Further debate?

I’ll be sharing my time with the members from Orléans and Don Valley West. I just want to say I’ll be supporting this motion, because I believe that our responsibility as legislators—and any government official, anybody who’s in government—is primarily public safety. There’s an issue of public safety here that we have to address.

But I do want to say a couple of things that we need to be thinking about in this Legislature beyond encouraging the federal government to take this on.

In my riding of Ottawa South—and my friend from Ottawa Centre would remember this—Anne-Marie Ready and her daughter Jasmine were murdered on June 27 last year by a young man who was their neighbour, who was let out by a justice of the peace. Their father and husband, Raf, has been trying to sort out what happened there.

One of the challenges that we have in our justice system—it’s not just now; it has been through previous governments—is communication and making sure that people who make decisions have the information they need when they make that decision.

The second thing is to apply the principles that they’re given to make decisions each time. I hope that the government will help the Ready family, very much so.

The other thing I want to mention is we’re sending this message to the federal government, but we have the Community Safety and Policing Act that received royal assent four years ago. What that act does is it provides some protections for public safety around policing. We have an individual who’s charged with very serious crimes, including sexual assault, who has been allowed to collect a publicly funded salary for seven years. So the government dropped the ball with this act. It should have been enacted. It received royal assent four years ago.

The second thing is there’s the Accommodation Sector Registration of Guests Act. This is something to protect people from human trafficking. It has been on the books for two years—still hasn’t been enacted.

I’d ask the government to pick up that ball and run with it, because these are two important issues of public safety. If we’re going to preach about public safety, then perhaps we better do our own homework.

Further debate?

There’s no doubt that the increase in violent crime the past number of years is disturbing: families torn apart by vicious acts of violence, women killed at the hands of their partners, innocent bystanders catching a stray bullet, police officers ambushed, children randomly killed trying to get home on the subway.

There’s no doubt that the residents of Orléans and across Ontario are growing more and more concerned with the types and the volumes of crimes and violence we once thought were limited to our neighbours down south.

I had the privilege of participating in the committee hearings on bail reform earlier this year, Madam Speaker. At committee, police testified that the number of shell casings at shootings is up dramatically and that this indicates a level of violence and a ferocity of violence that they’ve never seen before. We heard loud and clear from both police authorities and from criminal defence advocates that changes to the system were needed.

As part of their testimony, the Toronto Police Service presented staggering numbers on just how many violent offenders are released on bail and then commit further crimes, many committing violent crimes again while awaiting trial for their first offence. In 2021, 772 people were released on bail for firearms-related charges. This is in Toronto. Of those, 165 people were rearrested while on bail for firearms offences; 60% of those people were re-arrested for further firearms-related charges. Of those, half received bail a second time. That’s shocking and tells an important story as to why bail reform is so important.

So I fully support asking the federal government to make the necessary legislative changes to make it harder for violent offenders to receive automatic bail, but it’s important to point out that there are important recommendations from the committee that are fully within the purview of this provincial government—a recommendation proposed and endorsed by both the Toronto police and other police agencies, and a recommendation that was generally endorsed by the criminal defence community as well: specifically that bail hearings for those accused of firearm offences—and, I would suggest, all violent offences—should be heard by a Superior Court or provincial court judge, not by Justices of the Peace. Many, if not most, JPs do not have the same legal training and years of experience within the criminal justice system that judges will have.

As stated by Chief Demkiw, “Judges are uniquely positioned to understand all the issues at play and the collective impact of gun violence and bring these perspectives to decisions about bail for firearms offences.”

I’d also like to quote the 2019 Auditor General’s report: “In late 2016, courthouses in two locations started using judges to sit in bail courts instead of justices of the peace, who are not required to be trained in the law. The pilot project ended in August 2019; starting in September 2019, justices of the peace resumed sitting in the bail courts. The Ontario court’s evaluation of the pilot’s effectiveness to identify options for judicial case management of matters beginning in bail court is scheduled to be completed by February 2020.”

