to stand up and bring back the consultations from those justice ministers and what they actually say? I will bet that they are going to agree with their premiers and say that bail reform needs to happen now to protect Canadians.

166 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/2/23 4:30:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that our judicial system is a shared responsibility between Ottawa and the provinces and territories. That means there are ongoing consultations and discussions taking place at virtually every level. That is important to say. I can be very emotional on all sorts of issues, especially when I catch the Conservative Party trying to twist and play with facts and manipulate Canadians. They do not necessarily represent what Canadians are saying, but rather they manipulate and try to influence Canadians with misinformation. That does concern me quite often in the chamber. I think, at times, it is important for the opposition to hold the government accountable, but there is also some importance for the government to hold the opposition accountable for its remarks. That is one reason I am very critical of the whole cryptocurrency idea that the leader of the—

150 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 4:31:21 p.m.
Watch

Continuing with questions and comments. The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

12 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Feb/2/23 4:31:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. I joined this debate this afternoon, and all I hear from the Conservatives is that everything is broken. Everything I hear from the Liberals is that everyone is wrong. We have an opportunity here to talk about bail reform, which is really important. This is something we have heard from municipal leaders and something we have heard about from premiers that has to be fixed. These are legitimate concerns. We also have not talked about the current bail system and how it is not working for many people. There are far higher rates of pretrial detention for indigenous people, for racialized Canadians, for new Canadians and for low-income Canadians. It is mainly because they do not have the necessary resources, or even a stable address or stable employment. My friend Martha's son, Mike Martin, was in pretrial detention. He had an opioid addiction, and he had been in there for repeat offences of drug-seeking and related crime. He did not get the medicine he needed and took his life. Will the parliamentary secretary talk about some solutions, so we do not lose more people like Mike Martin?

195 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 152