SoVote

Feb/2/23 5:04:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have worked in the Jane and Finch community, where many programs were funded by the Harper government for community policing, so I beg to differ on that. I acknowledge that our bail system needs to be reformed both for those people who may be overrepresented in it and for the victims of crime.

56 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Feb/2/23 5:05:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my Conservative Party colleague from Lakeland. Not surprisingly, I will be sharing my time, but not the same views. I want to put all this in context. Today is the Conservative Party's opposition day. The motion was moved by the member for Fundy Royal. It is a direct attack on Bill C-75, which was passed in 2019, three years ago already. The Bloc Québécois feels that Bill C-75 is a good bill overall, but there are some flaws. We do not believe that there is such a thing as a perfect bill, to be honest. Eventually, at some point in the future, there will be amendments, additions or deletions made to certain elements of Bill C-75. The day is winding down, and we have been discussing this bill all day. Everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the Conservative motion. Yes, we know there are real problems when it comes to crime, but the solutions proposed by the Conservative Party are not the right ones we need to make the changes that we will eventually have to make. As we have been seeing all day, this bill really gets people fired up. Everyone's emotions are running high, and everyone keeps firing off demands. This bill also opens the door to a lot of misinformation. Certain groups of people hide behind their ideology, which, sadly, has nothing to do with science. Others adopt a more sensationalist approach and, as in the current case, appear to be electioneering. The motion is based on individual cases. All day, we have been hearing about two or three specific cases: murdered police officers and a man accused of rape who is serving his sentence at home. I do not want to downplay these situations, but I do want to point out that these are all individual cases the Conservatives are talking about here today, cases they are using as justification for upsetting the apple cart and going back to square one with Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois is against that. We want to move on, and we will vote against the motion. The Bloc Québécois thinks that there is a bit of bad faith involved in moving this motion and that our Conservative colleagues are trying to create a false sense of security. Repealing Bill C-75 as it was passed is not going to enhance public safety. That is just not true. Let us keep in mind that we are talking about laws, justice and social justice. The Bloc Québécois supports victims. We will always side with the poor and with victims, and we think that, in this case, it is inappropriate to pursue the repeal of Bill C-75. The Bloc Québécois hopes that we can take a sensible, reasonable and balanced approach to such important bills. We are well aware that Bill C-75 is not a cure-all, but it meets a lot of needs. Of all of the misinformation our Conservative colleagues are spreading, there is one allegation that really irks us. They are saying that Bill C-75 requires judges to release violent repeat offenders who can then go out and commit other crimes. That is obviously misinformation, and it is easy to prove it. The Conservatives keep making this argument, but it does not hold water for the Bloc Québécois. It is not true at all. Judges still have the final say in the cases they try. Another thing that is based on misinformation is the presumption that the Canadian justice system puts the rights of violent repeat offenders ahead of the rights of law-abiding Quebeckers and Canadians. That has been repeated all day, but it is totally false. It is clear that the claim that the bail system puts the rights of repeat offenders ahead of the rights of other individuals is a complete falsehood. Another claim that keeps coming up is that the bail system is bad. To us that is a false claim. Bail is a way of finding a balance between the presumption of innocence, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and public safety. That is why we think that statement is false. They are talking about things that do not exist, that are not there, that are purely made up. Again, this is a very delicate exercise. On what are the Conservatives currently basing their claim that we have to take an axe to Bill C‑75? Are they relying on empirical data? No, they did not present any empirical data today, absolutely none. Are they relying on peer-reviewed studies? No, they did not present any such studies today. Of course, we have heard plenty of anecdotes about individual cases. We have been hearing about the same cases all day. However, that does not justify a major reform of a bill like Bill C-75. It is not possible and it is not logical. In a system like ours, to begin with individual points like this and reshuffle the deck would be madness. We could go round in circles forever. Canada has a population of 35 million people. What do these individual cases represent out of 35 million people? I do not want to minimize the cases that have been put forward, but we cannot decide these things based on individual cases. What is both interesting and useful about research and science is that they provide for studies to be done on large numbers of individuals. This is what validates research and why it can be presented and shared with some degree of certainty. Not all research results are perfectly accurate. At times, there are contradictory findings from one study to the next, but overall, this is what can be expected. I want to touch on a couple of pieces of research. Earlier, in a question, my colleague referred to Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Guelph. She is an expert in this area and has spent part of her life studying bail. The findings of her studies, of which there are several, suggest that a tougher approach to bail would not improve public safety. That said, she is just a scientist, just a girl who does research and has spent most of her life studying this topic. Furthermore, Jane Sprott, a professor of criminology at Toronto Metropolitan University, says that there is no reliable way to predict who will commit a violent crime, regardless of the type of crime. She says it would be fiscally irresponsible and unrealistic to increase the number of people in remand. This is related to what we are talking about today. She also states that pre-trial detention hurts a person's chances of not reoffending and their social reintegration. This is obviously contrary to Conservative values. I would also like to share one other small study, but I do not think I will have enough time. Seeing as people are making assertions based on nothing, here is a big one: From 2006 to 2015, while the Conservatives were in power, crime rates dropped. Dig no deeper, and that sounds great. Three cheers for the Conservatives. The problem is that as soon as they lost power, crime rates started going up. Is it fair to say the Liberals were responsible for what happened in that first year or two? No. It takes time for a law—

