Bill C-75 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) re-enact the victim surcharge regime and provide the court with the discretion to waive a victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that the victim surcharge would cause the offender undue hardship or would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.
Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand here today on behalf of the citizens of Saskatoon West and speak to this bill, Bill C-12. I am going to speak mainly about the immigration aspects of this bill today.

The first thing that comes to mind when I look at this bill is to question why we are here. What is it that has caused all this to happen? The member who just spoke mentioned changes that she thought happened. In reality, they were not things imposed upon us so much as they were created by the Liberal government. There are many things happening in our immigration system, at our borders and with crime in our country that can be traced directly to actions by the Liberal government over the last 10 years.

If we go back to the previous Harper government, there were some very strong measures in place, such as mandatory minimums and consecutive police sentences. Police had the power to actually give consequences to criminals. Colleagues should know that crime was down. If they picture a V, when the Conservatives were in power before, violent crime was dropping, just like this side of the V. It was dropping significantly.

Mysteriously, when the Liberals took over, violent crime went back up. Why? It was due to all of the changes they made to the laws that were lenient on criminals. Those were some of the things that were done. It was not that they were imposed on us from an outside force. Those changes had real consequences for the people of Saskatoon West. Now here we are with the government trying to fix something that it created in the first place, so do not be fooled by what we are hearing today. This is a cleanup of a mess that was made by the government.

I want to talk about immigration. As I start, I want to just highlight something I have noticed online and in communications I have had with people, Canadian voters, which is a bit of a disturbing trend of attitude toward newcomers, immigrants, in our country. As I said, there are a lot of problems, for sure. Everybody knows that our immigration system has many problems. We have a lot of crime in our country in general. We also have problems at our borders. There are lots of problems in Canada.

Our immigration system is quite broken at the moment, for sure, but that does not mean it is the fault of newcomers to our country. I think that all of us in this room and anyone watching need to be reminded that unless someone is an indigenous person in this country, that they are an immigrant. We all come from that background. My grandparents were immigrants to this country, so I guess I would be a second-generation born in Canada, which makes me a third-generation immigrant in Canada. I am sure many of us have the same story.

It is really important to remember that what is happening in our country right now in immigration is not the fault of newcomers who have come here. It all started back in 2017 when then prime minister Justin Trudeau made his famous tweet that basically said, “Welcome to Canada”. That told people all around the world that Canada wanted everybody to come here. Guess what happened? People responded. Many people came. They responded by selling their homes and leaving their families, by leaving everything behind and coming to Canada because Canada wanted them. The prime minister himself said that Canada wanted them. In reality, former prime minister Justin Trudeau did that without having any clue as to how he was going to deal with that, how many people were going to respond and what would happen to those who responded.

I come back to the broken system that we have now. If a person is feeling anger toward immigration in our country, that anger needs to be directed where it belongs, to the Liberal government that was in power and still is in power. The Liberal government had the chance to set the rules. In some cases it chose to not make rules. It set the numbers. It decided how many millions of people could come in as temporary residents. The government invited people in peril, like people from Hong Kong, Ukraine and Sudan, to come to Canada.

In fact, just this morning I was reading a story about a family from Ukraine who has been here for a number of years through the CUAET program and now the family members are having trouble getting their visas, getting anything moving forward. In the story it says the humanitarian and compassionate stream, which is where Ukrainian people would fit in, faces waits of up to 50 years. It also says that for caregivers it is up to nine years, for the agri-food stream it is 19 years and for entrepreneurs under the start-up visa stream it is 35 years. These are ridiculous numbers. How can somebody who was invited to come to our country expect to wait 50 years to get permanent residency in our country? That is part of the brokenness that we see in this system.

Of course, the Liberal government created this mixed up immigration system. It used to be a very clean system in which we were looking for people with skills to bring to our country, in addition to family members and in addition to asylum seekers and refugee claimants. It was based on skills primarily, and now that has been changed to include all kinds of other political things in the numbers, so that people are admitted to Canada not just because of their skills but also because of other reasons that have nothing to do with their talents or their skills.