Throughout the committee process, none of the experts who testified had yet seen this report from the ministry. Legislative research could not find this report. We heard anecdotally during committee from both sides, as I said, that this pilot project was successful, or they thought that it was successful. To date, nearly four years after the pilot project ended, the government has yet to publish the report on its effectiveness.

As this government continues to hammer about asking the federal government to take action—action that I hope the federal government does take; I support asking the federal government to take this action—I join the public recommendations of the committee of justice policy and urge the government to release the results of this pilot project. Moreover, if the project was successful, as those who testified believe that it was, I’m urging the government to implement that recommendation right away. It’s within their purview to have these bail hearings heard by Superior Court judges or Ontario judges. There’s no need to wait for the federal government to take action; the government has the power to act today.

I want to thank my colleagues for their eloquent words about this motion and their support of it.

I rise also to speak in support of the government’s motion. I want to start, though, by giving my sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Constable Pierzchala, who was tragically shot by an offender out on bail.

I’ve met with officers from the Toronto Police Service who work in my community, and I know they care about it, the people in it and work hard to keep us safe, at great personal risk.

Ontarians want to feel safe and to live without fear of harm, especially when they’re using city and government services.

We’ve all heard the tragic story of 16-year-old Gabriel Magalhaes, who was fatally stabbed and killed on the TTC system last week. We’ve heard from Gabriel’s mother, Andrea Magalhaes, who—amidst her unbearable pain—found the strength to speak about her son and to speak out. Of her son Gabriel, she said, “He was a beautiful, sweet, sweet boy.... He was so loving.... I just cannot believe that his life was cut short.”

She went on to say, “I am hoping that people will raise their voices so we can be heard. More needs to be done to help people in crisis. More needs to be done so that people don’t get to the point where they are in crisis....

“We need more social services. We need more investment into physical and mental health. We need more supports for housing. I feel like, as things go the way they are going right now, so many people are going to be suffering the horrible pain that I am going through right now.”

Why did she say all this, Speaker? Because she doesn’t want us to focus only on crime and the criminals, but also what drives some people to that life of crime.

We’ve heard that the 20-year-old man arrested for this awful crime has a lengthy criminal record, including two convictions for assault with a weapon. According to a Global News article, he was arrested in Mississauga on September 5, 2021, and charged with assault with a weapon—a pair of scissors. He was arrested a second time in Brampton on April 10, 2022, and weeks after that arrest, arrested again in Richmond Hill. Less than three months later, he was arrested in Mississauga in connection with an assault involving a box cutter.

With stronger laws to deal with repeat and chronic offenders, such as bail reform, and increased mental health and housing support, people across Ontario can be better-protected from horrific crimes like this. The federal government should take steps to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to strengthen bail requirements for these offenders, including a definition of “chronic offender” and an onus on these offenders to demonstrate why they should be granted bail. The provincial government should require bail hearings for the most serious offences to be heard by the provincial court rather than simply a justice of the peace, and they should immediately increase funding for legal aid in order to reduce delays and help address the large backlog of bail cases in our courts. The provincial government must implement reforms in our justice system to improve living conditions and programming in correctional facilities to ensure a focus on rehab and reintegration of inmates, so that those convicted of a crime do not descend on a path of repeated criminal activity.

And to be strong on crime prevention, we need to address the root causes of crime and to remember Gabriel’s mother’s calls. We need to remember that bail reform is a serious issue and that we have a disproportionate number of Indigenous and Black people being held in jail. We need to address systemic racism and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action on justice; for example, working with Indigenous communities to provide culturally sensitive services for issues faced by Indigenous people.

Speaker, the offender who killed Gabriel was (1) a repeat offender, (2) with no known address, and (3) with alleged mental health issues. I want to stress that addressing all three of these areas is critical to ensuring public safety.

Further debate?

I appreciate this opportunity. I’m splitting my time with the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington, and I want to take a moment to thank him, thank the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler, thank the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Premier of Ontario for standing up for the rights of law-abiding citizens and for victims of crime in this province and country.

