Debates of Oct. 20th, 2025

Private Members' Business

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

In advance of the House's consideration of Private Members' Business, the Chair wishes to make a short statement concerning private members' bills and the royal recommendation.

Members will be aware that constitutional and procedural constraints govern certain financial matters in proposed legislation. Any bill proposing to spend public funds for a new and distinct purpose must be accompanied by a royal recommendation, which may only be transmitted to the House by a minister of the Crown.

Any private member's bill that requires a royal recommendation must receive it prior to the putting of the question at third reading. Otherwise, the Speaker will not put the question, and the bill would then be dropped from the Order Paper.

The Chair has examined the items in the order of precedence. I wish to inform the House that, on initial review, one bill appears to touch upon the Crown's financial prerogative: Bill C‑222, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with regard to the death of a child, standing in the name of the member for Burnaby North—Seymour.

I encourage members who would like to make arguments regarding whether this or any other bill in the order of precedence requires a royal recommendation to do so at an early opportunity.

Furthermore, the Chair would like to remind members of the rules governing debate on private members' business items. For motions and bills at the second reading stage, the debate proceeds as follows.

The member moving the motion may speak for up to 15 minutes to start debate, followed by five minutes for questions and comments.

Any other member may speak to the motion for up to 10 minutes, with no period for questions and comments.

Finally, just before the Chair puts the question to the House, the member moving the motion also has a five-minute right of reply to conclude the debate.

If members have any questions about Private Members' Business, they can consult the table officers or contact the Private Members' Business Office.

I thank members for their attention.

Criminal Code

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

moved that Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, but today it is a particular pleasure, a distinct pleasure, because today I believe I rise on behalf of all Canadians to report on an epidemic, something that touches all Canadians, which is intimate partner violence. This is a non-partisan issue. In drafting this bill, I deliberately made it as non-partisan as possible. I know sometimes things get quite partisan in the House, but this bill, in my view, and I say this with the greatest of sincerity, is a non-partisan bill to address the epidemic of intimate partner violence.

I have spoken with a number of stakeholders, a number of people who have experienced intimate partner violence. I received those notes, and to anybody who is watching or listening today, please know that we hear their heartfelt words. When a victim pours out their heart to us in a note, saying that they were a victim of intimate partner violence and feel heard in a bill, it is my view that we should heed these words and pass that bill expeditiously.

I know watching online today is the family of Bailey McCourt. For those who are unaware, Bailey was a young woman, a mother and a survivor of intimate partner violence. This summer, her former partner was convicted of abusing her, and within hours, he left the courtroom and murdered her. That allegation is before the court. Along with her was one of her friends, a relatively new friend, who survived.

Bailey's family reached out to me a couple of weeks ago, and they asked that this law be known as Bailey's law. As politicians, we will sometimes attach a name to a law. I did not feel it was my place to do that, but when a victim's family reaches out and asks that this be done, it is not something we should easily ignore. I know Bailey's aunt Debbie is watching today, being the spokesperson for the McCourt family. I also had the opportunity to meet with Bailey's father Shane and stepmom Trish this past week during the break week. I hope I'm not paraphrasing inappropriately, but they provided unequivocal support for this bill.

People are watching. Canadians, victims and women's organizations are watching. I have received countless emails, correspondence and feedback from women's organizations. Why is that? It is because this bill would create the distinct offence of assault on an intimate partner. Right now, in the Criminal Code, assault does not distinguish between who someone assaults. The only distinguishment is if someone assaults a peace officer. We distinguish between assaulting a peace officer and assaulting someone in the general public, but we do not distinguish between punching somebody out at the bar and punching out an intimate partner, two very different things. One is a relationship predicated on trust, intimacy and sometimes dependence, as in financial dependence or the commingling of assets. The other happens randomly. When it comes to intimate partners, they are the most likely to experience a homicide, yet we in this House have stood idle, despite time after time this being brought up in the House.

