I’m honoured to be able to speak to this today. Many in this House who have been around here for a little bit would know that in my prior career, I practised law and spent a lot of time practising specifically criminal law. In fact, back in 2005, after being called to the bar, my first-ever position as a lawyer was as a staff duty counsel at Sault Ste. Marie courthouse, and I held that job for just shy of two years. I represented, from Monday to Friday, every single morning, every individual in bail court as the staff duty counsel. Every offender who got arrested and ended up in custody would be brought before the justice of the peace that following morning. I would speak to that individual and try to assist in the bail process.

My next position was as a crown attorney, and I spent a lot of time in the bail courts as well, but for that year I spent my time trying to have individuals held where it was in the interest of justice to do so. So I feel that I can come into this conversation with a bit of a different lens, having experienced bail with a very significant volume of cases, and certainly an appreciation of the process. I think one of the great challenges that I’ve seen specifically in the debate of this motion is that these are sometimes difficult legal concepts. Without having a great background in terminology like reverse onus; crown onus; primary, secondary, tertiary grounds for detention; and judicial interim release proceedings, sometimes things can get a little bit confusing.

I feel like, as members who have been elected by our communities representing specific political parties, sometimes we come into this arena—in fact, most times—and we’re wearing our jerseys, if you will. We take approaches for lots of different reasons. And when we have opportunities—and I have seen it; it’s a beautiful thing in this House when it does happen, when everybody can join hands together, and agree that we park politics. We park our politics because there is a common goal that we’re all after. I certainly have been an individual who has worn the stripes, and we all have. But I genuinely do believe, Madam Speaker, that this motion, this particular subject matter, is not a political one. This is really a tremendous—I hear the comments being made in the room, and I genuinely, for whatever it’s worth, with the greatest respect, don’t agree. I believe that this is not a political matter. When you look at what has happened in our judicial interim release provisions, specifically over the course of the last few years since Bill C-75 was enacted by the federal government back in 2018, what were already very difficult grounds to hold an offender in custody from a crown’s perspective—what was already hard became tremendously harder.

Interjection.

The bail provisions we have under section 515 of the Criminal Code outline the whole process of how an individual who appears before the courts can be released. And when you hear the term “crown onus,” virtually every offence—not all—is a crown onus situation, which means it is up to the crown in that particular instance to justify why the accused should be detained in custody. It is not up to the accused to demonstrate why they should be released. That’s what the reverse onus provisions are. If an accused comes before the court on a crown onus situation, which again is the vast majority of the cases, the justice of the peace, based on the written form of the law, must release the accused unless the crown has demonstrated that there are serious concerns on three grounds: primary, secondary and tertiary grounds.

Primary grounds are: Is there a concern that this person is not going to come back to court? One of the main things evaluated in that case is, do they have a fixed address in the community? Do they actually live there? Do they have roots?

The secondary grounds are the most common grounds where an offender is detained, and that is whether or not it is more likely the offender would commit another offence. Under those provisions of the Criminal Code, that is where usually you would see a detention and a justice of the peace, or a judge, in certain cases of capital offences or murder, must give a written decision that outlines why that person would be detained if there was to be a detention, because it is subject to a bail review process. That is at the Superior Court of Justice level.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, from probably thousands of bail hearings I conducted from both sides of the dais that every—“every” is a bad way to put that; that’s an unfair statement. The vast majority of those cases where there was a detention order made, the detention was premised on secondary grounds, meaning risk of re-offense.

Tertiary grounds are a public interest ground, and there was an amendment that one of the members opposite yesterday brought forward and a lot of what was being referenced in that amendment was something that spoke to these tertiary grounds, public interest grounds.

One of the things that, as a little bit of a legal nerd I can be—my community of Sault Ste. Marie has the landmark case for determining tertiary grounds. It was R. v. David Hall. I actually spent a lot of time watching that murder trial when I was just a young student and I wanted to become a lawyer. I would go into the courthouse and watch proceedings, and that case was being dealt with at the time. Justice Gladys Pardu of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, one of Sault Ste. Marie’s own, wrote the Superior Court of Justice decision. She is presently a member of the Ontario Court of Appeal, something that in our legal community in Sault Ste. Marie we take great pride in—the only member of our bench who ever went on to the Court of Appeal. She was the one who wrote that decision in David Hall’s case. That essentially established that in certain cases, the public interest requires that a person be detained.

Now, why do I say all this? What’s the point? It’s because, as I said earlier, I think it’s important that we have some context of what it all means, what we’re here really talking about.

These provisions of the Criminal Code—and it is the Criminal Code of Canada. It’s right there in the name: “Canada.” It’s federal jurisdiction. It’s entirely up to the federal government to make changes to the Criminal Code so that we are, as provinces and the courts within these provinces, able to interpret that legislation, that law in order to deal with whatever the issue may be. Of course, right now, we’re talking about bail, judicial interim release.