Madam Speaker, the charter guarantees the right of life, liberty and the security of person. When data points confirm, as we see in our streets—in rural communities and urban communities in every region of this country, most especially here in Ontario, where there’s been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015, since the federal government took office; a 32% increase in violent crimes that have risen, inflicting great havoc on families, citizens, seniors, and increasingly, young people in our society—it is fair to say that governments are not upholding their obligation to the security of person, to the right to live in our communities absent the real risk of violent, indiscriminate crime. That’s why we’re here: to affirm, in the clearest way to the federal government, that the status quo, that the policies that have been watered down and undermined have created a reality where we must now choose to normalize violence on subways and schools, in playgrounds and malls. That is not the Canada my family came to. It’s not the Canada we all work hard to build every single day. Thus, we are urging the federal government and all members of this Parliament to speak with one voice, as the House leader said: a united voice to urge the federal Attorney General to do his job, uphold the rule of law and protect law-abiding people from violence in their communities.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the civil tone of this debate. It’s a solemn issue—it’s a sobering issue, rather. But I must comment and reflect upon the statements made by the member from Toronto Centre that almost rhetorically suggested, “Why are we here if the federal Attorney General already confirmed that action is under way?” Madam Speaker, it was the justice minister of Canada, Justice Minister Lametti, who said literally just weeks ago that Canada’s bail system “is strong and sound.” It is a matter of collective security and safety that we ensure that the federal government and the Attorney General of this country hear clearly the largest province in the nation, that our government and our Parliament stands united in the defence of safety and security, and that we end the revolving door of justice that allows repeat, recidivist violent offenders to get back onto our streets, only to inflict more harm and more violence in society.

Madam Speaker, we have heard, in this House, of Constable Hong, murdered in cold blood, in broad daylight. We heard about OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala, murdered by violent offenders who were released on bail months prior. We hear, Madam Speaker, about the recent and rather tragic death—unimaginable; I can’t imagine a parent getting a call that their child, literally sitting on a bench minding their own business, was targeted with this brazen attack; a 16-year-old student in TDSB murdered in a space that otherwise was a transit corridor they used mindlessly each and every day.

This is not the country we should accept. This is not the society we should be comfortable normalizing. Therefore, we have an opportunity to speak united against this crime and to insist upon better for the people we represent: for Gabriel, that 16-year-old boy, and for everyone else who has seen the impact of crime.

We’ve seen it in different manifestations in my own riding. Around Christmas, we saw a horrific attack at a condo, the Bellaria towers in my riding, where individuals were killed. These realities, I think, remind us of the necessity for action; that the current policy formulation by the federal government that has allowed repeat offenders back on our streets is not in the national interest, does not guarantee the right of security of the person. In fact, it is enabled by the watering-down of tough laws against those who wage harm on society. We’ve removed the disincentives. We’ve removed the deterrents when it comes to crime in this community.

We know that there are crimes that are preventable and predictable. In the story of Darian Henderson-Bellman, who lived in Georgetown, she was shot by her boyfriend, a man who was charged and released on bail four times. On the fifth time he was released, most regrettably, Darian perished.

Courts have ruled against the consecutive sentencing for multiple murders. This is an issue that should seize us all as parliamentarians. That’s an unacceptable reality: multiple individuals murdered, and yet the courts will count that as one murder. They’re sentenced for only one of those murders. That is a problem, a problem we should agree needs reform.

Bill 75 of the federal government actually codified catch-and-release in the first place, watering down or restricting the capability of judges to ensure these individuals, who often have a history of violence, stay behind bars. The federal Liberals repealed mandatory minimum sentences. We’re talking about, through Bill C-5, no longer mandating prison time for robberies with firearms or weapons trafficking, a significant issue in Toronto and other communities where we see illegal guns—not the guns of hunters and anglers in rural Ontario, but illegally smuggled guns from the border and other parts of the province that are being moved around across society. That was removed, where we no longer set a mandatory minimum sentence for serious crime. That’s a problem, Madam Speaker, that I think requires all of us to say something about it.

