44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 18, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my personal congratulations to the new Minister of Justice. I have worked with him in a number of capacities in Parliament and have always found him to be reasonable and a hard-working member of Parliament. I am sure he will bring the same to his new job.
I would also like to congratulate the new parliamentary secretary, who is sitting next to him, with whom I have also had a good relationship in the past. I look forward to our making progress on issues important to Canadians with these two new people in place in justice.
The minister said today a lot about getting this done today. I am going to express my hope that there is actually a plan rather than rhetoric involved with the idea that we pass this today. Certainly, New Democrats understand the urgency of tackling bail reform, both in the violent crime area and also in assisting those who get trapped in the justice system because they cannot get bail.
Does the minister actually have a plan for advancing this today?
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his new role. He referenced the fact that this bill is widely supported throughout the country. I believe that all premiers are on board. I believe that most, if not all, associations of police are on board. I note that, in particular, the premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, said, “I’m urging the federal government to use this time to quickly pass their bail reform bill.”
I am curious whether the minister can expand on the widespread support for this and how important it is, given not just what we have hearing across the country but also what we have been hearing in the House, in particular from Conservatives, over the last number of years, to move very quickly with this.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member's question underscores a very important aspect of how this bill has come to pass. It is not just the premier of the province of Ontario who has been getting behind this bill. My first meeting with a provincial analogue was with Doug Downey in my home province of Ontario. He said in his statement that he has been working in close collaboration with us to develop a bail reform plan. He personally thanked the government for the partnership that we have been showing and for “taking direct action to ensure violent and repeat offenders stay behind bars.”
Jennifer McKelvie, at that time the acting mayor of Toronto, and Guelph mayor, Cam Guthrie, said that they are pleased with this initiative. The Ontario police association has indicated the same, and the Ontario Provincial Police Association itself has indicated its support.
This really cuts across a lot of different sectors. After eight years in this place, I know pretty confidently that I can say that this level of co-operation and, indeed, unanimity, is quite rare to find in this place. That is what gives me the confidence to say, quite boldly, that if we are going to take people to be true to their word, there is a path forward to get this done and to get this done very quickly and on to the Senate and ultimately to royal assent, where it needs to be to ensure the safety of Canadians. We rarely see this type of unanimity. I think we deserve to recognize it, work on it and act on it.
269 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish to add my congratulations to the hon. member on his joining cabinet in his very critical position as Minister of Justice. I have also seen, as my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and others have said previously, nothing but really strong relationships and non-partisan and strong collaborative efforts from the member.
I know that the public is very alarmed by people being released on bail who go on to commit violent crimes, but we know that the bill by itself could actually make things worse given the institutional biases and racism in our system of justice. Pretrial detention offers very little, and even less once people have received their sentences, in the way of mental health supports and the attention that would assist in keeping people off the streets to avoid recidivism. A balance will need to be struck that would not be struck by the bill alone.
Because I know we want to see the bill passed quickly, and I think it is likely there will be an effort to get it passed today, I want to flag another concern that I hear from prosecuting attorneys: When people do get bail, and the surety is often a family member who puts up money for the accused's bail provisions, it is almost unheard of to go after the person who puts up the money to collect the money, so there is even less incentive for a person out on bail to observe their bail conditions.
I wonder if the hon. Minister of Justice has turned his mind to this aspect of needed bail improvements and reforms.
275 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, even if the Liberals give us an inch when we need miles of reform on public safety, it is very important that we move forward with the small pittance they are providing us in this bill.
However, Bill C-48 is not bail reform, which is what premiers, police forces, provincial justice ministers and civic leaders are all asking for. They are not asking for tweaks on the margins; they are asking for broad bail reform. What the Liberals are proposing today is not that.
I will draw the minister's attention to the fact that there has been a consistent Liberal government theme over the last number of years of going soft on criminals. It is not just Bill C-75 that made it easy to get bail. Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimums for violent gun offences and permitted more house arrest for rapists. Bill C-83 allowed mass murderers, like Paul Bernardo, to be transferred to medium-security prisons.