Of course we all know what has happened in our temporary resident population, whether it is temporary foreign workers or students. There were absolutely no checks on the number of students coming into our country, and as a result, people took advantage of the system. Colleges took advantage of the system. There were many unscrupulous immigration consultants who took advantage of the system.

Ultimately, regarding refugees and asylum seekers, the system collapsed. There were so many people coming in that the system just could not handle it. Even with some increases that were made by the government, we ended up with ridiculous wait times of four years or longer for asylum claimants in Canada. This is the system that the Liberals created in Canada, so anyone who feels any negativity toward immigration in our country needs to put that on the Liberal government. The Liberals are the ones who created it.

Michael Barutciski from the MacDonald-Laurier Institute said this: “The explosion in asylum claims post-Roxham is the result of two simultaneous policy decisions: (1) loosening the criteria for visa issuance and (2) allowing visa-free travel for potential asylum seekers...our quiet asylum crisis is largely a self-inflicted problem.”

Of course, right on cue, the people looking to profit from these kinds of situations marched right in. There are fake immigration consultants or immigration consultants who bent the rules to make a lot of money from the situation. Human traffickers are literally bringing people into our country to work, to make money off their backs. That is human trafficking. Employers are taking advantage of temporary workers, and people were able to set up fake colleges and make lots of money off the backs of people coming into our country. At the end of the day, it was all about money. There was a lot of money to be made through the messed up system that was created by the government.

Now here we are with Bill C-12, which is trying to fix some of this, and it would fix the big mess that was created by the government.

Similarly, border security has become a big problem in our country. Everybody remembers Roxham Road. Roxham Road should have been a wall. People should not have been able to cross at Roxham Road, but instead it was convenient, because there was a road from New York and a road from Quebec, so people started crossing at Roxham Road, and the government could have simply stopped that. It could have put up a little fence. It could have discouraged people from coming across, but instead it put RCMP and CBSA officers there and essentially asked them to help people come into Canada.

They had a strange thing to say to them: “You are not allowed to cross here, but may I help you come into Canada?” How did that make any sense? They were literally helping people, carrying their luggage and bringing them across the border. Once in Canada, they were given pretty good treatment as asylum seekers. In fact, in that area it became very common for taxis to drop people off. They would come across the road, and a whole industry popped up on the Canadian side of the border related to newcomers coming into our country.

Essentially, our RCMP and CBSA officers became “welcome to Canada” greeters, and more and more people came. This is what happens when we have a broken system.

Even on other parts of our border, there is a tremendous lack of technology. There is technology today that can scan containers and find what is in them; it can see exactly what is there, yet we have very little of this technology. We have not invested where we need to invest, and we do not have the people to do the checks that need to be done. As a result, a lot of stolen vehicles are coming into our country through container loads. There are a lot of drugs, and also the precursor chemicals that are used to make drugs, coming in unchecked, because we are doing a very poor job of checking what is coming into our country.

Of course, there are guns. There are a lot of illegal guns coming across the border that are used in crimes in Canada, and we should be checking more of those things, which we are not doing, so there is a gap in our system that has not been corrected by the government but needs to be.

There is fairly unorganized enforcement of our border. There are a lot of agencies. There is the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA; the RCMP; the immigration department, IRCC; the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB; and the Coast Guard, among others, that patrol and monitor our border. It is not the members, the hard-working men and women who work for these organizations, who are the problem, but there is a lot of disorganization in these organizations. There is a lack of resources and even a lack of information sharing. These groups are not really allowed, because of privacy legislation, to share information from one organization to another, so we end up with a lot of duplicated work that is needed in order to solve crimes.

These are just some of the things that are missing in the system that we currently have, which is the system that has been created and fine-tuned by the Liberal government.

Last week, there was a very funny tweet, I thought. With all the problems of drugs and all the other things that are going on at the border, such as the illegal guns coming across and even human trafficking, what the Canada Border Services Agency is focused on, or at least last week was focused on, is this: “We’re taking action to protect our economy. CBSA is investigating whether certain imports of disposable paper plates, bowls, and platters from China are being sold at unfair prices in Canada (dumped) or subsidized.” This is the priority of CBSA today, with all the other things that are happening. It is embarrassing for me as a Canadian to see that.