Legislation now allows serious criminals to serve house arrest instead of jail, including for sexual assault and trafficking. So, yes, there’s a problem. There’s a problem when any government—in this case, the federal government—has weakened laws, has created a reality where we have a data point of literally over 92% of gang-related homicides increasing in our land. And so this motion is not just symbolic. I reject that premise. It is substantive in what it seeks to fix, which is a system that is failing everyday families, law-abiding Canadians. The reasonable assumption is government will be on their side, not on the side of those who commit crime.

Increasingly I hear from people in my community in King–Vaughan, that has seen a spike in crime, among many other communities in this province and country, where they feel that the system is more on the side of those who break the law instead of on the side of law-abiding citizens or victims of crime. And that offends us, and it should offend every one of us that there are people who will never be able to see their loved ones again and potentially knowing that deterrents and some strength in our public policy and some toughness on the most heinous of criminals in society may have—may have, Madam Speaker—prevented that crime, that loss of life.

And so I am very pleased that the province of Ontario, under the leadership of the Premier, enacted a national campaign to wake up the federal government to a problem they never were committed to solving, unless there was a broader national consensus. From the New Democrats of BC under Premier Eby to the Liberal government of Newfoundland and Labrador under Premier Furey to the New Democratic Premier of Yukon, Premier Pillai—all of them agree that the status quo is unacceptable. I will add, even the mayor of Vaughan, the former leader of the Liberal Party, Steven Del Duca—an individual who I’ve built a good working relationship since the election—wrote a letter to the federal government saying this is unacceptable.

The former Attorney General to Premier McGuinty, Michael Bryant, said, “the typical federal Liberal approach to crime, in a word, is a boomer approach that is stuck in the summer of love ... we need to reconsider some of our traditional Liberal policies on crime. We need to take a close look at strong statutory measures, including reverse-onus clauses and mandatory minimums. We need to consider investigative techniques that Liberals have traditionally dismissed, especially the use of closed-circuit cameras and civil seizures.”

Madam Speaker, there is a growing national consensus for action and I am proud, as a Progressive Conservative and, fundamentally, as a Canadian, to stand up in our democracy to expect better—to ensure law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying citizens, young people, seniors are able to live a life in this country of freedom and security. And it’s for that reason I’m voting for this motion, and I encourage every member to do the same.

The member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

Remarks in Anishininiimowin.

It’s a good day. It’s always an honour to be able to speak on behalf of Kiiwetinoong, but also to provide a voice for First Nations.

I’d like to acknowledge OPP officer Constable Greg Pierzchala, who was shot and killed on December 27, 2022. I know that at times like this, it is a time to come together as politicians, as people, to acknowledge the issues that we face. There is always so much work to be done to address the issues at hand with respect to bail reform.

I’d also like to acknowledge the OPP officers who suffer from PTSD. A couple of days ago, I was talking to an officer on the phone. He’s on leave. He talked about suicide to me: “Can you talk about it in the House at some point, what we suffer, what we go through?” I tried texting him earlier. It’s not delivering. I hope he’s okay. Two, three years ago, I had a long chat with him as well for about a half-hour. When we hanging were up the phone, we said goodbye. I debated with myself: “Is he saying goodbye?” It took me about one hour to reach out to his partner that we had to call 911. When we say we can do better—that’s what I mean by that. So to any officers who are out there, who are suffering, who need more support because they see things that we do not see—I remember this conversation in my head: “Can you guess how many dead people I’ve seen?” I said a number—but it was way up. So I think all officers—we have to acknowledge that. Thank you for the work. There are people today who are suffering from PTSD, who are thinking about suicide. Another question he asked me was, “Do you know how many OPP officers have died by suicide?” I can’t remember the number. This was two days ago. I just wanted to share that story.