This is a theme, a perspective that the Liberals bring to the table, which has resulted in more violent crime, and that will not be solved by a measly seven-page bill, Bill C-48.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit perplexed by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul's speech. We have a bill before us today that has had broad support from premiers who demanded action. I think it has had broad support from all political parties, with the the leader of the member's party saying that he was prepared to pass it on the first day of this sitting.
In her speech, we heard some things get mixed up, things that had nothing to do with bail reform and had to do with other parts of the justice system. We have a disparaging of this bill, which has broad support from police and other members in the law enforcement community.
Is the Conservative Party serious or not? Is it standing by its leader's statement that it would like to get this done expeditiously or not?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes I was. In fact, I would have undone the Liberal bail law in Bill C-75 six years ago, the day it was passed.
Not only did the minister go on vacation before addressing bail, but he also went to a radio station and claimed that we were holding up the reversal of Liberal bail policy. He thought no one would find out about this. In fact, he was on vacation and had allowed Parliament to rise without bail reform occurring in the first place. Let us not forget that what little good this bill would do is just undoing the damage his party already did.
Finally, I would ask the minister to stand in his place and apologize to Canadians for trying to gaslight them and tell them that rising crime is just a perception issue. I have given him all the data published by his own government, which shows that violent crime has raged out of control after eight years under the Prime Minister. These are data points. These are facts. Will he admit it and apologize for gaslighting Canadians?
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I would also be happy to work with him and anyone from the third opposition party who is on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who will be studying this bill with us.
To answer his question, yes, the process will go quickly, but we are not going to botch the job. It must be done right. I want to look at it. As I said, I have concerns about certain aspects of the bill from a constitutional perspective, such as the fact that, if someone has previously been charged with certain offences, that could be held against them at a bail hearing, even if they were acquitted. That is a bit questionable, in my view. I am not saying no to this bill, but it is not an automatic yes. We will need to look at it properly.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in support of Bill C-48 today.
I did not think we would get the bill to this stage as quickly as we have in this Parliament. One of the reasons we did so is that the justice committee recognized the public concern about repeat violent offenders and problems with bail. It conducted hearings last year and came up with a series of recommendations that helped inform this bill. Therefore, today, we have something before us that the justice committee has already considered, that the premiers have been calling for and support, and that has broad support in the law enforcement community.
Today, we have heard many people talk about things other than bail reform. However, when we talked about bail reform, we heard the minister say that the government is prepared to proceed expeditiously. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the official opposition supports the bill. I heard some more ambiguous things from the last speaker from the Bloc Québécois, but he still said that the Bloc supports the bill. Therefore, the question I have been asking in this session is this: Since we have this broad support for the bill, are we serious about moving expeditiously? Maybe the bill does not have everything that everyone wants, but certainly there is broad support, as well as an urgent need to make the public more confident in our bail-reform system.
Since the leader of the official opposition personally gave me credit for a crime wave on Vancouver Island, I have to take a moment to say that I have dedicated my entire life to working to help keep communities safe. I say that as someone whose professional career was in teaching criminal justice before I came here. Therefore, for him to say that I have somehow supported measures in a deliberate manner that provoke criminality or a crime wave is really quite personally offensive.
What we get from the Leader of the Opposition is talk about common sense. I want to point out a piece of common sense that contradicts most of what he was saying today. Over the last 30 years, we have tripled the number of people in pretrial detention in this country. If detaining more people caused a decrease in crime, we would have way less crime than we have today. Therefore, common sense would tell us that detaining three times as many people does not solve the problem.
Bill C-48 would not cast a broad brush, as the Conservatives are asking for. Rather, it has some narrow and targeted measures aimed at repeat violent offenders; New Democrats are in support of those measures. This means that it would insert a definition of “repeat violent offender” into the Criminal Code so that we would know whom judges should be looking at when it comes to denying bail. It would also create some additional reverse onus categories. “Reverse onus” is a technical term meaning that when it is proposed to put someone in pretrial detention, in certain cases, that person has to show why they should not be detained.
