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.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition to voice the concerns of the people of Riding Mountain.

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime that 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, just two offenders in Swan River were responsible for over 150 offences.

The petitioners continue to suffer the consequences of soft-on-crime Liberal policies such as 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.

Petitioners in Swan Valley want to see an end to the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies so that criminals stay behind bars. This is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail for repeat violent offenders. I support the good people of Swan River.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, Ponoka—Didsbury is a great riding in rural central Alberta. It is almost as close to the north end of Calgary as it is to the south end of Edmonton, with some of the finest, hardest-working and noblest people we could ever find, and honest, law-abiding citizens. There are lots of farmers, businesses and all-around good people. It is a pleasure for me to rise on their behalf today to give a speech that I am going to entitle “We told them so”.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-14, a bill introduced by the Liberal government to fix a problem that it, essentially, created. When the Conservative government left power in 2015, Canada had the lowest total crime rate since 1969, and that was not simply a coincidence. Conservatives understand that the justice system is not a toy for the use of social engineering. It is, in fact, an important tool for restraining the liberties of those who threaten public safety, especially when they are likely to reoffend. In other words, Conservatives believe public safety to be the paramount consideration in whether somebody's civil liberties should be restrained.

Victims of crime deserve a voice, and the actions of criminals should have real-world consequences. Unfortunately, the last 10 years of Liberal rule have seen all the progress made under the Harper administration completely erased. During these years, the current Liberal government and the ones before it waged an ideological crusade against those who uphold Canada's laws. Of the Liberals' soft-on-crime bills, none are more egregious than Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Bill C-75 eased bail provisions and legislated the principle of restraint for police and courts, ensuring that criminals would be released at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. This is, essentially, the open door to the catch-and-release system we see today. I am a conservationist at heart and an angler. I know that catch and release can sometimes be a good thing. When it comes to justice, though, catch and release is poor public policy and comes at enormous costs for certain Canadians.

Bill C-5, for its part, removed the mandatory minimum sentences on 14 different Criminal Code offences, even some minimum sentences that were put in place by none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau. These were common-sense penalties for dangerous offences and included using a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence. It also included possession of a firearm or weapon while knowing that the possession is unauthorized. We all know criminals do not get gun licences and do not register their guns. Why on earth would we take away minimum penalties for people who knowingly do that?

Regarding possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, I do not know why people would not go to jail for that. Every law-abiding gun owner knows they would not have to suffer those consequences because they follow the rules, but criminals do not follow the rules. Regarding possession of a weapon obtained in the commission of an offence, if someone steals somebody's guns, they do not get to go to jail. As a matter of fact, someone would probably get in more trouble for having their guns stolen from them than the person who actually stole the guns in the first place.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is my honour to rise in the House on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island.

I would like to take a minute to recognize Peyton Hammond, a 17-year-old who just won the World Darts Federation World Cup youth championship. Congratulations and well done. He certainly is a rising star.

Today, I would like to speak specifically about violent repeat offenders. Let us be clear. The Liberals' soft-on-crime Bill C-75 has allowed our towns and cities to become havens for violent repeat offenders. Frankly, Bill C-14 is not much better.

Let me take members to Duncan on Vancouver Island. It is a small town with a population of around 7,000. Lewis Street is the epicentre of violent repeat offenders, drug crimes and drug overdoses. There is an overdose prevention site, people are camping everywhere and there is struggling and suffering on the streets. It is one block from two schools. An elementary school and a middle school are one block away. I have been there many times. I have witnessed drug dealing and people overdosing, fighting and camping on the street. It is out of control. The park is a public toilet. There are no toilets; it is just a park. People are living on balconies. Residents there witness this every day.

“Stick Man” takes sticks every day and goes down the street, smashing cars. He gets arrested, is released the next day and does it again. I have seen him. The residents there have told me they have seen him doing it again and again. They witness it from their balconies and their front yards, or from behind their windows. They know the criminals. They see them again and again. They see public sexual acts and public indecency.

I am, and we are all, sympathetic to those suffering from homelessness and drug addiction. They, too, are victims of violent repeat offenders. These people are somebody's son, daughter, brother or sister. They have a family. They, too, suffer.

Seniors there are afraid to go out at night. They know who the violent repeat offenders are. They know who is going to attack them, day and night. Some of them are 90 years old. They are struggling to get property insurance because of where they live, because of the crime and because of the violent repeat offenders.

I would like to speak about Hank's Handimart, which is nearby. James Kim is a senior and a store owner. He was working in his store and was beaten nearly to death. He was put in hospital for several weeks, yet the next day, as his sons were covering shifts to keep the family business, which is helping the community, open and alive, they watched the accused walk past the store. The next day, he was out on bail.

The overall crime severity index there is 339 and the violent crime severity index is at 324. It is among the worst in British Columbia. The violent crime rate is 153% above the national average. That is not just in Duncan; it is in small and big towns and communities across Canada. People are suffering from Bill C-75 and the culture of violent repeat offenders and catch and release. Bill C-75 has failed Canada and it has failed Duncan. Is Bill C-14 any better?

Johnny was my daughter's boyfriend. He was murdered in downtown Victoria not three years ago. He was brutally stabbed to death. He was gutted with a hunting knife by a violent repeat offender who was out on bail. He had been charged multiple times. In fact, some of the charges were laid not two weeks earlier. They were violent crimes: attempted murder and attacking a police service dog. He should not have been out on bail, but he was. That is Bill C-75's failure. Will Bill C-14 solve it?

Last week, I asked the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, from the party opposite, if Bill C-14 would solve the issue of violent repeat offenders and if it would have saved Johnny. He said the problem was the judges. He questioned their training, how busy they were that day and their experience. He wanted to know their qualifications. He was pointing fingers and blaming our legal system for Bill C-75's failures. I think that was shameful. He then went on to challenge members who disagreed with him to take it outside.

Most importantly, the member was unable to answer, and did not answer, whether Bill C-14 would have saved the life of somebody like Johnny or the lives of so many other people across Canada who have been affected and whose lives have been shattered by violent repeat offenders. Violent repeat offences have spiked in the last 10 years.

Bill C-14 fails to impose automatic detention for those already on bail. This would have prevented Johnny's murder and so many other crimes. It leaves the principle of restraint in place, the very policy that forced the judges to release Johnny's murderer at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions.

These are some of the examples specific to violent repeat offenders, which Bill C-14 fails to address. It fails to keep violent repeat offenders behind bars. It falls short. The principle of restraint remains. The “least onerous” language persists. It keeps the culture of release there.

House arrest limits do not go far enough for robbery, gun crimes and trafficking. The solution is clearly to bring the bill to committee and put in some hard work to fix Bill C-14. Sure, it copies some Conservative ideas, but not all of them. It certainly does not go far enough, as I outlined, specifically on the violent repeat offender problem. We need to keep these people where they belong, which is behind bars. What we have now is not working. Duncan knows it. Vancouver Island knows it. Towns across Canada know it. Victims know it. Law enforcement knows it.

Sure, Bill C-14 is a start. It also acknowledges that Bill C-75 was a failure. There is a lot of work needed to make some serious improvements to Bill C-14. We support getting it to committee in order to get it fixed and deliver good laws for Canadians with key elements like, for example, the principle of restraint, house arrest limits and restoring mandatory minimums. It needs to be responsive to the needs, requirements and advice of law enforcement officials and, indeed, all Canadians. The solution is, clearly, to work together, as a minority government should. It is not about saying, “We need to vote for their bill as it is, or we are the bad guy.” We need to be collaborative and work together for the betterment of Canadians, in order to keep people safe.

Bill C-14 needs lots of work. It needs fixing. It needs improvement. Conservatives are ready to work together to keep Canadians safe. I am wondering if the Liberals are ready to work together.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a humbling privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Portage—Lisgar, particularly on such an important issue.

Before I get into the substance of today's matter, I would like to give a little shout-out of pride to my beautiful wife Cailey. We welcomed our second daughter into the world last month. She has been an absolute rock star. Today is the 22-month birthday of our first daughter, Maeve. I just want to say how much mommy and daddy love both Morgan and Maeve.

Before I was even elected to Parliament, the need to reverse the dangerous changes the Liberals made to our bail system was front-page news for years. This issue has been raised time and time again, almost every day in the House, for years. During that time, Canadians have listened to various Liberal MPs and commentators defend the disastrous legislative changes that have directly contributed to the crime crisis that is currently plaguing our communities.

When the Liberals weakened the previous bail system, the Liberals told Canadians that they were simply following a court decision. They claimed that by passing Bill C-75, they were only honouring legal precedent, but the truth is that no court demanded the automatic principle of release to be codified into law. That was a political choice, one the Liberals engineered and that Canadians have paid the price for.

Then came Bill C-5 back in 2022. That legislation removed mandatory minimums for serious gun offences and allowed conditional sentences for many other very serious crimes. The results were entirely predictable. Repeat violent offenders cycled through the system again and again. There was little to no deterrence. Victims were left behind and ignored. Later, the Liberals introduced Bill C-48, and while it added a few reverse onus provisions, it still failed to give clear direction on detaining repeat violent criminals.

Now, once again, we find ourselves trying to fix the mess the Liberals have created over the past 10 years. The consequences of their inaction have been devastating. Countless innocent Canadians have been harmed or have even lost their lives because the government failed to act when it mattered most.

We are often told that the justice system must balance the presumption of innocence with public safety, and of course it must, but that balance has been broken. Under the Liberals' watch, the bail system in Canada has become a revolving door. Dangerous individuals are released back on our streets where they continue to victimize innocent Canadians. That is not justice. That is negligence, and it is literally costing lives.

Laws are only as effective as the consequences they produce, yet over the past many years, the Liberal government has prioritized procedure over protection. We were told that reform would come from court interpretations or social programs rather than through tougher laws. Meanwhile, habitual offenders with long criminal records were repeatedly released, breached their conditions and returned to the same cycle of violence and victimization. The results were entirely predicable and preventable.

In 2023, rural police-reported crime in Manitoba reached 14,846 incidents per 100,000 people, almost 1.6 times the rate of urban areas. When bail decisions fail to account for repeat violent offenders, it is small towns and rural communities that pay the highest price. Municipal policing reports across the country tell the same story time and time again: Repeat violent offenders with long histories of arrests and breaches are being released, only to commit murder or some other serious assault or crime while out on bail. This is not a theoretical debate; it is a tragedy that has been unfolding in real time across our country over the past number of years, and it must come to an end.

The Association of Manitoba Municipalities has repeatedly called for bail reform. In its public safety agenda, the AMM outlined the urgent need for federal action and greater support for local policing across the province. Municipal leaders, from those in Winnipeg to those in small rural and northern communities, have been crystal clear that public safety is their top priority. A recent AMM survey found that nearly nine in 10 Manitobans want immediate federal action on bail reform and amendments to the Criminal Code to hold repeat offenders accountable. Those voices can no longer be ignored.

Statistics confirm what Canadians already feel. The national data shows that the violent crime severity index has been climbing for years, frankly, ever since the Liberals took power back in 2015, when they began their process of breaking the bail system and the entirety of the justice system. Offences involving weapons are up. Studies on reconviction and recidivism show that offenders with multiple prior convictions are far more likely to reoffend within months of release than those with fewer convictions.

When someone has a documented history of violence, multiple arrests, convictions and breaches of court orders, releasing them on minimal conditions is not fairness; it is gambling with the safety of the public. Police chiefs, prosecutors and frontline officers all warned that this would happen. Many of us have talked to those frontline officers and heard directly from them. They knew this consequence was coming. For years, they asked Ottawa to provide the tools to keep the most dangerous individuals off our streets. Instead, the Liberals delayed. They deflected that there was ever a problem and left provinces and municipalities to deal with the consequences.

I want to highlight one heartbreaking example from my riding, in my home province of Manitoba. Meechelle and Ron Best recently appeared before the justice committee. They lost their daughter, Kellie, a young woman of 28 from Portage who had her entire life ahead of her. She was engaged to Travis and was expecting to walk down the aisle this year. She worked in tourism in the community. She had started her own small business. Everybody simply loved her. The man accused of killing her had multiple outstanding warrants and a long record of breaches, yet he was repeatedly released. It was when he was out on bail that he caused the crash that killed Kellie.

Before her death, he had been released on bail three times in the two weeks leading up to the Christmas prior to Kellie's early January killing. Despite his record, he remained free time and time again. After killing her, he was transferred to a behavioural facility, from which he quickly escaped. Meechelle told the justice committee that her heart sank when she heard that news. She feared for someone else’s life and that some other family was about to be destroyed, because his pattern of behaviour was so crystal clear to anybody who paid it any attention. She asked a simple but powerful question of that committee: What good are assurances when someone who shows no respect for the law, police or judges keeps getting another chance?

This is the question that every single one of us must answer. This is not about isolated failures, but about a system that has simply lost its way. If an offender has repeat violent convictions, uses weapons, has breached bail conditions and ignored warrants, we must ask ourselves what responsible jail system would still default to release. It is under the Liberal government that our system has done exactly that, and the consequences have been tragic. That is why I have been unwavering in calling for laws that protect victims, defend our public safety and restore confidence in our justice system.

Judges must begin every bail consideration with the highest safety threshold in mind, and repeat violent offenders must not be given a free runway to strike again. Governments at every level must act to support the municipalities, including those represented by the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, that are on the front lines of community safety.

To the families who have lost loved ones because of this system’s failure, we hear them. To the communities of rural Manitoba, the urban core of Winnipeg and Canadians across this country, we stand with them as Conservatives. They deserve a justice system that protects them, not one that endangers them. The Liberals have had years to get this right. They promised balance, but instead delivered policies that emboldened repeat offenders and eroded the public trust.

Too many Canadians have paid the price through trauma, fear and loss, and that simply cannot continue. It is time to fix the bail system. It is time for laws that put families, victims and communities first. Meechelle and Ron Best’s story reminds us why delay is not an option. Their grief is a call to action. I am so proud of them for coming to deliver their story. The lives of countless Canadians hang in the balance, and no one should have to endure what they have endured.

When this legislation reaches committee, I expect members of Parliament to strengthen it and fix the mess the Liberals have created once and for all. I will note, as the Conservative shadow minister for justice has pointed out, that this bill is entitled the “bail and sentencing reform act”, yet out of the 80 paragraphs spanning 35 pages, only a single provision touches on sentencing reform, and it concerns contempt of court, not violent crimes.

In the face of rising crime across Canada, why did the government fail to use this opportunity to strengthen penalties for other serious offences? It could have used this bill to send a clear message to every would-be criminal out there that their days of terrorizing our streets without consequences are over.

Parliament has a moral duty to do more than just tinker around the edges. We owe it to the family of Meechelle and Ron Best and the families of countless others who have faced serious loss, because no parent should ever have to endure the death of a child thanks to a broken bail system.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the chamber today to address Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

I will begin by saying what I have been hearing loud and clear from the people of Brampton and across Canada. Canadians are tired of living in fear in their own homes and neighbourhoods. After 10 years of the Liberal government, one thing is painfully clear: Canada has become less safe.

Brampton is a city of hard-working families, new Canadians and entrepreneurs. These are people who came to Canada for better opportunities and safety, but today, many tell me they no longer feel safe walking to their cars, taking public transit or letting their teenagers go out at night. Our streets are less secure, and our communities are living in fear; repeat violent offenders are being released again and again because of Liberal soft-on-crime laws.

Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearms offences are up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%. These are not just numbers. They represent shattered families. They represent lost lives. They represent Canadians who did nothing wrong except trust their government to keep them safe. Let us remember the names behind these numbers: Bailey McCourt, murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail for assault; Savannah Kulla-Davies, a 29-year-old mother of four, shot and killed in Brampton by a man who was out on bail. Bailey and Savannah were both killed by a system that prioritized the rights of repeat offenders over the safety of innocent people.

These tragedies were not inevitable. They were preventable. They happened because Liberal laws made it easier for violent offenders to walk free.

It all started with Bill C-75. That bill rewrote Canada's bail system and told judges to start from a principle of restraint. In plain English, that means release first, ask questions later. The Liberals told judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. The result is a revolving door, a catch-and-release system that sends criminals right back into our communities.

Then came Bill C-5. That law repealed mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes, drug trafficking and repeat violent offences. Together, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 created chaos. The people paying the price are law-abiding Canadians: seniors assaulted in their homes, store owners robbed at gunpoint, women forced to live in fear of violent partners and first responders attacked by offenders who should have been behind bars.

The National Post reported that more than half of Canadians no longer feel safe in their neighbourhoods. That is the legacy of the Liberal government: fear, violence and disorder. Now, after four years of Conservative pressure, the Liberals are finally admitting what Canadians already knew: Their bail system is broken. What did they do? They brought forward Bill C-14. Let us call it what it is: damage control.

Bill C-14 is an attempt to copy the Conservative plan without the courage to actually fix the problem. Yes, it makes a few changes, but it leaves the principle of restraint completely intact. It simply says that judges should consider public safety. It does not require them to put safety first. It adds a few more reverse onus provisions, but that is just procedure. The offender can still argue their way out. It gives judges more guidance, not direction; it gives more advice, not accountability. Once again, the Liberals talk tough but act very weak. Canadians are tired of that, and they want results.

Conservatives already have the real solution, Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, introduced by my colleague. The entire Conservative Party is supporting it. The bill does not tinker around the edges. It overhauls the system with one clear message: to protect Canadians first.

First, it would repeal the principle of restraint and replace it with a public safety primacy clause. This means that the first question in every bail hearing would be whether we can protect the public. If the answer is no, offenders would stay in jail.

Second, it would create the presumption of detention for major and repeat violent offenders. If someone is charged with a major crime, they would not get the benefit of the doubt. They would stay behind bars until a court decides otherwise.

Third, it would strengthen the risk test. Instead of asking whether there is a substantial likelihood that someone would reoffend, the law would ask if it is reasonably foreseeable. If there is a foreseeable risk, we would need to act before another tragedy happens.

Fourth, it would mandate judges to review an accused person's entire criminal history, because no one should be treated as a first-time offender when they have already proven they are a repeat threat.

Fifth, it would tighten the surety system. There would be no more convicted criminals vouching for other criminals.

This is real accountability, real reform and real public protection.

The difference between Bill C-14 and Bill C-242 is simple. Bill C-14 would tweak and Bill C-242 would fix. Bill C-14 would encourage and Bill C-242 would require. Bill C-14 would charge and Bill C-242 would enforce. The fundamental difference between our two parties is that the Liberals protect the rights of offenders and the Conservatives protect the safety of Canadians.

Let us not forget that the Liberals voted against every one of these ideas. They voted against the jail not bail act and voted against mandatory minimums. Then, when Canadians demanded action, they copied Conservative ideas into Bill C-14 and called them their own.

Canadians see through this. This is the same government whose public safety minister once said, “I'm not responsible for the hiring of the [RCMP or CBSA] officers.” If he is not responsible for protecting Canadians, then who is?

This is not a partisan issue. It is a public safety issue and a public safety crisis. Every week, there is another headline of another shooting, another stabbing or another innocent person hurt or killed by someone who should never have been out on bail.

Bailey McCourt's family will never see her again. Savannah Kulla's children will grow up without their mother. Tell those families that the principle of restraint worked. Tell them that Liberal bail laws kept them safe. We all know the truth: The Liberal system failed.

The Conservatives have a clear, practical plan to restore law and order: scrap the Liberal bail system, restore mandatory minimums for serious violent offenders, prioritize public safety over political safety and ensure police and prosecutors have the tools they need to protect our communities. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes, in their parks, in their neighbourhoods and in their country.

It is time to act. Canadians are tired of fear. They are tired of excuses. The Liberals have had 10 years to fix this system and have failed. The Conservatives have the courage, conviction and plan to restore safety and order. Under a Conservative government, we will end catch and release, stop repeat offenders and restore law and order in this country.

Justice delayed is justice denied, so let us fix this. Let us restore law and order. Let us bring safety back to Brampton and every community across the country. Let us put victims ahead of criminals. We will make Canada safe once again.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will highlight again that I feel Bill C-14 should have gone much further. It is one thing to have buy-in on a bill, but those same people who are buying into the bill and supporting the bill would have advocated for it to go much further.

Bill C-5, a Liberal bill, weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and repermitting conditional sentences such as house arrest for crimes like sexual assault. That is disgusting.

With Bill C-75, the Liberals forced judges to release offenders at the earliest possible time with the least onerous conditions. This is why we have individuals out on our streets able to commit murder within hours of being arrested. That is disgusting.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, last Tuesday I was finishing up a meeting in my office when the all-too-familiar ring of an Amber Alert went through on my phone. I picked my phone up and promptly looked at it, only to find out that a one-year-old baby girl had been abducted. Members can imagine how this grasped my heart, and I continued to follow the story through its progression.

The next day, I learned the details. I learned that the mother of that child, Savannah Kulla-Davies, had been shot and killed by her ex-partner, Anthony. It was later revealed that Anthony had a record of violence and threats against Savannah, the young woman and mom whose life was taken.

The man had faced firearm-related charges in 2023 for an attack against Savannah. A court document stated that he “did discharge a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of Savannah Rose Kulla Davies”. He even evaded police for a month before finally being arrested by the Waterloo police. A short time later, however, he was out on bail. Sadly, while he was out on bail, he was free to continue his pattern of violence, and this time it ended in the death of Savannah.

Savannah knew that Anthony was dangerous. She had once told her mom, “If I stay with him, he’s going to end up killing me.” As a result, she had left, but unfortunately the justice system failed to protect her. Despite his record and Savannah's repeated pleas, she was failed by the people who were supposed to ensure her safety. Warnings were ignored, and ultimately death was her end. Far too often, this is the case.

This past summer, another woman, Bailey McCourt, was also failed by our justice system and its weak laws. The proud mother of two young girls was bludgeoned to death with a hammer. Her ex was the culprit. That same afternoon, just hours before her life was taken, James had been convicted of four counts of assault by choking and of uttering threats in a domestic violence case. Despite this, however, he was allowed walk. He went and immediately killed Bailey.

Sadly, now two little girls are growing up without a mom, and a family is left with a big hole in their heart. Bailey had lost her faith in the judicial system and in the court's ability to protect her. Her uncle even commented on this, saying that she was “frustrated, scared and felt [altogether] unsupported”.

Both Savannah's and Bailey's stories lay bare the devastating truth: Our justice system all too often sides with the perpetrator and not with the victim. To say that our justice system is broken would be an understatement.

How did we get here? For 10 years, the Liberals have proudly stood behind two soft-on-crime policies: Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. With Bill C-5, the Liberals weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and re-permitting conditional sentences like house arrest for serious offences, extending all the way up to sexual assault. Under Bill C-75, the Liberals forced judges to release offenders “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

The decisions of legislators have real consequences, and these soft-on-crime laws have now resulted in devastation after devastation. After a decade of negligence, the Liberals are finally realizing, it seems, that crime does take place when lax laws are present, but Bill C-14 unfortunately does not go to the extent that it needs to. It is like putting a a band-aid on a gaping wound.

I would like to discuss a few Conservative proposals that would help bring about a right justice system. If the Liberals really do seek to address crime with real solutions, my Conservative colleagues and I have put forward a number of bills, over a dozen. They are common-sense proposals to end catch-and-release bail, restore accountability in sentencing and put the rights of victims and communities ahead of the rights of repeat violent offenders.

I will take my time to outline just three of those common-sense proposals.

One proposal is to end sentence discounts. For a decade, the Liberals have favoured criminals over victims, with light sentencing in the form of concurrent sentences. Sexual assault charges should never be served concurrently, but this is the current practice in Canada. Predators get a two-, three- or four-for-one deal when they commit a crime. It is disgusting. It allows offenders to serve a single sentence for multiple crimes, often reducing their time behind bars significantly.

In Toronto, a family doctor was convicted of nine charges of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation involving three of his patients. He was handed a concurrent sentence of only three and a half years. Again, the penalties for his crimes were combined into one, thereby robbing justice from many of those victims. These patients were supposed to be able to see their family doctor and feel safe and cared for; instead, they were exploited. They were taken advantage of. Instead of their being able to walk a life of freedom, they will bear these scars for a lifetime while the man, the culprit, the perpetrator, will go free very soon.

Each offence is a distinct harm; each victim is a whole person, and each act must carry its own consequence. My private member's bill, Bill C-246, would require consecutive sentences for those who commit sexual assault rather than their being able to serve the sentences concurrently. The Liberals' Bill C-14 fails to address this practice. It fails to address the practice of giving discount sentences for the most heinous crimes. Therefore, it is lacking.

A second proposal that my Conservative colleagues have brought forward that I believe the government should consider has to do with intimate partner violence. We know that, across Canada, women are being failed by a system unable to protect them from their known abusers. In both Savannah's and Bailey's cases, as outlined, their abusers were their ex-partners, something that is all too familiar. About a quarter of all victims of violent crime are victimized by an intimate partner. My colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, introduced Bill C-225, a bill designed to strengthen the legal response to intimate partner violence. If the Liberals truly wished to address this, they would adopt the principles of that bill, and it would serve Canadians incredibly well.

The third bill that I would like to draw attention to has to do with bail. I recently heard from a grieving mother in my riding. She reached out to me from Lethbridge. Her daughter Christina Webber was brutally murdered on December 26 of last year, the day after Christmas. Three individuals were charged in this first-degree murder. One of Christina's killers had been serving an intermittent sentence, meaning that he served time in prison on the weekends, but then he was allowed out during the week, supposedly to work, although he did not have a job. It was during the time he was out of prison that he committed this murder.

Another one of Christina's killers, who was charged with first-degree murder, requested bail and received it. She now lives peacefully in her home while she awaits trial. Meanwhile, Christina's family, her two young boys and her parents, grieve the loss of this mom. It did not need to be that way.

Conservatives have pushed for a long time for changes to our bail system. Recently, my colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which would ensure that individuals charged with serious or violent offences could not easily return to the community while they are waiting for trial. It prioritizes public safety. It puts the victim and the family first. Sadly, the Liberals voted against the bill.

Conservatives welcome the Liberals' sudden recognition that bail reform is needed, but Canadians deserve so much more. They must have much more because their lives matter, their safety matters and our communities matter. Canadians deserve better. They deserve safety; they deserve accountability, and they deserve laws that protect the innocent, not the violent. Therefore, Conservatives will continue to fight for these changes to strengthen sentencing, to reform bail and to put victims first. Ultimately, people like Savannah, Bailey and Christina deserve nothing less. For crying out loud, I hope, for the sake of their families, that we would want to do better.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I have attended a lot of town halls, and I will be having my own shortly.

People have had enough. We have heard some very sad stories. We have heard stories of things that could have been prevented. We have heard of lives lost. We are hearing that Canadians are completely fed up. Record numbers of people are coming out to town halls, which, I would like to point out, are not partisan events. People are coming looking for answers. They are asking us why these things are happening to them, to someone they know or to their child.

We keep pointing back to Bill C-75 and to the failed Liberal justice system. After 10 years, I find it heard to believe that members on the other side are absolutely not listening to Canadians when they are speaking, loud and clear, to every member of the House.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, the bill proposes some things, but not enough.

We are here debating it because Liberal bail reform, in the form of Bill C-75, which the Liberals introduced many years ago, has completely failed. In my opinion, the bill before us does not even go halfway. Bill C-75 should be repealed completely.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the Liberals have lost control of crime. Let us look at their track record. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%. Firearms crime is up 130%. Extortion skyrocketed and is up 330%. Sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%.

They have introduced Bill C-14. It takes in some of the Conservatives' suggestions, but I feel that the bill still falls short in some areas. It does not remove the principle of restraint, which prioritizes criminals over victims. It does not restore mandatory minimum sentences, which were repealed by Bill C-5. Conditional sentence order limits do not go far enough. For example, robbery, gun and trafficking offences can still access house arrest.

Let us start with the principle of restraint. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-75, it weakened our courts' ability to keep violent repeat offenders behind bars because it directed them to release the accused persons at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. Bill C-14 stops short of repealing this. Although it confirms that restraint does not require release, it still leaves the door open to allow violent criminals to get bail.

Bill C-75, which introduced the principle of restraint, was the Liberals' attempt at bail reform. The fact that we are standing here talking about it means that it failed. Bill C-14 is only going halfway to removing it. The bill would still direct our courts to release criminals under the least onerous conditions necessary when they do order bail. What Canadians need are safe streets they can walk down and safe homes they can sleep in. The only way we can restore that is by completely removing this weak Liberal bail policy. Bill C-75 was the Liberals' attempt at bail reform, and we can now agree that it completely failed. We should be scrapping the principle of restraint entirely and replacing it with a clause that prioritizes public safety or just gets rid of it completely.

Bill C-14 also stops halfway to solving the issue of mandatory minimums. It would include consecutive sentences and aggravating factors, but it leaves those up to judicial discretion. Most importantly, it would not reinstate mandatory minimums. Criminals charged with firearm, sexual and repeat violent offences should be afraid of committing crimes because they would receive a mandatory minimum sentence. This creates accountability and puts fear into criminals. Instead, criminals are not deterred by weak Liberal policies.

Just to name a few, Bill C-5 repealed the following mandatory minimums. Discharging a firearm with intent had a mandatory minimum of four years. Discharging a firearm with recklessness had four years. Robbery with a firearm had four years. Extortion with a firearm had four years. Why should those have been repealed? It makes absolutely no sense.

Here are some examples of how weak Liberal bail policies impact our communities. In the House, we heard about Bailey McCourt, a young mother of two daughters who was killed by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. Recently, another young mother of four, Savannah Kulla, was killed by her former partner in Brampton while he was out on bail. Earlier this year, Hamilton police had to release a statement after a man convicted of several sexual assaults was released on bail. In 2022, this man dragged a woman into the woods, gagged her, tied her hands behind her back and proceeded to assault her. In 2023, he entered the home of a 74-year-old woman and assaulted her for over an hour. In February of this year, he was released on bail pending his trial. Hamilton police released a statement with his picture to warn people because they believed he remained a threat to the community, obviously.

Bill C-14 gives us half measures instead of complete solutions. I heard from Canadians over the course of the election that they want to be safe at home and out on the streets. However, after 10 years of Liberal government, they do not feel safe in their own neighbourhoods, and rightfully so when we have criminals like those I just described being released back on our streets within hours.

For 10 years, the Conservatives have been advocating for, and presenting, solutions to the weak bail system. At every turn, the Liberals have voted against us. Our plan to restore safe streets is common sense.

We want to repeal the principle of restraint and replace it with a public safety primacy clause. This would put the public and community safety as the governing principle, putting Canadians, not criminals, first. We also want to restore mandatory minimum sentences for firearms crimes, sexual assaults, kidnapping, human trafficking and other serious violent crime. It sounds very reasonable to me.

We want to restore CSO ineligibility, in order to exclude robbery, firearms offences, trafficking and chronic violent offenders. Conditional sentence orders allow an offender to serve their sentence in the community under strict conditions like house arrest or curfew. There is no reason someone who commits human trafficking should be able to serve their time in the comfort of their own home and in our neighbourhoods. It makes absolutely zero sense.

Conservatives already proposed extending reverse onus on major crimes and making any attack on first responders a major offence, in the jail not bail act of one of my colleagues, which the Liberals voted against.

The Liberals are starting to see what their destructive policies have done to our communities, which is why they have started taking Conservative suggestions on bail reform, but their proposed solution, Bill C-14, would not patch up all the holes they have made. The Conservatives have listened to Canadians and have already come forward with a plan that would completely patch up the holes the Liberals have made in our bail system.

Our jail not bail act covers everything I have just talked about. It would put victims first and focus on public safety instead of on how short we can make a criminal's sentence. It would create a major offences category that would trigger a detention-first posture for the following charges: firearms offences, sexual offences, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, breaking and entering into dwellings, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. This sounds very good to me.

The jail not bail act would make it mandatory for judges to consider the full criminal history of the accused and would introduce the 10-year look-back rule, meaning that if someone has been convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years and is charged with another major offence while on bail, they would be barred from receiving bail again.

These all sound like common-sense policies, but under the Liberal government, common sense has disappeared and been replaced with weak policies that allow bail for violent criminals. We cannot prioritize the victim and the offender at the same time.

For too long, the government has been prioritizing the criminal, and our public safety has declined as a result. Our cities have been taken over by violent repeat criminals, released time and time again. The Liberals are admitting their prior policies have failed Canadians when it comes to safety, because they acknowledge a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index since 2014 and increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences.

Bill C-14 attempts to fix the consequences of the Liberals' past Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which weakened the bill system, but they are keeping the same language framework, the same language that puts priority on releasing the criminal. Conservatives would make sure the bill before us would actually scrap the weak Liberal policies in favour of public and community safety.

Our country hit absolute rock bottom this weekend when the Supreme Court ruled there will be no mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who access or possess child sexual abuse content, in other words, content that includes children being raped. Yes, I was heard clearly: The new Supreme Court ruling, after 10 years of the Liberal government, has removed mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who access or possess child sexual abuse content.

The Liberals have been creating the kind of culture in Canada for the past decade where even a mandatory minimum jail sentence for accessing or possessing child sexual abuse content is viewed as unconstitutional.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are tired of the spin. The government's Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 turned our justice system into a revolving door: catch, release, repeat. Since then, violent crime is up 41%. In my own riding, I sat across from small business owners this weekend who are terrified of extortion, and from families afraid to walk home at night. Add to that record-high immigration levels with no proper vetting, and our neighbours are being shot at while they sleep in their homes. We are watching communities buckle under the pressure.

Please tell me this: After years of failure, why did the Liberals not support the Conservatives' jail not bail bill when they had the chance to fix it?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on a couple of things. I very quickly looked at a few numbers. Since Bill C-75 passed, there were 182 murders committed by people out on bail in 2019, 198 in 2020, 171 in 2021, 256 in 2022 and 267 in 2023. We do not have numbers for 2024 and 2025. This does not include intimate partner violence abuse and child abuse by criminals who were out on bail.

A member opposite said that we have all these organizations supporting this bill and asked why we cannot support it. Why does my colleague think the members opposite did not support our motion to quickly pass Bill C-242, the bail not jail bill, when all of those same organizations urged them to support it?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows well that we need Canadians to be safe, first and foremost. In order for Canadians to be safe, the government cannot be light on criminals, as it has been through Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

I said in my speech that this bill, Bill C-14, is a good start. The Conservatives want it to be stronger. We want criminals to understand they cannot just get a freebie every time they do something stupid like attack or kill someone or commit any criminal offence against any Canadian. This is the Conservative Party's aim. We need strong legislation to make sure criminals stay behind bars and are not set free on the streets to recommit crimes again and again.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, after a decade of passing laws to make life easier for criminals, the Liberal government has suddenly realized it created a problem. From its rare attempt to face reality, we have Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.

Conservatives have been pointing out for years that the Liberal approach to crime has the opposite effect of what the Liberals intended. Criminals did not realize the error of their ways. Instead of being thankful for generous bail and sentencing reforms that returned them to the street, they took their unexpected freedom as an opportunity to commit another crime or more crimes. Liberal bail reforms brought more crime, not less, and many Canadians began to live in fear as the Liberal revolving-door policies put criminals back on the streets to reoffend, no matter how serious the alleged crime.

For years, Conservatives have been calling on the Liberal government to repeal Bill C-75, which passed in 2019. The legislation created a catch-and-release system in which repeat and violent offenders are routinely freed pending trial. To make matters worse, in 2022, Bill C-5 further weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and repermitting house arrest for serious offences, including sexual assault. In 2023, when they realized that they had maybe gone too far, the Liberals introduced Bill C-48, but this was insufficient in terms of dealing with the problem they had created. The bill included only a handful of new offences to be considered in a reverse onus position. It did not do anything to make it harder for repeat offenders to get bail. That has been the problem: People accused of violent crimes are turned loose to reoffend.

I think every member here understands that this is a problem. In my home city of Edmonton, time and time again, we hear stories about people arrested for violent crimes who are released on bail and immediately reoffend. For example, on July 17, Edmonton police arrested a man and charged him with attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of stolen property, two counts of driving while prohibited, breach of release order, possession of a weapon dangerous to the public, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, failure to stop after an accident and theft of a motor vehicle. The accused criminal had been previously arrested for other crimes and released on bail on July 4. Did he learn from the lenient bail conditions? No, he took the opportunity to go on a crime spree

That is not the first time this sort of incident took place. In 2023, an Edmonton public transit rider was attacked and killed by a man with a history of violence who was on bail at the time, supposedly under house arrest and subject to a court order to stay away from transit property. A life was snuffed out by someone who should have been in custody. A loving father was taken from his family because of a misguided belief that violent offenders could be trusted not to reoffend.

By bringing forth this legislation, the Liberals are admitting that their criminal justice reforms have failed. Since 2014, there has been a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index, along with increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences. Conservatives warned everyone about the consequences of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 for years.

Bill C-14, the bill we are dealing with today, is a clear vindication of Conservative criticisms, but it does not go far enough. The legislation amends the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act and National Defence Act to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release, particularly in cases in which detention is necessary to protect the public, victims or witnesses and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

It would expand reverse onus offences such as violent auto theft, break and enter, human trafficking and extortion, and would direct courts to weigh the number and gravity of outstanding charges when determining bail. The bill would add new aggravating factors, would mandate certain consecutive sentences, would restrict house arrest for sexual offences and would strengthen youth custody and disclosure powers.

While the bill moves closer to the Conservative approach on bail and sentencing, it would not repeal the principle of restraint or restore mandatory minimum sentences. It is essentially a half-hearted effort that the Liberals are offering, hoping that Canadians will be happy with at least some improvements to the justice system without admitting that the need for change is due to Liberal mismanagement.

Consecutive sentences and aggravating factors are useful but are still subject to judicial discretion. As Bill C-14 does not reinstate mandatory minimums, outcomes would remain uneven and uncertain. House arrest would still be a possibility for those convicted of robbery, drug trafficking and firearms offences, not that the Liberals understand anything about who is committing firearms offences. One would think that, having realized the Conservatives were right about how disastrous Liberal justice system reforms have been, they would come to understand the problems with their firearms policies. They need to admit that law-abiding gun owners are not criminals and stop persecuting them.

Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Liberal Prime Minister is repeating his predecessor’s mistake and taking hunting rifles and shotguns from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people. After 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, it has never been easier for violent criminals to obtain a gun. The government has failed to fix the border disorder that lets in almost all of the illegal firearms used in gun crimes. Violent gun crime has increased 116% since 2015.

On May 1, 2020, Justin Trudeau announced a ban on assault-style firearms and promised to “implement a buy-back program as soon as possible to safely remove these firearms and to introduce legislation as early as possible”. We all know how that has worked out.

It has been five years since that announcement, and all the government has managed to do is a pilot project. Planning to spend $750 million on confiscating legally acquired and owned firearms will not reduce gun crime. Just so my friends opposite know, criminals do not register their guns.

Banning hunting rifles or target-shooting pistols does nothing to reduce crime and is virtue signalling at its best. Spending three-quarters of $1 billion on a gun confiscation program is a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. However, given the government spent $54 million on the ArriveCAN app, which should have cost $80,000, I guess money does not matter to it.

Violent gun crime is on the rise because of the catch-and-release bail system the Liberals created with Bill C-75, but also because they reduced penalties for at least nine gun crimes through Bill C-5. When will they realize that?

Bill C-14, which we are considering today, is a good start, but only a half measure. If they were serious about reforming our justice system and ending their catch-and-release bail policies, they would repeal Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the good people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay to speak to the legislation before us, Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

Today, the House debates the very urgent and serious subject of Canada's broken bail laws. The member opposite just spoke about Bill C-14 alleviating problems. Let there be no mistake about who broke these bail laws. The Liberal government broke them. The government's bill today is to amend its own laws that broke our bail system. Conservatives have continually spoken across our country of the disastrous catch-and-release, revolving-door policy that the Liberal government used to turn our bail system into what we have today.

In my riding, I think of a notorious case in Penticton, where a local Toyota dealership was set on fire a couple of years ago. This week, the same arsonist was charged in a second case for aggravated assault. He was intimidating the witness for his first trial, and he kicked the victim in the face with a steel-toed boot. This continues on and on in a community that used to be considered incredibly safe and in communities across Canada.

I am also in the process of surveying my own constituents on public safety matters and have received many responses from constituents. The number one issue across my riding, and I believe across Canada, is safety.

A constituent in Oliver named Angela wrote, “There is a repeat offender that lives a block away from my house who is a known drug dealer, who is also well known for break and entries/theft. He’s sent to jail at least once a year and let out the next day. He’s on probation but it doesn’t stop him. How is this protecting the community if he’s constantly released. This isn’t fishing, why the catch and release? Why would he stop if he never has to face any consequences.”

Angela is right: Catch and release is a failure to uphold public safety and Canadians' rights. It also does nothing to reform the behaviour of offenders if they do not face any consequences. These days, even the Liberal government now acknowledges a 41% increase in the violent crime severity index in the last decade, as well as increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences. It is in its own press releases.

Without Conservatives, the Liberal government would still be proceeding with the disastrous past policies outlined in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which prioritized repeat violent offenders instead of victims, with too often deadly consequences.

Residents in my region of the Okanagan were shocked by the failure of our bail system to protect the public and victims in the case of Bailey McCourt. Bailey was a young woman, a mother and a survivor of intimate partner violence. This past summer, her former partner was convicted of abusing her. However, within hours of that sentencing, he had left the courtroom, tracked her down in broad daylight and murdered her in public with a hammer. With Bailey at that time was one of her friends, who survived but was left with serious physical and mental traumas that she will now have to live with for the rest of her life.

I know the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and I have been in contact with both families, and they are clear in their cause that the government must change our laws to protect victims of intimate partner violence so this never happens again.

The McCourt family said in a joint statement:

Bailey deserved to live her life free from fear and violence. She sought help from a system that was supposed to protect her, yet that system repeatedly failed to take the necessary actions to keep her safe. This is not just a tragedy, it is a preventable injustice.

It is a broken system and a preventable injustice. Too many Canadians have lost their lives to a violent repeat offender who should never have been free to kill, harm or traumatize again. Our bail system has failed them. All Canadians should support the McCourt family's calls to fix our federal laws, which we know the Prime Minister has seen because it was given to him in a letter by Premier Eby this past summer. Does the legislation before us match what the McCourt family is calling for? Unfortunately, it does not.

I will again quote the McCourt family:

We are deeply concerned about the lack of clarity surrounding reverse onus provisions as there are simply not enough details outlining what hurdles an accused must meet in order to be released.... The ambiguity in these measures risks undermining public confidence and safety.

For those without a law degree, reverse onus is a legal provision that shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the defendant. While this legislation makes some shifts in this category that would help to deny bail to repeat violent offenders, it would not go as far as we need it to. Stronger restrictions should make these offences ineligible for bail all together and prevent automatic release.

This legislation would also not repeal the disastrous Bill C-5 or Bill C-75. It merely tinkers with them. It was the Liberal government that brought in the principle of restraint, which caused judges to provide bail to even repeat violent offenders. Judges were required to apply the least onerous conditions to many criminals charged with violent offences. While this legislation now confirms that restraint does not require release, it would still provide a pathway to release and still retain the directive to apply the least onerous conditions. There is still much risk of release for violent offenders.

There is also nothing in this legislation that would return Canada's criminal justice system to the principle of mandatory minimums to ensure consistent sentencing outcomes for serious crimes. Violent offences committed with firearms, the mass production of deadly hard drugs and sexual violence should come with consistent sentencing. A predictable and fair justice system is one that Canadians can have much more confidence in.

Lastly, house arrest would remain an allowable sentence for those convicted of armed robbery and drug trafficking. This is particularly wrong because the victims of these crimes are often living in the same neighbourhoods as their assailants. It is an insult to public safety to say assailants should be able to serve their sentences in the same neighbourhoods as their victims.

In speaking with the public safety officials in my community, they tell me the Okanagan Correctional Centre is only 20% full. I think it would be better if convicted criminals were placed there than left in their communities on house arrest. The RCMP in our communities are losing faith in the system.

Lastly, I will mention that Conservatives also have Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, which I seconded, to address the serious issue of intimate partner violence, which the McCourt family wishes to be known as Bailey's law. I am proud to support the law and would call on all members of the House to support Bailey's law as well so that we can pass it as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly in the time period we have just gone through, when crime has become increasingly of concern, we are witnesses to the fact that serious repeat offenders constantly out on bail are constantly committing crimes. This is not new. We hear this from police associations, victim advocacy groups, premiers and municipal governments.

Clearly, we have to start with federal legislation, where the Criminal Code belongs, to set the culture and set the conditions to say that repeat violent offenders need to remain behind bars. To do so, we must get rid of the principle of restraint that was enshrined through Bill C-75.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-14, an act that proposes long-awaited reforms to Canada's bail and sentencing framework.

At the outset, let me just say that Conservatives welcome this legislation. We have been calling for meaningful bail reform for years at this point. We have stood alongside police associations, provincial governments and victims' advocates to push for stricter bail legislation and stricter sentencing laws.

The government's decision to bring this bail law forward is in many ways an acknowledgement that the system is not working as it should and that public safety should once again become the paramount guiding principle of our justice system. While we welcome this step, and it is a step in the right direction, we also recognize that it does not go far enough.

I am also pleased to see that the government has admitted, in its own news release regarding the bill just last Thursday, that there is a direct correlation between the rise in crime and the Liberal government taking office. The news release stated that while crime was down between 1998 and 2014, it went up between 2014 and 2024.

This admission comes after years of Liberal politician after Liberal politician claiming that crime is in fact going down. There have been mailers sent out by Liberal MPs, who for years have been trying to convince the public that rising crime is in their heads. Some former members of this House would cherry-pick certain periods to suggest to their constituents that crime is not actually the problem they think it is.

I, for one, am happy that the Liberal government has finally highlighted the fact that the best way to examine the trend of increasing crime is not to pick one short period for the purposes of political messaging, but to look at it over a long period of time, to recognize the trend and course correct.

As I have stated before time after time in this House, people in Vaughan—Woodbridge do not feel safe in their homes and in their own community. Our community was never like this before, and it would not be like this today had the Liberal government chosen to act sooner.

In York Region, in 2025, as of September 30, there have been 60 shootings. This is more than double the occurrences to date from 2021, 2022 and 2023. For years, all major stakeholders were largely ignored by the Liberal government, and many of its members still sit in this House today. Premiers, mayors, police chiefs and victims were all ignored for years. Why? Why has it taken so long for the Liberals to act?

I am happy that the Liberals have woken up and have taken many of our ideas, but they need to go further. I implore them to take all of our ideas, please, because behind these numbers are heartbreaking stories of families shattered, communities shaken and victims left wondering why individuals known to be violent were released back on their streets.

How did we get here? It stems largely from legislative and cultural shifts following the introduction of the principle of restraint in Bill C-75 in 2019. Section 493.1 of the Criminal Code directs that an accused be released at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it has too often meant that repeat violent offenders are released despite a clear risk to public safety.

Police, prosecutors and victims have seen the consequences first-hand. Bailey McCourt was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. A young mother of four, Savannah Kulla, was shot and killed at a Brampton strip mall, with her killer having been released on bail. I have heard the Liberals blame this on the Supreme Court of Canada, but the fact remains the Liberals were never told to change the law.

Bill C-14 proposes tougher standards for bail in serious cases and new reverse-onus provisions for certain violent offences. These are moves in the right direction, no question. However, the principle of restraint remains. The same language that tells decision-makers, judges and justices of the peace to prioritize release under the least restrictive conditions is still very much intact. I would say that means the culture of release will persist unless Parliament goes further and unless there are amendments to Bill C-14.

Earlier this month, I was proud to jointly second my colleague from Oxford's bill, Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which addresses many of the areas in which Bill C-14 falls short. The jail not bail act would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint by offering a new directive of public and community safety as the primary consideration in bail. This would end the default of the release culture created by Bill C-75.

It would also do the following: restore mandatory minimums for firearms, sexual assaults, kidnappings, human trafficking, robbery, extortion with a firearm, arson and other serious violent crimes; mandate consideration of full criminal history and outstanding charges; and presume detention for major offences and repeat violent offenders, not just reverse onus. There are several others, which unfortunately I do not have the time to mention in my speech. However, I encourage members opposite to look at that bill intently. I encourage them to examine it and find ways in which to strengthen Bill C-14. They should take our ideas and let us work collaboratively for the benefit of all Canadians.

These changes do not undermine fairness or due process; they simply ensure that the justice system exercises caution where it is warranted and that public safety is the priority of our justice system. Public confidence in the justice system depends on visible fairness, but it also depends on safety. When a young mother is murdered by a partner who was released on bail despite prior violent charges, Canadians naturally ask us how we could allow this to happen. They are not asking for vengeance; they are asking for prevention. They are asking to feel safe in their homes and their communities.

Our police officers, Crown attorneys and victim service workers have been clear that the current framework too often ties their hands. Bill C-14 acknowledges that truth, but now we must complete the work. These bail reforms must also be accompanied by sentencing reforms that reinforce accountability.

The Liberals' Bill C-5, passed in 2022, eliminated many mandatory minimum penalties and expanded the use of conditional sentences, even for certain firearms and violent offences. In my view and the view of many practitioners across Canada, that change weakened deterrence and contributed to the perception that serious crime is met with leniency. Restoring proportionate, consistent sentencing is essential to rebuilding trust in our justice system.

Conservatives will work in good faith to ensure this bill passes as quickly as possible, with the strongest possible protections for Canadians. We are not opposing it for the sake of opposing; we are offering solutions informed by experience from police, prosecutors, victims and those who have lived with the consequences of repeat violent offences.

We also recognize that this legislation has broad support from law enforcement organizations, premiers and community leaders who are eager to see progress. The momentum should not be lost. If the government is willing to accept reasonable amendments, such as elevating public safety to the first consideration and closing the remaining gaps around repeat offenders, then we can together deliver the kind of reform that Canadians have been demanding for years.

In a country like Canada, it should never be seen as contradictory to defend both the rights of the accused and the safety of the public. The balance between those values is what defines a mature justice system.

Conservatives have been calling for action for years, not because it is politically convenient, but because it is right. If we get this right, we will not only make our laws stronger; we will make our communities safer. Let us work together to strengthen this bill so we can end the cycle of violence that has plagued our streets and restore faith in the justice system for the people of this country.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to encapsulate the bill, I would say that it is far too little and far too late. It is not an act of leadership; it is an act of desperation. It is a half-hearted political band-aid from a government caught red-handed presiding over a public safety crisis of its own making.

For nearly a decade, the Liberals have gambled with the safety of Canadians. They have told us that their modern bail system would be fairer, more compassionate and more enlightened. Well, it has been none of those things. Their ideology has unleashed chaos on our streets, fear in our neighbourhoods and heartbreak in our families.

All 10 premiers, every single one of them, have begged the Prime Minister to fix his broken bail system. Every police chief and every frontline officer who has spoken out has warned the Liberal government that its bail policies are handcuffing police and setting criminals free. Every ordinary Canadian knows, because they can see and feel it, that violent crime has exploded under the Liberal government.

Since the Liberals have come into power, violent crime is up 55%; extortion has skyrocketed 330% across our nation and is closer to 600%, at 582%, in British Columbia; and sexual assaults are up 75%. In British Columbia, the number of sexual violations against children has quadrupled.

These are not abstract numbers; these are shattered lives, broken families and terrified communities. Behind each of those statistics is a name, a face and a story: for example, Bailey McCourt, brutally murdered by her ex-husband, who had been released on bail after an assault conviction; or Savannah Kulla-Davies, a 29-year-old mother of four who was shot and killed in Brampton. Her killer was out on bail. When will the government understand that its compassion for criminals has become cruelty toward victims?

Bill C-14 is not a solution; it is a confession. It is the government's finally admitting that its so-called reforms are a disaster. The Liberals talk about adjusting and clarifying, but no; the bill is a watered down imitation of the Conservative plan the Liberals voted against time after time. They ridiculed it, then they quietly copied it when Canadians demanded action. They are trying to clean up their own mess with a mop made of Liberal spin.

Let us remember how we got here. Bill C-75, the Liberal law that enshrined the so-called principle of restraint, told judges to release first and ask questions later. Then there is Bill C-5, the law that scrapped mandatory minimums for gun crimes and sexual offences and brought back house arrest for criminals who should be behind bars.

This has meant that convicted sexual offenders have served sentences in their own living room, that a child pornographer in British Columbia got an 18-month house arrest, and that a man who tried to pay for sex with a 15-year-old girl received a three-month term house arrest because a longer sentence might have delayed his citizenship. In 2022, nearly one-third of homicides were committed by people already out on some form of release, whether bail, probation or house arrest.

If that does not bring the Liberals and the administration of justice into disrepute, I do not know what does.

What do the Liberals do now? They bring in Bill C-14, a timid half measure that tinkers around the edges. Yes, it would narrow the principle of restraint and expand reverse onus provisions, which are steps Conservatives have been demanding for years. However, it would not repeal Bill C-75 or Bill C-5, the twin pillars of the government's soft-on-crime experiment.

The bill would not restore mandatory minimums for gun offences, sex offences and repeat violent crimes. It would not create true presumption of detention for dangerous offenders, and it would still tell judges to impose the least onerous conditions possible when granting bail. Tell that to the family of Bailey McCourt and to the children of Savannah Kulla.

Here is the core of the problem. Conservatives believe in due process and the presumption of innocence, but due process does not mean a revolving door. If an accused person can be released, that is fine. However, we must give judges the power to impose strict bail conditions when necessary.

Strict bail is fair, it is safe and it saves money compared to unnecessary incarceration, but the government's ideology ties judges' hands. It says to either grant bail on the easiest terms imaginable or deny it entirely. That is absurd. Half-baked legislation creates half-safe communities.

Conservatives are not asking for a right turn; we are demanding a U-turn. We are all on the Liberal bus, careening down a dangerous road. The provinces are shouting, the police are shouting and Canadians are shouting, “Turn around.” The Liberals just smile, tap the brakes and pretend they have changed direction, while the cliffs keep coming closer. Conservatives will not sit silently in the back seat while the government drives safety over the edge.

The government loves to say it is investing in safety, but the Minister of Public Safety says he is not responsible for hiring RCMP or CBSA officers. If he is not responsible, then who is? Is it the tooth fairy? Canadians deserve a government that takes responsibility, not one that points fingers and shrugs.

Yes, Conservatives will work to strengthen Bill C-14 as much as we can. We will push for real reforms, not window dressing. We will demand that Liberal bail be scrapped once and for all. However, let me be crystal clear: Until the Liberals make public safety their top priority, until they put victims ahead of violent repeat offenders and until they make justice mean something again, Canadians will not be safe.

Liberal leniency has become Liberal lawlessness, and the only way to stop it, the only way to make our streets safe again, is with a Conservative government that believes in law, order and accountability. This is not about politics; it is about every parent who does not feel safe walking their child to school, every woman afraid to take the bus at night and every senior locking their door in broad daylight because they no longer recognize their neighbourhood.

Canadians deserve better, victims deserve better and Conservatives will never stop fighting for them. It is time to scrap Liberal bail, restore common sense and make Canada safe again.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

The Liberal government's complacency has numbed not only itself but the country. When leaders stop reacting to lawlessness, Canadians stop believing it will ever end.

In Richmond Centre—Marpole and beyond, I hear it every week: one more violent act, one less ounce of faith. People, and even the officers sworn to protect them, no longer believe their struggle matters. When a community stops expecting accountability, lawlessness becomes the norm. This is not alarmism. It is observation. It is what happens when a justice system meant to serve public safety instead offers repeat violent offenders the benefit of the doubt again and again.

Individuals with multiple prior convictions and individuals with active conditions, who are known to law enforcement, are released often within hours of their arrest only to offend again. Some of them rob. Some assault. Some kill. How did we let this become normal? The answer lies in a string of decisions made here in this chamber.

Six years ago, the Liberals passed Bill C-75, which put into legislation what they called the principle of restraint. This principle made release the default. It instructed police and judges to prioritize letting accused individuals go early and with minimal conditions. The intent, we are told, was fairness, equity and efficiency. The reality has been chaos.

Bill C-75 shifted the weight of our legal system away from public safety and toward procedural leniency. It was not reform. It was retreat. It took a system already struggling to keep up with repeat offenders and made it harder for police, Crown prosecutors and judges to do their jobs.

Do not take my word for it. Look at the numbers in British Columbia, where there were nearly 4,800 bail hearings in just over a year. Detention was sought in less than a quarter of them. Even in cases involving serious violence, detention was ordered less than half the time. The consequences were predictable and tragic.

In the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, we have seen a rise in violent assaults, break-ins and attacks on law enforcement. Officers report rearresting the same individuals multiple times in a matter of weeks. Frontline morale is eroding. Many feel like they are working in circles, handcuffed to the criminals they repeatedly arrest and to the system they are forced to comply with. Our communities, families, small businesses and seniors are the ones left to deal with the fallout.

This is not a local issue. It is a national one. Police chiefs, mayors, premiers and victims' rights groups from across Canada have said the same thing many times, which is that the system is too slow, too soft and too disjointed to protect the people it is supposed to serve. What makes it worse is that for years, these warnings were met without a care.

The Liberal government had opportunity after opportunity to course correct. Instead, it offered half measures, like Bill C-48, which tinkered with language but did not attempt to touch the core issue. With Bill C-14, we finally see an acknowledgement that the current approach is not working, that reverse-onus bail provisions are necessary for serious and repeat offenders, that conditional sentences or house arrest for crimes like sexual assault are a gross misplacement of compassion and that sentencing needs to reflect the gravity and frequency of violent crimes.

This bill contains good elements. Conservatives welcome those changes, but let us be honest: This is not a product of vision. It is a reaction, one that is long overdue.

For four years, Conservatives have been raising the alarm. We have introduced a private member's bill to strengthen bail. We have stood with victims' families, spoken with law enforcement and warned the House that, without reform, the system will continue to fail. Those warnings were brushed aside, and while the government hesitated, Canadians suffered.

Yes, we support Bill C-14, but it is the floor, not the ceiling. Conservatives will be pressing for critical amendments.

First, we must fully repeal the principle of restraint as outlined in Bill C-75. It is too vague. It gives too much weight to factors that have nothing to do with risk to the public. Judges must be empowered to detain individuals who pose a threat, not be told to default to release.

Second, we must restore mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent offences. The repeal of these sentences under Bill C-5 sent the wrong message: that even the most dangerous crimes might not result in jail time. That approach undermines deterrence and betrays victims.

Third, we need to implement a broader presumption of detention for individuals with violent criminal histories. The public has a right to be protected from those who have repeatedly shown disregard for the law and for human life.

Fourth, we must ensure proper support for provincial systems that bear the brunt of these changes. Without investments in Crown capacity, corrections and law enforcement, stricter laws will not translate into better outcomes. This cannot be legislation without resources.

Finally, we need transparency. Canadians should know how often bail is granted, how often conditions are breached and how often violent crimes are committed by those already out on release. This information must be reported and made public. Only then can we hold the system accountable.

This is not about being tough for the sake of being tough. It is about being serious about protecting the innocent, serious about consequences for the guilty and serious about restoring public faith in a system that too many now see as broken. Justice must be firm, fair and focused. It must prioritize the safety of communities over the convenience of repeat offenders. It must send a clear message that if people endanger others, if they repeatedly violate the law, the consequences will be certain and swift. The bill before us is an opportunity to start sending that message again, but only if we are willing to finish the work.

The people of Richmond Centre—Marpole do not want more promises; they want action. They want to know that when a dangerous individual is arrested, the justice system will act to keep them and others safe. They want a government that puts victims first.

Canadians have had enough of revolving-door bail, enough of tragic headlines and enough of policies that offer more exit ramps to offenders than pathways to accountability. Let this be the moment we choose differently. Let us send Bill C-14 to committee for further scrutiny. Let us strengthen it, and let us restore the most basic promise any justice system can make to its people: that their safety matters.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my speech was super clear on this.

The problem, in the first place, started with Bill C-75 in 2019 and continued with Bill C-5 and the reduction of mandatory minimum sentences. Canadians have been feeling so completely unsafe in their communities for six years. Police associations have been begging us to change this for years. The comments made by folks in Whitby, under a Facebook post by the member for Whitby, made it clear. The revolving door the Liberals are trying to destroy was created by them, built by them and made to work by them so that serious violent offenders could continue to be released on our streets to murder, abuse and harm Canadians on a daily basis.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only response I can give to that is, what took so long? We have had 10 years of Liberal failure and, for six years, we have seen the devastating effects of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. There is so much that needs to be done. What about all the people lost in all that time for whom we have been advocating? We have been speaking to the police associations. In six years, how many deaths were there? How many assaults on how many women were there?

That is my answer.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

As always, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the wonderful folks of Oshawa. I also want to wish all families in Oshawa a happy Halloween tomorrow and remind everyone that on the last Friday in October, we mark poppy day, when Canadians begin wearing the poppy in remembrance of those who have served and continue to serve our country.

A lot of Canadians are living in a country they no longer recognize. Repeat violent offenders are terrorizing our streets. Law-abiding families are locking their doors in fear and are being encouraged to follow a 9 p.m. shutter routine; meanwhile, the same criminals are released over and over again, free to reoffend within hours. This is a direct consequence of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime agenda through bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which stripped away mandatory jail time and created a culture of catch-and-release.

After years of pressure from Conservatives, pressure the Liberals once dismissed as fearmongering, they have finally admitted what every Canadian already knows, which is that their so-called justice reforms were a disaster.

We are now debating Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which is a bill the Liberals claim would fix the very problems they, of course, created. Let us be clear: Conservatives will work to make sure the bill actually scraps Liberal bail and does not just rebrand it.

I would like to mention a post by one of the Durham Region Liberal MPs, the member for Whitby, who wrote, “Justice is no longer a revolving door. With the Minister of Justice...unveiling the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, our new government is closing the loopholes that once allowed repeat and violent offenders to slip through the cracks.”

I thought it would be prudent to repeat some of the comments made on this post by constituents of mine, as well as others in the Durham Region. John said, “‘Slip through the cracks’? How did it take you ten years to claim to fix a problem that you created with reduced bail and lenient sentences[?]” Darren said, “Thank you...for doing the Conservative thing. Pierre and team are proud. Looks a bit like Bill C-242, but that's okay, right, elbows up?” Scott said, “You guys installed the revolving door.” Derek said, “You know you could have also gotten rid of the bail reform...but instead we got a cut down version of what the [Liberals] voted down last month”. James said, “Look at us! We're slapping a bandaid on the problem we created!” Steve said, “Let's break it, then glue some pieces back together. We can say we are the ‘New Government’ [and] they will never know!” Kent said, “Look at us taking years to realize conservatives were right the whole time.”

In 2019, Bill C-75 enshrined the principle of restraint, directing judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity, even those with violent histories. In 2022, Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for serious crimes, such as robbery with a firearm, drug trafficking and sexual assault. The results have been devastating.

Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearm offences are up 130%, extortion has risen by over 300%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29% across Canada.

These are not abstract numbers. I know I mention them often in the House, but this is because there is a victim behind each statistic, a family shattered and a community left reeling.

This summer saw the heartbreaking murder of Bailey McCourt, who was killed by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. Just this month, Savannah Kulla, a 29-year-old mother of four, was shot and killed in Brampton. Her accused killer was also out on bail. May both women rest in peace as we continue this fight in their names and in the names of countless others.

I saw the frustration first-hand this summer in Oshawa when I met with Andrew Tummonds and Tim Morrison from the Durham Regional Police Association. They told me what police officers and civilian members have been saying for years: Our justice system has tied their hands. They arrest the same violent offenders again and again, only to see them released the next day, sometimes within hours.

These officers and civilian members need stronger bail laws and the resources to enforce them, monitor offenders, support victims and keep dangerous individuals off our streets. These are the men and women on the front lines, and they have been sounding the alarm for a long time, long before the government finally decided to have half a listen.

At the Victims and Survivors Symposium in Mississauga last month, the Durham Regional Police Service chief, Chief Peter Moreira, put it bluntly. He said, “C-75, introduced in 2019...fundamentally changed bail in this country”. He went on to say:

You can see the problems with C-75. It has...created this imbalance.... One of the driving principles behind C-75 was to impose the least onerous conditions possible.... That sounds great in concept, but...it needs to be balanced against...the safety of victims [and the community]. We see recidivists being at the core of these very, very serious criminal offences..., people we had the opportunity to [detain, to protect victims] and future victims, and that has not occurred.

Chief Moreira was right. Police leaders across the country have been warning that Liberal policies are putting Canadians in danger. It should not have taken years of tragedy for the Liberals to admit they were wrong.

Bill C-14 represents a rare Liberal admission that their justice reforms have failed. It attempts to patch the damage caused by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 but still clings to the same failed framework. This shift is not driven by principle but by politics, yet it is a clear vindication of what Conservatives have said for six long years: Catch-and-release has put Canadians in danger.

One of the most heartbreaking and pervasive forms of violence in this country is intimate partner violence. It is nothing short of an epidemic. Every 48 hours in Canada, a woman or girl is killed.

Recently, I spoke with Cait Alexander from End Violence Everywhere, who survived an attack by her ex-partner when he was out on bail. Her advocacy is giving survivors a voice and exposing the gaps in our justice system. As she has said, Canada has become a graveyard of preventable deaths, with innocent women and children paying the ultimate price while begging for reform and safety.

In Oshawa, I have also heard from Victim Services of Durham Region, The Denise House and Luke's Place. They provide life-saving resources, including shelter, counselling and legal support for women and children fleeing abuse.

I want to thank Durham Regional Police's intimate partner violence unit, based in Oshawa, for the critical work it does every day. The officers and advocates, some of them close friends, stand on the front lines of some of the most dangerous and emotionally devastating situations. I thank each and every one of them from the bottom of my heart. I thank them for the incredible work they do, day in and day out, to serve Oshawa.

When our justice system releases violent abusers back into the same communities where their victims live, it fails those victims completely. Bill C-14 must ensure that repeat domestic violence offenders face real consequences and that public safety, especially for women and children, comes first.

After years of Conservative advocacy and Liberal denial, the government now claims it wants to act. As always, the devil is in the details and Conservatives will make sure, through amendments, that the bill is as strong as possible. Conservatives believe public safety must be the overriding test in bail decisions.

While the government plays catch-up, Conservatives have already been leading. We have introduced and supported legislation to strengthen our justice system, protect first responders and stand with victims.

Bill C-225, a Conservative private member's bill, would strengthen protections for victims of intimate partner violence.