With regard to the reform of Canada’s bail system, I’m going to read part of the submission from the Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services Corp. This is a group that represents 49 First Nations in northern Ontario. And I know we’re going back and forth about amendments, subamendments. When I, as a First Nations person—that’s your system that you guys play, whatever system that is.

Just last year, we put up the Seven Grandfather Teachings. I don’t know who started naming them the Grandfather Teachings, but the Seven Grandfather Teachings are just ways of life. As First Nations people, that’s how we grew up. When you see the wolf, it’s humility. When you see the bear, it’s bravery. When you see the raven, it’s honesty. When you see the beaver, it’s wisdom. When you see the turtle, it’s truth. When you see the buffalo, it’s respect. When you see the eagle, it’s love. Sometimes when we are here, we do not function like that. Your system does not function like that. It’s just a little reminder.

I know that sometimes in Kenora Jail, the Thunder Bay Jail—it has been a while since I visited. I visited Kenora about two years ago. I never know what to expect—but I know what to expect on my second visit. It was 98% First Nations people. Sometimes I’m really surprised at the people you know there, when you walk in there, when you walk by the cells. They’re so happy to see you—the people you know from growing up in northern Ontario. It’s the same with Thunder Bay. Thunder Bay is not in my riding, but a lot of people go there.

I remember this kid who was working out like this, just by himself in the corner. I said, “Where are you from?” and then he told me the community. I asked him, “How long have you been here?” “I just got here.” I asked him how old he was. He’d just turned 18.

About the reform of the bail system: “Accountability of individuals who cause harm needs serious consideration and must be weighed carefully against the overarching principles of access to justice, fairness and equality before the law.”

We don’t have courts in fly-in First Nations. We have fly-in courts. There are only certain times that you will have access to court.

“As such, in balancing these important principles”—I know one of the things that the Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services Corp. has identified is areas of concern that should be reformed with the bail system, as requested by the Premiers, and I told those stories earlier, because of the disproportionate impact on First Nations people, on Indigenous people.

“Indigenous women, who comprise less than 5% of the population in Canada, represent 50% of the women locked up behind bars across the country.” It’s a fact. “Overall, Indigenous people make up 32% of the prison population while representing 5% of the Canadian population. In 2017/2018, Indigenous youth (aged 12 to 17) made up 43% of admissions to correctional services.... The situation right now as it stands in Canada’s jails and prisons can only be described as a mass incarceration of Indigenous people.

“The numbers keep rising despite the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v Gladue being released more than 20 years ago. Gladue states that a court that imposes a sentence should consider for all offenders all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

“Gladue principles are not limited to sentencing—they apply in all circumstances when an Indigenous person’s freedom is at risk. This includes at bail and sentencing hearings, appeals, parole hearings, mental health review board hearings, not-criminally-responsible hearings, dangerous and long-term offender hearings, and civil contempt decisions.”

Speaker, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services—“Nishnawbe” is First Nations people, people from the land. “Aski” is land. So that’s basically what it means.

“The bail stage is arguably the most important and critical moment in a criminal matter—should the accused person not be granted bail, the chances of them entering a guilty plea go up significantly. This is simply because no one would rather wait for trial in jail for months, when they are offered the option to be released on time served. In Gladue and Ipeelee, the Supreme Court recognized Indigenous people are more likely to be refused bail and that this contributes to Indigenous over-incarceration.”

I see it. We see it, we live it, in the Kenora district jail. We see it, we live it, in the Thunder Bay district jail.

We have to understand: “The criminal justice system is already imposing increased challenges on Indigenous people at the bail stage by:

“—routinely requiring sureties;

“—failing to accommodate accused persons living in remote communities;

“—imposing onerous and legally unjustified conditions;

“—requiring extensive background information about the accused, etc.

“‘Strengthening’ Canada’s bail system will disproportionately affect individuals who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, primarily Indigenous people, by making it less likely that they will be granted bail—hence perpetuating colonial practices.

