Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act. I am pleased to reiterate the government's support for Bill S-205. This legislation has the important goal of better protecting victims of intimate partner violence.
In light of last week's tragic instance of intimate partner violence in Sault Ste. Marie, we are reminded of the devastating impact these crimes have on individuals and communities. My heart breaks for the senseless loss of life in Sault Ste. Marie, and I am thinking of the victims' loved ones. Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence in general have no place in Canada. I know my colleagues from all parties share this sentiment.
Bill S-205 would make changes to the Criminal Code's bail and peace bond regimes in order to address intimate partner violence. The bill would also make consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. These are important objectives. Today, I will elaborate on some concerns that we have with this bill and how we think it can be improved. I will also discuss our government's most recent complementary efforts to support victims of intimate partner violence and victims of crime in general.
As my colleagues have mentioned, Bill S-205 would require prosecutors to ask courts whether the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs prior to making a bail order for an individual who is charged with an intimate partner violence offence. In addition, Bill S-205 would require courts to ask prosecutors whether victims have been informed of their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court.
The next element of Bill S-205 that I would like to highlight is the expansion of a reverse onus for bail on intimate partner violence crimes. The reverse onus would be expanded so that it applies not only to accused persons who were previously convicted but also to those previously discharged, conditional or absolute, for an intimate partner violence offence. This particular measure is also contained in our government's bill, Bill C-48, which already passed this House and is awaiting third reading in the Senate. We were certainly concerned to see that the senators voted to remove this measure from the bill, and I hope that my colleagues agree that we should reinstate it in Bill C-48. This provision builds upon previous government legislation that enhances our federal response to intimate partner violence, including former Bill C-75. I hope this House rejects the amendments to Bill C-48.
Next, Bill S-205 would require a justice to consider, on request of the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release. I want to point out that this provision would also undo an important change made by Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, violence against an intimate partner, which received royal assent on April 27. If Bill S-205 is passed, electronic monitoring would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases, and not just in cases involving violence against an intimate partner as is now the case because of the changes enacted in Bill C-233.
Last, this bill would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence with a duration of up to two years, or three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence.
I want to reiterate that I support the objectives of this bill, but I believe that changes should be considered to better align the proposed amendments with its objective. These changes could also minimize the potential for unintended negative impacts on groups who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and ensure coherence with existing criminal law.
Next, I want to discuss how Bill S-205 fits into a broader framework of our government's support for victims of crime. I have already mentioned Bill C-48, which passed here on unanimous consent of all members. I want to thank colleagues across the aisle for their support and for recognizing the importance and urgency of Bill C-48. It is a direct response to requests made by the provinces and territories, as well as law enforcement agencies from across our country. This piece of legislation would strengthen Canada's bail laws to address the public's concerns relating to repeat violent offenders in offences involving firearms and other weapons.
Bill C-48 would introduce a reverse onus at bail on the use of dangerous weapons such as firearms, knives and bear spray. Bill C-48 would also create a reverse onus for additional indictable firearms offences, including unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking and entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm.
Through this bill, we are sending a strong message that crimes committed involving a firearm are unacceptable and represent a dire threat to public safety. We have seen too many lives lost to gun crime.
As I have mentioned previously, Bill C-48 would also strengthen the existing reverse onus that applies to accused persons charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence when they have a previous conviction for this type of an offence. Bill S-205 has this same objective, and I am glad to see members from all parties take intimate partner violence seriously.
Another proposal in Bill C-48 relates to what considerations the court must make when deciding whether to release someone on bail. A former bill, Bill C-75, passed in 2019, amended the Criminal Code to provide that before making a bail order, courts must consider any relevant factor, including the criminal record of the accused or if the charges involve intimate partner violence.
Bill C-48 would expand this provision to require courts to consider if the accused's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence. Bail courts would be specifically directed to consider whether the accused has any previous violent convictions and whether they represent an increased risk of reoffending, even when the proposed reverse onus does not apply. This change would enhance public safety, and I am again pleased that my colleagues support the passage of Bill C-48.
A second bill I wanted to highlight is Bill S-12. Just this week, we debated this legislation. Bill S-12 would improve our national response to sexual offences by strengthening the national sex offender registry regime. We have responded to concerns raised by the Supreme Court and law enforcement agencies in this legislation. The list of designated offences that qualify an offender to be registered on the national sex offender registry would be expanded by Bill S-12, and this list would include non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sextortion, two crimes that have had terrible impacts on the lives of Canadians, especially women and children. This would be a very positive step forward.
Bill S-12 is a direct product of conversations with survivors and victims of sexual crime. Bill S-12 would reform the publication regime to recognize the diversity of victim experiences and ensure that survivors have agency to tell their own stories if they so choose. Bill S-12 would also change the process for providing victims with information on their cases to better reflect the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Both of these changes are about one key element: choice. There is no one right way to be a victim. Bill S-12 reflects this reality.
I am happy to support Bill S-205, and I hope that the elements I have raised as potential concerns with the bill can be further studied at committee.
1325 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, over the past few months, as I knocked on doors in my riding of Brampton East, I have had many conversations about public safety. All levels of government have a role to play in keeping our communities safe, and here in Parliament, we are working together to further strengthen our Criminal Code.
After consultations with all 13 premiers and police chiefs across Canada, our government has brought forward a bail reform bill, Bill C-48, which would help keep repeat violent offenders behind bars.