1291 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 5:15:42 p.m.
Watch

We have to move on to questions and comments. The hon. member will be able to share more information in a bit. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

27 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Feb/2/23 5:15:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I enjoyed. He helped clarify what is going on with the flimsy arguments we have been hearing from the Conservatives all day. He talked about misinformation, especially when it comes to judges' obligations. Does my colleague think judges are performing their duties justly and proportionately?

55 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Feb/2/23 5:16:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, absolutely. I believe in our justice system. It is not perfect, but I believe in it. Judges are not normally appointed overnight. There is a series of steps. There is a selection process. These individuals have a great deal of experience. I have complete confidence in our system.

54 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Feb/2/23 5:16:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I got to know my colleague from the Bloc quite well last year in Europe. However, I would like him to reread the motion. He made a statement that was factually incorrect when he said that our motion is calling for the complete repeal of Bill C-75. The motion does not state that. It states that we want to repeal those aspects that are allowing violent repeat offenders to get out there and commit additional violent crimes and murders. My question is simple enough. Does the member agree the bail system does need reform and, as all the premiers have called for, including the premier of la belle province, we need that reform immediately and it needs to happen now?

123 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Feb/2/23 5:17:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get that question from my colleague. I would like to give an example. I did not have time to do so earlier. The incarceration rate of the United States is the sixth highest in the world. It incarcerates criminals in droves. It incarcerates 505 people per 100,000, compared to 85 per 100,000 in Canada. Are things better in the United States? Is there less violent crime than here in Quebec or in Canada? No, absolutely not. It is increasing. Here is another example. There were 213 mass shootings in the first 145 days of 2022 in the United States. There are shootings in Canada, but we do not see numbers like that, even if you calculate it per capita.

128 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/2/23 5:18:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the bail situation in this country does require examination. I think I speak for all my constituents in saying that we all believe that the protection of the public is paramount in these cases, but equally so is the presumption of innocence. When someone is charged with a crime in our legal system, we must assume they are innocent. The current bail law says that a prosecutor can apply to have a person incarcerated prior to trial if they can establish that the person presents a threat to the public. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can tell us why that is not happening. If, as the Conservatives say, dangerous people are being let out on bail, why is it that prosecutors in this country are unable to demonstrate or persuade a court that those people should not be let out on bail?

148 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Feb/2/23 5:19:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, preventive detention exists. A person can be detained longer if a judge has sufficient grounds to do so. That exists.

22 words

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

Feb/2/23 5:20:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Quebec said in his speech that Conservatives are not putting forward any data. I would ask him to read the motion once again. There is some data put in there. One important fact is that of the 44 firearms-related homicides in the city of Toronto, 24 saw the person charged with the crime being out on a firearms-related bail, so that is a very significant fact. Also, Constable Pierzchala has been mentioned a few times. Could the member comment on the lack of data? He was wrong on that.

97 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Feb/2/23 5:21:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning the numbers. That said, we need to understand what is behind those numbers. We need to understand why bail was granted to people during trial or while awaiting trial. We need to allow time, but we need to see if there are reasonable grounds. When this happens, assessments are made by criminologists to determine whether an individual is dangerous.

65 words

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)

