It’s a pleasure to be here today in support of my colleague and my boss, the Solicitor General, and, of course, my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, who I was on that committee with, and who does such a great job in speaking up on intimate partner violence. I told her, “Make sure you touch on that”—because in my remarks I don’t, and I think it should come from her. She did an able job there.

We’re here today to stand in support of safe communities, as the Solicitor General said. We’re also here today to stand up for Ontarians. We’re here today to demand justice for those whose lives have been lost to violent crime, including our police officers. Because when we have safe communities, we have everything.

Unfortunately, the federal government continues to be soft on repeat offenders of violent crime. Let me remind you, Speaker, that when a motion to strengthen bail reform was presented before the House of Commons in February of this year, it was shot down immediately by a federal government set on their view that there’s nothing wrong with the current Canadian bail system. I think the general public would differ with that.

That’s why we’re here today. That’s why I’m standing here today in support of the Solicitor General’s motion. The motion, once again, calls on the federal government to repeal measures which force judges to be lenient towards repeat offenders and dangerous career criminals. There’s no room for leniency and wishful thinking when we’re talking about repeat criminals who have demonstrated a pattern of endangering our communities through reoffending time and time again. The federal government must respond to the call to action from the provinces and the territories—I actually represented the minister in Ottawa at that conference, and there was unanimity amongst the whole room, from all across the country and territories. They need to ensure that repeat violent offenders, especially those accused of serious firearms charges, do not find themselves back in our communities because of a negligent bail system. The safety of law-abiding citizens of Ontario and Canada must take precedence. The very concerns that this motion aims to address have been echoed not only across this province but nationwide.

Speaker, I was honoured to join our government in March at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting in Ottawa on bail reform. There, we said, in no uncertain terms, to federal minister David Lametti that the time is now for meaningful national bail reform. Safety can’t wait. Our Premier and our Solicitor General led the way in establishing consensus among the Premiers of all 10 provinces and three territories and in calling for bail reform, along with the Solicitors General and Attorneys General of those other provinces. It’s clear to me that we’re all on the same page in wanting safer communities for Canadians. Why, then, is the federal government continuing to reduce the penalties for violent criminals, placing reoffenders back in our communities to wander the streets without any accountability? This is unacceptable.

Violent crime under this federal government has gone up over 30%, and gang-related crime is up over 100%. Given this grim reality, our provincial government will continue to fight for real federal bail reform.

That’s exactly what the Standing Committee on Justice Policy has worked on and presented in its report, as my colleague mentioned earlier, on March 20. As a member of that committee, it was important to me that we had a chance to listen to the OPP commissioner, in addition to the police chiefs and association leadership from across the province.

The people of Ontario and the people who keep us safe have a clear message: Bail reform will save lives. If you’re a repeat weapons offender, you should not get out on bail if you fail to demonstrate that you can be a safe member of this community. As of right now, the catch-and-release bail system is not the right solution.

I want to reassure every member here that I, along with the Premier and the Solicitor General, believe in the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” But it is not right to shift the burden on police services by leaving them to deal with repeat offenders being allowed back in the community.

With the introduction of federal Bill C-75 three years ago, the system that was built to ensure public safety has become preoccupied with clearing backlogs. This has undoubtedly led to more dangerous criminals being released on bail when taking these individuals into custody was the appropriate action—not only this; we have seen that our current system has been failing to ensure that repeat offenders released on bail show up and attend court. This is also unacceptable.

As I’ve already mentioned, these very same concerns have been echoed across the province.

I’d like to share the words of someone from my own community, Sarnia police chief Derek Davis, who explained the issue very clearly: If there is a warrant for someone’s arrest for missing their court date, “we arrest you and immediately release you, and if you don’t attend that court date, rinse (and) repeat.”

This harmful catch-and-release has left the local police force in my riding—and I’m sure across this province—among others, to urge the government to take another look at the rules as written.

I encourage all members of this House to speak with your own local police chiefs and police association members. Learn about the challenges on the ground. It will become evident to you how necessary today’s motion is and how much we need meaningful bail reform. The purpose of this motion today is to answer those calls for change.

As of December 30, 2022—to go back to my community—in the community of Sarnia, the local police had been in contact with 230 individuals 20 or more times in the previous calendar year. That’s 4,600 times that police had to respond to these same individuals.

Considering such frightening statistics, how can anyone argue that the current status of the bail reform system is adequate enough to keep the people of Ontario and our nation safe?

Let me elaborate further on one specific case in my community. A serial offender facing probation, assault, mischief, and break and enter charges had contact with the police 116 times in a one-year period—that certainly is “rinse and repeat.” Included in that number were well-being checks, warrants, arrests, conversations, and being the subject of complaints. I can’t think of a worse case of resources being wasted on one individual—where there are many other calls that get put on the back burner because of one individual. Imagine how many times this is happening across this province every day. Placing the burden on police officers to deal with such repeat offenders time and time again consumes a vast number of resources and prevents them from being able to respond to emergency situations, where they’re needed most. This is just one example. Unfortunately, this is not unique to my community.

The current bail system certainly needs serious changes.

How many chances must a repeat offender of violent crime be given before it is time to prioritize the rights of law-abiding people who deserve to feel safe on the streets of their communities?

