SoVote

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

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 Could my colleague comment on the Conservative view that Bill C‑75 should be repealed because it does not meet the reverse onus?

145 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

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

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

181 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

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

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

157 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

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

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

37 words

Secretary

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

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

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

1265 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

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

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

166 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

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

150 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

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

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

12 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

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

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

195 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/2/23 4:32:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member caught the beginning of my comments. I talked extensively about how the government plays an important role in dealing with the types of issues the member has raised, whether it is through budgetary measures or legislative measures. I would cite Bill C-75, which the Conservatives are critical of. Bill C-75 actually made it harder to be released on bail. For example, the bill imposed what they call a reverse onus. There is a wonderful opportunity for the House of Commons to be able to debate the importance of the need for making changes. However, we also need to recognize that it is not just for the House of Commons and that we have an obligation to work with others. Those others include the shared responsibilities with our provinces, territories and indigenous communities, among many other stakeholders. It is not as simple as saying here is an idea, let us make it happen and bring in the legislation. There is a need for consultation when we have shared responsibilities. This is something that the government has strived to do. We have tangible examples of investing financial resources and legislative resources to try to improve upon our system. It is far better than it was, but it is something we can always look at ways of improving.

226 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mike Morrice)

Feb/2/23 4:34:01 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Public Safety; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, The Environment.

52 words

Adjournment

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Feb/2/23 4:34:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Haldimand—Norfolk. I want to talk about a word that seems to have escaped the Liberal government since it took office eight years ago and that is “consequence” or being accountable for one's actions. The Liberals seem to have a really hard time being accountable for their actions. Even though it has been eight years, they seem to have a really hard time taking responsibility for being in power. They seem to have a really hard time owning up to the mistakes they have been making for the eight years that they have been in office. Perhaps that explains why they have hard time asking others to be accountable for their own actions, which is even more serious when it comes to crime. Let us look at this government's track record when it comes to failing to be accountable. It will likely explain the Liberals' position on today's opposition motion. In 2016, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner found the Prime Minister guilty of breaking ethics laws. The Prime Minister apologized, but suffered no consequences. In 2018, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. He apologized, but suffered no consequences. Just apologize and move on. In 2019, the Prime Minister once again violated the Conflict of Interest Act, this time in the SNC‑Lavalin case. The Prime Minister says he took responsibility for his actions. However, he suffered no consequences. In 2021, again, the Prime Minister and, this time, the then Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau, were charged under the Conflict of Interest Act and Mr. Morneau was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Morneau suffered no consequences. In 2022, in a file currently before us, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act for giving a lucrative contract to her best friend. The minister suffered no consequences. She rose in the House, said that she apologized and that she would take responsibility for her actions. What does taking responsibility for one's actions mean to this government? What does ministerial responsibility mean? It means absolutely nothing. This week, I asked the Prime Minister a question about the case of a rapist who received a 20-month sentence to be served at home. The Prime Minister stated that it was none of our business and that it was not the responsibility of we, the politicians, to manage the law. The Prime Minister has forgotten one thing: He and his government created the law that resulted in this individual receiving a 20-month sentence to be served at home. That is the reality. Those are the facts, and I want to present them to my Liberal colleagues and even my colleagues who belong to other parties. I encourage them to listen carefully to the meaning and the words of the motion that we moved today. I will read the motion, which is important. (i) violent crime has increased by 32%, (ii) gang-related homicides have increased by 92%, (iii) violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily, (iv) increasing daily acts of crime and violence are putting Canadians at risk, (v) five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year We are not asking for anything major. We are asking that something be done to help victims and to help Canadians feel safer. Here is our first request: (a) fix Canada's broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by Bill C‑75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend; I want to repeat those last few words: “which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend”. That is one of the effects of the legislation from Bill C‑75 that we are talking about today. Our second request is this: (b) strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail; In all honesty, how can anyone oppose this? Someone explain to me how the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois could disagree with that. Our last request is as follows: (c) ensure that Canada's justice system puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of violent, repeat offenders. It is just common sense. We know that the Liberals will vote against it, but I do not understand why the NDP and the Bloc will vote against it. There is absolutely nothing partisan about this motion, absolutely nothing negative for Canadians in general. It is meant only for violent criminals, who unfortunately are too often released and commit crime after crime. This is a direct consequence of Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5. I know the parties supported Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75. Unfortunately, it is now time to make amends. Past mistakes can be corrected. Why are the NDP and the Bloc Québécois not voting for this motion in order to correct this situation? We are not the only ones saying this. The premiers of all the provinces, including Quebec, have signed a letter calling on the federal government to do better on bail to prevent tragedies from occurring, dangerous criminals from being put back on the streets, and women, children, men and families from being sadly affected by violent crimes committed by individuals who should be behind bars and not on the streets. That is exactly the point of the motion we moved. It is entirely consistent with the letter that Canadian provincial and territorial premiers sent to the federal government. Unfortunately, the government seems to have chosen to turn a deaf ear. I get that the Liberal government does not want to admit the Conservatives are right, so let us listen to someone else. I am talking about the famous case I mentioned earlier, the individual who sexually assaulted a woman and was sentenced to 20 months to be served at home with his cellphone and Netflix. That kind of sentence for that kind of crime is totally unacceptable. Here are some quotes from the article in La Presse: A Crown prosecutor chastised the [Liberal] government for its recent law opening the door to house arrest for sex offenders. Right now, [the Prime Minister] and [the Minister of Justice] probably have some explaining to do to victims of sexual assault, said Crown prosecutor Alexis Dinelle after the hearing. This is a direct consequence of Bill C‑5 becoming law, and I am asking the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to make amends for that today. The article goes on to say the following: Until last November, a judge could not impose a sentence to be served at home for sexual assault. Hard time in prison was the norm for such crimes, and sentences ranged from 12 to 20 months for assaults similar to this one. Without any fanfare, the Liberal government's Bill C‑5 made it possible for offenders to serve a sentence in the community for sexual assault. It is not me or the Conservatives who said that. It is a Crown prosecutor who has to live with the consequences of the passage of Bill C‑5. For these reasons, because I hope that my colleagues from all parties want to protect Canadians who have been the victims of violent crime and prevent new crimes from being committed, I encourage them to help us make the necessary changes to ensure that violent repeat offenders stay behind bars and not in our communities.