Of course, surveillance at the border is not happening to any significant degree. The government made a big story about buying a couple of helicopters. Well, a couple of helicopters on a 7,000-kilometre border does not do a whole lot, and there is so much more than could be done with surveillance.

What happens? Organized criminals step in, which is the really negative aspect, because they see an opportunity to make money. International crime rings and cartels are using Canada as a base of operations for them to do all their nasty things and make a lot of money off us, and not just us, but off the U.S. as well. Drug smugglers are smuggling drugs into Canada and then into other countries from here. I spoke about gun smuggling, which is a huge market that happens at our border, as well as human trafficking. We should be severely focused on curtailing and stopping all of these things.

RCMP chief superintendent and director general, serious and organized crime and border integrity, Mathieu Bertrand, said, “We are aware that they [cartels] are a source of a lot of the illicit goods coming into Canada. These organized crime groups, whether they be in Canada or abroad, are using Canada as a trans-shipment point. Those groups…are very much involved in crime impacting Canada.” I think that says it all, which is that a lot of the source of the crime comes from our lack of properly defending our border.

Of course, money laundering is another thing that happens in Canada regularly because we lack the tools and the ability to really see what is happening in that world.

As a result of all that, there is surging crime in Canada. We have heard this story many times. I spoke at the beginning about violent crime's decreasing over the Harper years, and then, in the Liberal years, it has gone right back up again because of the actions the Liberals have taken. Crime is up significantly under the Liberal government. Gang murders have doubled, and violent crime is up over 39%. The actions taken by the government have weakened the laws and effectively protected the criminal.

For example, Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory minimum sentences. As we look at the crimes that are being committed in our cities, and I see it in Saskatoon all the time, we see that there are very few consequences, if any, anymore for committing crimes. This has emboldened criminals. It has emboldened gangs to get young people involved in crime, because they know there are no consequences for committing those crimes.

This is partly because of Bill C-5 where the mandatory minimums were taken away for significant offences such as human trafficking, drug trafficking, car theft and assault with a weapon. The list goes on. These are things for which the Liberal government chose to take away mandatory sentences, and as a result, there have been increases in these kinds of crimes. I guess the Liberals wanted to put criminals first and not put Canadians first. We need to restore mandatory sentences to put consequences for criminals back into the system.

The other bill that made a big change is Bill C-75. Bill C-75 basically promoted house arrest. It essentially made it very difficult to put someone in jail. As a result, people are out on bail. That is why we talk about people getting bail instead of jail. We want to make sure that people actually go to jail and not always get bail. This is part of the catch-and-release problem that we have in our country, where people get arrested for a crime, are charged with a crime, get out on bail and can repeat an offence. We see it very often in many cities in our country.

Repeat offenders simply walk free. They do not have any consequences. As I said, it just encourages them to keep doing what they are doing. It encourages gangs to keep recruiting new members, and it does not stop new members of gangs from committing crimes. That is why we want to bring back jail, not bail. We want to make sure that, particularly for repeat offenders, there are consequences to those crimes and that the offenders actually do spend some time in jail to slow the process of crime that is happening.

I just want to mention that we often hear the term “bail reform” from the government. I want to talk about that for a minute. We have to go back to what actually happened. Bail reform happened about 10 years ago, when the Liberal government came in. It implemented bail reform, and these are things I just described. Now, all of a sudden, the Liberals have finally woken up and realized that this is not working. Canadians have been telling them that for years, and they are finally realizing it. Now the Liberals want to do so-called bail reform.

Really what the Liberals are doing is fixing the mess they made with bail reform in the first place. What we are doing now is not bail reform; it is correcting the system, taking it back to the way it was, to actually having consequences for people who are committing crimes.

Of course drugs fuel crime, and that is part of the problem at our border. As I mentioned, drugs are flowing across the border shockingly freely. This has caused a big drug problem in our country. We all see it in our cities. I see it in Saskatoon. I am sure other members see it in their own cities.