I have had numerous discussions with the police chief, the mayor and colleagues across all levels of government, and I am happy to see this bill being supported by colleagues in this very chamber.
That is not all. We have helped combat guns and gangs, providing $120 million to the Province of Ontario; strengthened border security, with over $500 million to CBSA, which will help prevent contraband coming into this country; and instituted a national freeze on handguns, which means that handguns can no longer be transferred, purchased or imported into Canada.
I remain focused on working with all levels of government to ensure families can live and prosper in a safe environment.
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am rising today to express my serious concerns about Bill C-50. This bill is called the sustainable jobs act, which is typical of what Liberals do. They pick a name that sounds good. Who does not like sustainable jobs? I like sustainable jobs. I think all Canadians want sustainable jobs. It sounds really good, but the problem is that in this bill there is no plan to create sustainable jobs. This is a plan to get a plan.
The bill outlines how the Liberals are going to put together a council. Based on past behaviour, I suggest that it would be highly paid Liberal insiders who will get these jobs and advise on what the plan ought to be. As to the timeline of when they are going to come up with what the plan ought to be, it be should by 2025, coincidentally just after the next election.
The Liberals do not have a plan. Nothing says there is no plan like a bill that is introduced to get a plan. That is the first thing.
The second thing is the Liberals have another role, a secretariat, that is going to do some coordination, with another highly paid Liberal insider when they get the plan. The problem is that is it; that is all. It is a plan to get a plan, with some principles that are motherhood and apple pie and that we would all agree on, such as well-paying jobs, caring about the environment and the need to respect labour, all of these good things. They are all motherhood and apple pie, but the bill does not have a specific action that is going to help.
On the other hand, it is going to hurt. The analysts of the government have said that Bill C-50 would kill 170,000 direct Canadian jobs, would displace 450,000 workers directly and indirectly working in the energy sector and would risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians across all provinces. The bill would destroy as many as 2.7 million jobs when there is not a single action in it to create any sustainable jobs at all. That is a problem.
The other thing is that it is going to cost a lot of money. Right now the energy sector provides 10% of Canada's GDP and pays over $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government every year. Last year, $48 billion in royalties and taxes were contributed by the energy sector. This bill purports to get rid of that by eliminating the sector.
We can look at other places in the world that have come up with a sustainable jobs plan and are starting to implement it, Scotland being one example. If we took the cost per person of its plan and did the equivalent thing here, it would cost $37.2 billion. The Liberals are taking away as much as $48 billion and adding a cost of another $37 billion. If we do the math, they are increasing by greater than $70 billion the loss to the Canadian economy.
I do not know why the Liberal government cannot learn the lesson when countless people can, like former Liberal John Manley, who said that when it runs these huge deficits, it is putting a foot on the inflationary gas pedal, which is causing the Bank of Canada to put its foot on the brake with higher interest rates. This raises the cost of mortgages. Canadians are suffering from coast to coast, so definitely not only is the bill not going to create jobs, but it will come with a huge cost.
It is not like this is the first time there has been an attack on oil and gas and the energy sector. This has been a continual theme from the time I got elected in 2015. Let us start with the tanker ban, Bill C-48, to keep Canadian oil from getting out there when everybody else's ships are out there full of oil. Then we had Bill C-55, which created marine protected areas so we could do no oil and gas development there. Then there was Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, which was just called unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. All of these things were intended to be a war against creating oil and gas projects.
There is evidence. When the Liberals took power, there were 18 LNG projects on the books and there were four pipelines. Zero pipelines have been built and all the LNG projects but one are cancelled. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our friends in Germany were going to give us $59 billion to replace their Russian oil and coal with our green LNG. The Prime Minister said there was no business case, so Australia took that deal.
Then Japan came up with a similar deal and again we would not take the deal, so Saudi Arabia took it. Then came France and the Netherlands. There were all these opportunities for Canada to be a leader, supplanting higher-carbon fuels with our green LNG, the most responsibly produced product in the world with the best human rights record, but again the Liberal government refused. Instead, it is focused on its own ideology and things that it wants to do that continue to destroy the economy.
We can talk about the electric vehicle mandates. That was another great idea. Let us give away $31 billion to create 3,000 jobs. For those who can do the math, if we just gave each of those 3,000 people $10 million, they would never have to work again and there would not be any footprint. There is a total misunderstanding of how to create a growing economy.
Then there is the clean electricity standard, another hugely divisive bill that was introduced by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, clearly not understanding that where the Liberals want to go with all the electric vehicles, electricity and the grid would require building the equivalent of 19 nuclear facilities, like the one from Bruce Power. They cannot build anything, so I do not know where they get the idea that they are going to be successful in achieving that.
At the same time, they are ignoring the fact that only 7% of the public even wants an electric vehicle because the technology is not there. No one wants to be trapped in a snowstorm at -30°C because the batteries do not work. They catch fire. In addition to that, they do not have a very long range. Instead, the government decided to pick a winner and loser with the battery plants that are being built.
Now Toyota has come out with a solid-state battery, with a 1,275-kilometre range, that works at -20°C and does not catch fire. That will make our technology obsolete, with $31 billion after the fact. Maybe the Liberal government needs a few more engineers so that it can actually make science-, fact- and data-based decisions, but that is not what is happening today.
The Liberals continue to move ahead with the carbon tax and the second carbon tax, putting punishment on the backs of Canadians and achieving nothing. Emissions have gone up under the government. At the 2005 level, we were at 732 megatonnes. We needed to get to 519 and now we are at 819. They are not achieving their targets and keep putting bills like this in place, talking about sustainability, the environment and creating jobs. They are not actually achieving that.