1358 words

All Topics

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

Feb/2/23 4:44:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today's motion calls on our government to ensure that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences cannot easily get bail. That is already the case. It is also the case for organized crime offences, arms smuggling and trafficking, sexual assault, robbery, extortion with a firearm and drug trafficking. I would like my opposition colleague to tell me what the motion would change.

74 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Feb/2/23 4:45:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not allowed to use documents to illustrate what I have to say, but I do have numerous documents that indicate inconsistencies in what my colleague is saying, unfortunately. I know she thinks everything is perfect. That is what we have been hearing from the Liberals for far too long. They say everything is fine, there are no problems, and they are doing what needs to be done. Unfortunately, there are victims. Five police officers were killed in the line of duty in a single year, most of them by repeat offenders. Most femicides are committed by men who were previously convicted. Something is wrong with our system. Denying that will not fix it, but adopting motions and taking measures like what we put forward today will.

130 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Feb/2/23 4:46:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to comment on what my colleague said in his speech, when he asked why the Bloc Québécois will not vote in favour of today's motion. He is right that there are several elements in the Conservative motion that we agree with. For example, the increase in violent crime in recent years is undeniably true. However, point (a) of his motion is not entirely true, not to say downright false. There is nothing in Bill C-75 that requires judges to release repeat violent offenders. What the Conservatives are suggesting is false. There is no point in searching high and low to figure out why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this. If the Conservatives really want to make changes to certain provisions of Bill C-75, I invite them, with all due respect, to introduce a bill to amend certain provisions of Bill C-75. I think that would be better than waiting for either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to agree with this motion.

183 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Feb/2/23 4:47:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing sets us apart from the Bloc Québécois. One day, we will be in power and we will be able to introduce bills. We will then be able to correct the provisions spelled out in Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois will never be able to do that. The Bloc Québécois should ask itself some serious questions about certain positions it has taken in the past weeks and months. For example, there is Bill C‑21 and the amendments it supported to ban certain firearms. That happened. It is true. It also supported Bill C‑5, which is directly responsible for the release of this rapist to his home. The Bloc Québécois should ask itself these types of questions when it is time to support and adopt motions. The Conservatives have a solution. It is not perfect, but it is a starting point. I hope once again that the Bloc Québécois will make amends and support our motion.

184 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Feb/2/23 4:48:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the conversation we are having today is really important. I would have liked to have seen the Conservatives expand this to look at other areas. In August, I had the pleasure of going to Agassiz and visiting two federal institutions, the Mountain Institution and Kent Institution. I had a chance to talk with both program officers, who work within the institutions, and parole officers, who deal with inmates on the outside. They are crying out for resources. I think with the important work they do with inmates, that kind of work is incredibly important and has much more of an effect on increasing public safety. Would my colleague agree with me that those program officers and parole officers in Correctional Service Canada need more resources so that we can have a more effective justice system?

139 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Feb/2/23 4:49:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, they need a law that would allow them to do their jobs correctly. That is the responsibility of the federal Liberal government. It does not want to play its role. Unfortunately, there are victims everywhere in Canada who suffer because of that.