Bill C-221, inspired by Oshawa resident Lisa Freeman, would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to guarantee that victims of crime receive full disclosure.

Bill C-246 would amend the Criminal Code to ensure that sentences for sexual offences are served consecutively rather than concurrently.

Bill S-233, which was recently passed in the Senate and tabled here in the House, and which I was proud to second, would amend the Criminal Code to make it an explicit aggravating factor when assaults involve first responders and health care workers.

Conservatives have been listening. Bill C-14 might sound right, but sound bites do not stop bullies. After all, it took the Liberals six years, multiple ministers and countless victims to finally admit what the Conservatives have been saying since 2019, which is that catch-and-release does not work.

We must protect Canadians and finally scrap Liberal bail for good.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in the House several times today, the principle of restraint was not created in Bill C-75. It was ruled on in a Supreme Court decision, in the Antic decision in 2017, although the principle of restraint is something that was applied in courtrooms far before that as well.

I would like to ask the member about the feedback she is getting from her community on Bill C-14 and all the measures that are contained in it.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Guelph Police Service's board in my hon. colleague's riding was pushing for bail reform years ago, endorsing a nationwide campaign of police service boards joining police chiefs and municipalities, calling on the Liberal government to act on this and to recognize the shortcomings in Liberal government policy that have gotten us here.

I fully share the hon. member's desire for public safety and improved measures to deal with criminality.

Does the hon. member acknowledge that it was Bill C-75 that got us here and made this a crisis demanding a response from the government?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member mentioned that the principle of restraint existed long before Bill C-75 and that it is still within our common law as a Supreme Court decision. That is a very important note, because there has been a lot of misunderstanding of the issue.

I would like the member to clarify and get into that a little more, because the opposition Conservatives have announced that they would use the notwithstanding clause to get around the Supreme Court decision.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that there has been a mischaracterization of what the principle of restraint is, as well as of the impact of the inclusion of it in Bill C-75. As I also mentioned, this is a principle that was well articulated in the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, and it simply was legislated through that legislation.

The Conservatives talk about how the principle of restraint is the source of all issues, any issue we see in the commission of criminal activity across the country, but in getting rid of it, we would still have the principle that is established through the jurisprudence. Through the legislation before us, we would actually be helping to further define the principle so it could be best utilized to ensure the best and proper administration of justice at each level.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue; in fact it is one the Conservatives have been sounding the alarm about for many years, urging the government to take action on it.

Would the member acknowledge the failures of previous Liberal bills, notably Bill C-75, which law enforcement officials have said has directly allowed for the catch-and-release bail policies that have necessitated the response from the government in Bill C-14?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Shefford for her great work on the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.

One of the reasons I ended up at the Senate committee hearings on Bill C-75 was that I was in the role of the all-party co-chair. I was there with Senator Christmas at the time, who was the other co-chair back then. We pointed out that Bill C-75 not only ended consecutive sentencing for human traffickers, who in many cases traffic many victims, but also allowed for house arrest for human traffickers. Human traffickers are often operating from their house. Putting them back in the same environment where they operated from is totally ludicrous.

While we appreciate the acknowledgement that the Liberals have failed with the introduction of Bill C-75 and that there is a need for repealing Liberal bail, there are many other things we need to do.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member listened to my speech. The whole first part of my speech outlined the graph of crime in Canada and how there is a distinct V in the crime statistics. I understand that correlation is not always causation, but it corresponds with when the Liberals came to power.

On consecutive sentencing, when the Liberals brought in Bill C-75 and got rid of consecutive sentencing, the member for Winnipeg North argued extensively that consecutive sentencing was against the charter and was cruel and unusual punishment. Today, he is defending a bill that would reinstate consecutive sentencing.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, drugs, stolen vehicles and church burnings are all things that have risen under the Liberal government since it came into power over 10 years ago. If we listen to the Liberals, they say Canadians have never had it so good and that crime is at historic lows.

We could make a graph of crime. The interesting thing about graphs is the time scale. If we look at it over the last 100 years, yes, crime is now at an average rate and lower than it was 100 years ago. However, the population of Canada was completely different then. It was much smaller. With respect to the sample size of crime per capita, which is how it is referenced most of the time, if we change the denominator by a factor of millions, it changes the rate significantly.

If we were to take a time scale of the last 30 years, it would be a very interesting graph to look at. There was a declining rate, which stabilized in the nineties. In the late to mid-2000s, it started declining again, and it declined rapidly for a period of time leading up to 2015. From 2013 to 2015, the rate on that graph dropped dramatically. Interestingly, there was a complete reversal. We could have expected it to flatten or something like that, but it did not flatten; it turned around immediately. Something very interesting happened in 2015. The Liberals got elected to power in this country. Since then, that incline took off and has continued to climb.

Let us go back to the 100-year average. Again, the time scale matters. We are back to an average, so when the Liberals say that, I am not here to dispute it with them. However, I would say that in a rolling average of five years, we are way past that. Those are the statistics. We know what they say about statistics.

The reality on the ground is that people feel it. People know this. They understand this. The police in Toronto are telling people to leave their keys near the door so that if somebody comes to steal their vehicle, at least they will find their keys quickly and not disturb the rest of their house. This stuff is happening in our country. We do it.

We hear from the Liberals all the time that “jail, not bail” is just words and not actions. It means something. People understand what it means. I acknowledge that Bill C-14 came from the last election. It came out of the campaign we fought for, with jail, not bail. Those are our words, but they mean something. They give a political will to what we would do if we were in power.

I referenced earlier today that in Vancouver, 43 individuals caused 1,100 police interactions in one year. Many of them were out on bail. We have one case after another of violent crimes committed by people who are out on bail, often for the second or third time.

The members of the RCMP in my constituency, who do very good work, are completely frustrated. They work very hard to build a case and get a conviction. They arrest somebody, and within four hours, these people are back on the streets. In one case that was brought to me, there were something like 72 charges by the time the guy got to the first court date. He had been arrested three times and charged with multiple offences each time he was arrested, just to be let out again.

The most interesting story I have heard is probably the one from Westlock a number of years back. It was not covered in the news, so I do not know if it is true or not. A spike belt, which is used to stop fleeing vehicles, was used three times inside of 48 hours, and the police used it on the same person. They were pursuing a stolen vehicle, they used a spike belt and they arrested the person in the stolen vehicle. She got out on bail and immediately stole another vehicle. The police used the spike belt on that one, arrested her again and put her in jail overnight. The next morning, she was out on bail and, again, she stole a vehicle and the police pursued her and used a spike belt.

This was a number of years ago. I point that out because it seems that stolen vehicles no longer rise to a certain level. The police do not have the resources to even pursue them. It just does not happen anymore where I come from, because it is such a common occurrence, and it is occurring all across the country.

One of the things that I find interesting is that, for as long as I have been a member of Parliament, vehicle theft has been quite a problem in northern Alberta. I do not think the trend has changed. I think it has held steady, but what has changed is that folks living in the big cities are now experiencing vehicle theft carte blanche.

Now, after the Liberals have caused all of these problems, they suddenly want to talk about bail reform. I would say the reason they want to talk about it is that we have made the case that the bail system is broken in Canada, but we are not asking for reform. We are asking for Liberal bail to be repealed. We do not like the Liberal bail system. We think the Liberal bail system sucks and it should be repealed entirely. We have put forward our vision for what bail ought to look like.

Most people think the Canadian bail system does something it does not do at all. People watch movies all the time and they hear about how someone made bail. Their family or friends had to scrape together $10,000 to get them out of jail. That does not happen in Canada. People are not putting up money to get bail. They are being released with a promise to pay. Sometimes it is $1,000 and sometimes it is less. By the third time they get out on bail, they may have forfeited $2,000, but they have not forfeited any actual cash. These were forfeitures of promises to pay. They were forfeitures of IOU notes, essentially. We need to have bail that works in this country.

I do not know where the Speaker was last week. I was sitting at committee when my phone made a very loud noise. I thought I had my phone on silent, so I was quite embarrassed by it. All of a sudden, I noticed that my phone was not the only phone making a lot of noise. Everybody's phone was making a lot of noise, and it was an Amber Alert. Subsequently, I found out that the Amber Alert had been issued because somebody had abducted a child, and that person was out on bail. We had already arrested this person for another crime and let them back out on bail, and now they were committing another crime. It interrupted our meeting, so I got to hear about that one in particular. That is very tangible for this place. I hope it will have an impact on my colleagues on the other side.

Bill C-14 is an admission by the Liberals that the bail system is broken in this country. It is an admission that our slogan of “jail, not bail” for repeat offenders worked when we brought it to the Canadian public. They are stealing our homework again, and I am happy about that, but I wish they would go the whole way by repealing Liberal bail and bringing in a bail system that works in its entirety.

I have lots to say on this. I spoke extensively on Bill C-75. I was asked to be a witness at the Senate committee meeting on Bill C-75. I had lots to say about that. I would love to have a long chat about consecutive sentencing and how this bill also touches on that, and I am hopeful that the Liberals will ask me about it in the questions that follow.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals desperately want to avoid accountability for creating the issues their disaster bail system, through catch-and-release legislation like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, has created. While they are now telling Canadians that reforms are needed and we need to get this done quickly, it took them six years to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require a release. If Bill C-75 had not let violent repeat offenders out on bail, they would not have needed to clarify it.

Conservatives want solutions, and we will work to strengthen this bill to address the areas where it falls short.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss the government's proposed changes to bail and sentencing in Bill C-14. In order to better understand the bill, we need to reflect on how we made it to this point, because while the Liberals are now acknowledging that bail reform is needed, they are hoping Canadians will forget that they have been in power for a decade and introduced the legislation that severely jeopardized the safety of Canadians.

Before I go on, I want to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

For years now, Canadian families, communities and neighbourhoods have witnessed the catch-and-release crime wave that has swept across our nation. The Liberals talk about the need for judicial independence, yet with Bill C-75, they took what used to be a judge's decision on granting bail, after weighing and considering previous case law, and put their thumb on the scale by codifying the principle of least restraint, which directs courts and police to release accused persons “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

For six years, the Liberals have told Canadians that they have not ruined the bail system and are not responsible for catch-and-release policies that have led to a spike in crime. Let us look at some stats from when they have been in power. From 2015 to 2023, auto theft went up 45%, extortion went up 357% and gang-related homicides went up 78%. Cars are being stolen from people's driveways while they sleep. Violent home break-ins have become so bad that police issue warnings for families to leave their keys at the door in the hopes that home invaders would not come further into the house and endanger the people living there. Mr. Speaker, talk about creating a new norm, not only of fear but of helplessness, as Canadians feel that they are left to fend for themselves.

To make matters worse, the Liberals added Bill C-5, which allowed for repermitting conditional sentence orders or house arrest for serious offences, including sexual assault. In many cases, this allows violent abusers back into the homes and communities of the people they are a danger to. It also allows for kidnappers, human traffickers and people who abduct children under 14 to be given house arrest. Letting a violent abuser back into the very home of the people they are a danger to is not compassionate, despite what the Liberals have claimed over the last several years.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister said that letting violent sexual assault abusers off on house arrest was wrong and that they intended to fix it. It took three years for the Liberal government to figure out that letting people convicted of sexual assault serve house arrest was a bad thing. No intimate partner, family or community should have to live in fear that someone who commits sexual assault could be given house arrest. While the Liberals have continued to put the rights of violent criminals ahead of those of victims, Conservatives believe in putting the rights and protections of victims first.

Members opposite me from the Liberal benches will now say that they are bringing forward positive changes and that Canadians should be satisfied. They will say that repealing the principle of restraint in Bill C-75 would not solve the problem since there is precedent set by court rulings, but what they fail to own up to is that they are the ones who created the precedent in the first place.

In Bill C-14, the Liberals are proposing a change to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release. Why would the government need to clarify that its legislation does not require violent offenders to be released unless it currently does just that? Having said that, I note that this clarification does not repeal the “least onerous conditions” set out in the Liberals' catch-and-release bail laws; rather, it still provides a pathway to release and remains the directive that is to be applied.

Let us be clear: Conservatives have been advocating for changes to the broken Liberal bail system. We have advocated for tools our judges can use to keep repeat violent offenders off the streets. We have advocated for changes so that the brave men and women who serve as first responders and police officers do not have to arrest the same repeat violent offenders over and over again.

While Bill C-14 does provide for outcomes that would prevent the overly broad catch-and-release policies that allow for repeat violent offenders to be withheld, it falls short of an actual repeal of the policy that made it possible in the first place.

For years now, together with my colleagues, I have stood in this place and shared the stories of what is happening in our communities and of the victims of the Liberals' soft-on-crime approach. Their broken bail system started six years ago. It has taken six years and too many devastating accounts for the Liberals to finally act and put forward any changes that would reverse course on their disastrous bail legislation. What is the excuse for not acting sooner?

Members should make no mistake: Conservatives have been right on this all along. We have never lost sight of the victims of violent crime or those who protect our communities.

Our first responders and police officers put their lives at risk every single day to keep us safe. Firefighters do not need to risk their lives putting out yet another fire caused by arson that is tied to an extortion investigation. Nor do our police officers, when they have to arrest the same violent offenders who are out on bail dozens of times over. Nor do our nurses and doctors, when they work to treat the sick and wounded but have been victims of violent assaults in the hospitals they work in.

To add insult to injury, the Liberals repealed mandatory minimum sentences on violent firearm offences, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and importing illegal firearms. How does it make our communities safer when we know that the people who commit offences like these do not have to serve a mandatory prison sentence? It does not.

If we remove the mandatory punishment for committing a crime, we watch the incidents of that crime increase. If we direct judges to grant the least onerous conditions for bail, which lets criminals out the same day they committed a violent crime, and we watch them continue to commit violent crimes.

That is why Conservatives put Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, before the House. While the Liberals have signalled that they will not support the bill, it is an opportunity to take action that would protect victims.

Bill C-14 was inspired by the measures put forward by Conservatives in calling on the government to change course on its disastrous bail policies. However, it is still a half measure that, after three years, refuses to acknowledge the pain caused by allowing sexual offenders to be given House arrest, while claiming to be standing up for the victims of the Liberals' own policy.

Even though the Liberals have proposed that violent sexual offenders will no longer be eligible for house arrest, they are also proposing, with the bill, that kidnappers and human traffickers will remain eligible for house arrest.

Conservatives have pushed, and will continue to push, for legislation that cracks down on crime rather than encouraging it. We disagree with the Liberal government's decision to keep the directive for judges to release offenders on the least onerous conditions, and we will seek to ensure, through amendments, that kidnappers, human traffickers and those who abduct children under 14 do not get to serve house arrest in the communities they are a danger to.

I look forward to hearing the testimony that will be provided at committee once the bill is sent there. I welcome the members opposite to ensure that they will be doing the same.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke about principles of restraint, but he failed to mention Jonny, my daughter's boyfriend, who was stabbed to death by a violent repeat offender out on five different charges on bail, including attempted murder, all because of Bill C-75. Way to go.

Will Bill C-14, a bill that admits Bill C-75 was a failure, prevent cases like that of Jonny from happening? If not, will he admit it is a weak bill and needs improvement?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there we go. There is the rhyming. It is very productive.

Bill C-14 creates a regime that is going to help our frontline police officers. It is going to help our Crown attorneys, and it is going to make sure they are properly informed on what the principle of restraint actually means so it can be applied properly. When I speak with those frontline officers, unfortunately, the rhetoric of the world permeates their environment as well. What this new legislation would do is explain what the principle of restraint is. It would enhance the provisions of Bill C-75, and it is going to make an existing set of bail laws, which are already very good, better. They are good, because another Conservative witness came before the committee just this week and said that the existing bail laws in Canada right now are very good. The issue is enforcement, which takes me to my next point.

We are constantly being accused by the members opposite of trying to blame the provinces. We are not blaming the provinces; we are trying to teach the members of the opposition some civics. There are jurisdictional boundaries that the federal government has to follow, the province has to follow and municipalities have to follow. We are responsible for amending the Criminal Code. The provinces, which in my case is Ontario, are responsible for funding the court system, hiring Crown attorneys, building jails, and making sure there is the capacity to do what it has to do. Right now, it does not, and every witness who has come before the committee has agreed with that. The problem is that, if we do not work in conjunction with the provinces, or they do not work in conjunction with us, the problem could potentially become more problematic, because the weight of the new laws on a system that is already overburdened could create a whole new set of problems it is not prepared to deal with.

On Monday afternoon, we had a Crown attorney from British Columbia who agreed with that. We have had members of the law enforcement community who agree with that. We have had defence lawyers who agree with that. Everybody who is in the system agrees with that, because they understand it. This is not a case of pointing fingers and assigning blame. It is a case of people accepting responsibility for their own actions and what they can do. This is what this piece of legislation does.

If the Province of Ontario, in my case, is prepared to work with us, it needs to adopt these laws. In the riding of the justice critic for the Conservatives, there was a decision released just yesterday, or just this week, by a local judge who said, and I am sure he has probably appeared before him, that the system is broken because the jails are over capacity. We cannot even put people in there. The system is under such duress.

Building jails is the responsibility of the provincial government because it is the justices of the peace and the provincial governments that are responsible for this. In fact, this judge, and I would encourage the members opposite to go read the decision, increased the sentence so he could put them in a federal jail because there is capacity. The province is under-funding the system.

We talked about Bill C-48. Bill C-48 was adopted unanimously in the House. It is a positive piece of legislation. It helped the system. It strengthened the system, but we do not have any data on that, because data collection is also the responsibility of the provincial government. We need them to work with the federal government, the municipalities and the police forces so we can get this data, and any changes that need to be made at the provincial level can be done.

This is something that has been admitted by all of the witnesses who appear before the committee as well. To see the effectiveness of these laws, we need the co-operation of the provincial governments. They need to do their part and step up so we can make the system better as a whole.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I am pleased to stand on behalf of my constituents in the great riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, as I always am, but in particular I am pleased to speak to a bill of such importance to not only my community but also communities across the country.

Bill C-14 is the result of an overwhelming effort from our Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, the Department of Justice and the government. They spent the last six months travelling across the country to meet with stakeholders in the court system, the law enforcement community, lawyers and the Crown attorney. This is the product of that hard work.

We have seen the response from members of the law enforcement community and from the justice system at large who have come out supporting this bill overwhelmingly. I am going to keep asking the opposition whether its members will do the same. I find it very ironic, frankly, that the Conservatives opposite spend so much time asking for something and then complain about it when they get it, which is what we are dealing with on Bill C-14.

I will talk about two or three major issues.

One issue is an unfortunate piece in all of this, which is the rhetoric. This matter is non-partisan, as a number of my colleagues said earlier today. Unfortunately, it is wrought with members of Parliament trying to score political points on an issue and in an area for which they should be doing the exact opposite. Just this week, at the justice committee, we had a number of witnesses, who were called by the Conservatives, I might add, and this is a point that must be remembered. One of those witnesses asked that there, please, be no politics and no sound bites. There is the rhetoric, the rhyming, the “bail not jail” and the “catch and release”. All of these catchy phrases serve no purpose other than to undermine the integrity of our justice system and strike fear in the hearts of the public, when it should not be doing that. I am asking the Conservatives to stop, and this is an opportunity for them to make that change.

The speaker before me referred to my city of Toronto as “Gotham City”. I do not know. Maybe he still watches Batman, but it is just embarrassing when these guys get up to say ridiculous things like that. It does not get to the heart of what we are talking about. It creates an impression that is entirely false.

The other thing I want to address is that, every single time these discussions take place in that manner, it suggests that some members in the chamber are less concerned about keeping our communities safe than others, which is absolute, utter nonsense. To any member who wants to look me in the face, either here or out in the hallway, to tell me that I do not care about the safety of my community and the residents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, let us go outside and do it right now, because that is absolutely false. They know it is false, yet they continue to do it over and over again. It is completely unacceptable.

Let us talk about an example. Bill C-75, the bill that the Conservatives constantly talk about as the piece of legislation that somehow undermined the integrity of the justice system, did the exact opposite. It strengthened the laws for intimate partner violence. When they talk about Bill C-75, they fail to mention that.

I have talked to frontline officers in the city of Toronto in 22 Division, and I am very proud of its membership. I work with them on a regular basis. I support them every way I can, and they know that. Bill C-75 codified a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada called the principle of restraint. If members go to section 493 of the Criminal Code, they can read the provisions. Nowhere in that section does it say that courts are to do what the Conservatives suggests they do, which is to release multiple-offending criminals out on the street. It is an absolute falsehood, and they need to stop.

The witness the previous speaker spoke to appeared before committee last night. He is a renowned criminal lawyer in the city of Toronto, who has been practising for decades. His evidence was that the principle of restraint is nothing new. All they did was codify it. I have been making the same arguments on behalf of my clients in courtrooms for decades. Nothing has changed. It is a red herring. Those are my words, not his, but he agreed with me. They need to stop. I would encourage them to actually go read the bill, to go read that section.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, finally, after years of us pleading with the Liberal government, the Liberals are trying to do something about bail and sentencing in Canada. If the Liberals admit there is a problem, we know there is a problem. The problem is crime and chaos on our streets. Violent criminals, gang violence, guns and auto thefts are terrorizing Canadians. Like many Torontonians, I get up in the morning and wonder if I am going to see my car, which is why I had to buy one of those big clubs to lock my wheel. We used to see those only in the movies but not anymore. This is after my insurance company told me that, unless I install a tracking device at their expense, my insurance rate will go up. How is it possible that the Liberals cannot stop this? The criminals know they can get away with stealing a Jeep and take it to the port of Montreal, where, the very same night, it will be on its way to the Middle East. My provincial counterpart, the Solicitor General of Ontario, had his car stolen.

I love our country very much. I remember what life was like before the 2015 Liberal government. We need two timelines like BC and AD. We need before Liberals, BL, and after Liberals, AL. I remember times before the Liberals, when Canada was one of the safest countries in the world.

I often talk about my first love. My first love is the city of Toronto. In the time before Liberals, I felt safe walking anywhere in the city of Toronto, on any street, at any time of day or night. Safety and the feeling of safety add so much to our quality of life. After a decade of the Liberals, I do not feel safe anymore in multiple neighbourhoods in the city of Toronto after dark, even in some of the safest neighbourhoods. North York in north Toronto is being terrorized by gang violence, gun crime and drug-related shootings almost daily. It is all done by criminals, and it is all done with illegal guns. The justice committee heard from the OPP commissioner this week that almost all gun violence is perpetrated by criminals with illegal guns, not the legal guns the government seeks to confiscate from law-abiding citizens.

How did we go from being one of the safest countries in the world to this? How did Toronto, one of the safest metropolises in the world, lose that sense of safety? Toronto is becoming Gotham City. It is a combination of many things. It is for sure the economic decline thanks to the Liberals. That is part of it, for sure. People are hopeless. CTV reported, the other day, that young people cannot land a minimum-wage job anymore. I was told by a Toronto police officer that the going rate for stealing a car is $500. Imagine a young offender stealing one car per night and that is how they are making their living.

It is not just because our economy is in the gutter. Young offenders know that there are no consequences for what they do. I remember first-year criminal law like it was yesterday. What is the purpose behind sentencing? What is the policy? First and foremost, it is deterrence. It is the threat of legal consequences and possibly jail. However, now there are no consequences.

That is where I will start in taking this bill apart. In its current form, it falls very short. The prevalence of young offenders in crime and gang violence is very troubling. Participation in auto theft rings is just shocking. We would think the Liberals would want to do something about it, but no. There is no sentencing reform to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They closed a loophole and clarified what violence is for the purpose of custody but did not increase any sentences.

I want to be clear. I do not want a kid who breaks a vending machine to be part of the correctional justice system. However, for murder, for instance, custodial sentences for youth are limited to four years. They do pre-trial custody and get two-for-one. By the time they are sentenced, they are barely in custody for a year. Then they come out as much better criminals and terrorize the community.

There is another issue I would like to flag, and this one is very special to me because we are a democracy and respect the rule of law. One of the big failures of Bill C-75, the previous Liberal crime bill, was that it created a diversionary regime for offences involving failures to comply with court orders. For instance, offences such as failure to appear in court or breach of an undertaking, or even breach of bail, may go unpunished. That is what Bill C-75 by the Liberals provided for. It basically allows Crown attorneys to divert or remove such offences from the docket. Crown attorneys, unfortunately, often do this. Bill C-14 is completely silent on this. We had the OPP commissioner at the justice committee this week. He said that this is an affront to the rule of law, and the Liberals will not correct their own mistake.

Another major failure is not fixing a bail condition that every police association across the country is telling them to do: cash bail. I am going to explain this. Right now, in almost all cases, a surety is not required to post a cash bail. They just make a promise to pay in the event there is a breach of bail conditions. Often, they do not have the money and no one comes after them. It is meaningless. We now have this class of professional sureties that help criminals get out on bail. If they were made to post cash bail, this practice would end. A surety should have some skin in the game.

Finally, on bail reform, here we go again. We already reversed the onus for a number of offences under Bill C-48, but people are still caught and released even with those offences. Reversing the onus is not enough. What is missing is the burden of proof, a definition to direct the courts as to what the burden is that the accused must meet in order to be released. What is very important, also, is that, without such a burden, we do not have consistent application among courts. We have courts in different jurisdictions and different provinces. While they are directed to reverse the onus and place it on the accused, they are not sure what the burden they actually have to meet is. That is something every police force and every police association has brought up, and it is something that I sincerely hope we can address at committee.

Another major problem with the bill with respect to bail reform is the ladder principle. The ladder principle basically directs the court that the accused must be released at the earliest opportunity. The problem, specifically noted by the Police Association of Ontario this week, is that the ladder principle is not eliminated in reverse-onus offences. Just two days ago, my colleagues in the room with us heard testimony from the Police Association of Ontario asking for this very clearly. It said that we need to codify the fact that the ladder principle does not apply in a reverse-onus offence.

Finally, Bill C-14 is completely quiet on parole. In Canada, one is, essentially, automatically eligible for parole after serving a third of their sentence. We heard from a criminal defence attorney last week in the justice committee. Even he, a criminal defence attorney, thought it was lunacy that we see criminals sentenced to a custodial sentence do a third of their sentence, leave, reoffend, get sentenced again, do another third of their sentence and then leave again. That is a practice that we need to put an end to.

This week, the justice committee heard from Meechelle Best and Ron Best from Manitoba, parents whose daughter was killed by an intoxicated driver in a car accident. He was out on bail and had breached his bail condition. There was a warrant for his arrest. That was not the first time. He had breached bail before and got out on bail again. It was one of the most moving and saddest testimonies I have ever heard.

We cannot bring Kellie back, but we can prevent the next atrocity. We need to fix the bill. I am asking the government, in good faith, to work with us to fix Bill C-14, which is currently a flawed bill.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I already said, in my remarks, that I look forward to working on this bill in committee. I welcome the member for Winnipeg North joining us for a meeting, if he would like to contribute.

I find it interesting that the member for Winnipeg North said, in a previous intervention in the House, “Bill C-75 actually made it harder to be released on bail.” That is the precise opposite of what law enforcement told us in our consultations.

I would encourage the Liberal government, if it is so committed to this, to support the three bills I mentioned by the members for Oxford, Lethbridge and Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege and an honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York Centre.

When I was first elected, I was shocked at how quickly crime became the issue I had to contend with as a member of Parliament, because it was the significant issue that galvanized the community of St. Thomas this summer, in many respects. A rather historic building, which happened to be my campaign office in the last election, that was 140-some odd years old was burned down by a serial arsonist out on bail. This was a symbol of a problem that Canadians have seen in communities large and small across the country, which is rampant repeat offenders unleashing what police have called chronic criminality and prolific offending onto the streets.

If we talk to any police service across the country, as I have with the police chiefs in my riding and others through my work on the justice committee, we will hear that a small number of offenders, sometimes 100 people or maybe even fewer, are responsible for 80% to 90% of the calls the police must respond to. A small group of prolific offenders is taxing communities, taxing and straining police resources, and terrifying and terrorizing communities.

They are making it so people do not feel safe walking streets they once could comfortably, safely and freely walk down at any hour of the day or night. People do not feel comfortable letting their children go out to a mall. People are forced to take other forms of transportation because they do not feel safe on public transit.

Just this morning, I saw that London, Ontario, is promoting police officers being on public transit. I am grateful to the brave men and women in the London Police Service, the St. Thomas Police Service, the Aylmer Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police who are forced to deal with this, but they have had to deal with a problem that has by and large been a consequence of federal government policy.

We have heard testimony for several weeks now from police associations, police chiefs and victims' rights groups, and almost all of them have pointed directly to Bill C-75. This was legislation from the Liberal government that, among other changes, codified something called the principle of restraint, a provision of the Criminal Code that makes it easier for repeat offenders to get out on bail under conditions that are very lax.

I bring this up because for months, when we have raised these issues in this House, the government has said not to worry and that bail reform legislation is coming, but this was not a significant priority to the extent that other bills were. We saw Bill C-9, which was the first priority, as far as justice legislation goes, of the government. That came out and was tabled in this House weeks before the bail legislation was. Now we see Bill C-14.

I will say first and foremost that I am grateful the Liberal government recognizes there is a crisis unfolding in our criminal justice system. I am grateful that the Liberal government has finally responded to the calls from law enforcement, municipal governments, victims' rights groups, ordinary citizens and Conservative members of Parliament that action is needed.

What the Liberals have delivered falls short in some very key areas, and I think this is important because they said they needed time because they wanted to get it right. They needed time because they wanted to cover all the bases. We had before the justice committee on Tuesday the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, Thomas Carrique, a very decorated officer. He is also the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and commissioner Carrique said that he was disappointed the legislation did not tackle sentencing in a meaningful way.

The bill was supposed to tackle bail and sentencing, and with the exception of beefing up the penalty for contempt of court, it has not really touched sentencing head-on when we are talking about sentences for violent offences. That is a key shortcoming of this bill.

On the principle of restraint, we have another key issue, which is that the bill offers, and I will read it precisely, the following language on the principle of restraint:

For greater certainty, section 493.‍1 does not require the accused to be released.

The Liberals are basically giving a little asterisk for judges and police officers to tell them not to worry and that the principle in the Criminal Code that says we must release people at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions does not mean they have to release them at all.

Everyone knows that. No matter how critical someone is of the justice system, they know that 100% of people do not get bail, although the Liberals have certainly tried to get as close to that figure as possible it seems. This is a clarifying note; it is not a meaningful change. The Liberals are just saying that it does not mean what we think it does, that this section does not mean what police officers have been saying it has done to them and what attorneys are saying it has done to the justice system.

To be fair, the Liberals made some acknowledgement that there is a problem when they expanded the reverse onus. This is something I welcome, but when this bill goes before committee, it is incumbent on the Liberal government to accept the very significant measures Conservatives have already proposed in this House that would be genuinely and seriously tough on crime, measures that would provide real solutions, real resolutions and concrete reforms to fix the Liberal bail system.

For example, the principle of restraint needs to first and foremost be a principle that makes public safety its primary obligation, not the rights of the accused but the right of the public to feel safe and secure in their own communities. This is very important, and it is a direct response to months and months of consultation by Conservative members with law enforcement officials, who have said they feel ignored by the government and that morale has taken a massive hit. Officers feel it is not even worth arresting people, knowing that under the law on the books right now, they are just going to be released.

For years, Liberal government members, when we have sounded the alarm about this, have said that it is not really an issue. They have attempted to gaslight Canadians into thinking the problem is not as a bad as it, which makes me ask the question about Bill C-14 of why now. Are the Liberals finally acknowledging that they got it wrong with Bill C-75, Bill C-48 and Bill C-5?

With each of these bills, there has been a trend. Some members of law enforcement have looked at them and said they looked like they had some good things in them, but years later, when they see the application of them, they realize they did not actually deliver on the promises made and what the government said it would do. That is, of course, a concern I have with Bill C-14, as with any legislation. We need to make sure these are not just things that exist on paper that do not translate in the real world.

We have given the government the answers. We have provided three pieces of legislation in this House already. While the Liberals were still trying to figure out where they wanted to go with Bill C-14, my colleague from Oxford introduced the jail not bail act, Bill C-242. It would put front and centre the role of public safety when talking about bail. It would also prohibit someone from serving as a surety to help other accused offenders get out on bail if they themselves have been convicted of a serious criminal offence within the last 10 years. Reform of the surety system does not appear at all in Bill C-14, which is another shortcoming that has already been identified by witnesses testifying before the justice committee in its bail study.

We also have, from my colleague from Lethbridge, Bill C-246, which would put consecutive sentences in place for sexual offenders. Heinous criminals who have been convicted should be serving their sentences consecutively, which is a proposal we offered to the government. I ask the Liberals to please take our idea and put it in law if they are serious about these measures.

My colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola introduced Bill C-225, which would create new offences pertaining to intimate partner violence, provisions that Jennifer Dunn of the London Abused Women's Centre told the justice committee yesterday should be passed by the House of Commons to protect women. Victims are being failed by the justice system as it is now, and Ms. Dunn said in her testimony that many of the women she sees do not even refer to the justice system as the justice system anymore.

I am committed to working with government members if they are serious about wanting to reform and genuinely fix these problems, but they need to acknowledge their role in creating them. They need to acknowledge what law enforcement has been saying, which is that so much of what we are dealing with on the streets now, which has led to Bill C-14, is a consequence of Liberal laws, notably Bill C-75.

I am committing to the people of Canada, the people in my riding and the members of this House that I will work in the justice committee to beef this bill up to what it should be, but Canadians deserve more.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are tired of watching the same headlines play out every week: another violent crime committed by someone who never should have been released in the first place. They see the revolving door of justice spinning faster than ever and have the right to ask why their safety no longer seems to matter. That is why we are here today to debate Bill C-14, the government's latest attempt to clean up the mess it created years ago through soft-on-crime policies.

Let us not forget how we got here. In 2019, the Liberals passed Bill C-75, which enshrined in law the principle of restraint. It directed police and judges to release offenders at the earliest reasonable opportunity under the least onerous conditions. That single change and that Liberal ideology opened the floodgates to the catch-and-release system we now have in our justice system. Then came Bill C-5, which gutted mandatory minimum sentences and made house arrest available for serious crimes like sexual assault and drug trafficking. When crime inevitably spiked, the government tried to paper over this damage with Bill C-48, a bill it sold as tough on bail but that barely scratched the surface with a handful of new reverse-onus offences and no real change to the culture of automatic release.

The result has been devastating. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearm crime is up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assault is up 76% and homicide is up 29%. Those are not just numbers. Each one represents a victim, a family and a community that has been forever changed. Let us not forget the names behind those statistics. Bailey McCourt was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail for assaulting her. Savannah Kulla, a 29-year-old mother of four, was gunned down in Brampton by a man who had already been released on bail. These tragedies are not anomalies. They are the predictable outcome of policies that put ideology ahead of safety.

After a decade of denial, the Liberals introduced Bill C-14, which admits, finally, that their reforms have failed. The bill tweaks the Criminal Code to clarify that restraint would not require release when detention is necessary to protect the public. It adds a few more reverse-onus offences, such as violent auto theft, break and enter and human trafficking, and it slightly tightens conditional sentences for youth custody rules.

While Conservatives welcome any movement in the right direction, let us be clear. Bill C-14 is not the bold reform Canadians deserve. This bill keeps the principle of restraint that caused the crisis in the first place. It does not restore the mandatory minimum sentences that were stripped away with Bill C-5. It does not presume detention for repeat violent offenders. It simply shifts the burden of proof. It still allows house arrest for robbery, trafficking and firearm crimes. Its so-called guidance to judges remains optional, not mandatory. Canadians do not want more guidance. They want guarantees that violent repeat criminals will not be back on the streets to terrorize their communities.

Our Conservative plan, the jail not bail act brought forward by my colleague from Oxford, would deliver those guarantees. It would replace the principle of restraint with a public safety primary clause, making the safety of the public in our communities the governing principle in bail. It would presume detention, not release, for serious violent crimes, such as sexual assault, human trafficking, armed robbery and home invasion. It would restore mandatory minimums for firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping and other serious offences. It would ban house arrest for robbery, gun and trafficking crimes. It would require judges to consider every prior conviction, any outstanding charge and any pattern of offending while on bail. It would bar criminal sureties and enforce surety obligations so that bail means accountability, not just paperwork. It would raise the risk threshold from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonably foreseeable” because, if it is reasonably foreseeable that someone will reoffend, they should not be released.

The Liberals call Bill C-14 a comprehensive reform. I call it an admission of guilt and an admission that Conservative warnings were right all along. They copied our ideas because the evidence left them no choice. They copied them only halfway, because political optics still matter more to them than public safety. They talk about compassion for victims, but every piece of legislation they have passed since 2015 has sided with offenders. They cannot be pro-victim and pro-offender at the same time.

Communities across my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain know this reality all too well. People used to leave their doors unlocked, and now they lock their vehicles, barns and shops every night. Farmers are losing quads or trucks to organized theft rings. Small business owners are watching thieves walk in, clean out the shelves and walk out, only to see those same offenders released the next day.

The numbers tell the story clearly. In Souris—Moose Mountain, violent crime has increased from about 3,500 incidents in 2015 to nearly 4,700 incidents in 2024, a staggering 34% jump. This is not an abstract statistic. Those are hundreds of real families in our rural communities that have been victimized, that have lost their sense of safety and that are asking when the system will finally put law-abiding citizens first.

Every time an offender is released without consequence, confidence in the justice system erodes a little more. That is why our message is simple: Scrap Liberal bail. Canadians deserve more than half measures. They deserve to live without fear in their homes, on their farms, in their shops and on their streets. They deserve a justice system that puts their safety first, not the comfort of repeat offenders.

The government has had 10 years to get this right. Instead, it has chosen ideology over evidence, leniency over law, and rhetoric over results. Conservatives will support sending Bill C-14 to committee, but we will fight for real amendments to eliminate the principle of restraint entirely, to presume detention for major and repeat violent offences, to restore mandatory minimums and to turn judicial suggestions into judicial obligations. Only then can we begin to undo the damage caused by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

Canadians have lost faith in their justice system, and they have every right to. We owe it to victims like Bailey McCourt and Savannah Kulla, and to every Canadian who wonders whether their government still values their safety, to make this right.

The Conservative position is clear: Public safety comes first, justice means accountability and no violent repeat offender should walk free while innocent Canadians live in fear. That is why we will continue to press the government to strengthen Bill C-14 or step aside and let Conservatives fix the system for good. Canadians do not want tougher laws. They want safer communities. Only a Conservative government will deliver both.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to an important legislation, which is Bill C-14, bail reform and sentencing reform. However, before I do that, I want to advise that I will be sharing my time with the very effective member of Parliament for Souris—Moose Mountain.

Here we go again with bail reform 2.0. In the 44th Parliament, we had Bill C-48, brought to us by the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau. The bill was in response to several high-profile violent crimes committed by people who were, at the time of the crime, out on bail on charges for other violent crimes.

Let us take, for example, Randall McKenzie, who murdered an OPP officer, Constable Greg Pierzchala on December 27, 2022. That murderer was out on bail at that time, awaiting trial on charges of a violent, weapons-related crime against his girlfriend. We call that intimate partner violence. He was in breach of his bail conditions, of course, having a weapon in his possession, having removed his ankle bracelet and having left his home. That is where he was supposed to be. There had been a warrant for his arrest for about six months, but the police had failed to apprehend him. There were too many people out on bail and not enough police resources. This man was getting away with murder. There were too many people out on bail. That was the problem at the heart of this. This man should have been behind bars in pretrial incarceration.

There were other high-profile cases at that time. I raise this one because it really woke up the public to weaknesses in our criminal justice system. When the public gets concerned over a public policy issue, politicians scramble to get ahead on the story. In a rare show of cross-country, cross-party co-operation, all the premiers of the 10 provinces and of the three territories wrote a letter to the then attorney general and to the former prime minister demanding bail reform. The response to that was that AG Lametti introduced a very weak bail reform bill, Bill C-48, which made it just slightly more difficult for people like Pierzchala's murderer to get out on bail while awaiting trial.

The accused now had to convince the judge that he could be trusted to be out on the streets instead of the government lawyer having to convince the judge the accused should stay behind bars. We call that a reverse onus. It is a slight improvement, from a law and order perspective. We, the Conservatives, supported the bill because it was a step in the right direction. Provincial politicians and law enforcement agencies across the country supported it too although many expressed disappointment that it simply did not go as far as they had hoped.

Why did the Liberals not go further when public sentiment was clearly on the side of going for the bail reform? The underlying challenge for them was a previous bill from the 42nd Parliament, Bill C-75. It was one of the last enactments of the 42nd Parliament before it rose for the summer. The bill introduced the principle of restraint in bail hearings, the principle that directs a judge to release the accused at the earliest possible time and with the least onerous conditions. This is set out in section 493.1 of the Criminal Code, which states, “consideration [should be given] to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances”.

This is what happened to Mr. McKenzie, the murderer of Constable Pierzchala. He was out on bail under his mother's supervision, with an ankle bracelet. He was not to leave home, and he had a weapons prohibition. This was all for a man who had been charged and was awaiting trial on charges of a violent crime against his girlfriend with a weapon. How is that even right? How can that happen in this country?

It is easy to point the finger at the judge, as some people did, but the judge was responding to the principle of restraint introduced by the Liberal government in Bill C-75. We hear the Liberals say they had no choice, the court told them they had to do that in a case called R v. Antic. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada, with Chief Justice Wagner writing, did say that “release is favoured at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous grounds.” It is true that the court said that.

We have always argued, as Conservatives, that the Supreme Court of Canada never directed Parliament to throw open the gates to unfettered bail. It did not direct Parliament to introduce new legislation. It did not direct Parliament to do anything. Antic was a case that simply clarified some confusion around the rights of the accused when it comes to bail: the right to be presumed innocent; the right to a fair trial, with the burden of proof on the Crown's lawyer; and the right, of course, to reasonable bail as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Antic was not a case in which the court had struck down any legislation under section 52 of the Constitution Act 1982, the so-called supremacy clause. That does happen from time to time, as happened a few years ago in a case called R v. Ndhlovu, which was decided in 2022. According to that decision, certain subsections of section 490 of the Criminal Code, the ones mandating automatic registration of anyone convicted of a sexual offence, were unconstitutional and contrary to section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects life, liberty and the security of the person.

The court, in that case, gave Parliament 12 months or 18 months to correct the impugned legislation. I forget exactly how long it was. That was exactly what we did in the last Parliament. All the parties worked together co-operatively to make that happen.

I want to be clear: Antic was not that kind of case. The Supreme Court just wanted to clarify things. It was the Liberal government, under Justin Trudeau, with David Lametti at the time, that introduced Bill C-75 and introduced section 493.1 to the Criminal Code. This was of their own volition. This was the Liberals appealing to their base, trying to distinguish themselves from law and order Conservatives.

They are now seeing the effects of that legislation. There is public outcry about what members of the public are calling catch-and-release provisions. They are blaming the Liberals for that. There are widespread calls for bail reform from premiers, police services across the country, police unions and public safety advocacy groups.

What do they do? They introduce Bill C-14, which is before us today. They are bringing in workarounds around their own defective legislation. We ask why they do not just get rid of section 493.1 altogether. It was not mandated. It is not necessary. It is not helpful. It has been harmful to the administration of justice in this country. It is time to get rid of it.

Our judges on bail hearings know what the common law says about the right to bail. They know what the charter says about reasonable bail. They know what the Supreme Court and other courts have said to guide this age-old principle.

Bill C-48, from the 44th Parliament, took a small step in the right direction, a timid step. It did not go nearly far enough. That is why we are here today.

I am more hopeful today with the current Attorney General and Minister of Justice signalling that perhaps Bill C-75 went too far. Perhaps Bill C-5, another enactment, which I did not talk about too much in my speech so far but which relaxed some sentencing rules, had gone too far. Perhaps the two bills have had a negative impact on the public's confidence in the administration of justice. It is time to fix it.

Like Bill C-48, Bill C-14 does not go far enough. At committee, Conservatives will introduce amendments to get Canada back on track, putting public safety first and putting public confidence in the administration of justice first, because that is what Canadians deserve. That is what Canadians right across the country have been demanding for a long time. It is time to get it fixed. We will do our best to make sure that Bill C-14 comes out of Parliament as strong as possible, to protect Canadians.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not propose to politicize this issue. I just want to speak about the shortcomings of the bill and ask the secretary of state specifically why there is an absence of any stiffer sentences for young offenders. Why is the bill silent on parole? Why is the bill silent on cash bail, something that police associations across the country are talking about?

Most importantly, I am very interested in the diversionary framework introduced in Bill C-75 for offences involving failures to comply with court orders, such as failure to appear, breach of undertaking or even breach of bail. Basically, C-75 allows Crowns to divert, to remove those types of offences from the docket, as they often do. We also heard from the OPP commissioner a couple of days ago in justice committee saying that he thinks the fact that BIll C-75 allows for this kind of diversionary regime framework for offences against court orders undermines the rule of law.

Why does Bill C-14 not fix the travesty created by Bill C-75?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, gender-based violence sexual offences have been top of mind for our government. In Bill C-75, we have strengthened our position when it comes to the justice system. We would be further strengthening it in the bill that is before us, by not allowing courts to impose conditional sentences that can be served in the community. It is important to make sure the offenders stay behind bars.

In this role, I am here trying to do my job to inform the government to take measures that would protect public safety. As I said, I take that role very seriously, and I believe the bill would address that issue and is a step in the right direction. We also have a gender-based violence bill coming out that would further strengthen our position to make sure offenders get what they deserve.

Public Safety

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to follow up on a question I asked the justice minister in June on when we could expect the much-needed bail changes to reverse the Liberal bail system we have in place. As I noted when I followed this up last month during Adjournment Proceedings and could not get an answer from the parliamentary secretary at that time on the specifics of it, this is not actually a new question. This is a question I have actually been bringing up in this chamber since 2022 about the urgent need for massive reversal around the Liberal bail system.

I point out, as well, that this is actually something the Liberal government voted against in early 2023, when we called for those changes here in this chamber. I did not get a specific answer last month, but I am happy to report that today, we are finally debating a recently tabled bill, Bill C-14, which addresses many of the reversals needed around the previous Liberal bills, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

As I assume the parliamentary secretary of justice is going to reply to me, out of all the Liberals present, I want to focus the remainder of my time tonight on giving her the opportunity to just focus in on some of the private member's bills we have already tabled in the House and ask her opinion. Can she reassure me that Bill C-14 is going to address these? If not, will she actually support these private member's bills?

This is important because, as I said in my question back in June, in my riding alone and in just the city of Owen Sound, the annual police report stated that violent crimes were up another 14.6%. I have addressed concerns about the fact that the delay specifically tied to decisions around the Jordan's limit is taking away justice for the victims.

Let us get to the three private member's bills I want to talk to the parliamentary secretary about. The first is Bill C-242, the jail not bail act by the great member of Parliament for Oxford. It is focused on a few things that I hope the parliamentary secretary can address. That is, it would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint that came out in Bill C-75, stating that instead, public safety and public protection have to be the primary consideration.

Bill C-242 also proposes a new major offences category, with reverse onus bail conditions on charges involving firearms, sexual acts, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. Bill C-14 would address a lot of the reverse onus aspects, but it would also strengthen bail laws by mandating that judges consider an accused's full criminal history when they are making a decision. It would also prohibit anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor. This is something I want to focus on as well.

We have Bill C-246 from the member for Lethbridge, which focuses on consecutive sentences and being able to do that, and I would ask whether Bill C-14 is able to address that.

Finally, there are a couple aspects of Bill C-225, by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, which would force an offender convicted of intimate partner violence within the preceding five years to be released only by a judge.

Can the parliamentary secretary assure me that Bill C-14 will address all the concerns in those three private member's bills?

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot today that the Liberal government coming up with workarounds for the old Bill C-75, which introduced section 493 to the Criminal Code, which is the principle of restraint in the administration of bail in bail court.

Instead of doing these workarounds, could we get rid of section 493 altogether? The Liberals are blaming it on the Supreme Court of Canada, but we were never instructed to change the law.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George.

It is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the fine constituents of my riding, and it is significant for me as a former participant in the criminal justice system for almost two decades. This is an issue that I have been pushing for, and it is an issue for which I have been advocating for change. Really, it is one of the rationales as to why I left the Crown attorney system in Ontario and sought to become a legislator, which was to make and pass laws that would improve community safety.

If we take a look at the last 10 years, we see rising crime rates, which is a very serious matter right across the country. I have embarked on a cross-Canada tour and engaged with all of the stakeholders we can imagine who would have a position on this. All of them were unanimous in what needs to be done. For the last four years, these stakeholders engaged in their own advocacy with the federal government, writing to not only the current justice minister but also former justice minister Virani to affect change. For four years, that was largely ignored.

We know how we got to this situation. I often get asked the question as to why the Liberals are so preoccupied with the rights of the accused at the expense of victims and community safety. I have never really had a concrete answer to provide without doing a bit a research, so I did that.

Surprisingly, this goes back almost 50 years, to the early 1970s. The Trudeau government, this time the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, appointed a solicitor general by the name of Jean-Pierre Goyer, who stood in the House of Commons, not this building but Centre Block, and proudly proclaimed in the House, at that time, his intention to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society. That struck me as a wow moment, as it is the origin of the whacked out hug-a-thug mentality of the Liberal government in making it so much easier for them to conduct their trade.

We then heard from Justin Trudeau and his justice ministers, who said to not blame them, that they are simply following what the Supreme Court of Canada literally asked them to do to codify changes in bail with the passage of Bill C-75.

I have read those decisions, both in my professional capacity and, again, as a parliamentarian. Specifically, I am referring to the decisions of Antic, Zora and St-Cloud, which never instructed the federal government to do anything and never instructed it to codify any principle in the Criminal Code.

How criminal justice is administered in this country is that we follow the Criminal Code. We also bear in mind case law, the decisions of our lower courts, the decisions of our superior courts, the decisions of appellate courts and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is how the administration of justice works.

Justin Trudeau and the current Liberal government did not have to do anything, but they did.

At the time, and this was 2019, I was in the trenches. I was dealing with bail court. I was asking myself why it has become exceedingly difficult. There would be an obvious case, such as when someone had proven themselves to be unreliable in making promises and to be a menace to not only themselves but also the community, but they were being released. Of course, we would get memos from our superiors in Ontario and Queen's Park, and, lo and behold, I found out that the federal Liberal government had changed the law, changed the direction and changed the trajectory of what bail court is all about.

This also instructed, in my view, all judges and justices of the peace who hear bail applications every single day to prioritize the release of the accused with the principle of restraint, releasing them at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. That is and will always be the origin of catch-and-release. I lived it. I experienced it, and unfortunately, the rest of Canada is still experiencing it.

Then the Liberal government made it worse in 2022 when it decided it had to pass Bill C-5 to make it even easier and softer for criminals to get through the criminal justice system. It decided that, for all the most serious gun offences, to take away the mandatory minimum penalties and to give the ability to ask for conditional sentences for very serious offences. We all know the consequences. Then the government started to hear from the stakeholders, and again it promised that it was listening and would make some changes. Hence, it introduced Bill C-48, which increased reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code. We know that did not have the desired impact.

When I look at Bill C-14, I see more reverse onus provisions, much like those in Bill C-48. I cannot say that this bill is Bill C-48 2.0, because it is not. I listened to the justice minister, who wants to provide some confidence to Canadians and victims that the Liberals are finally getting it right, that they are striking the right balance and that community safety is going to be paramount, but there is nothing in Bill C-14 that directs judges not to release in certain circumstances. It makes recommendations that they should not give primary consideration to early release, but it does not mandate that these dangerous repeat criminals should remain in custody. We all know what happens when we lock up the repeat violent criminals. It is that crime rates go down. In fact, when we look at Statistics Canada's statistics over the last 15 years, over the last four or five years of the Stephen Harper government, the crime rate went down significantly. When we look at that same graph, we see a spike the moment Justin Trudeau took government and every year thereafter.

I am not saying that Bill C-14 is going to be manna from heaven, because it is not. It is being supported by law enforcement, just like they supported Bill C-48, because, let us face it, law enforcement is desperate for something. I have spoken to all of the major stakeholders who are now saying in the media that they support Bill C-14. They have made recommendations to the government, and some have been captured, but not all. There are many avenues for improvement, and I would encourage the government, as it listens to the debate in the House and, ultimately, as it reviews it at committee, to look at the common-sense solutions in the member for Oxford's jail not bail act. That would provide direct instructions to judges on how to deal with repeat violent criminals.

If we start by scrapping the principle of restraint and replacing it with the principle of public safety and protection, that is an instruction that would telegraph to judges that, when they are dealing with a class of individual who has been on a number of releases or who has a criminal record, it shows repeated behaviour of not abiding by conditions, and the priority is on the protection of the community, not the convenience of the accused. I encourage the government to look at that.

Bill C-14 is good, but not good enough. Conservatives will make it better.

Public Safety

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, Calgary police reported that a man was stabbed in broad daylight in Fish Creek Provincial Park, a park in my riding that should be an oasis of peace and nature for community and families. Last August, a seven-year-old girl was sexually assaulted in that same park. This is unacceptable.

Just a decade ago, it would have been unthinkable that brazen daylight stabbings or sexual assaults would happen in Calgary Midnapore. However, as a result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime laws, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, they are becoming normal occurrences in south Calgary. Violent crime in my city has increased by 59% since the Liberals took office, and it is not getting any better.

Conservatives have responded with our jail not bail act. Liberals must work to pass this legislation as soon as possible to restore not just my great riding of Calgary Midnapore but all of Canada to a place of tranquility and safety.

Justice

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has already taken decisive action to protect victims of intimate partner violence.

Bill C‑75 made it harder for repeat offenders to get bail. Under Bill C‑48, anyone previously convicted of intimate partner violence is required to demonstrate why they should be released, even if they had previously received a discharge.

Our government is not stopping there. Today, we are introducing new reforms that target repeat violent offenders. They were developed following extensive consultations with the provinces and territories. These measures demonstrate our government's steadfast commitment to strengthening public safety and ensuring an effective justice system.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of Bailey McCourt shocked our communities and highlighted the urgent need to strengthen our justice system's response to domestic violence. Her life was cut short by an act of unparalleled brutality. I offer my deepest condolences to her loved ones. Today, we must honour her memory, but words are not enough. Concrete action must also be taken, and that is what this government intends to do.

Intimate partner violence is a serious and unacceptable crime that invariably has profound and lasting consequences for victims, families and communities. Between 2011 and 2021, police reported 1,125 gender-related homicides of women and girls in Canada. Of these homicides, Statistics Canada determined that two-thirds, or 66%, were committed by an intimate partner. These figures are not just data. They represent lost lives, broken families and human tragedies that demand a strong, coordinated response.

That is exactly why this government took action. As far back as 2019, through Bill C-75, the government strengthened bail provisions in cases of intimate partner violence. That legislation introduced a reverse onus at the bail stage for anyone accused of a violent offence against an intimate partner, particularly when the accused had previously been convicted of such an offence, in other words, when the accused is a repeat offender. It also required courts to consider prior convictions for intimate partner violence when determining whether the accused could be released and, if so, under what conditions. Finally, the law expanded the definition of intimate partner to include not only married and common-law spouses, but also dating partners. It is shameful that the Conservatives want to repeal that legislation.

Our government's efforts do not stop there. Today, the federal government tabled Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. This bill proposes sweeping reforms to make bail laws stricter and toughen sentencing laws for violent and repeat offenders. It is also designed to support law enforcement and invest in long-term prevention. These reforms are the outcome of extensive consultations with the provinces, territories and key stakeholders, including police departments, law societies and victim support organizations.

Bill C‑14 focuses on offenders who pose a serious danger to public safety. When an accused person is seeking bail, in certain situations, the onus will now be on them to prove that they do not pose a risk to the victim or to society. This is known as a reverse onus. It applies to certain offences where the accused choked, suffocated or strangled the victim.

The police must deny release if it is contrary to the public interest or if detention is necessary to protect victims and witnesses. Courts will also have to take into account specific factors, such as whether the violence was random or unprovoked, and whether there are any outstanding charges.

Bailey McCourt's death is a stark reminder that, behind every court case, there is a family and a community forever marked by the loss of a loved one. The—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in response to a question that the parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety answered.

I originally asked the question on October 3. On that date I said:

Liberal bail law, Bill C-75, unleashed crime and chaos on our streets, releasing violent criminals at the earliest opportunity. While out on bail in Kelowna, a man convicted on domestic violence charges just hours before allegedly killed Bailey McCourt with a hammer. The Prime Minister promised Liberals would flip-flop on bail, but the Liberal laws are still in place six months after he took power.

The question was, “Will the Prime Minister scrap Liberal bail or get out of the way so Conservatives can get it done?”

In response to my question, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety stated in part, “We are going to reform the bail system. It is coming. It is just around the corner. The Conservatives are dwelling on this issue, but there is no need. The legislation is coming.”

Families and victims across the country have been paying the price for the Liberals' Bill C-75 since the Liberals passed it into law in 2019. Families and victims are tired of waiting. Some are not here anymore because of what the Liberal government unleashed with Bill C-75. It is completely unacceptable for the Liberal government to tell families of victims of repeat offenders, such as that of Bailey McCourt, which we have heard about across Canada, that there is no need to dwell on the issue.

Not only is that not acceptable to me, it should also not be acceptable to members of the House and members of those families, who have been so devastatingly impacted by Liberal bail policy and the Liberal government's failure to address the problems it has created.

For months now, we as legislators have been witness to the multiple tragic cases of repeat offenders being released within hours, only to re-commit similar crimes, or in worst-case scenarios, commit even more heinous crimes, shortly after they have been released. While Canadians have waited painfully and in agony for the Liberal government to finally fix its reckless bail policies, I hope those same Canadians will see that there are people on this side of the House who are on their side, fighting for them and putting their families first.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Calgary McKnight. I want to make it clear that today I am rising to speak to the bill because of my constituents. I have received countless emails in my inbox about the concerns they have about Bill C-12 and Bill C-2. Many of my constituents shared their concerns about provisions in these bills that would needlessly violate individual freedoms and Canadians' rights to privacy, and I want to address that.

Bill C-2 seeks to give the Liberal government broad surveillance powers. It would permit warrantless access to Canadians' mail and to their personal data from service providers. Alarmingly, these overarching measures were proposed by the Liberals without prior consultation with the Privacy Commissioner.

In some ways, Bill C-2 reminds me of Bill C-11 from a couple of years ago, which would have given powers to government bureaucrats to censor what Canadians can say or see on the Internet. It also reminds me of the Online News Act from 2023, which banned news from social media platforms and put local new groups at a disadvantage.

What we see, once again, with Bill C-2 is a government that believes it knows better than Canadians, a government that continues to seek control of the information Canadians can access online and to diminish their personal freedoms. Over 300 civil society groups expressed their concerns about Bill C-2, and Conservatives are proud to stand with them to fight against the legislation.

After backing down from Bill C-2, the Liberals have now introduced Bill C-12. Conservatives are examining the bill thoroughly to ensure that the Liberals do not try to sneak in measures that would breach law-abiding Canadians' privacy rights, as they tried to do in Bill C-2.

Before I dive deeper into Bill C-12, I want to highlight two important topics of concern to the people of Calgary McKnight: the rising wave of crime in our country and the drug epidemic, which has claimed over 50,000 lives since 2016.

Since 2015, crime in my hometown of Calgary has gone up by 58%. Firearm offences have gone up by 371%, and extortion has gone up by 353%. As I mentioned previously, the countrywide opioid epidemic has claimed tens of thousands of lives and represents a 200% annual increase since the government began its radical liberalisation of hard drugs. I heard one of my colleagues mention previously that the number of lives lost to drug overdoses in the last 10 year is higher than the number of Canadians who tragically lost their lives in the Second World War.

Conservatives have been calling on the government for years to get serious about crime and to secure our borders. We have urged it to strengthen bail laws, crack down on the flow of dangerous drugs and stop illegal firearms from pouring into our communities. It is deeply disappointing that the Liberals acted on border security only after being told to do so by another country's president. It should not take pressure from a foreign leader for the Liberals to finally do what Canadians have been pleading for all along.

Even in the Liberals' second attempt, Bill C-12 still fails to address several critical issues. It does not include meaningful bail reform but allows the catch-and-release of individuals trafficking fentanyl and firearms. It would not introduce mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers who are fuelling the deadly opioid crisis. It would not implement new mandatory prison terms for gang members who use illegal firearms to commit violent crimes.

Despite the Liberals' tough rhetoric, it still seems that their priority is going after the guns of law-abiding hunters and intercepting the mail of ordinary Canadians.

Canadians deserve a justice system that protects victims and communities, not repeat violent offenders, but after a decade of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime approach, we now live in a country where violent criminals are released within hours of arrest, thanks to the Liberals' Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The Liberals repealed mandatory prison sentences for some of the most serious offences, like extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and importing illegal guns.

These are not small mistakes; these are deliberate policy choices that have emboldened criminals and eroded my constituents' confidence in the justice system. Conservatives believe in real consequences for repeat violent criminals and in sentencing that prioritizes the safety of Canadians over the comfort of offenders.

The product of the government's soft-on-crime legislation extends far beyond the courtroom. The fentanyl crisis reaches our streets, homes, hospitals and even children's playgrounds. The Liberal government's reckless policies have fuelled a nationwide drug crisis that has overwhelmed communities and left our brave first responders and health workers to clean up the mess. Meanwhile, the Liberal health minister refuses to rule out approving more drug injection sites next to schools and day cares, despite admitting that they are hot spots for fentanyl usage.

Some of the provisions in Bill C-12 appear to be well intentioned. On paper, the legislation seeks to strengthen border security, crack down on gun smuggling and target organized crime networks and trafficking across our country. These are causes that all Canadians can support and that Conservatives have long been calling for.

The measures to inspect more cross-border cargo to tighten tracking of money laundering and to intercept the flow of fentanyl and hard drugs are steps in the right direction. If implemented correctly, these measures could help protect our communities from the violence and drug addiction that have taken root under the Liberal government's watch.

I look forward to the bill's being thoroughly scrutinized to ensure that it can deliver positive results without trampling on Canadians' rights.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today to Bill C-12, a broad omnibus bill that, in its current form, seeks to make changes on a number of issues related to the border, immigration and crime prevention. I am thankful to my many constituents, and those throughout Canada, who added their voices of disapproval to its predecessor, Bill C-2. They raised their voices against the infringements it sought to place on individual freedoms and privacy. That bill, Bill C-2, wanted to allow Canada Post to open any mail, including letters, without a warrant, ban cash payments Canadians use and ban the donations over $10,000 that our charitable organizations need.

It wanted to allow warrantless access to personal information. It could compel electronic service providers to re-engineer their platforms to help CSIS and the police access information, and it would have allowed the government to supply financial institutions with personal information if the info were to be used for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes.

It it interesting to me why people are against this. It is their lack of trust in the government to ever consider allowing it to do these things. We certainly saw that when the government chose to invoke an illegal use of the Emergencies Act. It instructed banks to freeze everyday Canadians' bank accounts because it did not like that they were supporting people who needed gas for their vehicles, food and, hopefully, to find a hotel if there was one left downtown that the government had not bought out so they could not sleep in a warm place.

The Liberals also called Canadians all kinds of names, which I would like to see them apologize for, calling us misogynist, racist, extremist. These are the reasons Canadians made the choices they made to stand up against this bill. They do not trust the Liberals.

Because of the pressure they and so many stakeholders have applied, we were able to force the Liberals to back down, split the bill and introduce Bill C-12. The Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the Liberals did not even consult him when they were trying to grant themselves sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers, like banks and telecoms, without a warrant, although they kept saying there would be a warrant.

I am the member of Parliament for the wonderful people, who call the beautiful riding of Yorkton—Melville home, and as of October 15 this month, I have been here for a decade and have risen in this place to speak and intervene on their behalf. Over this tumultuous decade, the people of Canada, especially our younger generations, have become wary of the intentions of the Liberal government. It has tried, time after time, to usurp the rights and freedoms of Canadians, bully and divide, water down and destroy the very fabric of Canadian identity and quality of life.

The government continues to show its true colours as it holds fast to its efforts to make Canada the first postnational state. It holds fast to ravaging our economy with roadblocks and walls that continue to deter private investment in everything from mining to manufacturing and agriculture. The Liberal government is responsible for what Canadians see today. There is poor border security because of the Liberals. There is continued unsustainable immigration because of the leader. There is also an unprecedented financial burden of generational proportions it has orchestrated. All of this is impacting next generations.

This was all orchestrated by Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister, who was the instigator as Trudeau’s economic adviser and as the guy ready to finish his art of the deal with values that leave wealth in his hands and nothing for Canada. The exhaustion, attrition, depression and hopelessness felt within our police services, our Canadian Armed Forces, our first responders and our medical professionals are off the charts. The simple reason, the indisputable answer, is that total violent crimes have increased by 50% since 2015 and through to 2023.

I feel like I should have a moment of silence after mentioning each of these violent crimes that are taking place in larger and larger numbers across our nation: homicide, gang-related killings, sexual assaults, firearm offences, extortion, auto theft, horrific violence against children, forced confinement, kidnapping, indecent and harassing communications, human trafficking, and we do not have the numbers yet for 2024-25. This is not the Canada that Canadians have grown up in, and it is not the Canada immigrants who took the proper paths expected to be part of when they came here.

This is in response to the government’s failed bail reforms and the removal of mandatory minimum sentences in Bill C-75, Bill C-5's legalization of the possession of drugs and an open season for drug trafficking and fentanyl production in Canada.

Unfortunately, this bill is weak. It would make no commitments to enforcement, take no action on catch-and-release for those who traffic in fentanyl and firearms, and add no new mandatory prison times for fentanyl traffickers or for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes or who use our porous border to victimize Canadians. Instead of focusing on them, these Liberals are trying to confiscate legal gun owners' firearms, and they are having a bit of trouble accomplishing that, from what I understand.

House arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offences. Safe consumption sites still do not provide addicts with the encouragement and support to move to treatment, and the Liberals continue to put children in danger with no move to shut down fentanyl consumption sites that are near schools and day cares.

I have to say that on this last part, I feel like I am living in that environment. I moved to Ottawa so that I could do my work, and the place I chose was in a good location. Then they introduced the legalization of drugs and put two safe consumption sites in that area, which is close to a school. Every morning now, as I walk to work, what I see on the streets has multiplied extensively, so this is not due to something that was in place before this happened.