“The impacts of the proposed bail reform are compounded by the upcoming changes to the Firearms Act through Bill C-21.”

Another thing that they talk about at Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services is the lack of consultation with Indigenous communities and First Nations. Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services said, “The standing committee’s hearings are being rushed in the face of growing calls for action—the adopted approach is reactive instead of deliberate. The proposed changes to the bail system will profoundly affect the rights and liberties of all Canadians, but specifically Indigenous people. Meanwhile, consultation with Indigenous communities and First Nations is lacking.” We saw that when we had 20 minutes for some of the police services whereas Indigenous police services only had seven minutes.

“Moving forward with reconciliation also means that Indigenous communities and First Nations must be included in the decision-making process, must be heard and consulted by provincial and federal governments alike, especially knowing that Indigenous people are disproportionately involved and adversely affected by the criminal justice system.”

The third thing that they talked about was the erosion of the presumption of innocence: “One of the proposed changes by the Premiers, namely to introduce a reverse onus on bail for the offence of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in s.95 of the Criminal Code, is concerning. The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system and is entrenched in our Constitution.. This is why at bail, it is the crown’s onus to convince the court to detain an accused person pending trial. A reverse onus is and must remain an exception to the rule. Increasing the reach and the reliance on the reverse onus in the Criminal Code, thus putting the burden on the accused person to convince the court that they should be released, further erodes the presumption of innocence and weakens our overall justice system.”

There was a written submission from the Canadian Mental Health Association: “The justice system is often the first point of access for individuals to receive any type of mental health and addictions services.” That quote reminded me of the people without homes in Sioux Lookout. I don’t know if any of you have ever campaigned with people without homes. You should try it sometime; you’d learn lots. In the wintertime, that’s exactly what people do—they go to Kenora because they get fed and they have a bed. They get better services in jail rather than being free and walking around without a home in these towns.

Remarks in Anishininiimowin. I am very honoured to be able to be able to speak today. Remarks in Anishininiimowin. That’s all I have for now. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Further debate?

It’s an honour to rise to speak to the government motion calling on the federal government to implement bail reform. This motion speaks to the public safety concerns related to acts of criminal violence, especially the tragic increase in the deaths of police officers, and I believe every member of this House is deeply concerned about the alarming number of police officers lost in the line of duty during the past year.

Speaker, every worker in this province, including the women and men who serve and protect our communities as police officers, deserves to come home safely at the end of the day. Calls for bail reform have grown since the tragic death of Constable Greg Pierzchala, an Ontario Provincial Police officer killed in the line of duty on December 27 by an accused person out on bail. I want to offer my sincere condolences to Constable Pierzchala’s colleagues and family, as well as to everyone who has lost a loved one to criminal acts of violence and violent crime.

So yes, Speaker, I think the federal government should implement meaningful bail reform, taking the time to listen to front-line officers, legal scholars, criminal justice advocates and others on the best ways to increase public safety. And I say to the federal government, follow the evidence; study the statistics; listen to the experts and the victims—to talk about the best way we can implement bail reform in a way that increases public safety and community well-being.

And at the same time that the province is calling on the federal government for bail reform, I believe we have to look in the mirror, Speaker. I believe the provincial government also needs to take action to reform the bail system and the administration of justice while we invest in programs that prevent crime and promote community well-being. As the chiefs of police have said, we cannot look at bail reform in isolation. My hope is that we can have one of these rare occasions where we work across party lines to protect people and front-line officers by making changes to improve the province’s justice system and to invest in programs that improve people’s lives and community well-being.

I think it’s important to put on the record some of the reforms that experts have called for in Ontario:

(1) Timely bail decisions: People are waiting a year or longer for trial, and I believe it’s unacceptable that 77% of the people imprisoned in Ontario are in pretrial custody. We have a principle that you’re presumed innocent until guilty, and so we need a justice system that has more resources, more judges, faster processing and more funding for legal aid.

