Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong. I want to take this opportunity to share a few very important observations. I have always felt very passionately in terms of the residents of Winnipeg North advocating and sharing with me about the issue of crime. This is something I feel very strongly about. In the last federal election, people at the doors were genuinely concerned about crime. I am very proud of the fact that, during the election, Canada’s newly elected Prime Minister made a commitment to deal with the issue of crime in a very proactive way. He committed to bringing forward bail reform legislation, and that is exactly what we have before us today. Going even further than that, the Prime Minister and this government made a commitment to strengthen our criminal laws and take action where we can to make our communities safer and healthier. The Prime Minister often talks about building a strong and healthy Canada that is going to be there to serve all Canadians and that all Canadians are able to access. A part of that means feeling that sense of security in the communities we represent. We have brought forward a series of pieces of legislation. Members will recall that, back in November or December, I stood in my place, literally begging and pleading with the Conservatives to allow Bill C‑14, which we are debating today, to pass. Bill C‑14 is all about bail reform legislation. This is something that has been supported by municipalities and law enforcement agencies. Most importantly from my perspective, this is something the constituents in Winnipeg North want to see. I believe that every member of the Liberal caucus will advocate for the need for bail reform and, like me, feel frustrated, to a certain degree, with the amount of opposition and filibustering that we have seen. Back in November, as I indicated, I was virtually begging the Conservatives to allow the legislation to pass. Six months later, once again, we have the legislation before us. This is something that has to pass before the summer. Members can talk to municipalities, law enforcement, Crowns, provinces and, most importantly, the people of Canada, who all want it. We should deliver. This House has the ability to do that today. It is not only about Bill C‑14 for me. As I indicated, the government has put forward a series of legislative initiatives to build safer communities. I could talk about Bill C‑9, which deals with hate propaganda and protecting us in different ways, in particular our churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and gurdwaras, and making sure people have access to those facilities. I could talk about Bill C‑16, which the Conservatives have come out in opposition to. Let us take a look at what Bill C‑16 does: recognizing the issue of femicide in a very strong and powerful way, raising it to a first-degree murder in certain situations virtually automatically. We can talk about coercive behaviour, again, with one spouse using coercive behaviour that leads to certain situations. For my constituents, it is all about reinstating a number of mandatory minimums. Recognizing that this is something our constituents want to see, I am disappointed because I would have thought there would be unanimous consent in the House, but the Conservatives have made the decision to vote against that legislation. I can talk about Bill C-22, which stems from Bill C-2. We could not get Bill C-2 passed back in September. We tried all last fall. Ultimately, we had to break it up. Bill C-22 incorporates a part of Bill C-2 that we continue to push, yet we get resistance from the Conservative Party. It is all about lawful access. It deals with things such as the exploitation of children and extortion. We hear a great deal about those issues. Law enforcement, in particular, want to see lawful access. Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes nations that does not have lawful access. The reason we do not have it today is that the members across the way in the Conservative Party refuse to allow that legislation to pass. We had Bill C-12, legislation that I am grateful we were able to pass, which enhances our border control and helps deal with asylum. Again, it was legislation that had to be reintroduced because Bill C-2 was legislation the Conservatives just would not consider passing. If we go back to Bill C-2, we see aspects of it that we have not been able to secure passage of. I am thinking of the issue of individuals putting fentanyl into envelopes and mailing them anywhere in Canada. We do not have the authority to search those envelopes. I articulated extensively on why this is important. If Conservatives believe there are issues around drug abuse, particularly in dealing with things like fentanyl, I would think they would recognize the value of this legislation and, at the very least, allow it to pass. It is one of the ways we can deal with fentanyl. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party still has not changed its position on it. In fact, many members of the Conservative Party have stood in their place and mocked me personally on the issue, not fully understanding its significance and its importance. The bail reform legislation deals with things such as protecting first responders if there is an aggravated situation. These are the people on our front lines, whether police, paramedics or firefighters. This is something we know Conservatives tell first responders they support. We could have passed it last fall because it is incorporated in the legislation. What is interesting is that some speakers today talked about how the government is not passing their private members’ bills. This Prime Minister has likely seen and supported more opposition private members’ bills than in the entire four years of Stephen Harper. The current leader of the Conservative Party did not pass anything back then unless it was a Conservative measure. Bailey’s law is a Conservative measure. We looked at it, saw the benefits and saw it go through, even when we had the majority and could have prevented it. I can assure the members opposite that is what Stephen Harper would have done. I can tell the House something about the Prime Minister. Under his leadership, we have seen laws related to the crime file. Members cannot identify a prime minister in generations who has done more to fight crime and work collaboratively with provinces and law enforcement than this Prime Minister. Members cannot name another prime minister who has brought forward so much in the legislative agenda. We have even taken into consideration certain aspects of Private Members’ Business. At the end of the day, I would ask my Conservative friends to stop filibustering, to stop looking at their own politically vested interests of raising money and so forth and to get behind and support good legislation.