There are people on the street who cannot stand up. They are bent over from the use of these drugs. They sleep on the grates to stay warm. They are sleeping in the little crannies between small businesses, and now there is a regular group that comes and picks up the garbage every morning. At 4 a.m., I am hearing the machines that come down the streets and the sidewalks to wash them, because one of the businesses that was there had to finally move, and it was one of the first in the city of Ottawa, because every morning, as I walk to work, they would be out with big pails of disinfectant cleaning the area in front of their business.

I hear more sirens from police and fire trucks every night, and there are nights when the loudness is so unbelievable, because it travels up through the buildings, that people cannot sleep. I am not blaming the people who are struggling. I am blaming the government for creating the environment that we have today that has added the violence that is taking place with firearms and attacks on people to this form of violence, which has basically caused multiple Canadians across this country to die from the use of fentanyl and caused their families to be in deep distress because of the condition of our country.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and to speak to Bill C-12.

The bill is effectively the second attempt of the government at getting serious when it comes to public safety and dealing with our borders and with drugs. It is frustrating, because Bill C-2 was a giant omnibus bill that the government put forward. The Liberals effectively said, “Don't worry. Just trust us. It's fine”, within days of the bill's coming out, and it was the second piece of legislation the government put forward. It was one of its showcase pieces in the last session. However, civil liberty groups and Canadians came out from coast to coast to coast talking about the massive overreach of Bill C-2.

Bill C-12 is effectively part of the Liberals' listening. It is an improvement on Bill C-2, because it was very clear that Bill C-2 was an intensely flawed bill that would have allowed Canada Post to open people's mail without a warrant, which would have been an overreach on Canadian civil liberties and the freedom of individuals, which is something Canadians hold dear.

Bill C-2 would have gone so far above and beyond, such as banning things like cash payments for anything more than $10,000. The legislation might not have actually been dealt with for a long time, and with where inflation is, it could have had massive impacts on the way many Canadians choose to do a number of things.

I am happy to see that some of those most troubling elements have in fact been removed. However, one thing we know is that crime is completely out of control in our country. My Conservative colleagues and I hear about it every single day from people in our ridings and from people we run into on the streets here in Ottawa or back home.

One of the most common pieces I hear about in my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is the absolute frustration with the catch-and-release policies and our broken bail system. We all hear these stories; I do not think the Liberals are immune. Every single day there are stories of people out on bail who are charged with heinous crimes. In fact earlier this week, an Amber Alert went out for someone suspected of taking a young child. That person was out on bail and, unfortunately, actually killed his ex-wife.

These are the kinds of realities Canadians are facing. People who have been charged and convicted for horrible crimes, violent offences and repeated violent offences, are getting out on bail time and time again.

It is so clear that more needs to happen to protect our communities from the ever-growing crime crisis. This is one of the reasons my Conservative colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C-242, the jail not bail act: to strengthen bail laws and put public safety first once again in Canada. Basically, his legislation would reverse the Liberal principle of restraint that was brought in with Bill C-75, strengthen bail laws for serious repeat offenders and ensure that criminals with a history of violent crime would no longer automatically be released back into their community. This is one of the big challenges.

The soft-on-crime Liberals for the last 10 years have absolutely destroyed public safety in our country, leaving more and more Canadians unsafe or feeling unsafe. Frankly, feeling unsafe is a problem. Whether someone does or does not break into a person's house at night, if the person is afraid that it is going to happen because it has happened to their neighbours and to other people around them, then that undermines the social fabric we have enjoyed in Canada.

One of the big frustrations we have as well is that we cannot trust the Liberals to do what they say they are going to do. They said they were going to hire more RCMP officers. They have broken their promise to hire 1,000 more CBSA officers. After that, the Minister of Public Safety was asked point-blank, and he denied any accountability, stating, “I’m not responsible for the hiring.” Well, there is a thing called ministerial responsibility, but the Liberals do not abide by any of that at all; that has become very clear.

We have had a decade of reckless, soft-on-crime policies that make more Canadians feel unsafe. Violent crime has increased by 55%, and gun crime is up 130%. Extortion is up 330% across Canada; that is wild. The Liberals are more focused on a gun grab boondoggle that is going to cost Canadians, on a conservative estimate, $742 million and that the minister himself admits is a waste of money and resources and is being pursued purely for political reasons.

We did some research, and one of the interesting pieces is that $142 million could pay for 5,000 RCMP officers. It could pay for 300 port scanners or 37,000 addiction treatment spaces, something that is near and dear to my heart, but instead the Liberals are putting it towards another boondoggle, going after law-abiding gun owners rather than dealing with the real issue, which is that we have a porous border.

One of the big reasons we have a porous border is that we have absolute mismanagement of federal ports by the Liberal government. This mismanagement of our federal ports has turned them into parking lots for stolen cars that then go on to disappear overseas. What we also end up with are drugs and illegal guns coming into our country. What the Conservatives have been calling for is more scanners at the ports, because criminals know those ports are a hot bed for crime.

In fact, according to Peel detective Mark Haywood, the CBSA checks “less than one per cent of containers” leaving this country. Criminals know this, so illegal drugs and illegal guns flood into our country, and stolen cars flood out, further eroding public safety in Canada. On top of this piece that is very troubling about the border, the fire has been fuelled further by a decade of horrific Liberal drug policy and drug experiments.

There has been a dangerous and deadly drug legalization pilot project in British Columbia that removed tools from the RCMP, making our streets completely unsafe, leaving communities to suffer and providing no support to people who are struggling with addiction in this country. There was also the Liberal-NDP so-called safe supply experiment, which gave people with addictions large quantities of government-funded drugs, of hydromorphone and other dangerous narcotics, without any guardrails or pathways to recovery, which fuelled the addiction crisis in our country because the drugs were then being resold in the streets and online, oftentimes ending up in the hands of teenagers who then started their journey into addiction.

These are just two examples of ways the Liberals have made things worse.

We know that fentanyl is 100 times more potent than heroin; as little as two milligrams can kill a person. Through the lost Liberal decade, Canada has become a fentanyl manufacturing hub. Breaking Bad-style superlabs are popping up right across the country. Mass fentanyl production is mass murder, but Liberal laws let the monsters who traffic deadly drugs walk free every single day.

One of the good things I will point out that the legislation brought is that the Liberals are finally taking some action to ban the precursors that allow monsters to produce fentanyl. Chemical precursors are how they make these drugs, so the bill would finally get serious on that, allowing precursors to be banned. This would go a very long way in helping shut them down, but there would still be no mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers. There would still be no new mandatory prison time for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes, despite Liberal campaigns against them and against legal gun owners.

What we will do, from this side, is continue holding the government accountable. We look forward to the bill's going to committee so we can further study it. Conservatives will continue to stand up for Canadian individuals' freedoms and privacy.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House on behalf of the good people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

Today, I am going to be discussing Bill C-12. This is the Liberals' second attempt at addressing our broken border and immigration system. It was introduced in the House recently, thanks to my Conservative colleagues' work and my work in forcing the Liberals to back down on their first border bill, Bill C-2, because of its serious violations regarding the freedom and privacy of Canadians.

As the official opposition, it is our job to scrutinize the government and oppose legislation when it is against the best interest of Canadians. The safety and security of Canadians is non-negotiable, and Conservatives have been clear: Canadians should not have to choose between having a secure border and having their civil liberties protected.

Given the scope and complexity of the bill, Conservatives proposed that Bill C-2 be split into two separate pieces of legislation, with one that is narrowly confined to border and immigration measures, to ensure that all aspects of the legislation receive proper scrutiny. I am pleased that, along with our other opposition members, we were able to successfully force the Liberals to table the new bill, which we will continue to examine thoroughly to ensure that the bill does not include any measures that would breach law-abiding Canadians' privacy rights. Bill C-12 may be a starting point, but I believe it requires significant amendments and vigorous study at committee.

There is no doubt that tougher and smarter measures regarding borders and immigration are desperately needed to keep Canadians safe. While I am happy that the Liberals are willing to work with the opposition parties to address Canada's border security and immigration issues, it is important to note that much of the urgency surrounding the legislation is a direct result of 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. The Liberals have failed to take our borders seriously, resulting in increased gun smuggling, driving up violent crime; an immigration system that is completely out of control; a fentanyl crisis; and an increase in human trafficking. These are all destroying the lives of Canadians.

While Bill C-12 contains positive provisions to streamline investigations and improve information sharing, it falls short in addressing some of the pressing public safety concerns facing Canadians. The Liberals' failure to secure our border and crack down on organized crime has fuelled a fentanyl crisis and put countless lives at risk. The Liberals' reckless drug legalization experiment, combined with their soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5, has fuelled Canada's deadly drug crisis. Bill C-5 scrapped mandatory jail for fentanyl production and trafficking, for example.

Last fall, police dismantled the largest and most sophisticated drug lab in Canadian history, capable of producing multiple kilograms of fentanyl each week, along with caches of loaded firearms, explosives and half a million dollars in cash. Fentanyl is not just a drug problem; it is a public safety and national security risk and a crisis fuelled by organized crime and enabled by weak borders.

Part 2 of Bill C-12, as in Bill C-2, would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to fill a loophole in the act by banning precursor chemicals for fentanyl. This is an important first step, but the Liberals are addressing only a small part of the issue and doing too little, too late. Bill C-2 is silent on the tools police and prosecutors actually need to address this crisis. The Liberals' catch-and-release policies are alive and well for those who traffic in fentanyl and firearms. The principle of restraint in Bill C-75 directs the courts to release violent offenders on bail at the earliest opportunity, under the least onerous restrictions. The Liberals' persistence in allowing house arrest for serious offences, which include offences involving firearms, if members can believe it, continues to endanger lives.

It is not just the fentanyl crisis the Liberals are playing catch-up on. Their failure to get serious on our border has allowed for an increase in illegal gun smuggling, driving organized crime in Canada. Gun crime has risen 130% since the Liberals took office. In July, the Prime Minister himself even said, “The vast majority of firearms, illegal firearms, firearms used in crime, come across our border.”

According to the Toronto Police Service, 88% of guns used in crimes seized by the Toronto Police Service in 2024 were traced back to the United States, including 94% of the firearms that were seized. That does not sound like a very secure border to me and, unfortunately, Bill C-12 does little to address the issue.

Instead of investing in border security, the public safety minister has doubled down on the Liberals' failed gun confiscation program, which he himself admitted is a waste of money that will do nothing to keep Canadians safe. The $742 million the Liberals say they intend to spend on gun confiscation could have gone to hiring 5,000 more police officers or CBSA officers or purchasing 300 port scanners. Instead of including measures in Bill C-12 to ensure border officials have the proper resources needed to secure the border, the Liberals remain committed to targeting law-abiding hunters and firearms owners.

Having a secure border also means having a strong, robust immigration system that serves the needs of Canadians and aligns with our national interests. Parts of Bill C-12 attempt to address some of the challenges our immigration system faces after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. Unfortunately, I am not confident that these measures by themselves will fix our broken system, which is clearly collapsing under the weight of Liberal mismanagement.

This week, the CBC reported that processing times for Canadian immigration applications have reached unprecedented lengths. Wait times, for example, for permanent resident applications are up to nine years for the caregiver pathway, up to 19 years for the agri-food stream and up to 35 years for entrepreneurs under the start-up visa stream. Even worse than that, if anyone can imagine, the Liberals have lost track of hundreds and hundreds of foreigners in this country who have criminal records and are due to be deported. Guess what, they have gone missing.

This backlog of applications, lack of accountability and inconsistent enforcement all stem from a government that has failed to plan, failed to listen and failed to act. Now, with Bill C-12, the Liberals are scrambling to fix the very system they dismantled, but instead of thoughtful reform, they are reaching out for sweeping powers and vague regulations that permit activities rather than legislating requirements for change.

Conservatives believe in responsible immigration in appropriate numbers to keep up with our health care, housing and job markets. We support measures that streamline processing, reduce backlogs and help newcomers integrate successfully, but we oppose policies that put power in the hands of ministers without proper oversight. Canada's immigration system needs complete, wholesale changes to ensure a secure border and prosperous nation, but those changes are nowhere to be found in C-12.

Like many Canadians, Conservatives want safe communities, secure borders and an immigration system that works for our country, not one that is collapsing under the weight of the Liberal government. The safety and security of Canadians is non-negotiable and, as the official opposition, Conservatives remain committed to implementing the tougher, smarter measures that are needed to keep Canadians safe. We are ready to support provisions in the bill that protect our national security and secure our borders while proposing amendments that would improve the bill and opposing measures that go against the best interest of Canadians.

Bill C-12 introduces significant changes that require in-depth study to ensure the problems are addressed appropriately. At committee, Conservatives will scrutinize, debate and propose amendments to Bill C-12 and work together to ensure it achieves its stated goal of improving Canada's public safety and national security. Conservatives remain committed to securing our borders, strengthening our immigration system and cracking down on crime and chaos in our streets.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, and today we are talking about Bill C-12.

For those who do not know what Bill C-12 is, it is the Liberal government's attempt at a do-over of Bill C-2, the border security bill. When Bill C-2 first came out, there was an outcry from the Conservative Party and civil liberties organizations across the country because of the numerous infringements of the Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms. It would have been violated by Bill C-2, so the government was forced to take out some of these offensive violations.

Part 4 would allow Canada Post to open mail without a warrant. Part 11 would ban cash payments and donations over $10,000. Part 14 would allow warrantless access to Canadians' personal information on reasonable suspicion, which is a very low threshold. Part 15 could compel electronic service providers to re-engineer their platforms to help CSIS and the police access personal information, like a digital snoop.

Part 16 would allow the government to supply financial institutions with personal information if the info was useful for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. Again, if there was a reasonable suspicion, they could get all of someone's financial information. What could possibly go wrong when the Liberal government gets someone's financial information? I think we learned that with the Emergencies Act when the government froze the bank accounts of Canadians. It is no wonder Canadians do not trust the government.

I am happy to see all of these violations of people's civil liberties were taken out in the do-over. That is the good news.

The bad news is that the government continues to go against people's charter rights and freedoms. We see a continual pattern of behaviour with the government. With Bill C-11, it tried to shut down people's freedom of speech. Bill C-18 tried to mess with the freedom of the press. The freedom of religion issue is constantly coming up, with the Liberals trying to remove charitable status from churches and the Canada summer jobs program. We have to get to the details of this bill to make sure no funny business has been snuck in at the last minute. It is clear the government continually wants to take away the freedoms of Canadians.

Some improvements could still be made to this bill, and I want to talk about a few of those. The first one is in part 1. Part 1 would amend the Customs Act to allow the CBSA to use facilities free of charge for enforcement and access to goods for export, as it does for imports. The dilemma for me is that with the size of the fentanyl issue, the crime issues and the lack of security at our borders, there is no limit on how long somebody's warehouse or space could be seized to use for this kind of enforcement. Of course, that would come at the expense of whoever owns a warehouse or storage space.

In border towns like Sarnia, there is not always a lot of space available at the border, so that could be even more far-reaching. The same is true for Windsor and a number of the other border crossings we have. I think some limits should be put on part 1 to make sure we do not unduly burden private businesses.

Second, let us talk about fentanyl. Fentanyl is a huge issue in this country. About 50,000 people have died of overdoses. The RCMP and CSIS have indicated that there are 400 fentanyl superlabs. I do not know whether they are being shut down, but Justin Trudeau said a very small portion of our fentanyl goes to the States. The reality is we really do not know, because shipping containers coming in from China are not being scanned and are going through the port of Vancouver and down to Seattle.

The precursors of fentanyl are not controlled or tracked. We do not know where they are going, so the people synthesizing fentanyl in these 400 superlabs are getting those chemicals from somewhere. One thing I like about the bill is that it adds some controls to traceability so we would know where those chemicals are coming in, where they are going and who is buying them. That would be helpful to the police.

I think we should start doing what other ports in the world do, which is scan all the shipping containers. This is very important not just on the fentanyl issue but on the issue of people stealing cars. We definitely need an upgrade in our scanning capabilities.

One of the difficulties I have with putting laws in place in this country is the lack of enforcement of the rule of law. It is fundamental to our democracy, but the law is not really being enforced. We have people committing crimes in the country who are let out because the Liberals put in place Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-75 says that we have to give the least restrictive punishment, which is really bail or a fine, at the earliest opportunity, which is right away. We have people trafficking fentanyl or creating it in these labs, and even if they get arrested, they are back out on bail. Bill C-5 lets them have house arrest. How convenient is that for drug trafficking? They have to stay home, but people can stop by.

We need better enforcement of the law, because we know the Liberals are going to create more laws like Bill C-9, for example, which is supposed to address the rise in hate crimes. There are already laws in this country that could help in that regard. There were 113 Christian churches that burned to the ground. There is a law against arson. It should be enforced. Illegally blocking the streets is against the law, but the police are not enforcing it. Death cries to Canadians and various religions are hate speech. They are against the law. Again, it is about enforcement. As for shooting up schools, stealing cars, home invasions and extortions, we already have laws on the books for these things, but if we are not going to enforce them, we are not going to cure the problem. That is exactly the problem with introducing this border security bill. If there is no enforcement of any of the things in it, then it is absolutely meaningless.

There are immigration measures in the bill, and we need to take action on immigration because it is out of control. Most Canadians would agree with that. We need immigration to build houses and for the nation-building projects we want. We have an aging population. We need more PSWs, nurses and doctors than can graduate from the educational institutions in Canada. We need people to come here and help build the country. I love the idea from our leader of the blue seal program, to take the 50,000 doctors and nurses who already live in Canada and get them accredited so they can help out. It is definitely a great idea.

For the last century, people have come here to work and to help build the country, and we want to continue that. What we do not need is more freeloaders showing up to claim asylum and have the Canadian taxpayer fork out $3,000 to $4,000 a month to put them up in hotels in Niagara Falls. That is more money than we give the seniors who built the country. It is more money than we give to Canadians living with a disability.

Then we see that the majority of these claims, after two or three years of putting these people up, are not eligible after we have spent a huge amount of the taxpayers' money. There are 300,000 of these individuals in the backlog. That is $15 billion a year taken out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers for people we did not invite here. I think moving the IRCC office to the Toronto Pearson, Montreal and Vancouver airports to hear their claims right on the spot would be good. Then if they are not eligible, the cost of a plane ticket is a lot less than the cost of putting somebody up for three years.

At the same time, we need to reintroduce the fair and compassionate immigration system we had when the Conservatives were in charge, which did security checks so that we were not letting people into the country who were going to cause the kinds of crime and trouble we are sometimes seeing.

I think the immigration measures in the bill will help out. I do not think they go far enough. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill has done a great job of defining what ought to be done to fix the immigration system we have. I encourage anyone who does not follow her to listen to what she has to say on that subject.

I want to talk a bit about making the border more secure. The Liberals have announced that they are going to hire 1,000 CBSA agents. The announcement was made months ago and nobody has been hired. We hear now that it might be done within five years. That is not the kind of response we need to get security in the budget.

With that, I will take questions.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House, as always.

Today we are talking about Bill C-12. It is a fairly large omnibus bill that would amend many different acts, and it goes into many different areas of national policy. It is a second attempt by the government to put forward a bill that would address a number of problems that are well known and well identified, problems that Conservatives have identified for years. The government has finally acknowledged the existence of some of these problems and is trying to fix them.

The Liberals came out with Bill C-2, literally the second bill tabled in the current Parliament. It was a disaster; it fell very flat. Nobody wanted the bill. It contained some terrible measures, including a bizarre outright ban on certain cash transactions, as well as warrantless mail opening. Who was asking for this?

I suppose the government does deserve credit for listening to Conservatives, who had encouraged it through opposition to these measures to try again, so here we are with a new bill. It is a curious mix of ideas plagiarized from the Conservative Party in its previous platform, symbolic announcements that were not fulfilled with follow-through, and some steps for improvement on things that need to be done. I will talk about only a few of them, as it is a huge omnibus bill.

With respect to the border, yes, Conservatives support export tracking in our ports. This is something Conservatives have for years called for. We talked years ago about the crisis of auto theft in our country and the need to have the ability to scan container ships for the thousands of cars stolen from Canadian streets. Members may remember that the then minister of justice had his own ministerial car stolen at least twice, maybe even three times; I do not remember for sure. This is the level of problem we have that the Liberals are trying to solve. We would support that. In addition, with respect to drugs, we certainly support changing the classification of precursor chemicals to controlled substances.

However, I will point out that while the Liberals are taking credit for strengthening our border protection, something Conservatives had for years called for, the departmental plans for the CBSA and the RCMP do not support the announcement material that has come along with the bill, which we see if we take a cursory look at both the main estimates and the supplementary estimates. The supplementary estimates are there to make adjustments when changes in law, announcements or things like that come about, so the government can plan ahead.

The government's current plan for personnel with CBSA would be a net reduction of 600-odd personnel through to 2028. Once again, the Liberals have an A for announcement, but right now it looks like an F on follow-through, which has been the MO of the government for so long.

With respect to fentanyl, we heard some heart-rending testimony from members of the House on the scourge of opioid addiction, with people dying in our streets. There is also the trafficking of fentanyl. Yes, we agree with the changes the Liberals have made in the bill; they are important and supportable.

However, the government is not enforcing the laws we have already. People who traffic in drugs are not getting the full weight of Canadian law as it is. We have a bail not jail regime that the government deliberately brought in as a consequence of its bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 from former Parliaments, and that would not be fixed by the bill before us.

With respect to changes that would be made to the Citizenship Act and to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, again, this is a problem long in the making. There are right now 290,000 asylum claims in the queue. By comparison, at the end of the years of the former Conservative government, there were about 10,000 claims. We have jumped from 10,000 people to 290,000 people in the queue for adjudication of asylum claims.

It is no surprise how we got there. We got there from the tweet heard around the world, the #WelcomeToCanada tweet that explicitly encouraged economic migrants to cross into Canada in order to then apply for asylum. The conflation of economic migrants with migrants seeking asylum in Canada as refugees has been completely intermeshed under the government. It is just a disaster for everyone. It is not fair for all the people in the queue to have this queue.

For the people in the queue, there is an industry now in which we have seen that human trafficking is a factor. People have made a business out of helping economic migrants, desperate people indeed, come to Canada from a safe third country, mostly the United States. We called upon the government repeatedly to make exactly the point that is contained in the bill, to apply the safe third country agreement to the entire land border. It is very late coming to this.

There is so much in the bill that it is hard to really do justice to any of it, but I want to spend most of the rest of my time on a very curious change that the bill would make. There would be an amendment to the Oceans Act that would place the Coast Guard under the ministry of defence, for budget purposes. It would still report, as an institution, to the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Transport and now also to the Minister of National Defence.

This change is an accounting trick the Liberals have done to try to fulfill the important obligation Canada has to NATO to increase its spending to at least the old agreed-to target and now to 5%. However, that would not change the capability of the Coast Guard; it would change reporting mechanisms and just move the budget from one column to another. Moving an expense budget from one column to another would not make Canada more safe and secure.

The ships would continue to be unarmed. They would continue to not meet NATO's own definition of a defence force. The closest things to armaments on these ships are shotguns used to scare off polar bears in Arctic patrol conditions, like firing a banger that is designed to make noise to scare away a predator. I am not even certain that I understand in what circumstance this would happen; perhaps it would be when going ashore, I guess, in the high Arctic.

That would not make Canada safer. It would not meet our actual NATO duty to defend our territory or to be deployable and help other countries. In this omnibus bill, the Liberals have snuck in an accounting trick just to help government members pat themselves on the back for increasing defence spending, when they would be doing nothing of the sort. All they would be doing is moving a number from one column to another.

The bill is a great example of the type of legislation we have become used to, where the government has a nice title and a nice announcement but no actual efficacy or improvement for national policy.

Justice

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that response, but the Liberal government has been in power now for 10 years. Why is it now putting forward half measures to address the mess that Bill C-75 has caused?

The government rejected Conservative proposals to strengthen bail laws and to protect our communities, yet it is now repackaging some of those same ideas as its own, showing that the Liberals care more about political credit than the real accountability for their failures. Despite the tough talk, it is just not enough. Violent criminals will continue to be released if the Liberal principle of restraint in Bill C-75 remains.

It is time for the government to take responsibility and to show that it cares about protecting Canadians by working with Conservatives to end the Liberal bail experiment and restore safety to our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to rise and debate this important issue. I also want to thank my colleague opposite for raising a concern that we actually share: the safety of Canadians and keeping violent repeat offenders off our streets.

First, we must recognize the tragic murder of 29-year-old Constable Greg Pierzchala. Our thoughts are with his family, colleagues and the Haldimand—Norfolk community. No family should endure such a loss. Such tragedies remind us that keeping Canadians safe is our solemn duty.

It is important to clarify a persistent misunderstanding about former Bill C-75. Contrary to some claims, Bill C-75 did not alter the fundamental law of bail in Canada. What it did was codify key principles already established by the Supreme Court of Canada. The law has always been clear: No one should be released on bail if doing so would compromise public safety or undermine confidence in the administration of justice. That is clearly established under subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

In fact, the argument presented is self-defeating. The member suggests that repealing former Bill C-75 would improve public safety. In reality, repealing Bill C-75 would actually make it easier for some individuals, like those previously convicted of intimate partner violence, to obtain bail.

Let us be clear about the Conservatives' position over the last six months. First, they campaigned on repealing all of Bill C-75, including protections for victims of intimate partner violence. When we called them out, they suddenly shifted and said that they only wanted to remove the principle of restraint from former Bill C-75, and now their own justice critic publicly states on social media that he is open to amending the principle of restraint. That is three different positions over the last six months. It is hard to take them seriously. They clearly have no plan, no consistency and no idea what they are doing.

Meanwhile, on this side of the House, the Minister of Justice has spent months working in consultation with law enforcement, provincial and territorial partners, constitutional experts and victim advocacy groups building a consensus on how to keep violent offenders off our streets and accountable to the public, and protect individuals and victims.

Canadians want solutions, not slogans. They deserve careful, evidence-based policies grounded in Canadian law and not in imported ideas. What do I mean by “imported ideas”? It is striking to see the types of proposals that the Conservatives continue to push, whether it is the provision of their bail bill, Bill C-242, the shoot-first policy or a three-strikes law. These measures have all failed in every jurisdiction where they have been tried in the United States. If the Conservatives had been paying attention to the last election they lost, they would know that Canadians want laws made here in Canada, in consultation with provinces and territories, that actually work in our communities.

This government is also investing in federal policing, including the hiring of 1,000 new RCMP personnel and expanded resources to combat financial crime, organized criminal networks and online exploitation. These investments reflect a broader strategy, one that combines enforcement with prevention and recognizes that community safety depends not only on strong laws, but also on strong institutions.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today on behalf of the good people of Haldimand—Norfolk to speak to a serious crisis in our country. Ten years of irresponsible Liberal crime and justice policies have led to the need for communities across Ontario and across Canada to grapple with growing violence and brazen crime in their neighbourhoods. The consequences of these policies are real. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearms crime is up 130%, extortion has skyrocketed 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%.

When I asked the government to address its record and to commit to reversing laws such as Bill C-75, which allowed repeat offenders back on the streets, I referenced the tragic case of 29-year-old Greg Pierzchala. He was a young constable killed by a repeat offender released on bail. The assassination of this young police officer in the line of duty happened in Hagersville, Haldimand County, which is a community that I represent. His loss rattled the community. The outpouring of sadness, the support and the tributes for this young constable at the beginning of his career and of his life were both heartbreaking and deeply moving.

Too many families are grieving with unimaginable pain because they lost a loved one to violent crime. The truth is that the same violent offenders are released back into the community, sometimes within hours of their arrest. Because judges are constrained by Liberal laws to impose the least onerous conditions possible, this so-called principle of restraint compels the courts to release at the earliest possible opportunity and impose only reasonably necessary bail standards, even when there is a strong chance of reoffending.

Instead of addressing this very real concern of mine, the parliamentary secretary ignored it entirely. When more than half of Canadians no longer feel safe in their own neighbourhoods, my constituents expect seriousness from the government, not non-answers and silence.

The uncomfortable truth is that the current Liberal government has undermined safety and justice in Canada by imposing its ideology on the justice system, resulting in preventable deaths. Canadians, including victim advocates, provincial governments and police associations, have long been calling on the government to fix what it broke. Will the Liberals finally adopt our full Conservative plan to end the scourge of violent crime, by passing the Conservative jail not bail act and repealing Bill C-75?

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to take a moment to thank Divya Dey, who is participating in the parliamentary internship program and who gave me the great privilege of choosing me for her first stint with a member of the House of Commons. She is a brilliant and dynamic young woman from the Greater Toronto Area who speaks excellent French and who chose a member from a rural region in Quebec. I hope that many people from Toronto will do the same thing and follow her example in order to discover the beautiful regions of Quebec.

Today Divya helped me research and write this speech. Obviously, I added the partisan side of my speech myself because interns have to remain non-partisan during their time with us. I wanted to warn people that some of the passages are my own creation. I congratulate all the interns on their achievements and thank the organizers and sponsors of this wonderful program, which gives young Canadians the opportunity to experience first-hand the decision-making process on our beautiful Parliament Hill.

Let me get back to today's topic, namely Bill C‑12. Before going into the details of the bill, I would like to take a step back and look at the big picture of what this Liberal government has done in 10 years. Since this Prime Minister was elected, I believe that we have witnessed the largest pothole repair operation in Canadian history.

What is a pothole? After a long, hard winter, when the snow melts, we discover that our roads are full of holes. There are big ones, little ones, huge ones and potholes in the making. There are holes everywhere, especially in the municipalities. Just before summer, at the turn of spring, municipal road crews get to work filling as many holes as possible as quickly as possible to keep them from getting bigger, to prevent cars from breaking down and to ensure pedestrians do not get hurt. I have no doubt that all this is done with the best of intentions.

However, anything goes when it comes to filling holes. They act quickly. They know that what they are repairing will not really be repaired because it is just a quick fix. They will have to come back a little later. They intervene for appearances' sake, knowing full well that the repairs are cosmetic, which means that instead of being fixed, the problem will get worse year after year. The following year, they will have to come back because the hole will be a little bigger. If it is only a quick fix, they will have to come back again the year after that.

What does this have to do with Bill C‑12? Before the members opposite ask me that question, I will explain. It is very simple. It is as though we are coming out of an extremely long 10-year winter during which the Liberals dug holes everywhere. There are potholes in every department after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. Whether we are talking about justice, immigration, passports or delays at the Canada Revenue Agency, there are potholes everywhere after the long Liberal winter.

I did not talk about the biggest pothole of all, and that is the country's finances. That is the biggest pothole of all with a deficit that has doubled and inflationary spending that has created many smaller holes in the pockets of all Canadians, who can no longer make ends meet at the end of the month. Canadians are $200 away from being in the red, from no longer being able to pay their bills at the end of the month. They are struggling and they are being forced to make tough choices at the grocery store.

Today, the Liberals would have us believe that spring is right around the corner. They have looked under the snow after 10 years in power, and what they saw was really not pretty. Their woke Liberal ideological policies have caused a great deal of damage, and Canadians will be left to pay the price for years to come.

As I said, a pothole repair operation is a superficial fix that is not used to repair holes for good, but rather to simply fill them in. After how badly Bill C-2 failed, Bill C‑12 is a superficial fix to tackle the damage caused by the Liberals over the past 10 years. By the way, this part was not written by my intern. I just want to clarify that.

Let us talk about immigration. The government made our businesses dependent on temporary foreign workers. Now, with Bill C-12, the government is going to punish the very people it made promises to when they decided to come settle here in Canada. This is not just about compassion. It is contradictory. The government made our businesses dependent on these workers and now it is trying to break that dependency without a plan, leaving businesses and workers in limbo. Most importantly, the government is forgetting that those affected are human beings with children, families and a dream, a dream of settling in Canada.

In the beginning, the temporary foreign worker program had the very specific goal of addressing temporary labour shortages. However, under the Liberals, this program grew and it became a permanent solution to problems that the government refused to address. This program was working well and meeting its objectives, but the Liberals created so much chaos and neglected the program so much that, today, people who should be able to go through the proper channels no longer have time to do so because the system is so broken.

Bill C‑12 is not fixing the problem of temporary workers. This bill would make it harder for all these people, whom we welcomed with open arms after the former prime minister sent a tweet inviting them to come to Canada. This message was heard across the country, but today, it is making many people unhappy. We have all heard about it in our riding offices. This improvised approach hurt people, it hurt families and it hurt businesses.

After a decade of the Liberals' absolutely disastrous mismanagement of the immigration system, the number of refugee claims has risen to 296,000 today. That is huge. Think about it. Ten years ago, we only had 10,000 and now, we have 296,000. At the current pace, it would take the government 25 years to process the 296,000 pending files. Let that sink in. It is absolutely unacceptable. It is a disaster. The Liberal government's attitude to immigration as a whole has created some really desperate situations that are heartbreaking for the people experiencing them.

Let us now turn our attention to crime. I will let the numbers speak for themselves. After 10 years of Liberal governance, the total number of violent crimes is up 49.84%. Homicides are up 28%. Gang-related homicides are up 78%. Sexual assaults are up 74%. Extortion is up 357%. What action did the Liberals take last winter to protect Canadians? They took no action. On the contrary, they made the situation worse by passing legislation like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which set criminals loose, let abusers serve their sentences at home and forced judges to let criminals go as fast as possible.

Sadly, since taking office seven months ago, this Prime Minister has done nothing to act on his promises. Bill C-12 may close a few loopholes, but it will not quiet the fears of Canadians who have never before seen their country change as much as it has in the past 10 years of this long Liberal winter.

Time is flying by. The Liberals would have us believe that spring is coming. However, they have not even started fixing the potholes, and winter already seems to be right around the corner. Never before have we seen a pothole repair be botched so badly. This Prime Minister promised to spend less, but he is spending twice as much as his predecessor. He promised to maintain the deficit, but we now know that it will be much bigger than the one predicted by Canada's most spendthrift prime minister before him. They are not repairing potholes; they are digging more and making them bigger. We were seeing the first signs of spring, but instead we are in for another storm of Liberal spending.

Just today, the Prime Minister confirmed in the House that he will run a generational deficit on November 4. They are not fooling us. Bill C‑12 will plug a few holes, but the root causes of the Liberal legacy of the past 10 years will unfortunately remain.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise 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, just two offenders in Swan River were responsible for over 150 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 in the 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.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address concerns about public safety and bail reform. Canadians are rightly concerned about repeat and violent offending. They expect our justice system to keep communities safe while upholding the rule of law.

Let me be clear. Former Bill C‑75 does not require courts to release violent offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. That characterization is simply false. Bill C‑75 modernized and clarified the bail provisions in the Criminal Code. It ensured that non-violent, low-risk individuals were not detained unnecessarily, while giving judges the discretion to detain dangerous individuals when public safety was at risk.

These reforms codified the principle of restraint, a long-standing rule of criminal law that was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2017 in the Antic decision, which requires pre-trial detention to be ordered only when necessary to ensure the accused's attendance in court, to protect the public or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail unless there is just cause for detention. These are the cornerstones of a free and democratic society. That said, the law is clear: No one should be released on bail if they pose a flight risk or a danger to the public, or if their release could undermine confidence in the justice system.

In 2024, Parliament strengthened these protections through former Bill C‑48, which expanded the reverse onus provision for intimate partner violence and made targeted amendments to better deal with repeat offenders and violent offences involving firearms and other weapons.

The federal government is also investing $1.8 billion over four years to hire 1,000 new RCMP employees, increase federal policing capacity, and crack down on financial crime, online fraud, and organized criminal networks. This includes increasing the recruitment allowance and allocating new resources to the recovery of illicit assets.

Our government is working with the provinces, territories and local law enforcement to address the root causes of crime while investing in affordable housing, mental health and substance use supports, and programs for at-risk youth.

Stringent federal laws are only a part of the equation. Bail is a shared responsibility. The provinces and territories have to ensure that courts have sufficient resources, that justices of the peace are properly trained and that community supervision programs are in place. Without these supports, even the most robust federal laws are destined to fail. That is why our government continues to call for cross-jurisdictional collaboration. Public safety requires coordination, investment and evidence-based solutions, not slogans or scapegoats.

Canadians deserve safe communities and a fair justice system. Let us move forward together, with targeted, practical reforms grounded in principles, not in politics. Let us turn away from fear and division.

Let us focus—

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, in response to my question in June about the over 70% increase in major assaults in Ontario since 2015, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime assured me new legislation was coming that would solve this problem. It is now well past June, and we still do not have that legislation, but I understand it is coming.

In fact, the situation is much worse than just a few months' delay. We have had 10 years of the Liberal government, and in fact, it has created the mess with bail through Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

The Prime Minister has made some comments about what the legislation would include, but I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary. Would the new legislation repeal the principle of restraint that currently requires violent offenders to be released “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”, yes or no?

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, frankly, what I find irresponsible is that the other day when we heard the Prime Minister's announcement on crime, there was no attention paid to removing the principle of restraint, which was endemic to Bill C-75, the very principle that is allowing for catch and release to continue. I would ask the members opposite to put some forethought into this to make sure this principle is removed so we can keep criminals off the streets.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I continue my speech, I want to re-mention my nephew, Cody Kirkland, whom we lost in the middle of the last federal election campaign. He passed away due to an accidental overdose, and fentanyl was the cause, so it is close to home. I know folks in my community and folks across the country recognize how important this fentanyl crisis is and what is going on.

I hope the Liberals across the way will pay attention to this. I hope they will not have to have a crisis or a tragedy in their own families before they realize just how bad it is across the country. Police have uncovered superlabs operating right here in Canada, synthesizing fentanyl from precursor chemicals imported from China. Last fall, RCMP officers dismantled the largest and most sophisticated drug lab in Canadian history, capable of producing multiple kilograms of fentanyl each week, along with caches of loaded firearms, explosives and half a million dollars in cash.

This is the reality. Fentanyl is not just a drug problem; it is a public safety and national security crisis fuelled by organized crime and enabled by weak borders. It is a humanity problem, yet Bill C-12 is silent on the tools police and prosecutors actually need. There are still no new mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers. There are still no tougher penalties for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes, and the Liberals still allow house arrest for serious offences that endanger lives. Research and experience have shown that clear, consistent sentencing, including targeting mandatory minimums, deters repeat offenders and restores public confidence in justice.

We can already anticipate that the Liberals will soon stand and claim they are bringing forward new bail reform legislation, but Canadians remember the Liberal bail reform they already brought in through Bill C-75, instructing judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. In practice, it became a green light for repeat violent offenders to cycle in and out of the system, with tragic results in communities across Canada. Canadians do not need more Liberal announcements about bail. They need consequences that mean something and a justice system that protects victims and stops protecting repeat violent offenders.

We have a border system that cannot enforce removals and an immigration system so backlogged it invites abuse. We have a justice system that treats violent offenders as victims while law-abiding citizens face more restrictions than ever.

Conservatives believe in secure borders, a fair and orderly immigration system and a justice system that protects Canadians before it protects criminals. We believe Canada should continue to welcome those fleeing genuine persecution, but compassion must be paired with order, fairness and the rule of law.

Bill C-12 may contain measures worth exploring, but Canadians cannot take the government's assurances at face value anymore. The privacy risks are serious, the enforcement gaps are dangerous, and the Liberal record demands skepticism, not blind trust. That is why Conservatives will carefully review the legislation, line by line and clause by clause, to ensure that it strengthens our borders, upholds privacy and defends public safety.

Public Safety

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, crime and chaos is out of control. Extortion has exploded into one of the fastest-growing crimes in Canada, with threats against small business owners and innocent citizens. Just this weekend, in my riding of Edmonton Southeast, an innocent family had their house shot up after it was misidentified by gangsters. This is unacceptable. It is a direct result of the Liberal soft-on-crime agenda.

Canadians deserve to feel safe in their own homes. That is why Conservatives want to restore mandatory jail time and repeal the dangerous Liberal catch-and-release laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

To the innocent family whose home was shot at, that should not have happened. My fellow Conservatives and I will fight hard to stop the crime so that criminals like the ones who attacked them will face real consequences, not just a slap on the wrist.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his hard work for his constituents. We know that he is doing an excellent job in northern Ontario.

It is clear that the ideological bent of the government is not to empower our frontline officers to do their job. The government is one that is beholden to a woke ideology, wherein it passes bills like Bill C-75, which tells judges to let criminals out at the earliest convenience with the least number of restraints. It is clear that it is policies like this that are being called out by frontline police officers and by police associations, and that are causing the havoc and violence we are seeing on our streets. Our party stands behind our—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish the entire House a very happy Trafalgar Day, a day on which we remember the sacrifice and brave leadership of Admiral Horatio Nelson, who gave his life in defence against Bonapartist tyranny. In addition, I would be remiss if I did not mention that today the Royal Canadian Navy is celebrating Niobe Day; 115 years ago today marked the first day of a Canadian warship, the HMCS Niobe.

It is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. We are discussing the bill here today instead of Liberal Bill C-2, because Bill C-2 was met with considerable opposition from members of the House and from civil society groups that made it clear that the legislation would not be able to move forward without significant revisions.

Therefore, today we are debating Bill C-12. Despite the sweeping powers the government proposed in Bill C-2, the Liberal government did not even bother to consult with the Privacy Commissioner about the impacts that the legislation would have on the privacy rights of Canadians. It is only because of the accountability provided by members of the opposition in the House that we were able to push that legislation back so we could focus on legislation that would at least try to repair the damage of the last 10 years of the Liberal government by introducing changes on the border.

The objectives of the bill, I will say for those constituents of mine who are watching at home, are several. They include but are not limited to creating an expedited pathway for the Minister of Health to add precursors chemicals used in the production of deadly drugs such as fentanyl as controlled substances under the Criminal Code.

Over the past few years, we have seen the devastation of the fentanyl overdose crisis in Canada. At the public safety committee, we have been hearing about some of the many gaps we have in this country, including testimony that has indicated that the non-resident import program is being used to smuggle precursor chemicals into Canada with less stringency at the border, which is creating a situation where Canada has become a major producer of fentanyl, which is being exported. We have heard recent stories of countries like New Zealand and Australia being the recipients of drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine. Clearly this is not the reputation that a great country like Canada wants to have.

Another part of the legislation seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to eliminate the designated countries of origin regime, which has been identified as a loophole. It would give the minister the powers to specify that required documents are needed to support a refugee claim. It would require the suspension of certain refugee protection proceedings if the claimant is not present in Canada, something I think should be common sense; somebody should be present in Canada if they are claiming refugee status here.

It seeks to change the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to increase the maximum monetary penalties for those charged under these acts. It also seeks to make certain changes to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to allow for increased reporting of the offender's description, as well as changes to the circumstances and frequency of reporting. It would also allow for information previously collected to be disclosed if it can reasonably be expected to assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature.

Once again, I think these things are long overdue. We probably need to go even further, but we are certainly not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. Even with the second attempt at the legislation, the Liberal bill still fails to address the key issue of bail reform. We know that catch-and-release is alive and well for people who traffic in fentanyl and use illegal firearms, using our porous border to victimize more and more Canadian families.

We know that the sentencing provisions that were passed by the Liberal government under Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have made it so that there no mandatory prison times for the people who traffic fentanyl, and there are still no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use illegal guns to commit crimes, despite the Liberal government's incessant campaign against law-abiding gun owners. We also know that house arrest is still being used extensively in cases relating to violent criminals. Once again, this is unacceptable.

That said, I think we can all agree that strengthening our border is critical, and that is why legislation is desperately needed in this area. After 10 years of reckless Liberal policies, our border is broken, and we need to fix it. The Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda has made Canada a destination for international organized criminals trafficking in drugs, weapons, people and stolen cars. Gangs are committing brutal crimes on our streets every day.

The public safety committee has looked at the issues in depth, and we have repeatedly heard it is the broken bail system that has contributed to the crisis. Organized criminals have chosen to make Canada their home because of our weak laws.

We also know the government's failed immigration policies have assisted in making Canada a destination for international organized crime. In the past, the government has removed visa requirements over the objections of law enforcement agencies, which stated that the removal of visas would increase the risk of organized crime's taking root in this country. The government moved forward with it anyway, and it is critical that the policies be reversed so we can once again make Canada the safest country in the world.

I want to be clear that nothing I am saying today is a criticism of our brave frontline law enforcement officers in the RCMP and the CBSA. We know they are doing their absolute best. We have heard from police associations in Ontario. I have heard from RCMP members in my riding, when I was out knocking on doors during the past election, for example, that they are arresting people and seeing them back out on the street mere hours after being arrested for drug offences. How demoralizing this is for our frontline officers.

We have heard from Mark Weber of the Customs and Immigration Union, the union that represents CBSA workers, that morale at the CBSA is at the lowest level he has ever seen. This is after 10 years of the Liberal government. We now see that the government keeps recycling its promises to keep hiring more border services officers, but it is clear much more needs to be done to strengthen our border and our security service.

Canada has the largest undefended border in the world, which is something we can all be very proud of as a country, but the lack of resources for the CBSA to fulfill its role has seen a rise in smuggling and human trafficking in this country and people coming to this country to pursue their criminal activities. It has skyrocketed over the past decade.

The CBSA has been sounding the alarm, but the government has not been listening. There is plenty of evidence to substantiate these points, but I will pick one specific example. At the immigration committee, IRCC officials stated that they believe there are hundreds if not thousands of violent criminals who are here illegally, violent criminals who are not citizens or permanent residents. They are temporary residents who are violent people, and officials have no idea where they are. When I asked the customs union employee, they said that there are only a couple hundred CBSA officers who are tasked with trying to track down the thousands of violent criminals who are at large in this country. This is unacceptable.

On the non-violent side, we know there are currently around 50,000 people who have come to Canada on student visas and whose visas have now run out. They are here illegally, and CBSA does not have the resources to reach out to these people or to remove these people who are now in this country illegally. Despite the shockingly high figures, as I said, there are something like only 300 CBSA officers who have been dedicated to this gargantuan task.

One of the reasons CBSA is suffering so much, as its union said, is that it is drowning in middle management. It is not getting the frontline officers it needs to do the job. This is endemic in everything the Liberal government has done for the last 10 years. Let us look at the great paradox, where we have a government where the bureaucracy has grown by 45% across the civil service yet there are fewer frontline workers in critical areas like the CBSA, the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces than ever before. How does that make any sense? The government is padding middle management and upper management, to the detriment of frontline workers who are doing the dangerous jobs we need them to do to keep us safe.

Action is desperately needed, and the largest beneficiary of the government's failed immigration and criminal policies has been organized crime. Canada has become a low-risk, high-reward environment. Criminals choose the path of least resistance. The strict border controls put in place during the pandemic saw the Canadian market shift from being an importer of fentanyl to becoming a domestic producer. CSIS has found that synthetic drugs are increasingly being produced in Canada using precursor chemicals from China. This is what experts are saying. It is estimated that about 80% of the precursor chemicals that are being used in fentanyl—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the residents of Ponoka—Didsbury.

After a long decade of nihilistic Liberal rule, chaos and disorder reign supreme in our streets. Criminality may be only one of the many problems Canadians face, but it is a significant one.

A survey by Abacus Data released this year, in 2025, found that 46% of Canadians ranked crime and public safety among their top concerns. This can be contrasted with an Ipsos poll taken in June 2015, the year our previous Conservative government left office, which found that 15% of Canadians ranked crime and violence among the issues on the national agenda at the time. I will let Canadians ponder those two statistics to find out just who has been a better steward of peace, safety and security in this country.

Canadians understand that the situation is untenable. After all, it is they who have had to shoulder the burden of this rise in criminality in our communities. For context, since 2015, violent crime has spiked significantly, and it is up nearly 50%. That is not all; crime of almost every category has seen an increase: Sexual assaults are up nearly 75%, homicides are up 28%, gang-related homicides and organized crime have increased by 75%, violent firearms offences with illegal guns are up 116%, extortion is up 357%, auto theft is up 46%, and trafficking is up nearly 84%. Fraud, homicide and anything we can name are all going up. I could continue, but I think my colleagues get the picture.

This upswing in violence is not a coincidence; it is a result of soft-on-crime policies and a porous border. It is the realization of the law of unintended consequences brought on by a decade of bad policy, informed by a world view that cares more about optics than it concerns itself with the real-life effects of its own self-serving ideological agenda.

We now have a so-called government that is presenting bills in the House that purport to fix this collection of self-inflicted issues that Canadians face. These are the same problems that the members across the aisle from me created. In 2015, our Conservative government oversaw a Canada that had its lowest total crime rate since 1969. Unfortunately, the last 10 years has seen this progress almost completely erased.

It is the hypocrisy of the government that it has opposed and demonized those who support our hard-on-crime agenda while now implicitly acknowledging that Conservatives were right all along.

How did we get here? In 2022, Bill C-5 was passed. In this piece of legislation, the Liberal government removed the mandatory minimums on 14 different Criminal Code offences. These were common-sense penalties on dangerous offences that were instituted and put in place by our Conservative government; these were bills that I proudly passed when I sat on the other side of the House. They include using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, which people do not have to go to jail for anymore in Canada, thanks to Liberals. Possession of a firearm or weapon, knowing that its possession is unauthorized, so illegal possession of a gun, for example, is another offence that people no longer have to go to jail for.

Possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition is an offence that people do not have to go to jail for anymore. Possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, so if someone steals a gun, they do not have to go to jail. Weapons trafficking, possession for purposes of weapons trafficking and smuggling, so someone can smuggle weapons now, in this country, and not go to jail. Importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized is another example of smuggling; someone can traffic smuggled firearms, guns, ammunition, weapons or anything we can name. Discharging a firearm with intent and discharging a firearm recklessly are offences that people no longer need to go to jail for. If someone wants to commit a robbery, they might as well do it with a gun, because they do not have to go to jail for that either in this country anymore. Did I not just say that extortion is up 357% since 2015? The mandatory minimum penalty for extortion with a firearm is gone thanks to Bill C-5 and thanks to the Liberals and the NDP, which supported them at the time.

In fact, these policies were all informed by expert opinion, yet the Liberals did not seem to care. Instead, before passing Bill C-5, they doubled down and passed Bill C-75 during their majority tenure from 2015 to 2019. The bill eased bail provisions and legislated the principle of restraint, which was codified in the Criminal Code for police and courts to ensure that criminals would be released at the earliest possible opportunity with the least amount of restrictions. Essentially, this favours release over detention; it is precisely these two bills, along with a copious number of bad decisions made, that created the revolving door in our justice system by which offenders are free to continue to terrorize communities.

While the Liberals were making life easier for criminals by passing Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, they increased their attacks on law-abiding firearms owners, who are in no way responsible for any of this crime wave. They did so with a trifecta of bills with zero public safety value. These bills include Bill C-71, which created a backdoor gun registry; the 2020 order in council, a massive list of newly restricted firearms; and Bill C-21 in 2023, which created a national freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns for law-abiding citizens and sport shooters, as well as a new prohibition on many long guns used for hunting and sport-shooting purposes. Since the passing of these bills, the government has not stopped adding firearms to the restricted list.

The Liberals have now embarked on their so-called voluntary assault-style firearms compensation program, the gun grab, which is a program to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. It completely misses the mark by letting criminals go free and going after people who follow the law. If implemented, this costly and ineffective gun buyback is estimated to cost at least $5 billion, even though only $742 million has been allocated to it. With that kind of money, the government could easily fund such programs as acquiring modern scanning technology at our 119 ports of entry to secure our border.

I have an example to share that I also brought up during the committee hearings on Bill C-21. In the Cayman Islands, a high-efficiency scanner was bought. Someone can drive right through it in a truck, or a sea-can can go through it. It can be put at any port of entry. It will scan a container. It is safe for anyone who happens to be going through, and it will find all manner of contraband: drugs, people, firearms and illegal weapons. Those are about $3 million U.S. apiece.

The Liberal government is going to spend $750 million to take lawfully acquired property away from Canadians. That is about $500 million U.S. If we divide that by $3 million per scanner, we could easily put 150 of these scanners at our ports of entry to make sure we scan at least 10% of all containers coming in and going out. I think most Canadians would be shocked to realize that we do not scan a single container that leaves our country.

The shocking thing about all of this is that, with the change in administration to the south, the administration has claimed that fentanyl was flowing from Canada into the United States and, as a result, was killing American citizens. We would think a prime minister in Canada would have said the flow of illegal guns across the border from the United States into Canada is killing Canadian citizens, pushed back on the American administration and stood up for law-abiding firearms owners in this country.

However, the Liberals did not do that, because they did not want to admit that it was illegal guns killing Canadians on the street. They wanted to maintain the mantra of going after law-abiding citizens. We know that because the current public safety minister said as much when he thought nobody was listening.

How does all of this relate to Bill C-12? If the last decade is any indication, the government has an issue understanding that policy work is a careful game of trade-offs. When enacting policy, we have to heed the law of unintended consequences and try to understand the downward effects a piece of legislation may have. The Liberals did not do their due diligence on crime, and I do not think they have done it on the border bill.

When Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down on Bill C-2, we did so because we understand that the policies contained in Bill C-2 have unintended consequences and unforeseen ramifications. As with Bill C-2, we believe there could be provisions in Bill C-12 that violate people's freedoms and privacy, and it is our duty to ensure that Bill C-12 receives the proper scrutiny it deserves at the committee stage to ensure Canadians do not pay for another boondoggle of unintended, or not unintended, consequences.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill, as I said earlier, would do only half the job. It should be addressing the fundamentals of fixing up the borders, fixing up the Criminal Code and repealing Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 to really discourage criminal acts. We need to fix all these issues fundamentally, not just do a half-assed job.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the half-measures in Bill C-12 would not address anything apart from what we already have. It would just be patching up bills that should have been repealed, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, to truly attack the roots of the problems.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they want to secure our border, but they have filled Bill C-12 with nothing but half measures that fail to target the core issues. They will be unable to combat transnational organized crime when they value the well-being of repeat offenders over law-abiding citizens. They will be unable to get a handle on our asylum system when they value economic migrants with bogus asylum claims over legitimately vulnerable people.

The Liberal half measures in Bill C-12 stem from their continued inability to both set up and enforce disincentives against bad actors. Fundamentally, the Liberals take the maxim of the three wise monkeys to heart: See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. The Liberals do not see the criminals. They do not hear the vulnerable. When they choose not to see the bad actors and not to hear the downtrodden, they by all means speak half measures into being.

Let us first address how Bill C-12 would fail to secure our borders, from a crime angle. I have a simple question: Do hard drugs like fentanyl just magically appear in our country? No, of course they do not. Some group has to produce them, and some group has to distribute them. The drug dealers should not be the only central target for the legislation.

The problem is that lax Liberal laws have altered our Criminal Code to put criminals first. Law-abiding Canadians live in fear, while repeat offenders serially reoffend against Canadian society, knowing there will be no consequences for their crimes.

The Liberals cannot just paper everything over with Bill C-12 while we still live in the madness legislated into being by Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. They are building bridges to nowhere, upheld by pillars of sand. How much longer must the Conservatives bring up the failures of these two bills?

Bill C-75 forces judges to apply a principle of restraint that puts repeat offenders back on the streets. Bill C-5 repealed mandatory jail time for serious offences, like extortion with a firearm or trafficking hard drugs like fentanyl. Thus, not only are we letting criminals with many offences roam free; we are also letting the ones who have performed the most serious offences at the highest frequency roam free. This is the pro-criminal world that the Liberals have legislated into being.

How do we stop the Liberal madness? The first step is clear: Put law-abiding Canadians above the well-being of repeat offenders. When we put hard-working, law-abiding and tax-paying Canadians first, at the top of our hierarchy, the policy suite to serve them unfolds naturally. We must disincentivize the crime that harms our law-abiding society, by locking up the repeat offenders rather than letting them roam free.

It is not hard to understand how disincentives work. When a toddler touches a hot stove and burns their hand, they will learn not to touch the stove again. Through this feedback loop, the child will learn not to repeat the mistake. Human behaviour is like a river flowing down a mountain. We can either dig grooves to enhance the flow down one path, or we can build dams to block the flow down another. The Liberals have been allowing the river of crime to flow unimpeded. We Conservatives plan on setting up some more dams.

Having addressed the failure of Bill C-12 to secure our borders on the drug front, let me redirect attention to how Bill C-12 would fail to do so on the asylum front as well.

Canada's asylum system was set up to protect truly vulnerable people, like those from Hong Kong or Ukraine. We cannot resettle every economic migrant claiming asylum to get a free hotel stay. However, this is our current state of affairs. We have made the asylum route a lucrative one and have incentivized it. We give hotel rooms to people with bogus asylum claims, while hard-working Canadians struggle with housing, health care and jobs amidst a general cost of living crisis, and while legitimately vulnerable people from Hong Kong and Ukraine have been left in limbo on their path to permanent residence, despite already being in Canada.

All that Bill C-12 would accomplish is to shift the burden to the courts, which is another half measure among half measures, as the Liberals choose not to see the bad actors and choose not to hear the vulnerable.

Let me bring my Liberal colleagues the voices of the vulnerable. I was shocked to discover that on October 9, the estimated time for processing individuals under the Hong Kong pathways to permanent residence was revised to being upwards of 10 years. My constituency staff have seen the processing times for cases of applications that have been situated in the IRCC pipeline for years jump from 25 months to 48 months after the October 9 threshold. For those who submitted their application this summer, processing times went from 25 months at submission to 10 years after October 9 . In the best of cases, it is a doubling of processing, and in the worst of cases, it is a quintupling of processing. In all cases, there are lives ruined and families put in peril.

Hong Kongers are a case study of a people that has integrated into our society. They do not take handouts. They are taxpayers who contribute to the system instead of getting free hotel stays on the backs of hard-working Canadians.

The Liberals can secure our borders from their out-of-control asylum system by removing all the benefits. A single action like this would have sweeping effects, and yet the Liberals have chosen the path of half measures.

In conclusion, my message today about Bill C-12 can be expressed in two concepts: incentives and disincentives. All we have to do is to stop incentivizing behaviours we no longer wish to see and to start disincentivizing behaviours we want to end. We cannot secure our borders with half measures that dance around the core problem.

People are the actors; people do things, so to stop bad actors from doing bad things, we must build systems of incentives and disincentives around the bad actors themselves. This is only impossible to do when we actually love and esteem the bad actors above the hard-working, law-abiding and taxpaying Canadians. As it stands, structurally, Bill C-12 does not see the bad actors and does not hear the legitimately vulnerable. Bill C-12 is a bundle of half measures that would not secure our borders.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-12 today.

Conservatives have forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2. That bill would have given the government broad powers to access Canadians' personal information from banks, telecoms and other service providers without a warrant. The Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the Liberals did not consult him before proposing these sweeping powers.

Law-abiding Canadians should not lose their freedoms because of the Liberals' overreach. Now the Liberals have introduced Bill C-12. Conservatives will examine the legislation carefully. We need to ensure that it does not infringe on Canadians' privacy rights. We will hold the government accountable to protect individual freedoms and ensure transparency in how it exercises its power.

Bill C-12 is a broad omnibus bill. It includes changes to border security, crime prevention, privacy laws and immigration. For example, it amends the Customs Act to allow the CBSA to use facilities free of charge for enforcement. That is good for the budget.

Bill C-12 also amends the Oceans Act. It enables the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and share information with law enforcement and intelligence partners. It increases penalties for money-laundering violations and expands FINTRAC's authority. That is laudable. However, it also allows for more information sharing between government departments, raising serious concerns about privacy protections. We will not allow the Liberals to quietly erode Canadians' rights in the name of administrative efficiency.

Some of the most troubling parts of Bill C-2 have been removed, such as part 4, which allowed Canada Post to open any mail, including letters, without a warrant, as well as part 11, which banned cash payments and donations over $10,000. Those were egregious overreaches. It was due to pressure from the Conservatives that, thankfully, those parts were removed. However, my Conservative colleagues and I believe this still falls short on many issues facing everyday Canadians.

For example, crime is rising across Canada. Since 2015, violent crime has increased by 37% in my home province of Alberta. Nationally, homicides are up nearly 28%. Gang-related homicides have risen 78%. Firearms-related violent offences have more than doubled, rising 116%. Extortion is up a whopping 400% in Alberta, and sexual assaults have increased by 75%. These are alarming trends. The Liberals' soft-on-crime policies are making our communities less safe.

Bill C-75, passed in 2019, introduced a principle of restraint on the granting of bail and prioritized early release for offenders in lieu of public safety. This has led to catch-and-release practices for serious criminals, including those trafficking fentanyl and firearms. Bill C-5, passed in 2022, repealed mandatory prison sentences for crimes involving firearms and reinstated house arrest for serious offences, such as sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking.

These changes send the wrong message to Canadians and put people at risk. Conservatives proposed Bill C-325 to reverse those changes and strengthen sentencing. The Liberals and the NDP voted against it.

While Bill C-12 does well in filling in an important loophole by banning precursors of fentanyl, it fails to address sentencing for fentanyl dealers. Tougher penalties for traffickers and producers are essential if we are serious about stopping the spread of this and other deadly drugs.

The fentanyl crisis demands urgent action. From January 2016 to June 2024, over 49,000 Canadians died from apparent opioid toxicity. Nearly 80% of those deaths involved fentanyl. Emergency visits for fentanyl poisoning have more than doubled since 2018. This is unacceptable. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister downplayed the opioid crisis during a campaign stop in Kelowna, calling it only a “challenge”. That is deeply offensive to the families of the more than 49,000 Canadians who have died from overdoses in under 10 years.

We are seeing the impact in communities across the country. Just this week, in Medicine Hat, police and ALERT carried out a major drug bust, seizing 598 grams of fentanyl, as well as other illicit drugs and cash. That amount of fentanyl alone represents nearly 300,000 fatal doses.

Across Canada, fentanyl superlabs are producing massive quantities of this deadly drug, and police in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have seized tens of kilograms of fentanyl and thousands of kilograms of precursor chemicals. These operations often include stockpiles of weapons and explosives and pose a serious threat to public safety, yet the government's response still falls short. Without tougher sentences and stronger enforcement, fentanyl will continue to devastate families and communities.

The Liberals have also refused to back down from supporting safe consumption sites near schools. My Conservative colleague from Riding Mountain called on the government to shut down these sites near children. The health minister suggested more might be approved, even after admitting that these locations often become hot spots for fentanyl use.

Law-abiding Canadians deserve better. They deserve strong protections for privacy and freedom. They deserve laws that keep our communities safe and hold criminals accountable. They deserve a government that takes the drug crisis seriously, not one that shrugs it off as a mere challenge.

Bill C-12 also touches on immigration and asylum, areas where Canadians' compassion has been abused by the government. Canadians are generous and fair-minded, but that must never be taken for granted or exploited.

The Liberals have exploited Canadians for the past decade on this matter. A decade ago, Canada's asylum system was in control. The backlog accounted for fewer than 10,000 cases. Today, that number has exploded into the hundreds of thousands, and many of these claims are bogus. This is unacceptable.

Let me be clear that it is wrong to jump the line. It is unfair to take advantage of a system that was built to protect people fleeing real persecution. There are Nigerian Christians who face death for their faith. There are Ukrainians fleeing war. In decades past, Canada opened its doors to Vietnamese boat people escaping communism. These are the people our asylum system should protect.

My own father fled Communist East Germany with nothing but his hands, his family and the hope that Alberta would be a place where his children could live freely and safely. He came to Canada the fair and legal way. He never cut corners or skipped the line.

When false claims flood the system, it is real refugees and hard-working Canadians who pay the price. Our housing crisis worsens. Emergency rooms are overwhelmed. Many Canadians still do not have a family doctor. Classrooms are overcrowded. Teachers are struggling and students are falling behind. All across the country, essential services are stretched beyond capacity, and we need a system that protects the most vulnerable, not one that rewards abuse.

Our asylum system was designed to help those fleeing persecution, in accordance with the 1951 UN refugee convention. It was never intended to become a back door for economic migration, but that is exactly what is happening under the Liberal government.

Social media posts are now encouraging temporary residents to claim asylum as a way to stay in Canada after their student visas or work permits expire. This is a dangerous trend. It undermines the credibility, the capability and the fabric of our immigration system and hurts those who truly need Canada's protection.

Bill C-12, in parts 5 through 8, proposes several changes to our immigration and refugee system, but these changes do not go nearly far enough. The bill would largely shift responsibility away from the government and onto the courts, and it would permit certain actions through regulation instead of legislating clear, enforceable rules. Without strong enforcement mechanisms, meaningful change will not follow.

The bill also includes a proposed change to the safe third country agreement, but it fails to explain how or when it will be negotiated with the United States. In the meantime, Canada continues to accept asylum claims from G7 countries that are safe, democratic and fully capable of protecting their own citizens.

The Liberal government's record on immigration and refugee integrity is clear: The backlog has soared, the rules are weak and the system is being abused.

Conservatives believe in a compassionate and rules-based immigration system, one that prioritizes those most at risk, treats Canadians and newcomers with respect and restores integrity to the asylum process. Future performance is best demonstrated by past behaviour, and the Liberal government has not shown us anything promising in the last 10 years. Only Conservatives will stand up for Canadians' individual freedoms, their safety and the integrity of the systems that make this country strong.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Riding Mountain.

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime that 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, just two offenders in Swan River were responsible for over 150 responses and offences.

Petitioners continue to suffer the consequences of soft-on-crime Liberal policies, such as 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 street.

Petitioners in the Swan River Valley want to see an end to the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies so that criminals stay behind bars. This is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail for repeat violent offenders.

I support the good people of Swan River.

Justice

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South to ask the government once again to address a critical issue facing communities not just in my riding but across the country, which is the rampant lawlessness that exists on streets across this wonderful nation. Specifically, we are talking about drugs and people who are responsible for unleashing vast quantities of lethal, toxic drugs, yet still find themselves able to partake in the revolving-door bail system the Liberal government has allowed to blossom over the last 10 years.

Just to set the scene, I want to give a couple of very staggering statistics.

We know that fentanyl accounts for nearly two-thirds of opioid fatalities in Canada. We know that since 2015, there have been tens of thousands of opioid deaths, with a 255% increase since the Liberals took office. We know the Liberal government has rejected Conservative proposals to treat fentanyl kingpins as the mass murderers they are.