When Bill C-75 was put in place by the federal government back in 2018, they made changes to the provisions of bail whereby they created a much more watered-down version of the code, specifically on that secondary grounds, where most people were captured because of a high propensity of reoffence.

Now, those provisions have been watered down so much so whereby the principle of restraint—a lot of people have referenced the principle of restraint here—says that an accused should almost always be released unless there’s clear evidence that they had committed a serious violent offence or that they would be at risk of committing a serious violent offence.

The “catch and release” verbiage that is now being used is really an accurate depiction, because for a police officer who would at one time arrest an individual—even if it was just a series of repeated property offences, they would often arrest that individual, bring them into custody and bring them to a bail court justice of the peace to make the decision as to what to do with this particular accused. In that setting, that accused would have a lot of work to do in a bail hearing context to establish that they had a plan. A plan could be, “You could release me on the deposit of a large sum of money on my own recognizance, and I forfeit my money if I don’t come back,” or a pledge of a lot of money. The most common thing you’ll see is where a surety is brought before the court. Most of the time, people would bring their mom or their dad, some close loved one, because that loved one has to now establish—because we don’t have that US system here. We don’t have Dog the Bounty Hunter or anything like that. We have sureties. Sureties pledge money before the courts. They make promises. They put plans before the courts, and then a court can determine whether or not, in weighing that plan, to release that accused.

What does it all mean? Under the current provisions of the Criminal Code, that police officer at that first instance, if it’s just a property-related offence and there is no serious violent offender allegations within that particular charge, must release that accused on an undertaking, meaning a promise to come back to court, and maybe an undertaking with conditions—where you’re alleged to have stolen from the mall, therefore you’re not going to be allowed to go back to that mall, or you had a domestic disturbance and you’re not allowed to speak to that individual or go to their residence anymore.

Those were the nature of conditions that now are the most a police officer can do, hence where the terminology “catch and release” comes from. It’s very immediate. It’s not bringing them before a court. Oftentimes, an individual isn’t even making it to a court because the police have no tools left to detain an individual and even bring them before a judge so that that judge or justice of the peace can make the decision. It doesn’t exist anymore.

If you look at what has happened here, this motion—and it’s a motion. Those of us who have served in this House for more than just this past—and quite frankly, even if you’ve been here just since the 2022 election, I still think you’ve had enough exposure at this point. All of us have. Those of us certainly who have been here longer than that can all appreciate that a motion is an action taken by us as elected officials to say something that we believe, to say something that we want to see done. If you look at the specific words used in this motion—and I would like to read it: “This House calls on the federal government to immediately reform the Criminal Code of Canada to address the dangers facing our communities and implement meaningful bail reform to prevent violent and repeat offenders from being released back into our communities.” It’s a sentence that is asking the federal government to help, to take control of that book that they are responsible for, the Criminal Code of Canada, that governs how judicial interim release happens, and to edit it accordingly so that incidents like the tragic death of Gabriel Magalhaes—it’s not going to be impossible that it would ever happen again, no, but we have to take measures to try. We have to take measures to try to protect people. That is our job. That’s all of our jobs.

If one Premier can call upon all Premiers and get them all to sign a letter in the expedited fashion that was done in this case—again, politics aside, the fact is what we are trying to do with the spirit of these words on this page I just read—the spirit is that we are all joining hands here in this House, we’re putting aside political stripes and we’re calling on the body that is responsible in this case to deal with the particular issue and asking them for help. We’re asking them to do the job that they were elected to do. It’s not politics, in my humble and respectful opinion.

If we don’t take some actions, these types of offences, these extremely egregious, deplorable acts, will continue to escalate, will continue to rise; and they have only done so since 2018. You haven’t seen an increase and a decrease, an increase and a decrease. You’ve seen a consistent increase in the nature of offences that are appearing before our courts. Because it takes a little bit of time—I was having a chat with our chief of police in Sault Ste. Marie, Chief Hugh Stevenson, and you could see that. It’s like a graph just gradually moving up because offenders are starting to understand that they can’t be detained. A lot of offenders are completely appreciating that if I commit an offence of property, and I do it as many times as I want, that police officer can’t do anything about it. He must release me.

They talk, Madam Speaker. Individuals in that world talk a lot. It’s quite incredible. I remember speaking with—especially when I was a duty counsel and I’d speak to every accused, sometimes they could tell me more about provisions of the bail court than I would already know, especially when I was new. They would often be able to give me an education in those early days because they get it. The more and more they come in and out of those courts and they hear what’s happening in the room and they’re talking to the other people in the cells, they come to learn a lot and they come to know what they can get away with. What is imperative is that they know when they’re talking, they’re going to come to realize that things have changed and that their chances of release are going to be minimized, that they’re going to be restricted. And then they’re going to think a little bit differently about certain offences they might commit.