Sarnia—Lambton has a huge oil and gas sector, but it knows how to do a transition and is doing a transition. It is creating good-paying, sustainable jobs like the ones at Origin Materials, a net-zero plastics plant in my riding. My riding has one of the largest solar facilities in North America. There is a whole bio-innovation centre that is growing different kinds of bio-facilities that are all either carbon sinks or carbon-neutral. These are the kinds of actual solutions and actions we need. That is not what is in Bill C-50. It is a plan to get a plan with nothing else. For that reason, I will not be supporting Bill C-50.
1396 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague, the great member for Foothills, who is from the great province of Alberta.
Before I get started, let me give another shout-out to another fellow Albertan, another colleague in this House who has done incredible work on this unjust legislation, the member for Lakeland. She has been an absolute advocate not only for our province but also for our world-class and world-leading energy sector.
The world needs more clean, responsible low-carbon energy. Not only does the world need Canada's world-class energy, but Canadians need it too. They need it not only to heat their homes, keep the lights on and fuel their vehicles, but for the economic benefit it brings.
After eight years of the incompetent Liberal-NDP government, it is just not worth the cost for Canadians or our resource sector. Canada is last among developed countries for GDP per capita growth. Canadians are suffering with the worst GDP per capita growth rate since the Great Depression, or since the 1930s. GDP per person in Canada today is just under what it was halfway through 2018. That means Canada has had five years' worth of economic productivity wiped out.
According to the OECD, Canada will remain last among developed countries for GDP per capita growth through 2060. The government has been doing one thing really well, which is chasing investment out of our country. As our leader once said, all of our exes are running away to Texas.
The costly Liberal-NDP coalition has not just been chasing investment out of our country, but chasing out jobs, people and talent as well. People do not want to move to this country because they do not see a future here anymore. When my family came here as immigrants, there was a hope in Canada that if one put in hard work, one would be able to see the fruits of that labour. However, after years of the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister, all that hope has been wiped away by bad economic policy that has told the world that Canada is not open for business anymore.
This unjust legislation would further hurt Canada's economy and reputation on the world stage, as if the Prime Minister's reputation has not already damaged Canada enough.
The Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada was formed just a few years ago to advocate against the government's anti-competitive and antiworker policies. Now half of its manufacturer members have already moved or are moving their operations out of Canada.
The green industry in Canada will not even make a dent in the kind of economic development and growth needed for recovery. In 2007, the clean-tech sector was 3% of Canada's GDP. Today, even after billions and billions of tax dollars and government subsidies and billions more in private sector investment, it is still only 3%, and 1.6% of employment.
Despite the anti-energy agenda by the Liberal-NDP government, the unconstitutional “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, the tanker ban bill, Bill C-48, cancelling Energy East, cancelling Keystone XL and not building any of the 18 LNG projects proposed when the Prime Minister took office, Canada's energy sector still represents 10% of our GDP and, with the related manufacturing that comes with it, contributes over $120 billion to our economy. Canada needs its energy sector to be strong to attract businesses, investments and jobs in order to get our economic growth and productivity back on track.
The Liberal-NDP government loves nothing more than to vilify profit or the success of large Canadian industries. When it comes to Canada's energy sector, it is like a sport for the left to see who can hate it the most. There is a big cost to these failed Liberal-NDP policies, these anti-energy and anti-Canada policies. These attacks will throw at least 170,000 people out of work across the country, many of them in my home province of Alberta and many in my riding of Calgary Forest Lawn. They will displace another 450,000 workers and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians in all provinces and sectors, regardless of whether they are working class or middle class.
We know that people would lose jobs with the unjust transition the left is proposing. We already saw it in Ontario under Kathleen Wynne with the green energy program, which killed off nearly 100,000 jobs directly. The 50,000 green jobs those Liberals promised to create never materialized. In Alberta, the Rachel Notley NDP, in 2015, implemented a just transition, and in small mining towns like Hanna, just north of Calgary, workers were promised new green jobs once their coal mining jobs were wiped out. Just as in Ontario, over 1,000 workers left town because the jobs that had been promised were not there. This was in a town of just under 3,000 people, and 1,000 were driven out of work and out of town.
The sheer number of job losses we are talking about on a national scale is devastating, especially at a time when Canadians face a cost of living crisis. Sixty per cent of Canadians are choosing cheaper, less nutritious food because they cannot afford healthy options. Millions of Canadians are visiting food banks as families choose between keeping a roof over their head and keeping food on the table. Nearly a third of mortgage holders are concerned they will not be able to afford their mortgage, as interest rates could increase monthly payments by 40% or higher.
It is not just the jobs, livelihoods and communities that suffer when the Liberal-NDP government attacks our energy industry. It is also hurting Canadian pensions. The Canadian pension plan and Ontario pension plan invest billions in Canada's oil and gas sector because they know it is a good return on investment. In fact, seven of the largest pension funds in Canada remain invested in Canadian oil and gas. By firing energy workers and attacking our world-class energy sector, the Liberal-NDP coalition is attacking the retirement security of Canadian seniors and workers.
There is a huge impact of this unjust transition on communities and Canadians. There is nothing fair, equitable or remotely just in this blatant anti-energy attack. The Liberal-NDP government, with its war on Canadian jobs and paycheques, is not worth the cost. Canadian energy companies provide good-paying jobs, even good union jobs, for Canadians.
