It is an honour to rise in the House this afternoon and join this debate to speak about the importance and the urgency of moving forward with the motion, government order 35. I’m proud to speak as the member for Durham in this regard and to speak in support of the government’s motion.

As my colleague the Solicitor General stated in this House, one of our most fundamental responsibilities as members of provincial Parliament is to preserve law and order in our society, and that’s because when we have safe communities, we have everything. As a new parliamentarian but also a veteran trial lawyer before our courts, as a citizen, as a family man, Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with that statement by the Solicitor General. It pains me to say that far too many innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of dangerous, violent criminals who should have been behind bars and not freely roaming our streets.

So I’m proud to stand here with my colleagues and pay tribute to the brave men and women of law enforcement who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty to protect all of us and our way of life.

I salute Constable Andrew Hong of the Toronto Police Service, Constable Morgan Russell and Constable Devon Northrup of the South Simcoe Police Service and Constable Greg Pierzchala of the Ontario Provincial Police.

I salute Constable Shaelyn Yang of the RCMP, Constable Travis Jordan and Constable Brett Ryan of the Edmonton Police Service and Maureen Breau of the Sûreté du Québec.

But I also salute the thousands of families and individuals—innocent Canadians who have been victimized by senseless acts of violence because perpetrators were released on bail while awaiting trial. We mourn the loss of all Canadians, of all of our fellow citizens affected by this and are deeply saddened that in recent months our leaders have had to give tribute after tribute to honour our fallen too many times. With each victim, the public is losing confidence in our justice system, a justice system that is meant to protect us.

Speaker, let’s be clear what we are voting on. Despite the initial amendment proposed by the member for Toronto Centre, there is government order 35, which states clearly and simply, based on the unanimous resolution from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy: “This House calls on the federal government to immediately reform the Criminal Code of Canada to address the dangers facing our communities and implement meaningful bail reform to prevent violent and repeat offenders from being released back into our communities.” And the intent of government order 35 is to protect all Canadians, including the vulnerable Canadians referenced in the amendment proposed by the member for Toronto Centre. It’s a redundant amendment, because “all Canadians” includes everybody.

The intent of government order 35 is to protect us all, because everyone who faces a violent offender with a firearm is vulnerable. There is no equality when facing such a criminal. So this is to protect all Canadians who face that. Who will it be next? A member of our own families? One of us in this House? Another police officer? Someone innocently shopping at one of our local plazas? One is too many. One more is too many.

The member for London North Centre speaks about this apparent approach where 20% do reoffend while on bail. That’s what he didn’t say when he mentioned the 80% who apparently don’t. That’s what we’re talking about, those rare cases. It reminded me to state before this House that I come here as a new parliamentarian, but I also, in my practice as a trial lawyer, acted as duty counsel for our fellow citizens, stood up for those accused of crime, serious crime sometimes, but “accused” because we all know that the charter protects the presumption of innocence. We all know that an accusation is not proof.

But when we look at the charter, consider these sections. Consider section 11(d), which guarantees the presumption of innocence. What sequentially follows is section 11(e) of the charter: No one shall “be denied reasonable bail without just cause.” Consider that. That is the right that’s guaranteed in the charter. That right is in the context of section 1, which guarantees that right not as an absolute, but as written. As written, it is “reasonable bail without just cause.” That is what cannot be denied.

That doesn’t mean that everyone gets out. That doesn’t mean we ignore the 20% who reoffend violently while out. That doesn’t mean they’re not presumed innocent until trial, but they will not be allowed to get out before trial, because they are a danger to public safety, because it’s not reasonable to allow them out. In fact, it is reasonable, there is just cause, to allow them to be detained. Because section 1, in guaranteeing all rights in the charter, states very clearly, these rights are guaranteed subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law ... demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

If one of our fellow citizens is threatened with violence, all of us are not free. That is why there is a balance in the charter. That is why there is a balance that guarantees reasonable bail, not bail for everyone, not for violent offenders.

The federal Liberal government is largely responsible for this unfortunate situation because it is the federal government that tabled amendments to the Criminal Code—the federal Liberal government supported now by the NDP. The federal Liberal government brought us Bill C-75, amendments to the Criminal Code that watered down the reasonable bail conditions that already existed. The problems that we’ve faced, the violence that we’ve faced, the dangers that we face, the loss of life that we’ve faced is directly attributable to these amendments from five years ago tabled by the federal Liberal government.

The solution is there for them to take action to repeal what they brought in, and we urge the NDP, His Majesty’s loyal opposition in this House, to support our motion, government order 35, unanimously to send a message to their federal counterparts to stop propping up a Liberal government that won’t take action to keep our communities safe and strike the right balance between innocent Canadians, innocent law enforcement officers and the rights of those accused of crime.

Consider what we’re voting on. Consider how we can only do so much. We are at this stage because of the leadership of Premier Ford, who galvanized support across the country, leading every other Premier of every other province and territory to urge the federal justice minister, to urge the federal government to act swiftly to stop the senseless violence, the loss of life; to stop the continued undermining of the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.

I happened to be taught in my years in law school by Professor Louise Arbour, who went on to be appointed to the High Court of Justice, then the Court of Appeal for Ontario and served so ably as a Supreme Court judge. She told our class in criminal procedure, when the charter was new—and she talked about the administration of justice being brought into disrepute. What does that mean? Well, it means that the charter, of course, in guaranteeing the right to presumption of innocence and reasonable bail, is such that—what happens to the public’s confidence when the premise of our system is it’s better that 10 guilty people go free than that one innocent person stays behind bars? That is the premise of our system. That’s the premise of the presumption of innocence. It’s the premise of the right not to be denied reasonable bail, except with just cause. But as Professor Arbour told our class over 30 years ago, what if it’s 50 guilty people that go free and reoffend in the process? What if it’s 100? What if it’s hundreds? The public starts to lose confidence. You can have the principles, but you must address those few violent offenders that have broken the social contract and are undermining the system of justice that we all look to for fairness and balance.