Part of that is from the permissive harm reduction regime that has been promoted by the government. In fact, from what I have seen, it creates a cycle of dependence. In many ways, it is best compared to a palliative care kind of approach to dealing with people who have addiction issues, and it is not working. Safe supply has resulted in more deaths and more crime. The number of people on the streets who are involved in illicit drug use and in crime is just going up.

Instead of encouraging drug use by providing free needles, free hard drugs and all the other government programs, Conservatives believe drug users need a recovery-based system of care. We need to be compassionate with these people. They need help. We need to move them forward on the continuum of care so that they can actually get out of the situation they are in, not just allow them to remain there.

We need to bring home safe streets, schools and communities.

Just to sum up, we are talking about this today because of the failure of the Liberal government over the last 10 years. It is now trying to fix the mess it has created. It is trying to fix the broken immigration system, where we have backlogs that have exploded, where the focus on skilled workers has been lost, where the loopholes are wide open and where we have consultants, colleges and employers taking advantage of the system we have. There have been seven immigration ministers in 10 years. That is crazy.

The government is also trying to fix the chaos at the border. It has lost control of our borders. Illegal crossings are up, and enforcement is down. There are more shipments of stolen vehicles. Drugs and precursors to drugs are coming across the borders, and firearms are coming across the borders illegally. There is a surge of crime in our country, with violent crime and gang activity rising, and the soft-on-crime laws are allowing offenders to walk free.

We have a plan to fix immigration and to speed up processing for skilled workers. We want to secure the border by closing illegal crossings and restoring order to the border. We want to crack down on crime by reintroducing mandatory jail time, ending catch-and-release and backing our police to make sure that we keep our communities safe. That is our plan.

Criminal Code

[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.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for a quick criminal law lesson for the member opposite. As the Conservatives know, Canada follows the rules of common law, so the principle of restraint they keep citing was already law way before Bill C-75, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Antic in 2017.

In our laws, it is clear that an accused person may be denied bail when detention is necessary for the protection of the safety of the public. That is section 515, paragraph 10 of the Criminal Code. I do not have my code with me here today, but I will be happy to email the article to my colleague.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, weak Liberal bail laws like Bill C-75 require courts to release repeat violent offenders at the earliest possible opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. Just days ago, a man in York was violently injured during a home invasion, and one of the accused was already out on bail for crimes as serious as attempted murder.

The Prime Minister promised Liberals would flip-flop on bail, but that was just the same old Liberal trick; everyone knows it, the one where they promise one thing but do nothing. Liberal bail laws are still on the books six months after the Prime Minister took power.

Will the Prime Minister scrap Liberal bail, or get out of the way so we can do it for him?

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that victims deserve justice. I wonder if he can comment on whether he feels that they will receive fair justice currently in the civilian courts when they are instructed by Bill C-75 to let people out on bail as early as possible and under the least onerous conditions. Until we fix that, we are not getting them justice.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly right; we are concerned about a lack of judges, a lack of Crown prosecutors across the country right now, and certainly in provinces. Time after time, cases are being pleaded down or in many cases completely thrown out because they hit the Jordan framework.

If the federal government is serious about ensuring that victims within our Canadian Armed Forces receive the that justice they deserve and that this country should be providing to them, they need to be stepping up with resources to scrap their soft-on-crime Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 laws and putting additional resources into our courtrooms to ensure that the cases are heard in a timely fashion so we actually deliver justice for victims in this country.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this chamber to put some words on the record about Bill C-11. This piece of legislation is of national importance. It is well overdue given the time that has elapsed since the recommendations came forward in the initial report, which I believe was commissioned by a Conservative government, on the heinous acts and actions within our Canadian Armed Forces. It is past time that we address these issues in a serious way.

The bill would impact my constituency of Brandon—Souris quite closely. I very proudly represent the hard-working Canadian Armed Forces personnel stationed at Canadian Forces Base Shilo, which includes the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the 1RCHA and the many other serving and civilian personnel who operate that base, which has a huge impact. There are over 1,100 employees in total, which is significant in western Manitoba. I am really proud to represent those folks, first as their member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and now here in the House of Commons.