It’s my hope that through this motion, we no longer will have to ask these questions, and that the federal government will finally listen to the calls from our province.

The immense and proven threat to public safety will continue to grow out of control without drastic and immediate reform to the Criminal Code of Canada. For the safety of the people of Ontario and right across this great country, this matter cannot wait. The time for action is now.

I’m really pleased to rise and address this very, very important issue and get some further context to where we are and how we got here. It’s something that we hear about in our ridings. It’s something that we hear about from family and friends. And certainly it’s something that we hear about from those who are the victims of crime. We actually even hear about it from some of the offenders—and some of their perspectives on how this works and how this works for them sometimes.

I’m going to refrain from talking about any cases in particular, of course, because that’s the right thing to do, and I expect we will all do the same thing. But I want to talk about how policy is made and how these kinds of things happen and come to change.

As we all know—but not everybody knows—there are two lists of powers in this country: There’s the provincial list and the federal list. It’s in the Constitution. It’s fairly clear who does what in many of these pieces. Where the province is charged with running the administration of justice and appointing the Ontario judges, the federal government is charged with running the Criminal Code and where we turn the dial on that, and appointing Superior Court judges and Court of Appeal judges. So we have this partnership where the federal government appoints certain judges but the province is entrusted to run the system itself, and then we have overlaid on that the Criminal Code. A large percentage of the Ontario judges who are appointed by our government—and previous governments—deal with Criminal Code matters. So, again, we have another overlap, and it becomes very complicated to have a conversation when you’re dealing with one system but many fingers in the system. So, as in other ministries, we have what are called federal-provincial-territorial meetings, which are meetings of the ministers of the relevant ministry—in this case, the Attorney General’s office or the Solicitor General’s office. And we meet with our counterparts from across the country on occasion to talk about issues that are important to all Canadians. We will often meet as the provincial and territorial members, and then we will, as a group, meet with our federal counterparts. This happens as need be and on a fairly regular basis—once or twice a year.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that we’ve been dealing with some of these issues since I’ve become the Attorney General. There are conversations we’ve had with our colleagues in Alberta and Manitoba and New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, of course, and the territories—all members from across the country—and the alignment that we have on some issues just shows that although we have great diversity in Canada, we share some common values. But I have never seen before—and I’ve been watching politics for a very long time—what our Premier did, what Premier Ford did. He penned a letter, and every provincial and territorial leader signed on to that letter and said to the federal government, “We need to do something different. We need to do something better.” I’ve never seen that before on any issue. Even on health care, there are different voices. Education, transfer funds, all sorts of things—it’s rare, if it has ever been done before, that everybody came together to say, “Here is our collective position. We need you to do something.”

The act of that letter, on January 13 of this year, set in motion something that we at the provincial level, at our provincial-territorial table, have been talking about since I’ve become the AG. The letter calls for very clear change. It calls for change in the Criminal Code itself, which, as I mentioned, is a federal responsibility. It’s something that affects all of us, but the federal government holds the pen on it. We’ve been talking about firearms and rural crime and community-led public safety and all sorts of things back from 2019, and before. We more recently had raised the issue of bail and how it operates or doesn’t operate and the importance to our communities of keeping them safe and having people be protected. But it wasn’t until that letter that the Premier wrote, which all other provincial Premiers and territorial leaders signed on to, every one of them—that set things in motion, but it wasn’t the letter alone; it was our front-line services, the people who see it day to day. It’s the police officers who are on the front lines, who are dealing with a whole myriad of issues, whether it be mental health or social supports or crime as we know it. This was an issue they cared about a lot.

I saw that Mark Baxter with the Police Association of Ontario was here moments ago. His leadership and the leadership of the associations has been critical in the dialogue. I can tell you, it’s not just our police; the RCMP are engaged in this, and their association.

It caused a meeting to happen with the chiefs of police of Canada. And that meeting with the federal government, with our federal counterparts—Minister Kerzner and his federal counterpart, Minister Mendicino, and my counterpart, Minister Lametti, had a meeting with the chiefs of police. I just happened to be at the graduating ceremony for the 500th graduating class of the OPP. I was there with Minister Kerzner, and the meeting was happening at that moment. When I left that afternoon, a phone call was had and they said, “Would you be willing to meet? We’ve heard from the chiefs of police, and we don’t think they’re asking for too much. We think that we might be able to get there.” Of course, Mr. Kerzner and I said, “You name the time and place, and we’ll be there.”

So that meeting came to be on March 10 of this year. All of our colleagues from across the country got together—some virtually, as need be. PEI was in a position where they were into an election—they were into a writ period. They couldn’t participate in signing on to the final communiqué, but they were in a position to be there to listen and to give some guidance.

I can tell you, during those meetings—and parliamentary assistant Bob Bailey and I went due to double-booking, because we weren’t going to move this date. If they wanted us there, we weren’t going to ask for a movement. So it was just, “Who can go? We’re going to go and make our points.”