The second thing this bill would do is create a charge of first-degree murder when somebody kills their intimate partner. Right now, first-degree murder is colloquially called “premeditated” in the United States and “planned and deliberate” in Canada. The other aspect of first-degree murder is that someone can be found guilty of first-degree murder when they commit a predicate offence, as in they kidnap somebody. The third is the killing of a peace officer.

This bill would make a fourth category, which is the killing of an intimate partner. We have to deter and denounce this conduct, and more concretely, this House has to speak out about the killing of intimate partners, with a loud voice. This bill would do that.

Third, this bill would create a risk assessment. Right now, generally, the only mechanism to bring somebody before the court who is accused of intimate partner violence is when they breach their conditions. An accused person may be escalating to the point where they are a risk to their intimate partner without having breached their conditions. This bill would allow a judge to compel a person to go to court for an up to seven-day risk assessment so we can intercede before there is another victim.

Doing this for seven days, I understand, is a deprivation of liberty, but in the grand scheme of things, based on the number of victims we are seeing, we have to intervene. This bill would permit a court to independently say, at the request of a victim or the prosecutor or through the court's own volition, that it is concerned about the safety of a victim and will make a determination on whether a victim will be safe pending trial, even if the person was granted bail.

Fourth, this bill would update the law of detention. Most people do not know much about section 490 of the Criminal Code, which was written probably 30 or 40 years ago, when people went to trial within three to six months. Right now, a police officer has to go to court every three months to renew the detention of something seized until charges are approved. I have been told this is the biggest time-waster that police experience in British Columbia. If somebody's computer is seized with child sexual abuse and exploitation material and the review takes 15 months, an officer will have gone to court four times, served the application four times and written four affidavits. In rural policing, they might be travelling two hours to deliver them.

These are common-sense and non-partisan issues. I have a rhetorical question. I am not sure who is going to be speaking on behalf of the Liberals or the Bloc, but I invite them to say at the outset whether they be supporting this bill. In fact, they can go one step further today and can allow debate to collapse. What that means is that we would vote on this bill forthwith.

I do not know why we would prolong the current law of intimate partner violence, or the lack thereof, for another day. Why would we let the status quo exist for another day? This House can resoundingly denounce the current state, where women far too often see intimate partner violence, period. There are men who experience intimate partner violence, although it is disproportionately women. This House can denounce it right here, right now. If we allow debate to collapse, we can get this bill to committee forthwith.

To whoever stands up for the Liberals, I invite them to take the first five seconds of their question to say whether they will allow debate to collapse and whether they will be supporting this bill. As I said, Bailey McCourt's family is watching; Canadians are watching.

When it comes to intimate partner violence, in 2023, there were 123,319 victims aged 12 years and older, and firearms were present in over 1,000 cases. The year 2014 marked the lowest rates of IPV since comparable data became available. I wonder what happened in 2015. I am trying to remember. Since then, from 2014 to 2022, police-reported IPV rates increased 19% for women and girls and 21% for men and boys. In that period, intimate partner sexual assault increased 163%.

I introduced a bill previously, Bill C-299, that would have raised the sexual assault maximum to life imprisonment. I was actually heckled by two members of the Liberal Party when I did that. How do we stand in the way of this? How do we stand in the way of the bill when we have an increase of 163% of sexual assault against intimate partners? They are the people who are most likely to die at the hands of their partner.

Intimate partner physical assault has increased 14%. I may sound like a broken record. It feels as though we could hear a pin drop in this place. Why are we waiting? Will the Liberals allow debate to collapse? If the Liberals are not prepared to do that, are they prepared to support the bill? Are they prepared to address this on a consent motion so that we can make the bill law as quickly as possible?

Most of my adult life has been spent in the justice system. I cannot tell members how many victims I have dealt with on this issue. There are people who live very good lives otherwise; everything appears perfectly normal, yet behind closed doors, these people are repeatedly victimized. This offence spans every socio-economic group. It does not matter whether someone is low income, working class or rich. They are at risk for intimate partner violence.

Fifty-five per cent of women who experience physical or sexual intimate partner violence feared a partner at some point. Being afraid of a partner can indicate intimate partner violence that is more coercive, more severe and more likely to reflect a pattern of abusive behaviours.