From a constituency service perspective, issues around sexual transgressions and sexual assaults within the military come to my constituency office far too frequently, as do the impacts of the lack of services that should be available to many who experience such devastating actions from their colleagues, their spouses or anyone else who chooses to perpetrate such deplorable actions. These are certainly not issues that I am a stranger to, sadly. That is a very unfortunate reality, but it is the reality, so I felt it was important to get up and put a few words on the record in support of the fact that we need to do better by the people who put their lives on the line for this great country under our proud Canadian flag.

It is very important to note that Conservatives have always said that members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a safe and respectful workplace and that those who have not experienced that while wearing the uniform deserve justice. We have heard lots of Conservatives raise personal examples, some very personal, of where that has not taken place recently or over the course of many years and, sadly, many decades. It is time to deliver a system that works better for victims and does not protect the bad actors in our system. We have so many systems now in this country that are focused on protecting the wrong people, and victims are left behind. This is just one example, but it is an important one that needs to be addressed.

While we certainly support the recommendations and support addressing the system to ensure that there is justice for folks who have experienced this type of trauma within the Canadian Armed Forces, we believe that Bill C-11 requires careful study at committee. That is why we are putting words on the record now in debate. The government, which has taken so much time to deliver a bill on this issue, continues to question why the Conservatives are speaking to it. It is because we have important questions that the Liberals need time to answer. We know they are not the most expeditious when it comes to investigating concerns that are raised by Canadians, particularly by the official opposition, and when it comes to the legislation they put forward.

We are putting them on the record now so that when the bill gets to committee, we sincerely hope, the Liberals may have some answers. I just previously raised a question for a Liberal member who, to her credit, admitted she had no idea what the answer was. I asked why the bill would treat crimes differently on Canadian soil than when our armed forces personnel are deployed. I credit the member for her honesty, but members who are speaking to the bill from the governing party, which put forward the legislation, should likely know the answers to questions before they get up to deliver remarks in the House of Commons.

That said, a couple of the concerns we have are about the civilian courts and their capacity to handle the cases. We understand that they may be, and in fact likely are, more experienced in dealing with these types of cases, but the courts are already backlogged. Time and time again, cases of serious violent offences, whether they be sexual in nature or cases of violent behaviour, run up against the Jordan framework, where the perpetrators are getting off on their charges because the courts cannot get through the process fast enough to have cases heard and verdicts delivered.

If we would now be adding more cases into the civilian court system, what provisions would the Liberals be putting in place to ensure that the court system could handle the additional workload coming its way? The Liberal government has been silent on that front, which is a concern, because if the Liberals are promising that the cases would be heard in a more effective manner, they need to put the resources behind the bill and streamline the processes to ensure that the cases would not get thrown out because of the Jordan framework.

Why would the legislation cover only domestic cases? I raise that again because it is an important point. The military police would be dealing with fewer cases overall, so that speaks to a potential lack of training or a lack of experience in dealing with cases as time goes on, yet they would still be called upon to do cases overseas. What standards and what training and expertise requirements would the Liberals be putting in place to ensure that the military police keep their standards up and in fact improve them while investigating cases overseas?

This can be challenging at the best of times when there are different jurisdictions and in many cases different nations and citizenships that are involved when such cases take place on multilateral operations, such as the ongoing deployment in Latvia. Soldiers from CFB Shilo in my constituency just completed a six-month stint in Latvia. Where does that leave the military police and their capacity?

Current crime stats are on the rise domestically under the Liberal government; we know that is a fact. We do not anticipate demand going down; in fact it would likely increase for civilian courts if they would be handling military penalties and cases. It could also mean that the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies under Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, where people who commit violent sexual offences are allowed to serve out their sentence on house arrest, may be allowed to do for military cases as well should they all move to the civilian system.

On a very small base, like the one in my constituency, there could be people living just down the street from their perpetrator on house arrest while their case goes through the court system and after conviction. We find that completely unacceptable in terms of the scope and impact it would have on the victims, who should be our priority. The Liberals have failed on the domestic civilian front, and we are very concerned they will fail again, as they have been failing, the victims within our Canadian Armed Forces.

I think we have raised some significant concerns that the Liberals have failed to provide any reasonable answer for, and that is why it is important that we thoroughly debate the bill, both here at second reading and at committee.