I can tell you, the collegiality, the co-operativeness—again, I’ve been going to these meetings. I’ve been all over the country doing these federal-provincial-territorial meetings. At the previous one, before the March 10 one, we didn’t actually get a communiqué out. That’s sort of what happens with these—at the end, you put out a joint statement. Well, we just couldn’t agree as provinces, collectively, and territories on some of the issues that were on the table. But at this one, on March 10, a communiqué did go out. A communiqué went out talking about the importance of bail, bail reform, and how it works and how it doesn’t work. I’ll tell you, Madam Speaker, it was really—I don’t want to say that it was a shock, but the level of co-operativeness with the federal government on this issue was heartening. So I look forward to holding their feet to the fire to take action. I really look forward to them following through on some of the things that they said they would be willing to do.

I’ve talked to my federal counterpart, Minister Lametti. We did a tour of the new Toronto courthouse recently and had a chance to connect again. Of course, I raise it at every turn—how important an issue it is for us and our communities, to keep them safe. So I’m glad that we’re talking about it today. We have to talk about it. We have to let people know it’s important to us. We have to let the federal government know it’s important to Ontario. They’re hearing it from the other provinces, as well, and they need to take this step—not just words, not just a study, not “Let’s think about it. Let’s create some options.” We need some concrete action. We need to move the dial, because anything that deals with guns and blades—and Manitoba raises bear spray as a significant issue in their jurisdiction; bear spray is being used for crimes on buses and around. Anything like that needs to be taken more seriously, and the bail system needs to deal with that.

There is a concept in bail called the ladder principle. Effectively, it says that you have to do the least restrictive thing for somebody, and that makes some sense. It sometimes puts the justice of the peace or the judge in a position to have to make a tough decision on what the least restrictive thing is. The federal government did pass a bill, C-75, that codified what were previous Supreme Court decisions like Antic, and there was another follow-up case that codified the ladder principle. What we’re talking about when we talk about bail reform is changing who’s responsible for making the argument—the argument being, “Should the person be let back into the community, or should the person not?” The way that it works, really, is that the crown has to demonstrate why the person shouldn’t be back in the community. As you move up the ladder, the onus is on the crown prosecutor to make that case. And my friend Jess Dixon, the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler, did this for a living, so she knows the mechanics of this better than I do, to be honest with you—she was front-line, having to make these decisions, having to put forward our best foot. I’ll tell you, it’s not an easy job. But the onus, in some situations, shouldn’t be on the Jess Dixons of the world. The onus should be on the accused who is using a gun, or using a blade, or using bear spray or doing certain things. It should be a reverse onus. They should have to show why they’re back out in the community.

That’s what we’re asking the federal government to do—to make some changes, to pass the onus from the crown to the accused. This is done in some instances—this is not a unique or novel thing—but with the increased violent crime that we’re seeing, it’s critical that the alleged perpetrators and those who are then subsequently found guilty have gone through a system that respects the rights of the community and the individuals, our neighbours and friends and family. There is no excuse, when somebody has used a gun in the commission of a crime, why they should not have to explain why they should be let out into the community.

I am getting concerned about the increased amount of crime happening we’re seeing, not just in numbers, but in severity. That’s a real challenge for our communities. It’s a challenge for our front-line officers, for our mental health workers. It’s a challenge for our neighbours, our friends. It’s a challenge for us, running a system to tackle the most serious and sometimes heinous crimes that are happening. And it starts with bail. We need to be keeping some of these people off the streets—the repeat offenders, the violent offenders, the people who are using guns, knives and, again, bear spray, which isn’t something that I’m familiar with, but Manitoba is very, very vehement about this. They want to make sure that their communities are safe, with things that are otherwise fairly easy to get.

Madam Speaker, again, in the bail process, we have this ladder system, as I mentioned, with levels of severity.

I want to talk about sureties, for a moment. With bail, sometimes somebody is a surety—somebody promises that they will help protect the community from the alleged accused, and it goes in connection with bail. So yes, you may be freed into the community—not held in a correctional facility—with a surety who posts money and makes a promise to the court, to the system, that they’ll be partially responsible for what’s happening. I can tell you, we’re talking about bail today, but the surety piece of that is something that should be drawing our attention. I’m not saying that the federal government has to do everything, because we need to do our part. But I think the surety is an important piece of the puzzle. I think that’s something that we’ll give further input into, as well.

Here’s what we do: We don’t just stand by and say that it’s somebody else’s fault, somebody else’s problem. We’ve been investing a lot of resources into what I call the SWAT teams of lawyers. So if it’s a gun or gang issue in Peel or in other parts of the province and somebody’s up for bail, we send in the SWAT team of lawyers to put the best evidence forward, to gather the best evidence to make sure that the accused is faced with the facts of what they have allegedly done, and the judge or the justice of the peace has to take that into account. So we’re sending in our best and brightest on these very focused pieces. We’re doing our part. We’re making sure that happens.

The other thing that we have to do and we have an obligation to do is to make sure that the individuals hearing the matter—the justice of the peace and the Ontario court judges—are at the top of their game. That’s why there’s a very rigorous process for appointments.

Madam Speaker, there are 299 Ontario court judges in this province at the moment, and I’ve appointed approximately 70 of them; maybe a few more than that. I’ve appointed approximately 100 of the justices of the peace. I’ve seen a lot of applications—I’ve seen a lot of backgrounds; I’ve seen a lot of community involvement; I’ve seen a lot of people who care about the community they live in, and they want to make the best decisions for their communities, for their loved ones and for the people who are victims of some of these crimes. I see that they want the tools—but if the federal government doesn’t do what it needs to do in terms of bail reform, we’re not going to give them the tools they need to get the job done. Again, we’re sending in our best and brightest for these bail hearings, so we’re doing our part for the hearings. It’s really important that the federal government come to the table with bail reform so that we have not only the best rules and the best people and the best evidence for the very qualified and the best hearers, the JPs and judges—to make the decision, to protect our community, to make sure that we’re doing the right thing.