The seriousness of a lot of the offences that are occurring today, police officers being ambushed, being murdered, people being killed—the amount of serious violent offences and the increase in them is terrifying, quite frankly. The fact that people are afraid to take public transit, the way things have been happening, it’s certainly something that needs rectification, but there are also offences that a lot of people would still be really happy to know are not going to be okay either, like property offences. For anybody who’s ever had their car broken into so someone could take change out of the vehicle, that’s also something that’s very, very difficult as well.

But at the end of the day—I have mere seconds to go—I really hope that my words have imparted some kind of demonstration that this isn’t about politics. This is about doing the right thing.

Further debate?

It’s an honour for me to rise today to speak on this incredibly important issue. As I begin my remarks, I just want to give my profound thanks to all first responders, all of the people who go bravely into the jaws of hell, go into danger to save us, to protect us and they also seek justice for us.

Before COVID-19, I had the opportunity to take a ride-along in my community with Sergeant Mike Muscat. It was really an eye-opening experience. The date I selected was a Friday. It was also a warm day, and if that weren’t enough, Speaker, it was also St. Patrick’s Day. So it was an incredibly busy evening for Sergeant Muscat, and I was really so incredibly impressed by his engagement with the community, his level of knowledge, the way in which he saw folks and knew their names. He knew how to respond to them.

But what also struck me at that time was the need for mental health supports within our community. A number of calls that Sergeant Muscat had to handle were ones that were outside of his professional purview, ones where he could assist and do his very best, but ones where we saw that the government needs to step in and make sure that people actually have the supports they need within our communities.

London has also engaged in a brilliant pilot project. It’s called COAST. It is a partnership with CMHA Elgin-Middlesex, St. Joseph’s Health Care London, Middlesex-London Paramedic Service and London Police Service. Now, this isn’t something that has any government funding attached to it whatsoever.

The acronym, COAST, stands for Community Outreach and Support Team. What they do is, they ensure that for mental health calls, there’s a social worker, because we know that for many mental health calls, the mere presence and the sight of an officer in uniform can immediately escalate a situation. It’s brilliant. It’s shown such great promise and it’s one that this government, I don’t believe, has chosen to fund within its 2023 budget, which is such a shame. Because this is something I’ve heard from so many of these amazing front-line officers: They need to have those direct mental health supports in the community to support them.

This motion, on its own, is not enough; it’s nowhere near enough. Yesterday, the Solicitor General stated that the MPPs’ fundamental responsibility is to uphold law and order, but where is the urgency to actively and authentically legitimately address the problem this seeks to solve? In the letter that has often been referred to, with all of the Premiers calling upon the federal government, it was January 13, but where is the urgency to support the people who are on the front lines?

I worry that this is just a public relations exercise rather than authentically fixing the issues that face our communities, the issues that face our front-line heroes and the issues that face our justice system. The bail system, we can agree, is broken. But this, I don’t believe, is the way in which to fix it. The motion itself is vague and it doesn’t make any specific recommendations or address the real scope of the problem.

The Standing Committee on Justice Policy had just two days of hearings. I would posit that this motion does not encompass all of the recommendations that the committee heard. The government heard evidence that many people are being detained, awaiting trial. They have been accused of crimes principally related to mental health, addictions and poverty. In these cases, the root causes are not being addressed by the criminal justice system, and quite frankly, they’re often made worse, they’re exacerbated by more time spent in custody.

There have been long-standing calls for bail reform from a wide variety of stakeholders. Many of them work within the criminal justice system and they also work with survivors of gender-based violence. Some of the concerns include that the system is unable to adequately monitor people who pose a threat, particularly against their former intimate partners.

I want to also enter into the record some of the Conservative opposition’s words—they had 15 years in opposition, as you know, Speaker, and they made certain commitments that they have, I would say, failed to have achieved during the last five years of their being in government.

A Conservative member said—and this was on March 29, 2018, shortly before the election—“Liberal probation and parole policies prohibit officers from conducting compliance checks and monitoring their offenders’ adherence to probation and conditional sentence orders in the community.” And went on to say that the Ministry of the Solicitor General “says that the police are responsible for performing P&P compliance checks.” The “report clearly confirmed that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police do not agree that it is their responsibility to do that.” And the member asked, “Honestly, who is monitoring and who is performing compliance checks on the nearly 45,000 criminals who reside in our communities? Who is watching?” The member also called for 300 more probation and parole officers to support community safety. Has this government done that?

I also want to talk about the excessive, incredibly difficult delays that people wait to have a bail hearing. It results in unnecessarily long and unreasonable detention sentences for those people who have not even been convicted of a crime.

Daniel Goldbloom from the Ontario Bar Association referred to a case called Simonelli. In this case, there were dozens of serious firearms and organized crime charges. These were thrown out. The trial never happened because of the delays in getting a bail hearing. That is on this government’s watch. They did not attack organized crime, such as they would claim. They did not attack these people who are dangerous in our society, because the system that they support, that they are supposed to fund, is not functioning properly.