(2) We need to improve access to community services for the most vulnerable. Homelessness, mental health challenges, substance use, addiction and/or trauma are realities that make access to bail and adhering to bail conditions extraordinarily challenging. We will not arrest our way out of addressing these challenges.

(3) More funding for enhanced bail supervision programs: Bail supervision programs are a cost-effective way to monitor accused people with higher risks or needs in the community. We need the resources in place to do compliance checks and to have a more rigorous bail monitoring system in order to enhance public safety.

(4) Better inter-agency communication that increases communication among social service agencies, courts and police to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of our bail system in Ontario.

(5) Systematic collection of statistics: Collecting data and disaggregating it in meaningful categories is essential for informing evidence-based responses to ensure that we have a bail system that best protects the public in an evidence-based way.

Speaker, I want to close with a plea to all members of this House and to people across this province that we begin to actually invest in the root causes of crime and violence. I have spoken to so many front-line officers and chiefs of police who tell me that we cannot arrest our way out of the mental health, addiction, poverty and homelessness crisis that we face in this province. We’re asking front-line officers to respond to challenges in our community that they were never trained to respond to. It’s not right, it’s not fair for them and it’s not fair for the most vulnerable members of our community.

And so I say that we need to care for and support our front-line police officers and our most vulnerable because we cannot have bail reform without social justice reform. That’s how we build the Ontario we want.

I’ll be splitting my time with the member from Mississauga Centre. I want to tell you why I’m supporting this motion. The member from Toronto Centre said that we had to listen to the experts that work within the system. I was part of the committee that came up with this report on bail reform. I performed bail hearings in Ottawa, Pembroke, Brampton, Oshawa, Brantford, Kitchener, Goderich, Guelph, Stratford, Walkerton and St. Thomas, just to name a few. At a conservative estimate, I’ve probably performed about 4,000 bail hearings and bail decisions in my time as a crown attorney. So frankly, I would consider myself to be an expert within the system. The reason that I ran for office was because of my experience as a crown attorney. I want to explain why this motion is so important and why it is the farthest possible thing from being a symbolic motion.

I would also like to specifically thank the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane and the member from Orléans, who is no longer here. Those members attended the days of testimonial on our committee, but also attended the days on which we debated the amendments and recommendations and therefore informed it very helpfully in that manner, not leading to last-minute amendments as we are seeing today.

When I began as a crown, began in criminal law, it was about—I was called to the bar in 2014. So this was before the original bail reform considerably and, at that time, it was a completely different landscape. What a lot of people don’t understand when they talk about calling for bail reform is that an aspect of bail reform already happened. What we are calling for is a reform to the reform.

So coming up on 2015-16, I was a crown at that point in time, and what we were seeing in Alberta, in Ontario and all across Canada was, I will full on say, an overreliance on utilizing sureties in Alberta specifically, and in Ontario, an overreliance on conditions that could not be complied with. For example, it was common to require an accused person to give their address, and then on their bail, include a term to reside at that address. Many individuals were homeless, could not possibly provide an address, and yet if they were found not residing at that address, they would then be charged for breaching their recognizance, arrested, brought back to court and very likely held for breaching. Those were issues that were widespread. Crowns were aware of it, defence counsel were aware of it, and police were aware of it.

As a crown, I myself started abandoning those conditions fairly early on, because as an officer of the court and a person with, I think, a strong moral code, I was uninterested in putting conditions on people that they could not possibly comply with that had nothing to do with the real purpose of bail, which was to reduce risk in our society. However, like many things that we see in politics, in society, when a pendulum swings too far one way, the swing back doesn’t stop in the centre. It continues on to the other side. Where we are now is the other side, the other swing of that pendulum.

You’ve heard about Antic. You’ve heard about the ladder principle. You’ve heard about C-75. What Antic did was—in many ways, when it first came out, it didn’t seem like a particularly revolutionary decision. It essentially copied and pasted the provisions of bail from the Criminal Code and said, “FYI, guys, that’s the law. Don’t forget you’re not supposed to be using conditions that are unnecessary or can’t be complied with. A surety is the highest form of relief. Remember that.” However, the federal government stepped in, codified that, and then we got the ladder principle. We got a term that persons identifying as coming from any theoretically vulnerable population should have custody considered as a last resort.