Madam Speaker, I can’t stress enough how important it is that the federal government act soon, and that we get some resolve to this so that we can start talking about other parts of the system that need to be improved. I’ve had a great working relationship with my federal counterpart. I don’t want to make it sound like we’re at odds on everything. We’ve had some very productive discussions; it has been very collaborative. But I’m standing here, really, just to say that it has to happen soon and our communities are waiting for it. People are talking about it. They’re concerned. Some are apprehensive. We’ve seen the stories in the newspapers. We just have to do more, we have to do it soon, and we have to do it better.

I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about some of these things that are very important to me—something that I talk a lot about in meetings and that I hear from our excellent partners in the policing world and our judges and JPs and all those who help manage people in crisis, and the victim services that are out there.

That’s okay. I hope your fingers are intact.

The justices of the peace are not always available. For most offences, the accused is then released back into the community, which then makes victim protection even harder. As we all know, in those tight-knit communities, it’s all about communities helping each other. When you have one person who has stepped offside or one person who’s violent or created an incident and made other people unsafe, where are they going to be released to? They’ve got nowhere to go, and they become more hardened and more difficult to rehabilitate afterward.

Chief Morrison said that in recent years, there has been an influx of offenders from southern Ontario who are already “on conditions.” He actually noted that people are bringing drugs and weapons to places like Thunder Bay and Timmins and then “aligning themselves” with Indigenous people they meet who live in northern communities.

Chief Morrison asked for more resources to address the current system’s deficiencies. If you want to help those northern communities and Indigenous communities, then fund the services that they’re asking for. This police chief was really clear about the things that he needed to keep his community members safe.

I couldn’t help but notice there was a note of desperation in his voice. There was a note in his voice that said to me he didn’t really believe what we were asking him and that the question in the debate at the committee wasn’t going to result in any more resources for him. I regret that, because I know that I couldn’t have offered him much more at that time. But I sure would like every member of this House to actually take his submission and actually review it and then think about how we can do better by Indigenous and northern and remote communities. This is so critically important.

Chief Morrison called on more resources to address the current system’s deficiencies. Longer-term, however, he believes that there needs to be a recognition that “the European system” is not working for Indigenous people. This was actually a very powerful moment for me to hear him say that. This is a man who actually works in policing, no different than other police officers who put on the uniform day in and day out to do the best that they can to keep their communities safe. We know that policing is a calling. Speaker, I certainly know that. My father was a naval officer. I know what it meant to him for him to put on the uniform, to serve in the navy. Everybody who serves in those types of uniforms—it is a calling.

For Chief Morrison, it was a calling, but he also said he recognized that the system that he was working in was limited and it wasn’t going to help his community, not in the way that it needed to. He said that government ministries must “bring back their system”—and I’m going to say an Indigenous system—“a system that they followed for thousands of years.” I’m certainly no expert on what that system is, but I think that we need to lean in and listen to Chief Morrison and ask the question, “How can we help? What does that look like for you in your community?”

I want to be able to recognize that this motion is a symbolic motion. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s okay for us to have that conversation. But I also want to be able to do more than just have a symbolic motion that we will support, because I want to be able to address the problem. I really believe that parliamentarians are here because they want to fix the problem. The problem is we don’t have the solution before us.

Yes, absolutely, let’s go ask Justin Trudeau one more time, “Hey, you want to help us with bail reform?” He has already said yes, but let’s ask Minister Lametti: “We’ve asked you before. You’ve already said yes, but we’ll ask you again. Let’s fix that bail reform system.” He said yes already. They’re working on it. You’re at the table. We’ve heard from the honourable minister the Attorney General that they’re working collaboratively, yet we’re having a debate on this same motion about asking the federal government to work with us to reform bail. All right, that’s fine.

Speaker, I’d like to offer you the following, because I don’t want to just criticize. Because that’s not really nice. I want to offer a solution. My solution, Speaker, is that I’d like to amend this motion, to just give it more focus. Let’s be more purposeful in our intention of what it is that we’re asking of the federal government. It’s a symbolic motion, but let’s put ourselves into the driver’s seat and take some control, because I think it’s important. We don’t want to be always asking the federal government, “Can you do this? Can you do that?” Let’s be grown-ups about this. Let’s take some control. Let’s fix the problem that’s made in Ontario. We could do that.

I move that government notice of motion 13 be amended as follows: Delete everything after the word “implement” and replace it with the following: “meaningful bail reform to more appropriately evaluate and mitigate risk, ensuring that court resources are focused on protecting vulnerable groups from violent repeat offenders.”

Therefore, the motion will then read: “This House calls on the federal government to immediately reform the Criminal Code of Canada to address the dangers facing our communities and implement meaningful bail reform to more appropriately evaluate and mitigate risk, ensuring that court resources are focused on protecting vulnerable groups from violent repeat offenders.”

I’m going to pass the motion to page Mia, who is going to bring that to the House. I understand the table will be able to distribute that for all the members to consider.