Therefore, the bill would add to the list of offences. It would not create a new category; there are already lots of reverse onus provisions in bail. However, it would add illegal weapons, including handguns. That is an important provision, which I definitely support. People have to go to a lot of trouble to possess an illegal weapon; they do not accidentally possess a handgun. Therefore, if someone has a charge that involves a handgun, they should have to show the judge why they should be released and why they are not a threat to the public.
In addition, the bill would increase the reverse onus in cases of intimate partner violence. Again, we know that when there has been intimate partner violence, it is usually not a one-time incident. When people are charged more than once, this bill would make it much tougher for the offender in an intimate partner relationship to get released, which is something that New Democrats definitely support. It goes along with our proposal, which is now a private member's bill, Bill C-332, sponsored by the member for Victoria.
Bill C-3s32 calls for making coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner relationships a criminal offence. That would move the goal posts in the Criminal Code; instead of having to wait for broken bones and bruises, a pattern of behaviour that leads to such violence would be a criminal offence. This would allow earlier intervention and prevent much of that violence from happening in the future.
Therefore, this bill goes together with our proposal on coercive and controlling behaviour to help provide better protections for those who suffer violence in intimate partner relationships. In this country, we continue to lose women to violence; every six days, one woman is killed by an intimate partner. This is part of the urgency of this bill and why I believe that we should deal with it expeditiously.
There is a third piece in this bill that I think no one else has talked about today. It is a piece that came up in the hearings we held at the justice committee. In addition to the real problem we have with repeat violent offenders getting bail, which this bill I believe will solve, we have the problem that we detain way too many people in Canada and at far higher rates than any comparable countries around the world. Why is this a problem? There are two reasons it is a problem.
One is the injustice. One-third of the people who are detained before their trial are never convicted but found innocent. What happens to people who are detained and held in jail before the trial? Most often they lose their job. Often they lose their housing. They lose custody of their kids. There are all kinds of negative impacts for people who are not found guilty of anything. Therefore, we need to improve our systems so we are detaining the people who need to be detained and not detaining other people. Who are the people who are over-detained? Disproportionately they are poor, women, indigenous or racialized Canadians.
This bill adds a provision that would require judges to look at community-based bail supervision programs, which are very successful. The John Howard Society has been running them in Ontario. I am looking through my notes, but I am pretty sure I am right. The success rate of the John Howard Society programs, as limited as they are in Ontario, is about 90%. What does a 90% success rate mean? It means that those people who are on community-based bail supervision have a caseworker assigned to them, they will not commit another offence while they are on bail and they will show up in court when they are supposed to. In the meantime, they can maintain their jobs, housing and custody of their kids. Even if they are eventually found guilty, they may not serve prison time. Therefore, having a community-based bail supervision program would help maintain that coherence of families.
Here is the kicker in all of this. Those who serve even limited time in custody before trial are far more likely to reoffend. If we are actually worried about public safety, one of the best things we could do is get people into community-based bail supervision programs where they are put in touch with the services they need, whether mental health services, substance abuse programs or upgrades to their education. If people are in a community-based bail supervision program, they can get that assistance, which will help lead them out of whatever problems they were in to begin with. When they are in pretrial custody, they are in the provincial system and there are no programs available to them. There are no mental health programs, no addiction programs and no education programs while they wait, with the current delays in our trial system, up to six months for a trial. If we are really interested in public safety, we need to put more people into community-based bail supervision programs, which Bill C-48 would now mandate as an option to be considered by the judge. That would require the Liberal government to provide the upfront funding to get community-based bail supervision programs more widely available across the country.
Now all members will say that the New Democrats are demanding more spending, but guess what? It costs about one-third the amount to put people into community-based bail supervision compared to putting them into custody. Therefore, we need upfront start-up funds for community-based bail supervision, which ultimately would produce huge savings in addition to better public safety outcomes and avoid injustice to those who are eventually found not guilty of the offence for which they were charged.