I want to be very clear that we want equal treatment for victims in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to ensure that there is commonality across the board, and we want to make sure that victims are treated with the respect, the dignity and the justice they deserve.

Military Justice Modernization Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for her work with veterans. When she is at the national defence committee, she always has a lot to contribute to the discussion.

I would like to ask the member whether she has some of the concerns Conservatives have, which are that the civilian criminal justice system has been undermined by the Liberals, and because of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, when someone is charged with sexual assault, sexual exploitation or sexual human trafficking, they can serve their sentence under house arrest.

Would the requirements for lax sentencing given out by the civil courts, whether provincial or federal, undermine the ability to get justice for victims of military sexual trauma as we move cases from the military court to civilian courts?

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of the people of Riding Mountain.

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime, which has threatened the safety and well-being of families across our region. A recent report by the Manitoba west district RCMP found that over an 18-month period, four offenders in Swan River were responsible for 239 offences.

The petitioners continue to suffer the consequences of soft-on-crime Liberal policies like Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory jail time for serious crimes, and Bill C-75, which forces judges to release repeat violent offenders right back onto the streets. The petitioners of Swan Valley want to see an end to the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies so that criminals can stay behind bars. That is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders.

I support the good people of Swan River.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to rise in this chamber and ask the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime about the rampant crime on the streets in my community and across this country. At the time, Vaughan had seen seven shootings in just three weeks. Since I asked my question, there have been three more shootings, one of them as recently as yesterday in the early morning hours in the area of Thornhill Woods. It was just another day in Vaughan, where gunshots rang out while families were asleep in their beds.

We know that so much of the rampant criminality on our streets is a direct consequence of weak Liberal soft-on-crime laws and catch-and-release policies that keep repeat violent offenders out of jail and on our streets. People are afraid. They are scared and they are frustrated. They are frustrated because of the lack of action by the Liberal government.

It is not just the Conservatives who have been raising the alarm for years about the Liberals' failed bail laws. lt is the everyday person at the local bakery in my riding, or the mother and father shopping at the grocery store. Even the mayor of Vaughan said this about yesterday's shooting: “These instances are a direct result of a broken criminal justice system that catches and releases repeat offenders instead of keeping them behind bars.... We need stronger and tougher laws and real bail reform from the Federal government immediately.”

Everyone, and I mean everyone, wants the Liberal government to act. Police chiefs, police associations, provincial governments, victims' groups and municipal governments are all begging for action, and what do we keep hearing from government members? They tell us not to worry as bail reform is coming. When? We have yet to hear of a date for this bill.

There are also zero details about what is actually in the bill. Will the government get rid of the principle of restraint from Bill C-75, which compels judges to release offenders under the least onerous conditions at the earliest opportunity? Will the Liberals finally admit that their ideological approach to criminal justice is flawed and that it prioritizes violent criminals over victims?

If this truly was a priority for the Liberals, they would have introduced bail reform in the spring or, at the very least, right at the start of this fall session, but they did not. We have seen their priorities. We have seen them prioritize banning people from buying cars from one another for $10,000 in cash or more, prioritize lowering the threshold for what constitutes hate speech and prioritize confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens, all in the name of combatting gun crime, despite the fact that police tell us 90% of gun crimes are committed with illegal firearms coming over the border with the United States.

Everyone seems to know what the problem is, except for the Liberal government. That is why we introduced our jail not bail act. We can end the principle of restraint, create a new category for major offences and bring in the bail reform this country so desperately needs.

Given how important it is that we fix this mess quickly, yesterday we tried to pass a motion to fast-track our jail not bail act and send it to committee. We committed to working extended hours. We will do whatever it takes. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against our motion, once again prioritizing criminals over victims.

Just last week, we heard from the Prime Minister that they want to get tough on crime. If that is the case, why are they standing in the way? Why does the government pretend to be tough on crime while standing in the way of our plan to prioritize victims over criminals and keep repeat offenders behind bars?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have unleashed a crime wave in Niagara like we have never seen before. It has gotten so bad that the Niagara Regional Police Service is reminding people to do a nighttime routine. They call it the 9 p.m. routine: “It’s 9pm, Niagara. Have you completed your #9pmRoutine? Ensure all your valuables are secure, cars, doors and windows are locked, and alarms are activated if you have them.”