My question is, how can this government talk about the sacrifice of our amazing front-line heroes and do so little to actually support them? With us on the side of the official opposition, we want to see immediate action to make sure that there are adequate resources for criminal prosecutors to ensure that everyone gets a bail hearing in a timely fashion. Make the justice system work well.

We want to make sure there’s more funding for legal aid—funding that this government cut, hurting the most marginalized people, people who can least afford to have their justice be denied to them. This government has made sure that that happened. We also want to make sure that resources are being allocated to take on the most dangerous offenders, and we also want to make sure that we’re not criminalizing people because of their mental health, because of poverty and because they’re struggling with addiction.

Now, Speaker, I also wanted to point out that this government is looking at this in a very simplistic way. They’re not looking at the complexity of the system itself. They’re making this gesture. I think we can all agree that the bail system is not functional; however, they’re not providing the resources that are necessary to make sure that justice is being served.

I wanted to also point out that we had stakeholders who were not being represented properly. Members on the justice committee did not have the opportunity to hear from any judges, any justices of the peace, and they did not ask to hear from any crown attorneys. How can this government say that it’s listening to the front line when it’s not listening to the breadth and the important voices within our justice system? They were listening to simply the voices that they wanted to, but they weren’t even listening well to them.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, one of the groups that was selected to present to the justice committee said—pardon me, the Toronto Police Association. I apologize. They said, “There’s no time or resources for proactive initiatives.... There’s no time or resources to seek out those who fail to appear.” What the Toronto Police Association was calling for was investments in people—investments that this government has chosen not to make. We have this gesture of this motion, but we don’t see the actual resources that we need.

They go on to say, “Police have a responsibility—in fact, it is their most important responsibility—to maintain public safety,” but “it is not their responsibility to shoulder this alone.” It’s part of a very dynamic system which has many parts which work in harmony, which work together, parts that this government has chosen not to fund and has weakened, quite frankly, by their lack of funding.

The police association also goes on to say—and I would say, Speaker, that front-line officers know the system well. They see it every single day. So I hope that even though this government did not listen to them at committee, they’ll listen to them now, because also, their recommendations are thoughtful and they consider other parts of the justice system: “In discussing this, I would be remiss in failing to mention our other justice partners and stakeholders and the resourcing that they require. It is not lost on me, nor our members, that our assistant crown attorneys are also overworked, overburdened and require more resources. Also, our colleagues in probation and parole are overworked and require more resources. These are all important investments in public safety.”

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples also told the committee, “According to the Department of Justice study, the vast majority of individuals—over 80%—released on bail never break the conditions of their release. Of those who violate those conditions, 98% are administrative issues ... the solution is to address the poverty and service failures that cause crime in the first place.”

In my community, we have read tragic reports in our local paper several times a year about deaths that have happened at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. There in fact have been 21 inmate deaths at EMDC since 2009. This has been brought to this government’s and the past government’s attention again and again and again, but they refuse to act. In the most recent case, Jamie Briggs, who was 44, was found dead at EMDC only a week after his arrest. He never even made it to his bail hearing. Families, lawyers representing the deceased, coroners’ reports, the head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Aboriginal Legal Services have all recommended that the facility be shut down and replaced with a more modern facility to prevent further deaths.

The jail was built in the 1970s, when it was built for 150 inmates. But Speaker, it was built for 150; it now has well over 450 inmates. Worse yet, the design of the prison is not conducive to the level of monitoring that is necessary. The corrections officers are placed in an area where they can’t directly see the cells. It’s a powder keg, and it has been for years. This government seeks to ignore it.

London lawyer Kevin Egan, who has represented many of the families who have called upon the government for justice and for action, has said that this is a system that is bound to fail. Also, Kevin Egan said, “The deaths are occurring at a greater frequency than the coroner can accommodate.” There are times in the past where three men were crowded into two-person cells and five into three-person cells, inmates sleeping on their floor with their heads in the toilets.

Corrections officers also have an incredibly important and difficult role. At EMDC, over the years, the overcrowding has resulted in the removal of staff areas. I can’t imagine that job, because in an area that has been known to be a powder keg, an area that’s difficult to supervise and an area that is overcrowded—they used to have a gym, because I’m sure during their day, it would be incredibly stressful and they would need to blow off a little steam; they would be able to go to the gym. That was taken away to incarcerate yet more people. Corrections officers are doing their very best, but this government is not supporting them.

I want to ask as well, when this motion passes, and if the federal government actually does something, what’s the solution for EMDC? Will the government be creating a new facility, an upgraded facility? Will this government step up for the corrections officers and the inmates at EMDC to make sure that they are in a suitable location? I remain doubtful, because we see gestures like this, yet we don’t see actual, substantive change.