When I first rose to ask this question of the justice minister, the public health officials in my riding had released an advisory saying that carfentanil, a substance multiple times more fatal than fentanyl, was being found by authorities with greater frequency in the community of St. Thomas and the surrounding areas. People are dying, and the people responsible are walking free.

We cannot look at this issue in isolation from the other crime and justice issues that have been allowed to fester under the Liberal government. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice has sent a representative to address these questions with a prepared statement. No doubt the government will talk about the forthcoming bail legislation it has been promising for months.

However, the more we learn about it, the more we learn that it does not deal with the root of the problem. It does not undo the principle of restraint that the Liberal government embedded in the Criminal Code in Bill C-75, which is a provision that law enforcement officials have told us has directly caused the early releases of repeat, often violent offenders and, yes, drug traffickers on bail. They have told us this, by the way, every week as we investigate this at the justice committee. This Criminal Code provision says that they must be released at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions.

There is no meaningful bail reform if the Liberal government does not commit to repealing the principle of restraint. That is the commitment that Canadians, who are looking at rampant criminality on their streets, deserve to hear from the Liberal government.

The reason this is so important is that crime has victims. Even non-violent crime, property crime, is a menace to communities. Businesses are dealing with the consequences of people addicted to drugs; those people absolutely deserve treatment and support, but this cannot come at the expense of looking at public safety as the first priority.

Therefore, my question for the government is this: Will it, once and for all, put public safety first and repeal the principle of restraint to fix Liberal bail?

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?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if members are familiar with the story of Gabie Renaud, the woman who was killed four weeks ago in Saint‑Jérôme, Quebec, by a man who had been arrested 30 times and had failed to comply with his release conditions 16 times. All of this was caused by Liberal catch-and-release laws, like Bill C‑75.

There is actually some good news. My colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C‑242, which was drafted in consultation with police officers and victims' groups. This bill is ready to be passed right away.

Will the Prime Minister ask his government and his MPs to vote today, following question period, to advance the member for Oxford's bill, yes or no?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail has caused a bloodbath of crime in communities nationwide. The culprit is Bill C-75, the catch-and-release Liberal bail law. The Prime Minister has kept that awful law in place over his last six months in power, but Conservatives have been taking advice from police and victims to draft a new bill to scrap Liberal bail and bring peace to our streets. The House votes on it today. Victims and police are watching.

Will the Prime Minister put partisanship aside and vote to scrap Liberal bail?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about the things they will do. They can do something today and vote for our motion for jail not bail. The Liberals' criminal experiments have unleashed a wave of violence on our streets. Police and victims agree Bill C-75 is the problem. The Prime Minister talks tough on crime, but he has had six months and he has done nothing. Conservatives are listening, and that is why we put our jail not bail bill up for vote today. This country is watching this vote.

When will the Liberals finally get on board and stop giving the criminals a free pass?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member's question, it is clear that there are several deficiencies with the approach that he has put forward.

First, Bill C-75 actually made it harder for offenders who have been charged with intimate partner violence to be released on bail. He would make it easier for them to get out into our communities.

Second, he claims to have engaged with law enforcement in the formation of the bill. When we look at the measures they are proposing to put forward, they barely scratch the surface of what law enforcement has told us in the first few minutes of conversations.

We have a comprehensive set of reforms coming to the bail system that will be designed to make communities safer. I hope that in the next number of weeks, when the bill comes forward, Conservatives will finally do something—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail laws have unleashed a bloodbath of violent crime across the country. Bill C-75, the catch-and-release Liberal bail law, is the problem. The Prime Minister has kept Liberal bail in place, causing more bloodshed over his last six months.

Conservatives listened to police and victims and drafted a bill to end Liberal bail and restore city streets. The vote is today. Victims and frontline officers are watching the government.

Will the Prime Minister stop protecting criminals, put politics aside and vote to scrap Liberal bail?

Military Justice System Modernization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 reduced the conditions on the principle of restraint, allowing those who commit sexual offences to be released on bail very easily. It allows them to be repeat offenders. That will now permeate the Canadian Armed Forces, as well, because of the soft-on-crime approach taken by the Liberals. With Bill C-5, they got rid of a lot of the mandatory minimums so that repeat sexual offenders can now serve their sentences at home. That includes sexual assault, sexual exploitation and sexual interference.

What is the purpose if those who are committing these crimes are allowed to continue to serve in the Canadian Forces at their leisure?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the shadow minister for national defence, I am always honoured to stand in this place to talk about the great work of the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and how we can do more to support them, which is what Bill C-11 is trying to do.

The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect Canada, protect our citizens, as well as to protect those who serve us. There has been a rapid escalation of threats, and what we are facing in Canada is continuing to evolve. There is Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. There is the ongoing conflict we are seeing with Hamas first attacking Israel and now Israel's clearing operation to neutralize the terrorists in the Gaza Strip. There is the ongoing escalation we are experiencing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait as the People's Liberation Army Navy of China continues to escalate in that region, using air power, as well as resources and its coast guard to exercise its power in the region but ignoring international rules such as UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Those hostile powers want our resources, whether in the Arctic or our maritime domain, and they want to be within striking distance of our continent. We have to do more to protect ourselves here and invest in our military. This means supporting those who serve us. As Conservatives, we take our national security very seriously and want to make sure we always put that first and foremost. This is why we have to invest in the people, in their kit and in the training they need to undertake to deal with the hybrid warfare, the asymmetrical warfare, we are experiencing around the world.

First and foremost, Conservatives have always said and believed that those who serve, who proudly put on the uniform, are the best of the best Canada has to offer. They deserve to have a respectful workplace that is free of discrimination, racism, sexual misconduct, and abuse of authority and position. All members deserve to be respected. We also believe that the victims, those who are dealing with military sexual trauma, deserve justice. We hope this is going to culminate in the move from the military justice system to the civilian system, if the capacity is there and it would actually result in prosecutions and true justice for the victims of sexual trauma in the military.

It has been years: The Liberal government has been in power for 10 years. There have actually been three reports done. The first report came out in 2015, and it is interesting to note that the only time the current Minister of National Defence and I have had an interchange in the House on military sexual misconduct was when he was a member of the third party and the Liberals were sitting way down in that far corner. I was the parliamentary secretary for defence, and he asked a question about what steps we were taking. At that time, we had initiated the Madam Justice Deschamps report, and Justice Deschamps had made 10 recommendations.

Then of course there was an election, and that report sat on the corner of the desk of both former chief of the defence staff Jon Vance and former minister of defence Harjit Sajjan and collected dust. They did nothing during that time. There was then the Jon Vance scandal and all of that, and I will talk about that a bit later.

We know that through the process, the Liberals finally took action. There was the Arbour report and now the Fish report, which brought about some of the things that would happen with Bill C-11. However, it has taken 10 years to get to where we are today. For 10 long years, the Liberals sat on their hands and did nothing to actually change the National Defence Act and the military justice system under it.

When we look at Bill C-11, we are concerned that it would potentially open the door for more political interference. There would be an opportunity for partisan-style appointments, such as the Liberals' giving more power to the minister of national defence to issue guidelines with respect to prosecutions. That would not happen in the normal system in Canada because it would be considered political interference. The Liberals would also be changing the appointment process in that the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal are all now going to be appointed by the Governor in Council rather than the minister. We know that when things go into the PMO and into cabinet, things become quite political and partisan.

Conservatives will continue to support those in the armed forces, and we are going to make sure that we are carefully studying Bill C-11 to ensure that concerns from all stakeholders, including those in the military justice system, those in the defence industry and, especially, those who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as victims' rights groups, and that their voices are heard when we study this at committee.

As I said earlier, Bill C-11 is the former Bill C-66, with minor tweaks in language, translations and interpretation of certain clauses: 6, 67 and 68. It would amend the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction of most offences of a sexual nature from the military justice system to civilian authorities, including the courts, municipal police, provincial police and the RCMP. This would depend on the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, with the exception of a sexual offence that takes place outside Canada when troops are deployed. In that case, those who are deployed would have access to the current regulations under the military justice system and the National Defence Act, and military police and the JAG, the judge advocate general's office, would still undertake those investigations with the national investigative service.

We know that section 273 of the National Defence Act provides for that. It has provided for the way that this has been dealt with historically, but there is concern about whether the civilian courts would have the capacity to take on extra cases in those jurisdictions, from the standpoint of both the court level and the police level. What are they going to do with historic cases? We already know of historic cases that have been transferred into the civilian court system that have not resulted in convictions. Instead, we have seen high-level flag officers and general officers who were found innocent or had their proceedings stayed; we have seen cases that the Crown rejected because of the way the evidence was collected by the military police and the national investigative service of the Canadian Armed Forces. We question whether that provides the justice that the victims were looking for. We definitely want to make sure that all are given a fair trial and that we support those who were erroneously charged in the first place.

What are we doing about the issue of capacity, as was previously asked by my colleague, within the military police and national investigative service when they have to do investigations outside Canada? How do they coordinate with provincial, municipal and RCMP police agencies when we are talking about things that happened on base and will require investigations done by local authorities?

Bill C-11 seeks to increase the independence within the military, one of the recommendations coming from Madam Arbour and Justice Fish, so we would avoid a situation like what happened with Jon Vance. Because he was chief of the defence staff and everybody reported to him, nobody was prepared to take on that investigation and prosecute, including the then minister of national defence, who actually had authority over the chief of the defence staff. Harjit Sajjan refused to accept evidence and walked away.

We know there are questions about how this would all work. The provost marshal, who has traditionally been a colonel, would be made a general, so we are seeing a creep of the number of flag officers again.

Conservatives question the term limits. There is an inconsistency here on how people are being appointed, now being done through order in council in the Prime Minister's Office, and we know there is going to be the ongoing issue of the length of terms: Some are for four years; some are going to be eligible for reappointment whereas some are not. Some are for seven years, and some are for 10 years. It just gets a little confusing in terms of how this is all going to work.

When we talk about the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, we just want to make sure there is a criterion as to what we want to see for qualifications for service in positions that normally would have reported to the vice-chief of the defence staff and/or the judge advocate general. Those things are going to give these guys their independence, so they report straight to the minister and to the government. There are questions about chain of command and how that is going to work. However, these are things we can look at in committee. The same is true for the director of defence counsel services.

Consistency is important here. Qualifications are important in these appointments. We want to make sure the partisanship that happens within the Prime Minister's Office does not percolate into the Canadian Armed Forces through those who serve the forces.

The minister talked about trust. As I suggested in my question for him, Liberals cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to talking about bad political appointments. If we look at 2022, the Liberals appointed Laith Marouf to do a project. It turned out he was an anti-Semite, but they were supposed to be working on diversity. The Liberals appointed Martine Richard as the Ethics Commissioner. She had to drop out because she was related to one of the cabinet ministers, who currently sits today. It was a complete conflict of interest. They appointed Birju Dattani as the human rights commissioner; he turned out to be anti-Semitic. Of course, it was another terrible appointment by the Liberals.

Justin Trudeau completely ignored the Ethics Commissioner's warning about appointing Annette Verschuren as the head of the green slush fund. This resulted in a huge scandal of over $2.1 billion that she and her cohorts were able to take from that Liberal slush fund and stuff into their own pockets. We should not forget the current Prime Minister recently appointed Doug Guzman as CEO to the defence investment agency. It turns out Doug Guzman is a former banking buddy of the Prime Minister's from Goldman Sachs.

I do not know if we need to have these close personal friends and partisan Liberal bagmen actually getting these types of appointments. I would hate to see this being the case when we look at appointments within the national defence apparatus, when we look at those who are going to be in charge of our military justice system. That would not be fair.

The Liberals also cannot be trusted when it comes to criminal justice. They have been soft on crime right from the beginning. Bill C-75 brought in the whole principle of restraint, which puts the least onerous conditions on those who are seeking bail. This is where we get bail, not jail and repeat violent offenders going back on the street. Now, potentially, those who are committing sexual assaults within the Canadian Armed Forces will have access to that same lax and soft-on-crime approach the Liberals have implemented.

Bill C-5 is another reason we should not trust the Liberals when it comes to reforming the military justice system. The bill reformed the criminal justice system by repealing mandatory jail time and allowing very serious violent offenders to serve their sentences at home. This includes getting house arrest, not jail time, if they commit sexual assault, sexual interference or sexual exploitation. Those conditions are now going to be transferred from the military justice system, or the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, to the civilian system, which the Liberals have almost completely destroyed.

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot trust the Liberals when it comes to dealing with sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces; our members know that. Again, it has been 10 years since Madam Justice Deschamps brought forward her recommendations in her report, and they did nothing, which could have stymied this whole problem.

Take Jon Vance, who was CDS at the time. He started up, after the Liberals formed government, Operation Honour, which turned into a complete fiasco and did nothing to support victims, did nothing to stop sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and did not live up to the code of service discipline and the ethics that those who serve should be living up to.

As I said, we know that Minister Sajjan, at that time in 2018, refused the evidence of the sexual misconduct charge against Jon Vance. We know there are memos that went back and forth between the minister's office and the Prime Minister's Office on how they could cover this up to protect Jonathan Vance and, later, also protect Minister Sajjan for not acting upon evidence that was given to somebody who reported directly to him.

Gary Walbourne, who was the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman at the time, tried to provide that evidence and was pushed away. He was completely in the right because the only person who could deal with it in the chain of command was the Minister of National Defence. We know this went back and forth. We did an in-depth study of this in the Standing Committee on National Defence. I was vice-chair at the time, as I am vice-chair right now.

That was covered up by the Prime Minister's Office through Justin Trudeau, Katie Telford and Zita Astravas. They continued to cover up that sexual misconduct and protect the minister and Jon Vance, which is beyond me. At the end of the day, when it came to charging him and prosecuting within the civilian court, the government accepted the lesser charge of obstruction of justice. It never prosecuted on sexual misconduct and sexual assault. That, again, does not live up to victims' rights in any way, shape or form. The victims of Jon Vance still feel that they were never properly served or got the justice they deserved.

This went on. The defence committee was suspended for months on end. The chair of the committee, Karen McCrimmon, refused to hear testimony and motions. She kept suspending meetings. We were in the same meeting for three months and could not do our work as the defence committee, and we could not do our work as parliamentarians. I firmly believe that our privileges as parliamentarians were violated through that process.

We did find out, through that study, that the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's Office, former prime minister Justin Trudeau and Katie Telford were all aware of this over the entire three-year investigation.

To make things even worse, at the end of the day, even though Harjit Sajjan, the minister of defence at the time, knew about the sexual misconduct and the gravity of the problem that was happening within the Canadian Armed Forces, the government still gave Jon Vance a raise as the chief of the defence staff. That, I think, was just adding insult to injury.

We know that when it comes to political interference, the Liberals cannot be trusted. We can look at the ongoing F-35 debacle and how they continue to politicize the procurement. Our Royal Canadian Air Force and our Canadian Armed Forces right up to the chief of the defence staff today have all said that this is the jet they need and that we should buy more of them. Of course, the Liberals continue to play political football and kick the can and delay that procurement, which is only undermining the ability of the Royal Canadian Air Force to protect us here at home and work alongside our allies.

We know about things like cash for access and the wealthy Chinese billionaires that Justin Trudeau was involved with. We know they tried to cover up the expensive holiday that the former prime minister took on his private island. The ethics commissioners found multiple breaches. We know about the witch hunt that went after former vice-admiral Mark Norman back in 2018, which was politically motivated.

We cannot trust the Liberals. They have failed our Canadian Armed Forces. They have failed our brave women and men. Our warships continue to rust out. Our jets are worn out. The army has been hollowed out and our troops no longer feel like they are respected and honoured by the government.

When we really dig in and look at Liberal policies, it is a book of empty promises, like the 2017 defence policy and the defence policy update, which are all irrelevant. The government has allowed money to lapse. Because of this lack of respect for our forces, we have a recruitment problem. We are short over 13,000 troops today. Over 10,000 are undertrained and undeployable. Our forces are short 6,700 houses.

Conservatives will rectify all the mismanagement and wrongs of the Liberal government and serve our Canadian Armed Forces.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition on behalf on the constituents 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 violent repeat offenders right back onto the streets. The petitioners in the Swan Valley want to see the 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.

Justice

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal bail law, Bill C-75, unleashed crime and chaos on our streets, releasing violent criminals at the earliest opportunity. While out on bail in Kelowna, a man convicted on domestic violence charges just hours before allegedly killed Bailey McCourt with a hammer. The Prime Minister promised Liberals would flip-flop on bail, but the Liberal laws are still in place six months after he took power.

Will the Prime Minister scrap Liberal bail or get out of the way so Conservatives can get it done?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have said it time and time again: The Minister of Justice will be introducing bail reform legislation this fall. We hope that if the Conservatives are really serious about doing the work, they will support this new legislation.

Let me remind the member opposite that the reality is this: In former Bill C-75, we strengthened Canada's response by defining “intimate partner violence” in the Criminal Code and created a reverse onus for repeat IPV offenders.

Canadians deserve a debate based on the facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a bill that makes it harder for IPV offenders to get bail, they should do so and face the backlash from Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have unleashed crime and chaos on our streets. Bill C-75 said that repeat offenders need to be released at the earliest possible occasion on the least onerous conditions. Just this week in Kelowna, it was reported that 15 offenders were responsible for over 1,300 police calls. The Liberals promised we would get bail reform. We have seen nothing. Talk about a bait and switch.

Conservatives have a common-sense plan to scrap Liberal bail reform. Will the Liberals get behind us or let us do it for ourselves, yes or no?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail has unleashed crime and chaos on our streets. The Liberals' law, Bill C-75, requires courts to release violent career criminals at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. Just two weeks ago in Regina, a man under a probation order terrorized a neighbourhood by chasing multiple people down the street with a machete.

The Prime Minister promised to flip-flop on bail, but his bail laws are still in place six months after taking power. Will the Prime Minister scrap Liberal bail, or will he get out of the way and let us do it?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, business owners in my province feel like they are under siege. There are break-ins, theft, arson, smashed windows, extortion and open drug use. Prolific offenders are wreaking havoc on our streets. In Kelowna, a recent report reveals that just 15 criminals were responsible for over 1,300 police reports in 2024. The Liberals' catch-and-release Bill C-75 forces courts to release violent career criminals at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions.

Will the Prime Minister scrap his failed hug-a-thug policies and adopt our jail not bail bill, or will he get out of the way and let Conservatives do it?

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

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the seriousness of intimate partner violence. Addressing it requires tough laws and thoughtful laws developed with survivors, communities and all levels of government to achieve real solutions.

With Bill C-75, we strengthened Canada's response to IPV by defining an intimate partner in the Criminal Code, creating a reverse onus for repeat offenders and ensuring that judges consider prior convictions. Penalties are higher for repeat IPV, and it is shameful the Conservatives want to repeal this progress.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75, the Liberal soft-on-crime bill, allows violent offenders to be released on bail. These offenders are not being punished; the good people of Canada are. My community of Haldimand—Norfolk is still heartbroken by the murder of 28-year-old Greg Pierzchala, a constable at work who was killed by a violent offender released on bail.

The Prime Minister promised to reverse Liberal bail laws. Will he finally keep his word or get out of the way so Conservatives can fix this crime mess?

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, he is heckling me right now, and he is laughing. He is laughing at the suffering of those in my riding. It is gross, yet he continues to do this time and time again. I can just say, shame on him.

Madam Speaker, 53,000 Canadians have lost their lives in the overdose crisis since 2016. I will mention Brianna MacDonald, a 13-year-old who, last year, lost her life in a homeless encampment. She turned 13 on July 15, my son's birthday, and she was found deceased on my daughter's birthday, August 23. I will also mention Tyler Dunlap, 17 years of age. He was in the hospital the night before, getting his stomach pumped from an overdose. His parents, like Brianna's, pleaded with the doctors and the system to get their child help, to keep him in the hospital.

I am not sensationalizing this. These are real families who have lost loved ones because of the Liberals' failed drug policies. That is shameful. It is maddening.

What about the first responders? Every day, they have to respond to another overdose and bring somebody back from death only to have that person back on the street and overdosing later the same day.

What about my brother? He has been on the street gripped in addiction forever, a criminal, an addict. He is not a toss-away, nor are any of the Canadians who are living on the streets and who are just trying to exist, trying to get their next fix.

The reality is that Bill C-75 codified the principles of release to the point where there were three grounds to deny bail. Primary grounds are ensuring that the accused appears in court. The reality is that people with extensive previous counts of failing to appear are not being detained. There are good points in Bill C-75, but time and time again we are seeing that the most violent offenders are released, only to reoffend, cause death, assault.

No one stands for the victims. The criminals have more rights than the victims. Where are the voices for the victims? That is what our Conservative team is doing today, standing up for the rights of the victims of crimes, and we will continue to do that.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very much looking forward to the next speech, which will be offered by my friend from Cariboo—Prince George, who I will be splitting my time with. I know he will have insights, which are always unique, and I am very much looking forward to it.

Across the country, Canadians are experiencing something they never thought possible in Canada: a loss of trust in their own safety. For decades, one of the things that set Canada apart was the fact that families could feel safe and secure in their own homes. Business owners could work late without fear, and children could walk to school without a second thought. This sense of security is now being replaced by fear.

Just yesterday, I spoke with a small business owner in my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain. She told me that, for the very first time in her life, she is afraid to go out at night. She described knowing of one individual in her community who had been arrested more than 180 times. That person had 180 arrests, and every time that person was back on the streets almost immediately. She said to me, “Our streets are not safe anymore.”

That sentence should stop us in our tracks, because when Canadians begin to feel unsafe in their own communities, when fear starts to dictate the way we live our daily lives, then government has failed at one of its most fundamental duties, which is to protect its citizens. That failure is a direct result of Liberal bail policies. This is why we must scrap Liberal bail.

We need to be honest about how we made it here. The erosion of public safety is not a coincidence. It is the result of deliberate choices made by the Liberal government. When Liberals passed Bill C-75, they weakened bail conditions and lowered thresholds for release. They did this in the name of so-called fairness, but in reality what they created was a revolving door of justice.

Across the country, we see the same scenario playing out over and over again. A repeat violent offender is arrested, police officers do their jobs, charges are laid and then, sometimes within hours, the same offender is back on the streets free to reoffend. It is hard to describe the frustration police officers feel when they risk their lives to apprehend violent criminals only to see them walk free before the ink is even dry on the paper. That is the reality of Liberal bail. It is broken and dangerous, and it must end. It is time to scrap Liberal bail.

Yesterday I spoke withe Estevan's chief of police, Jamie Blunden. Chief Blunden is not only responsible for law enforcement in the city, but he also sits on the national police service of Canada and the national advisory committee, where he works directly with police leaders from across the country.

Chief Blunden told me something very important. He said that police chiefs from coast to coast to coast are united in supporting this bill. They know better than anyone what it looks like on the ground when repeat offenders are automatically released. They see the victims. They see the businesses broken into time and time again. They see the toll it takes on officers who arrest the same individuals over and over, with no real consequence.

When the people we trust to keep us safe are speaking with one voice, we must listen. Police chiefs are saying loud and clear to scrap Liberal bail and restore public safety.

We can talk about statistics. Violent crime up 39% since the Liberals took office. Gang-related homicides have doubled, and car thefts are at record highs. Behind every number is a victim. This is not compassion. This is not fairness. This is failure. It is the failure of Liberal bail. If we are to restore safety and dignity to victims, then we must scrap Liberal bail once and for all.

Conservatives believe in a simple principle: If someone repeatedly breaks the law and endangers the public, they should not be granted the privilege of bail. Public safety must come first.

Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, is rooted in that principle. This legislation would ensure that repeat offenders are kept behind bars until trial, end the automatic release of criminals who have proven time and time again that they have no respect for the law, and put the rights of victims and communities ahead of the rights of repeat offenders. This bill is not about vengeance. It is about safety, deterrence and restoring faith in our justice system. It is about replacing a failed policy with a common-sense one. It is about making a clear choice to scrap Liberal bail and replace it with Conservative common sense.

Sometimes people think that crime is a big-city problem, something happening only in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, but that is not true anymore. It is also in communities like Estevan, Weyburn and Moosomin. Residents are telling me the same thing: Crime is growing, repeat offenders are emboldened and people feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood. When rural Canadians who have taken pride in their safety in their close-knit towns start telling their MPs they are afraid to leave their own house after dark, that should be a warning sign for the rest of the country. This is not just about big cities; it is about every community, every neighbourhood and every Canadian.

That is why it is time to scrap Liberal bail. Victims' rights must come first. It is worth reminding ourselves that our justice system is not meant to protect only the rights of the accused; it must also protect the rights of victims. Victims deserve to feel that justice is being done. Communities deserve to feel that the system is working to keep them safe.

Right now, under the Liberal catch-and-release system, victims are left feeling abandoned, and communities are left feeling vulnerable. Conservatives believe that this is the time to put the rights of victims and the safety of communities back at the centre of our justice system. To do that, we need to end the failed experiment of catch-and-release. We need to scrap Liberal bail.

Public safety is the first duty of government. The very first duty of any government is to keep its citizens safe. Everything else, our prosperity, our freedoms and our sense of community, depends on that foundation. The Liberals have neglected that duty. They have chosen ideology over common sense. They have chosen to prioritize repeat offenders over the safety of ordinary Canadians, and Canadians are paying the price.

However, Conservatives are offering a different path: a path where dangerous repeat offenders are held accountable; a path where police officers are supported, not undermined; and a path where business owners, parents and seniors can feel safe again in their communities. That path starts when we scrap Liberal bail.

It is important to remember that bail was never meant to be automatic. The original intent of bail was to balance two things: the presumption of innocence and the protection of society. When someone posed a clear risk to the community, bail was never supposed to be granted.

What the Liberals have done is strip away that balance. They have tilted the system so heavily in favour of offenders that the protection of society has been forgotten. That is why Canadians are seeing violent repeat offenders back on the street time and time again. That is why victims are losing faith. That is why police are calling for change. To restore the balance, we must return to common sense, and that means it is time to scrap Liberal bail.

I return to the words of my constituent, the small business owner who told me she is afraid to walk outside at night. That fear should never be normal in Canada. I also return to the words of Chief Jamie Blunden, who told me that police chiefs across the country support the bill. When citizens and law enforcement are both calling for the same thing, the House has a duty to act.

The Liberals have chosen leniency and ideology, and this has left Canadians vulnerable. Conservatives choose accountability, common sense and public safety. The choice before us is clear: protect Canadians or protect criminals. Conservatives are choosing Canadians. Conservatives are choosing public safety. Conservatives are choosing to scrap Liberal bail.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. Canadians deserve to feel safe again in their home, their street and their community.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the government is committed to strict measures against violent offenders, yet it continues to fuel violent crime by refusing to repeal Bill C-75.

The Liberals complain about Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Conservatives bringing in minimum sentences that they claim hampered judges' independence, but they were proven to reduce the number of incarcerations. By comparison, their bail reform law, Bill C-75, forces judges to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity under the least onerous conditions. It has emboldened violent criminals to offend again and again.

Does the member not see an increase in violent crime today as a result of the impact of these repeat offenders taking advantage of their new freedom to terrorize Canadians?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, can the member acknowledge that when the Liberals changed Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, there was an increase in crime across our country? Will the member acknowledge that the action taken by the government, specifically in my province of British Columbia, to decriminalize hard drugs was one of the worst policy failures in the history of Canada?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of my riding of Kitchener Centre. I rise not just as a member of Parliament today but as a representative of a community. My community, Kitchener, is hurting. It is hurting from rising crime, broken trust and a justice system that no longer puts public safety first.

After a summer of violent crime and eroded trust in our public safety, Canadians are demanding swift action and they have every right to do so. Across this country, violent crime is up 55%. Firearms offences from non-law-abiding citizens have surged by 130%, and extortion has skyrocketed by 330%. These are not just statistics. They represent shattered lives, grieving families and communities living in fear.

This crisis did not happen by accident. In 2019, the Liberal government passed Bill C-75, which forced judges to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity under the least restrictive conditions. As a result, there is a revolving door by which repeat violent offenders end up back on our streets. I want to be clear: This is a crisis of the Liberals' own making, and Canadians are left to live with the devastating consequences.

I will be splitting my time today.

We have all heard the heartbreaking stories. One that stays with me is that of Daniel Senecal. He was convicted of sexual assault, released under weakened bail laws and then accused of sexually assaulting a three-year-old child, whom we have come to know as little E. This three-year-old child has had to spend three weeks in the hospital recovering from this unimaginable, irrevocable act, and she will be scarred for life. She is a child. That is the cost of this system, which prioritizes offenders over victims.

There is also Scott Weller, a victim of a violent home invasion. Scott said, “As someone who knows firsthand the trauma of a violent home invasion, I believe strongly in the need for Jail not Bail. My family was attacked in what should have been the safety of our own home. The idea that violent offenders could be released back onto our streets is terrifying—not just for us, but for every Canadian family.” Scott's words are powerful. They remind us that public safety must come first, that the rights of victims and families must come before the rights of violent offenders.

The Toronto Police Association put it plainly: “The proposed ideas will put victims and communities first, restoring the balance that is desperately needed at a time when youth violence and gun crimes are out of control and innocent victims are paying the ultimate price.” This is why Conservatives are introducing Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. The bill would restore accountability, protect communities and put victims first.

I will bring this closer to my riding in Kitchener. In the region of Waterloo, in 2024 alone, there were 3,896 undertakings and 2,334 releases. That is a 61% release rate. This means that the majority of the accused individuals were sent back into our neighbourhoods. What is even more troubling is that approximately 50% of the charges brought forward by the Waterloo Regional Police are not being pursued by Crown prosecution. That is half of these cases gone. They are not prosecuted; they are gone.

Of those released on an undertaking or release order in 2023 and 2024, 20% were found to be in disregard of the terms of their release. What is worse is that more than half of those offenders were caught multiple times. These are the repeat offenders we need off our streets.

I received an email today from Anke, a 76-year-old woman in my community. She told me that she is nervous to walk around her community in broad daylight. She wants us to restore Canada to what it was, making it safe for her children and grandchildren.

Families are not the only ones suffering. Businesses in the downtown core of Kitchener Centre are struggling. They are being broken into. Their customers are afraid to come downtown. The rise in crime is hurting our business community of hard-working entrepreneurs, who are trying to keep their doors open and staff safe.

Public safety is economic safety, and right now both are at risk, but perhaps the most disturbing example is what happened recently in my own community: the sexual assault and attempted kidnapping of a six-year-old child. The accused was released on conditions and is still residing in the same community where that child lives. This is not okay. Our children's safety is at risk. No parent should have to live with the fear that a violent offender is living down the street. No child should be put in harm's way because our justice system has failed to act.

Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, would, first, repeal the Liberal principle of restraint and replace it with a directive that public protection and safety be the primary consideration. Second, it would create a new major offences category with reverse-onus bail conditions for charges like firearm offences, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault.

Third, it would strengthen bail laws by requiring judges to consider an accused's full criminal history and by preventing bail for anyone convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years who is now charged again. Fourth, it would toughen the risk assessment standard from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonably foreseeable”. Fifth, it would prohibit anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor. We would enforce bail conditions on guarantors and require non-residents to surrender their passport upon request.

This is not about being punitive; it is about being responsible. It is about restoring order to our streets, trust in our justice system and confidence in our communities. Conservatives are calling on all political parties to set aside political differences and to do what is right. Canadians deserve a justice system that protects them and enables them, not repeat offenders.

To every victim, every family, every child, every business owner and every community that has lived through the trauma of violence, I say that Conservatives hear them. We stand with them. We are taking action. They deserve to learn, live and work in safe streets, to go to bed without worry, to know their children can play safely in their yard and their park, and to live in the Canada we lived in before the Liberals' Bill C-75, the “get out of jail free card” act.

Let us restore justice. Let us restore confidence in public safety. Let us pass Bill C-242, the jail not bail act.

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

Mr. Speaker, imagine for a moment a father sleeping peacefully at home with his wife and kids, when violent thugs kick in their door and break into their home. He does what any husband would do: He tries to protect his family. Then he is fatally shot and murdered. This is not a scene from a Hollywood production; this was the reality for Aleem Farooqi and his family in Vaughan when Aleem was gunned down defending his family, a true hero.

Imagine someone waking up in the morning in their home to find out that their car in the driveway, right below where their children sleep, was almost stolen the night before. That is what happened to me back in August of this year, and I am not special. This has happened to numerous people in Vaughan—Woodbridge and thousands of Canadians all across this country. In my community, everybody knows someone who has had a car stolen. In fact, in the last eight weeks, York Region has seen 296 vehicle thefts. How about gun violence? In the last eight weeks, we have had 10 shootings and a bank robbery.

Last month, I attended a press conference in Vaughan—Woodbridge, joined by the Leader of the Opposition, fellow Conservative members of Parliament and victims of crime, and we attempted to address this very issue. The message was clear. Something needs to be done. Something needs to change in this country.

For far too long now, I have heard horror stories in my community of citizens being terrorized, their homes being broken into, their cars getting broken into and their loved ones being fatally shot. People are genuinely afraid. They are afraid in their own homes and afraid in their own communities.

I was born and raised in Vaughan—Woodbridge, a place that has always been to me the perfect place to raise a family. In my youth and early adult life, it was a community where I felt safe, where people would walk around at night without fear. They would not worry if they had forgotten to lock their doors, and they would go to bed knowing they were safe in their own beds. However, over the last decade, that sense of security has been shattered.

My friends in my community no longer feel safe walking at night. When our youth go to school, they face threats of gun violence, stabbings and assaults. Our seniors are anxious, wondering if their cars will be on the driveway when they wake up in the morning. Just last Wednesday, two homes fell prey to shootings. The shootings happened only minutes apart, and both of these homes had been shot earlier the same month. That means the residents have now lived twice through violent attacks. Recently in Vaughan, three suspects were arrested for committing a series of home invasions, and two of these suspects were already out on bail.

What happened? The Liberals introduced bail reform with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, and these Liberal bail laws have completely broken our bail system.

What needs to change? Today, this is exactly what we are here to address. This is far from a partisan issue. Premiers, mayors, police associations, attorneys general and Canadians have been asking for the federal government to end catch-and-release bail laws like Bill C-75, a law that forces judges to apply the principle of restraint, which puts repeat violent offenders back on the streets, and Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes, including extortion with a firearm.

We all know the consequences. Since these laws were introduced, all across Canada, violent crime is up by 55%, firearm crime is up by 130%, extortion has skyrocketed by 330%, sexual assaults are up by 76% and homicides are up by 29%. In 2019, David Lametti, now the Prime Minister's right-hand man, passed Bill C-75, forcing judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions.

Today, the Conservatives have introduced a motion in the House of Commons. For people tuning in from my community, the motion reads as follows:

That, given that,

(a) violent crime is up 55% under the Liberal government and repeat offenders continue to be released because of Liberal catch and release laws; and

(b) the Liberal government promised to pass criminal justice reform six months ago but has failed to do so;

in order to keep repeat offenders in jail and keep Canadians safe, the House is of the opinion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act, also known as the Jail Not Bail Act, must pass and is committed to sitting extended hours, holding an expeditious committee study and undertaking such other procedural measures as may be necessary to pass it at the earliest opportunity.

The Conservatives are here to say that in order to stop this chaos on our streets, keep repeat violent offenders in jail and keep Canadians safe, we must pass my hon. colleague from Oxford's bill, the jail not bail act, Bill C-242.

What would the jail not bail act do? First, it would repeal the Liberal principle of restraint and replace it with a directive that the primary consideration is the protection and safety of the public. Second, it would introduce a new major offence category with reverse onus bail conditions for firearm, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault charges. Third, it would strengthen bail laws by mandating judges to consider an accused's full criminal history and would prevent anyone from getting bail who was convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years and is charged with a major offence while out on bail. Fourth, it would prohibit anybody with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor, would require judges to enforce bail conditions on guarantors and would require non-residents to surrender their passport upon request.

Do not take our word for it. Take it from Cait Alexander, a survivor of domestic violence who runs the organization End Violence Everywhere: “The Jail Not Bail Act is therefore more than legislation—it is an essential corrective—a lifeline capable of disrupting the revolving door of abuse and saving innocent lives.”

How about the Toronto Police Association? It stated:

The proposed ideas will put victims and communities first, restoring the balance that is desperately needed at a time when youth violence and gun crimes are out of control and innocent victims are paying the ultimate price. We would encourage all levels of government to set aside their political differences and do what's right.

After the horrific murder of Aleem Farooqi in my community of Vaughan, Vaughan's mayor, Steven Del Duca, called on the federal government for urgent bail system reform, stating, “I am calling on the Prime Minister to show leadership and to urgently overhaul the system”.

I will repeat that this is not a partisan issue. People's lives are at risk every single day the government delays. the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have spent the last six months spiralling, dithering and failing to act. In that time, violent crime has surged and innocent Canadians have paid the ultimate price.

I have heard Liberal members say they are going to introduce stronger bail laws, except they have not, even though we know what is needed because we have heard it from every single corner of this country. What we do not need is more Liberal reforms. We need to scrap Liberal bail and restore safety on our streets.

If the Prime Minister and Liberal members of the House are serious about restoring peace to our communities, they will back this bill, reverse their disastrous bail laws and tip the scales of justice back in favour of innocent Canadians. If they do not want to support the bill for political purposes, they can abstain and let it pass so people in this country can have a sense of security again.

Every day, Canadians wake up and see another headline about a violent shooting. Tomorrow, many Canadians will wake up and their car will be stolen from their driveway. We have a job to do on behalf of the people who sent us here.

The government's primary responsibility is to keep Canadians safe. It is time to put victims ahead of criminals and violent criminals behind bars, where they belong. That is why I encourage every member of this House to support my colleague's bill, Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. It is very important that we stand up for our communities and the people of this country and put repeat violent offenders behind bars.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what the member on the other side of the floor observed was very astute, which is that the Liberals come up with bills that always have something of value in them, but there are always poison pills that make it impossible to support them. That was the case for the Conservatives with Bill C-75. Over and over, today in the House, the Liberals said they are committed to strict measures against violent offenders. That means that every example given on this side of the floor of the horrific things that have been done by individuals who have been out on bail are not violent offences to the Liberals, and that is very disturbing.

I would like to know from the member whether, if the Liberal government supported our motion for jail not bail, his communities would once again be far safer places to live and to raise a family.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am new to the House, but I have one observation so far. When my learned colleagues on the other side of the chamber make a statement about their achievements, it could mean a very small step, but they left out 99 steps that they have not addressed. By saying that Bill C-75 made some progress, the member has left out many of the loopholes, many of the gaps and many of the challenges that our ordinary citizens are facing and suffering from.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we think of Bill C-75, something that the Conservatives have brought up a lot today, we should think in terms of what it actually did. It abolished peremptory challenges to the jurors and modified the process of challenging a juror for cause, introducing judicial standby. It enhanced measures to better respond to intimate partner violence, provided additional measures to reduce criminal justice system delays and to make the criminal law and the criminal justice system clearer and more efficient, facilitated human trafficking prosecutions and allowed for the possibility of property forfeiture.

I am wonder if the member could indicate whether or not the Conservative Party would actually repeal Bill C-75.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I rise today not to debate ideology but to defend a principle that every Canadian holds dear: the right to feel safe in their own community.

From Richmond to Vancouver and from Kelowna to Surrey, Canadians are witnessing a justice system that no longer protects them. Violent offenders are arrested, brought before a judge and, despite long criminal histories and active bail conditions, are released again, sometimes within hours and sometimes with fatal consequences.

Let me tell members about Tori Dunn, a 30-year-old woman from Surrey who was murdered in her own home by a man who had been released on bail despite facing robbery charges and having a long history of violence. Her death was not inevitable; it was preventable. There is also Jordan Paul Campbell Mutual, who had 10 outstanding warrants while out on bail. He set two police officers on fire during an arrest attempt. Mohammed Majidpour, who had over 24 prior convictions, assaulted a woman with a metal pole and committed arson on the same day. He had been released on bail multiple times. These are not isolated incidents; they are the result of a justice system that prioritizes procedure over protection and leaves communities to bear the consequences.

The numbers do not lie. Between November 2022 and December 2023, British Columbia held nearly 4,800 bail hearings. In them, crime prosecutors sought detention in only 23% of cases, and judges granted detention just 41% of the time. In violent crime cases, judges ordered detention in only 43% of them, even when the accused was already out on bail for yet another violent offence. In Kelowna, 15 repeat offenders were responsible for over 1,300 police files in one single year. That is one police interaction every four days per person.

This is not a justice system that protects the public; it is one that enables repeat offenders.

At the heart of the crisis is Bill C-75. Passed in 2019, it introduced the principle of restraint, requiring judges to release accused offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the least restrictive conditions. While intended to ensure fairness, it has had the opposite effect on public safety. Judges now feel bound to release individuals who pose a clear risk. Repeat violent offenders exploit the system. Crown prosecutors, constrained by federal policy, seek detention in fewer than one in four cases. Even when they do, judges often decline. This disconnect between the Crown and the judiciary is not just procedural but dangerous. It creates a system where public safety is treated as secondary, and where legal technicalities override lived realities.

Meanwhile, our peace officers are sounding alarms, and it is time to listen. Police officers are arresting the same individuals repeatedly, only to see them walk free. They face burnout, frustration and rising violence. In Vancouver alone last year there were 6,200 violent crimes, including nearly 5,000 assaults. Assaults on public officers rose by 20% in a single year. Vancouver police chief, Adam Palmer, has called for urgent bail reform. Deputy Chief Howard Chow said that reverse-onus bail provisions would, in his words, “dramatically improve” public safety. Even Vancouver mayor, Ken Sim, speaking bluntly, said, “Excuse my language, but that's [BS]”, when he was talking about a man with 60 police interactions who was released yet again, only to commit another violent attack.

This is not just a policing issue; it is also a public safety crisis. While the system fails to contain repeat offenders, victims are being retraumatized. Imagine surviving a violent crime, reporting it and then seeing one's attacker walking free, days after, back in one's neighbourhood, back into one's life.

There is no justice in retraumatization. Victims often face sleepless nights, anxiety and fear, not just from the crime itself but also from the knowledge that the system may not protect them. Families like that of Tori Dunn feel betrayed. Survivors of assault and harassment are forced to relive their trauma every time they see their attacker walk free. This is not just emotional; it is systemic.

When victims see attackers released without consequence, it sends a dangerous message that their pain is secondary, that their safety is negotiable and that justice for them is optional. Across Canada, people are asking why violent offenders are walking free. Why are police arresting the same person over and over again? Why does the system seem more concerned with the rights of repeat offenders than with the safety of law-abiding citizens? The answers are buried in legislation that prioritizes leniency over logic and in a judicial culture that has lost sight of its duty to protect.

A recent survey shows that 68% of Canadians now believe that the bail system is too lenient, a dramatic increase from just 41% three years ago. This is not just a perception problem; it is a reflection of lived experience.

I know what the Liberals and their NDP allies will say. They will argue that tougher bail is too harsh. They will say that criminals deserve a second chance, but how many second chances should a repeat violent offender get before an innocent person loses their life? How many times should a small business owner be robbed before we admit that the system is failing?

The truth is that our opponents are more concerned with ideology than with safety. They lecture Canadians about root causes, while ignoring the root fact, which is that when a violent offender is behind bars, they cannot harm innocent people. That is why we are supporting the jail not bail motion. It is not radical; it is reasonable. It would not target first-time offenders. It would not strip anyone of their rights. It does say that if someone has been convicted of three or more serious offences, they should not be eligible for bail, probation or parole.

It says that if someone is charged with a major offence, like sexual assault, home invasion or a firearms offence, they should face reverse-onus bail. Judges must consider someone's full criminal history, not just the current charge. If someone has recently been convicted of a major offence, they should not be released again while facing new charges.

It is not about punishment; it is about prevention, about protection and about restoring trust.

Let us stand with victims, restore safe streets and act now, because justice delayed is danger delivered, and Canadians cannot wait for more.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just listened for 20 minutes to the member across creating a bunch of slander against the Conservative Party and a wonderful smokescreen. The Liberals are not taking any accountability for what their bills have done with repeat offenders in our communities. I ask the member how he is going to respond to the family in my community whose six-year-old child was assaulted. The accused was released, out on conditions, living in the same community as the child who was assaulted.

What does the member say to them about how the Liberals are going to fix what they have created with their bill, Bill C-75?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is in the question. It is because the Liberals broke our justice system with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, making house arrest the new norm and bringing in the revolving door justice system that we have now. They broke our justice system. Their bail reform is what caused this catch-and-release system, which has allowed crime to ravage our communities.

We are asking why the Liberals will not scrap Liberal bail.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have committed to strict measures against violent offenders, yet they continue to fuel violent crime by refusing to repeal Bill C-75. The bill is forcing judges to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. Violent criminals have been emboldened and are taking advantage of their new freedom to terrorize Canadians because of it.

If the Liberal government were to support our motion, the jail not bail act, today, would Richmond Hill once again be a far safer place to live and raise families?

Business of the House

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Thursday question, when we ask for the government's agenda for the upcoming week.

During the election, the Prime Minister made a lot of promises. He said that he was going to fix Liberal bail. Specifically, he was going to fix the mess that Justin Trudeau, as well as the vast majority of the Liberals, created by passing Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Would the House leader inform the House if the Liberals will finally bring in legislation, in the upcoming week, to fix the disaster they have created in the bail system in this country?

During the election, the Prime Minister promised that, by July 21 of this year, months ago, he would have a deal with Trump regarding our trade deal with the United States. Over the last number of weeks, we have reports that we have the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. We have the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. The jobs crisis is worsening in this country. We have seen the announcements from Imperial Oil of 900 job losses in Calgary. We have had the Kap Paper announcement here in Ontario, as well as GM's announcement that it is going to discontinue production of some of its models in Canada and move those jobs to the United States.

Will the House leader finally update the House as to whether the Prime Minister will fulfill his commitment to get a deal with the United States in the coming week?

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member asks about repealing Bill C-75, I strongly suggest that she take the time to read the whole thing first.

She does not seem to understand that this bill actually makes it harder for people charged with intimate partner violence to get bail. We are prepared to work in good faith with members of all parties to strengthen the bail system.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that, in former Bill C-75, we strengthened Canada's response to intimate partner violence by defining the term “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code and creating a reverse onus for repeat offenders of intimate partner violence.

Canadians deserve a debate based on facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a bill that makes it harder for perpetrators of intimate partner violence to get bail, they should be clear about that with Canadians.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' bail has unleashed crime and chaos on our streets. One recent example was a home invasion where the perpetrator was out on bail. Their law, Bill C-75, requires courts to release violent career criminals at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions.

The Prime Minister promised the Liberals would flip-flop on bail, but it was a bait and switch, with the bail law still in place six months after he took power. Will the Prime Minister scrap Liberal bail or get out of the way and let Conservatives do it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Liberals seem to do with any speed around here is to manufacture excuses for their inaction. Meanwhile, in the last eight weeks, York Region has seen 914 assaults, 296 vehicle thefts and 174 break and enters.

We know what to do. Mayors, police chiefs and Canadians all across this country have been calling on the Liberal government to scrap its failed bail laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Canadians are watching. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and scrap Liberal bail laws or get out of the way so Conservatives can do it for them?

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

Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member poses a question about repealing Bill C-75, I would suggest it would be a good idea for him to read it in its entirety. He does not seem to understand that the bill actually makes it harder for people who are charged with intimate partner violence to receive bail.

Now, we are willing to work in good faith with members of any party to strengthen the bail system, have harsher penalties for serious crimes and, most importantly, keep Canadians safe. The only question I have is whether the Conservatives will support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail has unleashed crime and chaos in our streets. Their weak law, Bill C-75, requires courts to release repeat violent offenders at the earliest opportunity. Recently, three suspects were arrested for a series of home invasions in Vaughan. Guess what. Surprise, surprise, two of them were out on bail.

The Prime Minister promised Liberals would flip-flop on bail, but six months after he came to power, weak Liberal laws are still on the books.

Will he do the right thing and scrap Liberal bail or get out of the way and let us do it?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals unleashed crime and chaos on our streets. Under Bill C-75, courts are compelled to release criminals early and under the least restrictive conditions.

A woman on house arrest for breaking into a home with a weapon went to our local beach, kidnapped a five-year-old girl and was found in a canoe holding the girl under the water. She has been charged with manslaughter. This dangerous person should never have been allowed to walk freely on our streets.

The Prime Minister promised action, and for six months he has failed. When will the Liberals scrap their criminal experiment or let the Conservatives fix it for them?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal laws have unleashed crime and chaos on our streets, and it is no wonder: Bill C-75 requires courts to release repeat violent offenders at the earliest opportunity with the least restrictive conditions. The results are devastating. In Markham alone, a criminal out on bail for attempted murder shot a man in a home invasion.

The Liberals promise bail reform, but it is just another bait and switch. If he is serious, will the Prime Minister scrap Liberal bail or get out of the way and let Conservatives finally do it?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail laws have unleashed crime and chaos on our streets. The Liberals' law, Bill C-75, releases repeat violent offenders at the earliest opportunity, with the least restrictive conditions. The Prime Minister promised to repeal these dangerous Liberal bail laws. Six months in, it is the same bait and switch, and the laws remain in place. Now more than half of Canadians do not feel safe in their own homes.

The question is simple: Will the Prime Minister scrap Liberal bail or get out of the way so Conservatives can?

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians feel betrayed, stabbed in the back, both literally and metaphorically. Every day, the people of Richmond Hill South and families across Canada watch as violent offenders are being arrested in the morning and then let back out on our streets before nightfall, due to a decade of Liberal soft-on-crime laws. Seniors are afraid to walk to the grocery store. Parents are terrified to let their kids take the bus after dark. Who do we have to thank? The pro-crime Liberals, who have intentionally put the rights of repeat violent offenders ahead of the rights of law-abiding Canadians.

The Conservative jail not bail act is about one thing: standing with Canadians, not felons; standing with victims, not criminals; and standing with Canadians, not the pro-crime Liberals and their revolving door of a justice system that created the crime crisis. That is why Canadians from all walks of life agree that it is time to scrap Liberal bail.

Richmond Hill is under siege. Just weeks ago, gunfire ripped through a quiet Richmond Hill neighbourhood. A man was killed by an illegal gun, execution style, in the middle of a street in broad daylight. Parents dragged their children inside. Families huddled in fear. This is the question that echoed: Why is this happening in our once safe neighbourhood? Gangs are shooting up peaceful neighbourhoods and robbing homes, and this is often done by repeat offenders who are recommitting after being released, because of lax Liberal bail.

At Highway 7 and Leslie, someone was carjacked at gunpoint, Grand Theft Auto style. People were robbed in broad daylight at Major Mackenzie and Bayview. Places of worship were attacked by acts of hate on 16th Avenue and Bathurst. In the Hillcrest mall, robberies by repeat offenders, which have caused lockdowns, have seniors and shoppers scared to go out anymore. People are losing family members because of intentional acts of arson by criminals who are lighting up innocent people in their own homes at night, right in Richmond Hill. These are not just statistics. This is real people, real fear and real victims. Every single one of these tragedies was enabled by the pro-crime Liberal laws that keep criminals on the streets instead of behind bars. That is why it is high time to scrap Liberal bail.

The numbers do not lie and the human stories are heartbreaking, but the numbers confirm it. After 10 years of Liberal pro-crime laws, violent crime is up 55%, gun crime has more than doubled, extortion is up 330%, homicides are up 29%, sexual assaults are up 76%, and auto theft in the GTA is at levels never seen before. This did not happen by accident, but by design, because the pro-crime Liberals passed Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Mandatory prison time was abolished for dozens of charges, and house arrest became the new norm. The Liberal catch-and-release came into effect, and the Liberal pro-crime revolving door in the justice system was set into motion. The Liberals handcuffed the police and set the criminals free. The result is that the people of Richmond Hill South, and Canadians across the country, live in fear while the Prime Minister shrugs and the minister of injustice makes jokes about the Wild West. That is not leadership; that is negligence. It is disgraceful. The only way to put an end to this and bring home safe streets again is by scrapping Liberal bail.

Let us talk about the real cost of this Liberal failure. The cost is paid by Canadians, by blood, trauma and the loss of loved ones. In Richmond Hill, seniors tell me they will not walk through the mall or go to the park anymore. It is no longer safe. Parents living near Yonge Street say that their children cannot take public transit after dark. Teens cannot ride their bikes anymore because criminals are preying on their bikes and their lives. Shopkeepers on Highway 7 do not even bother reporting theft because the same thief is back the next day thanks to the pro-crime Liberals and their lax bail laws.

What about the police officers who risk their lives arresting violent offenders only to see them walk free before their shift is even over. It has gotten so bad that the York Regional Police chief is asking victims of crime to simply comply with the demands of criminals who the Liberal injustice system has let out. That is not justice; it is betrayal. They have been straight-up stabbed in the back. That is the legacy of 10 years of the pro-crime Liberals. The only way to bring justice to the victims and families is by scrapping Liberal bail.

The Conservative jail not bail act would bring back sanity, common sense and peace of mind. It would lock up repeat violent offenders and slam the door on gang members. It would ensure that gun criminals, who are often using illegally obtained guns, stay behind bars where they belong. It would also force judges to finally put public safety first, not Liberal ideology.

First, this legislation would repeal the Liberal principle of restraint and put public protection first instead of the criminal. This would ensure that communities are not left at the mercy of the pro-crime Liberals after all they have endured with a decade of the Liberals' soft-on-crime approach.

Second, it would introduce a new major offences category, which would reverse the onus on bail conditions for crimes involving firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. It would require the accused to prove why they should be let out on bail. This would stop career criminals unleashed by the Liberal crime wave from taking advantage of this broken Liberal injustice system.

Next, it would mandate judges to consider the full criminal history of the accused and prevent anyone convicted of a major offence while on bail in the last 10 years from receiving bail, thus ending the Liberals' revolving door injustice system.

Lastly, this legislation would prohibit anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor and would require non-residents to surrender their passports upon request.

Conservatives stand with victims, families and Canadians. That is the choice before the House. Will parliamentarians from all parties, and Liberals alike, come together and vote to scrap Liberal bail?

Let us call this what it is: a pro-crime Liberal record. Liberal pro-crime Bill C-5 scrapped jail time for violent crimes involving weapons and allowed for house arrest instead of mandatory prison time for serious offences and a dozen other charges. Liberal pro-crime Bill C-75 lowered the bar so that repeat offenders could walk free and tied the hands of provincial governments, judges and police.

What did Canadians and the people of Richmond Hill get in return? They received more Liberal-sponsored gang shootings, more Liberal-sponsored carjackings, more Liberal-sponsored home invasions and more victims.

The pro-crime Liberals talk about restorative justice. Tell that to the shopkeeper robbed for the third time because of lax Liberal bail laws. Tell that to the seniors imprisoned in their homes in fear of the crime wave unleashed by the Liberal government. Tell that to the mother who buried her son after a Liberal-sponsored gang shooting. Is the Liberal government going to restore her son's life? There is nothing restorative about that, only Liberal failure and injustice. To bring justice to victims and Canadians across this country, we must scrap Liberal bail.

Premiers, provincial attorneys general and police chiefs across the country, including from the York Regional Police in Richmond Hill, have begged Parliament to fix the Liberals' soft-on-crime bail before more blood is spilled by the Liberal-sponsored crime wave, but the pro-crime Liberals refused. They ignored the warnings and calls to action from victims, police and communities alike. They left officers demoralized and communities exposed to the crime wave the Liberals unleashed. It went so far that the Liberal minister of injustice mocked victims by referring to this Liberal-sponsored crime wave as not being the Wild West. It is Canada, but it sure feels like it.

Conservatives will stand with the police, who risk their lives—

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the chamber to support Conservative Bill C-242, the jail not bail act.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Richmond Hill South.

Canadians are tired of waking up to headlines that read like crime thrillers except that they are real and are happening in our neighbourhoods. In Brampton, families do not feel safe anymore. Crime is no longer the exception but is becoming the norm. Residents and communities are being impacted every day, with violent home invasions, daylight shootings, carjackings, sexual assaults and repeat offenders walking free. This is the result of Liberal catch-and-release justice and a broken bail system that puts criminals ahead of victims and communities. It is why I rise today in support of Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, a Conservative solution to restore law and order and to protect innocent Canadians.

Let me share the statistics under the Liberal catch-and-release system. Homicides are up 29%, violent crime is up by 55%, sexual assaults have increased by 76%, extortion has surged by 330%, auto thefts are up by 25%, hate crimes are up by 258% and firearms crimes are up by 130%. These are not just numbers; these are real people, victims whose lives have been shattered by repeat violent offenders who should never have been released.

In Markham, a 54-year-old man was left seriously injured in a violent home invasion. One of the suspects was already out on bail despite facing charges for robbery with a firearm and attempted murder. In Toronto, a woman was stabbed in broad daylight by a man who had been released on bail just days earlier. In Vancouver, organized crime rings are recruiting youth to commit car thefts and armed robberies, knowing they will be released within hours. In my community of Brampton, a home invasion resulted in the death of a young Canadian. In one of the most heartbreaking cases, Bailey McCourt was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail following an assault conviction.

We are witnessing an exponential rise in crime across the country, but nowhere is it more evident than in my hometown of Brampton. In the Peel region, police recently made the largest drug bust in its history. Shockingly, six of the nine accused were already out on bail. In another major operation, targeting an extortion ring, half of the people arrested were also on judicial release. Just weeks ago in Brampton, a violent home invasion ended with a father's being shot for doing nothing more than defending his home and family. This is the result of the Liberals' Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which introduced the so-called principle of restraint, a policy that prioritizes release even when the accused has a violent history or is likely to reoffend.

Police officers, victims and legal experts have all said the same thing: The bail system is broken, and now is the time to fix it. The solution is jail, not bail, restoring safety and trust back on our streets, in our homes and in our lives. Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, is a common-sense Conservative solution that would put public safety first and restore trust in our justice system. Judges and police would have to prioritize protecting the public, not just the rights of the accused, when deciding on bail.

The bill would take away automatic bail for violent offenders. If someone is charged with a major violent offence, like attempted murder, sexual assault, kidnapping or armed robbery, they would not be released automatically. If they have already been convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years and are charged again while out on bail, the bill proposes that they must be detained.

The bill would allow only judges to decide bail for repeat offenders. Police officers can now release someone charged with a major offence. Only a superior court judge would be able to make that decision. It would also remove criminals as sureties. People convicted of a serious crime in the last 10 years would not be able to act as a surety; there would be no more criminals vouching for criminals.

The bill proposes stronger rules for non-citizens. Non-citizens and non-permanent residents would hand over their passport before being released, reducing flight risk.

The bill would offer better risk assessment. The law would change the standard from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonably foreseeable”, making it easier to detain someone who poses a threat. Judges would also consider the accused's criminal history, including past failures to comply with bail. It would ask for an annual transparency report. The minister of justice would have to publish a yearly report on bail reforms, bail outcomes, repetition and disparities so Canadians would know what is working and what is not.

Conservatives are taking the lead. While the Liberals stall and spin, Conservatives are acting. We are calling on the House to immediately pass Bill C-242. We are ready to support extended sittings to get this done because Canadians deserve safe streets, a justice system they can depend on to protect them, and no more headlines about violent criminals walking free.

Before I end, I have a message for Brampton residents, which is that they should stay strong. We all know that injustice has risen in our community for far too long; that is why, as their member of Parliament, I, alongside the Conservative Party, will work tirelessly to make our streets safer. I will stop at nothing to ensure that the residents of Brampton will once again feel safe and protected in the community and in their own home.

The choice is clear. Canadians are tired of excuses. We can continue down the Liberal path of hug-a-thug justice, where innocent, law-abiding Canadians live in fear, or we can stand up for the victims, restore law and order and put violent criminals where they belong: behind bars. Let us pass the jail not bail act. Let us protect Canadians. Let us bring safety back to our streets.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, 1,600 is the number of crimes that happen in this country every single day. That is almost one crime per minute.

These are not statistics. They are innocent people being hit over the head with baseball bats. They are jewellery stores being smashed in and opened up by an incoming automobile, which is then used to steal the proceeds families have spent their entire lives earning. They are the people who wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of stomping feet on their living room floor as home invaders break in to steal, rob, pillage and much worse.

They are the Farooqi family, whose courageous father came running out to protect his defenceless children against home invaders and was shot in the throat. It is a three-year-old girl who was mercilessly raped by a chronic repeat offender, a scumbag who had already been convicted of raping a 12-year-old boy yet, under Liberal laws, was out on the street.

That was the case for a woman killed in Saint-Jérôme by her former partner, a man who had already been arrested 30 times and released 16 times before killing his partner.

It is the case of a beautiful young mother, Bailey McCourt, murdered by her ex, who was out on bail and had been released only three hours earlier. He was only four kilometres away from the courthouse that granted him that Liberal bail.

These are not just sensationalist stories, as Liberals like to dismiss them; these are facts. While the justice minister condescendingly dismissed these crimes, saying we are not in the Wild West, the facts would beg to differ.

Under the Liberal government, since it has taken office, violent crime is up 55%, extortion is up 330%, homicides are up 29% and sexual assaults are up 76%. There is a cause and there is an effect. We know the source of this crime. It is Liberal bail, as passed into law by Liberal Bill C-75. It requires judges to release the accused at the “earliest reasonable opportunity” on the “least onerous” restrictions. Those are the words embedded in the law. As a result, the same offenders can commit literally hundreds of offences and be released, often within hours of their latest arrest.

Police say they have often not even finished the paperwork in the arrest and the offender is back out on the street. I have had police officers tell me they have arrested the same offender three times in the same day. One police officer in the Toronto area told me that in most arrests, the criminals happily confess to the crime in the back seat of the car because they do not care about being convicted anymore. They know that Liberal laws will turn them loose, regardless of the outcome of the trial.

Liberals pulled a bait and switch in order to get elected. In the last election, they knew Canadians were fed up with Liberal bail, so they said, “Give us a fourth chance and we will reverse course.” What happened? It has now been six months since the Prime Minister was elected on the promise that he would reverse Liberal bail. Where are we? There has not been a single Liberal bill to reverse the bail system they set up. We are six months in.

We all know what needs to happen. The police have basically written the legislative repeal that is necessary for us to fix the Liberal mess, yet there is no bill. There is nothing. There is zero, zip, zilch.

Maybe it is because the Prime Minister took the unprecedentedly reckless act of appointing Justin Trudeau's most incompetent minister to the job. The justice minister was the immigration minister who literally destroyed the best system in the world, increasing the numbers by 300% over the previous norm, allowing criminals to come into our country unvetted and swamping our housing, jobs and health care with too many people too fast. He then went on to the housing portfolio, where he created the worst housing crisis in the OECD, and now he is in charge of the Criminal Code.

Compound that problem with the Minister of Public Safety, who should resign for having gone ahead with a plan to confiscate property from law-abiding firearms owners. It was a plan that he was caught on tape saying would not work. This is who we have as the keystone cops in charge of reversing the Liberal crime wave of the last decade.

Some people say we need bail reform. We have bail reform. It is called Bill C-75. What we need is to undo Liberal bail reform; hence today, we are calling for the government to scrap Liberal bail and replace it with jail, not bail. Today, we put forward a motion that would allow Parliament to adopt Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. It was put forward by the brilliant member of Parliament for Oxford, Ontario. This proposal is backed by police, crime victims and everybody who wants to stop crime.

The House will hear more from the member for Niagara South, with whom I am splitting my time on this matter.

I will note that members of the government do not need to do a thing. They just need to get out of the way. They have already broken the bail system. They brought in the chaos we are now experiencing. We are not asking them to put on a cape and come to the rescue. We are asking them to simply get out of the way. If they do one thing, it should be to sit on their hands and let the House of Commons pass this motion to quickly push through the jail not bail act. We can lock up the criminals who have been terrorizing our streets. That is all we need them to do.

In fact, some people say they are doing nothing. It would be great if they did nothing, because nothing would be a massive improvement over what they have been doing, which is doing violence to our Criminal Code. Our Criminal Code has allowed criminals to do violence to our people.

The answer is actually very simple. Pseudo-intellectuals in Liberal circles love to say the problem is much more complicated. It is not a complicated problem. The statistics tell us the extent of it. We have a very small number of criminals doing a phenomenal amount of crime. The same 40 offenders in Vancouver got arrested 6,000 times. That is 150 arrests per offender per year, and those were just the occasions they were caught. Almost all of the crime is done by a tiny group of rampant reoffenders. If we keep them in jail, they cannot reoffend. It is very simple.

We did this under the previous Conservative government. One thing happened that was unsurprising and one that was maybe counterintuitive. The first thing, unsurprisingly, is that crime went down by 25%. It plummeted. It was the biggest drop in crime in modern Canadian history. It worked.

The second part was a bit counterintuitive. What else went down? It was incarcerations. After Liberals warned that we would have to build new jails to accommodate all of the prisoners, fewer people, in fact, ended up in jail. Why? It is because the same offenders who were coming in and going out just stayed behind bars. We had already reserved them a room. It was like the Hotel California, where they checked out but never really left. We kept them in the cell and never let them out. We locked them up and threw away the key.

Something else happened. The small-time offenders or those looking to get involved in a life of crime said, “Hell, no. The penalty is too serious. I'm going to get a job and follow the law.” Deterrence works.

The facts are in. Liberal bail has brought hell to our streets. The only one keeping that hell in place is the Prime Minister. He and his government need to get out of the way so Conservatives can scrap Liberal bail, lock up the criminals and throw away the key. Let us do this not out of vengeance or spite, but out of love for law-abiding people so that our children can once again play safely in our streets, so that people can go to bed at night in peace and tranquillity, so that when they wake up in the morning, their car is still there, and so that we have a safe country where law-abiding people can live good, secure, happy, worry-free lives. That is what we are working for. Will the government get out of the way and let us get it done?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referenced that the Liberals want to protect the rights of criminals and that they want to protect the rights of citizens, but the result from their Bill C-75 is that crime is out of control and repeat offenders are on the streets in minutes.

How can the member defend the policy, when it is completely hypocritical?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's question, I would invite her to read Bill C-75 at length. She would realize that the reality is this: Because of Canada's response by defining “intimate partner violence” in the Criminal Code and creating a reverse onus for repeat intimate partner violence offenders, judges must now consider prior intimate partner convictions. Penalties are higher for repeat offenders.