These are the reasons that I think we need to proceed expeditiously on this bill. We need to get a commitment from the government to help fund community-based bail supervision programs.
I know this bill is going to pass. We had the hearings. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord who spoke before me said that he wants to examine the bill. The bill is the result of the hearings we already held at the justice committee, so I do not think there is a need for that detailed examination. Maybe the other opposition parties will decide we have to go to committee and do it all over again, and I am prepared to do that, but we could proceed expeditiously, get this bill passed and get a better start on making Canadians safer.
I am not saying that the concerns that Canadians have about repeat violent offenders are unjust. There are many tragic examples that all too often are exploited in this House for political reasons, and I have sympathy for those families, but we have to pass Bill C-48 to prevent the release of violent offenders.
Let me say the other part of this. New Democrats continue to call for on-demand mental health and substance abuse programs.
When the Conservatives like to talk about the 6,000 rolling, revolving-door incidents in Vancouver, those are not violent crimes. Those are people who are poor, who shoplift, who are drug-addicted or who have mental health issues. If we could get, first of all, better support in this time of increasing costs for all Canadians who are poor, if we could get better mental health programs and if we could get better substance abuse on-demand records, then we will have progress in making communities safer.
1806 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech and I think it is important to underline where the fault line actually is in this debate. I think there would be agreement throughout the House that a young person who makes a mistake should have a second chance. Of course, there are many cases where it is legitimate for a person to have bail.
We have highlighted these cases of repeat violent offenders who continue to get bail. Somebody who commits a violent crime is on bail for that violent crime and then goes out and kills someone. Clearly, there is a problem in those cases of extremely violent offenders getting bail and committing those offences again. It is a problem that owes a great deal to a decision made by the government, supported by the NDP, to make changes to the bail system when it first took office.
We are not talking about the many instances where bail is legitimate. We are talking about these cases of repeat violent offenders.
I would like to hear from the member why he does not support our position of reversing those changes, to actually get back to somewhere we were previously on this.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, once again, the member is mixing bail with all kinds of other questions in criminal justice and the Criminal Code. What I do have to say, and I want to emphasize it once again, is that while there are a few cases, and they are not very numerous, of repeat violent offenders reoffending, they are serious and we need to act and take care to make sure those do not happen again.
Bill C-48 addresses those. The police associations across the country say that it does. Premiers are satisfied that it does. I am not sure why the Conservative Party is not satisfied that it would deal with that problem.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to address something that the member said, which is that Bill C-48 would result in more people being in pretrial detention.
Precisely because it allows the option of community-based bail supervision, the opposite would be the case. This bill would actually result in fewer people being detained before their trials. That is the important aspect that New Democrats argued for and convinced the government to include in this bill.
If we are interested in public safety, as I said, yes, we need to deal with repeat violent offenders. We also need to deal with recidivism. The way one deals with recidivism is to keep people out of jail, keep them in their employment, keep them with their families and provide them the supports they need to be productive citizens in this country.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Nunavut, for her tireless advocacy on behalf of indigenous people and northern residents in Canada.
I want to point out that one of the areas where there is a severe lack of social services when it comes to things like addiction treatment and mental health services is Nunavut. By providing for community-based bail supervision, this bill would allow a lot of people who are maybe, for the first time, in conflict with the justice system, to find a way to keep their housing, their contacts with family and their employment, and not end up in further conflict with the law.
That means that the federal government would have to step up and help provide the funding to the Government of Nunavut to make those necessary social services available in communities across the north.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, any time that we can tighten up bail, this is something we need to look at in this House. Clearly, Canadians of all political stripes of all occupations and socio-economic statuses are telling us and begging for us to do this. Therefore, when my colleague asks why we should be doing this, that is the reason. It is also the reason I brought forward Bill C-274 and Bill C-313, which I really feel fell on deaf ears with the Liberals.
I again come back to this: When we talk about passing this so quickly, why did we not debate it before we left for summer? Why did it take 246 days to bring this legislation forward after the premiers wrote their letter?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Canada's criminal justice system is broken.