This falls on the heels of Toronto police and York police telling people to leave their keys by the front door and lock themselves in the closet while criminals steal from their home. The only thing they did not say was to leave a full tank of gas, and cookies at the door.

This is happening as Liberals keep telling Canadians, “You've never had it so good.” Let me remind folks of the Liberal record. Liberal Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent crimes. Bill C-75 requires judges to release accused offenders at the earliest possible opportunity and under the least onerous conditions.

Canadians live in fear as criminals roam the streets knowing they can do whatever they want to whomever they want and still be out on bail before the ink on their paperwork is even dry.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have already outlined the fact that Canadians have lost trust in the Liberal government. This is just another fact. Obviously we need bail, not jail.

For six months, the justice minister has had an opportunity to introduce the things that would reverse what is in Bill C-75, which gives people bail. It talks about the least restrictive punishment at the earliest possible opportunity. That means fines and bail today. That is what is happening.

That is not justice. That is not going to make victims want to come forward, because going through the process of the investigation and the trial is very punishing to them. There is no evidence for how they are going to be protected by the Canadian military while this civil process is going on. Are they going to be protected in their jobs? Will they be exposed to their perpetrator? What will happen? What will be done to protect those people?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House. Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to spend some time talking about the context in which this debate is taking place, because the legislative route that this bill took to get to this moment says everything about the tired, old, incompetent government. It is really worth taking a moment to examine that.

This bill is the second attempt to finally, after over 10 years, implement the recommendations of the Deschamps report to transfer the criminal prosecution for sexual offences to civilian court. This was contained in the report and recommendations made to the Harper government in the spring of 2015. That was just before Parliament adjourned ahead of dissolution for the 2015 election. The Harper government accepted the recommendations, and had the Conservatives been re-elected that fall, we would have had the opportunity to table the appropriate legislation to implement the Deschamps report.

Instead, we have had three entire parliaments during which the Liberal government failed to make this legislative change and implement the recommendation that Justice Deschamps made in March 2015. From 2015 to 2019, the government took exactly zero steps to implement the recommendation to address sexual misconduct in the armed forces. However, then minister Harjit Sajjan did take time to cover up the sexual misconduct of the then chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance, and during that Parliament, the government did take the time to engineer the frivolous and vexatious politically motivated prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

During the 42nd Parliament, the Liberals also expended no resources to try to deal with procuring important equipment. They did spend time, though, buying rusted-out Australian F-18s while delaying a decision to replace our own fighter jet fleet. They squandered the entire four-year majority Parliament without addressing sexual misconduct in the military or making progress in procuring ships, jets, other aircraft, submarines, land vehicles, artillery, ammunition and base housing.

Then from 2019 to 2021, the Liberals continued to ignore victims of sexual misconduct, although the resignations of senior officers piled up during that Parliament. They continued to delay procurement, as worsening morale began to foment a crisis of recruitment and retention that would start to jeopardize Canada's force posture and readiness to respond to requests from allies on the eve of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and respond to China's explicit challenges to Canada's Arctic sovereignty and security.

Then in the last Parliament, between 2021 and 2025, Canada's lack of military preparedness became undeniable and unignorable. In 2023, it became known that there were 16,000 vacant positions in the Canadian Armed Forces and that another 10,000 force members were undertrained and undeployable. It was what kept then chief of the defence staff Wayne Eyre awake at night, according to his own committee testimony.

In 2023, after eight years of neglecting and ignoring the armed forces, other than the occasional morale-sapping pronouncement lamenting military culture, the Liberals finally tabled Bill C-66 but did nothing to advance it for an entire year. They finally introduced it in the House of Commons in the spring of 2024, and as my colleague from Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke pointed out, in the fall of 2024, they spent their entire legislative agenda avoiding compliance with an order of this House and not advancing this legislation.