Canadians deserve a debate on the facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a bill that makes it harder for intimate partner violence offenders to get bail, they should do so directly and then face the backlash from Canadians.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the whole premise of this does not relate to other bills that may come forward. It is the need to scrap this bail non-reform bill. It is not just us speaking about this. The premiers and attorneys general for Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the member's province of B.C. have called for the removal of this particular bill. It is from across the country.

What does the member think about that perspective in light of the support to scrap Bill C-75?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, I want to come back to the real issue, and that is the Liberal catch-and-release system. That is the problem. Right now, judges are told to start from the principle of restraint, which tilts the balance away from public safety. That is not the fault of the judiciary. It is the framework the House handed it with Bill C-75.

We need to scrap the Liberal bail. The jail not bail act would not undermine judges. It would empower them to protect the public. It would direct them to weigh community safety first. It would ensure that they see the full record of the accused. It would give them tools to deny bail when serious risk is reasonably foreseeable. Judges need a law that lets them keep dangerous people behind bars, which is what our bill would deliver. It is a framework built on common sense, not catch and release.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is the catch-and-release law the Liberals put in place that keeps putting dangerous people back on the street. The tragedy of our current system is that it only takes one case to devastate a family or a community. When extortionists target businesses or when someone like Adam Mann, already facing multiple charges, is still free to kill a young woman like Tori Dunn, no empty thoughts and prayers will bring comfort.

We need to scrap the Liberal bail. This is a direct result of the Liberals' catch-and-release approach. Bill C-75 instructed judges to prioritize restraint, which has meant giving repeat violent offenders more chances than the victims ever receive. The jail not bail act would correct that.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the number one responsibility of government is to keep its citizens safe: safe in their homes, safe in their businesses and safe in their communities. It is not partisan and not optional; it is fundamental, but right now that promise has been broken.

Under the Liberals' Bill C-75, our bail system was rewritten. Judges were ordered to apply a so-called principle of restraint. That means repeat violent offenders, people who are known to police and who have a record of crime after crime, are put right back on our streets. It has left my community of Cloverdale—Langley City living in fear. Today, I want to share three stories, not from some faraway place and not from a textbook or report. These are stories from my own backyard of businesses, families and seniors who have paid the price for Ottawa's dangerous experiment with catch-and-release justice.

First, picture a wedding banquet. Families are gathered. Music is playing. Parents are dancing with their children. That is what a banquet hall is supposed to be: a place of joy and community. However, in Surrey, at the Reflections Banquet Hall, that joy was shattered. Instead of wedding bells, there were gunshots. Instead of safety, there was fear. The hall became a target of an extortion network that has been terrorizing South Asian businesses across the Fraser Valley.

In early June, the owner, Satish Kumar, received a voice mail demanding $2 million and threatening his family. Within days, shots were fired at three businesses connected to him. This is what organized extortion looks like: anonymous calls, threats against children or warning shots at the door if they do not pay. It is not just one victim. It chills a whole corridor of small businesses. Weddings get cancelled, bookings dry up and an entire community starts looking over its shoulder.

Here is the core failure: a legal environment that emboldens criminals. When the consequence for violent intimidation is a quick release, the message that sends is to keep going. Liberal Bill C-75's principle of restraint and Bill C-5's repeal of mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes, including extortion with a firearm, have combined to lower the cost of terror for gangs and raised the cost of living for everybody else. The banquet hall was not just a building; it was supposed to be a safe place for families while the law did not protect it.

Then there is the tragic story of Tori Dunn. Tori is not just a name in the newspaper. She is a daughter, a friend. She is one of us, and she was attacked brutally by a man who never should have been free, a man with a record, a man known to police, a man who, under any system that valued the safety of women and the safety of families, would have been behind bars, but because of Liberal Bill C-75, he was not. He was out on bail, and Tori paid the price.

When I talk to people in my riding about Tori's story, they do not just shake their heads; they clench their fists and ask how this could happen and how our justice system could look at his record and set him free. She was 30, an entrepreneur, a daughter and a friend, and she was brutally killed in her own home in Port Kells in 2024. Her murderer, Adam Mann, was already facing eight other charges, including aggravated assault, from just a week earlier.

We do not need a law degree to see the pattern. The Liberals told the courts to restrain themselves, the courts complied, a dangerous man was back in the community, a young woman is dead and her family is left asking how a system could see the risk and choose release.

This is not complicated. When Parliament says to err on the side of release, people like Tori carry the risk. This is not just about Tori, though. It is about every woman who wonders if she is safe walking home at night. It is about every parent who wonders if their daughter will make it home. It is about whether the justice system values the safety of our families or the comfort of repeat offenders.

Let me tell members about something else that happened just down the road from my place in the heart of Langley. It was early morning, June 1, on the Fraser Highway. The sun had barely risen. A woman was standing by the curb, when out of nowhere she was shoved into the street. She fell really hard, and before she could even get her bearings, she was kicked and punched again and again. All of it was captured on video. This was not a scuffle. This was not a misunderstanding. It was a brutal, unprovoked attack. The man responsible, Hugh Mason, is no stranger to police. He is already known for violence and already known for breaching the law, yet he was there on our streets free to lash out at an innocent woman.

Here is what makes this hit home even worse for me. This was not just any street corner. This was steps away from the seniors home built by my own church community, the home where my grandparents lived. It is filled with seniors who worked a lifetime, who built this country and who should be able to walk outside without fear.

Imagine the conversations after that crime, with seniors asking their grandchildren to walk them to the pharmacy because they do not feel safe alone. That is not the Canada they helped build. That is not the promise they earned, yet here we are because a bail system tilted in favour of the offender gave another chance to a man who had already burned through all his chances, and because Bill C-75, by the Liberals, told judges to restrain themselves, even when restraint meant danger for everybody else.

This is what catch-and-release looks like in real life. It is not just a line in a bill, but fear in the eyes of our grandmothers and grandfathers, our opas and omas. That fear, my friends, is something we have the power and the responsibility to end.

At the end of the day, this is not about politics. It is not about left and right. It is about whether a mom can walk her child to school without fear, whether a small business owner can open his doors without an extortionist calling at midnight and whether a senior, like our omas and opas, can sit on a porch without looking over their shoulder.

The Conservatives have put forward the jail not bail act, not because it sounds good on paper but because it puts people first. It says that public safety is the priority. It says that if a person commits a major crime, like pulling a gun, breaking into a home or assaulting their neighbour, they do not just stroll back onto the streets the next day. This bill would tip the scales back to where they belong. It restores balance. It protects victims. It puts common sense back at the heart of justice.

I say to the Prime Minister that if he is serious about restoring peace to our communities, he will back the bill. He will correct his justice minister, and he will reverse his party's failed bail laws, because Canadians deserve better than ideology. They deserve safety.

Let us do the right thing. Let us stand together. Let us pass the jail not bail act, and let us give our communities back their peace.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question and her work on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Women do indeed bear the brunt of the crimes we are seeing these days: murder, intimate partner violence, serious violent offences. That is why we need to fix the situation as quickly as possible. Everyone expects to live their life in safety. That is what we want; that is what we are asking for. Previously, the other three parties, the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, joined forces to pass Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75.

The Bloc Québécois realized that Bill C‑5 was not working. I thank its members for that, and I hope they will continue to help us work on behalf of women. Yes, we need to be careful about how we do this, but above all, we have to think about the victims and future victims we must protect.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

I have to ask myself what we are even doing here, talking, talking, talking, when the measures that need to be taken are quite clear. Unfortunately, because of the dithering and the government that has been in power for the past 10 years, we now have laws that make our communities a lot less safe. Just ask the family of Gabie Renaud, who was brutally murdered in Saint-Jérôme a few weeks ago and whose body was just found. Just ask the family of Marylène Levesque, who was murdered in Quebec City five years ago by Eustachio Gallese while he was on unsupervised release. We are talking about numerous situations that could have been avoided, numerous deaths that could have been avoided.

The harsh reality is that right now, in Canada, streets that were once peaceful and quiet have become danger zones for too many families. Violent crime is up 55% under this Liberal government, and that figure is not a statistical abstraction, it is the horrendous reality of forgotten victims and broken communities. Homicides have increased by 29%, gun-related crime has more than doubled in many areas, and extortion is up 357%. We need only look at what is happening at restaurants in Montreal and Laval. They are being set on fire, and gangs are going in and extorting the owners, forcing them to pay protection money, known as pizzo. Nothing is being done to help these restaurant owners get out of this situation.

What is happening at the moment is no accident. It is the direct result of the laws put in place by the Liberal government. We have spoken at great length about Bill C-5, which allows dangerous criminals to serve their prison sentence at home, and Bill C-75, the bill that brings us here again today and that makes it far too easy to get bail. It is spelled out in the law. Judges do not even have a choice. Dangerous criminals are automatically released.

I am not even talking about what has been done in terms of managing parole. Members may recall that after the murder of Marylène Levesque in Quebec City, I got a motion passed asking the Standing Committee on Public Safety to investigate what happened at the Parole Board. The board had undergone a complete purge, particularly the members from Quebec, who were a bit too conservative for the government. They were replaced by new members who had very little experience, if any, and who were primarily chosen for their very left-leaning, very woke ideology. As a result, decisions were made, in particular the decision to release Eustachio Gallese on parole, as is the case currently with Jonathan Blanchet, the man who killed Gabie Renaud. This guy was arrested 30 times and released 16 times under certain conditions. However, he violated those conditions, yet there were no consequences. How can a person violate the conditions of his release 16 times and still be free? It makes no sense.

Once again, we are seeing an increase in crime. In Montreal, for example, assaults and domestic violence are on the rise. Across Quebec, sex crimes have increased by 20% in just two years. Child pornography cases have doubled. Organized crime is even spreading to the regions, recruiting young people into a brutal cycle that no one in this Liberal government seems interested in ending.

Today, we are debating a motion calling for Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, introduced by my colleague from Oxford, to be fast-tracked. We are asking that the bill be passed immediately and sent to committee in order to speed up the necessary legislative changes.

We should keep in mind that the new Prime Minister has been in office for six months. During the election campaign, before he came to power, the Prime Minister said that his government would bring in changes quickly to get crime in Canada back under control.

What has happened over the last six months when it comes to crime and crime bills? Nothing, zip, nada.

I am sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, and I hope she will elaborate on that. We have some astonishing examples of problematic Liberal measures and promises made by a supposedly new government that was going to make a difference, but that is currently doing absolutely nothing.

We are not asking it to promise us the moon. We just want the government to stop. There are enough bills. We want the government to let us pass them quickly to bring about change. Bill C-242 can be dealt with if the House accepts it today. We can get that done and move forward.

The government is not doing anything even though we are ready to move more quickly to prevent more deaths. Right now, criminals on bail or parole are laughing their heads off and doing as they please. Who pays the price? It is victims of domestic violence, women who are scared to leave their homes. Even if they stay at home, criminals have no qualms about coming back to assault them or worse, kill them. That is not acceptable in 2025 in a country like Canada.

We went through problems a few years ago because of Bill C-5, which introduced house arrest. The bill was intended to empty the prisons, and it was introduced by David Lametti, a former minister of justice who is going to become an ambassador, though I do not know to what country. Bill C‑5 was brought forward on the grounds that there were too many Black, racialized and indigenous people in prison. The intent was to narrow the scope of the Criminal Code so that fewer of these people would go to jail.

The first person to take advantage of Bill C‑5 after it came into force was a white man from Montreal who had committed aggravated sexual assault against his ex. Instead of going to prison, he got to sit at home watching Netflix. That is how things started, and the number of similar cases only grew. With Bill C‑5, Montreal's street gangs could rest easy. They knew that they would not go to prison if they were arrested but would instead get to stay at home doing whatever they wanted. We spoke out against this from the very beginning. We voted against the bill even before it was passed, and we said that it was not going to work. A few years have passed, and sure enough, we are now seeing the result.

Two and a half years ago, I tabled Bill C‑325, which aimed to reverse Bill C‑5. There were also provisions in Bill C‑325 requiring that criminal charges be brought against a person who fails to comply with their release conditions. Unfortunately, this was defeated by our Liberal colleagues, with support from the NDP.

I must compliment the Bloc Québécois, which initially supported Bill C‑5 but then realized its mistake. The Bloc Québécois voted with me in support of Bill C‑325. Ultimately, Bill C‑325 was defeated by the Liberals and the NDP. As a result, Bill C‑5 is still in effect.

There was Bill C‑5 and Bill C-75. Today we are talking about the content of Bill C‑75. We are talking about the bill brought forward by my colleague from Oxford, Bill C‑242. It can be confusing when all these numbers are flying around, but what members need to understand is this. No one can understand how a person can be arrested and then be released three hours later to start committing crimes again. No one can understand why that law was enacted. That is the reason for Bill C‑242. We want to undo all of that and restore a justice system that is acceptable to and accepted by the population, who is asking for no more than that.

When we see women like Gabie Renaud murdered by a man who was charged 30 times and who violated his release conditions 16 times, it is impossible to understand how he was able to go and kill Gabie. It is unacceptable.

We are basically lending a helping hand to this government, which does not seem to have the time to change course quickly. In six months, nothing has happened. We are putting bills forward. My colleague from Oxford has tabled a bill. Today's motion asks that we expedite the process and send this to committee in order to protect Canadians.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the news is flooded with truly disturbing cases of women being attacked, of femicides. I said it in the House: Women are not safe. We live in a constant state of hypervigilance. We know this, and it is becoming increasingly well documented. The Quebec government is even calling for this.

Does my colleague agree with me on the problems caused by Bills C-5 and C-75, which were introduced and passed by this Liberal government?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, I appreciate the opportunity to debate this motion. Public safety and our bail and sentencing laws play a critical role in the criminal justice system. These are some of the most important laws that are supposed to ensure not only that justice is served but also that Canadians are safe in their communities.

Over the past years, Canadians have raised legitimate concerns about violent crime and repeat offending. These concerns are real, and our government is working hard with law enforcement, Crown attorneys and other levels of government across this country to act on them. It is encouraging to see alignment between the Conservative opposition and the newly elected Liberal government when it comes to improving public safety, including through the adoption of stronger laws to build safer communities.

I have good news for my colleagues. The Minister of Justice will be introducing legislation during this parliamentary session to comprehensively change parts of the Criminal Code and other aspects of the criminal justice system. These comprehensive changes would strengthen bail reform in this country, to have harsher, longer sanctions for violent offenders and to make sure we have the support to help keep communities safe with direct investments in law enforcement.

As set out in our 2025 electoral platform, our government is committed to strengthening the Criminal Code bail provisions to make it onerous to obtain bail for those charged with violent or organized crime related to auto theft, home invasion, trafficking in persons, human smuggling and drug trafficking. Our government is also committed to adding a requirement for courts to impose a firearms or weapons prohibition when granting bail to anyone charged with an organized crime-related offence.

Our government has committed to reforming Canada's sentencing regime to better address repeat and violent offending. More specifically, the 2025 electoral platform includes commitments to change the law to direct courts to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when determining a sentence for anyone who has numerous convictions. That means courts would have to primarily consider a sentence that would deter repeat offenders. It includes commitments to broaden sentencing tools by allowing consecutive sentences for violent or organized crime-related auto theft.

The Prime Minister followed up on these electoral commitments when he agreed to strengthen the Criminal Code bail and sentencing laws during the June 2 first ministers meeting. Later that month, the Minister of Justice also announced publicly that bail and sentencing reforms will be forthcoming this fall to address growing concerns of repeat and violent offending at all stages of the criminal justice process. Over the summer, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and I undertook significant engagement with the provinces and territories, law enforcement and legal stakeholders alike to inform and develop these reforms.

Now, although looking to future solutions is important, it is equally important to look to the past and to properly understand our criminal justice system and the current state of the law. For example, despite a persistent narrative that former Bill C-75 was soft on crime, I want to highlight that it explicitly strengthened the Criminal Code bail provisions as they relate to intimate partner violence. Former Bill C-75 made it more onerous for individuals previously convicted of intimate partner violence to obtain bail. This change was based on research suggesting that victims of intimate partner violence face a higher risk of violence from their intimate partners after charges are laid. This was a critical step in recognizing the unique risks posed by repeat offenders in intimate partner violence cases and in ensuring that survivors are protected.

More recently, in 2023, Parliament unanimously enacted former Bill C-48 in response to a new and pressing challenge: growing concerns about repeat violent offending involving firearms and other weapons at the bail stage. The former Bill C-48 amendments were not developed in isolation. They too were the result of extensive collaboration with the provinces and territories. They also responded directly to calls for reform from premiers across the country.

Among other changes, former Bill C-75 created a reverse onus at bail to better address the heightened public safety risks posed by those accused of repeat violent offending with firearms and other weapons. That meant that violent offenders with firearms now had to prove they deserve bail, as opposed to the previous process through which the Crown was having to prove why someone should not receive bail.

This presented a significant change that reflected the seriousness of this type of offending and the need to ensure that the courts would turn their minds to the unique public safety risks that those charged with this type of offending might present. Former Bill C-48 also strengthened the intimate partner violence reverse onus. The bill expanded the reverse onus to also apply to anyone who had been previously discharged, and not just those convicted, of an offence involving intimate partner violence.

Before moving on to what the government has committed to doing, I want to address another area of criminal law that generates significant commentary: conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. A CSO is a sentence that allows an offender to serve a term of imprisonment in the community under certain conditions. They are only available when the sentence is less than two years and when the court determines that it does not pose a risk to public safety or conflict with sentencing principles. CSOs cannot be imposed for offences that involve mandatory minimums, terrorism, criminal organization offences with indictable minimums of 10 years or more, advocating genocide, torture or attempted murder.

The current CSO rules stem from former Bill C-5, which was presented in 2022. This bill strictly made mention that courts may only impose CSOs when consistent with community safety and sentencing principles. CSOs must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's responsibility, and provide adequate denunciation and deterrent. The government has heard concerns that CSOs have been increasingly used for sexual offences in some lower courts. Even though appellate courts hold that they rarely represent proportionate sentences, our government continues to monitor the impacts of former Bill C-5 and will consider further refinements to ensure community safety and public confidence.

As crime evolves, so must our laws. This is why the Minister of Justice will be advancing additional bail and sentencing reforms this fall.

I would now like to turn to an aspect of our bail system that often gets overlooked, and that is the matter of shared responsibility between federal and provincial and territorial governments. While federal legislation sets the laws governing bail, the effectiveness of our bail system depends largely on how it is administered. Provinces are responsible for appointing provincial judges and judges who conduct most bail hearings, who are in some provinces are called justices of the peace; overseeing the operation of police services, which are responsible for supervising individuals who are released on bail; and enforcing any conditions of release.

Provincial investments in community-based supports and supervision programs to reduce the risk of reoffending at the bail stage are also critical to ensuring that our bail system works as intended. Provinces and territories also hold the key to improving our understanding of bail outcomes. Right now, the provinces do not keep the bail data needed to ascertain whether our bail system is failing. Provincial leadership in improving data collection, and reporting is necessary to ensure effective evidence-based law reform at the federal level. It is an issue that I have brought up with every provincial representative I have met. Bail data will be crucial in understanding the fight against the cracks in our bail system.

In my speech so far, I have addressed several areas where reverse onuses have been imposed, such as cases involving firearm-related offences. We have yet to know whether that has had a positive impact or not. I fear, as we continue to make other reforms, that perhaps we may not understand fully whether they are having the impact Parliament intends.

Further to that, the provinces administer the bail courts. Earlier this year, Brampton mayor Patrick Brown, on behalf of Ontario's Big City Mayors, wrote a letter to the Province of Ontario sounding the alarm on cases being withdrawn, discharged or dismissed. It was almost over 50% of cases. This is shocking.

Highlighting the need for more Crown attorneys to try these cases more quickly, more judges to hear them and more spaces in jails to put criminals away is crucial. Comprehensive criminal justice reform must include all levels of government coming to the table and doing their part. We are ready to do our part and to work with the provinces and territories that are ready to do theirs.

The changes I mentioned will help with our immediate issues, but if we are serious about reducing crime and seeing improvements of public safety, we must look beyond our criminal law system as well. Public safety begins with prevention. It requires supporting our youth, investing in communities and addressing the social conditions, including poverty, addiction, mental health and housing. Bail reform is but one piece of the complex puzzle. Lasting change requires a broader commitment to equity, opportunity and support.

All orders of government must work together to build an effective justice system that distinguishes between those who pose a genuine risk and those who can be safely managed in the community. People in Canada deserve a justice system that protects them all. They deserve laws that are clear, consistent and effective. They also deserve a justice system that works and that is firm but fair. They also deserve a government that listens, responds and acts, and we will do exactly that.

I also want to make mention of the opposition finally showing a shred of common sense, though it is long overdue. In Bill C-242, which is mentioned in today's motion, the Conservatives quietly removed the reckless American-style, far right, three-strike scheme they ran on in the last election. Empty slogans based on sporting rules will not foster a robust criminal system and keep Canadians safe. Canadians deserve real solutions that are guided by working collaboratively with law enforcement, attorneys and other levels of government. That is exactly what our comprehensive bill would do.

I pause here to comment on the way this motion is drafted. It claims that the Liberal government promised to pass criminal justice reform six months ago but has failed to do so. That is strange. Just last week, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which includes targeted Criminal Code provisions to address hate crimes, which are on the rise. The bill passed second reading yesterday evening on a deferred division and is now heading to committee for further study.

Over the summer, the Minister of Justice has been hard at work studying ways to improve our laws by consulting closely with his provincial counterparts, law enforcement, police chiefs and police associations. Meanwhile, the Conservative leader was busy fighting for his own job and then parachuted into Alberta, after being catastrophically rejected by Canadians across the country and in his own former riding of Carleton. However, it seems he has not learned any lessons from that rejection. He continues to act recklessly, prioritizing political posturing over meaningful, evidence-based criminal justice reform.

Let us reject slogans and oversimplifications. Slogans such as “jail not bail” may sound tough, but they do not get us any closer to solving the problem. Real solutions require real work. They involve strengthening laws, improving enforcement, investing in data, devoting resources to addressing the root cause of crime and ultimately building a justice system that works for everyone.

Let us embrace real solutions that are evidence-based, collaborative and grounded in the values of fairness and accountability. That is the path forward. That is the commitment of the government. That is what Canadians deserve and expect.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe in democracy. I absolutely believe in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the charter, we have two fundamental rights that apply to bail matters: the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and the right to reasonable bail. This is bail, not sentencing. Reasonable bail does not mean absolute bail, and that is the consequence, literally, of Bill C-75. The purpose behind a bail hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence; it is an assessment of risk. When we are dealing with violent repeat offenders, the easy solution is that community outweighs the freedom of the accused—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great citizens of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. It is particularly poignant for me given today's topic and given my prior history in the criminal justice system. I dare say that one of the driving forces for me to leave behind, at that point, almost 28 years in criminal justice to become a legislator was that I saw first-hand, daily, the tragic consequences of the failed, soft-on-crime agenda of the Liberal government.

It started in 2015; changes were then made in 2019 with Bill C-75 and Bill C-83 and later, in 2023, with Bill C-5. The cumulative effect is that Canadians are now living in a state of fear. Canadians are waking up every single day to read, see and hear about one heartbreaking story after another, usually about someone who has been killed, wounded, maimed or injured; someone who has had their car stolen or their home invaded; or someone who has been subject to sexual assault. Lo and surprise, individuals committing these offences are on numerous releases and are classified by police services as being well known to them, because they are repeat violent offenders.

That is the reality Canada is facing. This was not the reality prior to 2019. In 2019, there was a balance in our criminal justice system, in which the constitutional rights of the accused, such as the right to be presumed innocent and the right to reasonable bail, were balanced evenly with community safety and the safety of victims. We saw more releases and more detention orders, and people had a level of confidence that things were working as they were supposed to.

In 2019, the government decided to lie to Canadians. Justin Trudeau and his former ministers deliberately lied to Canadians by saying—

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

moved:

That, given that,

(a) violent crime is up 55% under the Liberal government and repeat offenders continue to be released because of Liberal catch and release laws; and

(b) the Liberal government promised to pass criminal justice reform six months ago but has failed to do so;

in order to keep repeat offenders in jail and keep Canadians safe, the House is of the opinion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act, also known as the Jail Not Bail Act, must pass and is committed to sitting extended hours, holding an expeditious committee study and undertaking such other procedural measures as may be necessary to pass it at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

It is always an honour to rise in the chamber to fight for law-abiding Canadians.

The results are in on the Liberals' bail reform experiment, and they failed. They failed our victims. Their policies have failed survivors and their families. They have failed Canadians

If we look at the news headlines that Canadians are waking up to every single day, we see that they are tragic; they are heartbreaking. Extortions are running wild in our community. In Surrey, B.C.; in Peel; and in Calgary, business owners are scared. They are not even picking up calls from unknown phone numbers. We hear stories of broad-daylight shootings, of murders, including of a 70-year-old grandmother who went out to buy groceries and was randomly stabbed and killed on the street. There are violent carjackings. There are home invasions. Home is the place where we are supposed to be the safest; it is supposed to be our castle where we can be in peace to raise our family and live life. Now those areas are being targeted by repeat violent offenders.

Crime is up thanks to the Liberals' failed policies. Thanks to bills like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, they have allowed repeat violent offenders to terrorize our communities over and over again. It is thanks to their decisions and their policies.

The Liberals love to deny and to deflect, and to distract Canadians from their failed record, but they are responsible. In 2019 when they brought in Bill C-75, they codified the principle of restraint, which clearly says that judges, justices of the peace and police officers will release on the least restrictive conditions and at the earliest opportunity. That is a decision they made; they took that action and they presented it to Parliament. Conservatives voted against it then, and we are against the principle today.

Every single day that goes by, 1,600 violent crimes happen in our country. If we do the math, that is almost one Canadian per minute who falls victim to violent crime in Canada because of the Liberals' failure to act, and Canadians are scared; they are terrified. They are afraid to go on an evening walk in their neighbourhood. There are seniors in Oxford County who cannot even go to the bank without seeing security and without being nervous. That is not the Canada my parents came to. That is not the Canadian dream newcomers or folks who have been living here for generations love.

It is the Liberals' policies that have let Canadians down, and the ironic part is that they said, and the Prime Minister said in his campaign, that they were going to take decisive action and that they were going to be making changes to the Criminal Code right away. However, it has been six months, and we have not seen any legislation come forward.

The Liberals keep talking about some magical bill for bail reform. “It's coming”, they say. Well, they did bail reform, and they failed, so we do not need any more Liberal bail policies. We need to scrap Liberal bail. We need to invest in making sure our frontline officers have the tools they need. We need to make sure the Criminal Code is reflective of today's realities, which is why last week I tabled the proposed jail not bail act.

I did the homework for the Liberals about the jail not bail legislation. I know they are struggling to put something together. The bill came together from consultation and support from right across our country, from Whitehorse, Yukon, all the way to the east coast. I, along with my colleague, the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, and others from my Conservative team, have met with law enforcement and dozens of police unions. We have met with victim advocacy groups. I have met with the families of victims. I have sat at their tables and had conversations. They have cried because the situation is preventable. We did not have to be here today.

Our bill has feedback from Crown prosecutors and from defence lawyers, from the legal community. More importantly, thousands of Canadians are signing our petition demanding that the government finally wake up, end the madness and restore safe streets in our country again.

Our opposition day motion is important so we can pass Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, as soon as possible. We want the Liberals to get out of the way, stop blocking safe communities, stop delaying, stop denying, stop chasing photo ops and media headlines, and instead focus on fighting crime for Canadians. We have seen this not just in the big cities; crime is now coming to rural Canada. Businesses are being affected. There is an economic cost. Emotional, social and security costs are being added on.

No one has seen this level of crime before. That is why my jail not bail act would repeal the principle of restraint that the Liberals brought in. We would introduce a principle of public safety as the primary consideration for bail decisions. Let us put the rights of law-abiding Canadians first, not the criminals like the Liberals have been doing for the last number of years.

My bill would introduce a new major offences category that would include violent crimes like arson, extortion, home invasions, carjackings and assaults on peace officers and that would become grounds for a reverse onus on the criminals to get bail. We would bring in legislation to add clarity to the Criminal Code to give judges the clarity they need by making it mandatory for judges to look at the criminal history of an accused person, for all offences.

We would change and tighten risk assessment when it comes to granting bail on secondary grounds. We would add new measures as tertiary grounds. If someone who has a long rap sheet or has been charged with and convicted of an indictable offence over the last 10 years is released on bail and caught again, there should be no bail. We would tighten the conditions for bail.

Right now in Canada, a criminal who has been indicted for a major offence can be a surety, can vouch for other criminals. We have seen that. Please tell me about that. There are criminals vouching for other criminals. How does that make any sense? A surety is supposed to be somebody who could support another person to make sure they stay out of trouble, but when there are criminals vouching for criminals, that is a problem.

Our bill is not about being partisan. We are asking for members' support and for them to put their partisanship aside and think about Canadians. The bill is a common-sense piece of legislation. It would protect Canadians. It would ensure that repeat violent offenders stay behind bars, where they belong, and it would restore safe streets in our communities once again.

Combatting Hate Act

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to split my time with the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

This legislation, in my view, is flawed and redundant. We already have laws to cover what this legislation would be doing. I am going to talk about the real issue that I see, which is enforcing criminal laws in our country. It is one of the problems we have in our country right now, not the lack of laws. I also want to talk a bit about what we should be talking about, which is our Conservative plan to combat crime. There are real crimes happening in our country and real problems that everyday citizens are facing, and we need to take action. That is what we need to talk about.

I am not a lawyer, but frankly, anything to do with stopping hate sounds like a good thing. When I first looked at this bill, it seemed like something I would maybe be interested in supporting. However, as I started talking to people, I heard a lot of people say they were for it and a lot say they were against it. A lot of issues started coming up, and I realized that maybe a bit more needed to be looked at in this bill.

Instead of reading about the bill, I grabbed the bill and looked at it to see what it actually said, and I found some interesting things. The first thing I noticed as I read the bill is that it would create a new intimidation offence. It would prohibit conduct intended to provoke fear in order to impede access to religious, cultural, education or community places. In other words, if there was a demonstration outside a church, mosque or synagogue and a person trying to go there felt intimidated and did not feel safe, that is what this bill is referring to. Okay, that is fine, but we already have subsection 423(1) of the Criminal Code, which is about using intimidation to stop people from doing something lawful. It is not so much that we are lacking the law to protect our religious, cultural, educational and community places, but it is that we do not tend to enforce the law that is already there.

I kept reading the bill and found a second offence that it would create, a new obstruction offence, which would prohibit intentionally obstructing or interfering with lawful access to religious, cultural, education or community places. That is a whole other level of intimidation when someone cannot physically get there. Once again, we already have laws for this. There are subsections 176(2) and 176(3) in the Criminal Code, for obstructing or disturbing religious services or meetings. It is already an offence. There is also section 264, which deals with criminal harassment, threats and stalking. These are long-standing offences that have been used in many different cases, but there is often a lack of enforcement of these laws in the specific circumstances related to churches and other religious institutions.

I found a third criminal offence that the bill would create, which is a new hate crime offence. It proposes to establish that any federal offence motivated by hatred would be a distinct offence with elevated penalties. We already have laws against hate. In fact, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code makes hate an aggravating factor when someone is convicted. In other words, if a person is convicted of assault, mischief or some more serious crime and it was motivated by hate, a judge can add hate as an aggravating factor, which would make the sentence that much longer. It would make the offence that much more serious to the person. We already have this, and again, it is just not enforced as much as it should be.

A fourth offence would be created by this bill, a new hate propaganda offence, which would prohibit the public display of certain hate or terrorist symbols with intent to promote hatred against an identifiable group. An unfortunate example of this happened just a week ago in St. Thomas, where a family that moved into a neighbourhood was promoting a lot of anti-Semitic material and songs and a swastika was mowed into the lawn. Guess what. Two people were arrested and charged with criminal harassment, public incitement of hatred and mischief. This just happened. We obviously have not passed this bill yet, yet the police had the laws and tools they needed to charge these two people. Fortunately, in this case, charges were laid.

There are of course even more laws. There is a hate propaganda law in section 318, even for things like advocating genocide. There is section 319, for public incitement likely to cause a breach of the peace. Subsection 319(2) deals with the wilful promotion of hatred, and subsection 319(2.1) is about the wilful promotion of anti-Semitism. Of course, there is section 430, which deals with mischief to property motivated by hate. That is already an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years. We have all of these laws on the books that deal with the subject matter that this particular legislation is talking about.

I kept reading because there was more. There were a couple more things that I found. The first was that the law removes the requirement for the Attorney General to agree to lay hate charges. There are pros and cons to this. Some would say that this is a roadblock and that it makes it difficult to lay hate charges. Others would say that it also prevents vexatious charges from happening. It provides that sober second thought to make sure that this does indeed reach the bar of a hate crime. Removing the requirement for the Attorney General is maybe not the best idea.

The other thing that I found, the last thing, was that it removes the word “extreme” from the definition of hatred. Instead of extreme bias or hatred toward a particular group, it says bias or hatred toward that group.

Again, it lowers the bar a little, making it a little easier for vexatious charges to be laid, which is concerning to me. We have to be careful that we do not give too much power to the state when it comes to maintaining our freedoms. It is a balance that we have to be really careful with. If we take all of that together, the legislation does not actually do a whole lot. In terms of the first points that I made, we already have the laws to cover what we need to do here. It is just those last two things, which are relatively small, I would say, that it changes.

This is really window dressing. It avoids the real problem, which I have mentioned a few times, and that is proper enforcement. To be clear, I am not criticizing the police. In fact, if we were to talk to any police officers about any kind of crime in our country, they would say that they are very frustrated. They want to enforce the laws, but they have a lot of problems and a lot of things holding them back. For example, they know that criminals will just end up getting bail instead of going to jail, which makes it very difficult for them to arrest people. There is a lack of will at the civic, provincial and even federal levels among prosecutors to actually prosecute these crimes. Therefore, police are not empowered to lay these charges, because the prosecutors will simply not prosecute them.

Conservatives believe in protecting vulnerable communities; we also believe in free expression, religious freedom and peaceful protest. These are the things that we need to balance. My concern with the legislation is that it would tip the scales a little bit too much toward giving a lot of power to the federal government. I am concerned about free expression.

We need to target hate crimes with real enforcement instead of targeting law-abiding Canadians. I want to point out that the symbol part of the legislation can be very tricky as well. Symbols are used in many different situations. Of course, there is the example with the Hindu community, which has used what we would call the swastika for eons as one of its sacred symbols. It has very positive meanings for them, but the Nazis took that symbol over and called it the hakenkreuz, and that became their symbol of Nazism. Therefore, we have to be very careful not to outlaw a symbol that is very meaningful to certain groups. We have to be very careful.

Briefly, I want to speak about what the government should be focusing on, in my opinion. This corresponds to what we believe as Conservatives, which is that we should be focusing on the real crime issues that we have in our country. We should be helping our Canadian residents to feel safe in their own neighbourhoods, but they do not feel safe right now. We should be helping police forces, prosecutors and courts to do their jobs. We should be helping them to get things done.

We have a lack of timely follow-through. Charges get dropped. There are weak sentences. This comes back to some of the legislative changes that the Liberal government has made. Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 were reforms that it undertook to eliminate a lot of mandatory minimum sentences, to reduce the sentencing times, to actually create house arrest, to allow criminals to get out on bail rather than going to jail. These are the things that are causing the problems in our cities and our country today. These are the issues that my constituents, and I think all of our constituents, talk about.

These are the issues that we should be debating and changing in the House.

Where is the Liberal bill to undo the bail reforms that Liberals made, to get criminals back in jail rather than out on bail? We are still waiting. We have been promised this for months, and it has not happened. Everybody is asking for this. Mayors are asking for this. Provincial premiers are asking for this.

We really need to move forward. I want to reiterate that I believe Bill C-9 is flawed. We need to focus on what we need to do to fix the problems that we have with our laws in our country so that Canadians can feel safe in their neighbourhoods, so that Canadians can have peace and so that they can live in harmony and practise freedom.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us remind one another that the government weakened the Criminal Code a lot when it introduced Bill C-75 in 2016-17. The government did that so badly that we see crime rates and hate rates on the rise in Canada. We seem to be out of control on how to fight crime and make sure we protect Canadians. That is why the bill before us is empty except for a definition, and a definition does not solve problems.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Riding Mountain.

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime that has threatened the safety and well-being of families across our region. A recent report by Manitoba west district RCMP found that over an 18-month period, just one offender in Swan River was responsible for 107 offences.

Petitioners continue to suffer consequences from the 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. Petitioners in the Swan Valley want to see the end to the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies so that criminals can stay behind bars.

This is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. I support the good people of Swan River.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Riding Mountain.

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime that has threatened the safety and well-being of families across our region. A recent report by the Manitoba RCMP West District found that, over an 18-month period, just one offender in Swan River was responsible for 107 offences. This is in a community of 4,000 people.

The petitioners are continuing to suffer the consequences of soft-on-crime Liberal policies such as 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.

Petitioners in the Swan River Valley want to see an end to the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies, so criminals stay behind bars. This is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail for repeat violent offenders. I support the good people of Swan River.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to rise in this chamber not long ago and ask the Minister of Public Safety about the scourge of crime on streets in my own community back home and across the country. So much of this problem of rampant criminality is a direct consequence of Liberal government catch-and-release bail policies. These policies put repeat, often violent, offenders back on the streets, sometimes hours after they were arrested and charged and then released.

Police officers have been incredibly frustrated by this. We have been calling for action, as have provinces, municipalities, police agencies, victims' rights groups and businesses. Everyone has been calling for the government to act. The government has continued to allude to some sort of bail reform the members say is coming, but they have been shockingly scant on any of the details of what that bail reform will entail and, more importantly, whether it will involve repealing the principle of restraint. That is the section of the Criminal Code the Liberal bail law, Bill C-75, put in place compelling judges to release offenders under the least onerous conditions and at the earliest possible opportunity.

For all the systematic issues that we have been flagging as a party, that Canadians have been flagging, such as violent offenders being released and people being arrested for serious offences while out on bail, the case has been made. We can draw a direct line between this and the principle of restraint in Bill C-75. This is important because I asked the Minister of Public Safety about it, using an example from St. Thomas, Ontario, of a repeat offender, a homeless man, who was released on bail with the condition that he be home by 10 p.m., despite not having a home. This is an impossible bail condition that the police have no ability to enforce.

That matters because the public safety minister's representative, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, had the audacity to say that the government is “tough on crime”. She said that with a straight face, that the government is tough on crime, the government that has been the only stakeholder in the country not to acknowledge the bail crisis. When we have NDP leaders, Conservative leaders, provincial Liberal leaders who have broken ranks with their feckless, easy-on-crime and easy-on-criminals, hug-a-thug federal counterparts across the aisle here, they have all been in agreement that this is not a tough-on-crime government. This is instead a government that is tough on victims, a government that puts the rights of offenders above the rights of victims.

We get a strong sense of what the government has prioritized, despite claiming some bail legislation is coming at some point, maybe after the budget. Who knows? This is a government that has found it high enough on its agenda to propose a ban on large cash transactions. It has decided that banning people from buying a used car worth more than $10,000 is more important than bail reform. It has decided that confiscating firearms from law-abiding gun owners is more important than bail. It has announced it is going full steam ahead on that despite the public safety minister, not knowing he was being recorded, actually defending our arguments about this program's uselessness.

My question for the government is, how dare it claim to be tough on crime when it has been ignoring the pleas from virtually everyone else in the country to get serious about bail reform, to do it urgently, to do it imminently and, once and for all, to put the rights of victims first?

Combatting Hate Crime

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in a country where everyone can speak freely, worship freely and live without fear. I believe that all hon. members of the House agree that no one should face threats because of their race, their faith or who they love, yet today, Canadians are confronting an alarming reality. The police tell us that hate crimes have risen sharply since the Liberals came to power, up 258% nationwide since 2015. Within that increase, anti-Semitic hate crimes have jumped 416%, and hate crimes against South Asians are up 377%. Last year alone, police reported a staggering 4,882 hate crimes across Canada, and the number of police-reported hate crimes have increased for six years in a row.

These numbers are real and are deeply troubling. I agree with the minister that the government must act, but we must separate the goal from the method. Legislating against hate is welcome if it minimally impairs free speech and actually makes our communities safer. However, legislation without enforcement is like a lock without a key. It has potential to be useful, but it is far from effective.

I share the minister's concern for the deterioration of civil discourse in our society and for the victims of hate-motivated crime. The Criminal Code already makes it illegal to utter threats, incite violence or harass someone because of who they are. It contains offences related to mischief, to blocking infrastructure and to property damage. These provisions are clear, court-tested and strong. The problem is that police are too often instructed to just keep the peace instead of enforcing the law. When hate crimes are poorly enforced, victims and witnesses often feel like reporting these incidents is futile.

If authorities fail to investigate thoroughly, prosecute offenders or take clear action, people lose faith in the system. This lack of accountability leaves victims feeling isolated, unsafe and skeptical that their experiences will be taken seriously. Over time, communities become less willing to come forward, allowing bias-motivated behaviour to persist unchecked. Weak enforcement therefore not only undermines justice for individual victims but erodes public confidence in the rule of law.

When offenders avoid meaningful consequences, they are emboldened to push boundaries, disrupt the peace and exploit loopholes, and that is what I fear will happen with this legislation. For example, this legislation refers to places of worship but makes no mention of the predominantly ethnic neighbourhoods, hospitals and other settings that have also been settings for protests. They hold significant risk of leading to violence with hateful things being said. There is a significant risk that with this bill, protesting mobs would simply move back into residential neighbourhoods, where they invite escalation and confrontation and instill real fear in families, seniors and children.

Our justice system remains a revolving door thanks to Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Charges are dropped or pleaded down, trials are delayed and sentences are inconsistent. This bill would do nothing to change that. While the government keeps promising that reform to bail and sentencing is coming, we have yet to see it in this House. People deserve to feel safe in their homes, and they will not without enforcement of the laws currently on the books. New offences are only meaningful if they are clear, enforceable and consistently applied. This bill needs work to pass that test.

While the government claims that the definition of hatred in this legislation simply codifies the language from case law, in fact the definition as articulated sets a materially lower standard. Hatred is defined in the bill as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. That is a confusing mouthful.

The minister himself has admitted that the application of this law will be fact-dependent. That means that both law enforcement and ordinary Canadians will have to do some guessing in the moment as to what might be interpreted as a crime. Detestation and vilification are crimes, but disdain and dislike are a part of free speech. One thing I think all of us in the House know is that one person's disdain is another person's detestation, and one person's dislike certainly feels like vilification to others.

In the case law, the standard was higher, requiring the emotion of hatred to be intense and extreme in nature, the extreme manifestation of the sentiment of hate, and far beyond dislike, disdain and simple offensiveness. I fear that the bill, as drafted, will become more fodder for accusations on social media, vexatious complaints to police and aggression between groups.

History warns us about where lowering the standard for hate speech can lead. Laws meant to stop hatred have been turned against political dissenters and minority voices. We should not give the state broader powers to police thought or symbolism without first trying to make our existing tools against hatred more effective.

Like all hon. members in the House, I reject hate in all its forms. Every Canadian deserves to feel safe at home, in their place of worship and on the street, but safety will not come solely from criminalizing symbols or speech. Safety comes from making sure that when someone assaults another person, threatens a synagogue or vandalizes a mosque, the police investigate and make arrests and the court holds a fair trial and enforces the sentence.

The bill removes the Attorney General's oversight before a hate propaganda charge proceeds. That step has provided an important safeguard against politicization and misuse, especially in the case of private prosecutions. Eliminating it without providing another way to prevent vexatious prosecutions leaves the door wide open to the weaponization of this bill.

Right now, our biggest problem is that enforcement is not consistent. Bail is virtually automatic, and charges are often dropped. Serious charges are plead down. That is where Parliament's attention should be: on stronger enforcement, on swifter prosecutions and on support for victims. Unamended, this bill risks punishing the unpopular while the truly dangerous slip through. While I agree wholeheartedly that rising hate crimes demand action, this bill feels more like a Liberal press release than it does like real protection.

Conservatives believe in limited government, in the rule of law and in freedom of expression, even for speech we find offensive. We believe that what is illegal must be clear and tied to real harm, not to subjective feelings of detestation or vilification, however painful they may be to hear. The right response to hateful ideas is not more censorship. It is more debate, more truth and more courage from citizens willing to challenge hate in the open.

If the government wants to protect Canadians, it should start by enforcing the strong laws we already have. Make sure threats, assaults and property crimes motivated by hate are investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the Criminal Code. Give police the resources they need. Support victims, but do not lightly hand the state new powers to decide which ideas may be expressed.

Public Safety

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Vaughan—Woodbridge to present a petition brought forward by @notonjoeswatch and other members of our community with regard to crime. Like many places in this country, Vaughan has experienced heightened levels of crime. In the York Region, violent crime is up 58%, home invasions are up 82% and carjackings are up 300%.

The petitioners are calling for the Liberal government to immediately repeal Bill C-5, which revoked mandatory minimum penalties for some serious offences, and Bill C-75, which forces judges to apply the principle of restraint for early release on serious offences. Petitioners also call for the introduction of mandatory minimum penalties and a serious offence category.

I support the petitioners. It is time that we get serious on crime. We must do something about the chaos in our streets.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition and to voice the concerns of the constituents of Riding Mountain.

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime that has threatened the safety and well-being of families across our region. A recent report by the Manitoba RCMP West District found that, in an 18-month period, just four offenders in Swan River were responsible for 239 offences. Petitioners continue to suffer the consequences of the soft-on-crime Liberal policies, such as Bill C-5, which repealed the mandatory jail time for serious crimes; and Bill C-75, which forces judges to release repeat violent offenders right back onto the streets.

Petitioners in Swan Valley want to see the end of the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies and put criminals behind bars. This is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. I support the good people of Swan River.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join this debate on the opposition motion put forward today. However, before I do that, as it is one of the first times I have been on my feet after the last election, I would like to thank a few people for once again allowing me to be here as the voice of the good people of Regina—Lewvan.

It is my third term, so 2019, 2021 and 2025. It has been an honour to be here for almost six years. Obviously, none of us get to this place without a lot of help, and I had a great campaign manager, Shelley, who did an awesome job. We had a team out every day knocking on doors: Khrishno, Brian and Anshumaan. We had a great group of people who helped, such as Ron. I could go on and on, but if I miss someone I will feel bad. There was a core group that came out a lot and helped us knock on 43,000 doors throughout the campaign to earn the vote of people from across Regina—Lewvan.

That being said, there is a core group of people I would not be here without, and they are my wife Larissa and our three kids, Jameson, Claire and Nickson, who started school last week. Dad got to be there for their first day of school, and it was fantastic. They are having a great time in school. I hope they are almost out of school by now. If I am not mistaken, they are heading to the hockey rink right away. From the bottom of my heart, I thank Larissa very much for being the glue that holds our family together.

The motion before us today was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I think we have gone back and forth on a few things, so I will read it to make sure we know what we are debating on the floor of the House today. It says:

That, given that the Liberal government has changed the law to allow for house arrest for serious offenders and lets repeat criminals go free within hours of their arrest, which has resulted in a 50% increase in violent crime, the House call on the Liberal government to replace these changes with a "Three-Strikes-And-You're-Out" law that will stop criminals convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest and keep violent criminals in jail for at least 10 years.

How did we get here? Why is a law like this being brought forward by the opposition? We have a solution, and I will go through three or four things that this motion and our proposed law would change. However, we have to know what the problem is. Over the last 10 years, the problem has been a couple of bills that have been put forward, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, and we can see the results.

This is not a new government. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years, as everyone knows, and I think they should be judged by the lack of progress they are making on certain files.

These numbers are from StatsCan; I am not making them up. Since 2015, gun crime has skyrocketed 130%. Instead of targeting the criminals responsible, the government doubled down on law-abiding firearm owners. The number of homicides has increased by 29%, and sexual assault has increased by almost 76% in this country. Despite the rapid rise, we have seen a refusal of the government to commit to making it tougher for people to get out on bail. We hear this from police associations across the country. There are people who get arrested hundreds of times. We have heard the numbers. People may say that our proposed law may not be the solution for everything, but it is going to help. If the people who continuously commit crimes are in jail, there is going to be less crime.

For example, in Kelowna, 15 people committed 1,300 crimes. If those people were in jail, there would be 1,300 fewer crimes committed in that city. In Vancouver, as we have heard time and again, 40 people committed 6,000 crimes. I think everyone in this room could agree that if those 40 people were in jail, there would be less crime in Vancouver. I do not think it is a big leap to think that if criminals are in jail, they are not able to commit crimes.

Here are some of the solutions that we have brought forward and some of the things that this proposed law would do. The Conservative bill would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint with a directive for primary considerations to be the protection and safety of the public. It would introduce a new major offence category with reverse onus bail conditions for charges relating to firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. It would strengthen bail laws by mandating judges to consider the full criminal history of an accused, would prevent anyone convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years while also on bail and charged with a major offence from getting bail, and would toughen the risk assessment standards from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonably foreseeable”. It would also prohibit anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as the guarantor who ensures bail conditions are followed, would require judges to enforce bail conditions on guarantors and would require non-residents to surrender their passports upon request.

Before I go on, I want to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time.

These are four things that the “three strikes and you're out” law would help with, which I would think most people would see as reasonable improvements to the bail system.

I do want to talk about a few of the comments that some of my colleagues made in the House today. If people across Canada have been watching, they would see a distinct difference between what Conservatives have been talking about and what the Liberals, and especially the New Democrats, have been talking about. We have been talking about the victims and the rights that victims should have, and ensuring that victims are taken care of. A lot of focus, especially from the NDP member, was on criminals. Forgive me, but I will always make sure victims' rights are ahead of criminals' rights.

Can members imagine someone getting out on bail again and again and committing crimes? Especially when these people is out on bail, can the Liberals not feel for the victims, who have to see them in their neighbourhoods, in their community? This is from experience. When someone we love has been hurt, and the offender is within our community, every time we see a car like theirs, the hair on the back of our neck stands up. Every time we see them in a grocery store, our pulse quickens and our palms get sweaty. We just feel at a loss because this person is walking free, and the person we love who was hurt will never again feel the same.

This is what we are doing to Canadians across the country with the soft-on-bail policy brought in by the Liberal government. The fact that they will not vote for a motion and will be obstructing our ideas to ensure Canadians are safer, quite frankly, confuses me. We are trying to work together. Everyone is talking about Parliament now coming together and working. I heard one of my Liberal colleagues say, “It increased crime by 11% in the States. It did not work in the States, so it will not work here.” An increase in crime in Canada by 11% is a lot better than the 130% increase over the last 10 years under the government.

It really is the definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over again, as the Liberal government does, and expect different results. Members of the police force even get tired of arresting the same person. They do not even know why they charge them because they get out the very next day or that night. I could not even imagine being on the front lines as a police officer and seeing the same person go into jail, get out of jail, go into jail and get out of jail. It must be tough for the police officers to go to work, knowing that the person from whom they are trying to protect the community will laugh at them when they arrest them because they know they are going to get out because bail is so easy to get in this country. It is time to make the right decisions.

I will just end with another story from the small town I am from. This summer, there was a bust and a sting, and a person was found having a lot of child pornography in our small community. He went to court, and he was out that afternoon. This person lives two blocks from my kids' school. They picked the rental house because it has a little library full of kids' books, just to make sure the kids would stop by and take books out. He was released that day from court. He had child pornography, and my kids had to walk past that guy's house to go to school. It was unbelievable for the town. Parents were outraged, as they should be. How can that happen in Canada, that someone like that is allowed to be released the same day and be within two blocks of our kids' school?

That is something that needs to be fixed in our country. I hope some of my colleagues listen to the words I am saying, look at this motion, look at the “three strikes and you're out” bill to try to protect Canadians and put victims first by putting criminals in jail.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating that I am will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville

I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the motion moved by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot about bail. This is an important opportunity to reaffirm our government's commitment to public safety and the integrity of our criminal justice system while ensuring that our bail laws strike the right balance between protecting our communities and respecting the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bail is the legal mechanism by which individuals charged with a criminal offence can be released pending trial. It is a fundamental part of our justice system that reflects the importance of the presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied reasonable bail without valid grounds, as provided for in section 11(e) of the Charter.

Canadian bail laws aim to ensure that accused persons appear in court when required, that public safety is protected, and that confidence in the administration of justice is upheld. These principles, known as primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, guide judicial decisions relating to the detention or release of an accused person.

Bail is therefore not just a legal concept. It reflects our democratic values here in Canada. It ensures that people are not unnecessarily detained before their trial, while providing courts with the tools they need to manage any risks to the public. When there are concerns that an accused person may reoffend or pose a threat to victims or the public, courts can impose strict conditions or deny bail.

At the same time, our bail system must take into account the reality of marginalized communities, such as indigenous peoples and vulnerable and under-represented populations, in pre-trial detention. That is why our laws require police and the courts to consider the unique circumstances of these individuals when making bail decisions.

The government has taken practical measures to modernize and improve the bail system. In 2019, Parliament passed former Bill C‑75, which introduced the most significant bail reforms in decades. Thanks to these reforms, the circumstances of indigenous accused and accused from vulnerable populations are taken into account by the courts when assessing risk. These reforms also strengthened protection for victims of domestic violence by adding additional reverse onus provisions in such situations.

Recent reforms introduced by former Bill C‑48, which received royal assent in December 2023, strengthened Canada's bail system by expanding the use of reverse onus provisions and requiring the accused to demonstrate why they should be free. These changes mainly target violent repeat offenders, particularly those who have been charged with offences involving firearms, knives, bear spray or other weapons.

Bill C‑48 also expanded the reverse onus provisions to cases of domestic violence and required the courts to specifically consider the accused's history of violence and the safety of the community when making decisions regarding bail.

Our government developed these reforms in close collaboration with the provinces, territories and law enforcement agencies. More recently, in response to concerns regarding violent recidivism, the government worked closely with the provinces and territories to look at other possible improvements. Our government is committed to ensuring that our bail laws work as intended across Canada and that they effectively respond to new challenges. Public safety remains our government's top priority.

We have just spent a couple of days talking about safety. This fall, we will be introducing a bill that will continue to address these issues. The Criminal Code already contains robust provisions for certain serious offences, including those involving firearms or organized crime. Reverse onus provisions apply, requiring each accused to show why they should be free.

Courts can also impose conditions to protect victims and the public. The government also recognizes that detention cannot guarantee public safety. That is why our government is investing in community justice centres, drug treatment courts and other initiatives that tackle the root causes of crime, such as mental health and substance use. These integrated approaches promote rehabilitation, reduce recidivism and improve community well-being.

People in Canada want a fair, effective and reliable justice system. They want to know that dangerous individuals will be properly dealt with and that our laws reflect the crime happening in our communities. Canadians also want a system that respects the Charter. That is exactly what the government is doing by strengthening legal tools, supporting law enforcement and investing in prevention as well as bail system reforms that will protect everyone in Canada while upholding our democratic values.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, but I heard her say several times that, sadly, gun violence and the rise in crime are really a result of Bill C‑75.

Is her assessment based on any studies, or is it as simplistic as what we heard from her colleague earlier? Is she aware of any analyses that might show that these types of issues could also be related to other social or health-related determinants, mental health or access to housing?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair again; welcome back.

Communities across York Region are facing a surge in violent crime, leaving my constituents terrified for their safety. The crime statistics in York Region are staggering and are an example of the trend that has occurred throughout all of Canada. Here are the stats from a York Region police report. From 2020 to 2024, failures to appear in court were up 182%. Bail violations and breaches were up 30%. Home invasions increased 82%. Residential break-and-enters were up 50%. Carjackings soared a staggering 305%. Theft of motor vehicles rose 127%. Overall, crime in York Region is up 58%.

These numbers are more than statistics. I rise on today's “three strikes and you're out” law after my community has recently been devastated by the Liberals' soft-on-crime policy. In the past three weeks, the residents of Vaughan have experienced seven shootings. I met with my constituents in King—Vaughan who presented a letter signed by hundreds of their neighbours concerned by the devastating increase in violence happening within the riding.

They expressed their outrage after the senseless murder of Abdul Aleem Farooqi. He was a husband and a father of four, described by his family as a hero after he was murdered in front of his children during a violent home invasion. No family should ever endure this kind of tragedy, yet in Canada today, these stories have become far too common.

I will share with the House the words of my constituents directly, as their pleading deserves to be heard in the chamber. The note states, “We write to you not only as your constituents, but as terrified families, parents and neighbours. Our community is reeling from the tragic and senseless murder of a father of four, an unthinkable loss that has left a family destroyed and a neighbourhood traumatized. But this was not a one-off event. It is the devastating peak of a violent wave overtaking everyone in King—Vaughan. Our homes are being broken into repeatedly, shamelessly, without fear of consequence. Our seniors are being robbed in broad daylight. Our streets are no longer safe for our children. This is not a blip. This is a crisis. And this is not the Canada we knew.”

They go on to outline what they need. Number one was real protection, to start at home. Number two was to support law enforcement and coordinate, fund and prioritize Canadian safety. What Conservatives are putting forward today would address exactly what my constituents stated as the greatest need.

Number three was that there needs to be no more second chances for criminals. A person who invades someone's home should never walk the streets again. There is no such thing as a non-violent break-in, and the very act of entering someone's sanctuary uninvited is an act of psychological and physical warfare. We require victim-first policies; the rights of criminals must never come before the rights of law-abiding Canadians. We need real laws with real consequences.

We need to stop putting Canadians last in our country and start protecting the people who live here, work here and pay taxes here.

This is not about politics; this is about the basic human right to safety in our own homes, on our streets and in our daily lives. We are grieving. We are angry. We are done waiting. On behalf of my community, I rise on this motion to demand action from the government because if we are not safe in our own homes, then nothing else matters.

The violence spans across the many communities in my riding. Yesterday, police arrested two of three men charged in two armed home invasions who were already out on bail. I met with Chief Jim MacSween of York Regional Police just last week, when he reported that over 1,300 individuals in our region are out on bail. I will repeat that. York region has a population of 1.2 million individuals, and 1,300 are out on bail. As he stated plainly in our meeting, “Bail needs to be reformed”.

These repeat offenders are free on our streets while families in our communities continue to live in fear, and this is not unique to King—Vaughan. Across Canada, various other communities are seeing the same patterns of violence while being told that their safety is secondary to the so-called rights of these ruthless criminals. We hear about stabbings, shootings and extortion on a daily basis in the House and in our communities.

If the government took meaningful action on bail reform, as the Prime Minister has promised, and if repeat violent offenders faced real consequences like the ones we are suggesting with this “three strikes and you're out” law instead of the Liberal revolving-door system on bail, Abdul Aleem Farooqi might still be alive today. Kleinburg families might not have to endure these home invasions. This motion is not only one of necessity but one of urgency.

After 10 years of the Liberal government, Canadians have never been so at risk. The government had the chance to act. The Prime Minister himself promised bail reform, but instead of delivering reform that Canadians so desperately needed, he walked away for the summer and returned to the House with nothing. Canadians were promised safety; instead, they received another Liberal Prime Minister who is more concerned with criminals than the victims they terrorize, empty words with no actions and a justice system that continues to let violent offenders run rampant on our streets.

The Liberal government has weakened our justice system at every turn. With Bill C-5, it repealed mandatory jail time for serious gun crime. With Bill C-75, it let repeat violent offenders right back onto our streets with devastating consequences for families. Families in King—Vaughan and across the country have already paid the ultimate price for the government's inaction. Canadians are living in fear while repeat violent offenders roam free. This is a question of basic safety, justice and common sense.

Canadians deserve a government that keeps its promise and protects its citizens. They deserve laws, like this, that will hold repeat violent offenders accountable, not a revolving-door system that allows them back on our streets. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their own homes, and constituents in King—Vaughan and countless Canadians across this country are demanding action. We have all been elected to represent Canadians and provide them with the safety they deserve. The time for action is now. No more empty promises from the same Liberal government.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it sort of makes me ponder why we are where we are now. We are in the position where we have to have motions like the one before us because repeat violent offenders keep hurting folks in our community. The truth is that we have had six months of the current government, and it could have ended thousands of deaths, rapes and abuses of children if it had repealed Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. That would instantly have made a difference.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for King—Vaughan.

It is a privilege to rise, as always, on behalf of the resilient residents of Oshawa.

I am not exaggerating, despite what the members across the way think, when I say that residents in my community are scared. They are worried about walking down their own streets, sending their children to school or living in their own homes. They tell me every day that they feel less safe in our community than they did just a few years ago.

Unfortunately, the data backs them up. Since this fourth-term Liberal government was elected to office in 2015, violent crime has skyrocketed in this country. Total violent crime is up nearly 50%. Homicides are up 28%, and gang-related homicides alone are up a staggering 78%. Sexual assaults, one of the most devastating crimes for victims, are up 75%, and we know that 90% of those victims are women. Violent firearms offences, the crimes involving the use, pointing or discharge of a gun, are up 116%, and they have increased nine years in a row. Extortion is up a whopping 357%, and theft has surged by almost 46%. Trafficking in persons is up by more than 83% and sexual violations against children, perhaps the most heartbreaking statistic of all, have more than doubled, up 119%. Even crimes like kidnapping, harassment and forcible confinement are up.

This does not sound like exaggeration. Canadians are seeing the evidence with their own eyes, and it is no wonder they feel unsafe. Behind every single one of these numbers is a victim, a family and often an entire community that has been shattered. The statistics confirm what Canadians already know.

Since 2015, female victimization by intimate partner violence has risen nearly 19%. Since 2019, when the Liberals passed Bill C-75, the number of female victims of intimate partner violence has risen by another 13.5%. That means there are tens of thousands more women who have suffered abuse, even as the government claims its legislation was supposed to protect them.

Advocates are sounding the alarm as well. Last week, I met Cait Alexander, who was left to die by her ex-partner. He was out on $500 bail, by the way. Out he went, but he then left someone for dead. Cait Alexander, the founder of End Violence Everywhere, put it powerfully when she said that Canada has become a graveyard of preventable deaths, with innocent women and children paying the price while begging for reform, begging for safety. She said that we point fingers at the U.S. while our own citizens bleed or are forced to leave simply to stay alive. Cait has even asked the Minister of Justice to call her personally and tell her to her face that Canada is not the Wild West.

The crisis is not just out there somewhere in Canada, it is here. It is in my community, in Oshawa and in the Durham region. Krista MacNeil, the executive director of Victim Services of Durham Region, recently shared devastating numbers with me. In 2024, her team provided direct support for nearly 3,000 victims of intimate partner violence in Durham region, a 33% increase from the year prior. This year, they are already on track to reach 3,700 cases, another 26% increase.

Due to how cases are recorded, the true number of incidents last year would have been closer to 4,029, 80% of those survivors are women and girls. Still, femicide is not even recognized as a distinct crime in our criminal code. The Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability reminds us that two out of every three women in Canada will experience violence in their lifetime, and that a woman is killed every 48 hours in this country, usually by a man close to her.

Krista told me that the violence is getting worse, not better. She reports a rise in intimate partner violence and femicides, an increase in the brutality and the severity of attacks, and more cases involving younger individuals, including teens in dating relationships.

She also warns that our justice system is failing survivors, that femicide is ignored in the Criminal Code, that survivors are left in the dark about offender release and that bail notifications, when they do happen, are not always trauma-informed; in fact they rarely are, which leaves women and families in even greater danger.

These are not just statistics; they are my neighbours. They are families in Oshawa. They are real people falling through the cracks of a broken system, a system that has been broken by the Liberal government, which claims we now can trust it to fix it someday, maybe, when it gets around to it.

How did we get here? We got here because of deliberate choices made by the Liberal government. We all know that in 2019, the Liberals passed Bill C-75, which introduced what they call the “principle of restraint” for bail, requiring judges to give primary consideration to releasing offenders at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. In other words, regardless of their criminal record and regardless of their history, the starting point is to let someone out and to let them out quickly.

In 2022, the government doubled down and passed Bill C-5. This law repealed mandatory prison sentences for a long list of serious offences: using firearms in commission of an offence, possessing a prohibited weapon with ammunition, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting guns illegally, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, and even discharging a firearm with intent. The Liberals reduced mandatory prison sentences for these.

The Liberals claim to care about gun crime, but their actions expose the truth. Instead of going after violent criminals, they come after people like me, a proud RPAL holder, and other law-abiding firearm owners who follow every rule and every regulation. Meanwhile, the thugs pulling the triggers on our streets are being handed free passes. The government ripped out mandatory prison sentences for the worst gun offenders, the ones who use weapons to threaten, to maim or to kill. They sided with criminals over victims again. The Liberal government has put politics ahead of public safety.

The Liberals also opened the door to house arrest for criminals convicted of crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, arson and motor vehicle theft. Yes, under the Liberal government, someone convicted of a sexual assault can serve their sentence at home, perhaps even next door to their victim. The consequences are clear: Violent crime has surged 50%, women and children are more at risk than ever, police officers are stretched beyond capacity and repeat offenders are emboldened because they know there are no real consequences.

Canadians are asking themselves a very simple question: Whom does the government really stand with, the victims of crime or the criminals who repeatedly terrorize them? That is why Conservatives have put forth the common-sense motion today. It is based on a simple principle: three strikes and they are out. If someone is convicted of three serious offences, they would no longer be eligible for bail, probation, parole or house arrest. They would need to go to jail, and they would stay there for 10 years. There would be no bail, no probation, no parole and no house arrest. It would be three strikes and they are out.

The motion has three major benefits. First, it would keep violent repeat offenders off the streets, protecting law-abiding families and communities, women and children. Second, it would deter crime. Criminals will know that if they commit serious crimes again and again, they would face real consequences. Third, it would restore confidence in our justice system, confidence that has been badly shaken under the current government. I have heard some police officers in my community in my hometown of Oshawa call it the “injustice system”.

Canadians across the country deserve better than the system that puts repeat offenders back on the street within hours of their arrest. They deserve a government that prioritizes the safety of women, seniors, children and families over the rights of violent criminals. They deserve a government that takes crime seriously. The motion is a chance to correct course. It is a chance to put victims before criminals, to put public safety before politics and to put common sense back into our justice system.

I urge every member of the House to stand with victims, to stand with families and to stand with the residents of Oshawa and communities right across this country. Three strikes and they are out; that is what Canadians are asking for, and that is what Conservatives will deliver.