As an example, the Keystone XL pipeline project was to employ 1,400 direct and 5,400 indirect jobs in Alberta alone. The province and TC Energy partnered with Natural Law Energy, an indigenous-led and indigenous-run company. Many of the Canadians who worked on the project were indigenous. The economic benefit for Albertans in surrounding rural communities kept people employed and businesses running.
Canadian energy companies are also leaders in the investment and development of clean technology. Seventy-five per cent of private sector investment in clean technology comes from the oil and gas sector.
Canada's energy sector contributes $48 billion in taxes and royalties to all levels of government. These continuous attacks on our energy sector drive up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We do not need to go very far to ask a Canadian about that. We have talked to Canadians all across this country who just last winter were hit with the failed policies of the Liberal-NDP government when we saw the cost of heating homes double and saw gas prices at record levels. All of these things are contributing to the cost of living crisis we see today with the failed carbon tax scam that the Liberal-NDP government continues to introduce.
It was not like this before the Liberal-NDP government and it will not be like that after the Liberal-NDP government, because when the member for Carleton becomes prime minister of this country, we are going to bring it home. Conservatives will bring home energy production to Canada to produce energy here and create jobs to get Canadians good paycheques instead of giving dollars to dictators. We will green-light green projects like tidal water, hydro, hydrogen and LNG. We are going to make sure that we support our seniors by axing the failed carbon tax to bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating and bring home lower prices. We are going to bring it home for Canadians.
1440 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-320, a bill that makes a fairly significant statement. I truly believe that it does not matter what side of the House a member sits on as we all recognize that, whenever a crime is committed, there is a victim, whether it is collectively or individually. We want to be there in a very real and tangible way to support victims.
When I look at Bill C-320, I see a bill that moves us forward in being more transparent, and ultimately more accountable, through providing supports directly to victims. I do not say that lightly because I have had experiences, while I was an MLA a number of years ago in the mid-nineties, where I had the opportunity to participate in a youth justice committee.
For those who are not aware, youth justice committees were an alternative to young people having to go to formal court. I found out something very quickly when young people came before the committee, which in my case was based in a community in the northwest end of the city of Winnipeg. We were classified as honorary parole officers of sorts, and we listened to cases involving anything from shoplifting and automobile theft to some cases of minor assault types of situations. What I found was that, the more we gained experience as a justice committee, the stronger our desire to incorporate victims.
I believe that at the time we were one of the first justice committees looking for restorative justice. In that case, having restorative justice meant that we had young offenders sitting down to work out some sort of a disposition with us along with the victim. We felt that that was a good alternative to having the victim outside of the process. Rather, the victim was on the inside of the process, able to contribute to the disposition of an individual, a young person in the community, to ensure that justice was being served. What I found in a couple of the cases that I was able to participate in was that there was a much higher sense of relief in different ways, in part by the victim.
Since the mid-nineties, I have always had an interest in how we can support victims of crimes. The types of crimes that are out there are obviously exceptionally wide in the spectrum. The ones that have a strong element of violence against a person are, from my point of view, the most offensive. I am more sympathetic to having victim's rights being looked after.
When I look at Bill C-320, what I see are amendments to the CCRA that would require Correctional Services Canada and the Parole Board of Canada to provide victims with an explanation of how dates were calculated initially and at each time there is a change. I think that is the core of the content of the legislation that we are talking about today.
When I think of what we have done as a government to support victims, there are a couple of things that I want to highlight. Whenever we think of the role that the government plays, one can talk about legislation but I would also suggest that one can talk about budgetary measures.
For example, budget 2021 proposed to provide just over $85 million, over five years, to support a national program for independent legal advice and independent legal representation for victims of sexual assault and to support pilot projects for victims of intimate partner violence. I believe this demonstrates that the government is looking at supporting victims in a very tangible way.
I have seen legislation that we have passed that makes it easier for the victim; when a perpetrator goes before a parole board, the victim does not have to appear in order to present what had taken place, thereby making them a victim once again.
As a government, we have acted on budgetary measures and legislative measures to be able to protect the interests of victims.
Through the victims fund, we have made more than $28 million available to provincial and territorial governments and non-governmental organizations to increase awareness and knowledge of victim issues, legislation and available services.
The bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I believe that this disclosure of an offender's parole eligibility dates to the victims also includes the explanation of how such dates would be determined. This is consistent with what that the government has been doing, from a budget process and a legislative process previously.
The government is committed to supporting victims of crime and their families. Their right to information about the individuals who have harmed them should be respected at all stages of the corrections and conditional release process.
This disclosure of information to victims provides transparency and accountability.
We have seen legislation pass when we believed that it would receive unanimous support. I believe that this piece of legislation has wide support, possibly from all political parties in the chamber.
I hope that the mover of the legislation would be open, as the government is when it brings forward legislation that goes to committee, to possible amendments.
I reflect back on Bill C-48, which was dealing with the whole issue of parole and bail hearings, in particular the importance of having the reverse onus in specific areas of proof. I witnessed during the debates of that legislation an overwhelming desire to see it ultimately pass. It received unanimous consent.
I do believe that a vast majority of, if not all, members realize the importance of more accountability and transparency in protecting the victims of crimes. That is why I feel very comfortable in wanting to see this bill go to committee.