In my home province of British Columbia, the Union of BC Municipalities, also known as UBCM, had its convention in Victoria from September 22 to 26. The Union of BC Municipalities endorsed a motion for B.C. to declare gender-based violence, intimate partner violence and human trafficking an epidemic in the province and to update its action plan to combat human trafficking.

In this House, we are expected to hear from the people on the ground. We are expected to reflect that in the laws we pass. Often, in the laws we pass, there are poison pills that are put in, wedge issues and such things. There is no wedge here. There is simply a desire on my part and a desire from the people on this side of the House, and I can speak only for my colleagues, to get the bill passed as soon as possible. The Union of BC Municipalities is not specifically asking for this, but it is asking for action when it passes a resolution of this sort.

I have spoken with Angela MacDougall from Battered Women's Support Services. People from that organization attended the UBCM conference in Victoria to push for these actions: having a municipal, gender-based violence task force to stabilize frontline services; standardizing risk assessment, and this bill actually has a risk assessment built into it, a mechanism by which the court can bring somebody before it; launching a province-wide prevention campaign; and appointing a gender-based violence lead.

I am grateful to our deputy leader, the member for Thornhill, for seconding this important bill and speaking to this important bill. I reiterate that this bill should be passed. It should be passed quickly. It should go to committee as quickly as possible.

Victims are watching. Let us get Bailey's law passed. Will the Liberals do that? Will they agree to let debate collapse so that this can get to a vote and get to committee? Those are my questions because I know we have to address this and address it now.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be in the House and to be able to represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo.

I agree with the hon. member that we need to represent the people on the ground. We need to know that Canadians are watching. We need to represent the very people who sent us here.

The constituents within the riding of Waterloo have diverse views. Several are asking how Conservatives are coming to this moment when they voted against capacity funding for organizations serving women, and they feel right now that Conservatives want to see the books balanced rather than supporting the organizations needing that support.

Conservatives voted against pay equity, which could give those very individuals the member is referring to the opportunity to exist and be able to succeed. They voted against early learning and child care. They voted against the national action plan to end gender-based violence.

Constituents in the riding of Waterloo are asking when Conservatives will recognize that victims should have the opportunity to exist and that the federal government has a role to play. If this budget supports organizations serving women, will they stand with women or continue to play the partisan politics they are playing with the bill?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the member just referred to partisan politics with respect to the bill. I will look her right in the eye and say that there is absolutely nothing partisan about the bill.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Then vote for the budget.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

I would like to continue if the hon. member would give me a chance to speak about this.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing partisan about the bill. It is the most significant intervention on the law of intimate partner violence ever, yet the Liberals want to stand up and accuse us of partisanship. Good grief. This is so wrong.

I asked if the Liberals would support this. There has not been one word out of the member's mouth about whether they will support this. There has not been one word out of the member's mouth as to whether this debate would collapse. I say shame on the Liberals for not answering those questions.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for his speech and for his concern and his leadership when it comes to these issues.

I should point out that the member for Rivière-du-Nord will be presenting the Bloc Québécois's position on this issue, while acknowledging the member for Shefford's leadership in such matters.

Quebec has already implemented several legislative measures to address family violence, particularly through initiatives such as the publication of a report on rebuilding trust and the creation of special tribunals for cases involving sexual and family violence. How will Bill C-225 ensure that federal criminal law reflects and supports the progress that has already been made in Quebec? Do we not run the risk of creating legislative overlap that could undermine the administration of justice in such cases? How can we ensure that this bill respects Quebec's jurisdiction?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's thoughtful intervention. I do not see this as a doubling up of efforts. At the end of the day, calling an offence what it is, the assault of an intimate partner, is not the doubling up of effort. Allowing the court more tools to bring somebody before it in order to perform a risk assessment is not the doubling up of effort.

I appreciate all that has been done. Obviously, I do not know every single thing or mechanism that has been done in the member's home province of Quebec, but I appreciate the words. I look forward to working with the members of the Bloc in the hope that they will support the bill as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his comments on what sort of consultation was done prior to his introducing the bill.