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

Mr. Speaker, every day in Canada, a woman dies from a violent crime. Sexual assault is up 75% in this country, and 60% of the violence against women is intimate partner violence. I am so proud of the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for bringing forward a private member's bill to address that crime.

The government has had six months. A woman dies every day. Where is the sense of urgency on the other side of the aisle? The Liberals know they have the support of the Conservatives to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. They could instantly do that with a programming motion, but they have done nothing.

Does the member agree that there is no sense of urgency with the Liberal government?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we stand with victims and their families every step of the way. Unfortunately, the mess the Liberals have created with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 has caused the chaos we see in our communities today.

The catch-and-release policies and revolving door are things the Liberals created. If we look at the numbers, the previous Conservative government's numbers were at an all-time low. As soon as the Liberals were elected in 2015, what happened? Crime went up, and it continues to go up because they are not going after the root causes of these problems. They cannot be firefighters when they are the arsonists themselves.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and to follow the deputy leader, whom I thank for a great intervention.

I would also like to start by thanking the farmers in Oxford and across our country who are now busy harvesting. I want to wish them a very successful and bountiful harvest and to remind all those who share the road to watch out for farm equipment. When someone sees a farmer, they should thank them, because our food comes from their fields to our fork, and they feed our families. It is an honour to represent such a strong rural community in Oxford.

We see a wave of crime being unleashed right across our country. Whether it is a rural town like mine out in Oxford County or a big city out in B.C., we are seeing a record number of crimes happening. Violent crime is up over 55% under the Liberals' watch. Extortion is up over 300%. Homicides are up and shootings are up. What the Liberals do not understand is that their policies are driving these numbers up.

There is the out-of-touch justice minister, who literally thinks that it is not the Wild West. He was commenting on social media; it must have been one of his late-night texts. However, it is worse than the Wild West. It is a lot worse. We are now living in a war zone in Canada. Canadians are waking up scared. More than half of Canadians are not even safe in their own neighbourhoods. There is anxiety. There is real fear. There is an anxiousness that is palpable. We hear out-of-touch comments from the Liberals, such as the public safety minister saying that it is not them and that the Conservatives are deflecting, denying, delaying and obstructing.

I find it very ironic and rich when I hear members opposite saying that bail reform is coming. Liberals did bail reform and they made it worse. In 2019, they brought in Bill C-75. They codified, under section 493.1, the principle of restraint. I hope the justice minister reads his own documents.

The principle of restraint very clearly states that a judge, a justice or a peace officer must release on the least restrictive conditions at the earliest opportunity. This is codified in law. Liberals have now handcuffed judges from using discretion when it comes to repeat violent offenders. The problem is that their failure on bail reform is now costing lives. It is now hurting Canadians.

We hear insane stories. In Oxford County, there was a violent bank robbery right downtown, on Dundas Street. A TD Bank was robbed by a repeat offender, who had firearms. The police arrested him; they did the great work they always do. Woodstock police arrested him, and he was a repeat offender. I received a message from one of the officer's daughters, who asked me, “Why is my father putting his life at risk over and over and over again to catch the same people?”

Law enforcement members across our country are now demoralized. They catch a person in the morning, with all the evidence they need for a strong case, only to find out hours later that the person is being released on bail. I could be here all day sharing stories like this. We heard the story of Bailey McCourt, which is a story the deputy leader talked about as well. What did Bailey do wrong? What did she do wrong? The person who was uttering threats and was a risk to her life was arrested, charged and convicted. A court found him guilty of those charges. He was then released on bail pending sentencing. Just three hours later, he found Bailey and a friend in a parking lot, took a hammer and brutally smashed her. Bailey is now dead.

I have met and spoken to the family. They are sick and tired of hearing the message from the government that its thoughts and prayers are with them and that it is going to keep fighting for them. Quite frankly, that is nonsense. They want action, not more platitudes, not more photo ops and not more promises that there will one day be some sort of bill or law that will fix this crisis. They want action now.

Just yesterday, Halton Region passed a unanimous motion asking the government to act on this crisis. The Liberal member of Parliament from that riding wrote them a letter, and I encourage all members to read it. That letter said that it was not the government, that it brought in laws and changes. Halton Region unanimously passed a motion for action, and they want it now, not a year from now, because they are seeing a massive spike in violent carjackings and home invasions. Canadians are scared. The Liberals can delay this as much as they want, but they will be judged for their record and their failures.

Bill C-75, their so-called bail reform law, is one of the root causes of why we have this problem. Quite frankly, Canadians do not believe that the Liberals can fix what they themselves have broken. It is like an arsonist who burns down a house, and when the house is gone, all of a sudden he puts on his firefighter equipment and says he is there to save the day. The Liberals cannot fix the problems that they created. What is surprising is that they are not even willing to listen to the heartbreaking stories from law enforcement, victim advocacy groups, survivors and families.

I know in my colleague's riding of King—Vaughan, there have been seven shootings in a matter of three weeks. One family member stood beside our leader, the member Battle River—Crowfoot, and I when we made the announcement for our jail not bail act. Abdul Aleem Farooqi, a father, was killed when violent home invaders showed up at his house and put a gun to his child's head. He did absolutely everything right. He did what any father would do. He defended his family but sadly lost his life.

The Liberals are telling us that bail reform is coming at some point in the future. Every single day that goes by, 1,600 violent crimes happen in our country. That is an insane amount. Because of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, police chiefs are now telling Canadians to comply, to leave the keys to their vehicles at the front door. That is not an environment for deterring criminals. The Liberals are literally making it easy for criminals to do what they do best, and the criminals know it. They understand the law that the Liberals do not understand. Criminals know that if they get caught in the morning, they will be released at lunch, maybe to commit another offence in the evening and be released by breakfast the next morning, over and over again.

The Conservative Party and Conservative caucus have been putting legislation forward to stop the crime. We want to make sure that repeat violent offenders with long rap sheets are put behind bars. Guess how many justice bills the government has put forward in the last 600 days. It is zero. Now the Liberals are showing up and saying they are going to fight crime. That is absolute nonsense. There is only one party in this House that will fight for the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians, and that is the Conservative Party.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to hear about those incidents, and the fact is that we are hearing about more and more cases like that right across the country. Serious crime is at a point that we have never seen before in this country. If we look at why this is happening, it is because people do not have respect for the law anymore.

We hear from police officers, who tell us they have gone through the hard work of arresting somebody, even a serious violent offender, who then gets bail the same day or the next day. Getting bail and then going back to doing crime is just part of the business now. It is just the cost of their business.

The fact of the matter is that the laws need to change. The Liberal laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, need to be scrapped. New laws need to be brought in that would keep serious violent offenders behind bars and keep Canadians safe.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have all gone on ride-alongs. When someone goes on a police ride-along, the police officer might say, “There's Jerry. I picked him up on Monday. This is Wednesday and we're going to pick him up again.” The Liberal government has caused this through obstruction, with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

We have had two horrific incidents in Saskatchewan. A fatal shooting of a 44-year-old woman on a highway near Weyburn left people in that area scared. She was just driving along on the weekend and was shot and killed in her car. Two men have also been charged after a targeted shooting in Regina, with 23 bullets shot in the Eastview community. An 11-year-old girl was injured.

I want the hon. member to comment on those incidents.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Oxford.

One aspect of the Liberal crime disaster is out-of-control extortion in this country. Many towns and suburbs, once safe, are now being terrorized by gangs who threaten neighbours with violence and arson, as well as criminals who shoot into homes and even burn down homes and businesses. We have even heard of reported murders as well.

In the Vancouver area alone, extortion has jumped over 400%. I received a text message from a resident in that area, and this is one of many that I have received over this time. It says, “I am reaching out with a very humble request regarding the alarming situation in Surrey. Right now, families are living in fear. There were approximately 39 reported extortion cases and about 28 shootings just recently. Every day, things are getting worse. If this situation is not handled properly and quickly, it will encourage copycat cases and give more criminals the confidence to act. The crime rate in Surrey is very high and at an alarming point. I respectfully ask you to raise this concern in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity. Our community needs stronger laws and real actions.”

Mr. Speaker, this is a text message I got from a resident in Surrey just the other day. This is how bad it is. Canadians are lost; they do not know what to do. Many have said that this is not the same Canada they remember.

The fact is, when talking to Liberals and others, even in the House, we find that they are trying to blame provincial governments; they blame it on someone else. It is the same thing they have done with the economy; they blame it on somebody else. That is what they have done with this issue as well. They try to blame it on the provinces, but this is not a provincial problem.

The Criminal Code is federal. The RCMP is federal. The laws the Liberals brought in, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, made it easier for criminals to get out on the streets as soon as they are arrested. Even violent offenders are given bail the same day, sometimes the next day. Those are all federal and within the Liberals' power to scrap. It is no wonder that Canadians have lost faith in the justice system to deliver justice for victims.

Conservatives are calling on the government to act, because Canadians need that action. We need the Liberals to strengthen mandatory jail time to a minimum of three years for all extortion, four years if it involves a firearm and five years if tied to organized crime. This is the least we could do. Arson must be treated as an aggravating factor in extortion. Also, we need to repeal the Liberals' catch-and-release laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. We need laws to keep serious offenders behind bars. These laws make it much easier for criminals to get bail and be released into the communities.

I brought forward a private member's bill that did this. Unfortunately and quite shockingly, the Liberals voted it down. It is hard to explain why. The Liberals and the NDP at the time did this, actually.

Enough is enough. That is why we are calling for a “three strikes and you're out” law today. If a criminal is convicted of three serious offences, they would no longer qualify for bail, probation, parole or house arrest. They would face at least 10 years in prison and up to a lifetime as a dangerous offender. The only path back to freedom will be spotless behaviour, clean drug tests and rehabilitation efforts, such as learning a trade or upgrading education. In other words, there would be no more revolving door. The Liberal revolving door has to end. Serious offenders would stay behind bars until they are no longer a threat.

We have to keep Canadians safe. Right now, we have the opposite under the Liberal government. Bill C-5 allows violent offenders to serve sentences from their living rooms. Bill C-75 ensures many of those same offenders are back out on the streets within hours. After the police have done the hard work of trying to arrest somebody, they are given bail right away.

The consequences of the Liberal soft-on-crime policies are devastating.

Myles Sanderson, with 59 prior convictions, was released and went on to murder 11 people and injure 17 in Saskatchewan.

In the Peel Region, 18 criminals were arrested for home invasions and carjackings. Half of them were out on bail.

In Vancouver, police arrested the same 40 offenders 6,000 times.

Then there are the tragedies that will haunt Canadian families forever. Bailey McCourt, a young mother, was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail for assault and threats. Bailey deserved better. Her family deserved better. Canadians deserve better.

These are not just statistics. These are people whose lives were stolen because the government puts criminals first and victims last. Conservatives will change that. Our “three strikes and you're out” law would lock up dangerous criminals, stop the Liberal revolving door and bring home safe streets for Canadians. It would give victims and families peace of mind, knowing that offenders who harmed them will not harm anyone else, because the offenders will be behind bars. Conservatives will always fight to protect law-abiding Canadians and prioritize the safety of our communities over the comfort of repeat violent offenders.

Enough is enough. Canadians are counting on us to act. They need us to act to keep them and their families safe.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member read from a September 9 Winnipeg editorial citing the need for more provincial prosecutors. Does the hon. member understand that it is the Liberal government's revolving door that is keeping prosecutors busy and that scrapping Bill C-75 would free those prosecutors up to focus on other cases?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was an MLA as well. Seven years ago we started to hear about the crime in our communities, and that is when I first started to hear the blame game: B.C. and the provinces blaming Ottawa. Now I come here and the Liberals are blaming the Conservatives. The Liberals have been in government for ten years. I also hear the idea that somehow they need a consultation to relax their soft-on-crime legislation. The stories we have heard in Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the last seven years are horrendous. They are horrible.

Why did the Liberals need so much time to consult, when all the records, victims and families are there? Why did they spend seven years consulting, when really all they had to do was repeal Bill C-75, for example? When is the blame game going to stop?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion that we put forward today is a motion that I am quite ashamed has to exist in this country. We are calling for the House and the Liberal government to acknowledge the gravity of repeat and rampant criminality in Canada, in communities of all sizes across the country, and to replace the Liberal approach to bail with a “three strikes and you're out” law, one that will stop criminals convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, parole, probation or house arrest. It would keep violent criminals behind bars for at least 10 years.

If we were to talk to Canadians, a lot of them would be shocked that this is not already law, but Canadians know that the system is broken. Canadians know that they used to be able to walk down streets at any hour of the day or night and feel safe and secure, but they can no longer do that. Business owners, not just in large cities but also in small communities like those across my riding, are replacing windows over and over again that are getting broken into. We have a government that has, through its policy, through legislation that it has continued to defend, told victims of crime that they do not matter, that they have no rights, that the rights of offenders matter more.

A small number of offenders, relatively speaking, are being arrested and released over and over again. It is not uncommon to hear a police department say that it has a list of 100 or 150 people who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of their calls. This is not just vandalism or property crime, although I will firmly say that property crime is real crime because we know that it is a precursor to crimes that target individuals and that are often violent. It is all sorts of criminality that is causing injury, that is causing the degradation of communities, that is causing a serious and real public safety threat.

I have talked to experts on this, police chiefs in my riding, like the chiefs of the police services in London, St. Thomas, and Aylmer, Ontario. When we look at the messaging that has been put out by police associations and frontline officers, they all draw a direct line to Bill C-75, which introduced a suite of changes, among them the introduction of something called the principle of restraint.

The Minister of Justice got up in the House a few days ago and accused Conservatives of not having read the law. I have read it many times, as have the police officers I speak to on a regular basis and the provincial governments that have been calling for this to be repealed. It says very clearly that judges must release offenders under the least onerous conditions at the earliest opportunity. It is very rare that we can draw a direct line from a social problem on Canadian streets to a policy, but everyone involved in this space, everyone except the Liberal government, by the way, has done exactly that, because they have seen a night and day difference between before Bill C-75 and after Bill C-75.

I have shared, in a few interviews and online, a story that happened in my riding this summer in St. Thomas, where a historic building, 140-plus years old, was burned down by a repeat offender who was out on bail and had been previously convicted of arson. This is not the way the country is supposed to be. This is not the way things used to be, and it is certainly not the way things would be if the Liberal government would agree to provide real bail reform.

This is beyond parody now, these heart-breaking stories from across the country of repeat, rampant criminality and prolific offenders, as police will call them. However, evidently, since the Liberal government has dug in its heels on this, I need to give a few stories.

There is one from Langley, where a man was charged with violently beating a woman on June 1, a complete stranger in downtown Langley, British Columbia. It was his 37th court appearance in three years. This is what the system is doing on a regular basis.

In another case, a 12-year-old boy was charged with attempted murder in a shooting in Toronto. The fact that we are talking about 12-year-olds being involved in this level of criminality is bad enough, but it is even worse when we consider that the 12-year-old was out on bail. This is what the system is.

In Edmonton, on August 30, Priscilla McGreer was shot to death outside her home by her cousin, who had been charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and breach of probation. He had an extensive history with the courts, including a homicide charge from 2018.

There are more of these cases than I could read in the time this chamber has. My question is, what would it take for the government to acknowledge that there is a problem, first off, and then acknowledge that it caused the problem? Remember that when the Liberal government continues to tell us that it is championing bail reform, its members leave out the part that the so-called reforms that have caused this problem were also pitched to us by the Liberal government as bail reform. These are their changes that have led to the problem we are now trying to seek a real resolution for.

My colleague, the hon. member for Oxford, has put forward a significant bail reform bill that would go forward with actual action. However, instead, we have the Liberal government obstructing the efforts we have been making to advance this issue and push forward real solutions. That is why the motion we are putting forward, as I said at the beginning, is one that I wish was not necessary in Canada. However, it is necessary, and it is tremendously important.

I will provide a couple of other examples here, because I like to lean on what the experts are saying. I like to lean on victims' rights groups, attorneys general in the various provinces of the country, police chiefs and frontline police officers. I will read one line that I think is incredibly relevant to the discussion at hand: “Recidivism, or repeat offending, impacts public safety and the victims affected by those new crimes”. The quote continues with this later on: “reducing recidivism can generate additional substantial benefits to society by reducing criminal justice costs and preventing new victimization.” This comes from Public Safety Canada.

The government's own messaging recognizes the significant harms that recidivism causes, yet the government has not provided real action. Its members keep alluding to this future bail reform bill that may or may not exist and that we do not know the contents of, but they expect us to get behind it. Well, we are providing, through today's motion, a very real, very tangible solution that hits directly at the concerns that have been raised by concerned citizens across this country. We also have the bill from the hon. member for Oxford, which is forthcoming and would provide real, tangible solutions.

Whenever this issue comes up, we hear from the government “blame the provinces”. It blames everyone else, and we see everything other than the introspection to look at what everyone else in the country sees, which is that Bill C-75, among the many things it did that we do not contest as a party, through the principle of restraint, has made bail easier to get for serious offenders and has made the conditions of bail that repeat offenders are getting less onerous. This has resulted in police officers not even being able to enforce bail conditions, because the sheer volume of offenders out on bail at any given moment is so large that scarce resources have to be deployed to clean up after the failures of the Liberal government.

Since the government is claiming that it cares about bail reform, I am asking it to commit to real bail reform and to put the rights of victims and the rights of people who do not feel safe in their own communities ahead of the rights of offenders. This is not a radical or partisan proposal. It is the bare minimum for a country to keep its citizens safe, to keep its communities safe.

I sent a letter to my constituents a few weeks ago on this issue, and my office has been overwhelmed by the response, including from people who say they have always been a Liberal. They cannot abide by what the Liberal government has done in abandoning and abdicating its duty to preserve and protect public safety.

I am asking the Liberal government to commit to supporting our motion and providing real bail reform rather than obstruction.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are issues in every city in this country. I will give a few statistics from the police in my city of Saskatoon: Violent crime this year is up 12.5%, assaults are up 20% and criminal harassment is up 150%. This is why we feel, on this side of the House, that the Liberals have been obstructing every police force in the country with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

I do not have to tell members about the gruesome killings in my province a couple of years ago at James Smith reserve. Myles Sanderson killed 11 people and hurt 16 others. He had 59 convictions, yet he was out on bail. This is why we are bringing forward the motion today.

I want the hon. member to comment on Myles Sanderson's killing 11—

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the important issue of bail and the role of the criminal justice system in keeping our communities safe. This is an important opportunity to reaffirm the government's commitment to public safety and to highlight the critical role provinces and territories play in the administration of Canada's bail system.

Canada's criminal justice system is a shared responsibility. While the federal government is responsible for enacting criminal law and procedure, including the laws that govern bail, the provinces and territories are responsible for the daily administration and management of the bail system. This includes conducting most bail hearings, enforcing and monitoring bail conditions, operating remand facilities and collecting and reporting bail data.

In short, it is an important partnership with the provinces and territories on the front lines of bail administration. Their role is central to ensuring that the bail system functions effectively and fairly. Their central role also means they are uniquely positioned to identify and work with us to address all the systemic challenges within the bail system, whether delays in hearings, access to legal aid or the availability of community-based supports.

Strengthening bail administration requires not only legal expertise but also investments in infrastructure, data systems and frontline services. When provinces and territories are empowered and resourced to lead, the entire justice system benefits from greater efficiency, fairness and public confidence.

I want to emphasize that while law reform is important, law reform on its own is not enough. Over the past several years, the federal government has taken meaningful steps to modernize bail laws. Bill C-75 also made it more onerous for people accused of intimate partner violence to obtain bail.

Specifically, the amendments created a reverse onus at bail for an accused charged with a violent offence involving an intimate partner if they had a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner. Amendments also required courts to consider prior intimate partner violence convictions when determining whether to release the accused or impose bail conditions. These amendments reflect Parliament's recognition that intimate partner violence is a serious issue and that the bail system had to be reformed to better respond to this violence and to better protect the victims.

In 2023, Bill C-48 expanded reverse onus provisions for repeat violent offenders and required courts to explicitly consider public safety when making a bail decision. Specifically, the amendments created a new reverse onus to target serious repeat violent offending involving weapons, expanded the list of firearm offences that trigger a reverse onus and broadened the reverse onus targeting repeat offenders of intimate partner violence, among others.

These reforms were developed in close collaboration with provinces and territories. They responded directly to concerns raised by premiers across the country. The amendments were also informed by engagement with law enforcement, community organizations and other key partners and stakeholders. However, legislation is only one part of the solution.

As a start, we need better data. There is a critical lack of national bail data, and this is preventing a full understanding of how the bail system is operating across Canada. The federal government does not collect bail data; provinces and territories do. That means they hold the key to unlocking the evidence we need to assess the effectiveness of bail laws, identify gaps and make informed decisions. We are working with provincial and territorial partners to increase the efforts to collect and report bail data. This is essential for evaluating the impact of bail reforms, understanding regional differences in bail outcomes, supporting evidence-based policy developments and enhancing public confidence in the justice system.

Public safety depends on collaboration. We know that people in Canada are concerned about repeat violent offending and threats to community safety. The government shares those concerns, but effective bail administration requires more than just legal tools; it also requires resources, infrastructure and coordination. We are working with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that they are investing in bail supervision programs, community supports for accused persons, enforcement mechanisms for bail conditions and improvements to remand facilities.

We also need to work together to address the root causes of crime, including poverty, mental health, substance use and housing insecurity. These are areas where provincial and territorial governments have jurisdiction and expertise. Their leadership is essential to achieving long-term reductions in crime and to improving public safety.

At the same time, we must recognize that meaningful progress requires sustained collaboration across all orders of government. The federal government has a role to play in supporting innovation, funding evidence-based programs and ensuring national coordination, but it cannot act alone. By working in partnership with provinces and territories, we all can invest in upstream solutions that prevent crime before it happens, strengthen communities and promote equity. Public safety is not just about enforcement; it is also about creating the conditions where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

People in Canada deserve a bail system that is fair and effective. They also deserve to see all orders of government working together to ensure the proper functioning of the system, not just through legislation but also through monitoring and prevention. This is why the federal government is working closely with provincial and territorial partners to enhance bail data collection, figure out what is driving crime in different jurisdictions and develop actual solutions that will reduce reoffending at the bail stage and beyond.

The federal government stands ready to continue this work. It is committed to continuing to reform the bail system and to support its partners. The federal government continues to work closely with the provinces and territories, including representatives from law enforcement, and is committed to addressing concerns with the bail system and developing meaningful solutions. This commitment was articulated in the government's election platform, which called for stricter bail laws for individuals charged with violent and organized crimes related to auto theft, home invasion and human trafficking and smuggling.

The Prime Minister also committed to strengthening bail and sentencing laws following the June 2 first ministers' meeting. More recently, the Prime Minister, as well as the Minister of Justice, publicly expressed an intention to table a bill this fall, introducing stricter bail and sentencing laws, particularly in relation to organized crime, human trafficking, home invasion and auto theft, but the federal government cannot do it alone. We are working with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that they continue to play their critical role in administrating bail and providing the data and support systems needed to make the system work.

Together we can build a justice system that protects communities, respects rights and earns the confidence of people across Canada.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by reminding both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Winnipeg North that I have the floor. I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Pickering—Brooklin.

I want to pick up on the exchange that I just had with the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. It was interesting to ask the question on agriculture, because he now represents a riding that has more agricultural industry than Carleton.

The hon. member for Peterborough represents an agricultural riding in Ontario and comes from a farming background. We were talking outside about how the Conservative Party of Canada has generally taken farmers for granted. I went through the platform of the Conservative Party. There were three mentions of the word “farmers”, but there was no substantive policy about what the Conservative Party, if it had been elected government, would have actually done for farmers. With the Leader of the Opposition now representing a more rural, agriculture-heavy riding, it will be interesting to see if we will see more agricultural policy from him and his party.

I will get to the opposition day motion, but given that the canola industry was raised in the debate, right now, that industry is under duress. There are challenges around market access in China. I was just with Premier Moe for a three-day opportunity to engage on that question. I thought the conversations were constructive. There was an opportunity, I believe, for a pathway forward.

The exchange was interesting, and I apologize to my hon. Bloc colleague, as we had a little bit of banter back and forth. The member for Regina—Lewvan was actually involved in that conversation as well. It is going to be important for western members of Parliament, when they want to talk about supporting a $43-billion industry with approximately 35,000 farmers, to recognize that those farmers rely on demand signals for canola products, whether meal, oil or seed. The clean fuel standards and biofuel policy in this country are extremely important. When we go to the farm gate and talk about those demand signals, they matter.

At a time when we need to be supporting our canola industry, when we are going to be looking for new markets and continuing to engage with the Chinese, we have an opportunity on domestic policy. However, the Conservatives just want to throw it away. That is not what the industry is asking for. That is not what farmers are looking for. They are looking for certainty and a pathway forward.

I would encourage the western Canadian members of Parliament from the Conservative Party who have farmers, who have the opportunity, to actually say, what is your domestic policy driver? The Conservatives are trying to take away something that actually matters. It is interesting. We know when we are actually able to land a little bit of a punch, because it gets them irritated. That is fine. We have a fun back-and-forth. However, it is something for the Conservatives to reflect on. It will be an important message when we are in Western Canada, and I hope local farmers will be reminding their Conservative members of Parliament that it is an important policy that actually matters for farm gate prices.

We are here today to talk about criminal law reform. The opposition day motion raises the idea of a “three strikes and you're out” policy. We see this from certain quarters of the United States. I want to start by saying that the issue of public safety is an extremely fundamental one in Canada. All parliamentarians, regardless of where we sit in the House, take this question seriously. I have to assume that, and I know it. We want to make sure that our neighbours, friends and people in our communities feel safe. Frankly, I think we can agree that there has to be reform.

The justice minister has talked about reforms that are coming. As parliamentarians, we do not have all the details on that. The minister has talked about some of the principles of what the government is going to be pursuing in the next few weeks. I really hope that all parliamentarians can focus on a quick expedition. Our job is to critique, review and scrutinize legislation, but we do not want any unreasonable delay. We want to be able to move on this reform to toughen up bail provisions and make sure that we have stronger sentencing and an ability to integrate with and do important work alongside public safety to tackle crime in our communities.

I want to highlight a few things. From my time in this place, members know that when I come here, I really try to hone in on the text of the opposition day motion. It is fine. Sometimes we as parliamentarians can talk in generalities, but our job is to litigate specific pieces of the text that are put forward. The Conservatives are talking about a 50% increase in violent crime. It is not actually quoted, in the text, where this comes from. As the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said, we have heard about broad references to Statistics Canada.

It is important to put another perspective on the table. For Toronto, and obviously for a lot of the members from the GTA, this is something that is not about what colour jersey we wear. When we come to this House, we are bringing the issues of our communities. We know that, in the GTA in particular, there is a desire to tackle and have more action on crime, but the Toronto Police Service did release a report, just on September 9, that actually said there is a downward trend in violent crime in the city. In fact, there has been a 40% reduction year over year, and numbers are getting back to where they were in 2020.

I do not stand here and suggest that any government would be satisfied with that. There is a whole host of work to be done, but I think it is very incumbent on any party or member of Parliament, when they introduce the text of a motion, to know that further context is important.

We see in the largest metropolitan area in this country that we are having success in the integrated work that the government has been doing and that the new government, under our new Prime Minister, is going to be deeply focused on in the days ahead. I want to make sure that is on the record.

As a member of Parliament, I think we need to have more databases that can actually share some of that important information. Even in the lead-up to today's debate, I found that some of those key statistics that inform parliamentarians and that can inform our authorities in response could be tightened up so that we could have more information and know better how to tackle these elements.

Of course, this is a nationwide dynamic, and we want to make sure that, regardless of where they live, Canadians are safe in their communities. However, there are more acute areas where we have to have a more targeted approach. The text also says, and we heard this from the leader of the official opposition, “allow for house arrest for serious offenders”. We have to tackle the premise of that element of the text.

Again, the message we are sending today on behalf of the government is that we take this issue seriously, but we have to be careful not to have a message of things that maybe stretch the truth a bit or that maybe do not give the entire context. The provision that the leader of the official opposition talked about around the principle of restraint is actually from two Supreme Court decisions. Beyond Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which were referenced, this is in the common law, so these decisions that are made by the highest courts in the land take precedence unless we legislate over the courts.

This gets into an important factor that I think all parliamentarians have to contemplate. We stand here in this House, and we can have ideas and thoughts about what we want in our community. There is a role for Parliament in that, and there is also a role for individuals who are tasked with hearing the salient facts of a particular case and making those decisions around sentencing and around what the provisions on bail could be. Sometimes, it is fair to say, those individuals are in a better position, but it is the legitimate role of Parliament to scrutinize decisions from the courts and determine whether a decision has perhaps gone too far.

Therefore, it is important to recognize that in all the decisions around anything on bail, public safety and repeat risk are paramount in that decision-making. We could criticize something and perhaps say a judge may have gotten it wrong, but that is when Parliament will have to make its decision about whether we are going to put stricter provisions in place that actually dictate to the courts. There is a balance between Parliamentary supremacy and the independence of the judiciary, which is also important.

What is also missing from this text is context on provincial resourcing. In the administration of justice, we actually need to have a complement of judges, and we need to have the court access time. Certainly, for provincial jails and federal correction facilities, we also need to have the capacity, if we feel it necessary, to actually contain individuals whom we do not want to release into our communities.

Missing from this conversation on the opposition day motion today is the role of the provinces in partnering with federal changes that are forthcoming from the government. This is extremely important, because part of the reason around some of the Supreme Court decisions is there have not been adequate resources in the justice service.

The last piece I am going to say is how there is no mention of the social determinants of crime. Yes, we need to make sure we have adequate deterrents. That comes down to criminal sentencing. That comes down to bail reform. However, there is no conversation about how we are actually tackling housing, mental health services and the integration of services at the provincial level to try to make sure that the individuals in question who commit crimes are not even in those circumstances in the first place to be able to do them.

We agree there is work to be done. The Minister of Justice is going to present that in the days ahead. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank that member for his incredible and distinguished service to the Canadian Armed Forces. He is a very distinguished member.

The other heroes who also wear a uniform are police officers. They tell me they are exhausted from arresting the same offenders over and over again. They say that the criminals laugh at them. They say that, often, criminals now confess to their crimes in the back seat of the car because they do not care if they get convicted, knowing that there will be no penalty whatsoever. This is the direct result of a Liberal law, Bill C-75, requiring the immediate release of the offender at the earliest opportunity and under “the least onerous conditions”, and of Bill C-5, the house arrest law.

What I say to those police officers is that we want them to have fewer return customers. We will bring in “three strikes and you're out” to keep these dangerous offenders in the slammer. We will lock them up and throw away the key.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

No, they have not done nothing; they have done worse than nothing.

Mr. Speaker, they have obstructed action. There is obstructionism by the Liberal Party to keep in place the failed laws that are unleashing chaos on our streets.

Conservatives said in the spring, right after the election, let us immediately reverse catch-and-release Liberal laws and lock up the criminals that the government was turning free. Instead, the Prime Minister said we would go on vacation. What has been the consequence of that decision? It is real a human cost. In Kelowna, 15 people were arrested 1,300 times in one year, which is almost 100 arrests per offender per year. In Penticton, there is one guy named Levi who does so much crime that police told me that when he is out of prison, he raises the crime rate for the entire city. That is one guy. In Vancouver, 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times, which is 150 arrests per offender per year. How is this possible? Well, they are automatically released under a Liberal law, Bill C-75, which requires judges to release the offender at the earliest opportunity under “the least onerous conditions”.

Here are the stories of the catch-and-release system.

Myles Sanderson stabbed 11 people to death and injured another 18 on the James Smith Cree Nation reserve and in nearby Weldon, Saskatchewan. This is an offender who had already been arrested for 46 prior offences, including things like armed robbery and assault. He also had a pattern of domestic abuse before he was released.

Matthew McQuarrie was sentenced to life in prison for stabbing Emerson Sprung to death and burying him in a shallow grave in a park in Meaford, Ontario, in May 2020. McQuarrie, who had an extensive criminal history dating back to 2001, was in jail in the months leading up to Sprung's murder on separate charges but was released at the height of COVID.

Tyrone Simard killed his sister and attacked several others in Hollow Water First Nation in Manitoba on September 4, 2025. He had been charged with violent offences, including assault with a weapon, sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, which are all offences that happened before his release and alleged instances going back over eight years. He was out on bail when he carried out his attack.

In March, a suspect in a trio of unprovoked stabbings was found to have been previously released on bail.

On August 31, 25-year-old Daniel Senecal was arrested and charged by Niagara police after a violent sexual assault on a three-year-old child who was in her own bed, the place where she should have been safest. He was out on release even though he had already assaulted a 12-year-old.

All of these scumbags should have been in jail, and if Conservative laws had been in place, they would have been in jail. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister thought his summer vacation was more important. Even since he has returned, he and his justice minister have been obstructing our efforts to lock up these criminals and change the law. Once again, if the Liberals are not prepared to reverse their own mistakes, then get out of the way and let Conservatives make Canadians safer. We do this not out of hatred for the criminal but out of love for the victims, and out of determination to make our communities safe again. We as Conservatives want to restore a country where hard work pays off with beautiful homes, nutritious food and safe streets where people are united under a proud flag. We set four main priorities for our return to Parliament: stronger take-home pay, safer streets, secure borders and a self-reliant nation.

We are here to oppose the bad the government does and expose its corrupt behaviour, and also to propose solutions that will improve the lives of the Canadian people. We call on the government to stop the obstruction, put aside the partisanship, work with us on the solutions that all Canadians have asked for and bring about the real change that Canadians are demanding. We will put our country ahead of party, as always, because we are Canadians first. We love our country and we want to restore its promise.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this morning on behalf of my constituents from Rivière‑du‑Nord, who once again placed their trust in me last spring.

Today, we are talking about the Conservative Party's motion, which raises an important issue, the 50% increase in violent crime. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about this issue and has raised it in the House many times in recent years.

However, the motion calls on the Liberal government to replace a certain number of laws with what is referred to as the “three strikes and you're out” law. The first problem is that we are not familiar with that law. We have an idea of what it entails from what we have been told, but I cannot see myself asking the House today to suggest that the government pass a law when we do not know the content of that law.

Since 2014, there has been a worrying increase in crime in Canada. The overall crime severity index for Canada rose from 66.9 in 2014 to 77.9 in 2024. For Quebec, the same index rose from 57.66 in 2014 to 63.01 in 2024. These are obviously significant and worrying increases. If we look at the statistics on violent crime in absolute terms, it is a bit tricky, because the population has varied greatly over the last 10 years.

We can therefore look at the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. In Canada, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was 1,076.2. In 2024, it was 1,433. This represents a 33% increase in violent crime in Canada in just under 10 years. In Quebec, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was 966 in 2015, and rose to 1,424 in 2024, an increase of 47%. There has therefore been a real increase in the proportion of violent crimes in Quebec and Canada over the past 10 years.

In Canada, the number of sexual assaults per 100,000 inhabitants rose from 57.3 to 87. In Quebec, it rose from 45 to 98 over the same period, an increase of 119%. That is a significant increase. The number of firearms offences in Canada rose from 6.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 13.1 in 2024, an increase of 100% in 10 years. In Quebec, for the same offences, the number rose from 3.5 to 8.9 offences per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 157%.

I also want to talk about cases of extortion, which are an ongoing concern and have been on the rise in recent years. This is increasingly worrying, especially with what is happening on the Internet. Across Canada, the number of offences rose from 8.5 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 31.8 per 100,000 inhabitants. This is an increase of 272%. In Quebec, for the same period, from 2015 to 2024, the number of offences rose from 14.8 to 38.09 per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 158%.

As we can see, all of those crime rates have increased significantly over the past 10 years. In that regard, we fully share the concerns the Conservatives are raising about how the justice system is being managed. Changes are definitely needed. This needs to be fixed. However, as I said, at this point, we do not know the exact details of our Conservative colleagues' bill, since it has not been introduced in the House. The Conservative leader simply announced that his bill would be sponsored by a member of his party, who is 10th in line in the draw for private members' business.

Therefore, all we know about this motion is what the Conservative leader said in his media scrum and what was reported in the press a few weeks ago. First, he announced that he would make sure that “three-time serious criminals get a minimum prison term of 10 years and up to a life sentence.”

Second, he said that these criminals “will also be designated as dangerous offenders, meaning they cannot be released until they prove they are no longer a danger.”

Third, the only way for them to “obtain their freedom will be through spotless behaviour and clean drug tests” during their prison sentence, among other things.

Fourth, for them to be granted parole, he said earned release will depend on “improving themselves and their life opportunities, such as by learning a trade or upgrading their education.”

Finally, the bill would also repeal Bill C‑75 from the 42nd Parliament. One thing that bill did was amend the provisions on interim release.

There are some good and not-so-good things in this Conservative Party proposal. The parts that talk about offenders learning a trade or upgrading their education are very commendable, in my opinion. In any case, these options already exist in all our prisons. Encouraging inmates to register for these programs, in our view, is a good thing.

However, there are other aspects of the Conservative proposal that make us feel a bit uneasy. It aims to toughen sentences by imposing life sentences for certain crimes, such as those relating to human trafficking, firearms trafficking and fentanyl production. As I have said, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservative motion.

To be clear, we see rising crime as a major concern. Over the past few years, we have proposed a series of tough measures to address criminal violence, and we will continue to do so. For example, I myself have introduced a bill to create an organized crime registry three times in the past 10 years. We all know that criminal organizations are a growing scourge. Not only do they undermine our society and violate the rules of coexistence, but they also corrupt the morality of many of our young teens to a great or at least significant degree. Criminal organizations have been known to direct minors to commit offences, theft and even murder and acts of violence because those minors are prosecuted under a different judicial system than adults charged with crimes and they face less severe consequences. We feel this is despicable. Theft is illegal; it is a crime. Assault is a crime. Murder is a crime. However, when a 40- or 50-year-old adult gets a 14-year-old to commit those crimes, it is not just illegal, it is despicable. We vigorously oppose such crimes.

How, then, do we address that? Clearly, we need to introduce legislation. We are committed to working on this over the coming weeks. However, the idea of creating a registry of criminal organizations, which has already been debated in the House on several occasions, is one that we will revisit. I have no doubt about that. I therefore want to ask our colleagues in the House of Commons for their support on such a bill.

During the last Parliament, in parallel with the creation of the registry of criminal organizations, we proposed a series of measures, including going after the proceeds of crime. Currently, if police officers search a criminal organization's property, they have to prove that the property was acquired illegally. During the last Parliament, we proposed the opposite, namely that once someone is a member of a criminal organization and their property is searched as part of an investigation into criminal offences, it should be up to that individual to prove to us that the property was acquired legally, and not the other way around.

This reverse onus seems useful, even essential, for fighting organized crime effectively. We will come back with some suggestions as we move forward.

We also proposed clarifying the application of the provisions imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan for serious crimes. Let me be clear about this: As far as I am concerned, the Supreme Court is right. When someone is charged with a crime they should be judged within a reasonable time frame. That is already set out in the Charter. These time frames were rightly defined by the Supreme Court. The problem is that the current system is unable to handle these cases within a reasonable time frame. In my opinion, the fault lies largely with the lack of necessary resources made available to the courts by our governments. I have also repeatedly asked that greater diligence be shown in filling judicial vacancies. There have been delays that I consider completely unreasonable. That is the first thing that needs to be done to prevent stays of proceedings, especially when it comes to violent crimes that are rebuked by society as a whole. That is one thing.

Obviously, the justice system needs to be provided with courtrooms, clerks, bailiffs, court officers, and so on. On the federal government side, the appointment of judges within a reasonable time frame is essential. These judges must be impartial, having no political allegiance and showing no bias toward any of the political parties in power. That, too, is a blight that truly tarnishes our justice system.

Limiting the use of the Jordan decision by appointing judges is one thing, but we proposed going further in the last Parliament. We said that when there are unreasonable delays, which we deplore, a court should be allowed to extend the time frame imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada for certain serious or category 1 crimes. Obviously, this exemption must be limited and used sparingly. It should not be a free-for-all. However, sex crimes, murder, kidnapping, gun crime and terrorism are crimes that must be tried. We cannot tell the public that someone charged with murder, rape or kidnapping will be let go because we dragged our feet for two years and ran out of time to try him. That does not work. In a self-respecting, properly-run society, that is not the way to go.

First, we proposed creating an organized crime registry. Second, we proposed allowing the courts to waive the time frame imposed by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision for serious crimes, and in limited circumstances.

The third measure we proposed to combat rising crime was to remove the religious exemption. Here too, we have seen situations that are completely preposterous. On October 28, 2023, in Montreal, preacher Adil Charkaoui said, in Arabic, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them!” That seems pretty clear to me. In my mind, there is no room for interpretation. Unfortunately, the director of public prosecutions, who is responsible for prosecuting such cases, decided not to prosecute the imam for lack of evidence, even though the speech was filmed, recorded, and broadcast on virtually all media outlets. We know that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code criminalize hate speech. There are two religious exemptions: one that allows for a reasonable defence against a charge of hate speech if the speech is based on a religious text in which one believes, and the same applies to anti-Semitism. As far as we are concerned, these are exemptions that have no place in our society and must be removed from the Criminal Code.

We introduced a bill on this subject in the previous Parliament. We will come back to that. This is another way of fighting the increase in crime effectively.

Then, there is the matter of mandatory minium sentences. When the Conservative Party took office over 15 years ago, it brought in mandatory minimum sentences. The Supreme Court ruled that they were illegal, that these sentences violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that they had to be done away with. Under Justin Trudeau, the previous Liberal government eliminated these mandatory minimum sentences. Now, the Conservatives want to bring them back.

This is a worthwhile debate. In my opinion, there is no position that is indefensible. However, there is a middle ground that we could consider. In Quebec, we believe in rehabilitating inmates, particularly young inmates. Mandatory minimum sentences tie the hands of the judge hearing the case and prevent him or her from handing down a sentence that is often better suited to the circumstances, to the situation of the individual being heard by the court. We think that the courts must be allowed to waive mandatory minimum sentences.

Let us restore certain minimum sentences as long as we comply with the provisions or criteria set out by the Supreme Court. Obviously, we will not be going back to the Supreme Court every 10 years, or at least I hope not. Let us comply with these criteria. Let us bring back some mandatory minimum sentences. However, we could make it possible for a trial judge to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. This would require the judge to justify the exceptional circumstances, where applicable, and then depart from the minimum sentence if they really have to. We think that is an interesting proposal.

The Bloc Québécois is generous. We are letting our Conservative colleagues pick and choose from among our proposals, adapt them if they wish and make them their own. They can also simply support our bills when we introduce them. However, we must always keep in mind that the goal is not to fill up prisons. The goal is to live in a safe society where people can thrive, where young offenders can be rehabilitated. We want to invest in rehabilitation. We want to live in a free democratic society that respects everyone's rights.

The idea of punishing repeat offenders more harshly based on past offences is not new. A number of U.S. states already do this. It was introduced in the 1990s. Since then, American prisons have been filled with people who could perhaps have been rehabilitated. I will not comment on that, as I am not an expert on the American legal system. However, we have our own justice system, our own society and our own values, and I think we have to be careful when it comes to importing measures in effect elsewhere into Quebec and Canada.

I want to reiterate the idea of the organized crime registry. It was in Bill C‑420, which we introduced during the 44th Parliament. We also introduced Bill C‑392, concerning the Supreme Court's Jordan decision deadlines, and Bill C‑373, concerning the abolition of religious exemptions, during that same Parliament. Together with the minimum sentence proposal I was just talking about, all of these ideas can help fight crime.

We generously invite our Conservative colleagues to draw inspiration from these ideas. The current government should do likewise, to help us live in a society where everything works and where offenders can be rehabilitated and successfully rejoin society.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have 10 years of experience here questioning this government's actual intentions. Nothing we have seen adds up. Today, we are hearing proposals that run completely counter to what has been done over the past 10 years. Will the Prime Minister have the support of his Liberal caucus?

It seems to me that over three-quarters of the members on the Liberal side were very proud to call us every name in the book when we were attacking Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5. I was even called racist in the House for speaking out against Bill C‑5.

I will need to see a big ideological change on the other side of the House in order for me to trust them. Yes, if there is a clear and specific bill that repeals Bill C‑75 and brings justice back to this country, of course we will support it.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong conviction that Canada's complacency toward dangerous repeat offenders must end. Canadians are tired of seeing the same criminals back in court. They are tired of seeing repeat offenders ruin lives over and over again. They are tired of living in fear. When we say enough is enough, I think it is clear. Bill C-5, which allows house arrest, and Bill C-75, which makes it too easy to obtain bail, have triggered a public backlash. People no longer have confidence in the criminal justice system.

The motion presented by our shadow minister for justice provides a simple and fair response. Once a person has been convicted of three serious offences, society, represented by Parliament, has the right and the duty to take firm action. It would be a simple “three strikes and you're out” rule. Three chances are enough. The fourth should rightly go to the victims, not the criminals. The law that we are urging the Liberals to adopt will prevent criminals who have been convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest.

All too often, the victims are forgotten. In Quebec and elsewhere in the country, recidivism rates are on the rise. For example, in Trois‑Rivières, a man named Jean-François Gagnon was convicted of fraud. Within a month of leaving prison, he was back to scamming seniors. Over 50 seniors were duped, ripped off and humiliated. That is the price of our complacency. In Quebec City, a convicted pedophile named Pierre Gaudreault was released on mandatory supervision. What did he do? He downloaded hundreds of nude pictures of kids. He did not even wait until his conditions were up to start again. In Saguenay, Bruno Hudon, a man described by police as one of the most violent repeat offenders in the region, was placed in a halfway house despite a long history of violence. Police officers themselves voiced concerns about that. Then there was Miroslav Dragicevic, who received a lengthy sentence after committing aggravated assault on a woman, who was left with severe injuries. This was not the first time he had become violent. It was just the next chapter in a long history of threats and assaults. Unfortunately, I have plenty more examples I could give.

In June alone, the Sûreté du Québec arrested 22 high-risk sex offenders as part of a special operation. These individuals were already known to the authorities and had already been deemed dangerous, yet they were still living in our communities. That is the reality. That is the price of inaction. We often hear about rehabilitation. Yes, it is right to give people a second chance. Yes, it is necessary to offer help. How long do we have to keep offering it, though? Giving the same individuals too many chances means that the victims pay the price. If someone with two serious convictions chooses to reoffend a third time, they are sending a clear message. They have no intention of changing. Justice is not only about giving chances to the guilty; it is primarily about protecting the innocent. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that justice is served.

Some will say that a longer prison sentence will not deter criminals. We could debate that endlessly. However, when it comes to the victims, we on this side of the House are much more concerned about justice being served. Victims live in fear every day. How many Quebeckers no longer dare to walk at night? How many seniors hesitate to answer the phone out of fear of being scammed again? How many parents worry about whether a convicted pedophile is living in their neighbourhood? Our constituents are not asking for much. They just want to be able to live without fear. Some will say there is a high cost to that. What is the real cost? Some say the prisons will fill up, that it will be expensive. Yes, it is true, an inmate costs $150,000 a year. However, the cost of rape is that the victim's dignity is stolen forever. The cost of fraud is that victims lose their life savings and are left feeling ashamed. The cost of murder is that a family is destroyed forever. Taking action is not too costly. What is too costly is inaction.

Together, we must all send a strong message to criminals. We are asking the Liberals to send a message that Canada will no longer be a haven for repeat offenders. After three serious crimes, three convictions, three chances, there should be no more excuses, no more half-measures and no more victims. This is a moral choice.

At the end of the day, the question is simple: Who are we choosing to protect? Are we choosing to protect repeat offenders who laugh at the system and keep offending, or are we choosing to protect families, seniors, children and law-abiding women and men who want to live in peace? For me, the choice is clear. I choose victims, families and safety.

Over the past several years, we have seen a steady decline in public safety and an increase in violence and crime, resulting in a pervasive and pernicious state of fear. My riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles used to be peaceful and crime-free, but we are starting to see a rise in petty crime and other violations. People are starting to feel unsafe in a riding where we never used to see that kind of violence.

It is starting slowly. There have been gang-related murders, which is obviously very serious. Crime is ramping up, and people are asking questions. They turn to us. They call my office to ask what we are doing about it and to tell us they need to be protected. In many cases, we have to tell them that, unfortunately, because our Liberal friends changed the laws, the police have fewer tools to make arrests that stick.

We need to get back to the basics of public safety. We need to get back to a sense of security that people understand, that they accept. People will be able to say that we finally have laws that protect them, laws that let police officers do their job and let judges ensure that criminals go to jail where they belong.

All too often, we see the same faces. We have repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are people who commit crimes over and over again. Why are we letting them continue to commit these crimes? We have a duty to strengthen our laws so that these individuals end up in prison where they belong.

Here is what we are proposing and humbly asking of the new government, as it likes to call itself. We look forward to seeing some proof that it really is a new government, because the government we had for the last 10 years was a disaster. We hope there will be a major change. I personally introduced Bill C‑325 in the last Parliament to undo the provisions of the act arising from Bill C‑5. The Liberals and the NDP voted against it. I thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues, because they understood that there was cause for concern and supported me and my bill at the time.

I would like to believe that this is a new government, but its actions will show whether there has been a real change. We are reaching out to the government and suggesting ways to improve public safety and protect victims. I hope that our friends on the other side of the House will accept our offer and pick up the pace. We will be there to vote in favour of stronger laws for our country.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my question in a non-partisan spirit. The issue of rising crime is worries the Bloc Québécois. On a more personal level, as the status of women critic, I have seen the numbers showing the rise in crime and particularly crimes against women.

This is what drove me to move a motion, which will be the first motion before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women this fall when we get back to work, specifically to determine whether section 810 of the Criminal Code adequately protects women in the justice system. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I even allowed my motion to be amended. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we will be working together to consider issues relating to Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75.

My colleague's bill is all well and good, but are the Conservatives going to take note of the serious study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will be carrying out on this matter?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

moved:

That, given that the Liberal government has changed the law to allow for house arrest for serious offenders and lets repeat criminals go free within hours of their arrest, which has resulted in a 50% increase in violent crime, the House call on the Liberal government to replace these changes with a "Three-Strikes-And-You're-Out" law that will stop criminals convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest and keep violent criminals in jail for at least 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great citizens of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I rise today in strong support of our Conservative motion calling on the government to end the failed experiment of leniency and to adopt a common-sense “three strikes and you're out” law so that the worst repeat violent offenders serve real time, not living-room sentences, and communities are finally safe again.

For 10 long years, the Liberal government has put the interests of criminals ahead of the safety and dignity of victims. It has prioritized the rights of repeat offenders over the safety of law-abiding Canadians. I say this as someone who served nearly two decades as a Crown attorney. I have looked victims in the eye. I have sat with families shattered by repeat offenders who should never have been back on the street. Over those years, the offenders I saw grew more dangerous and more emboldened because the system kept signalling that the consequences were optional.

This soft-on-crime philosophy did not begin with the current Liberals. Its roots stretch back more than 50 years, when Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government openly declared its intent to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society, even if it involved community risk. Canadians have been paying the price for those risks ever since. The Young Offenders Act dramatically reduced sentences, even for those convicted of murder. Statutory release shortened jail time by a third, and parole policies make a mockery of sentences pronounced in court. Today, full parole can come as early as one-third of a sentence, and unescorted temporary absences as early as one-sixth.

The practical effect of this Liberal philosophy was clear: The faint hope of rehabilitating an offender was elevated over denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring crime or protecting society. The result has been a revolving door of hardened criminals being arrested and released and then reoffending, leaving victims to suffer the consequences.

That is why the Conservative government of Stephen Harper worked to restore balance to our justice system, re-establishing the importance of denunciation, deterrence and the protection of society. However, the Liberals have spent the past decade undoing that progress, scrapping mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes, making bail even easier to obtain and carrying on the soft-on-crime legacy.

This became crystal clear in 2019 when the Liberals passed Bill C-75. Among other things, it legislated a principle of restraint that pushes release at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive terms. That may sound tidy in a briefing note, but in real life it tilted the system away from public safety. The Department of Justice itself describes the bill's goal as timely release with the least onerous conditions.

Then came the notorious Bill C-5 in 2022. This law repealed mandatory minimum penalties for dozens of serious offences that were constitutionally upheld, and brought back conditional sentence orders, what most Canadians now call house arrest. At the time, Liberal justice minister David Lametti said the Liberals were “turning the page on a failed Conservative criminal justice policy”, but what did that really mean? It meant making conditional sentences possible for serious offences like sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, even fentanyl trafficking, and robbery with violence. These are not small crimes; they are violent, scarring, life-altering offences. Imagine telling a victim of kidnapping that their attacker can now serve a sentence from the comfort of their own living room. That is the reality Bill C-5 created.

When the public backlash grew, the Liberals tried to save face with Bill C-48. The then justice minister, Arif Virani, promised it would make Canadians safer, but then he admitted in his own words that he cannot measure what exactly that would look like. That is not a plan; that is simply a press release.

When those reforms failed, Liberal ministers tried to pass the buck. We heard the public safety minister, who was the justice minister at the time, say that the bail system is sound. We saw Liberal ministers and the Prime Minister blaming provinces, telling premiers to “step up” while refusing to fix the failed Criminal Code policies that they themselves broke. Canadians do not want a blame game; they want a justice system that works and is fair.

It is not just Conservatives sounding the alarm. For years, police chiefs, premiers and mayors from across the country have been begging the Liberal government to fix the mess. The Liberals have been obstructionist ever since. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said that changes were “urgently needed” to stop repeat violent offenders from cycling through communities. The Toronto Police Association repeatedly warned of the dangers of letting repeat violent offenders back on the streets. Mayors in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Toronto have all publicly pressed for real reform because their citizens are living with the consequences every single day. All 13 premiers from across party lines signed joint letters for the federal government demanding immediate action, yet the government continued its obstructionist ways. It dug in, defended its failed laws and ignored voices from the very same stakeholders it should have been listening to.

What has been the result? The numbers do not lie. Since 2015, crime has exploded across all categories. Extortion alone has had a 300% increase. These are not just statistics. They represent real Canadians whose lives have been shattered by violence.

Consider the Saskatchewan tragedy in 2022. Myles Sanderson was already out on statutory release after 59 convictions. Let that sink in. He went on a rampage, killing 11 people and injuring 17 more. If he had been kept in jail, as common sense dictates, those families would still have their loved ones today. In Peel Region, police arrested 18 individuals tied to home invasions, armed robberies and carjackings. Shockingly, half of them were out on release at the time. In Vancouver, police reported that just 40 prolific repeat offenders were arrested more than 6,000 times in a single year. That, by definition, is the revolving-door justice system.

That is why, if the Liberal government were truly serious about tackling violent crime, it would adopt the Conservative plan for a “three strikes and you're out” law. Here is what that means in practice. When someone has been convicted of three serious violent offences, they would no longer be able to serve their time at home or walk out with probation. There would be no more conditional sentences and no more house arrests. Instead, they would face a mandatory minimum period of incarceration of 10 years, with the possibility of life in prison depending on the severity of their crimes. They would be designated as dangerous offenders, which means they would not be released until they can prove they are no longer a threat to the public. If they ever wanted to earn back their freedom, they would have to show it. That means spotless behaviour, clean drug tests and real steps toward rehabilitation.

The principle is simple. After three serious violent crimes, someone has shown society they cannot be trusted to walk free. They would serve real time, not living-room sentences. That is how we effectively protect communities, restore faith in the justice system and finally put victims ahead of repeat violent offenders.

Canadians are tired of Liberal governments that coddle criminals and abandon victims. The motion says that enough is enough. It would end the failed approach of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. It responds to the pleas of police, premiers and mayors. It would give Crown attorneys and judges the tools they need to keep dangerous offenders where they belong: behind bars. Most importantly, it would restore the fundamental duty of any federal government, and that is to keep Canadians safe.

Canadians want their children to walk to school without fear. They want seniors to feel safe in their homes. They want women to know that their abusers will not be back on their doorstep the very next day. They want law-abiding citizens put before repeat violent offenders.

The Conservatives are bringing forward this motion because Canadians deserve more than excuses. They deserve more than obstructionist ways. They deserve safety, first and foremost.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise again to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise on behalf of the people of Swan River on the alarming increase in violent crime that has threatened the safety and well-being of families across the region.

The petitioners are experiencing the consequences of the soft-on-crime Liberal policies, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-5 repealed mandatory jail time for serious crimes, and Bill C-75 forces judges to release repeat violent offenders right back onto our streets. Petitioners are concerned that, since 2015, extortion in Canada has increased by 330% while violent crime is up 55%.

Petitioners in the Swan River Valley want to see an end to the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies so that they can feel safe in their own community. This is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. I support the good people of Swan River.

Strong Borders Act

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat part of my speech: Bill C-75 requires judges to prioritize releasing an accused person at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions.

Clearly, after 10 years, the Liberals must realize that bail reform is needed. They must be listening to their constituents. That is why I bring this up, so it can be added to Bill C-2, because we have been talking about it for years. It needs to be repealed for the safety of everyone and all Canadians. Again, in good faith and working together on what is best for Canada, I hope that the Liberals—

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member touches on something that is very close to my heart as well, and that is bail reform. We keep hearing members opposite saying that it is coming and it is pending. It has been six and a half years since they presented bail reform in Bill C-75, and my colleague mentioned it rewrote the rules so that judges are instructed to let offenders out at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions.

This was a deliberate Liberal policy. It was not an accident. They deliberately wrote that in the bill, and for six and a half years, people have died and women have been raped and abused. This has happened over and over again in six and a half years. The Liberals are accountable for it.

What does the member have to say about that?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a few things that the bill fails to address, which are fentanyl sentencing, gun crimes and bail reform.

I would like to start by sharing some alarming facts. According to Health Canada's latest figures, there was a total of 49,105 apparent opioid toxicity deaths reported between January 2016 and June 2024. Of all accidental apparent opioid toxicity deaths from January to June 2024, 79% involved fentanyl. The percentage has increased by 39% since 2016 when national surveillance began. Fentanyl and its analogs were involved in 33% of opioid-related poisoning emergency department visits from January to June 2024. The percentage of all opioid-related poisoning emergency department visits that involved fentanyl and its analogs has increased by 106% since 2018 when national surveillance began.

The Washington Post reported in December 2023 that fentanyl super labs in Canada are producing mass amounts of the drug. The super labs that police are finding in Canada differ because they are synthesizing the drug, not simply pressing pills, using precursor chemicals sourced primarily from China.

In August 2023, the Hamilton Police Service, the OPP, York Regional Police and the Toronto Police Service shut down a number of fentanyl labs in various areas between the GTA and Hamilton. This included two different labs and 25.6 kilograms of fentanyl. When the Liberals passed Bill C-5, they eliminated mandatory jail time for trafficking, producing, importing and exporting drugs like fentanyl. The current penalties in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are so weak that organized crime groups are not deterred at all. They simply view them as a cost of doing business.

Conservatives want tougher sentencing measures to ensure that those who mass-produce and traffic fentanyl in mass quantities serve a mandatory life sentence, as murderers do right now. The DEA found that just two milligrams of fentanyl can cause an overdose that leads to death. Producing fentanyl in mass quantities should be treated the same. In June, in my city of Hamilton, police executed a warrant and not only found an illegal handgun, surprise, surprise, but also seized 35 grams of fentanyl. If it had been in its pure, uncut form, that amount could have taken the lives of 17,000 people. Hamiltonians deserve to be protected from those who wish to wreak havoc and take the lives of others. We have had enough.

The second issue Bill C-2 does not address is violent firearms offences. In Hamilton alone, there have been 86 shootings in the last 20 months. On April 17, an international student studying at Mohawk College was shot and killed by a stray bullet while simply waiting for the bus. On July 17, in broad daylight and at the intersection of one of the busiest business districts during a popular street festival in Hamilton, an innocent 26-year-old refugee from Ghana was murdered by a 17-year-old drive-by shooter.

On July 29, in my hometown of Stoney Creek, two separate shootings took place just minutes apart, one of which occurred mere steps from one of our local councillors. On August 30, three people were injured after a gunfight broke out in downtown Hamilton. People ran for their lives as 80 shots were fired. Clearly, if the Liberal government opened its eyes, it would see that Canada is in desperate need of reform for violent firearms offences. How many more innocent bystanders need to be murdered in cold blood for the government to wake up and reverse course? Firearms crime is up 130%.

The statistics speak for themselves, and even though this number has increased for nine consecutive years, the Liberals repealed mandatory prison time for the following: using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a firearm or weapon knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, extortion with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. As I said, the Liberals repealed the mandatory minimum sentences for these crimes.

The third issue that Bill C-2 does not address is bail reform. In 2019, the Liberals introduced Bill C-75, which requires judges to prioritize releasing an accused person at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions. Why are we not prioritizing the victim or the safety of law-abiding citizens?

A Hamilton individual was released on bail after a string of armed robberies this spring. He has now fled his residence, and the police have completely lost his whereabouts. Conservatives are calling for jail, not bail. The Liberals' soft-on-crime policies have put Canadians in danger. For example, total violent crime is up 50%, total homicides are up 28%, auto theft is up 45%, human trafficking is up 83% and total sexual assaults are up almost 75%.

The Hamilton Police Service had to release a statement of warning to the public after a 22-year-old repeat violent sexual offender was released on bail. This individual forcibly entered the home of a 72-year-old Hamilton woman and sexually assaulted her for one hour. Through DNA findings, he was later connected to a 2022 and 2023 sexual assault claim. Why was he let out on bail?

Bailey McCourt, a young mother we heard about earlier today, was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail for assault. My constituents and I lose sleep at night thinking about how insanely off path this country has gone in terms of protecting its citizens. The statistics are right in front of the government's face. Crime is on the rise, but despite the facts and figures, the Liberal government has repealed and softened its sentencing and bail measures. It is appalling and completely unacceptable and it must change.

The most disturbing statistic to me is that total sexual violations against children are up 120%. A 25-year-old man from Welland, not far from my riding and in my colleague's riding, got an early release from jail in March after serving time for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy. Five months later, he forcibly entered a home and sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl. As a father of young children, I am haunted by these stories and these statistics. I can only hope that the Liberals understand that we must protect the innocence of children at all costs.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are ready to support provisions in the bill that are in our national interest and secure our borders while proposing amendments by which the bill can be improved and opposing measures that go against the best interest of Canadians.

Before I get into the specifics of the bill, it is very important to note that much of the urgency surrounding the legislation is the direct result of 10 years of Liberal inaction on border and immigration enforcement. Let us not forget it was the new Trump administration that actually forced this issue, causing the Liberals to finally take these concerns seriously. It was about time.

Through the introduction of the bill, the Liberals are trying to address problems they not only created but also allowed to reach a crisis level. Conservatives have been calling for a stronger response to public safety, border security and immigration for years. I am pleased to see that some aspects of Bill C-2 take meaningful steps in helping to streamline investigations, fight money laundering and ensure sex offenders are dealt with properly under the Sex Offender Information Registry Act.

Having the appropriate tools is critical in keeping our borders secure, disrupting illegal financing and fighting transnational organized crime and fentanyl.

Part 2 attempts to begin to address the fentanyl crisis by proposing to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to fill a loophole in the act. It proposes to do this by banning precursor chemicals for fentanyl, which is critically important.

However, Bill C-2 fails to address the serious matter of appropriate sentencing for fentanyl dealers, for example, given the Liberals' failure to repeal their soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5, and their catch-and-release legislation in Bill C-75.

Part 4 of Bill C-2 would expand the powers of Canada Post, allowing it to open anything during post. While I agree that the Canada Post Act requires some amendments, the searching and opening of mail should be limited to law enforcement agencies with judicial authorization.

I remain concerned that some of the sweeping changes embedded in this omnibus bill could undermine privacy protections across Canada.

Having a secure border means having a strong, robust immigration system that serves the needs of Canadians and aligns with our national interests. Parts 6 to 9 of Bill C-2 attempt to address some of the challenges our immigration system faces after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement.

I strongly believe that the role of government is to protect our national security. We must ensure that our national security apparatus and law enforcement agencies have the legislative tools necessary to do their jobs and do them well.

Part 6 of the bill introduces amendments to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow information sharing between various government departments and agencies, but only if a written agreement exists.

I applaud the opening of communication between federal agencies, but the bill would permit these activities through regulation rather than simply legislating that requirement. The absence of legislating it and having enforcement mechanisms casts doubt on whether meaningful action would follow or whether this would be yet another empty promise.

Parts 7, 8 and 9 of Bill C-2 include proposed substantial changes to the in-Canada asylum claim eligibility. It would expand the minister's authority to suspend or cancel immigration documents for reasons determined to be in the national interest and proposes changes to the safe third country agreement so that anyone who crosses the border between official ports of entry would be ineligible to apply for asylum immediately after arrival and could be returned to the United States during that period if they do not qualify for an exception.

All of these proposed changes are significant and have potential, but they require in-depth study to ensure they address the problems appropriately.

Beyond immigration, Bill C-2, in part 10 and part 11, contains provisions to crack down on money laundering, terrorist financing and organized crime. Part 10 proposes to increase penalties and replace optional FINTRAC compliance agreements with a mandatory regime. It would expand FINTRAC's registration to include more entities and would authorize FINTRAC to share information with Elections Canada.

These are all sound proposals. However, in part 11 of the bill, the Liberals are proposing to ban certain entities from accepting third party cash deposits, any cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more. While I appreciate that the government says its intent here is to prevent money laundering by criminals, who predominantly use cash, without further legislative clarity, this has raised concerns from charities, community groups, rural communities and many individuals who rely on cash for their daily business activities.

The provision would risk limiting Canadians' freedom to use legal tender, including cash, as they may choose. Conservatives oppose any move to ban cash or require mandatory digital transactions, and believe that these changes must undergo rigorous scrutiny at committee.

Parts 14 and 15 of Bill C-2 have introduced measures which would curtail individual freedoms and have raised concerns that innocent individuals, not just criminals, may be caught by the provisions of the bill. The bill would introduce provisions to provide greater authority for police, CSIS and authorized persons to access online subscriber information from electronic service providers without the need for a warrant. I understand that this is important in some circumstances, but I believe that digital privacy is a fundamental right of Canadians, and we must ensure that the legislation would not lead to law-abiding citizens' being treated like criminals.