970 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to give our hon. colleague an opportunity to correct himself. I believe he is standing up talking on Bill C-48 and the topic today is Bill C-49.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, public safety is an issue that is important to each and every member of the House and one which I have heard about from my constituents. This is why I am proud that our government is implementing reforms to the bail system that would help keep repeat offenders off of the street.
Bill C-48, which passed the House last week and is moving swiftly through the Senate, creates a reverse onus for repeat offenders and those accused of crimes with a firearm and a knife.
It examines the onus on those accused of intimate partner violence and requires the courts to consider whether an accused person has a history of convictions involving violence when making a bail order. This bill was crafted responsibly, with input from all relevant stakeholders, and has the supports of provincial and territorial leaders.
It sends a strong message that judges ought to seriously consider the public safety risks posed by repeat offenders at the bail stage.
This bill is just one of a suite of measures that our government has introduced to protect the public from violent offenders and to ensure the people of the Sault and all across this country are safe on the streets.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my apologies, but I have a very difficult time believing the sincerity of the government with this bill, and that is a result of its constant retaliation against the natural resources sector. We saw this with Bill C-48. We also saw this with Bill C-69. We have seen this with the endless carbon tax after carbon tax, as well as with emissions standards, which the government forced industry to meet. This results in a larger mental health crisis among industry workers and higher suicide rates. Perhaps it is even fuelling the opioid crisis.
With a $41-billion deficit and $2.1 trillion of debt across Canada, and with oil and gas making up 7.5% of the GDP, how are the Liberals going to replace the funds in the coffers from a dying industry that they have killed at a time when they are also overspending?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate today of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act, interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders, which was passed in the Senate this past April.
I think all members would agree that the objective of Bill S-205 is laudable. The proposed amendments aim to better protect victims of intimate partner violence, which is the most common form of police-reported violent crime against women, particularly against indigenous women and increasingly against those who have other intersecting identities. Overall, the government supports the bill, as I believe its objective is important. However, as I will discuss further below, I am concerned about some of the proposed changes.
Bill S-205 seeks to address the issue of intimate partner violence through changes to the bail and peace bond regimes in the Criminal Code and by making consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In particular, Bill S-205 would require courts, prior to making a bail order for an offence involving actual, threatened or attempted violence against an intimate partner, to ask prosecutors if the victim had been consulted about their safety and security needs. The courts would also be required to ask the prosecutor whether victims have been informed of their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court.
Bill S-205 would also expand the existing intimate partner violence reverse onus for bail so that it would apply not only to accused who were previously convicted but also to those previously discharged, conditional or absolute, for an intimate partner violence offence. The government has done this exact change in Bill C-48, which received unanimous consent in the House earlier this week, and I hope will pass the Senate very quickly. In a reverse onus situation, the accused has the responsibility to demonstrate that detention in custody while awaiting trial is not justified. In addition, Bill S-205 would require a justice to consider, on request by the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release.
Earlier this year, Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, violence against an intimate partner, received royal assent. My colleague, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, brought forward that important legislation, and I was very proud to support it. The bill also included a provision related to electronic monitoring that could apply in cases involving intimate partner violence.
Bill S-205 would undo this change, which is one of my concerns. Undoing my colleague's bill would mean that, if this bill were passed, electronic monitoring would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases and not just in cases involving violence against an intimate partner, as is now the case because of the changes enacted through Bill C-233. This is something that we would need to review at committee to ensure that the two pieces of legislation work together.
Last, the bill would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence with a duration of up to two years, or three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence. I want to reiterate that I support the objective of this bill, but I believe the changes should be considered by the status of women committee to better align the proposed amendment with its objective.
These changes could also minimize the potential for unintended negative impacts on groups who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system and ensure coherence with the existing criminal law. For instance, the requirements for courts to ask if an intimate partner has been consulted about their safety and security is duplicative of existing provisions. The Criminal Code already requires courts to take into consideration the safety of any victim of an alleged offence when crafting a bail order and to include in the court record a statement that they did so. Duplicating provisions always carries the concern of creating confusion with prosecutors and judges, and we want to avoid that at all costs.
Other concerns centre around the proposed amendments regarding electronic monitoring. As I mentioned, Bill C-233 amended the Criminal Code to explicitly provide that a court consider the imposition of electronic monitoring as a condition of release for an accused charged with an offence involving the use, attempt or threat of violence against their intimate partner. In contrast, the current provisions of Bill S-205 would explicitly list electronic monitoring as an optional condition for any offence, which has much broader application. If we want to focus on protecting victims of intimate partner violence, we need to be clear about the intention on whom the courts should be focusing on for use of electronic monitoring.
Available data shows that the poverty rate for indigenous people living off reserve and for racialized individuals far exceeds that of non-indigenous and non-racialized populations. I am worried that this broad application of electronic monitoring will negatively impact these groups who, as we know, are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
There is also cause for concern that should electronic monitoring be explicitly added to the Criminal Code as a potential condition for release on bail, it could become more routinely imposed, even in cases where it may not be warranted.
For these reasons, I do not support the electronic monitoring changes as drafted in Bill S-205. I am, however, generally supportive of the changes to enact a peace bond specific to intimate partner violence. At the same time, I see ways in which this provision can be improved.
For example, consideration should be given to amending the provision that states who may apply for the peace bond. Currently, the provision is drafted so that the person who fears that injury would be caused to them, or their children, can apply for the peace bond. I believe that it might be more appropriate to broaden this so that anyone can apply, for example, a police officer.