All Canadians are concerned about the issue. The concern I have is that this is just another American-style type of legislation being proposed without consultations having been done with Canadians, in particular, women's shelters and other stakeholders.

Can the member tell the House what consultations he has done?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will tell the House that my 10 years as a Crown prosecutor was a substantial base to start with. I spoke with people from women's groups, victims of intimate partner violence, police officers and countless people.

I am at a loss right now. This is quite possibly the most non-partisan bill that could have been authored. There is nothing partisan about the bill.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Waterloo said that I should keep drinking it. Shame.

[An hon. member]

That is not what she said.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Then what did she say, “Keep thinking it”?

Madam Speaker, it is the most non-partisan bill that could have been authored. The member from Winnipeg heckled when I introduced the bill on sexual assault. The Liberals are saying that this is American-style politics. I say shame on every single one of those—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The member for Waterloo is rising on a point of order.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important, when it is a serious topic such as this, that we represent members accordingly. He said what I said, then he said what I said again, and they do not match. I would just ask the member to stay focused on the topic and have a debate, and sometimes—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is more a point of debate.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to clarify the record, why does she not tell us what she said, right here, right now?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Anything that was said without a mic open is not open for debate.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order, both members.

Resuming debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in response to Bill C-225, a private member's bill introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, to speak about intimate partner violence.

I want to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill for bringing it forward and to note that addressing intimate partner violence is a priority for this government and a key commitment in our platform.

Bill C-225 proposes three sets of reforms to address intimate partner violence. First, it will create new offences and sanctions specific to domestic violence. Second, it will amend the Criminal Code with regard to the detention of seized property. Third, it will make changes to the bail process for cases involving intimate partner violence.

Although these proposals may seem well intentioned, they require thoughtful, evidence-based measures to truly protect victims, rather than ill-conceived changes that could negatively affect them.

Over the past several years, this government has taken bold and decisive action to protect victims of IPV and hold offenders accountable. In 2019, through Bill C-75, we strengthened the Criminal Code by defining “intimate partner” for all purposes, including ex-spouses; creating a reverse onus at bail for accused with prior IPV convictions; requiring courts to consider those prior convictions; and clarifying that strangulation is an elevated form of assault.

Bill C-75 also imposed higher maximum penalties for repeat offenders, emphasized denunciation and deterrence, and ensured consistent sentencing for abuse against spouses, former spouses, dating partners and family members.

It is therefore very concerning that the Conservatives have said in this House, time and time again, that they want to repeal this critical piece of legislation.

A former bill, Bill C-233, was introduced in 2023 by my friend and colleague, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle. It brought in critical tools, such as the electronic monitoring of IPV offenders, ensuring that courts could impose conditions to actively prevent repeat IPV.

Bill C-233 also provided an opportunity for judges to further their education on coercive control and IPV, thus ensuring that the judiciary understands the complexities that so many survivors experience.

Similarly, the government's Bill C-48 broadened the reverse onus for bail to target repeat IPV offenders, in direct response to victims' concerns that they were at ongoing risk when repeat offenders were released on bail.

Our government takes this issue seriously. The safety of women and girls is a top priority. Studies and inquiries, from those of Statistics Canada to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, show that IPV and gender-based violence remain pervasive. Coroner's inquest commissions, including the Renfrew county inquest and the Mass Casualty Commission, have recommended having new offences on coercive control, modernizing criminal harassment and addressing femicide. These recommendations are all being carefully considered for comprehensive reforms.

As a woman and a mother of two daughters, I am proud to say that I understand the personal responsibility that we have to protect women and girls in this country.

I would remind the House that our women's caucus is the largest in Canada's history. Each of the women in this caucus works tirelessly, every day, to advance laws that protect women and girls.