Earlier this year, Leger, a polling company, polled Canadians on how they feel about public safety in this country. A significant majority, two-thirds, feel that they are now less safe than they were before the COVID-19 pandemic, and most Canadians think that provincial and federal governments are doing a poor job of addressing crime and public safety.
Another shocking statistic comes out of British Columbia. In B.C., people charged with violent crime committed while on bail pending trial on previous charges are released on bail again 75% of the time. That statistic comes from a recent review on bail hearings done internally in British Columbia the last couple of weeks of 2022 and the first few weeks of 2023.
The B.C. Prosecution Service, the crown prosecutors, asks for pretrial detention, but the judges deny that, so the accused are again free to go out and commit another crime. We have been hearing too much of that.
Public safety is taking a back seat to the rights of the accused. However, let us not blame judges. They are bound by the law. One B.C. mayor, the mayor of Nanaimo, who is a former provincial NDP cabinet minister, was quoted in The Globe and Mail in April: “The judges are applying the law as it exists.... The law needs to be changed. It diminishes public safety and destroys public confidence in the justice system. This needs to be fixed, yesterday.”
Unfortunately our new Minister of Justice does not have that same sense of urgency when it comes to bail reform. Shortly after being appointed to his new position, he acknowledged the obvious saying, “there's a sense coming out of the pandemic that people’s safety is more in jeopardy.” He then added that he thought “that empirically it's unlikely” Canada is becoming less safe.:
Our Minister of Justice has his head in the sand. Other law enforcement agencies are doing what they can to face the crisis in confidence in our criminal justice system and public safety. For example, the British Columbia government has directed their prosecution service to push for more restrictive bail conditions in cases where public safety is at stake.
However, these efforts are being blunted by the federal Liberal government's legislation, which requires judges to release detainees at the earliest possible opportunity and on the least onerous conditions. That catch-and-release bail system thinking, which needs to be fixed, is based on Bill C-75, legislation from the 42nd Parliament, passed just before the House rose for the summer four years ago, in June 2019.
It is poorly thought-out legislation. It is the Liberal government's response to its understanding of what the Supreme Court of Canada said in a series of cases about defending and protecting the rights of accused people to reasonable bail and the presumption of innocence. It is poorly thought-out legislation.
What is the result of Bill C-75 four years later? Is it general support for this catch-and-release? Absolutely not at all. As a matter of fact, we have a letter signed by 10 provincial premiers and three territorial premiers, from all political parties, unanimously telling the Prime Minister that our bail system is broken and that it needs to be reformed and fixed urgently.
The premiers are hearing from their citizens and reacting to deep concerns from the public about the perception that the criminal justice system favours the accused at the cost of the public. Here is what the premiers said: “We write to urge that the federal government take immediate action to strengthen Canada’s bail system to better protect the public and Canada’s heroic first responders.”
That letter was initiated at a meeting of the attorneys general from across the country in October 2022. It asks for reverse onus. They are saying reverse onus for repeat violent offenders would be one way to fix our criminal justice system. Reverse onus ostensibly makes it more difficult for an accused person to be let out on bail. They said, “This is just one proposal for much-needed reform”.
They are asking for general reform of the bail system. Certainly, the police services and the people I talked to across the country over the summer have been saying the same thing.
Between the time of the meeting and the writing of the letter in January, there was another tragic event in Canada that underlies the need for urgent bail reform. OPP officer Greg Pierzchala was shot down and was killed. He did not make it home after his shift on December 27, 2022. He was responding to a traffic call. He did not stand a chance. They opened fire on him, and he died on the scene.
His boss, OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique, stated that one of the two people who were charged with his murder was out on bail at the time. He had been banned from owning any firearms for life since 2018. Three years later, that same person was charged with several firearms-related offences and assaulting a police officer.
He was released on bail on a number of conditions, including remaining in his residence under his mother's care, not possessing firearms and wearing a GPS ankle bracelet, which he somehow removed. His trial date was set for September 22, but he failed to appear. There was a warrant for his arrest.