Feb/2/23 5:21:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the current Liberal government's soft-on-crime agenda that perpetuates a catch-and-release revolving door of repeat offenders, the brutal reality is that crime is up and Canadians are less safe. I am grateful to Conservative MPs from every part of Canada who have always been and continue to be steadfast advocates for victims of crime, law-abiding innocent Canadians, and real measures to combat criminals and gangsters while reducing recidivism. I particularly want recognize the work of the members for Fundy Royal and Kildonan—St. Paul for bringing forward this motion today. Five years ago yesterday, I brought forward my private member's motion, Motion No. 167, which called on the Liberals to undertake a comprehensive assessment of factors related to skyrocketing rural crime, which had the highest spike in rural Alberta and was steadily increasing across Canada at the time, and to make it a priority in the House of Commons. Over several months, thousands of Canadians expressed support for Motion No. 167, along with more than a hundred victims advocacy groups, rural crime watch associations and municipalities from all across Canada. Alberta Conservative MPs at the time were actively working with rural constituents, law enforcement and others to highlight growing rural crime and push for action. It was heartening when Motion No. 167 passed with unanimous support from all parties, and I truly believe there was concern and goodwill from all MPs at that time. The motion was wide-ranging. It included important amendments that I accepted from the NDP, and pushed for a deep dive into several factors, including but not limited to rural crime rates and trends; existing RCMP and other policing resources and policies in rural, remote and indigenous communities, particularly in relation to population density, policing geographic area and staff shortages; partnerships with provincial, municipal and indigenous police forces; possible recommendations to improve rural crime prevention and to curb emerging crime rates; measures to increase the tactical and operational effectiveness of indigenous police forces; strategies and resources dedicated to the judicial and rehabilitation systems in rural areas; and improved support for victims of rural crime. What followed was a drawn-out, disappointing and rude awakening. When the final report from the Liberal-dominated public safety committee was dragged out beyond the six-month timeline that the motion set for reporting on real action, to the point that I had to ask the Speaker to get the Liberal-dominated committee just to respond, it then resulted in a report that was three pages long and effectively punted total responsibility over to the provinces, suggesting those governments should simply spend more on emergency response services and dispatch centres. I am mindful of this today as I listen to passionate Conservative colleagues from all over Canada talking about rising crime in their communities: horrific acts of violence on transit in Canada's largest city, the murder of police officers just trying to do their jobs and keep their fellow Canadians safe, neighbourhoods in fear of all-too-regular gangster activity, and shootings with primarily illegally owned and trafficked guns from the U.S. in Canada's major cities from coast to coast. Of course, I think of my own constituents and those of other rural MPs facing record levels of ever more brazen and violent theft and robberies, trespassing, assaults and murders. I think of the compassionate and serious work of colleagues like the MP for St. Albert—Edmonton and the courageous Shelly MacInnis Wynn, who brought forward Wynn's law specifically to close a loophole in bail hearings to mandate that an assailant's criminal history would be disclosed during a bail application, which may have prevented the murder of her husband, Constable David Wynn, who was killed by a career criminal out on bail. The majority of MPs initially supported it, but the Liberals ultimately defeated it. I think of the “no body, no parole” initiative by the MP for Sturgeon River—Parkland, the “life means life” legislation by the MP for Calgary Signal Hill, the bill by the MP for Tobique—Mactaquac to initiate a national recidivism reduction strategy involving all the different organizations that worked to prevent repeat crime, or the constant pressure by the MP for Fundy Royal for the Liberals to appoint the victims ombudsman, an office they left empty with zero urgency for more than a year. The common thing among all those MPs is that they are Conservatives, and there are too many to list for all the good work they have done to advance work to protect victims of crime and innocent Canadians. However, this is the reality after eight years under the Liberals, and now unfortunately their coalition partners and boosters, the NDP: a 32% increase in violent crime across Canada and a shocking, but horribly not surprising, 92% increase in gang-related homicides across Canada. What have the Liberals actually done? They have targeted, demonized and criminalized law-abiding firearms owners, hunters and sport shooters. They have reduced sentences and brought in house arrest for robbery, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging firearms with intent, drive-by shootings, discharging firearms recklessly, using firearms in crimes, possession of illegal firearms or ammunition, possession of weapons obtained by crimes, and all kinds of serious assaults and violent offences. They considerably eased access to bail in Bill C-75, specifically saying that “primary consideration” should be given “to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity”. When Conservatives say this is the wrong direction, the Liberals respond with false and vile accusations, bigotry, and close-mindedness, the usual approach they take to any Canadians who challenge them. Just last month, all 13 premiers from all different regions and different partisan stripes asked for real urgent action to reform the broken bail system, which the Liberals created. The Liberals keep saying they want to work with everyone to make improvements, but it is hard not to notice that it is the system most recently impacted by their legislation that all their provincial counterparts are asking them to fix. I am disheartened to say that, just like with inflation, driven by excessive spending, squeezing Canadians from all sides struggling to ends meet, I am not sure why anyone should trust the arsonists to put out the fire. I agree with colleagues today who have talked about how emotional this subject is. I am sure almost everyone has been touched in some way by crime. What really matters is what elected representatives actually do. Both the results and the records of the last eight years of the Liberals are heartbreakingly clear that their actions speak so much louder than their words.

1133 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 5:28:26 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:28 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

73 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Feb/2/23 5:31:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we would like to request a recorded division.

10 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/2/23 5:31:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:43 p.m. so we can start Private Members' Business.

29 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 5:31:12 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, February 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

27 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 5:31:12 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 5:32:30 p.m.
Watch

There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

34 words

Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC)

Feb/2/23 5:32:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

9 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 5:32:30 p.m.
Watch

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

40 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 152