I want to be able to just take a moment to explain—

So what does this motion mean? I thought we could be a little bit more specific in our purpose of intent. The vulnerable groups that we’re trying to protect—let’s start to name them. Oftentimes those who have been released on bail conditions, and oftentimes who are in breach of bail conditions, are oftentimes perpetuators of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, domestic violence. And the vulnerable groups that I’d like to protect, that we should all be protecting, are those specific individuals that those who are being released on bail go back out to.

We know that women—especially women—are very scared when their abuser, their perpetuator of violence, has been apprehended and then released. And we have now heard that there isn’t really any effective bail supervision and monitoring system. So if you want to keep people safe, let’s keep them safe, because the majority of those who are repeat offenders have a long history. The ones who own firearms, the ones who have been in and out of the revolving-door system are oftentimes the ones with a long history of domestic violence and intimate partner violence.

They also sometimes evolve into mass shooters. We’ve seen that. You cannot uncouple what we’ve now seen with respect to mass murderous shootings from histories of misogyny and violence against women; they are integrally connected. Whether it’s the Renfrew triple femicide, the mass shooting of Nova Scotia or December 6, all of that is interconnected, and there is such a remarkable body of research to back all of that up.

If we’re going to be protecting vulnerable communities from those who are most violent, the repeat offenders, then let’s do that. Let’s make this motion really perform for our communities. Let’s make sure that we protect them to the greatest possibility that we can, and let’s make sure that their voices are heard. Let’s try to demonstrate, just in a small way, that we heard those expert witnesses who came to our committee to offer us their professional recommendations on how to fix it.

We’re not going to get to everything in this motion—for sure we’re not. Even my amendment is not going to get to everything. But will it put it into sharper focus? Will it give it more intention and purpose? Will it make it less vague and symbolic? You bet. And that’s what this motion will do and can do.

I just wanted to finish on one point as not to take anything away. I want to be able to just highlight that the Renfrew inquest that we’ve spoken so much about in this House, that we have all spoken to, that has moved us significantly, has specifically spoken about bail protection and support for survivors of intimate partner violence. I want to dedicate this amendment to them, to every single woman who’s been affected by intimate partner violence, sexual violence, domestic violence. I want to dedicate it to the inquiry and all those who participated. Thank you.

Every day, for Ontario families, violence and crime in their communities is becoming all too common. Hard-working men and women and their families are feeling less and less safe. At the same time, we’re seeing more and more police officers being targeted and killed—and not just targeted but ambushed. Our justice system is meant to protect the public, to keep anyone who threatens their safety off our streets. Instead, critical parts of the system are failing to defend good and innocent people while continuing to let dangerous criminals go free.

For years, police officers have been sounding the alarm, including families and friends who have lost loved ones to these terrible crimes, like the women I spent time with today. My colleague mentioned, “Let their voices be heard.” There’s a voice of many people that have lost loved ones in the line of duty. I had the opportunity to sit down with Margaret and Samantha Northrup, Jenny Hong, Brenda Orr and Nancy MacDonald. Who’s been listening to their voices? I can tell you one thing: We’re listening, collectively. I truly believe we’re all listening, no matter what political stripe you come from.

As the Police Association of Ontario has said many times over the last several months, the justice system is no longer just a revolving door for repeat violent offenders; the door is now wide open. Enough is enough, Madam Speaker.

I’m not alone in my concern. In fact, every single one of Canada’s 13 Premiers, of every single political stripe, signed a letter earlier this year calling on the federal government to fix the problem, to shut the door. Since I’ve been Premier, it’s challenging to get 13 Premiers to agree on anything quickly. We all agree—but quickly. And within a few days, all 13 Premiers signed that letter. I have never, ever seen quick action like that since I became Premier, and I want to thank my colleagues for signing that letter to send it out to the federal government.

We cannot have a justice system that fails to protect innocent people. We cannot have a justice system where violent criminals who should be behind bars are instead wreaking havoc on our streets. It is not an exaggeration to say that people are now dying because of the failures of our justice system.

One of the widows said in the meeting, “Police officers are held accountable. Politicians are held accountable. Why aren’t judges held accountable when they let these repeat offenders back on the streets to go kill innocent people, kill innocent police officers?” That’s the question she was posing, and we need an answer.

Repeat offenders, people accused of committing dangerous crimes over and over again, should not be arrested one day and let back out on the street the next just to see them recommit crimes, because when they go in front of the courts, it’s a little slap on the wrist and “See you later. You go out and commit another crime.” It’s absolutely disgusting. These people are dangerous. They need to be behind bars and they need to stay behind bars.

Madam Speaker, back in February, the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington led a study on bail reform at a standing committee. He’s in the Legislature today, and I want to thank you for all the great work. The committee heard from top experts and policing leaders who all had the same message: The vast majority of violent crime being committed here in Ontario is being committed by the same small group of violent people.

Now, if they were in jail, we wouldn’t be worrying about this. But they aren’t in jail. I’ve heard stories about JPs, justices of the peace, wanting to keep them in jail and the judge overrules them—unheard of. And they get them back on the street just to commit another crime. These same few people are being released time and time again, and every time they’re released, our communities and the men and women who keep them safe are put at risk.