At the justice committee, when we were studying this, we had chief of police Darren Montour of the Six Nations Police Service, which was charged with supervising this killer's bail conditions. One witness had this to say: “What we've seen with the increased release of people on bail conditions is effectively a downloading to the police services of jurisdiction to become professional babysitters”. Darren Montour added, “We don't have the manpower or resources to do that.”
Commissioner Carrique of the OPP said at a press conference, “Needless to say, the murder of Const. Greg was preventable. This should have never happened. Something needs to change. Our police officers, your police officers, my police officers, the public deserve to be safeguarded against violent offenders who are charge with firearms-related offences”.
Premier Doug Ford, shortly thereafter, said, “OPP Commissioner Carrique's comments on the tragic killing of Constable Grzegorz Pierzchala is the latest plea for the federal government to address the revolving door of violent criminals caused by our country's failed bail system...Too many innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of dangerous criminals who should have been behind bars — not on our streets. Enough is enough.”
I agree with that, as does the vast majority of Canadians.
That is why we are here today debating Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code on bail reform. This is the government's response to concerns expressed by many Canadians, including the premiers. The premiers' letter captures the public perception, what we have all been hearing on the ground, but let us now see whether Bill C-48 captures that same mood.
There are a number of preambles in the introduction of this legislation. I am just going to read two of them that I think are informative. The fourth one reads, “Whereas a proper functioning bail system is necessary to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system, including in the administration of justice”. I agree with that.
The eighth paragraph in the preamble says, “And whereas confidence in the administration of justice is eroded in cases when accused persons are released on bail while their detention is justified”.
I would say that this sounds good. This is certainly a step in the right direction. This is a recognition that Parliament needs to find a balance between the rights of the accused and the protection of the public.
What would Bill C-48 actually do? It would introduce a reverse onus for serious offences, with serious offences defined as an accused person being charged within the last five years on something that would have had a 10-year sentence. However, I think the bill is too narrow. I do not think this legislation addresses all the concerns that we are hearing from the public, and more work needs to be done.
1421 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the bill is a step in the right direction. I think it does respond in a manner to what the premiers have been asking for, but it is very narrow. The premiers have also asked for a much broader discussion on bail reform, and I feel that this legislation does not capture that. However, the bill is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his great intervention on bail reform.
With the Liberal's Bill C-75, which was soft on crime, they allowed so many criminals back on the street. They went back so far in time that they actually reversed a lot of the bail requirements for things such as committing a crime with a firearm, which started under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. They even undid things that were done on mandatory minimums going back to the Liberal era of the seventies and eighties.
I would ask my colleague if he really believes that, because of Liberal ideology in Bill C-75, the hug-a-thug approach, it has ultimately resulted in what we have today with an increase in violent crime of over 32%. The city of Winnipeg, where I come from, is now one of the most dangerous cities in all of North America. It all has to do with the bail reform, and how the Liberals have always stood up for the criminal and never stood up for the victim. It is time for jail and not bail.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the average person on the street would probably agree with the principle that someone who has repeat offended at some point would require a reverse onus for bail. However, I am thinking of one of the cornerstones of the rule of law system in our country, which is the presumption of innocence. We have a right to walk the streets and have liberty, and if the state charges us with a crime, we have a right to be presumed innocent and not to be deprived of our liberty.
I am wondering how my hon. colleague squares that notion with the concept of reverse onus, where somebody who is accused would have to justify why they would retain liberty instead of being incarcerated pending a trial and pending conviction of the crime, which has not yet occurred. Does he have any concerns in that regard?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, of course we all stand behind the age-old principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail. However, I am going to talk again about the 40 people who have been responsible for 6,000 interactions with the police, which is 150, on average, per person. At some point, perhaps they lose their right to be free on bail.
The problem with Bill C-75 is that it gutted the court's ability to punish people who breached bail conditions, which is why people keep coming back time and time again with no consequences. The public is losing confidence in the criminal justice system because of that revolving door insanity.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent, after consultations with all parties, for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment today, Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