In stark contrast, the Conservatives have consistently voted against measures that protect women. They gutted essential women's and gender-equality programs, leaving vulnerable women at risk. They opposed the national action plan to end gender-based violence, a plan that is now delivering $539.3 million in crucial funding to women's organizations across the country, including $1.2 million in the riding of the sponsor of the bill, the riding of the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I know that the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola cares deeply about his community, and I respect him for that. However, when it comes to voting for the safety of women in his riding, he has consistently voted against these measures, following the instructions of his leader.

I also want to highlight the voices of survivors and of frontline organizations. Last month I met with women's shelters across Quebec. I was deeply moved. These organizations told me that the rhetoric around IPV must be less toxic, and they have asked us to work together in the House, as Parliament, to get it right.

As a woman, I am particularly concerned about Bill C-225's proposal to automatically classify all IPV-related killings as first-degree murder. Let me explain. The proposal means that a charge of first-degree murder, under Bill C-225, would also apply to women who, as victims, have endured IPV abuse, including possible coercive control, and who in turn have killed their abuser.

While Conservatives may argue that self-defence would still be available for these victims, they know full well that in IPV cases where women have not reported prior abuse to police, self-defence becomes complex. Bill C-225 would penalize abused women who kill their aggressors, with 25 years of jail. This approach risks penalizing victims instead of focusing on the culpability of abusers, overriding decades of jurisprudence that recognizes the cumulative effects of abuse. That is why we need laws that make practical sense, not measures that merely sound tough in name. This is serious. Our laws must protect victims, not punish them.

The government's approach is deliberate and evidence-driven. We recognize that IPV is complex and cannot be solved with isolated legal tweaks. Our criminal law must reflect the full spectrum of IPV, including coercive control, assault and strangulation. That is why our upcoming reforms, developed in collaboration with provinces, territories, survivors, families of victims, legal experts and frontline organizations, are carefully targeted to protect survivors and to hold offenders accountable.

I offer my hand to my colleagues across the aisle and hope they will support our upcoming legislation that would, in the House, address these issues.

To all women, I say that the government has their back. We prioritize their safety. We listen to survivors. We work hand in hand with law enforcement. We invest in programs and legislation that prevent and respond to intimate partner violence, and the Minister of Justice is actively working with survivors, families and law enforcement to crack down on IPV offenders.

The government will continue to strengthen protection. We will enforce accountability, and we will modernize our criminal laws, because every woman and girl in Canada deserves to live free from fear. We will get this right.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by reiterating my solidarity and compassion for all victims of violence, particularly victims of intimate partner violence. This morning, I am especially thinking of the family and loved ones of Gabie Renaud, whose partner is accused of murdering her. There was a demonstration in her honour yesterday, and hundreds of people came out to express their support for Gabie Renaud's family and loved ones.

This is the kind of tragedy that should never happen. It is the kind of tragedy that we, as legislators, must prevent if we can. I am very pleased that my colleague is bringing this issue to the House and that we can discuss it in committee.

I hope for calm discussions. Obviously, it is very difficult to stay calm when faced with situations like this one. People tend to get carried away and to want revenge. There is no other word for this crime: It is revolting. However, I think we need to take a step back. We need to look at the situation with wisdom and perspective in order to make decisions that will be applicable, first of all, and, second, that will promote societal harmony now, in 2025.

As I was saying, yesterday, I was in the mood to revolt, not only against these situations, but also against myself and this entire legislative body, because so far, it has not demonstrated that enough resources are being put in place to prevent such tragedies from happening. However, I think that we need to proceed in a balanced way. Unlike some people, I continue to believe that the presumption of innocence is essential in our society. I continue to believe that offender rehabilitation is a valuable goal that we must strive for.

However, I also continue to believe that we owe it to each and every person in this country to keep our streets and our communities safe. I also continue to believe that we can and must stand in solidarity with individuals who may be victims of controlling and coercive behaviour, violence or any other similar behaviour. We must stand in solidarity with them and help them every day. Every one of us must look at our families, our friends and the people around us, identify potentially problematic situations and intervene as best we can.