Some of my questions remain unanswered. Where are the supports that front-line people have asked for? Why is this government so reluctant to provide them? Criminal defence lawyers have told this government that one of the biggest problems causing delays in our court system is the number of defendants appearing in courts who don’t have legal representation. Judges often have to pull them aside and provide them with the very basic training that they need, and that takes time. That takes away from justice.

When unrepresented people arrive at bail court, and their case is not heard, they’re returned back to detention, a time-consuming exercise that can occur multiple times. It’s a system that this government has really weakened. It can’t work more efficiently without adequate staffing and resources for legal aid. But in 2019, this government slashed legal aid funding by almost 30%. Legal Aid Ontario wrote:

“The legal system is less effective when it cannot operate with full efficiency. In a cost-benefit analysis of legal aid by the World Bank, it was found that failing to sufficiently fund legal aid programs does not save money, but rather displaces the cost to other areas of the legal system and increases the time it takes to resolve cases.” It’s bad business, Speaker. It’s a foolish investment, not making those upstream investments and paying yet more later and ending up with a system that doesn’t work well.

They go on to say, “Misplaced cost-cutting in one area can lead to more costs in another down the line, as seen with legal aid cuts ‘saving’ taxpayer money upfront but increases the cost of more self-represented individuals in the system.”

Justin Piché, who is a professor at the University of Ottawa department of criminology, provided the committee with some helpful figures about how this investment plays out. He cites Irvin Waller whose research indicates that “for every dollar spent upstream on violence prevention, $7 is saved in policing, court, prison and victim services costs incurred after victimization has happened.”

Speaker, on the official opposition side we support bail reform, but we also support it in a holistic way, in a way that makes sense with the system, in a way that we ensure our front-line officers have the supports they need, that corrections officers have the supports they need, that our court system is robust, that legal aid funding is appropriate and that we address the issues that matter the most. We need to make sure that people aren’t incarcerated for reasons beyond their control, such as mental illness, such as poverty, such as substance abuse.

We know that this government’s cost-cutting measures—they’re penny-wise and pound foolish measures—have resulted in a system that is not working for anyone. They have the opportunity to invest in those supports, to invest in mental health, to invest in truly supportive housing.

As I finish my comments, the city of Kingston has done some wonderful work in that space and they have seen the need to provide wraparound services for supportive housing to make sure that individuals have the mental health supports they need. It cost that city $18 million in one year, but they’ve shown such great progress.

I hope this government will see the province not in isolation but as a holistic system where they have to fund things like these to make sure we have a province that we all want to live in.

Further debate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m pleased to join the debate. I’ve been sitting here for the last day and a half, listening to the debate very carefully, and I’d like to thank the members on the government side who are here from the committee, MPP Hogarth and MPP Kusendova, and earlier this afternoon—he made a good presentation—was MPP Saunderson.

I join you today, Speaker, as the Chair of the justice policy committee, and I take myself back to the day the committee was considering the recommendations, 12 recommendations in that report I had the pleasure of tabling in the Legislature approximately two weeks ago. At that time, I read out all the names of the members of the committee, including the official opposition and a representative from the independents. In fact, it was the House leader from the opposition.

We went through all the recommendations. Members of the committee spoke to the context of each recommendation and then we voted. All the hands went up on each recommendation, including the official opposition’s and the independent’s. All hands went up on the 12 recommendations. So here we are today discussing an amendment to the amendment to the motion that the member from Durham put forward, going forward.

The report that I tabled highlighted a number of reforms that needed to take place. The committee heard from a number of witnesses who talked about a number of aspects, including mental health. We can debate that as much as we want; we can debate housing, we can debate other aspects, but clearly the report that was issued approximately two weeks ago by the standing committee was a unanimous report. The committee all put their hands up, including the official opposition and the independent, allowing me, as the Chair of the committee, to bring forward that report. Speaker, it did not contain the motion that was brought forward by the member from Toronto Centre. It did not.

Let’s talk about the motion, as the House leader, the Honourable Paul Calandra, did yesterday. I’m going to quote him from Hansard, if I may:

“The amendment” from the member from Toronto Centre “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,”—who supported the report—“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’”—stay with me, Speaker—“‘evaluate.’”

Who needs to evaluate any more whether a violent repeat offender should be denied bail and left in jail?

All the hands went up. All the recommendations were adopted. “Take the report and report it,” which I did—adopted absolutely unanimously.

Speaker, nothing is more important than public safety. We understand that our police services are the front line that keeps Ontario safe. As MPPs, and in my case as a former municipal politician for 13 years, that is the main underpinning of what we do as representatives of our community. Make no mistake, Speaker, on this side of the House, we have one message: We have the backs of everyone who keeps us safe, today and every day, and we will do absolutely everything we need to do to help keep Ontario safe.