While action on our borders and the need for increased national security enforcement is desperately needed, I want to be clear that I do not support granting excessive, unchecked powers to government or law enforcement, in most circumstances, without due process, proper oversight and respect for Canadians' rights. Conservatives are concerned about Bill C-2's potential impact on Canadians' privacy and freedoms, and we will ensure that they are respected. As I have mentioned, Bill C-2 is sweeping in its scope, and I do not believe that Canadians should have to choose between having a secure border and having their civil liberties protected.

Given the scope and complexity, Conservatives are proposing that Bill C-2 be split into two separate pieces of legislation: one confined to border security and immigration, and the other to everything else. My hope is that the Liberals will receive that as intended. Like most Canadians, we all want secure communities and borders, and immigration that works, and the safety and security of Canadians is not negotiable.

Bill C-2 is a step in the right direction, like cracking down on terrorist financing, but we have concerns, and we oppose other provisions in the bill. The bill needs to be scrutinized. My hope is that the Liberals are open to non-partisan co-operation in ensuring that the bill achieves the stated goal of meaningful improvement to Canada's public safety and national security while safeguarding Canadians' rights and freedoms so that law-abiding Canadians are not treated like criminals.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have always stood for the principle of security and the principle of freedom, and we have managed to do so simultaneously. These are the two pillars of a safe and prosperous society. Sadly, though, after a decade of Liberal governance, Canadians are living with less of both: less freedom and less security. The Liberals would like to move past their disastrous record on these topics, but Canadians are still paying the price and therefore very much paying attention and have some significant concerns.

Today, with Bill C-2, the government is claiming yet again to secure Canada. The Liberals have said that this is the intent of the bill. I would like to explore that a bit, because there are two problems that I see with the bill. I would say that it would neither make our communities safer nor protect our freedoms, and it would actually deepen the failures of the current government from the past decade.

There are two things. The bill claims to enhance security, but it would actually leave glaring holes in our justice system untouched, therefore leaving a person feeling less secure than ever. I will expand on that. The second thing I would like to discuss is the fact that it would infringe on the fundamental freedoms of Canadians in ways that should alarm each and every one of us in this place.

With regard to security of person and the justice system, let us be clear: Bill C-2 is the Liberals' half-hearted attempt to patch over the chaos that many of their policies have actually created. Sadly, Canadians have been truly, not figuratively, paying for those mistakes with their lives. We are told the border is secure, yet the CBSA has lost track of nearly 30,000 people with deportation orders. That is not security; that is negligence. In Falkland, B.C., authorities uncovered the largest, most sophisticated drug superlab in Canadian history in just the last couple of years. In the same province, the RCMP arrested individuals tied to a transnational organized crime group connected to Mexican drug cartels. This is the state of our country.

These are not isolated incidents. They are the product of years of border mismanagement and reckless drug policy experiments that have been done, especially in the province of British Columbia, which the government not only stamped with approval but also funded. That same failed experiment actually resulted in the death of more people due to drug overdose than died during World War II. Let that sink in for a moment: More people died because of the government's failed drug experiment than the number of people who died in World War II. That is a big deal.

Meanwhile, we also have to look at catch-and-release policies and what they have done, because they have sown great chaos across the country. My own riding of Lethbridge has one of the highest property and violent crime rates in Canada, and we are certainly not alone. It is something being experienced in communities from coast to coast.

In Welland, Ontario, just a few weeks ago, a three-year-old girl was violently sexually assaulted in her own bed. A little girl should be able to go to sleep at night with confidence that she is going to be kept safe, that she is going to wake up in the morning without her sleep being disrupted in any way. Unfortunately, because of our weak policies in this country, that three-year-old woke up having been forever changed, and she now has to work through the scarring that has taken place, not only to her physical body but to that little three-year-old heart. That is because of the failed policies of this place.

Folks, more can and should be done in order to make sure that a person is secure. Yes, sure, put more border patrol in place, but at the end of the day, there is so much more. In Kelowna, B.C., Bailey McCourt, a 32-year-old mother of two, was beaten by her ex with a hammer after he got released on $500 bail. That did not have to happen. Folks, if our justice system were stronger, if it stood for victims and did not side with criminals, these things would be prevented.

These tragedies expose a massive weakness in our justice system, and it is one that desperately needs to be addressed. The government has not only the opportunity but, I would dare say, the responsibility.

There are solutions, and I want to outline two of them. We have dozens that we can offer, but these are two of them. One would be bail reform. There are cases like that of Bailey, who was the mother murdered by her ex. He should not have been allowed out on bail. It highlights a massive problem with our bail system, the fact that a criminal can be put in jail and then let out before the ink on the police report even dries. That is what happened here. This man, a very dangerous offender who was known to police, went out and took the life of his ex-wife, leaving two young children without a mom, and a family grieving.

We have put forward a bill called the jail not bail act, and it calls for the repeal of Bill C-75, which forces judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the lightest conditions. That should not be the case in this country. The bill we are proposing would instead require judges to consider an accused's full criminal history, deny bail to repeat major offenders and toughen risk assessments, which would do a lot of good for victims and innocent Canadians. It would certainly do a lot of good to put criminals where they belong.

The other reform that we could bring forward is sentence reform. We have to confront the fact that our sentencing laws in this country are very broken. In Canada today, the maximum penalty for a third robbery offence is higher than the penalty for a sexual offence. I am going to say that again. Right now in this country, the maximum penalty for a third robbery offence is actually more than for a sexual assault offence.

I want us to think about that for a moment. Physical property in this country is actually given more weight, more value, than a person's dignity. Most often, it is women who are sexually assaulted. It is women who are put in that vulnerable place, that place of having to pull themselves together and heal from what was robbed: their very dignity and their very being.

It is also worth noting that our system allows for violent offenders to actually receive house arrest rather than be put in prison where they belong. How does that protect society? How does that protect those who are just trying to go to work, take their kids to sports or a music lesson, and live life in a safe, law-abiding manner? Why are we not standing up for those folks?

Colleagues, we need tougher, more consistent sentencing that reflects the gravity of the crime committed. Canadians deserve this. When we talk about the security of a person, these are the things that must come to the table. Under Bill C-2, none of this is considered. In fact, in the six or seven months that the government has now been in place under the new Prime Minister, the topics I am bringing up today have not even been addressed. They have not even been acknowledged.

This summer, it felt like every other hour I was opening up my phone and reading an article with regard to a crime committed against another human being. There was another life lost or another person assaulted. It should not be that way. Those in this House have the power, we have the power, to make a difference. We have the power to change the laws of this country and to instruct our law enforcement agents and the courts to act differently. We have the ability to contend for victims, to protect those who are innocent, and to truly provide security of person. When we talk about Bill C-2, there is a whole lot missed there.

I said originally that I was going to talk about security of person, and I was going to talk about the violation of human liberty that is also exposed in this bill. Out of passion, I have run out of time, but I think I have hit my mark. Ultimately, it is the people who matter most. They are the ones who sent me here. They are the ones I am contending for, and I would ask that my colleagues do the same.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Swan River to present a petition on the alarming increase in violent crime, which has threatened the safety and well-being of families all across our region. The petitioners are experiencing the devastating impacts of soft-on-crime Liberal policies like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-5 repealed mandatory jail time for serious crimes and Bill C-75 forces judges to release repeat violent offenders right back on our streets.

The petitioners are concerned that since 2015, extortion in Canada has increased by 330% and homicides are up 29%. The petitioners in the Swan Valley want to see an end to the Liberals' catch-and-release policies so they can feel safe in their own communities. 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.

Justice

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, we have witnessed the implementation of Bill C-5, which amends the Criminal Code and allows sentences to be served at home, and Bill C-75, which makes it very easy for offenders to be released on bail. These bills were put in place by the former justice minister, David Lametti, who is currently an adviser to the Prime Minister's Office.

Will the Prime Minister listen to David Lametti, or will he listen to reason and listen to the Conservatives?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, before Parliament rose for the summer, I shared the heartbreaking story of the Lehmann family from my riding in Mission. They lost $300,000 to extortion. Their lives were completely destabilized, yet the criminal never spent a single day in jail, only nine months of house arrest and probation, while the Lehmanns lost their retirement income.

Since I raised that question, more devastating stories have come to light. Just today, another suspect was arrested in a Brampton extortion and shooting case. Earlier this summer, gunshots were fired at homes in Brampton neighbourhoods, targeting residents in what authorities say was part of a broader extortion scheme.

In Surrey, extortion has reached alarming levels. As of mid-September, the Surrey Police Service is actively investigating 44 extortion cases, 27 including shootings, targeted at residents and businesses. It has gotten so bad that Mayor Brenda Locke has gone as far as announcing a $250,000 reward fund for information leading to convictions. I believe it is the largest in Canadian history. Violent crime is up 55%. Firearms-related crimes have increased 130%. Extortion, one of the most destabilizing crimes a community can face, has spiked 333%.

Canadians deserve better, and Conservatives have a plan that will restore and strengthen mandatory jail time for extortionists to face real consequences. My colleague from Ontario is introducing the jail not bail act to take stronger action against violent, repeat offenders. The act would end catch-and-release policies that too often put dangerous individuals back on the streets. It would create a major offences category that includes crimes such as firearms offences, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault.

Families are being devastated, businesses are being terrorized and communities are being destabilized. I will ask again, will the Liberals stand with Canada, the Canadian consensus, and admit that their soft-on-crime policies under Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have destabilized our communities? Can they admit their faults and work with Conservatives to reverse that legislation and restore hope, justice and equality, especially for women, who are most impacted by their soft-on-crime policies? Will they stand with Canadians and make the changes we need to see?

Strong Borders Act

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member back for his second term. He should know that the federal Criminal Code is administered out of this place, and that is what we are talking about. We are talking about things like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which take the onerous provision out and allow weak bail. We are talking about this in light of Bill C-2, because they have allowed chaos in our streets. We will continue talking about crime every single day of the week when the Liberals are trying to convince Canadians that they are the ones trying to fix it.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are back today, again, to do something we do a lot of in this place, which is cleaning up yet another mess that the Liberal government, the government for the last 10 years, has created.

This time we are tackling a broken border security regime that lets guns, drugs and criminals flow across the border with absolutely no consequences. When we tie that together with an equally broken criminal justice system that provides no accountability for the offenders and no safety for innocent Canadians, we get a disaster and crisis-level mess. How did we get here? That is pretty simple. We will walk everyone right through it. For everybody watching, for those who might listen this time around, we will start with Justin Trudeau and his ministers. By the way, they are still there on the front bench. They prefer giving rights to criminals over law-abiding Canadians. Pieces of legislation such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 codify this ideology and let convicted criminals roam free through a revolving-door justice system of bail with no punishments and no accountability whatsoever.

We see it every single day with every story on the news, story one, two, three, four, five, particularly in my region of the GTA. Piled on that are weak immigration policies that deliver outcomes such as a 632% increase in people trying to cross into the country illegally from the U.S. Sprinkled on that is a healthy dose of free drugs, courtesy of the taxpayer, available to anyone, anywhere, even when we know these drugs end up in the streets or in our schools and, frankly, make the plight of addiction much worse and not better. This is all topped off with a broken federal bureaucracy that has ballooned; it is so weak and so detached from reality that literal terrorist organizations, in some cases, can fundraise, recruit and operate with impunity here in Canada from coast to coast to coast. Some of them have charitable numbers even still.

It does not take a genius to realize that all of these ingredients would set us up for a ginormous, if that is a word, border security and crime crisis in the country.

We get stories like those of Raj Kumar Mehmi, who was convicted of smuggling 80 kilos of cocaine in 2023, sentenced to 15 years and released. He escaped, hopped on a plane and is now gone forever.

Arjun Sahnan, a 19-year-old, was arrested for drive-by shootings and extortion. He got bail, booked a flight and is now gone too. This is the reality of the system that the Liberals designed. They actually designed this. They thought about it and thought these were good changes, which then resulted in chaos.

Apparently, no one on that side saw this coming, not even from a mile away or from their work from home set-ups. We flash forward to right now, a few months later, and what do we see? Once again, we see that the Liberal government is showing up with a bill that does not actually deliver on what Canadians want, what they have asked for and what they are screaming about in the streets. It is a bill that claims to fix a problem but instead proposes things that no Canadian would ever sign off on.

They have cooked up legislation that keeps a broken border and immigration regime in place while also punishing law-abiding citizens with massive expansions in federal power. Bill C-2 keeps in place the catch-and-release for criminals who traffic fentanyl and firearms and takes advantage of the weak laws that hurt Canadians. It does not add mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers. It does not add mandatory prison time for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes.

There have been several shootings in my community in Vaughan. In just three weeks, there have been seven. An innocent man literally gave his life to save his family from a random violent home invasion. He was shot to death in his living room, but the legislation would not guarantee that his killers or any other people terrorizing our communities would actually be behind bars. We are told to wait, that it is going to happen.

The same people who created the crisis cannot be trusted to fix it. Even worse, it still allows house arrest for even the most serious offences. A person can commit grand theft auto and still be in their living room playing the video game. At the same time, Bill C-2 puts new limits on the use of cash in our economy, ostensibly to target gangs and criminals.

Do we really believe that gangs and criminals, the ones pushing fentanyl, the ones running guns and laundering money, are suddenly going to start following the law? Of course not. We make those assertions, and we make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

Instead, seniors and small businesses are the ones who will be unfairly punished by this massive overreach in government power. It even goes farther, with massive new powers of the federal government that threaten Canadian civil liberties.

We know this. We have seen this movie before. It is what the Liberals do every single time. They find a problem, but they do not solve the actual problem; then they massively expand their power to take more rights away from Canadians. We have seen how this happens.

There is no limit to the government's hunger for power. It tried to give itself unlimited spending power during COVID. Just two months ago, it sneakily removed privacy provisions from the online streaming bill and called it an accident. Now, it is burying conditions in the back of the bill that have nothing to do with border security and clearly show Canadians that it wants more power.

This is not just overblown rhetoric. Bill C-2 will let Ottawa open people's mail without oversight, force Internet companies to hand over private information and allow them to search without a warrant in certain scenarios. This is not fixing our borders. It is not protecting Canadians. It is a government power grab, plain and simple, and it should make everybody very uncomfortable.

Canadians did not give the Prime Minister a blank cheque to take more power away from Canadians and infringe on their rights. Instead of that, what we should do in the bill is hire more border agents, the ones who are on the front lines, as was done in the past. They can patrol the entire Canadian border properly, not in an Ottawa office but on the ground. We should have people in uniforms who would enforce the laws that are there.

Let us install scanners at major ports to stop the flow of guns and stolen cars in and out of our country. Maybe we should actually keep track of who is coming in and who is leaving this country so that we do not have another situation where the government actually loses count of everybody it has let in.

We should end the soft-on-crime provisions in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 and put criminals in jail, restoring the rule of law in our country, rather than letting them out on bail minutes, hours or days after they commit a crime. While we are at it, let us stop handing out lethal drugs for free, paid for by the taxpayers, and put people in actual treatment.

The government is coming here to talk a big game about the bill, but once again, the actions do not match the words. The public safety minister should probably have a conversation with the justice minister. He does not seem to think there is a problem with crime at all. He mocked Canadians who are fed up with what is going on in their communities, in their neighbourhoods, in their homes, in their businesses.

He might not think Canada is the Wild West, but when people are being shot in their own homes, when cars are getting carjacked at random, when people are being mugged in the streets, it is a lot closer to the Wild West than we should ever be comfortable with here.

This is a guy who broke the housing market, who broke the long-held consensus on our immigration system. Now he is putting his talents to use at the justice department. I hope we spare all Canadians from that going on for a very long time.

To get to what is at the core of the Liberal government is that they put the same people who broke everything in charge of fixing it. The way they fix it is by bringing forward a bill; they tell us they have good intentions in the bill, yet it is a power grab. It is a power grab to look at our mail, to ban cash, to do things they never had the power to do before, all under the guise of protecting Canadians and protecting our border.

Everybody should take that very seriously. Everybody should look at their intentions with the bill very seriously. They say they are going to do one thing, but they do the exact opposite, and there are no results ever for this.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 5, the RCMP seized over 120 grams of fentanyl, nearly 50 grams of methamphetamine, over 150 grams of crack cocaine and a loaded prohibited handgun in a family neighbourhood in my home of Campbell River. Police executed the search and seizure after a lengthy drug trafficking investigation. Inspector Jeff Preston, the officer in charge, said, “Campbell River is experiencing one of the highest rates of overdose deaths in the province and we’re doing everything we can to remove these toxic drugs from our streets.”

It is true that the RCMP in my riding is doing everything they can to remove dangerous drugs from our streets, but 10 years of Liberal governance has made it harder for the RCMP to do their job. Instead, the government has made it easier for drugs and illegal guns to be trafficked across the Canada-U.S. border, and it has emboldened criminals by entrenching Liberal catch-and-release revolving-door policies throughout Canada's justice system.

Today, this House is considering Bill C-2, a piece of legislation whose purpose the Liberal minister responsible has said is to, among other things, combat organized crime and fentanyl. That is an admirable goal and one that we as parliamentarians could all get behind. Unfortunately, however, this bill does not address the many reasons we have had such massive increases in violent crime and overdose deaths under the Liberal government over the past 10 years.

First is the issue of crime. Forget major cities like Vancouver or Toronto. Just in my riding, whether it is Campbell River, Powell River or Courtenay, every week there is a new story about someone being shot or stabbed, having to fend off a home invasion or having their business broken into. Crime is getting worse, and here are the facts to back that up. Since 2015, violent crime has increased by 50% and homicides have increased by 27%, 34% of which, by the way, were committed by a criminal on some sort of a release like bail.

We have to be clear. The dramatic increase we have seen in crime and disorder is not the result of a bill like Bill C-2 not yet being passed. Rather, it is due directly to legislation passed by the Liberals and supported by the NDP over the past decade. Legislation like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have reduced jail time for serious offenders and granted near-automatic bail for career criminals.

We have all heard the stories as a result of these policies about violent random offenders who are released from custody only to commit more violence on our streets. It is part of a tragic miscarriage of justice happening right across this country, but it hits a little differently when it happens in our own backyard.

Lewis Park is a popular gathering place for residents of the Comox Valley. Kids play in the water park, seniors go to classes at the community centre and, apparently, repeat violent offenders prey on an unsuspecting public. At least, that is the story of Serge Melancon, who came to Lewis Park with his wife, a 64-year-old double amputee, to use a handicap shower in the middle of the day during their road trip vacation.

As Serge was about to leave the driveway, there was a knock on his window. It was an unknown man who proceeded to concoct a story about why he needed to borrow Serge's phone, before suddenly opening the door to Serge's vehicle and punching him repeatedly in the head. The assault was so vicious and so unexpected that Serge was hardly able to fight back, sustaining injuries to his face. As Serge was dragged out of the car and lay on the ground, the assailant fled with his phone, and a crowd began to gather. The police then arrived on the scene, later identifying the attacker as Melvin Teagai, a trained boxer. Unsurprisingly, Serge was then told by police that the attacker was already known to them. In other words, he was a repeat violent offender.

Unfortunately, the story of Serge is one that is all too common in both big cities and small towns right across Canada. In fact, I have noticed that the only people who seem to be punished under the Liberal government are those who actually work for a living and follow the law. There is no better example than the law-abiding firearms owners who have been demonized and targeted by their own government, while at the same time the Liberals have reduced prison sentences for those convicted of illegally smuggling firearms across the border from the United States. It is the very same border, I might add, that they now claim they want to desperately secure.

The Liberals also claim they want to get tough on fentanyl and other illegal drugs with this bill. Well, let us look at their record on that.

Since 2015, more than 50,000 Canadians have died from drug overdoses in Canada. That is more Canadians dead than died in all of World War II. These are mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and sons and daughters who have all had their lives tragically cut short.

What has the Liberals' policy been when it has come to deadly opioids like fentanyl that have wreaked so much havoc and caused so much death? First, in my province of B.C., the Liberals decriminalized hard drugs, including crystal meth, crack cocaine and, yes, even fentanyl. It is a policy that remains in place to this day, which means that at the same time that they are claiming they want to take the fentanyl situation seriously, which we all do, their own policy, which recklessly decriminalized that very drug, remains in place. The Liberals then used taxpayer money to flood the streets with a highly addictive and deadly opioid called hydromorphone, or Dilaudid, while marketing it to our young people as safe supply, all as part of their plan known as harm reduction. This bill would leave all of those policies in place as well.

They say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. It is a phrase that I unfortunately have to use all too often with the current government. If we want to actually solve the addictions crisis and want to combat the scourge of fentanyl and other hard drugs, how about instead of handing them out for free, we use that money to get people into treatment and recovery and return them to being healthy, productive members of our society once again? For those who are trafficking these drugs, who are trafficking fentanyl, it is time we treat them like the mass murderers they are, with mandatory life sentences for those profiting off the death and misery of so many of our fellow Canadians. However, instead of dealing with these substantive issues, the Liberals are scrambling with an omnibus bill that would not only fall short of protecting Canadians, but infringe on their unassailable individual freedoms.

The Conservatives have always advocated for a secure border with greater investments, resources and personnel for the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, so it can prevent the flow of illegal drugs and guns coming across the border into Canada. That is just common sense. We know that securing the border means an increased number of border agents, patrol equipment and enhanced security measures and technology.

The major concerns that I have with this bill, aside from the failure to address the real issues and the root problems driving the violent crime and addictions crises in this country, are surrounding privacy infringements involving the warrantless search of the mail of Canadians and digital government overreach.

First, Bill C-2 would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the search, seizure, detention or retention of any post items and would empower Canada Post to open all mail. This is directly against Canadians' right to privacy and would allow Canada Post to open mail without proper oversight, while also removing, which is actually hard to believe, any liability from those who abuse this newly granted authority. Here is the truth: Canadians do not want government looking into their private parcels and letters. To permit such action would be a gross violation of the individual freedoms that all Canadians have come to expect.

This same pattern of erosion of civil liberties is repeated in parts 14, 15 and 16 of this legislation. Bill C-2 would allow the government to create back doors for government bodies to access the private data of Canadians, again without warrants. In Part 16, the bill opens the door for the government to supply financial institutions with personal information, and banks would be authorized to collect and use that personal information without an individual's knowledge or consent, all based merely on government suspicion. This is essentially the same power the government granted to itself using the Emergencies Act during the COVID-19 protests back in 2022, which it then proceeded to immediately and dangerously abuse.

All told, as it stands, Bill C-2 would accomplish virtually nothing on the major issues of crime and fentanyl, which it purports to address. The failed Liberal policies of Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and drug decriminalization would all remain in place, while new infringements on the individual freedoms of Canadians would be thoughtlessly introduced. As of today, Bill C-2 is a poorly written bill, and without significant changes and revisions, it would accomplish little toward the safety and security of Canadians, while further eroding the freedoms and privacy that Canadians hold dear.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when I look across Saskatoon West, past the shopfronts along 22nd Street, and the family homes and small businesses that built the west end of Saskatoon, I see the real cost of 10 years of Liberal failures on crime, drugs and immigration. The government broke these systems, and Bill C-2 is its frantic omnibus attempt to look tough at a podium while ducking accountability at home. It stuffed sweeping surveillance powers in a de facto war on cash into a border bill, then dares ordinary people to swallow the lot. That might work for Ottawa insiders, but it does not work for folks in Confederation Park, Meadowgreen, Mount Royal, Montgomery Place and every neighbourhood in Saskatoon West that wants safe streets and a fair shot.

Let us start where my constituents live today, with local safety. In our city, there were 13 homicides in 2023, 14 in 2024, and by Labour Day this year, only two-thirds of the way through the year, there were already six people slain. Those are not statistics. They are families reeling and a community on edge. Assaults are up this year. Sexual assaults and violations are up. Most alarming is that there have been 818 weapons charges brought forward in the first eight months of this year. These are not isolated spikes. They reflect a Saskatchewan trend line that has gone the wrong way under a Liberal government.

Since 2015, violent firearms offences in Saskatchewan are up 206%. Extortion is up over 600%. Even motor vehicle theft is higher than it was. These crimes, more often than not, are committed by repeat offenders out on bail or who have had their sentences severely reduced.

Saskatoon police chief McBride summed it up this way. He said, “all of the intervention work that police tried to accomplish through holding them accountable, utilizing legislation is for naught...it is a struggle every day for us with repeat offenders.”

That is what families in Saskatoon West feel every day, in their communities, in their driveways and outside their corner stores. They feel that, whatever happens, the revolving door of criminals will keep going due to the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda.

While we fight to keep our streets safe, the opioid disaster continues to devastate our province. The Saskatchewan Coroners Service recorded eight deaths by fentanyl poisoning in 2016. That number peaked at 272 in 2021 and was still 252 in 2023. However, last year, it spiked again to 383 deaths, making it a record year, even outstripping the COVID years. What has it been over the first eight months of 2025? It is a whopping 330 deaths already, well on pace to have the most deaths in the history of our province. These numbers are not elsewhere or in theory. They are our neighbours, our coworkers and our kids. If members want a picture of what Ottawa's failed approach looks like on the ground, they can find Health Canada safe supply warnings taped outside a pharmacy on 22nd Street right in our riding. That is how close the crisis is.

There is hope. The solutions are obvious by now: repeal Bills C-5 and C-75 to ensure repeat offenders get jail and not bail and focus our care on a recovery model rather than on keeping people in a perpetual state of addiction. Is that what we are debating today? Sadly, it is not.

What exactly is Bill C-2? The bill has elements to improve border tools, such as compelling export-side co-operation with CBSA, authorizing security patrols and improving interdiction of contraband in the mail. Conservatives can work with that. We all want to stop guns, drugs and stolen cars, but the bill also veers into bundled surveillance powers, a cash crackdown and a political rewrite of asylum rules. Bill C-2 slaps on a blanket cap for cash transactions over $10,000 without offering evidence for why a federal ban, rather than record-keeping, is needed. In Saskatoon West, seniors, small contractors and family-run shops still use cash for perfectly legitimate reasons. Yes, there are abuses of cash transactions as well, but instead of banning cash, we need better tools to stop crimes with cash. Otherwise, the government's overreach will hit hardest on the little guy in places like Saskatoon.

Then there is the privacy hit. The bill would create new pathways for information demands and cross-border data grabs, lowering thresholds for access to subscriber and transmission data. The Supreme Court has recognized a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information and IP addresses, yet the government buries a workaround in a border bill and tells Saskatoon families to trust it. This legislation would create a warrantless runaround for the police to invade our fibre optic networks, something the Liberals hid deep in this 140-page omnibus bill.

Regarding immigration, the Liberals broke a system that used to work. Canada's system was the envy of the world. Countries would come to Canada to see our system so they might implement it in their own countries. In the last 10 years, the Liberal government has broken almost our entire immigration system to the point where those people are no longer coming to see how we do it, but rather how not to do it, so they do not wreck their own.

This, of course, is not the fault of immigrants. Immigrants just used the system that was given to them. This was purely the government's fault. The good news is that it can be fixed, and we know how to fix it.

The Liberals did not think that there should be limits on temporary residents, and guess what. The number of temporary residents exploded to over three million people, nearly 7.5% of our total population. This rapid uncontrolled population growth has led to obvious shortages in housing and jobs, and put enormous strains on our health care and education systems.

Employers turned the temporary foreign worker program into a wage suppression crutch. It was supposed to be for hard-to-fill agricultural jobs, but it ballooned into restaurants, hotels and just about everywhere else. We propose restoring it back to an ag-only policy because, in the first six months of this year alone, the Liberals issued 105,000 temporary foreign worker permits, despite promising a cap of 82,000, which flooded entry-level markets while Saskatoon students struggled to find summer jobs.

That is not compassion. It is a policy that leaves local youth and newcomers alike worse off. Folks in Saskatoon West feel this on both ends. Employers are begging for skilled trades and reliable workers, while at the same time, high school grads and polytechnic students in Saskatoon West tell me that they cannot get their first job, because Liberals allowed a temporary program to become a permanent substitute for Canadian labour. That is on this government.

Let me be clear about what Bill C-2 misses and what Saskatoon West needs.

The first issue is bail and sentencing. The Liberals' catch-and-release approach failed. They repealed mandatory prison time for serious gun crimes and drug trafficking, and instead expanded house arrest for offences such as sexual assault and kidnapping. Instead of jail for serious offences, criminals are told to stay at home. How often can police check up on criminals at home? We can bet that these thugs are coming and going as normal while they serve out their sentences. The results are obvious in the stats and on our streets. It is time to bring back jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders and restore mandatory prison times for the worst crimes.

The second big issue is fentanyl. Bill C-2 tweaks the current law around drug precursors, which is fine, but it does nothing about the cartel-level producers and traffickers who treat Canadian penalties as just the cost of doing business. Common-sense Conservatives will propose targeted constitutional life sentence provisions for those producing or trafficking fentanyl. That is what a real deterrent looks like, and that is what Saskatoon West deserves.

The third issue is border competence without civil liberties overreach. We must upgrade scanners at crossings and ports, extend CBSA powers along the entire border and track departures so that deportees do not disappear. These are real tools that would have real results, all while protecting the privacy rights of law-abiding Saskatoon families and small businesses.

Here are our common-sense solutions to deal with these issues. One is to fix the border and implement border and enforcement tools that actually help CBSA but stay away from the surveillance back doors and cash bans.

Two is to have jail and not bail to end the catch-and-release for repeat violent offenders, restore mandatory prison for serious gun and hard drug crimes and end house arrest for violent offences. Our community deserves nothing less.

Three is to hammer fentanyl kingpins with life sentences for organized crime production and trafficking with a clear 40 milligram trafficking threshold. We need to flood the zone with treatment and recovery, not failed safe supply experiments.

Last, we must secure fair immigration that puts Canadians first and ends the wage-suppressing temporary foreign worker scheme while keeping a narrowly focused agricultural stream. We need to clear the backlogs and put Saskatoon youth and Canadian workers first in line for Canadian jobs.

The government will say that Bill C-2 is about strong borders, but for people in Saskatoon West, strong borders mean less fentanyl on our streets, not more surveillance in their inbox; more CBSA capacity, not more Ottawa control over family finances; and an immigration system that works for Canada, not for corporate lobbyists and political theatre in Washington.

I like some elements of Bill C-2, which are basically the elements through which the Liberals are trying desperately to undo the ideas that they themselves implemented. However, the bill is a large omnibus bill that includes typical Liberal overreach that I cannot support. I want to see immediate help for the front lines, the CBSA officers, Saskatoon police and community safety partners, while I fight the government's overreach and demand real sentencing reform.

At the end of the day, my job is to deliver for families along 22nd Street, for the seniors in Montgomery, for the small shops, churches and little league teams all across Saskatoon, and that means a Conservative government that will strengthen our borders, protect civil liberties, destroy the scourge of fentanyl and keep our streets safe by keeping criminals in jail. We can make that happen.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the hard-working residents of Oshawa. When I return from my city to the chamber, I always carry the voices of our workers in Oshawa who build our economy, of families who keep our neighbourhood strong and of young people who deserve the chance to build a future in the city they call home. They are the strength of Oshawa, and they deserve a government as strong as they are and as hard-working as they are.

Every family in Oshawa deserves and wants the same thing: safe streets where children can walk without fear, secure borders that stop drugs and guns from entering our neighbourhoods, and a government that protects their rights while holding criminals accountable. Bill C-2 claims to deliver these things, but a closer look shows it offers more rhetoric than results. It mixes a few measures worth supporting with many that leave Canadians feeling less free, less safe and less confident in their government.

The fentanyl crisis has devastated many Canadian communities, including my own in Oshawa and our downtown core. Too many lives have been cut short. Too many parents have stood in sorrow at vigils for their sons and their daughters. First responders race from call to call, fighting to save lives from overdose after overdose, reflecting the depth of a crisis, including the human cost, that continues to grip our city.

Liberals create a crisis and somehow expect Canadians to trust that they are the ones to fix it. It is not enough to ban chemicals; traffickers must face justice, yet the bill would allow many dealers to serve sentences from home. Families in Oshawa do not believe that a fentanyl dealer should be sitting on the couch; they believe the dealer should be behind bars. These dealers are not small-time offenders; they are people whose actions have ended lives, destroyed families and terrorized our communities.

For 10 years, the Liberal government has failed to secure Canada's borders. Our officers do their best with the tools they have, but the tools are not enough. Illegal drugs, stolen vehicles and firearms flow in while Canadians pay the price. Throughout that time, Conservatives have consistently called for stronger border security, more CBSA agents, high-powered scanners at land crossings and ports, and systems to track departures of deportees. These are practical steps that would stop threats before they hit our streets.

Cracking down on money laundering is essential of course. Oshawa families work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules. Criminal gangs should not be able to wash their profits through loopholes, yet part 11 of Bill C-2 takes a wrong turn. It would impose a blanket ban on cash transactions over $10,000. While gangsters have used cash to launder money, this sweeping ban would punish law-abiding citizens, such as seniors who rely on cash, tradespeople and small businesses, without evidence that it would stop organized crime at all.

What I find even more troubling is that access to cash can be crucial for women and individuals trying to escape abusive relationships, because financial independence can be a lifeline. I cannot tell members how many times I have encountered victims of intimate partner violence who feel stuck and trapped. Without control over their money, it becomes much easier for an abuser to maintain power and control, trapping the person in a cycle of dependence and making it harder to safely escape. Taking away cash as a safe option leaves some of the most vulnerable Canadians with fewer tools to protect themselves.

Perhaps the most concerning factors of Bill C-2 are the sections that would undermine civil liberties. The Supreme Court has affirmed that Canadians have a right to privacy in their Internet records. Bill C-2 seeks to undo that, allowing officials to obtain subscriber information without a warrant in so-called urgent circumstances.

Shockingly, the bill would even give Canada Post new powers to open and inspect personal mail. Canadians should be confident that what they send through the mail will remain private and confidential. Allowing the government to rifle through letters and packages is a dangerous intrusion into everyday life. It is exactly the kind of invasion of privacy I came to expect as normal when I lived in Communist China as a young teacher.

Part 15 goes further; it would compel companies to build back doors into their systems. Once built, those back doors could be accessed without judicial oversight. In a bid to win trade concessions from the U.S., the Prime Minister has put our rights and values on the bargaining table. Bill C-2's lawful access provisions would erode a last line of defence to ensure that people can have safe experiences online and off-line.

International human rights bodies have recognized the importance of encryption to protecting the safety and privacy of people. Encryption ensures that people have safe lines of communication online when they need them most. For survivors of intimate partner violence, encryption is a lifeline that secures confidential communication about escape plans and protects victims, including children, from abusers.

Many families in Oshawa include newcomers who fled regimes that spied on their citizens, and they came to Canada for freedom. They should not see those same shadows falling over their lives here.

Canadians remember 2022, when the government froze bank accounts of individuals it disagreed with politically. Under Bill C-2, banks could collect and use personal information without consent, and accounts could be frozen on suspicion alone. Ordinary Canadians should never face this risk. We learn from experience. When Liberals are given too much power, we can be certain they will abuse it.

Bill C-2 is over 100 pages long and would amend 14 acts, yet it omits reforms Canadians have been crying out for. Bail reform is absent. Catch and release would remain in place. There would be no mandatory prison terms for fentanyl traffickers or violent gangsters.

Families in Oshawa are now afraid to let their kids walk downtown. Shopkeepers are exhausted from repeat thefts. Police officers see the same criminals return to the streets. Canadians do not want gestures; it is time for action. Canadians wonder how our streets reached this point. Some claim we need bail reform, but in fact we already have it, and it is making things worse.

The Liberals' Bill C-75 rewrote the rule so that judges are instructed to let offenders out at the first chance and under the weakest conditions possible. That was not an accident; it was a deliberate policy. The results are plain to see in Vancouver. We know, and it has been said today, the same 40 habitual offenders have been cycled through our system over 6,000 times. That is about 150 arrests each in a single year, which is a shocking figure that tells the story of a system that has collapsed. Arrest, release and repeat is the reality across Canada.

Conservatives have been warning for years that this is a revolving door that endangers our neighbourhoods. What has the Prime Minister done? Instead of fixing the law, he closed Parliament, spent his summer globe-trotting and left Canadians to deal with the consequences. Imagine if instead of chasing headlines abroad he had repealed Bill C-75 months ago. How many break-ins, assaults or violent crimes could have been avoided?

Conservatives have offered practical solutions for many years. The Minister of Public Safety has already admitted the true purpose of the bill: removing irritants for the United States. Canadian security, for the minister, has become secondary. With Bill C-2, the government risks surrendering Canadians' privacy, financial freedoms and safety, all for political convenience. This is not leadership; this is appeasement.

Conservatives do not oppose all of Bill C-2. Some measures deserve to be studied and improved. However, we will not give the government a blank cheque to erode the freedoms of Canadians. Individuals should never be asked to choose between safety and liberty. They deserve both.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 60th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, presenting petitions on the alarming increase of violent crime, which threatens safety and well-being across the region. The petitioners are seeking a resolution to the devastating impacts of the soft-on-crime policies that the Liberals have enacted, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Bill C-5 repealed mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes, and Bill C-75 forces judges to apply a principle of restraint, releasing repeat violent offenders right back onto our streets. The petitioners are concerned that since 2015, violent crime has increased by 55% and firearm crime is up 130%. They want to see an end to the Liberals' catch-and-release policies, which are devastating their community.

This is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. I support the good people of Swan River.

Justice

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there may have been a misunderstanding here. I do not have a question about my taxes. I do not have a question about the lack of a budget from the Liberal government. I do not know why a question about bail reform was met with a response by the parliamentary secretary for finance and national revenue. Evidently, addressing bail reform is not a priority for the justice minister or even his parliamentary secretary.

I will be very clear on something: When the parliamentary secretary says that laws are not responsible for this, he is ignoring what police, provinces and municipalities across this country have said, which is that the Liberal government's bill, Bill C-75, has directly caused there to be more of a revolving door, putting serious, sometimes violent offenders back out on the street.

Will the Liberal government commit to repealing the principle of restraint that is putting criminals out on the street, sometimes hours after they are arrested?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly three months, actually a little over three months, since I asked the Minister of Justice a very important question for the people in my constituency and across the country, which was, in essence, when is the Liberal government going to stop putting the rights of offenders ahead of the rights of victims in this country?

Over the summer, we have seen a proliferation, an expansion, a continuation of crime and lawlessness in large cities and small communities all across this country. On August 29, the justice minister said, “This isn’t the Wild West.” I would like to read some headlines that followed that comment.

This is from August 29: “Repeat offender charged after alleged attack on transit police officer in Vancouver”. This is from August 30: “Police say over 80 shots fired, three injured in downtown Hamilton shooting”. This is from August 31: “Police say man, 46, 'targeted' in Vaughan homicide; 3 suspects wanted”. This is from September 1: “2 men shot in Scarborough, Toronto police appeal for info”.

This is from September 2: “Shooting at Abbotsford, B.C., home leaves residents 'shaken' but uninjured”. This is from September 3: “12-year-old charged with attempted murder in Markham shooting”. Believe it or not, that 12-year-old was out on bail. This is from September 4: “Woman 'kidnapped', family member shot during yet another Ontario home invasion”. This is from September 5: two people killed and two injured in a double homicide in Vancouver.

To be respectful of the House's time, I will just skip ahead to a headline from a few hours ago: “Boy, 12, and man charged after unhoused man killed in unprovoked attack, Toronto police say”. That was a different 12-year-old.

Every single day since the Minister of Justice mocked Canadians concerned about crime, there has been yet another example, and there are many more that I did not have time to share today. Many of these cases are offenders out on bail, out on release or under conditions after previous criminality that has already been known.

This has long since passed the point where we even need to provide evidence of how the bail system and the justice system in this country have been broken. The one thing we can say for certain is that this has all happened under the Liberal government's watch over the last 10 years. There has been a series of legislative changes that have made bail easier to get and have resulted in more criminals out on the streets.

This is a government that likes to say it listens to the experts. I would like to highlight some of the thoughts that have been shared by police chiefs in my riding of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. One comes from the police chief in London, Ontario. Chief Thai Truong says, “This kind of violence, and the total disregard for public safety, is a symptom of a larger issue”, and he said that issue is “the criminal justice system.”

Chief Kyle Johnstone of Aylmer said, “We are seeing a troubling pattern where individuals with a demonstrated history of criminal behaviour are being released back into the community, only to reoffend within days”. Chief Marc Roskamp of St. Thomas said, “The current bail approach continues to allow high-risk individuals to reoffend once released.”

My question for the Minister of Justice is very simple. When will the Liberal government accept the failure of Bill C-75 and introduce real bail reform that puts the rights of victims first?

Public Safety

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to fix the Liberals' broken criminal justice system and did nothing all summer. Meanwhile, seven shootings have occurred in Vaughan in less than three weeks. A father, Abdul Aleem Farooqi, was shot dead protecting his family. Families across Canada are terrified.

Repeat violent offenders are still on our streets because of weak Liberal laws like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It is another Liberal broken promise, another Liberal bait and switch, because the Prime Minister is just another Liberal. When will his broken promises stop?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, obviously these circumstances my hon. colleague raises constitute an entire tragedy that should shock the conscience of every Canadian. However, when the hon. member poses a question about repealing Bill C-75, I would suggest it is a good idea to read it first. He does not seem to understand that that bill actually makes it harder for people who are charged with intimate partner violence to receive bail.

I am willing to work in good faith with members of any party to help strengthen the bail system, have harsher penalties for serious crimes and, most importantly, keep Canada safe. The only question remains whether the Conservatives will join us in that effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he would make streets safer on behalf of the Liberals. He promised to fix the broken Liberal justice system, yet an eight-year-old was killed while sleeping in the place he should have been safest.

The justice minister said this is not the Wild West, and he is right. Eight-year-old children sleeping in their homes and getting killed did not happen in the Wild West. The Liberals say they are tough on crime, but they will not repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It is another bait and switch from another Liberal prime minister.

When will the same old Liberals get tough on crime and fix the system they broke?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Attorney General stated that the Liberals will bring forward multiple changes to their catch-and-release laws in the fall, effectively admitting that Bill C-75 is a failure, yet the same day, the secretary of state for combatting crime blamed the provinces for releasing violent repeat offenders.

Two years ago, my own daughter watched as her boyfriend, Johnny, was murdered in Victoria, stabbed to death by a violent repeat offender who was out on bail for attempted murder not three weeks earlier.

When will the Liberals protect Canadians like Johnny, actually take action and cancel failed Bill C-75?

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

Mr. Speaker, violent crime continues to spiral out of control under the Liberals, devastating our families and communities.

In Brandon earlier this year, a 67-year-old man was beaten over the head with a baseball bat by a repeat offender out on bail, completely unprovoked. Weeks later, a woman was assaulted in an elevator by an individual out on bail facing similar previous charges. These are just two examples of far too many violent assaults by repeat offenders released to wander our streets.

When are the Liberals going to get serious, reject their soft-on-crime agenda, repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, and put these criminals in jail, not out on bail?

Strong Borders Act

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give my first full speech here in this hallowed hall. It is amazing to be back. Some will likely remember that I was a Conservative member of Parliament from 2015 to 2021. With this being my first full speech since coming back, I would like to quickly thank a few people who directly helped me, especially the people of Edmonton Griesbach.

Politics truly is a team sport, and I am humbled and grateful to each and every person who helped on this amazing journey to defeat the NDP and turn Edmonton Griesbach Tory blue once again. I have always hated the colour orange, anyway. I do not think I have any of it in my wardrobe.

There were hundreds who played a part in the win. That included 1,200 people who bought Conservative Party memberships from me and my team. The nomination campaign itself took a ton of work and dedication. My team and I knocked on thousands of doors and made thousands of calls, weekdays and weekends, for a year and a half. I thank my team members for that. I am also grateful for my Conservative MP colleagues, some of whom are in this very room, who helped out on this campaign and helped us win the main campaign.

Of course, thanks goes to my wife Clare Denman, who has always worked right at my side on all campaigns. Most of all, I am grateful to all the voters of Edmonton Griesbach, who once again chose me to represent them in Ottawa. I can promise that I will always represent them to the best of my ability, regardless of who they voted for. They can reach out to me and my office anytime they need assistance. We are at their service.

There is nothing I like better than knocking on doors in politics. That gives a person the very best feedback possible about what issues are most important to people, and sometimes we get it in very colourful language. In this latest campaign, I heard loud and clear that people were eager for change. They were worried about this country. The biggest fear I heard at the doors is about the rapid rise in crime over the last Liberal decade. This crime threatens all Canadians, but let us talk about the crime facing just the city of Edmonton.

Here are a few of the headlines from a search I did on Google in just the last two months. I searched for “crime in Edmonton” and got these troubling headlines from news stories: “Killing of woman, 27, the latest in cluster of Edmonton homicide files”; “Police investigate homicide of woman fatally stabbed in central Edmonton”; “Police looking for information about shooting in southeast Edmonton”; “Two males- a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old were injured”; “Edmonton man guilty of torching homes in Alberta Avenue area; court heard fires were set at behest of notorious slain landlord”.

I found more headlines: “Death of man found unconscious in northeast Edmonton considered homicide”; “Four men charged in connection to 2020 homicide in south Edmonton”; “Edmonton youth, 15, arrested for terrorism-related offence for alleged ties to 764 online network”. I found even more headlines: “Suspect wanted in connection to 2022 nightclub killing also charged in fatal 2020 shooting”; “Second-degree murder conviction in shooting that left victim dying outside Edmonton homeless shelter for 27 hours”; “Woman facing murder charges after two others stabbed in central Edmonton”; “Two men charged with first-degree murder after fatal Edmonton shooting”.

That is quite a lot of shocking headlines. The concern about crime is something I heard time and time again at the doors during the last election campaign. I asked folks, “Don't you think the primary responsibly of a government is to make sure its citizens are safe, that they can walk around in their communities day and night safely?” Folks heartily agreed with that, but the Liberals across the floor have done nothing to truly protect us. Their soft-on-crime, turn-the-other-cheek attitude is a hopeless failure. They continue to defend Trudeau's Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, despite the fact that those bills have unleashed a crime wave. That is evident from the headlines I just read. If people want to see the result, they just need to go to downtown Edmonton and look around, or check out the challenges we are seeing in Edmonton's Chinatown.

Rampant, open drug use and social disorder are literally killing mom-and-pop businesses. People can ride the city's light rail transit at night, if they dare. I was at a community event in our riding of Edmonton Griesbach just the other weekend. I asked people to raise their hand if they feel safe walking in their community alone at night and to raise their hand if they feel safe riding transit alone. In the whole audience, nobody put up their hand, that I could see, except two Edmonton city councillors and a lone NDP MLA. People deserve better. They deserve to be safe in their communities.

We Conservatives will continue to push Liberals to stop coddling criminals and to push for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders, as well as stand up for the rights of victims, not criminals. Despite all of this evidence of the crime wave facing Canadians, the Liberal government is still avoiding the key causes of it. The catch-and-release bail system is a big problem. Instead of addressing that, the Liberal government is going after people's civil liberties.

Bill C-2 would give the government the power to search people's mail, on a whim. This does not help catch criminals. This bill is referred to as the strong borders act, but there is poison aplenty in it. It would make a host of changes the government did not run on in the last election campaign, such as those dealing with immigration. There are so many problems that I do not even have time to address them all. The Liberals will probably respond to my speech claiming that Conservatives do not care about strong border protection because we dare to criticize their beloved bill, but it is their government that oversaw a 632% increase in U.S. Border Patrol encounters of people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Canada. This bill would not make Canadians safer. Breaching our civil liberties by searching our mail for fentanyl is not the solution. If the Liberals really wanted fentanyl off the streets, why would they not punish the criminals supplying it? If they really cared about safety, why would then not bring in mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers?

We are once again in a crisis created by the Liberal government, which seems clueless on how to fix its own mistakes. Voters nationwide wanted change from the 10 years of Liberal failures led by Justin Trudeau. Eight million people voted for our Conservative candidates, but in the end, the Liberals won a minority government. Voters were told that this election really was not a fourth term for Justin Trudeau's Liberals, but just because they say that something is not true, does not make it so. My dad used to always warn me about people who over-promise and under-deliver. He would say, “Son, mark my words, be careful of carnies who make big promises.” He was talking about circus carnies. He always warned me not to get fooled by hucksters at carnivals.

The Liberals need to deliver on their election promises. I promise that Conservatives will keep pushing them to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise in this place, thanks to the support of the great people of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, many of whom I have been hearing from on Bill C-2.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.

Conservatives have always supported toughening up our borders, and making sure that we are not just securing our borders, but protecting communities and upholding the rights of Canadians. In the last election campaign, we fought very hard, laying out a message on how to make sure we secure our borders, and that would include adding more border agents. We need at least a couple of thousand more border agents to properly police the border, and not just at ports of entry, which is all Bill C-2 would do. We want to make sure that they have the power to police the entire border, whether we are looking at illegal immigration, people who are trying to run fentanyl and other illicit drugs into our country or human trafficking. We often see illegal guns coming across the border. Of course, the bill before us does not address this in its entirety, and that is why I have some concerns.

We need to make sure that our borders are secure. In the campaign, our leader, Pierre Poilievre, talked about installing greater border surveillance, including the use of drones and towers, and more high-powered scanners at land crossings and seaports to ensure that everything that is coming into this country is looked at. This way, we would know whether there is contraband being smuggled into this country, especially the ingredients to make fentanyl and other opioids, which are creating so much tragedy in our communities and on our streets. This is really a sad part that is impacting so many families. We also need to make sure that we are scanning things leaving this country as well, but nothing in the bill addresses that. The illegal export of stolen vehicles has to stop, which means containers need to be scanned, both coming in and going out, but, again, there is nothing on that in the bill.

We are concerned that Bill C-2 does not address the issue of tracking the departures of those who are in Canada and need to leave. If they fail to meet their dates, then we are going to see that they are staying Canada illegally, and they need to be deported immediately.

The bill would do nothing to toughen up penalties for repeat violent offenders. We are talking about stopping human trafficking, gun smuggling and fentanyl as the main reasons to thicken up our borders and secure them. However, the Liberals continue to support soft-on-crime policies, like making sure that repeat violent offenders have access to catch-and-release bail policies. We believe in jail, not bail, and the Liberals continue to have their multiple murder discounts on sentencing.

This is a big bill, over 130 pages, and that in itself makes it an omnibus bill. We know that Liberals have been scrambling since the election to finally take some Conservative policies and put them in their own policies. We will continue to support things that make Canada safer and more secure, but we do have a lot of concerns about how the Liberals continue to have catch-and-release bills, like Bill C-75, and in the last Parliament, Bill C-5. We want to go after gun smugglers, but the Liberals still erroneously vilify law-abiding firearms owners in this country instead of going after the criminals who are smuggling guns and increasing the penalties for gun smugglers, which they actually reduced in Bill C-5. We want to make sure that we are actually addressing that issue.

Another issue with the bill that I am hearing about is the concern we just heard in the previous question, which is that Canada Post would be given the ability to open mail without the proper charter-protected rights that would happen with judicial oversight and warrants. This is clear in the bill, as we were just talking about, in section 41 on page 12, “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that...”, and then it lists those reasons, which include drug smuggling. That should be done under the authority of a warrant; Canada Post cannot just start opening up mail.

I am hearing from my constituents that they are concerned about part 11, which would limit the amount of cash deposits to $10,000. That impacts those in the agriculture community who want to use cash because they have curbside sales or farmers markets where maybe they are selling livestock or processed meats, vegetables or other types of horticultural crops out of their yards and collecting cash from that. A strawberry U-pick will collect over $10,000 cash easily in a day. Cash is still legal tender. There are ways we can still enforce the money laundering and terrorist financing rules in this country without going after people legitimately collecting cash in their day-to-day business activities. That was about part 4 on Canada Post and part 11 on farm gate sales.

I want to spend a little bit of time on other parts of this bill. In part 14 and part 16, the bill talks about the erosion of privacy rights and civil liberties of Canadians, which I have been hearing about from my constituents. They have been emailing and messaging me on social media. We need to address that.

In my last four minutes, I want to talk about part 5. Part 5 would amend the Oceans Act to provide coast guard services. It would include activities related to security and authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence. It provides the power for “The Minister, or any other member of the King’s Privy Council for Canada designated by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this section”. This is where we are hearing about the transfer of the Canadian Coast Guard from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the administrative powers of the Minister of National Defence. That was announced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence has talked about it. We have heard from the chief of the defence staff and the vice chief of the defence staff on what that is going to look like.

We know that the Canadian Coast Guard does not have interdiction capabilities. It is not a paramilitary organization; it is a civilian organization. It does not have guns on board. The ships have no defensive purposes at all. We must remember that the Coast Guard does search and rescue. It has a lot of scientific vessels that spend time studying our oceans. That is important and has to happen. It provides transit and transportation assistance by icebreaking in places like the St. Lawrence Seaway. That is all important work that the Coast Guard does. However, it is hard to make the argument that that is in the interest of national security or national defence.

This is just another exercise by the Liberals in creative accounting to move government spending from one department into National Defence without actually increasing the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces. They are not talking about changing the Coast Guard fleet to have them armed up. They are not talking about having the sailors and crew of the Canadian Coast Guard actually be trained up to use sidearms.

We know right now that if the Coast Guard comes across somebody smuggling contraband, such as illegal drugs, they have to call the RCMP to come on board to then do the interdiction of those vessels. It is the same thing if the Coast Guard were to see somebody illegally fishing. They would have to call conservation officers with Fisheries and Oceans to come on board to do the interdiction. They would also, if they come across somebody who entered our waters illegally, either because they are smuggling humans or they got lost, call Canada Border Services to come in to process those individuals and do the interdiction.

The Coast Guard has absolutely no policing powers or ability to do those interdictions on their own, and it is erroneous to think that the Coast Guard provides any type of security purposes underneath the NATO construct. I would just caution the government that if it is going to try to count all of the Coast Guard's budget under National Defence, then it has to change the organization so that it can provide those broader services that have been talked about. The bill talks about how the Coast Guard is going to “support departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada through the provision of ships, aircraft and other services; and" “security, including security patrols and the collection, analysis and disclosure of information or intelligence”.

The Coast Guard does not have that skill set right now. It does not have that ability. The government needs to come clean with Canadians. It needs to come clean with NATO and our allies to explain how it can take a civilian organization and decide this is something that really will improve our national security and our national defence, and will actually increase the lethality and kinetic power of the Canadian Armed Forces, which we know right now, after the last Liberal decade, have been broken by the Liberals.

Justice

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who are alarmed about the increase in repeat violent offenders being released on bail.

. The petitioners have witnessed a sharp increase in car theft, gang violence and drug-related deaths. Violent crime has increased by 50%; violent gun crime has surged by 116%, and in 2022, 256 Canadians were tragically killed by people out on bail thanks to Liberal catch-and-release policies under Bill C-75. Police officers are increasingly powerless to protect the public.

The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Justice to urgently reform Canada's bail laws and restore safety on our streets.

Gender-Based Violence

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things. Under the Liberals, violence against women has continued to rise.

By maintaining Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75, which were passed by Justin Trudeau, this government is protecting criminals rather than victims. That is a well-known fact. Meanwhile, women are living in fear. The government needs to take a good hard look in the mirror and admit that it is responsible for the problem.

When will the Prime Minister take action and change these laws to keep all women in Canada safe?

Finance

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he was the man with a plan. A budget is a plan, and now he is shooting blanks. After being Trudeau's economic adviser for the past five years, he is worse than the old guy when it comes to accountability and transparency.

As the Liberals hide, Canadians are worried about how much more debt, inflation and taxes are going to be dumped on them, since this guy says he is going to spend even more than Justin Trudeau did.

A spring budget could tell Canadians what the plan is to lower the cost of government, which would lower the cost of living. It could show a plan to actually get homes built, not more bureaucracy.

A spring budget could show Canadians a plan to gain economic independence from the U.S. by scrapping anti-energy laws like Bill C–69, Bill C–48 and the job-killing oil and gas cap. It could have a plan in it to bring home safer streets by repealing hug-a-thug laws like Bill C–75 and Bill C–5, and finally get immigration under control.

If the Prime Minister is the guy who says he is the man with a plan, he needs to prove it and bring home a spring budget now.

Justice

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of the Liberal government, crime in Toronto is out of control. Last night in North York, what began as an armed carjacking at the Shops of Don Mills turned into a police pursuit and a man jumping off the Gardiner Expressway.

The Liberals have turned Toronto into Grand Theft Auto, real-life edition. Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 let criminals out on bail instead of locking them up and keeping us safe.

When will the Liberals repeal their soft-on-bail regime and start protecting Canadians from violent criminals?

Public Safety

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, auto thefts are up 46%, and violent crime is up 50%. Just yesterday, York Region police arrested four suspects in a violent auto theft in Vaughan, where two of them were repeat offenders. This is a result of failed Liberal laws like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Even the mayor of Vaughan and the chief of York Regional Police are calling for an end to catch-and-release madness. Would any Liberal who thinks this is acceptable kindly explain this to the residents of King—Vaughan?

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, crime is at its peak and cities like Brampton are being hit hard. Peel police had the single largest drug bust in its history, but six out of nine drug dealers were out on bail.

Gun crime is up 116%. Gang homicide is up 78%. The only solution to control the crime wave is to repeal the soft-on-crime Liberal laws Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 and put repeat violent offenders in jail.

Will the Prime Minister reverse Liberal soft-on-crime laws so that drug dealers like these get jail, not bail?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Peel Region had the single largest drug bust in its history yesterday, with 1,000 pounds of cocaine worth $47 million. This would be a cause for celebration if six out of the nine who were arrested were not already out on bail.

Liberal laws like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 are the root cause of this madness. These Liberal laws put repeat criminals back into our communities.

Will the Liberals reverse their soft-on-crime policies to keep criminals behind bars?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been ten years and no bail reform. Why? The Liberals think everything is okay. In Durham, they do not. In 2015, there were 68 cases of sexual assault. Last year, there were 128 cases. At the same time, offenders violating bail and other conditions were up 137%. That is not mere coincidence; that is cause and effect.

Will the minister please break this cycle of violence and repeal the “get out of jail free” laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, Liberal experiments in leniency have led to lawlessness on our streets. Ontario court data shows that major assaults have increased 70% since 2015, from 13,000 cases to over 23,000 cases. That is not just a failure of so-called social justice policy; it is a failure of moral responsibility by the government.

Will the Prime Minister put victims ahead of violent offenders and cancel his “get out of jail free” laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?

Main Estimates, 2025-26

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, can the minister then tell us when the repeal of Bill C-75 be made?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, when will Bill C-75 be repealed?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, Canadian communities are not secure when repeat offenders can be released on bail within hours of arrest. Why was the repeal of the Liberal Bill C-75 catch-and-release policies not in Bill C-2?

Strong Borders Act

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, knocking on doors and talking to a tremendous number of constituents throughout the campaign was intense, but there are a tremendous number of concerns and fears on the streets and in our neighbourhoods. It does not matter whether people are in rural Ontario or downtown Toronto. The numbers are a direct result of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, Liberal laws that made it easier for violent offenders to get bail and avoid serious jail time. Bill C-2 fails to completely fix the damage of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It moves the needle, but it does not completely fix things.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your appointment.

This is my first substantive opportunity to speak in the 45th Parliament. Before I speak on Bill C-2 today, allow me to begin with a few words of thanks. I thank my election campaign team for their commitment, their long hours and their belief in what we stand for. Every door they knocked and every conversation they had helped bring us here.

I thank my family, my spouse Angela and my twin daughters Jennie and Emma, for their love and patience. This job is demanding; it takes me away from home, from holidays and from dinners, but their support never wavers, and I am forever grateful for it.

I thank the great people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for trusting me to be their voice in Parliament. I carry their hopes, frustrations and priorities into everything I do in this place. They have given me a mandate to be their voice, their advocate and their defender. I carry that duty into this chamber with great responsibility and deep humility.

Now, let us get to the heart of this bill, but more importantly, let us get to what is missing from it. While the government may be eager to pat itself on the back, Canadians deserve to know that this bill stops short of promises made in the Speech from the Throne and doing what is actually needed to protect them.

In the throne speech, the government said it would bring a renewed focus on car theft and home invasions by toughening the Criminal Code to make bail harder to get for repeat offenders charged with committing these crimes, along with human trafficking and drug smuggling. However, none of this is to be found anywhere in all 172 pages of this bill. It is as if the Liberals have been tone-deaf to the pleas of premiers, law enforcement and victims who have been demanding bail reform for well over three years. While there are pieces that may be helpful, these are small steps in a system that is already broken at its foundation after a decade of soft-on-crime laws.

This bill may tighten a few screws around the edges, but it ignores the structural damage done by the Liberals' own justice reforms. It does not touch bail, not once. There is not a word about repealing or reforming the principle of restraint that is allowing repeat violent offenders back out on the street before the ink is even dry on their charge sheets. There is not a word about empowering Crown attorneys to actually keep dangerous individuals behind bars. There is not a word about protecting victims from seeing their attacker back in their neighbourhood hours after an arrest.

That revolving door opened by Bill C-75 is still spinning, and this bill does nothing to stop it. It does not touch sentencing either. The Liberals talk a big game about cracking down on traffickers, smugglers and organized crime, but they have kept in place their signature legislation, Bill C-5, which stripped away mandatory minimum sentences for the very criminals they now claim to be targeting.

The bill does not bring back any of those minimums. It does not impose serious time for serious crimes. It does not deliver justice for the victims who have been left behind, even in the middle of a national fentanyl crisis that is taking thousands of Canadian lives every single year. Those traffickers are pumping lethal drugs into our communities. Often, those with links to organized crime and foreign cartels are still eligible for a light sentence or, in some cases, conditional releases that are a form of house arrest. It certainly does not send a message to the organized criminals who are exploiting our legal system, flooding our streets with fentanyl and laundering their dirty money across borders that their time is up. This is a missed opportunity, a chance to clean up the mess the Liberals created.

Here is the reality right now in Canada: Violent crime is up 50% in this country; homicides, up 28%; sexual assaults, up 74%; auto theft, up 46%; extortion, up a whopping 357%; gang-related homicides, up 78%; violent crimes with guns, up 116%; terrorism charges, up 488%; and hate crimes have more than tripled. Those are the tragic stats that show the disheartening reality right now in this country.

While the crime crisis sweeps across our country, what this bill would really do, beneath all the legal jargon and bureaucratic language, is keep the worst parts of the Liberals' justice record firmly intact. It would keep Bill C-75, the law that tied the hands of police and prosecutors and told judges to favour release over detention, even when dealing with repeat violent offenders. It would keep the so-called principle of restraint that has allowed known gang members, gun criminals and repeat abusers to walk free even before officers finish their paperwork. It told Canadians that violent history does not matter and that past behaviour should not prejudice future bail decisions. What has been the result? Repeat offenders are back on our streets, and arrests made in the morning have criminals out before the officer even finishes their shift. However, the bill does not touch that law. It would keep it in place, and by doing so, it keeps that revolving door spinning.

The bill keeps Bill C-5, the Liberals' flagship soft-on-crime legislation that wiped out mandatory minimum sentences for some of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code. We are talking about drug trafficking, gun smuggling, armed robbery and repeat violent offences. Instead of sending a message that these crimes carry consequences, Bill C-5 said they might be eligible for house arrest, which is the message fentanyl dealers and gang leaders heard loud and clear. Now, even in the middle of the worst drug crisis our country has ever seen, the government refuses to put those minimums back in place. The very offenders we should be locking away are still being given second, third and fourth chances, and the government calls that justice.

While the bill claims to be a response to growing threats at the border from organized crime and transnational drug trafficking, it does not say a single word about reversing the same Liberal policies that got us here in the first place. We can tighten customs inspections, but if the trafficker is still released on bail within 24 hours, if the fentanyl producer still walks away with time served, if the gun smuggler knows there is no minimum sentence waiting at the end of the line, then what exactly are we doing as legislators? Without serious bail reform, mandatory minimums and real consequences for serious crimes, the system is still broken. These are the same policies that let fentanyl traffickers off.

Fentanyl is a public health crisis. It is a criminal epidemic being driven by organized crime, enabled by weak laws and made worse by a justice system that fails to deliver real consequences. We are losing more than 20 Canadians every single day to opiate overdoses, and fentanyl is at the centre of it. It is cheap, it is lethal, it is everywhere, and behind almost every fatal dose is a trafficker, a producer or a cartel that profits from death and misery. Despite the crisis, the bill says nothing, would do nothing and would fix nothing when it comes to holding fentanyl traffickers truly accountable.

Let me remind the House of what happened last year in Falkland, British Columbia, where the RCMP dismantled the largest and most sophisticated illegal drug lab ever uncovered in Canadian history. What they found was shocking: 54 kilograms of finished fentanyl, 390 kilograms of methamphetamine, 89 illegal firearms and half a million dollars in cash, all inside a rural compound operating under the radar. To put that seizure into perspective, those 54 kilograms of fentanyl were enough to create over 95 million lethal doses. That is enough to kill every Canadian in this country twice over.

This was not a low-level street dealer. This was not some desperate individual struggling with addiction. This was a high-level, professional drug-production operation. It had all the markings of transactional organized crime, and the RCMP confirmed direct links to Mexican cartels, the same cartels responsible for mass killings, political assassinations and destabilizing entire countries. Now they are operating here on Canadian soil, building superlabs and churning out poison every day. Still, there is no mention in this bill of mandatory life sentences for those who operate fentanyl labs capable of killing millions.

The message is clear here. Prior to the passage of Bill C-5, there was a mandatory minimum penalty for those producers, those manufacturers, those importers, those exporters and those traffickers. However, according to the soft-on-crime Liberal government, that was too draconian a law; it had to be repealed.

There has been no effort to bring back mandatory minimum sentences for large-scale drug production or trafficking. There is no recognition in this bill that Canada's criminal justice system needs to change to meet the scale and violence of this threat. What message does that send? To the cartels watching us from across the border, it says that Canada is easy money. The low- and mid-level traffickers in this country have a big smile on their face now that the weak, soft-on-crime government is back in Ottawa. To the fentanyl traffickers, it says that they will get a deal, maybe even a conditional sentence. To the victims, to the thousands of parents burying their children, to the first responders administering naloxone day after day, to the communities being hollowed out by addiction and death, it says that their pain is not enough to warrant serious change by the weak government. That is not acceptable.

When a criminal operation can manufacture enough fentanyl to wipe out the entire country and still not face life in prison, something is deeply broken. Criminals have taken note. The RCMP says there are now more than 2,000 organized crime groups operating in this country. What good is controlling fentanyl precursors if we are not throwing the book at the criminals making it? What good is data sharing if repeat offenders are out on bail before the paperwork is even processed? What good is fighting crime on paper if the sentences handed down in court do not match the seriousness and the moral culpability of the offender?