And not particularly gradually—actually, relatively quickly—after Antic and after C-75, I went from being able to—I’ll put it this way: When somebody would come into bail court and you’re making a bail decision, again, I’m an officer of the court and my role is to determine the risk that you pose. Quite frequently, certainly the norm, people are held for bail, and they are not held in custody. They go to the crown. The crown would make a decision, where I would be looking at, say, a domestic offender and decide, “You know what? He’s releasable, but I’m going to need these conditions: that he stay away from the victim, that he not possess any weapons. But he’s good to go otherwise.” And he would go in, he would present that to the justice of the peace, and he would have discussed it with Legal Aid counsel beforehand. It would be agreed on. The person would be released on reasonable conditions.

But what started happening is the justices of the peace, all of a sudden, were so frankly frightened of having some sort of judicial review, of being told that they’d overreached their powers, that the crown’s recommendations, as somebody who—the goal is never to step on the rights of an accused person. That is not the role of the crown. A crown goes in there to try to address risk.

All of a sudden, we wouldn’t be listened to. It got to the point where, particularly during COVID, I could no longer, as far as I was concerned, ever succeed in having the accused held in custody. And these are people with domestic offences, with significant related prior records, who were charged with choking a victim, choking to the point of unconsciousness. These are people with loaded handguns down the back of their pants walking through downtown Guelph at 2 o’clock in the afternoon.

We would do the bail hearing and I would present the evidence to the best of my ability, and then we would hear the justice of the peace decision and I would think, were we even in the same courtroom for this? Because from what I can tell, we weren’t. And I would go home every night feeling incredibly anxious, because I knew that I had done my best, but ultimately, I would be worried about that person who was now back out on the street.

The reason that we’re talking, as I said, about the feds here is because, really, the codification of Antic in C-75, that is federal legislation. They do have a very, very significant part to play here when it comes to, as I said, reforming that reform, when it comes to making sure that that pendulum comes back into the centre.

But, yes, the province, of course, also has a role. The idea that this motion somehow—because we are asking the federal government to take necessary steps, that we are somehow absolving the province of responsibility is entirely incorrect. Anybody who reads the report that we created can see that there are a number of clear recommendations set forward for the province—and again, recommendations that I’m happy to have played a part in: for example, the suggestion of training or having certain offences heard by a provincial court judge versus a justice of the peace.

In C-75, interestingly, one of the new offences that was added was the offence of, basically, choking or strangulation. The reason that it was added was because it was considered that strangulation, the act of manually choking somebody, is such a serious offence that it was deserving of its own specific category, its own section number. And yet—I will not name them—I would regularly present cases to a justice of the peace who would refuse to give me a no-weapons condition on any bail hearing where the offender had allegedly choked the victim because, and I quote, “Hands are not weapons.” And this is the type of training that we are dealing with.

So when we talk about femicide, when we talk about protecting women, I would go home regularly, every night, genuinely worried if, the next week, I would find out that the worst had happened. That is what we are trying to address here. That is why we are calling on the federal government to make these changes.

I am proud of the work that was done on the bail committee. As I said, I would absolutely not call this a symbolic motion. This is real, this is substantive and this is addressing something that I saw, day in and day out, in my career as a crown attorney, as I said, performing at least 4,000 bail hearings over the course of my career.

Further debate?

Good afternoon. I’m pleased to rise today in support of government notice of motion 13, which 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.

I want to thank the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler for sharing her very, very unique and valuable experience as a crown attorney, which really helps to illuminate our discussion today.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, I had the opportunity to listen in on many testimonials from stakeholders on both sides of the equation—

A gentle reminder to not refer to the absence of other members.

Further debate?

Debate deemed adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1800.