I also think it is worth considering whether the proposed duration, conditions and procedures of the new peace bond should be amended so that they are consistent with peace bonds already contained in our Criminal Code.
About a month ago, our government called gender-based violence an epidemic, as have a number of municipalities, including my own in the city of Toronto. It is important that we work to combat gender-based violence in all its forms, including intimate partner violence.
I know that we are all committed to taking action to address intimate partner violence. This was demonstrated by the passing of my colleague's bill, Bill C-233.
I look forward to working with all parliamentarians to continue advancing this important objective, while remaining mindful of the unintended consequences some provisions of this bill may cause.
1170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I send my congratulations to our colleague across the way for his promotion.
In light of the government's record of being crime rate deniers, it is a relief to see it reversing one of the many measures implemented in Bill C-75, but I was particularly interested in the aspect of firearms making the potential for bail even more unlikely.
Specifically, on October 31 of this year, tens of thousands of people across Canada are going to become paper criminals because they have not handed in their AR-15, although they legally own them. Because these violations involve a firearm and it is a criminal offence, I am wondering where they are going to put all the tens of thousands of people who become criminals on October 31 because they legally own an AR-15.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond Hill.
This being my first time rising in my new role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I hope members will indulge me for a moment. I want to thank the Prime Minister for placing his confidence in me. I want to say how much I look forward to working with our newly minted Minister of Justice, who is my friend and colleague, and in whom I have great faith.
I also want to reflect on some personal matters and how I arrived in this position today. I have been very lucky in my life to have a number of mentors. I think of my spouse, Deirdre, who could not be here today.
When I was called to the bar in Ontario in 1996, the Hon. Allan Rock was the minister of justice. He served as a role model to me throughout my career.
I think of my mother, who was engaged in politics her whole life and who taught me more about this process than anybody I have known. I think of my late father, who sat on the Supreme Court of Ontario for 26 years, from whom I learned more about life and law than any other person in the world.
I practised law for 20 years before I took on this role, and I could not be more proud. I will do my best. I commit to the House, colleagues on all sides, to do my best, to listen and to learn from all members.
With that background, I could not be happier to be starting my first day with this bill, something as important as Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code, bail reform.
This bill is an essential step in addressing growing concerns relating to how the bail system deals with repeat violent offenders involving the use of weapons, offending involving the use of firearms, and offending involving repeat intimate partner violence. The Government of Canada is unwavering in its commitment to ensure that our criminal laws, including our bail regime, keep all people in Canada safe.
I do not think I am alone in asserting that Canada is, for the most part, a very safe country. However, recent acts of violence have shaken the public's confidence in community safety. We stand, on this side of the House, and in all of the House, I dare say, wholeheartedly with Canadians, and I assure everyone we take threats on public safety very seriously.
The premiers of all the provinces and territories support Bill C-48. Police associations across our nation support Bill C-48. I was so pleased to see the Conservatives today stand up a short time ago to join us in support of this bill today, and I thank them for that.
I want to acknowledge the people who are most likely to be victims of violence in this country. Data shows that women are at a greater risk of being victims of violent crime than men. In 2019, the rate of violent victimization among women was nearly double that of men.
Further, indigenous women are especially vulnerable and reported an overall rate of violent victimization that was double that of non-indigenous women. Women with a disability are also at a higher and greater risk as they are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime as compared to women who do not have a disability.
Protecting victims, promoting community safety and reinforcing public confidence in the administration of justice are of paramount importance. This is why the criminal justice system includes mechanisms to support these objectives, including the strong bail system. Our government, as I said, is committed to upholding public safety by addressing the root causes of crime and holding criminals to account.
I have pages and pages of notes here. I was going to chastise the Conservatives for not supporting this bill today, but they pulled the rug right out from under me.
I do want to pause to reflect on something for a moment. I think it is important when we are speaking about any piece of legislation and in particular one that is so critical, vital and important to this one, that we have to tone down the rhetoric.
Making these absolute statements that people know to be false is not productive. They are not true, and they undermine the confidence of Canadians in our justice system, which is one of the best in the world. I am asking my colleagues, on all sides of the House, to please stop it.
We recognize that there is a need for legislative and non-legislative action to ensure that our bail system operates as intended in all cases.
The legislative part of the solution falls under federal responsibility, which is why the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-48 to propose targeted Criminal Code amendments that aim to reinforce the bail system. We are pleased to have the support of all 13 premiers.
The bill proposes the creation of a new reverse onus for accused persons who are charged with a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon where they have been previously convicted of an offence with the same criteria within the past five years. This would make it harder for accused persons who have a history of repeat, violent offending to obtain bail.
This bill also proposes to strengthen the existing intimate partner violence reverse onus provision to apply not only to those who have a past conviction but also to those who have a past discharge for intimate partner violence. This amendment recognizes the potential elevated risk of reoffending for accused persons who have a history of intimate partner violence related offences. It also aims to address the risk accused persons may pose to public safety, especially for their intimate partners and other family members, including each partner's children, should they be released.
The bill would also require courts to consider if the accused person's criminal record includes any past convictions for violent offending and to include on the record a statement that they considered the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence when making a bail order. The latter amendment further emphasizes the need to consider the impact of release not only on victims but also on the community.
Given the higher rates of victimization among indigenous people, especially in remote locations, considering community safety and security when contemplating the released of accused persons on bail is especially important. This becomes clear when one considers the recent case from Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation.