45 words

Ms. Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC)

Feb/2/23 4:49:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak to this motion, sponsored by the member for Fundy Royal. It is an important debate we are having today, and I appreciate listening to the members and their various perspectives on this issue. It is clear that Canada's justice system and, more specifically our bail system, is indeed broken. Canadians do not need to take my word or the word of my colleagues on this side of the House. They just need to turn on the news on any given day for the reality to confront them. I was shocked. Canadians across the country were shocked to hear that a young, respected OPP officer, Constable Greg Pierzchala, was tragically killed in the line of duty. He was killed just two days after Christmas. He was shot after responding to a call for a vehicle in a ditch west of Hagersville, Ontario, in the county of Haldimand, which I represent. The people who knew him best said that he was a example of service over self. He was a loving brother and a gifted athlete. He was just 28 years old. He had his entire life ahead of him. Thousands of officers and first responders came out in the pouring rain to honour this fallen officer at his funeral in his hometown of Barrie. We know that one of the accused of this heinous crime was out on bail after being charged with multiple offences. In 2018, he received a life prohibition from owning firearms. In 2021, he was charged with several firearms offences and assaulting a peace officer. He was later released on bail with conditions but failed to appear in court. On September 6, 2022, a warrant was issued for his arrest and additional charges were laid. He, once again, failed to appear. The news of the tragic death of Officer Pierzchala shook our small community. The Liberal government has had eight years in power, and if it were competent and its policies actually worked, we would not be hearing these tragic stories time and time again, over and over again. I take issue with the words of the Minister of Justice, who, earlier today said that he discouraged members from wasting this opportunity with empty rhetoric designed to inflame the fears of Canadians. My constituents' words are not empty rhetoric. Are the letters that I received from people all over the country inflammatory rhetoric? Are the pain and the cries coming from the families of victims across this country empty and inflammatory rhetoric? Canadians do not need to be inflamed. They are actually afraid. Many Canadians are living in fear because our criminal justice system, specifically our bail system, is broken. Constable Pierzchala was the fifth officer slain in a period of just months last year. Since 2015, when the Prime Minister took office, violent crime has gone up 32% in Canada. Since 2015, gang-related homicides have increased by 92%. That is double. Out of the 44 shooting-related homicides in Toronto in 2022, 17 of the accused were out on bail at the time that they were alleged to have committed these offences. In 2022, in Toronto, 50 individuals received multiple firearms bails and 11 individuals had five or more previous firearms convictions. In Vancouver, the same 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in one single year. These are profoundly startling statistics. We have 13 premiers now unanimously calling on the Prime Minister to do something about our broken criminal justice system. They have all called for urgent action and meaningful changes to the Criminal Code, particularly when it comes to firearms offences. Instead of focusing on criminals who are terrorizing our streets, the Liberals have watered down the consequences for the violent criminals who have impacted our communities. They have diverted precious police resources to focus instead on law-abiding firearms owners, including hunters, farmers and sport shooters. How do we solve this problem? First, we need to prioritize the rights of victims by ensuring that repeat violent offenders stay behind bars and are offered some hope of rehabilitation before they are released. We need to recognize the brokenness of our criminal justice system and, specifically, our bail system. As a lawyer, when I left Bay Street, for a short time I practised criminal law, and it was so disheartening. It was so frustrating to see the same people go in and out of jail. I knew at that time that something was wrong with our system. We need programs to reform and restore those who can be rehabilitated. We need a bail system that keeps violent offenders off the street, and we can do both. There is something wrong when nothing can be done for people who commit violent offences to ensure they are rehabilitated before they are permitted to re-enter society. It should not be accepted that violent offenders can go back on the streets within the same hour of their arrest. This is not compassion. This is sheer recklessness. At the same time, we need to work together with provinces to come up with compassionate solutions that will meaningfully reduce recidivism and keep Canadians safe. We must invest in local community resources and centres that work with at-risk youth. We must increase access to rehabilitation and counselling resources within the criminal justice system to give offenders a chance to be rehabilitated so their return to society does not put communities in danger. There is nothing compassionate about letting somebody out on bail who has a history of violent crime when there is no evidence of change and when there is no evidence of rehabilitation. All this does is terrorize the communities with more crime, creating more victims. I remind the House that oftentimes those communities are racialized communities. I have a young teenage son not much younger than Constable Pierzchala. Every mother's heart was broken with the killing of this young officer. I cannot imagine the pain this family has endured. His death was tragic. I remind everyone in the House that Canada's revolving bail system must be changed. We owe it to those who have lost their lives, such as Constable Pierzchala, his family and my constituents, to make the needed reforms. Canadians deserve better. Victims deserve better. Our streets once again need to be safe.

1062 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Feb/2/23 4:59:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in her speech the need to invest in communities and community organizations. I note that every time our government has tried to make significant investments in community programming, the Conservative Party has voted against them. I am wondering if the member could explain why her caucus has consistently voted against measures meant to keep our communities safe and allow young people to have an outlet outside of crime.

73 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 152