This brings me back to our work as legislators. Striking this balance between the presumption of innocence, rehabilitation and keeping our streets safe will not be easy. However, that is the challenge before us. It is a challenge that I accept, and I look forward to hearing from people and experts in committee. They will come and help us identify the major principles that need to be addressed and how to implement them.

We have been through this process before. The Assistant Deputy Speaker was there. No doubt she remembers that we addressed this subject several times in previous Parliaments. In the last Parliament, a bill was introduced by our colleague, whose riding I forget, but it is on Vancouver Island. He introduced a bill that touched on this aspect of coercive control, which we all agreed on. All of us welcomed it with open arms. It went to the Senate, but one thing led to another, and Parliament was prorogued. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper.

Now we need to take a look at this problem again. What our Conservative colleague is proposing today is not exactly the same as what was proposed back then, but it is still worthwhile for us to come together to reflect on this problem and find solutions.

A typical knee-jerk reaction is to present simple solutions. If everyone is put in prison, there will be no more crime. Obviously, I know that no one is suggesting that. However, there is this mentality that individuals should be put in prison as soon as there is a risk. The opposite mentality is that everyone is presumed innocent, regardless of the danger to public safety. I think we need to find a middle ground, a balance between those extremes.

I also think that when someone is charged with a violent crime for the third, fifth or 10th time, it should force the realization that rehabilitation programs have not worked for that individual. Different measures need to be taken than those that would be used for their first offence or first charge. Of course, we always need to be careful not to go overboard. I do not want innocent people to be detained. That should happen as little as possible. There are some such cases, there always have been, and there probably always will be, because to err is human. Judicial error is also human. However, we still need to be cautious in our approach.

We should take a prudent approach and find a middle ground between throwing everyone in jail and letting everyone out of jail. There are options available in 2025 that did not exist 20 or 40 years ago, like electronic bracelets. This creates some issues because it infringes on individual freedoms, yet imprisonment also infringes on individual freedoms. Should we use electronic bracelets more often? Maybe the answer is yes, or maybe it is no. Maybe we should do that in some circumstances but not others. That is the kind of question I would like to ask experts when this matter comes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I think a little more imagination is needed in order to come up with solutions and to eliminate the problem. I would very much like to hear some actual statistics. We hear all sorts of things. As parliamentarians, we hear from our constituents. That is fine, and actually it is quite a good thing. We are accountable to them.

For example, some people are saying that spousal homicides have skyrocketed over the past five years. That may be the case. However, other people are saying that the number has actually gone down. Some folks are saying that we need to put more people in prison, while others say that prisons are already too full of people awaiting trial. According to some, there are more people in our prisons who have not yet been tried than there are convicted criminals. That makes no sense. How do we find the right balance? I do not know where the right balance is. What I do know is that I have to try to find it. That is my job and the job of everyone here. To do that, as I said, we will need to hear from experts who will help us understand these issues.

The case of Gabie Renaud strikes a particular chord with me. I am committed to doing everything I can to make sure that nothing like this happens again. I am extending an invitation to my government colleagues. Yes, we have a job as legislators, but the government also has a job. It needs to free up the funding required to fight crime. It is all well and good to talk about rehabilitation. When I say that I believe in rehabilitation, I mean that it is part of my values. I believe that this is what we should be striving for. Are we able to rehabilitate people today, though? Perhaps not as much as we would like. It takes money and organizations. Programs need to be set up.

Are we able to do that? If so, let us go ahead and do it. If not, let us acknowledge that and ensure that we do whatever it takes to find a way to do it. Rehabilitation falls mainly to Quebec and the provinces. Let us free up the funding necessary so that the people and governments that need to work on this are able to do so.

With regard to the presumption of innocence, there is a balance between the rights and freedoms provided for in all of our charters and laws. This is important, but we also need to work on it. The Supreme Court has set maximum time limits for holding trials. However, the provinces and Quebec do not have enough money to build courthouses, appoint judges, and hire court clerks and bailiffs.

Grand principles are all well and good, but they must be reflected in concrete measures. I therefore call on our government to free up the necessary funds and to work with Quebec and the provinces so that we can uphold the presumption of innocence and keep our streets safe.