So the member for London North Centre fails, in my respectful submission, in his debate in this House to talk about what a proper balance is. We believe in the presumption of innocence. We believe in reasonable bail. But we don’t believe that that is an absolute. We do not believe that violent offenders who have offended previously should be allowed out while awaiting their trials. It’s as simple as that. The evidence is clear that there’s a connection between the few persons with that kind of history and the loss of life for our fellow Canadians, for our men and women in law enforcement.

What happens now, and the reason that the confidence of the public has been undermined, is that our current bail rules not only allow repeat and violent offenders to recommit serious offences, but they incentivize individual and organized criminal behaviour, because there is no deterrent, and innocent people are caught in the crossfire. How is the public expected to have any confidence in a justice system where the rights of the accused—violent accused persons, though few as they are; and as few as they are, the carnage and the life-changing outcomes that they bring about. Why are their rights outweighing the rights of families and individuals and law enforcement officers? That’s what this motion is about.

Believe me, if we could as a government amend the Criminal Code, we would do it. But the Constitution Act divides responsibilities between two levels of government. Under section 91, only the federal government has jurisdiction over the Criminal Code, so we will take no lessons from the member from London North Centre about what we fail to do. We are doing everything that’s possible for a provincial government to take action, but we actually do need to call upon the federal government to do its job, to legislate in its area of jurisdiction, to repeal the mess it started in 2018 and to take further action. And we are being very specific. The Criminal Code bail rules must be amended to create a reverse onus provision for violent offenders who have committed crimes with firearms—accused but presumed innocent, but nevertheless denied bail because there is just cause, because it is reasonable to deny them bail. That’s what this is about.

So we call on the federal government to take bold action to address this situation, which will only affect a few violent offenders, whether they act individually or whether they’re part of organized crime, to stop them in their tracks, to keep them behind bars to protect the public. That is what we call reasonable limits on charter rights prescribed by law in a free and democratic society, and demonstrably justified as such, because the charter has many rights. It’s about balancing those rights. The very first section of the charter says so.

Our motion and our call to the federal government to implement reverse onus for these few violent offenders when they have firearms and are creating imminent risk to the public—our motion calls upon the government to amend the Criminal Code within its constitutional jurisdiction to do something that is constitutional, that is charter-compliant. We are calling upon the federal government not only to actually legislate in their area of Criminal Code jurisdiction but to legislate in compliance with the supreme law of Canada, because the charter itself does not give an absolute right to bail.

That’s what the member for London North Centre doesn’t seem to understand. There is no absolute right to bail. Specific to violent offenders who put our lives at risk, they can and must have a reverse onus upon them so that they must show cause why they should be released pending trial. That’s the simple amendment. The solution is clear, straightforward and charter-compliant.

Now, many academics, lawyers and police officers have spoken out publicly about this. Many appeared before the committee, and that’s why we have a unanimous motion from the committee on justice policy. We know that the statistics—and I hate to talk about statistics, but it’s to make this point: that it’s only a small number of accused persons who will be affected by this. We know that over the last two years in the city of Toronto, 9% of accused persons already out on bail for firearms offences were rearrested on new firearms-related charges. That equated to 140 people committing new firearms-related offences who should not have been released back into their communities—140 people—but they can do incredible unlimited damage. They can forever end lives; they can forever affect lives—loved ones who will never come home again, be they law enforcement officers or innocent members of the public.

Over the same period, 37% of accused persons charged with shooting-related homicides were out on bail for various offences at the time of the alleged fatal shooting. That equated to 34 people who were out on bail while being involved in a fatal shooting; 15 of those were on bail for a firearms offence. And this is just Toronto, our provincial capital. This is unacceptable. This needs to stop. It is time for the Liberal government in Ottawa, propped up by the NDP, to make the changes to reverse the mistake they made in 2018.

Recently, hundreds of Torontonians took part in a candlelight walk to honour Gabriel, the 16-year-old young man who was fatally stabbed at a Toronto subway station. Like many senseless acts of violence, his is a tragic death and our thoughts are with Gabriel’s family and friends. It is egregious that offenders who have a history of violence, a history of using weapons or being charged with weapons offences, loaded illegal firearms—it is egregious that they are given the right to walk free pending trial. Their charter rights can and will be respected by the motion that is before this House and by the amendments that we urge the federal government to act upon.

We support the action of the city of Toronto in hiring 200 additional police officers to protect our streets and neighbourhoods, and we’ve supported the city’s police service with over $250 million in grants since this government took office. So we are doing all we can as a government. The senseless crime that is and has been unleashed in this city and this province cannot go on. The time for action is now.

To address the member for London North Centre further in his debate—because I listened to what he said. I sat and listened quietly and patiently, but he’s wrong. I urge his colleagues to reject what he said, join us on this side of the House and unanimously support this motion.

He talks about delays. I appeared before the justice committee of the federal Parliament two years ago as a barrister and solicitor before I was elected, and I gave them the simple solution to putting a pause on the Jordan decision that would eliminate what results from the so-called delay he speaks about—an easy solution, but again it is for the federal government to do. Federal inaction by the Liberal government, aided and abetted by the federal NDP, must stop. Let’s have His Majesty’s loyal opposition here, free to do the right thing and to send their own counterparts a message. I urge you, the member for London North Centre and all of the colleagues on the other side, to support this government’s motion.