Simply put, this is happening because of Canada’s broken bail system. Members from all political parties were part of this committee, and they all came together and unanimously agreed on specific actions the federal government should take to fix the system. All parties in Ontario agree we need to see action. All Premiers across Canada agree we need to see action.

Madam Speaker, it’s clear this is not about ideology or partisanship, but a matter of public safety. Safety doesn’t know—and criminals don’t look at borders. They don’t go from a riding in Etobicoke, a riding out in Scarborough or a riding downtown and say, “Oh, I’m in a different riding.” They don’t care. They don’t care about the people. They don’t care about the communities. They don’t care about keeping the subway safe. They just want to go out there and cause havoc in our communities.

Instead, the federal government has continued to resist common-sense changes to keep people safe. You have the whole country screaming, “We need to make changes,” and they’re dilly-dallying along like there’s no urgency. There’s no urgency because none of their families have ever been affected. They haven’t seen the safety—they’re protected behind the big golden gates of Parliament. That’s unacceptable.

The people of Ontario are frustrated by the failures of Canada’s justice system. And even without bail reform, these judges have an opportunity to keep them in jail a lot longer than what they have been. Yes, we need bail reform, but you don’t need bail reform if you’re a judge and you want to keep them in a little longer. But they’re buckling and they’re opening the door and letting them back out onto the streets and crossing their fingers that maybe, maybe little Johnny, after committing a heinous crime, will be a good little Johnny. No, that doesn’t cut it. They need to go to jail.

The police have told us that Canada’s broken bail system is to be blamed. They have told us that bail reform will save innocent lives. They have told us that without drastic and immediate action, the danger facing the public will only continue to grow out of control. The federal government cannot continue to delay bail reform. For the safety of the people of Ontario and all Canadians, we need action, and we need it now.

I want to thank everyone in the Legislature today for the same common cause of keeping our streets safe. And may God bless the women and men who serve our communities across the province, to keep them safe, who put their lives on the line day in and day out. I have a message: We will always have your back. We will be relentless with the federal government until they come up with proper bail reform.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—

As elected officials, we have an obligation to protect Ontario’s communities, and that is what this motion seeks to do. That is why I support it.

The federal government needs to hear from us, this Legislature, that the people of Ontario want to feel safe in public. They want to feel safe on their streets, on public transit and in their communities. But there are trade-offs, and there are always trade-offs, so let’s talk about them.

We all remember just a few months ago when Constable Greg Pierzchala was shot and killed by a repeat offender out on bail. In that situation, there was a trade-off: Someone known to be a repeat violent offender was let go. We can’t allow this to happen again. We must take seriously the thought that the Criminal Code should be amended for those most likely to reoffend.

When it comes to this issue, the public has skin in the game. Their safety is on the other side and on the line. That is why we have to make it harder for these kinds of offenders to get out on bail. Reversing the onus, requiring the most serious and violent criminals—those who are most likely to reoffend—to prove why their detention isn’t justified is a fail-safe. It creates a legal framework in which the justice system can keep the most dangerous people in custody until their trial.

But this alone is not enough. This is just one piece of the puzzle. For example, why doesn’t the provincial government require bail hearings for the most serious offences to be heard by the provincial court rather than a justice of the peace? Why doesn’t this government spend some of that contingency fund on the justice system, which desperately needs additional resources to complete its bail hearings on time? And why haven’t we responded to the recent wave of TTC violence with increased mental health and addictions funding?

These are all questions we need to consider in concert with this motion. Bail reform cannot make our communities safe on its own. It can make them safer, but not nearly safe enough.

I’ll indicate at the outset that I’ll be sharing my time with the member for Beaches–East York and the member for Don Valley East—if he gets here on time.

I think everyone here can agree that those who have committed violent crimes, and especially those with a history of repeated violent offences, should be kept behind bars where they do not pose a threat to public safety. To that effect, I do support this motion calling on the federal government to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to keep violent and repeat offenders off our streets. However, we also cannot ignore the many testimonies made at committee regarding the negative impact that stricter bail conditions could have.

Madam Speaker, we do not need more jails in this province. We do not need to incarcerate more people. What we need to do is to shift our focus to rehabilitation and reintegration. We have to recognize that the reasons people commit crimes are often complex and take root in difficult life experience. Whether it is poverty, poor mental health, addictions, a lack of community or of a support network, abuse or previous violent trauma, the reasons that people commit crimes are not simple. They’re never simple. It is these underlying issues that we need to work to address so that we can prevent people from ending up in the situations and circumstances that make criminal acts seem like a viable option.

It is worth asking ourselves whether the crimes of these violent and repeat offenders that we’re talking about today were always inevitable, or if there was a point in each of these people’s story where someone could have intervened, where the system could have treated them differently and helped them turn their lives around before they committed a criminal act. Maybe, maybe not. But there is no doubt in my mind that there are many offenders out there for whom this is the case and for whom the experience of being detained can contribute to bring them down even lower.

Dr. Jennifer Foster stated in her submission to the committee that detaining people has an effect of hardening them, regardless of if they are convicted or not. The experience of being detained is a tough experience and has a significant negative impact on the detainee. Unfortunately, I speak from experience. My brother spent most of his adult life in and out of prison, and I can attest that, whenever he was released, he was nowhere near being better upon that release. Actually, he ended up dying of an overdose at age 38, alone in a shelter. That was back in 2006, and we haven’t made significant strides enough to help those people.