Speaker, too many innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of dangerous criminals who should have been behind bars, not on our streets. Led by Premier Ford, all provincial and territorial governments have joined the call of countless law enforcement officials to write a letter asking the federal government to take immediate action to strengthen Canada’s bail system to better protect the public and Canada’s first responders.

Speaker, OPP Commissioner Carrique appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice Policy which, as I said at the beginning, I chair. He had this to say about bail reform, and he referred to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who passed a resolution in 2008 calling on the federal government to strengthen bail laws to protect the public “from those offenders who have clearly demonstrated their unrelenting willingness to engage in criminal behaviour that directly harms our citizens. This resolution called on the federal government to change bail and sentencing laws so chronic offenders are more effectively dealt with by considering their persistent criminal behaviour. As highlighted in the resolution, a minority of offenders commit most of the violent crime in Canada, and yet the dangerous nature of reoffending by these individuals is not adequately recognized in the current bail and sentencing practices. It is not acceptable that there has been no meaningful action taken to address the troubling and dangerous issues raised since 2008, and unfortunately, many innocent people have been victimized since....

“I strongly believe that Canadians deserve to live free from fear and protected from harm experienced at the hands of repeat violent offenders. Change needs to happen.”

Change, Speaker, needs to happen.

The commissioner concluded by saying, “As police officers, we understand the risks involved in going to work each and every day, but we do expect that the judicial and public safety framework will be in place to support us. Our officers and the public they protect deserve nothing less from their judicial system. Our officers, our community members and visitors to our province deserve to be safeguarded against repeat, known and violent offenders who are charged with violent and weapons-related offences while they are awaiting trial.” Our motion does that. We stand behind our police officers today and every day.

We also heard, as my committee members on the government side will attest, from the police associations representing thousands of police officers across the province who expressed their members’ frustration of what they see as a catch-and-release approach to bail.

The president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association read the following excerpt from an email he received from a retired sergeant who worked in northern Ontario, and it’s material to what we’re talking about today:

“Catch and release is a very appropriate phrase describing what is happening” out there.

“Over the many years, many of my officers have complained bitterly to me about having to apprehend the same criminals time after time when the criminals were once again released rather than being held in custody until their charges were dealt with.”

According to the president of the Police Association of Ontario, not only does the catch-and-release approach to bail place inadequate emphasis on protection of the public, it encourages escalating violent behaviour: “Our members are frustrated to work within a system that is not prioritizing community safety. They are frustrated by apprehending a known offender one day and being called on their next shift to the same place, for the same reason, to arrest the same person.... Too often, with each release, the offender’s behaviour is worsened and their negative choices emboldened, until the day comes that the individual becomes violent, or more violent, and the result is that someone in our community is injured or killed.”

Similarly, Speaker, Jon Reid, the president of the Toronto Police Association said that the members of the association are “beyond frustrated.” He related an incident from 2021 in which an armed bank robber seriously injured two plainclothes police officers during the arrest of suspects. One of the accused was released on bail within 24 hours, before both officers were released from hospital.

Commenting on this incident in an op-ed piece, Mr. Reid concluded, “‘If our bail system is designed and/or interpreted to justify releasing individuals in these circumstances, what message does this send to the community’ that they’re serving? The simple answer is this: It sends the wrong message to the people who protect our communities and those who seek to live in a peaceful and just society.” This 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.

Speaker, we’ve seen in communities across Ontario, across Canada, police officers come under threat. But, Speaker, you’ll know—and I know the committee members from the justice policy committee will attest to this as they speak later this afternoon—it’s not just about police officers. It’s about families, hard-working families here in Ontario. It’s about students. Speaker, I have two universities, Ontario Tech and Trent Durham, and I have a community college, Durham College. It’s about those students. It’s about new Canadians—the new Canadians who have come to the town of Whitby in five new developments. It’s about all kinds of people, Speaker, and what those people want and what families want. They want to live in a safe province of Ontario. They want to live in a safe Canada. That’s what they aspire to. That’s what they deserve.

I want to go back to what the Honourable Paul Calandra had to say on this debate, because I think it’s really material and I think he hit it right on, and I’m going to again repeat some of those aspects:

“The reason we’re having this debate here is to give them assistance in bringing the reforms”—what he was referring to was our police services. They’re bringing the reforms forward. “The reason why we’ve engrossed it 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”—I thought we had one. Speaker, I thought we had one. I think our committee members did. Our lead, the MPP from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, MPP Hogarth and I left that committee room thinking we had one—a unified voice. Well, here we are this afternoon, and we’ve taken a day and a half. Where’s the unified voice? Where is it? The hands went up. On every recommendation, the hands went up. The House leader from the official opposition was there. His hand went up all the time, didn’t it?