The government is committed to changing our nation's bail regime without causing undue harm to communities that are already overrepresented in pretrial detention and in our criminal justice system more generally. These communities include indigenous and Black accused persons and accused persons from vulnerable groups, such as individuals with mental health and addiction issues.
A safe Canada is in everyone's best interest. It is beneath all of us to suggest anyone in this place disagrees. I hope my colleagues across the aisle acknowledge our common goal, and I look forward to working with them, not just on this bill, but on many going forward.
1228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, ultimately, we are dealing with an approach to dealing with criminality. When the approach is to do the least amount necessary, that is what ends up happening. The least amount is done in response to egregious acts of criminality.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Before I begin, I just want to recognize a constituent who passed away, Ms. Anna Russo. I know that she leaves behind a daughter, Pina Russo. Her daughter Susie Russo, who was beloved in the Italian community, predeceased her. I send my condolences to the family.
My question to my hon. colleague is this: The member for Vancouver Kingsway just mentioned that people can be detained on their record. I recently spoke to a prosecutor who told me that somebody was in court for a bail hearing with 12 open files. Would my colleague agree that this is out of control, given those circumstances, and that we are not just dealing with one or two times of repeat offenders?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the concern is over the philosophy of catch-and-release.
It is a term we usually use when fishing. However, it has come to mean someone being arrested, sometimes for a violent crime, early in the day, then the police seeing that person going down the street in the afternoon, and they end up arresting them for another crime. Then the police see that person in the evening, and there they are again arresting them for something they have done with criminal intent.
This idea of catch-and-release, this endless revolving door, does not work. There is no deterrence at all in a system like that when we are talking about people prone to violence, when we are talking people who would attack with chains and concrete blocks, who stab strangers at public events. This is destroying confidence in our justice system.
At the end of the day, the federal government has control over the Criminal Code, over sentencing and how this should go forward.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member did a great job in her speech of going through the litany of what has unravelled in our criminal justice system under the current government.
During the debate, the Liberals are stepping back, as if they have had nothing to do with the problem that needs to be fixed, and they are taking credit for just following the recommendations the provinces made on bail reform.
Could the member take a moment to again reinforce the extent to which specific actions the Liberal government has undertaken over the last eight years have brought us to where we are today?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the reference to the horrific murder outside the Starbucks is about the rise in violent crime generally in Canada, and in my province of British Columbia, which we see unfortunately playing out, including on social media where people, and it is hard to even say, tape and send the videos out of actual murders of Canadian citizens.
That was one such situation. It is horrific. It has been brought about by an overall attitude of the Liberals and NDP in their coalition that is soft on crime and that does not deal with the most prolific repeat violent offenders. That is who we want to see targeted in our Criminal Code legislation. We will take the steps to do what is needed to get that job done.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was pretty wide-ranging and touched on a number of things. It contributed to the debate, but in some cases it did not.
We are talking about bail conditions and how we deal with people who commit crimes on bail. The member raised the tragedy outside the Starbucks in Vancouver, where Mr. Schmidt was knifed to death. However, that was by a person who was not out on bail, so I am not sure what that has to do with the legislation that is under consideration.
The current bail law in this country is that bail can be denied when an accused's criminal record is taken into account, particularly if they have failed to comply with past bail conditions or court orders. It is the law now that bail can be denied by a judge if someone has failed to comply with bail conditions in the past or if they have a repeat criminal record.
Could the member explain to us why she thinks the current law is not sufficient to keep those people in jail pending their trial, when that is the law right now?
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let me first echo the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in response to the news earlier today and offer my sincerest condolences to the family of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was murdered near my home in Surrey.
Crime, chaos and disorder is the Prime Minister's legacy after eight years. This is the direct result of his dangerous soft-on-crime policies. Canadians' lives and sense of security are being destroyed in record numbers by criminals who should never have been out roaming the streets in the first place. Canadians are not feeling safe in their communities, on public transit, at public events or in coffee shops. They are rightly worried that they may be the next victim of the Prime Minister's crime wave.
The government's own statistics illustrate a stark reality. Violent crime has gone up 39%. Gang-related homicides are up 108%. Sex crimes against children are up 126%. Gun crime has increased every year and is up over 100% since 2015. The Prime Minister's response is to go after law-abiding hunters.
Across the country, murders are up 43%, the highest rate in 30 years. In Vancouver alone, murders have gone up 55%, and firearms-related offences are up 22%. In the last seven months alone, eight police officers were killed in the line of duty. There were eight in seven months. These statistics are alarming. We in the federal government, charged with national security, can never forget that they are more than statistics. These are real crimes happening to real people, with devastating consequences.
There are commuters carjacked at gunpoint, students lit on fire on the bus, teenagers stabbed at the subway and executions in the street, parking lots and driveways. This crime wave is a direct result of Liberal legislation passed, which was sponsored by the most radical minister of justice in Canadian history, the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. His bill broke the bail system. Where is he now? He is no longer in cabinet. Under his bill, Bill C-75, the catch-and-release act, violent offenders are arrested, then released on a promise that they will appear in court. They then commit another offence within hours. They have time and opportunity to commit crimes literally morning, afternoon and evening.
Take Vancouver, for example. As my colleague just mentioned, the same 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in a single year. That is 150 arrests each. Last year in Toronto, there were 17 gun-related murders committed by violent criminals out on bail. This summer in Edmonton, a father of seven children was stabbed in the chest, murdered at a transit station. Again, the accused was out on bail. The crime wave is evident in B.C. as it is elsewhere. In Surrey last April, a 17-year-old boy named Ethan Bespflug was stabbed and killed on a bus. A few days later, a young man was stabbed on the SkyTrain. In August, a man was shot in the face at a Surrey bus stop.