These negative impacts are only augmented when we consider the extremely poor conditions that inmates are subjected to in Ontario jails. Recently, Ontario’s Chief Coroner had nine experts review the deaths in Ontario’s correctional facilities from 2014 to 2021. In January of this year, those experts released a scathing report highlighting the lack of space, of programming and of services for inmates, all factors that help maintain the well-being of those being detained.

The report also underlined the lack of adequately trained staff, of decent management, of effective anti-drug measures, of transparency and of accountability within correctional facilities in Ontario. These failings have led to extremely poor conditions for inmates and to preventable deaths.

Of the deaths in correctional facilities during the time period studied, approximately 40% were a result of drug use and 24% were from suicide. That’s two-thirds of the deaths that could have been avoided through better addictions and mental health supports for inmates, not to mention the many other factors that could have been addressed. Given such conditions, it is not hard to understand the negative impact being detained would have on someone and the psychological trauma that they would have to deal with as they try to move forward.

Currently, Ontario’s jails do more harm than good in most cases, and this needs to change. If we want to better protect the public from violent crime, yes, we need bail reform. But more importantly, we desperately need to improve the conditions in our jails so that inmates are treated with respect and dignity and put on a path towards rehabilitation and re-integration instead of a downward spiral that only leads to more crime.

We also need to focus on addressing the complex underlying factors that lead to criminal activity. It is only by taking a whole-of-government approach, as the government side likes to say, and addressing the issue in a holistic manner that we will truly be able to reduce the number of incarcerations, effectively reintegrate offenders into society and protect the public.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll I turn it over to the member from Beaches–East York.

I would like to commend my colleague from Ottawa–Vanier on her heartfelt words and lived experience.

I would like to first start out commending the Solicitor General for bringing this bill forward. It is a step in the right direction towards addressing the challenges posed by repeat violent offenders. That starts with a commitment from government to move forward quickly on targeted reforms to the Criminal Code of Canada on bail.

Violent crimes are on the rise in Ontario and across Canada. The trend is only increasing as time goes on, with no end in sight. It is beyond tragic to see innocent people becoming victims of horrendous offences. Public safety must be paramount, and we as leaders need to work collaboratively to ensure that happens and that we do so immediately.

There are a growing number of calls for changes to prevent accused people who are out on bail from committing further criminal acts. Good-faith initiatives from every level of government and every police force are a necessary step. We must confront these issues together. We need to review the judicial and public safety frameworks, commit to further work to fully understand the best remedies, identify what isn’t working and call for change to ensure that this does not continue. Everything should be on the table, and we need to ensure that these challenges are a shared responsibility.

Equally important, any changes should require judges to consider the circumstances of people who are Indigenous or from vulnerable populations. We want to ensure that any changes do not disproportionately impact Black, Indigenous and minority communities.

Recently, Toronto has seen its increased share of horrible events right across the city and especially on the TTC. To that point, we all know people who are now fearful to ride transit. As we attempt to increase ridership during the pandemic recovery and in consideration of the climate crisis that is upon us, our transit system should be attracting ridership, not the opposite.

We cannot allow citizens to feel unsafe anywhere. We need to do our best to protect everyone and make every effort to ensure there is a higher level of scrutiny for offenders of serious crimes. Bill 13 is attempting to accomplish just that, if passed. Ontarians are looking to us to help keep them safe and secure.

Now I’ll send it to my colleague.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to this motion today. And of course, thank you to the Solicitor General for bringing it forward. I also want to obviously thank the Premier and the work that he has done across the Council of the Federation to highlight this and to make sure that across this country, we are all focused on the same thing, and that is ensuring that repeat violent offenders are put in jail and are left in jail.

I had actually thought, frankly, that this would be an easy motion that we would have before the House, that there would be complete agreement on the wording of the motion and that there wouldn’t be a bone of contention or disagreement between members on either side of the House. That’s what I had thought. Of course, the motion that was presented by the official opposition completely destroys that thought. And I’ll get to why I believe that, because we are hearing in this debate the ongoing problem that we have not only here in Ontario, but across this country.

It could not have been an easier motion. The motion is very simple: “‘This House calls on the federal government to implement reform to the Criminal Code to address dangers facing our communities and implement meaningful bail reform to prevent violent and repeat offenders from being released back into our communities.’ And that the said address be engrossed.” That was it. That was the motion. Now, why such a simple and easy motion? Because one would assume that we can all agree that violent and repeat offenders should not be released back into our communities. So to avoid discussions and long, intertwined debates, we made a simple, easy motion that we thought all people on both sides of the House could support. But of course, that’s not where we’re at. It then turns into a debate on all kinds of other things.

Now, Madam Speaker, there was a committee report. The standing committee on justice did have a report. This report highlighted many of the things that many of the opposition are talking about, right? It highlighted a number of reforms that needed to take place. It heard from a number of witnesses that talked about mental health reforms. And we can debate that as much as we want. We can debate mental health; we can debate housing, and we do that every single day. We do that every single day. We can debate the amount of police on the street; how our justice system is working. But surely to goodness, this House can agree on a very simple and easy motion that repeat violent offenders be not allowed out on bail.