Here we are today debating an amendment to the amendment that never came up in the committee. How does that happen? How does that help our front-line providers? How does that help them? How does that help hard-working families in Ontario? It doesn’t. Again, I’m back to what the House leader had to say: “By removing and changing it to ‘evaluate,’ we’re in the exact same spot we’ve been in over the last number of years. We have to evaluate everything. What is there to evaluate?” Are we going to tell the OPP commissioner that we have to evaluate after he spent 20 minutes making a deputation? The police chief of the Toronto Police Service, from York—that we have to evaluate? What does that accomplish? Absolutely nothing.

You know, I think if I walked the streets in the town of Whitby tonight, the downtown core—they talk about it as the “four corners,” but it’s sort of a gathering centre, right? I think that’s true of most municipalities. If I stopped a couple of people and said, “I want to ask you something, should a repeat violent offender be let out on bail?” I know what they’d tell me real quick: “No, they should not be let out on bail.” That’s what we’ve been talking about. That’s what I thought we had consensus about. Did you not think that? I sure did. So then we get this amendment out of—I don’t know where it came from. It was never discussed for two and a half days; it just appeared.

But I want to be very clear. I want to be absolutely clear, Speaker, as was the honourable Paul Calandra, our House leader, who does an exceptional job. Let me be clear also as the Chair of the justice policy committee—and thank you, Minister Calandra, for that appointment. My committee members here on the government side will be equally clear—some of them are getting ready to speak too. We will absolutely not under any circumstances support the motion that would diminish what the people of this great province want.

Further debate?

Speaker, I am so proud to be part of a government that believes in law and order, that believes in creating safe communities for the men and women, the seniors, our youth, so that they can enjoy everything Ontario has to offer. And I am very proud to be able to speak to this motion calling 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 violence and repeat offenders from being released back into our communities.

Madam Speaker, this motion really does hit close to home. It was just two days after Christmas, December 27 last year, that Ontario Provincial Police Constable Pierzchala was shot and killed while responding to what appeared to be a routine roadside check near Hagersville, which is just outside of Hamilton. Constable Pierzchala was 28 years old, and he was the fourth Ontario officer to be killed in the line of duty during the closing months of 2022.

One of the two individuals who was arrested and charged with Constable Pierzchala’s murder has a significant history with the criminal justice system and of violent behaviour generally. The history includes a conviction and prison sentence for armed robbery and a lifetime ban on possessing a firearm. It includes outstanding charges for assault and weapons offences committed in 2021, an outstanding arrest warrant issued in September 2022 for failing to make a court appearance. Although bail for the charges laid in 2021 was initially denied, it was granted following a review. The suspect was free on bail at the time of the shooting.

OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique described Constable Pierzchala’s murder as preventable and said he was outraged at the fact that someone with the suspect’s history had been able to make bail. The commissioner also said something has to change. Well, on January 18, 2023, the Standing Committee on Justice Policy passed a motion to conduct a study on the reform of Canada’s bail system. The committee made two sets of recommendations. It asked the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to strengthen the bail system as it applies to those charged with violent offences or offences in which firearms or other weapons are involved; and that the provincial government make changes to the administration of the justice system that will improve the functioning of the bail system here in Ontario.

Madam Speaker, all of Ontario’s policing leaders are unanimously agreeing that bail reform would save lives. According to OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique, incidents involving offenders with a history of violence who commit further crimes while on bail are not rare.

As MPPs, one of our most fundamental responsibilities is to preserve law and order in our society, and it is because when we have safe communities, we really do have everything that Ontario has to offer. We have a place to work, and we have a place to play, a place to shop and a place to pray, a place for our kids to grow up and for our seniors to grow old. We have it all.

There has never been a government in the history of this province or this country that has cared as much about public safety as this government, and it really does start at the top. The Premier has made public safety a priority. We can all be proud that our Premier has led the way in this country when it comes to public safety. It was our Premier who joined together with all of his provincial and territorial counterparts to demand bail reform from the federal government. It was this Premier who supported both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General in working with the federal government to improve public safety and implement bail reform—these were key topics at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings both last fall and this past winter—and it is our Premier who knows that a safe Ontario is a strong Ontario.

The fact is, we need the federal government to step up, and that’s what this motion is calling for. Our government went to Ottawa to advocate for urgent bail reform. Our government sat down with David Lametti, Canada’s Attorney General and Minister of Justice, and Marco Mendicino, Canada’s Minister of Public Safety, along with Canada’s provincial and territorial justice ministers, and our government demanded change. We underlined the need for the federal government in Ottawa to fix the gaps in the Criminal Code. Now, some of these gaps exist because of the Liberal’s Bill C-75, while other gaps are longer-standing issues which must be addressed. The current bail rules in Canada not only allow repeat and violent offenders to recommit serious offences, but they truly incentivize criminal behaviour as there is no deterrent.