Recently, at Vancouver's Light Up Chinatown! festival, meant to bring the community together, a man who previously had murdered his teenage daughter by stabbing her stabbed three people. Last Thursday, Vancouver police arrested a man for four assaults committed in the span of 45 minutes. He used a chain and a concrete block.
One of the most horrific incidents in downtown Vancouver was last March. It was videotaped and shown on social media. A man standing outside a Starbucks was brutally and senselessly attacked, stabbed to death in front of his wife and daughter in broad daylight. We are talking about mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbours.
Sadly, the urgency of this crime wave seems to be lost on the new Minister of Justice. Just days after he was sworn in, he said, “'I think that empirically it's unlikely” Canada is becoming less safe. He is in complete denial of the dangerous reality on the streets. He is telling victims of crime and Canadians who are rightly concerned, many living every day in fear, that it is all in their heads. Even by Liberal standards this was a ridiculous statement. Frankly, he should apologize for it.
For Liberal elites in their ivory towers, understanding the reality Canadians are facing in our communities is a difficult concept. I am pleased to see that the Liberals have finally woken up and are paying some attention to the heinous violence committed by criminals on bail. They should be listening to the experience of frontline law enforcement officers.
Constable Shaelyn Yang was tragically and senselessly stabbed to death while on duty by a man who was arrested for assault and out on bail on the condition that he would appear in court. He failed to appear. A warrant was issued for his rearrest, and when Constable Yang found him living in a park in Burnaby, he murdered her.
The case of Constable Yang is sadly not isolated. Last December, Constable Greg Pierzchala was shot and killed in the line of duty. The accused was out on bail, had a lengthy criminal record, including assaulting a peace officer, and was the subject of a lifetime firearm prohibition. Did I mention that he was shot?
Following this despicable murder, all 13 premiers wrote a joint letter to the Prime Minister demanding urgent action. Finally, after public blowback, the united call for change from the premiers and fierce criticism in the House from the Conservatives, the Liberals have admitted that they broke the bail system.
Today the Liberals have brought forward Bill C-48. We should all support this bill because it imposes a reverse onus on certain firearms offences and requires courts to consider the violent history of an accused. This is the reason the Conservatives asked for unanimous consent to pass this bill today. The NDP initially denied consent but has since agreed with the Conservatives that this bill should be passed today at all stages.
It is our view that Bill C-48 is a good start but still falls short, and a Conservative government will take steps to strengthen it. The legislation in its current form ignores several key recommendations put forward by the premiers, including the creation of a definition within the Criminal Code for serious prolific offenders and to initiate a thorough review of Canada's bail system.
Under Bill C-48, the accused killer of OPP Constable Pierzchala and countless other repeat violent offenders would have still been released back into the community. Under pressure from the Conservatives, the Liberals have now proposed a partial fix to an obviously broken bail system. The Conservatives can be counted on to fight for common-sense, thorough and meaningful improvements when we form government. It remains doubtful that the dangerous NDP-Liberal coalition will ever put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals.
Last year, this coalition passed Bill C-5, removing mandatory prison time for serious crimes, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, drug trafficking and the production of heroin, crystal meth or fentanyl. Bill C-5 also expanded the use of house arrest for several offences, including criminal harassment, kidnapping and sexual assault.
Thanks to NDP and Liberal MPs, those who commit sexual assault can serve their sentence at home in the same community as their victim. Think about that. The Liberals and the NDP would rather be on the side of violent men than their female victims. There is perhaps no greater example of this than the case of Paul Bernardo, a notorious serial rapist and killer of teenage girls. The Liberals allowed that monster to be transferred out of maximum security and into medium security over the objections of the victims' families. We brought a motion to the House calling for Bernardo to be returned to maximum security but Liberal members denied consent.
All of this is proof that the Liberal Party and its partners in the NDP cannot be counted on to protect victims or to restore safe streets. For that, we need a change in government. A common-sense Conservative government will bring home desperately needed safety to our streets, and we will do it by ensuring that prolific offenders remain behind bars while awaiting trial. The days of catch and release will be over.
After eight years, crime, chaos and disorder in our streets is the new normal. It should never be normal. Conservatives know we have a lot of work ahead, but we will fix our broken bail system and bring back safety to our communities.
1456 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention, but today we are talking about provisions in the federal Criminal Code, which can be changed to make things better.
I will make a plea to those who are watching in my own riding. I have never in my entire life growing up in my community, in the city of Toronto, taking transit, been afraid until this year. I have rattled off the incidents and I could not even get through it. I know that is how people at home feel. I know that is, in large part, due to the soft-on-criminal-justice policies that the current Liberals have enacted in this country.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not want the member to give the impression that crime did not exist during the Harper and Conservative governments. I was a justice critic in Manitoba when we had serious issues with automobile thefts. It was the highest per capita in the whole country. I think there were close to 12,000 in one year. At the end of the day, we have to recognize that it is not just Ottawa. Our justice system is a shared responsibility, and it took the province to take action in order to get rid of some of those issues. I wonder if she can provide her thoughts on this. Instead of blaming Ottawa for all these problems, does she not recognize that the provinces and territories also have a role to play?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