Let there be no doubt about the government's lack of seriousness about the Canadian Armed Forces in general and the problem of sexual misconduct in the military specifically. Its track record over the past 10 years speaks for itself.

Right now, as I speak in this chamber, ships are rusting out at sea. Fighter jets that should have been ordered and delivered by now have still not been delivered. We would be lucky right now if we could get one submarine in the water for a handful of days per year, and there is no replacement ordered. We have only a handful of operational tanks, barely any available for training. We do not have air defence systems. New transport and refuelling aircraft have been ordered with no plan, no hangars built to house them and no base location decisions made.

Howitzers and artillery pieces are entirely lacking, as well as adequate shells. The government let a production line of artillery shells mothball in an emerging threat environment, and now, as Canada and its allies desperately need this ammunition, we do not have the production capacity. We do not have the production capacity to supply ourselves and our allies with desperately needed 155-millimetre artillery shells. That is a World War I munition, the production of which the government partially shut down on the eve of the Ukraine war.

Base housing is in a deplorable condition, with houses falling apart and a 7,000-unit backlog of personnel waiting to access base housing. Barracks are in horrific unsanitary conditions. Health care is also lacking for many military families. This bill would address a well-known and well-documented problem with sexual misconduct in the military, which is a factor in the recruitment and retention crisis we face and a factor in morale at a time when we desperately need to fill vacancies for almost every single position in all branches of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As I have said before, let me say something about the men and women in our armed forces. They are among the very best people in this country. I have travelled and visited foreign bases of operations in Latvia and England, and these people are the best. They are extremely young people with extraordinary responsibilities. I met a 19-year-old in Latvia who was responsible for training and helping allied soldiers. He was a kid from northern British Columbia with enormous responsibility, and he was so positive and full of energy and enthusiasm for his work.

These are incredible people, and they deserve our support. They are the best, and they deserve protection. They deserve access to justice when sexual misconduct happens.

We have already heard in debate a lot about culture and culture change in the military. Part of the culture change that needs to happen is overcoming the culture of secrecy and the culture of cover-up. That culture has permeated to the very top levels. We saw the former minister of national defence covering up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff. We have seen this type of behaviour at the highest levels, and we see it at the unit level, as my colleague said earlier today.

We have had testimony at the defence committee from victims of sexual assault who say they cannot access justice because of the lack of access to the civilian system, which this bill would ultimately change, and because of the inability to get information about themselves to file a complaint. The reflexive secrecy around even members of the Canadian Armed Forces accessing their own information is part of the problem. This bill would not fix that, so there is a long way to go to ensure justice for members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are victims of sexual misconduct.

It is not like civilian access to justice for sexual assault victims is assured. It is far from it. We see over and over again how repeat violent offenders are automatically granted bail as a result of the Liberals' so-called bail reforms of Bill C-75, and earlier this afternoon this very Liberal bench voted entirely against replacing and repealing that law.

We have seen under the current government an erosion of effective law enforcement and justice for victims. We see crime levels that we have not seen in decades. We see an acceleration in crime. We see a lack of urgency in appointing judges so that assault victims can get access to trial, and this bill would not fix all of these problems. This bill contains an important long-standing 10-year-old recommendation, and I hope this Parliament will debate this bill and that we will have a proper debate so we can come to the bottom of this and conclude it.

Justice

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail has caused a bloodbath of crime in communities across this country. Just last week, a man was stabbed on a bus in Brampton by a criminal out on bail.

Over the last six months in power, the Prime Minister has kept Liberal Bill C-75 in place, causing more bloodshed. Conservatives have taken police and victims' advice to draft a bill that would scrap Liberal bail and bring peace to our streets.

The House vote is today. Victims and police are watching us. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and vote to scrap Liberal bail today?

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

Mr. Speaker, Liberal policies like Liberal bail have caused a bloodbath of crime throughout Canada. So much of this comes back to the Liberal bail provisions of Bill C-75.

Canadians should not have fear, because we have a jail not bail bill that we will be voting on today. In fact, Peel, Halton and, minutes ago, the Toronto police associations endorsed our jail not bail bill. When the justice minister says that our bill is deficient, will he tell those police associations they are wrong?