Madam Speaker, our government has been asking the Liberal government in Ottawa to strengthen our borders to stop the flow of illegal handguns entering the country. We have also demanded a commitment to long-term, permanent and sustainable funding of the federal Gun and Gang Violence Action Fund. The majority of firearms used in crime are coming from across our porous border. This needs to stop now, and the Liberal government in Ottawa has an opportunity to fix it.

Madam Speaker, this just moved in the Toronto Sun, a story written by Brad Hunter:

“Hamilton” Police “Raise Red Flag over Gun Proliferation....

“Hamilton” police “have arrested and charged two young men in the latest firearms-related incident that has detectives deeply concerned.

“On Saturday, around 10 a.m., officers responded to ... a gun-related incident. Several individuals were present and arrested in the area...

Charged are”—and they name a number.

“They were hit with a slew of gun charges. The arrests come as Steel Town has seen an explosion in gun seizures. Throughout the past weekend,” police “seized 13 guns in several incidents across the city.

“Since the beginning of the year, officers have seized 48 guns from a variety of criminal incidents, five of which were recovered during traffic-related stops. That’s a 77% increase from the same period in 2022.

“‘We should all be alarmed by these numbers. Thanks to the great work of our officers and the keen eyes of a few citizens, we got 13 guns within a 48-hour period,’ said Chief Frank Bergen.

“Here are some of the other incidents:

“—On Friday, just after 8:30 a.m., a driver observed a bedside table on the roadside. Underneath the table, there was a loaded handgun.” Police “later seized seven more guns and ammo. A 59-year-old Hamilton man from Hamilton has been charged.

“—On Sunday, just after 2:30 a.m. officers were called to the area of Main St. W. and Queen St. S. for a loaded handgun found in a bar.

“—Later on Sunday just after 1 p.m.,” police “discovered a stopped vehicle in a live lane of traffic and a male slumped over the steering wheel. Officers discovered ammo on the passenger seat and recovered two long guns.”

The bottom line here, Madam Speaker, is we’re seeing illegal guns coming across the border, not only in the GTA, but in Hamilton and right across the province of Ontario. Getting illegal guns off our streets is a top priority, and as we know, the majority of guns used in crime are illegal.

Speaker, the evidence is clear: The status quo is simply not working when it comes to bail rules. Data gathered by the Toronto Police Service highlights both the urgency of the issue, as well as the number of individuals involved. Over the last two years in the city of Toronto, 9% of accused persons already out on bail for firearms offences were rearrested on new firearms-related charges. That equated to 140 people committing new firearms-related offences who shouldn’t have been released back into our community.

Over the same period, 37% of accused persons charged with a shooting-related homicide were out on bail for various offences at the time of the alleged fatal shooting. That equated to 34 people who were out on bail while being involved in a fatal shooting; 15 of those were on bail for a firearms offence. And that is just Toronto.

Speaker, this is unacceptable, and it needs to stop now. Our government demands that the Liberal government in Ottawa own up to their mistakes and make urgent changes to bail rules before more lives are lost. Something has to matter: The rule of law must matter, and our public safety must matter. Our continued advocacy to the federal government, our continued actions to do everything in our province’s power to create a safer society, is the context of the motion before us today. Ontario is taking action in the absence of federal leadership.

Thanks to the leadership of our Premier, we have already made concrete and constructive proposals to the federal government. As we’ve said, a joint letter signed by the Premiers of all 13 provinces and territories, sent on January 13 of this year, stated as follows:

“A reverse onus on bail must be created for the offence of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in s. 95 of the Code. A person accused of a s. 95 offence should have to demonstrate why their detention is not justified when they were alleged to have committed an offence where there was imminent risk to the public.... A review of other firearms-related offences is also warranted to determine whether they should also attract a reverse onus on bail.”

As demonstrated in that letter, this is a timely proposal for much-needed bail reform. We would welcome the opportunity to work with Ottawa to get it done.

Speaker, our government is also proactive in introducing programs to reduce recidivism. This government is using the latest research and evidence to design new programs and reintegration approaches, taking advantage of new technologies and rethinking the journey of individuals through the justice system. While inmates are in our custody, we will continue to focus on programming and employment-readiness, while ensuring that their overall health and wellness are addressed, so that individuals successfully reintegrate into the community.

Ontario’s Ministry of the Solicitor General is leading an employment initiative by working with the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. This is being strengthened through our partnership on the Skills Development Fund to support second chances so that we can increase employment and reduce recidivism. This initiative is a long-term, sustainable initiative.

Madam Speaker, with that, I move that the question now be put.

Further debate?

Ms. Skelly has moved that the question be now put. I’m satisfied that there has been sufficient debate time to allow this question to be put to the House. There has been more than 6.5 hours of debate on this motion, so I’m going to pose the question.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred to the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Report continues in volume B.

Madam Speaker, if you seek it, I’m sure you’ll find consent to see the clock at 6.