Now, the report that was issued by the standing committee was a unanimous report. A unanimous report by this Legislature did not contain the motion that was brought froward by the member from Toronto Centre.

Let’s talk quickly about the motion. So I’ve read for you, Madam Speaker, the original motion. The amendment says the following: “Delete everything after ‘implement’”—so if we had agreed with this motion, we would be deleting “meaningful bail reform to prevent violent and repeat offenders from being released back into our communities.” The NDP, the official opposition, want us to delete that. Then they go one step further in also wanting us to delete any message to the federal government through the House and the Senate. They want us to delete that and then replace it with the following: “meaningful bail reform to more appropriately evaluate”—“evaluate.”

Interjection.

We heard from the commissioner of the OPP—and we heard it not only just at committee. Let’s be clear: When the commissioner of the OPP went before the microphone shortly after the death of Constable Greg, he could not have been more forceful, more passionate in calling on the federal government to make reforms. At committee, he described the murder as preventable and said that he was outraged at the fact that someone with the suspect’s history had been able to make bail. The commissioner said that something had to change. That was what the commissioner said.

We have seen, not only just with Constable Greg—that one, frankly; honestly, this is a repeat, violent offender, who then was let out and then ambushed a police officer, an OPP officer, and killed the officer, because he was out on bail. We can, again, have a discussion to our heart’s content—we can have that discussion on homelessness, on housing, on what our jails should look like. Does it appropriately represent marginalized communities? We can have that debate any time we like. Motions can be brought forward.

In fact, the report from the committee, unanimously adopted, could have said those very same things. There could have been a debate on those things when this report was deposited in this House and we adjourned debate. There could have been an additional debate on those things, but there wasn’t. There could have been an additional minority report on those things, but there wasn’t.

When called on the floor to support something that just seems common sense, you then get the weasel words. You then get the obfuscation and the moving around, anything to avoid doing what a majority of the people of the province of Ontario—what common-sense Ontarians and common-sense Canadians from across this country want. We have seen this time and time and time again.

They talk about things like more consultation and more consultation and more consultation. Well, we see what that has meant to our communities, right? When I was a federal member of Parliament, we brought in legislation that saw the crime rates in this country dip. We saw the end of the summer of the gun—it didn’t exist; it went down. We saw people jailed for things that they had done. We saw crime rates steadily decrease which had been increasing constantly across this country. When those meaningful, difficult sentences were removed, what did we start to see? Crime rates started to increase, over and over and over again.

It’s not just based on the fact that we have had a very difficult and challenging time across this country with respect to—it’s not just Constable Greg. We have seen in communities across Ontario, across Canada, police officers come under threat. It’s not just about police officers, though. It’s not just about police officers. It’s about families. It’s about students. It’s about new Canadians. It’s about all kinds of people. If you live in this country, you want to live in a safe community.

One of the things about Canadians is that we are a compassionate people, so we do agree that people should be given the benefit of the doubt. That’s why we have a justice system that will reflect on that. That’s why we have all kinds of rules in place, and judges have the ability to make decisions, to look at the case before them, look at the record of the accused or the gentleman or woman or person found guilty of a crime and to determine whether that person—if it’s a first offence, the degree of the harm and make those decisions.

However, most Canadians I think would agree, Madam Speaker, that—and I’m going to say it a million times, because I want the opposition to be uncomfortable. They should be uncomfortable by their amendment. And I see them shaking their heads, right? They’re all shaking their heads, because they don’t want to directly vote on this. They think by making an amendment that takes away the meat of what it is that Canadians want to do, what it is that Premiers across this country want to do—whether it’s a Conservative, Liberal, or NDP, Premiers have asked for the federal government to do something. Now we heard from the member for Toronto Centre, “Well, they said they’re going to do it.” Great, then do it. Then do something.

The reason we’re having this debate here is to give them assistance in bringing the reforms forward. The reason why we’ve engrossed that to the Parliament, both the House of Commons and the Senate, is because we wanted them to hear a unified voice from the people of the province of Ontario. It was the Premier who started the leadership on this, but we wanted them to hear a unified voice from the people of the province of Ontario that we have simply had enough, that we expect them to make change. We don’t need any more consultation. We have heard from the experts what has to happen when it comes to repeat and violent offenders.

We’ve also, granted, heard about other reforms that have to happen here in the province of Ontario, as is highlighted in the report—this report—that the committee tabled in this House, that was accepted unanimously.

By removing and changing it to “evaluate,” we’re in the exact same spot that we have been over the last number of years. We have to evaluate everything. What is there to evaluate?

And it goes one step further by then removing the wording that we would then send a message to the federal Parliament. “Why would we want to do that,” you’d say. “Why would we want to send a message to the federal government?” Because the federal government is in a minority. It is a minority federal Parliament, and they should hear a unified voice of the Parliament of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Let’s not forget that the balance of power, yet again, in Ottawa is held by the NDP. It is held by the NDP. So the member for Toronto Centre says, “Well, he says he’s going to do it.” Well, if he says he’s going to do it in Ottawa, and this is what we’re getting in the province of Ontario from the NDP, which is to eliminate anything that would put violent offenders back in jail or remove their bail, then what type of reforms are we going to get from a minority Parliament where the balance of power is held by the NDP?

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.

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.