This bill is a good starting point, but it is simply not enough. For all the government's talk and for all the legal language and administrative tweaks buried in all 127 pages, the bill still fails to deal with the single most urgent problem we face in this country: violent, repeat offenders who face no real consequences under the government's so-called justice reforms. This is the crisis Canadians live with every single day on their streets, on their transit systems, in their neighbourhoods and in their homes. Canadians are seeing criminals cycle in and out of jail like it is a revolving door, and we are being told that is progress.

Canadians do not want more promises with headlines; they want results. They want their kids to walk to school without fear. They want fentanyl dealers to face real prison time, not house arrest and a slap on the wrist. They want to see gang members and gunrunners behind bars, not out on bail within hours. They want a justice system that puts their safety first, not a system that prioritizes the release of repeat offenders.

The bill does not deliver. Instead, it leaves untouched the broken laws that started this crisis and refuses to bring back protections that Canadians and law enforcement have been demanding for years. Canadians have a right to ask, why have the Liberals not brought back mandatory minimums for fentanyl traffickers? After the largest fentanyl bust in Canadian history, with enough poison to kill the entire population, why are life sentences still off the table? Why is the principle of restraint, which prioritizes releasing offenders over protecting communities, still baked into our bail system? How many more innocent Canadians need to be attacked, robbed or killed before the government admits that its soft-on-crime approach has significantly failed Canadians? Why are we tiptoeing around the rights of traffickers, gang members and repeat violent offenders while law-abiding citizens pay the price in blood, trauma and fear?

The bill focuses on border security and public safety, but it completely fails to deliver on core fundamentals.

Conservatives have long called for decisive action to protect Canada's borders. For years, we have urged the Liberals to fix the border crisis that they created, yet they have ignored the warnings and failed to act. The fundamentals are clear. If we want safer communities, we need tougher sentences for serious crimes. If we want to stop organized crime, we need real punishment for drug traffickers, not plea deals. If we want to stop repeat violence, we need to end the revolving door of bail. Most importantly, if we want to restore trust in our justice system, we need to stop coddling criminals and start standing up for victims.

The bill, unfortunately, does none of those things. It fixes the optics but leaves the core problem untouched. It offers minor changes when what we need is structural reform. It fails to reverse the damage done by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. It fails to recognize that organized crime is not a future threat; it is here now and has been for many years. It fails to respond to the fentanyl crisis with the seriousness it demands. It fails to protect Canadians while crime surges in every category.

Canadians are demanding real change, and they are right to. Mandatory minimums must be restored for serious gun and drug offences. Fentanyl traffickers and cartel-connected criminals should face mandatory life in prison, no exceptions, full stop. The so-called principle of restraint has to be repealed so repeat violent offenders stay behind bars, where they belong. What this country needs is a justice system that protects victims, enforces accountability and puts public safety first, before political ideology, because keeping Canadians safe is not negotiable. It is the prime responsibility of a government.

Conservatives are committed to real, results-driven public safety measures. That means securing our borders, closing loopholes in our immigration system and shutting down the financial lifelines of terrorism and organized crime. Let us not forget why we are here in the first place. The bill only exists because of 10 years of Liberal inaction. The bill only exists because they have problems dealing with the American administration to the south. For a decade, they have watched crime rise and courts weaken.

Since the Liberals took office, illegal border activity has not just risen; it has exploded. There has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters with people crossing illegally from Canada. That is not just a stat; it is a failure of national security. It is what happens when the government refuses to enforce its own borders and lets crisis become the norm, the status quo. The Liberals say they are investing $300 million in border security, but where is it? There is no rollout plan, no timeline and no public accountability, just more vague promises. Canadians are tired of the talk. Opposition members are tired of this talk. They want action. They want to see trust.

We cannot protect Canadians by turning law-abiding citizens into suspects. The expanded surveillance powers in this bill raise very serious privacy concerns. Conservatives will ensure that in the name of security we are not trampling on the rights of innocent Canadians. We can be tough on crime without being reckless at the same time with civil liberties. Our job does not end at opposing what is wrong. It is about pushing for what is right.

Conservatives will keep fighting for real protection at our borders, stronger enforcement at our ports, and sentencing that reflects the seriousness of the crimes Canadians face. The goal is not just to punish crime; it is to prevent it and to restore trust in a system that too often lets people down. Justice in this country should not be optional. Public safety should never be negotiable, and the rights of law-abiding Canadians must always come before the rights of repeat offenders.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have read Bill C-2. I am going to address gun crime again. Let us get to the facts here. The guns are here and crimes are being committed. People are getting shot. There were records set in my city. I do not read anything in this bill that would curb that.

Will the Liberals repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75? Catching criminals was never the problem; it is keeping them in jail.

Justice

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are living in fear. Violent crime is up 50%, gang-related homicides are up 78% and gun crime has skyrocketed 116%. These are not just numbers. They reflect shattered families, terrified communities and lives forever changed.

The heartbreaking truth is this: Many of these crimes are being committed by repeat violent offenders, individuals who should have never been out on the streets in the first place. Why? It is because of the Liberal government's so-called justice reforms, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which enshrined the principle of restraint into law and weakened and gutted our bail system.

Police chiefs, premiers, frontline officers and victims' families are pleading for change. It is time to listen, and that starts by repealing Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 and replacing them with real reforms that put public safety first. Protecting our communities should never be a partisan issue. Canadians deserve better.

Strong Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

One thing the minister and I agree on is safer borders and safer streets, but the really big area where I think we part company is how to do that. On the one hand, we have the Liberal approach, which is to talk about safer streets and safer borders and do little about that, and in fact do the contrary, in the form of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Then we have the Conservatives, who want to take definitive action.

We have an omnibus bill here; let us make no mistake about it. Why is there nothing in it about precluding fentanyl traffickers from serving their sentence at home and precluding people who use firearms from serving their sentence at home? Why are there no tough-on-crime measures like that, which are tangibly needed?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity. First and foremost, I congratulate you on your role as Assistant Deputy Speaker, as well as all the members who were elected in this 45th Parliament. I trust in your capabilities to diligently live up to your role as a non-partisan and be fair to members of all parties during the term of this Parliament. I can tell that so far you are doing great.

It is an honour and a privilege to become a member of Parliament, and I am humbled to be the first member of Parliament for the new riding of Edmonton Southeast. I want to thank all the residents of Edmonton Southeast who put their trust in the Conservative Party and in me. It was because of their trust and efforts that I won the seat for the Conservative Party, with one of the biggest mandates in the country. This is despite the fact that the Prime Minister himself spent half a day in my riding just before the election date. It shows that my riding was ready for a change and was ready to get the answers that the Liberals have failed to give in the last 10 years.

How can I thank the people of Edmonton for the support I got? Honestly, I cannot thank them enough in words, but I can definitely thank them by representing them in Parliament as their rigorous voice whenever and however it is needed and by making sure I hold the Liberal government accountable for its actions.

Edmonton Southeast is a diverse and ethnically rich riding, and I want to thank all the churches, synagogues, gurdwaras, temples, mosques and other religious congregations for extending their unwavering support to me. I also want to thank all my volunteers, the group captains, my nieces, my nephews, my three naughty yet wonderful kids and my lovely wife Mandeep for their tireless work and effort to make this dream come true. The work they did, day and night, was commendable.

I also want to extend a special thanks to my younger brother Chand, who I am lucky to have as my brother. I could not have done this without his organizational skills and foresightedness.

Moving forward, I want to talk seriously and bring to the floor some of the issues I heard about while door knocking, such as crime. I want to tell members about a young, hard-working Canadian in my riding named Harshandeep Singh. She was gunned down by a repeat offender on bail in the city of Edmonton. Another young Canadian was killed while at work by another person who was there.

Even earning money and running successful businesses in Edmonton and the rest of the country have become a curse and a nightmare. I personally know business owners who have received threats of extortion and ransom calls, and they are forced to live in hiding. From door manufacturing companies to realtors to restaurant owners, no one is safe.

I personally know families who were escorted by police out of Edmonton to live in a different place. If people do not pay money, bullets are fired at their houses and death threats are delivered to them and their family members and to their businesses. Newly built homes are set on fire if homeowners do not meet the demands of the criminals and pay them money. Cars are stolen in the GTA and Montreal and are found in Nigeria and South Africa, and the Canadian police and CBSA do not have any clue.

I urge the Liberal government to correct its mistakes by immediately repealing Bill C-5, which removed mandatory minimum penalties, and Bill C-75, which made bail easier, and bringing in stricter laws for repeat offenders and for violent crimes, such as human trafficking, hard drug trafficking, arson and extortion, so that successful Canadians can feel safe and enjoy the fruit of their hard-earned money.

I also want to talk about immigration. The immigration system has been broken in this country. This has had a direct impact on the health care system, housing and policing. Immigration needs to be based on quality and not quantity, yet at the same time, the government must stand in solidarity with international students and try to extend their visas as much as possible before providing visas to new immigrants.

Our first and foremost duty is to accommodate international students and people who are already in Canada, but that does not mean we should promote the bogus claims that refugees make after being in Canada and not being successful in getting permanent residency in this country. Refugee claims and pre-removal risk assessments have literally the same requirements to be successful, so why burden Canadians with added bureaucracy?

I have seen CBSA officers in my practice as a lawyer who have turned down LMIAs for not being genuine. If a CBSA officer is the ultimate decision-maker, why burden Canadians with Service Canada bureaucracy and why not give all the work permit powers to CBSA officers?

The next point I want to touch on is unleashing oil and gas. I have never seen such bigotry and hypocrisy at the hands of government. Alberta holds one of the largest oil and natural gas reserves, but the Liberals have failed to pass laws and legislation to build pipelines and to secure deals with global partners to unleash the energy sector of Alberta. Rather, the Liberals have passed legislation like Bill C-69, making sure that our oil and gas stay under the ground. What is even worse is that the Liberals have turned down building needed infrastructure and killed the LNG deal with Germany, a deal worth billions of dollars that could have generated hundreds and thousands of jobs.

The continuous denial and ignorance of Alberta's genuine demands have led to a strong feeling of separation. Believe me, it is not trivial; it is real this time. I am a strong believer in Canada and its unity, but the onus is now on the Liberal government if it wants Canada to stay together. If the Liberals want Canada to be together, then this is the prime time to unleash Alberta's oil and gas and make sure Alberta feels listened to and honoured. That is what unity and Confederation are anyway, is it not?

As for soaring house prices and affordability, the rising cost of houses for new Canadians in Edmonton has been inexplicable. I hear Liberals talk about aggressively building houses, but they are not saying whether Canadians get to own those houses or whether they are just playing into some sort of scheme.

I see the Speaker signalling that my time is up, but there are so many issues that I want to touch upon, like jobs. We need jobs in Edmonton. We need infrastructure in Edmonton. We need to make sure that oil and gas get out to market.

I want to thank all my constituents, my riding and my family. I will stand strong in Ottawa, and I will make sure that the Liberals are held accountable on jobs, the fight against crime, building pipelines and building more infrastructure.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to rise in this House as the elected member of Parliament for Abbotsford—South Langley. I stand here today with deep gratitude, but I promise to be a committed advocate for the people I represent. I have a clear sense of duty and immense gratitude to stand here today.

I want to thank my family, my friends and all the amazing volunteers who stood by me throughout this campaign. I thank them for placing their trust in me, giving me their time and sharing their concerns with me. Volunteering on a campaign means upholding democracy and upholding our civic duty as Canadians.

I must acknowledge that I only stand here today because of my family. To my grandparents, Iqbal Singh Gill and Surjit Kaur Gill, their values and wisdom continue to guide me. To my parents, Avtar Singh Gill and Kanwaljit Kaur Gill, their sacrifice, strength and courage made all of this possible. They came to Canada from our village of Bukkanwala, Punjab, in the 1990s, carrying the hopes for a better future. Their journey, hard work and belief in the Canadian dream laid the foundation for everything that I stand on today.

I also want to recognize the pride and joy that were felt in my village of Bukkanwala. To the families, the elders and the youth, their celebration and blessings have reached me here. This moment is not just mine; it is theirs. It is a reminder that no matter where we come from, we can dream big and rise together. I carry this responsibility with humility and hope, knowing that the journey we have all been on has just begun.

To my sisters, Avneet and Anoop Gill, and my fiancée, Simran, they all are the constant rock that held me together throughout my ups and downs. Their encouragement, patience and love are what brought me here today. To my mentors, my friends and my community members, I am inspired by them every single day. I will make them proud by speaking on the issues that affect our homes and our families. This election was truly a team effort from day one, and I will never forget that.

Abbotsford—South Langley is composed of Canadians like truck drivers, farmers and tradesmen who rise before the sun and provide for our country. My riding has young families with aspirations from winning hockey tournaments to purchasing their first home. Our retirement communities deserve a safe place to live each day, share their wisdom with us and have nurturing environments. The truth is that Canada is struggling to maintain these warm ideals for our communities. When public safety fails, it endangers our families, our children and our elders.

Tens of thousands of Canadians have lost their lives to opioid overdoses in less than a decade. Our citizens are struggling from this opioid crisis and deserve to come home drug-free. Despite the number of overdoses and rising deaths in my riding, the Liberal government insists on funding these drugs rather than supporting our loved ones.

Furthermore, the data from Statistics Canada keeps getting worse. Firearms-related violent crime has risen over 25% nationally. Criminals who are caught offending time and time again are being let go because of poor rationale and bad policy. I must hold the government to account. I must express my blatant disgust with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. These laws make it easier for repeat offenders to get bail and reduced mandatory jail time. Since these changes, violent crime has gone up over 50% in just 2024.

Concerning gun crimes like extortion illustrate the combined effects of the catch-and-release sentencing and Canada's struggling borders. Public safety needs evidence-based policies and a justice system with integrity. Canadians are expecting their elected officials to put their safety first, uphold the rule of law and make decisions based on grounded facts, not ideology.

There are two border crossings that fall within my riding and serve as international trucking entryways. Protecting our border communities is my priority, especially given the lack of funding for our border security, our military and our national defence. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that puts victims first and takes real action to make sure that our communities are safe.

I urge the Liberal government to stop turning a blind eye and work with us, Canada's Conservatives, to urgently address the growing concerns in our communities. Together, we must implement stronger laws, restore accountability, and ensure that extortion and violent crimes are met with the serious consequences that they deserve.

The safety of our communities cannot wait any longer. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise, not slogans, and a real plan. Canadians trusted that promise, yet we are still waiting for a clear answer. The recent Speech from the Throne reminded us of our democratic foundations, but symbols and speeches are not enough. Canadians expect leadership and a concrete plan.

After the election, we expected details, not empty talk. Canadians deserve to know how the government will build homes that people can actually afford. What will it do to ease the tax burdens on families, workers and small businesses? How will it support our armed forces, from our new recruits to our veterans? What funding are the RCMP and border security going to get? How will repeat violent offenders be kept off of our streets?

We do not need any more vague promises or any more empty words. What Canadians need is a budget that shows real priorities, real numbers and real leadership. People want safer streets where they can feel secure, homes they can afford without struggle and fewer families having to rely on food banks just to get by. No one working multiple jobs should have to stand in line for groceries or worry about making ends meet. Canadians deserve to have enough money to support their families, a chance to build a better future and a government that respects the trust they have placed in it.

I ran for office to serve the people, and I am proud to be representing my community of Abbotsford—South Langley, where I was born and raised. I am here representing those in my community for the very first time in the House, and I promise to work hard every day on their behalf, making sure their voices are heard.

Our country deserves a government that has a clear, honest plan to address these challenges, and we will keep the government accountable until it delivers the results that Canadians expect and deserve.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her victory.

The province of Manitoba set a record last year, in 2024, for homicides. My own city of Hamilton also set a gun crime record. I would like to ask the member, is she willing to vote yes to repeal Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 and put the teeth back in our justice system so criminals are afraid to commit crimes?

Public Safety

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night in North Toronto, a man was shot to death and at least five others were wounded. Three masked men opened gun fire, steps away from the Yorkdale mall. It is not clear if, or how many, bystanders were hit.

The Liberal record on crime is no accident. Liberal bills, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, put repeat criminals back on the streets, unleashing crime and chaos on the streets of Toronto. Gun crimes more than doubled under the Liberals. The solution is simple: Repeal soft-on-crime Liberal laws.

When will the Liberals get serious about deadly shootings in Toronto and across Canada?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie—Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, building on Bill C-48, which made substantive changes to Bill C-75, creating the reverse onus, and working with the provinces and territories, we are going to strengthen it; we are going to go further. The Prime Minister has said we are going to go even further as it relates to judicial and court reform.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his re-election.

One thing I did not hear about in his comments was crime. I met a lady yesterday and was chatting with her, and I asked how her day went. She said it was a day from hell because she had to call the the police three times to have people removed from her business.

I wonder if the member recognizes the impact the Liberals have had as far as crime getting out of control goes. Does he support jail, not bail for repeat offenders? Would he repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, standing here today and representing my community in the 45th Parliament is the honour of a lifetime. I want to begin by expressing my deepest gratitude to the people of Kitchener Centre for placing their trust in me. Their voices, their concerns and their aspirations are at the heart of everything I will do in Ottawa. I also want to take a moment to recognize the dedicated volunteers who made this journey possible. Their passion, hard work and unwavering commitment carried me to this moment. I am not standing here alone; each and every one of them is here with me.

My husband, Chris, my mom, my closest friends, my dad and my daughter, Abigail, are my strength, my motivation and my greatest supporters. Their love and belief in me have guided me every step of this path, and I am forever grateful. To my predecessor Mike, I say thanks for his service to Kitchener Centre. I will continue to be a strong advocate.

Kitchener Centre is more than a place on a map. It is where I was raised; it is where my heart belongs. I attended J F Carmichael, then Queensmount, and went off to Forest Heights, before completing my education at Conestoga, where I earned a diploma in mechanical engineering, specializing in robotics and automation. My career in management has spanned over 18 years, focusing on effective communication, fiscal responsibility and policy creation to improve efficiencies. These are principles I will carry with me into public service.

I grew up in a home where money was not plentiful, but resilience and determination were abundant. I was taught the value of hard work, ambition and the belief that, with effort, anything was possible. That was the Canada and the home that I grew up in, a place where dedication and perseverance could lead to home ownership, financial security and a good life in a safe neighbourhood. Today, those dreams feel farther out of reach for many. This reality is one that I will fight to change.

I am committed to building a future in which affordability is not an obstacle, jobs provide stability and communities are free from the devastating impacts of addiction and crime. I am here to listen. I am here to act. I am here to make sure that every person in Kitchener Centre has the opportunity to thrive.

The rising cost of living has tightened its grip on families, young professionals and seniors alike. I heard the stories at the doors: parents stretching every dollar, young people questioning whether they can afford a home or local businesses trying to stay afloat amid increasing expenses.

Affordability is not just a word; it is the difference between stability and struggle, between hope and hardship. During the campaign, I had the opportunity to tour the Waterloo regional food bank. While I was deeply impressed by its efficiency and dedication, I found myself grappling with the unsettling reality, the sheer scale at which such an operation is needed in our community.

Between 2023 and 2024, the number of new households accessing food hamper programs for the first time skyrocketed by 210%. In that same period, 29,786 hampers were distributed to families in need, for an increase of 109%. These staggering numbers are a direct consequence of the rising cost of living, which is forcing more and more people to turn to essential support services just to put food on the table. This is not just an economic issue; it is a human one. It is a call to action that demands urgent and meaningful solutions to ensure that no family in Kitchener Centre or beyond has to struggle for their basic needs. We must forge policies that ease this pressure, ensuring less taxation, affordable housing and stability for our communities across Canada.

Equally vital is my commitment to job creation. Kitchener Centre has long been a hub of innovation, with a thriving tech industry and entrepreneurial spirit. However, opportunity must be more than a promise. It must be a reality for every worker, every student choosing to stay in the region while entering the workforce and every small business daring to dream. We must invest in key technologies and industries: green technology, the arts and creative sectors, advanced manufacturing, med tech, deep tech, AI and more. We need to implement policies that empower our people and drive investment, ensuring our economy is sustainable and future-proof.

Today, our community has an opportunity to forge a new path ahead, and we are well positioned to do so. We must support the initiatives of the leaders of our industries on a federal level to ensure a prosperous future for Kitchener Centre. However, amid these ambitions, I must address the harsh reality that so many of our neighbours face: this drug crisis. It is a crisis that is not just statistical and not economic; it is profoundly human. I have listened to the voices of families who have lost loved ones; frontline business owners and workers grappling with its impact; and communities, especially in our downtown core, caught in the crossfire of addiction and crime.

One conversation that deeply resonated with me was with Cynthia, a constituent from Kitchener Centre. Not only has her business suffered because of this crisis, but she also brought to my attention a critical issue: the Alexandrian. It is a residential building in the heart of our downtown, which is not alone. This building is home to many newcomers to Canada and low-income families, including children of all ages. These children deserve to grow up in a safe and nurturing environment, yet they are exposed to the harsh daily realities of downtown life.

Criminal activity unfolds right in front of them as they wait for the school bus or play in the nearby park. This is unacceptable. The safety of all of our children must never be an afterthought. It is our responsibility to ensure that they can live, learn and play in communities free from fear. The solution is not stigma; the solution is compassion and treatment. We must expand access to mental health support, strengthen rehabilitation programs and ensure that no one falls through the cracks.

I recently had the opportunity to speak with members of our outstanding Waterloo Regional Police Service, who shared with me that in 2024 alone, they responded to over 11,000 incidents in our downtown core. Since January, the WRPS has been actively collaborating with our local BIA on initiatives aimed at addressing these challenges and enhancing community well-being. To further support these efforts, we must take a firm stance on crime and repeal the soft-on-crime provisions in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. These policies have made it more difficult to hold repeat offenders accountable and have contributed to a revolving door in our justice system. We need to ensure that individuals who repeatedly victimize our communities are kept off our streets and that those responsible for trafficking deadly substances such as fentanyl face the most severe penalties, including life sentences for kingpins.

I did not enter public service to offer empty words. I am here to work for the single parent balancing two jobs, for those living under the poverty line, for the young graduate searching for stability, for the entrepreneur building something new and for the countless individuals wanting a second chance. Kitchener Centre is not just my riding; it is my heart, and I vow to work for it with every ounce of my dedication. To my fellow representatives in the House, I say let us move forward with courage and conviction. Let us not simply acknowledge these challenges but solve them. Let us prove through action that public service is more than governance: It is the unwavering pursuit of a better future. Together we can build it.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned something that is near and dear to me, being in a rural remote area in Cariboo—Prince George, in northern British Columbia, which is the connectivity issues. There is a serious lack of connectivity in some of the areas in my region.

However, I would like to go on a topic that I have not talked about yet and asked the members opposite about, and that is crime. In one of my communities, with a population of 10,000, six prolific offenders commit 98% of the crime. In the largest community in my riding, Prince George, with a population of 77,000, eight prolific offenders commit 98% of the crime. The government, in its previous form in the last session, launched Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

I wonder if this member of Parliament is experiencing the same rates of crime that we are seeing in rural remote areas in British Columbia, and I know in other communities across the way. Will she advocate for her government to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?

Public Safety

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal government, violent crime is up 50%, gun crime is up 116%, gang homicides are up 78%, auto theft is up 46% and extortion is up 357%. The Liberal government insists on putting repeat violent offenders back into our communities, unleashing crime, chaos and disorder.

Will the Prime Minister stop the crime and lock up the criminals by repealing Trudeau's Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise for the first time in the House, I thank the good people of Abbotsford—South Langley for placing their trust in me.

Soft-on-crime Liberals have caused havoc in my community. The families and law enforcement I met during the election are frustrated with seeing offenders released quickly, only to reoffend. Last week in Vancouver, a man was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl while he was already on probation for sexual assault. Repeat violent offenders have it too easy from the Liberal government.

Will the Prime Minister stop the crime, lock up the criminals and repeal Trudeau's Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, people at the doors told me they are fed up with crime. With violent crime up 50%, many folks are afraid to walk around in their own city. This year, Edmontonians were shocked when a 13-year-old boy was stabbed to death at a transit station. People know this chaos is a direct result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime laws.

When will the Prime Minister stop the crime and lock up the criminals by repealing Trudeau's Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a news report today details how the residents of Chicopee Terrace, an apartment complex in Kitchener, are banding together to patrol their parking lot as the Liberal crime wave intensifies. Jason Sousa, the leader of the group, says that he and his neighbours have had the catalytic converters stolen out of their cars. Not only are car thefts up, but now thieves are stealing the parts out of the cars they do not take.

This is not the Kitchener I grew up in. I have a very simple question: Why not go back to how it was? Why does the Liberal justice minister not simply repeal his soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-75?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured and humbled to be representing the people of Markham—Unionville. They have entrusted me to be their representative and to speak up for issues that are important to them. I have promised to listen, understand, consult and advocate for them in the House of Commons. I sincerely appreciate and respect their support for me to be their representative.

I would like to thank my community, my campaign team and especially my family: my wife Anna, my son Aaron and his wife Tiffany, and my daughters Samantha and Andrea. It was their love and support that gave me the energy and strength to succeed in my campaign. My family, together with my campaign team, have worked tirelessly to knock on doors in sunny, rainy, snowy and windy conditions. I deeply appreciate all their dedication and support.

As the voice of Markham—Unionville, let me paint a brief picture of my community based on an event I attended just this past weekend in my riding. I gave the closing speech for the 2025 National AccessAbility Week hosted by the NorthStar Special Needs Society. The initiative was designed both to reduce stigma and to raise awareness about disability within Asian Canadian communities. At its root, the event was about creating new narratives for Asian Canadians in the face of long-standing cultural norms, especially around disability. I was the chair of a mental health foundation, and I know that stigma in all societies in general is still very strong, especially in Asian Canadian communities.

What we see in Markham—Unionville is an immigrant community that is forging a new identity in our vibrant Canadian mosaic. Moreover, Markham—Unionville embodies the upwardly mobile middle-class Canadian dream that all immigrant communities aspire toward. It is a riding that has maintained a balance between industry, farmland and urban life. We have industry in the form of both locally grown talent like Novo Plastics and internationally recognized giants like Honda Canada. In the north, Markham—Unionville is filled with serene farmlands, while in the south is a bustling urban environment. Our commercial districts are filled with multi-generational small businesses like Lucullus Bakery and Congee Queen. Altogether, Markham—Unionville is the postcard city for the Canadian dream, with an enviable quality of life.

Let me take a quick moment to define what the Canadian dream is. It is as simple as owning a house on a safe street, where children can play at ease, where seniors can go for a carefree walk and where cars do not go missing in the night. It is shocking to hear about all the car thefts emerging in my community. This is a canary in the coal mine. The Canadian dream is faltering and has been for quite some time. The fabric of our mosaic is coming undone at the seams.

As members of the official opposition, it is not merely our duty to hold the government to account for the agenda that it outlined last week. We are not merely here as policy critics, but as a fellow pillar of governance. We provide hope to Canadians that things can and will get better. The Conservative priority for this session of Parliament is a Canada that is affordable, safe, self-reliant and united.

When I campaigned to my community in Markham—Unionville, I repeated two core promises: One, we will restore safety on our streets by repealing Liberal laws and locking up repeat offenders. Two, we will bring down the cost of living with a budget that cuts spending, taxes and inflation.

I had the pleasure of reading the Prime Minister's mandate letter before hearing the throne speech last week. If I did not know they were put together by the Liberals, I would have mistaken them for something produced by a centre-right party of the last few decades. Thus, one fact is clear to me for this session of Parliament: We are focused on priorities that have been universally championed by Conservatives for decades upon decades. Safe communities with an affordable quality of life are a singular battle cry for Conservatives everywhere.

The Liberals are uniquely ill-equipped to truly deliver on the community safety file, not because of ability, but because of contradictions inherent in the coalition that forms their support base. A safe community requires that we solve both the crime and the drug issues while simultaneously dealing with overwhelmed health care, housing, job markets and immigration levels. Crime, drugs and an overwhelmed social infrastructure are all intertwined in fostering unsafe communities. In juggling all these competing priorities, some will fall by the wayside, explicitly because the coalition that forms the Liberal support base will not allow the Liberals to turn 180° on all their prior commitments.

The prior Liberal commitment on crime is expressed in Bill C-75, the catch-and-release bill. It allows repeat offenders to be released on bail within hours of arrest, and they then often go and promptly reoffend. Only repealing these Liberal commitments can give judges the freedom to allow minimum sentencing.

I was discussing this issue with the deputy chief of police of our great York Regional Police. We have discussed that the police force is discouraged because criminals are released before the paperwork is done. Our frontline police force and their families are fearful every day with these repeat dangerous criminals free on the streets. The throne speech commitment to increasing the RCMP force neither goes far enough, nor should be the only focus.

The prior Liberal commitment on drugs is expressed in Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for the production and trafficking of hard drugs like fentanyl. Is it not odd that the Liberal throne speech decreed a desire to block the flow of fentanyl, yet their previous legislation allows fentanyl traffickers to avoid jail term? Bill C-5 allows house arrest for these criminals. This means they can just walk out their own front doors and be on the street immediately, pushing hard drugs in our neighbourhoods.

Moreover, the drug issues require not merely that we stop the drug kingpins and their drug trade, but further, that we have a robust program of treatment in place. The throne speech did not go far enough on the drug file, as it made no mention of addiction treatment programs. This is something that we Conservatives are committed to. Will the government repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which the Liberals put into place?

I want to remind this House once more what the Canadian dream has always been. Canadians want to own a house on a safe street where children can play at ease, where seniors can go for a carefree walk and where cars do not go missing in the night. The Liberals have presented an agenda that speaks about reducing fentanyl flows and increasing the RCMP force. However, their commitment toward Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 is a threat to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

My colleagues across the aisle have voted for a Canada where repeat offenders are to be released on bail within hours. They have legislated into being a world where the producers and traffickers of fentanyl get house arrest instead of jail time. I cannot in my right mind consider the Liberals to be a party ready to protect the communities of hard-working Canadians, no matter what promises they have provided in their throne speech agenda.

We Conservatives are a government in waiting. We are the hope of Canadians for a future that can and will be different from the status quo.

Last, I urge the Liberals to provide Canada with a spring budget. Canadians want an open and accountable government with a plan for how to keep our communities safe and our cost of living under control.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I stand before this chamber for the first time, and I am humbled to represent the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, located on beautiful Vancouver Island, from Chemainus to Langford and from Port Renfrew to Duncan, including Thetis Island and Penelakut Island. I thank them for putting their trust in me and for supporting positive change and hope for our riding.

To my wife, Angel, and to our children, I say thanks for their unwavering support, love and enthusiasm as I tackle this new mission in life to represent our communities.

I would also like to pass along my utmost gratitude and appreciation to my amazing campaign team and the committed volunteers who worked tirelessly to connect with as many constituents as possible. They include Janet and Fred, our senior-citizen, door-knocking dynamic duo. We all came together, working endlessly, and they put their trust in me. I thank them.

I say a special thanks to the many young people who volunteered and turned out in record numbers to vote for positive change and Conservative values, many for the first time. I truly believe that the work we are all doing here is for the youth and future generations of our nation, and that is the reason I am here. Their dreams of Canada, where hard work is rewarded with a good paycheque, where families can live in a safe neighbourhood and where they can one day afford a home, are the dreams I will continue to fight for.

Our riding is as diverse as our landscape, from the fast-growing city of Langford, with bustling urban life and a vibrant sports community, to the remote, rugged fishing town of Port Renfrew on the Pacific Ocean. There are farmlands, mills, small ports, logging, mountain ranges and remote communities spread across some 4,800 square kilometres. We have an active outdoor community and endless opportunities for recreation and tourism. We have numerous rivers and many fish hatcheries. It is a truly beautiful, stunning and vibrant place, where I have lived most of my adult life, and I am proud to call it home.

There are seven first nations that make up almost 10% of our population. I continue to learn from them while respecting their culture and traditions. There are seniors, young families, farmers, trade workers, retirees, anglers, hunters and business leaders. As well, there is a strong veteran community and many serving military members across our riding.

However, for all of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford's beauty, resources and opportunities, I am saddened to report that, as in much of Canada, our people are struggling. During my campaign, I spoke with thousands of people across our riding, and the message was clear: This is not the nation we all once knew. People are struggling to make ends meet, pay for groceries, heat their homes, pay their bills and provide for their families.

I met many who are losing their homes or who are now living in shelters or on the street. This needs to change. Many people live without a doctor or basic medical care, with wait-lists of many years. Some of our communities, including Port Renfrew and Lake Cowichan, have no doctors anymore. The seniors who built this country are struggling to make ends meet while feeling unsafe to go shopping in their once-safe communities. These are all signs of a failing economy, and this needs to change.

People are worried about rapidly increasing crime, disorder, open drug use, addictions, homelessness and poverty. This should not be the norm in our communities. The so-called safe supply experiment has failed. The overdose crisis continues to ravage communities, claiming thousands of lives in British Columbia alone.

Families are left helpless as loved ones succumb to addiction. This is exacerbated by government policies that prioritize the distribution of dangerous drugs without providing adequate rehabilitation and support systems. These are not just statistics that we hear in the news. They are our daughters, sons, mothers, fathers and loved ones. The trauma of losing family members to addiction leaves lasting scars. The absence of effective action to address this crisis continues the cycle of dysfunction and despair.

In Duncan, the crime rate is 237% above the national average, and the violent crime rate is 153% above the national average. A few months ago, I met Norm, a retired minister whose 80-year-old sister was mugged and pushed to the ground, breaking her hip.

In Langford, police are finding drug labs hidden in homes and pulling over cars to find fentanyl and illegal firearms. This needs to change. Crime is not just a story in the news; it is something that now touches everyone's life, my own family included. Two years ago, my daughter watched as her boyfriend, Jonny, was murdered by a stranger in downtown Victoria. He was stabbed to death by a repeat violent offender who was let out on bail for attempted murder not three weeks earlier and had a history of no fewer than five violent charges against him.

The Liberals' soft-on-crime bills have allowed dangerous criminals to remain free, which risks public safety. Violent criminals must be held to account to prevent further tragedies and restore faith in our justice system.

What of our veterans, the brave men and women who once stood defending our sovereignty and freedom? These heroes now face bureaucratic hurdles that strip them of the respect and the care they deserve. Too many veterans despair, hearing from their government that “they're asking for more than we are able to give right now”. We lose them not just to old age but to the despair that follows when a nation forgets its promises. This is unacceptable and must change.

Furthermore, serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been devastated by years of neglect. They face challenges that no military personnel should endure, from inadequate resources to outdated equipment and the inability to afford housing where they are stationed. To be a strong fighting force, they need modern equipment and solid recruitment, and we need to restore their customs and traditions. We must ensure they have the tools, training and resources required to do their job effectively.

We need to incentivize municipalities and reduce red tape and bureaucracy while unleashing our home builders so that hard-working tradespeople can build homes. They are the experts. We do not need another government agency that will fail to deliver homes.

We need to repeal Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 to keep repeat violent offenders behind bars so that people like Jonny could still be with us. We need to repeal Bill C-21 and protect the rights of our law-abiding, licensed hunters and sport shooters while protecting our borders and keeping illegal guns from entering Canada and illegal guns off our streets.

We need real tax cuts that will stimulate our economy and relieve pressure on so many.

We need to unleash our industry and natural resources to build our economy. For example, we need to take immediate steps to support B.C.'s recreational fishing industry, which is nearing collapse. A simple fix of marking all hatchery salmon would allow our recreational fishing industry to return from the brink of extinction. We have renewable resources, whether forests, fish, farming or even mining. Now is the time to use them responsibly and build wealth and rebuild our economy.

We need to spend on responsible infrastructure, such as by bringing in rapid transit and an alternative route for the dangerous Malahat Highway. Rapid transit would connect our island, bring economic prosperity, improve safety and benefit the environment.

Unfortunately, the throne speech was light on details. Promises of change and prosperity are not matched by actions or supported with plans. Where is the Prime Minister's plan? Where is the Prime Minister's budget? We were all elected to represent our ridings and bring positive change. Parliament should be sitting through the summer, with committees working tirelessly to address these changes. Actions are not matching the promises.

The people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford have entrusted me with the immense responsibility of representing them in Ottawa, and I do not take this lightly. We are the government in waiting. Hope is what the House must rekindle in the heart of every Canadian. It is hope that drives parents; they work tirelessly so that their children can have a better life. We must ensure that our children inherit a Canada that embodies the values we hold dear, a Canada where hard work pays off, where families thrive and where every generation inherits a better future.

While I may be new to this chamber, I am not new to working for the federal government. I served Canada for 28 years in the Royal Canadian Navy, defending our great nation's sovereignty, democracy and freedom. Through the skills, leadership and experience gained at sea during operational deployments and command positions, I will continue my mission to serve Canada, but now from this chamber.

Let us rise together and restore the dignity of our seniors, respect our first nations, honour the sacrifices of our veterans, support our serving military and build a country so that our youth can once again have hope. Canada is worth it; our children are worth it, and the future we fight for begins today.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, which, in my view, has been the same Liberal government for the last 10 years, always talks really tough when it comes to improving community safety and addressing concerns of Canadians from coast to coast. I heard daily during this particular election period that Canadians are simply fed up. I know that police chiefs are fed up. I know that premiers are fed up with the government's lack of commitment to make meaningful change.

I listened very carefully to the throne speech, and I would like to ask a question about the renewed focus on car theft and home invasions by toughening the code in order to make bail harder. That is such a vague concept. I know, as a former prosecutor, that one way to make bail harder is to completely remove the principle of restraint.

Is the member committed to repealing Bill C-75, which allowed the catch-and-release phenomenon Canadians are seeing every single day?

Government Priorities

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister yesterday announced his new chief of staff and principal secretary. These are two of the top officials, some of the most powerful people in Ottawa, directing policy. The new chief of staff wants to kill oil and gas and says it needs to be done through Brookfield. David Lametti, who was Trudeau's justice minister, oversaw our broken bail system and kept Bill C-5's and Bill C-75's laws on the books.

Why is the Prime Minister surrounding himself with former Trudeau officials who want to keep oil and gas in the ground and keep soft-on-crime laws on the books?

Public Safety

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they are clapping for incompetence. This is the same minister they fired. This is the same minister who gutted bail and pushed soft-on-crime bills like Bill C-5 and C-75, which they all voted for, laws that helped unleash chaos on our streets and drive violent crime up 50%.

Is the Prime Minister really doubling down on the same Trudeau insiders who always put criminals over community safety?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be standing here today to give my first-ever speech as a member of Parliament. Let me first start off by thanking the incredible people of my riding of North Island—Powell River. I am here first and foremost because of the trust they have placed in me to be their voice and their elected representative in this esteemed chamber. This is something for which I will always be grateful and which I will never forget.

It has been almost two years now since I first decided to seek the Conservative Party nomination and run in the last election. It was a decision I made because I believed then, as I do now, that this country was headed in the wrong direction, that it was failing to live up to its true potential and that it was sleepwalking toward a fiscal and cultural cliff. I think there is no better example of that than the fiscal mismanagement we have seen of our country.

When I worked at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, I used to tour a debt clock right across the country. It showed how much the federal government had borrowed and how much debt it was leaving to future generations to pay for. It was a great tool to help people visualize just how much we were leaving the next generation to pay for. That particular debt clock no longer exists, because under the Liberals and the NDP, we have managed to borrow more money in the last 10 years than all other governments in the history of this country combined, and we literally ran out of digits on the clock.

Of course, all this spending, borrowing and printing of money has other consequences as well. We have seen the highest inflation in more than 30 years, as everything, especially homes, has become less affordable. There used to be a promise here in Canada: If people worked hard, paid their taxes and followed the law, they could afford a place to live.

When my grandfather, who is now 94 years old, first came to Canada in 1957 as a refugee, he, like most new Canadians, started off with a minimum-wage job working on the railway. On that minimum-wage job, he was able to afford a home and a nice piece of property right on Vancouver Island and have it paid off in less than 10 years. Does anyone think one could afford a home and have it paid off in less than 10 years while earning minimum wage anywhere in Canada today? I do not think so.

This is the result of too much government, too much regulation and too much bureaucracy. It is time to remove the gatekeepers and start building things in this country again. This also means supporting our incredible resource sector and resource sector workers, who have been under constant attack from the Liberals and the NDP.

On the North Island, where I live, forestry is down by a third; aquaculture has been cut in half; fishermen have had their access barred to areas they have fished sustainably for more than a hundred years; and the last mine on Vancouver Island closed as well. On energy, the Liberal record is even worse: axing the northern gateway pipeline, telling our allies in Korea, Germany and Greece that there is no business case for Canadian LNG, and introducing legislation like Bill C-69, which killed dozens of massive energy and resource projects and led to tens of billions of dollars in investment fleeing to the United States, and for what? Was it just so these jobs can leave our country, for China, for India, for the U.S., for countries with lower environmental standards than our own? These are Canadian workers who have had their livelihoods, their ability to put food on the table to feed their families, sacrificed by the Liberals and the NDP on the altar of this green ideology. Here is the truth: No one does safety and environmental stewardship better than Canada or better than Canadians, and as long as the world needs lumber, minerals, or oil and natural gas, as much of it as possible should come from right here in Canada.

We also have to rebuild our military. We have our amazing men and women in uniform flying combat aircraft that are more than 40 years old, to say nothing of the state of our submarines. Our men and women in uniform, as amazing as they are, find a way to make it work; they really do. However, it should not be up to them to become the world's experts in using old, rusted-out equipment. They deserve better than that.

There is maybe no issue where the Liberals and the NDP have done more damage, from a human perspective, than their mismanagement of the addictions crisis. First, they decriminalized hard drugs, including fentanyl, crystal meth and crack cocaine, and then they used taxpayer money to flood the streets with a highly addictive and deadly opioid called hydromorphone, or Dilaudid, while marketing it to our young people as safe supply. This is all part of their plan known as harm reduction.

As a result, since 2015, more than 50,000 Canadians have died from drug overdoses. That is more Canadians dead than those who died in the entire Second World War. That does not sound much like harm reduction to me. They say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result, so how about instead of handing out free drugs, we get our fellow Canadians into treatment, get them into recovery and return them to being healthy, productive members of our society again?

At the same time, we need to repeal the soft-on-crime Liberal legislation, like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, that has reduced jail time for serious offenders and granted near automatic bail for career criminals. In fact, it seems the only people who are ever punished for anything anymore under the Liberals and the NDP are those who actually work for a living and follow the law, whether it is our law-abiding firearms owners, who have been targeted and demonized by their own government; small business owners, who have been taxed and regulated to the point of insolvency; or resource workers, who have had their jobs threatened, their careers denigrated and, in some cases, their livelihoods destroyed.

Right now, in Canada in so many ways, it feels as if right side up is upside down and common sense no longer exists. That brings me to the cultural erosion that we have seen, the tearing down of statues, the erasing of our history.

I was in Victoria the day this corrosive ideology all began, when they toppled the monument to the man who built this country, without whom Canada would not even exist. The truth is that this country has so much to celebrate and so much to be proud of. We owe an infinite debt of gratitude to all those who came before us, like the prime ministers, both Liberal and Conservative, whose portraits are hanging just outside these chamber walls. They laid the foundation for what would become and for what still is the greatest country in the world. They laid the foundation by being bold, by being daring and by getting things done.

In the late 1800s, Canada was a small country divided by language and religion and surrounded by a larger and much more powerful neighbour to the south, yet in that historical context, we completed what many consider to be this country's greatest engineering and political feat: the Canadian Pacific Railway. Championed by Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald, most do not know that the bulk of the work took just four years to complete through some of the most difficult and expansive terrain in the world, across the Canadian Shield and through the Canadian Rockies. It was the key to bringing my province, British Columbia, into Confederation.

Can members imagine, in the current political, regulatory and cultural climate of today, if we tried as a nation to undertake a similar feat? Instead of championing these kinds of nation-building projects, the government today seems to be actively plotting against them, but it does not have to be this way. Macdonald dreamed big, Sir Wilfrid Laurier dreamed big as well and we can dream big once again.

The truth is that the silver lining to this problem lies in its solution. We do not need the government to step up in any particular way. We just need the government to get out of the way and give this country back to those who built it, the people. That begins where this country draws its greatest sources of strength: the wealth of its resources and the ingenuity of its citizens. I intend to do my part to always be a voice for the hard-working citizens of my riding in this incredible country, to always be unapologetically proud to be Canadian and to always be guided, no matter what, by what is true and what is right, not by what is politically correct.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand today for the first time in this historic chamber as the member of Parliament for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

As I am sure was the case for members on all sides, I was in awe when I first took my seat here, a symbol that is at the core of our democracy. The House has echoed with the debates that have shaped our nation, from the early debates around national policy to the conscription crisis of 1917, and from the debates surrounding pipelines in 1956 to the Canadian flag and free trade. I am sure I am not alone in saying that the feeling of awe is instantly met with an understanding of the responsibility that members have to the constituents in the communities they represent.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge for entrusting me to be their representative in the chamber. This seat in the House belongs to them.

Our community is a vibrant riding, where nearly half our residents proudly claim Italian heritage, making our community one of the largest Italian hubs in the nation. Our riding is also made up of growing populations of Vietnamese, Punjabi, Chinese and many others; it is a truly diverse community. From the thriving small businesses on Woodbridge Avenue and Weston Downs to the quiet streets of Islington Woods, and from the growing neighbourhoods of Vellore to the cultural vibrant festivals that light up our summers, Vaughan—Woodbridge is a testament to the enduring Canadian values of faith, family, community and hard work. I am committed to being their champion and giving life to their hopes inside the chamber.

I would like to recognize the most important person in my life, my wife, Maria. Her love and strength hold our family together, raising our beautiful daughters, Abigail and Hanna, and our newborn son, James. As members of the House are well aware, our spouses play a critical role in our work as parliamentarians. They bear an unseen burden of public life, and Maria does so with grace.

I would like to thank my parents, Debbie and Bruno, for their example of always being the adults in the room and for teaching me the importance of responsibility. I would also like to thank my late grandfather Nico for his hard work and persistence, and for teaching me to always be self-reliant. My grandparents immigrated from Treviso, Italy, in the 1950s. They chose Canada, a land of opportunity where one could dare to dream. They worked hard and made this country their own. I am very proud of my Italian heritage.

To every single volunteer of my campaign team, I would like to express my deepest gratitude for their monumental effort and commitment to the principles of our party, a commitment that helped deliver a very decisive victory. Those principles teach us that government's role is not to burden but to enable, yet for nearly a decade, excessive regulation, wasteful spending and punitive taxes have stifled economic opportunity and freedom.

I am guided by the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government and the rule of law. These principles are not abstract but are the foundation of a society where every Canadian can flourish, free from government overreach and empowered to shape their own destiny.

As a former executive in the steel industry, I have seen first-hand how bureaucracy strangles workers and small businesses. I am here to fight for them, cutting red tape, slashing unfair taxes and making government work for people, not against them. The true role of government is to create the conditions to ignite the spark of the Canadian dream, empowering every Canadian to chase after their aspirations, not stifle them with heavy-handed, centralised control of sectors of our economy and with bureaucratic overreach.

My constituents have been clear: They expect their government to deliver results, not rhetoric. On this front, the Speech from the Throne leaves much to be desired. One of the major issues that is top of mind for my constituents is the increase in crime. Vaughan—Woodbridge is a place where families raise their children, neighbours know each other by name and community pride runs deep. The rising crime, fuelled by the government's soft-on-crime policies, is eroding the sense of security that families in Vaughan—Woodbridge and communities across our very country deserve.

In the throne speech, the government could have easily said that it was going to get serious on crime and address the issue by getting rid of failed legislation like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It could have committed to introducing mandatory minimums for serious crimes and prioritizing victims over criminals, but it did not.

In Vaughan—Woodbridge, there have been countless examples of car thefts, home invasions and break-and-enters. Business owners and their staff have been held at gunpoint, and there are women like Sara, whom I met in Sonoma Heights and who told me that her daughter constantly feels uneasy about going out at night alone. Our York Region Police officers do an exceptional job and work tirelessly, but the House must give them the tools to keep criminals behind bars. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so, for safe communities are the foundation of a strong Canada

A key priority for my constituents is the crippling cost of living facing our country. Whether I am chatting with construction workers, visiting Vici Bakery or Sweet Boutique, or am randomly stopped at a local grocery store like Longo's, the message is the same: Life is too expensive, and people, especially our youth, feel they cannot get ahead.

During the campaign, a 17-year-old at Fortinos approached me. He said that he cannot vote but that his future is in my hands. All he wants to do is get married, buy a home and have a family. This not a radical dream; it is the Canadian promise, yet for far too many young people, it feels like a fantasy. The aspirational ideals of home ownership and raising a family should not invoke feelings of frustration and hopelessness, for they are foundational to the social contract in a great country like Canada.

Our youth are our future, and for far too long they have been ignored. Canada must have their back or we risk continuing our brain drain, where young talent leaves our lands for jurisdictions around the world where their money goes farther and where they can have the type of life they wish to have. We must address this issue with haste or we will all suffer in the long run.

The Speech from the Throne proposes implementing a brand new bureaucracy instead of cutting the red tape that has driven up the cost of homes. Despite a new prime minister and cabinet, the plan mirrors Trudeau's $90-billion housing strategy, which doubled prices over a decade and left young Canadians priced out.

Last week, it was revealed that the Prime Minister had overseen the introduction of half a trillion dollars in new government spending without a formal budget, a move not seen for decades outside the COVID period. This represents an 8% increase in federal spending, with a significant portion allocated to bureaucracy, consultants and contractors.

As parliamentarians, our role is to serve Canadians. The government's proposal for a new housing bureaucracy, coupled with half a trillion dollars in new spending without a formal budget, shifts focus away from the needs of Canadians and towards expanding an already massive government. With the current parliamentary session set to break for the summer in less than three weeks, there is little time left to thoroughly debate and scrutinize each significant proposal, leaving critical issues like housing and fiscal responsibility unresolved.

Canadians deserve better. Conservatives are committed to putting Canadians first and would be willing to sit through the summer to ensure that these matters are properly addressed, prioritizing accountability over a rushed agenda. The time for bold action is now.

I close with the words of John Stuart Mill: “The worth of a state, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it.” Let us build the Canada where Sara's daughter feels safe, where that young man at Fortinos can afford a home and where every family in Vaughan—Woodbridge and across this country can thrive. I am here to fight for them and for all Canadians.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while there are some measures outlined in the throne speech that can be seen as steps in the right direction, the government's agenda is clearly lacking and short on measurable actions that could produce meaningful and positive outcomes for Canadians. Moreover, the throne speech is a blueprint intended to signal the direction and focus of an incoming government. It is up to this place, the House of Commons, and all of us elected parliamentarians to review government programming with the objective of ensuring transparency and economic viability.

Let us start with the need for a budget. Households have budgets. Small businesses have budgets. Corporations have budgets. Charities have budgets. People routinely create a yearly budget as a prudent standard practice. The Liberal government's decision to not table the budget at this critical juncture for our country can best be described as irresponsible.

The Prime Minister touted his banking and business background as qualifying attributes for the office that he now holds. Can anyone imagine the response a Canadian would get if he or she were to approach their financial institution and apply for a loan with a caveat that they would provide their financial records and a budget six months after they receive the money? I would argue that the Prime Minister, his cabinet and the Liberal caucus would do well to respect Parliament and present a budget before they leave on vacation. They should not be afraid of vigorous, insightful and inspiring debate.

I want to touch on some issues that are important to my community and that were shared with me while I was campaigning. Nestled in the heart of the GTA, the beautiful municipalities of Aurora and Richmond Hill have been fraught with crime. There have been a record number of auto thefts and home invasions, and violent smash-and-grab robberies are far too prevalent. The Liberal catch-and-release agenda has frustrated law enforcement agencies across the country.

Even more glaring is the omission of investing further in the Canada Border Services Agency to provide it with the tools to catch and stop the influx of illegal drugs and guns into our country. Again, law enforcement agencies from coast to coast to coast have repeatedly told us that the majority of the confiscated weapons used in violent crimes in our communities have entered into our country illegally.

The Liberal government needs to get serious about the crime and drugs ravaging our communities. Repealing Bill C-75, which gave high priority to releasing repeat violent offenders back into our communities and avoiding jail time, would be a good start. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. Sadly, the Liberal government is showing us once again that it will continue to take half measures that are weak on crime.

Speaking of half measures, the Liberals have now tabled a ways and means motion proposing three modest tax measures, but the motion does not go nearly far enough. The income tax cut, if one can even call it that, in practice, would not even cover a cup of coffee a week. The industrial carbon tax would continue to make life more expensive for businesses and consumers, and that would remain. Residents in Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill deserve better. We need a bigger tax cut that would make a real difference for their families. The entire carbon tax must be repealed so industry can excel and residents can afford to live.

One of the saddest conversations I had at the doorsteps was with a lady who confided the following: “Sir, I am not a political person. I am a widow in my eighties. My husband and I bought this home, a modest bungalow, and grew our family here. I worked all of my life, paid my taxes and am now on a modest fixed pension, but unfortunately I cannot afford to eat the same way I was eating three years ago, so I am eating less, and different things, because I want to continue living in my home.” I would ask that members of the House reflect on the gravity of that statement.

Young people are being saddled with an ever-growing national debt. Youth unemployment is once again on the rise. Liberal policies have left them with little hope for their future, and the idea of achieving home ownership is but a dream.

In closing, there is much work to do. We can all do better. The current government can start by doing a lot better than the Liberals have been doing over the last 10 years.

I would like to thank my wife Gail, my pillar of strength for the past 45 years, as well as my children, Michael and Alicia, and my extended family, for their love and support. Being here in Canada's Parliament is indeed a huge honour and one that I will cherish every day as I walk into this historic chamber.

Public Safety

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, knocking on thousands of doors in my community this past spring, I heard the same concern: People are worried about the rise in crime. In Winnipeg, violent crimes like assaults, threats and extortion are increasing. Homicide Canada reported that in 2024, Winnipeg had over 40 homicides for the sixth year in a row. Because of Liberal bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, repeat violent offenders are treated with kid gloves and get released.

When will the Liberals finally put the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians ahead of their soft-on-crime, hug-a-thug agenda?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal government, many Canadians no longer feel safe in their own communities. Violent crime is up 50%. Gang homicides are up 78%. Gun crime is up 116%. This is the direct result of the revolving-door Liberal justice system, or injustice system as I should say, and weak Liberal laws that serve the interests of criminals and not Canadians.

If this really is a new government, will the Prime Minister repeal Trudeau's old soft-on-crime policies, including Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have news from my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Yesterday, a Hamilton city bus was caught in the crossfire of a shooting. This comes just weeks after an innocent young lady tragically lost her life by a stray bullet on Upper James simply by waiting for the bus.

Crime is out of control, and this status quo is unacceptable. When will the Prime Minister repeal Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so we can bring back safety to the streets of Hamilton and Canada?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to rise in the chamber today. Let me begin by congratulating you on your new role and congratulating all members who got elected or re-elected to the 45th Parliament.

Today, I rise in the chamber to thank the residents of the great riding of Brampton West for giving me the honour and the incredible privilege to serve as their member of Parliament. I recognize and greatly appreciate that I am here today because of the efforts of countless individuals, from family and friends to mentors and neighbours, who have supported me, guided me and inspired me along my journey.

I would like to thank the wonderful team that ran my campaign and committed countless hours of their time and efforts: the volunteers, the supporters, the donors and the staff. Running in the election also required a lot of sacrifices from our families. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my wife, Amandeep Gill, and my son, Rajvir Gill, who sacrificed a lot of time and gave me the unconditional support and encouragement to run in the election and serve the residents of Brampton West.

I am thankful to the Brampton West residents for the faith and trust they have put in me to serve them. I am committed to discussing the priorities that matter to them and hold the government accountable not only to the residents of my riding, but to the whole city of Brampton. With humbleness, I carry the great responsibility of representing Brampton West and representing their values, concerns, hopes and dreams of a bright and uplifting future for themselves and their children in this beautiful country of ours that we all feel proud to call our home.

After completing my post-secondary education in engineering and political science and an MBA, I immigrated to Canada in 1998. I am personally very grateful to be able to call Canada my home. Like many of the Brampton West residents, I come from humble beginnings. I come from a family of service, as my grandfather and father both served in the armed forces during World War I and World War II, respectively. Because of their sacrifices, I experienced first-hand that freedom and opportunities are gifts of dedication and selfless service passed from one generation to the next. Their legacy of duty and courage reminds me that I must also work diligently out of these values of hard work, determination and perseverance to contribute toward a life of freedom and opportunities for the next generation.

While my father gave me the discipline and commitment to duty and service, my mother gave me the values of care and compassion. Through her example, she taught me the importance of taking care of each other with patience and understanding and nurturing growth and togetherness in our families and our communities. It is with these values of service, hard work, dedication and commitment toward excellence for the benefit of all that I stand here today on behalf of the residents of Brampton West.

Brampton has been my home for over 20 years. I am grateful that, as a newcomer, my efforts and hard work were rewarded by the Canadian promise, and I received opportunities that allowed me to advance my professional career with diverse experiences: from quality assurance in the automotive, industrial and aerospace sectors to a distinguished tenure as an adjudicator at Tribunals Ontario, all while raising a family in a safe and prosperous city.

Today, I rise not just as the member of Parliament for Brampton West to express my gratitude, but as the voice of a community that has been promised much and delivered far too little.

The Speech from the Throne spoke of ambition, inclusivity and recovery, but for my constituents, those words ring hollow. They ring hollow to families that can no longer afford groceries, residents afraid to walk down their streets, and young people watching their dreams of home ownership slip away. The throne speech does not reflect the reality faced daily by the people of Brampton.

Let me paint a picture of what the reality is for Brampton residents regarding the key issues of safety, cost of living, employment, housing, immigration and business opportunities, or lack thereof.

On public safety, while the government claims it is strengthening public safety, the people of Brampton are living in fear. Violent crime is up 50%; auto theft is up 50%; extortion is up 400%. Soft-on-crime Liberal policies, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have unleashed the crime waves in Brampton. This is part of the worst crime wave this country has ever seen. The Peel Regional Police even had to launch Project Warlock, recovering vehicles and solving violent home invasions. It is for these reasons that the Peel Regional Police Association endorsed the Conservative Party, including my candidacy. I look forward to working closely with those police officers.

The throne speech mentioned more tools for law enforcement, but after eight years of inaction, communities like mine know the truth: There is no safety in a press release. What is needed is real funding, tougher bail reform and support for local police, not recycled announcements.

On affordability and the cost of living, the throne speech spoke about affordability, yet in Brampton the average home price in April 2025 stood at just under $950,000, a dream slipping further out of reach for working families. The cost of living is almost $2,900 per person per month. Grocery prices have surged. Rents are up. Interest rates are punishing mortgage holders, and still the government added more carbon taxes and deeper deficits. There is no clear plan to cut wasteful spending or to put money back in Canadians' pockets.

On jobs and the economy, the throne speech promised economic growth, but the numbers tell the truth. Brampton's unemployment rate is up. Canada's unemployment rate is up. Small businesses are struggling, choked by red tape and high taxes. We need policies that lower taxes, encourage investments and get Canadians better paycheques.

On immigration, I am an immigrant and I know first-hand the value that newcomers bring to this country, but I also know that growth without planning leads to strain. In Brampton, over 52% of the population are immigrants, a testament to our multicultural strength, but this rapid growth has outpaced housing, transit and health care.

Housing was mentioned in the throne speech, but the crisis has worsened under the Liberal government. Brampton has one of the fastest-growing populations in Canada, but building permits and completion lag far behind demand. Promises to work with municipalities have not delivered enough shovels in the ground. Where is the federal leadership on zoning reform, infrastructure investment and rental construction? We need action now to build homes fast and to put the dream of home ownership back within the reach of Canadians.

On small businesses and opportunities, the throne speech says that Canada is open for business, but for entrepreneurs in Brampton the reality is burdensome paperwork, rising costs and policy uncertainty. Business owners in general are begging for tax relief and streamlined licensing. Instead, they get more red tape and rising payroll costs. The Conservative vision is clear: cut the red tape, incentivize innovation and support the backbone of our economy that is small businesses.

Brampton West elected me because they are tired of promises and now they want to see the results. They are tired of headlines without substance, slogans without strategy, and speeches that speak of ambition without any road map to achievement.

Brampton West residents resonated with the values of the Conservative Party: fiscal responsibility, public safety, economic opportunity, and respect for families and businesses. While the government celebrates headlines, I will fight for families, seniors and young Canadians trying to build a life.

I hear the people of Brampton West, and I stand with them. I will continue holding the Liberal government to account until their voices are truly reflected in the decisions made in this House.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, now that Their Majesties have left the national capital region, we can really pick apart the throne speech the government wrote yesterday.

Yesterday Canadians heard a throne speech that was not bad on slogans and rhetoric but terrible on any kind of detail and a plan. A lot of times, government members will defend that by saying that the details come out in the legislation. While there may be some truth to that, in a throne speech, we usually at least get a clear indication of what that legislation would do. In other words, we get an indication of the way the government is going to accomplish the goals it has set out for itself. We received precisely none of that yesterday.

We were told that the government wants to build more homes, yet all the government did was talk about increasing the number of bureaucrats who run programs in Ottawa. There was nothing about incentivizing municipalities to speed up development processes and lower development charges. The government copied and pasted many aspects of the Conservative platform; one specific aspect was eliminating the GST on new home construction. Some might call it plagiarism, which is something the Prime Minister has some familiarity with.

The Liberals must have dropped something when they were cutting and pasting that from the Conservative platform, because they accidentally restricted it. I say “accidentally” sarcastically. They made this policy much narrower in its application. Our plan would have reduced the GST on new homes, period, but the Liberals have restricted that to only some new home purchases. They did not talk at all about the way they were going to reduce that red tape and lower those taxes.

We have a Prime Minister who wrote a book called Value(s), in which he defined himself as a human being. In that book, not only did he profess his love for the carbon tax, but he also bragged about the experience he has imposing higher costs, not just on Canadians but on the people of the world.

That is where the Prime Minister comes from: a global investment scheme in which fancy bankers and powerful elites put together a grift. The Prime Minister actually explained how he benefited from this. He gave an interview when he was on a panel and described how this grift unfolds. First, he and people like him have access to important decision-makers and policy-makers around the world. He actually said this. He uses that access to lobby for regulatory changes.

In other words, the Prime Minister gets to have a glass of wine or a canapé with a government official in a country. In those conversations or meetings, he convinces them to make regulatory changes, and then he invests in the companies that benefit from those changes.

In the example the Prime Minister used, he spoke about lobbying the government of the United Kingdom to bring in a new requirement for jet fuel. There was no market for the new requirement. If there was a natural market for it, then aviation companies would make those changes to jet fuel. The Prime Minister specifically required that a certain percentage of that aviation fuel had to be sourced from nonconventional energy. If there was a market for that, if that nonconventional product was more efficient or cheaper, then the companies would do it themselves. They would not need a regulatory agency to tell them to do it. There was no market for it. Why is that? It would increase costs. Those costs would get passed on to consumers, and fewer people would be able to afford to fly.

Therefore, the Prime Minister convinces the policy-maker to bring in a rule that cannot be ignored. In the absence of a market demanding it or necessitating it, the awesome power of the government comes in and forces aviation companies to blend in a certain percentage of nonconventional energy to use in their fuel. Those extra costs get passed on to passengers, and fewer people are able to afford those tickets.

The Prime Minister convinces the policy-maker that every plane flying in and out of a U.K. airport must have a certain percentage of fuel. Then he looks around and sees a company producing a nonconventional energy product. It was not making any money before the regulatory change; now it has a huge market for what it produces, that nonconventional energy product. All of a sudden, with a massive market, that company will be able to sell what it makes to all kinds of airlines flying in and out of the United Kingdom. What does the Prime Minister do? He invests in that company.

Not only does the Prime Minister lobby for the regulatory change, but he then also invests in the company and makes millions. Members do not have to take my word for it. The Prime Minister himself admitted this before he ran to be the leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker, imagine doing that with any other aspect of government. Imagine having a buddy who owns an asphalt company, and for one reason or another, it was not making much money. Maybe the company was selling an additive for the asphalt, but there was not really a market for it; cities and rural municipalities did not think they needed to buy it, and the company did not produce anything of value for motorists or taxpayers in that area.

Mr. Speaker, imagine using special access to get time with ministers or government officials and, not because there was a market for it, convincing them to pass a rule that the company's product had to be included in all the asphalt being laid down in an area and then going out and investing in that company. If someone were an elected official and they did that, they would likely be up on criminal charges. They would likely be investigated for corruption. That is exactly what the Prime Minister did in his private sector career: He used his access with government officials to lobby for changes to allow him to make investments and make millions. That is who the Prime Minister is.

In the throne speech, there was no mention of how to get big projects built. We can remember it was the Liberal government that cancelled big energy projects like northern gateway and energy east. Northern gateway would have opened up Asian markets; it is the shortest route between where the oil and gas is found in the ground and where there is a deep water port to be able to ship it to countries like India, China and Japan, with booming populations and an ever-increasing middle class. Right now, many of those countries are buying their energy from countries that do not share our values. These are countries with dictators and regimes that abuse the rights of women and religious minorities and that engage in fomenting wars and terrorist activities not just throughout the region but throughout the world. Canadians are no longer able to fill those markets, because the Liberals cancelled those pipelines. There was nothing in the throne speech about repealing those terrible pieces of legislation or supporting those projects.

The Prime Minister says that he is the man with the plan. Slogans are not as efficient as plans, yet there is no plan. Then he goes around and tells Canadians that there will not even be a budget for six months. We can look at all the economic calamities that Canadians have had to suffer through: an inflation crisis, a cost of living crisis, a housing crisis, massive debt and deficits racked up by Liberal governments. The Liberal government is spending more on servicing the debt than it is on health care. In other words, it is paying more in interest payments to bankers and bondholders.

After all of this, with the Prime Minister himself saying that speed was of the essence and that, as a country, we have to start addressing this as quickly as possible, he is telling Canadians they are going to have to wait for six months before we get this plan. I do not know of a single boardroom around the country that would keep a CEO in his position if, in the middle of a crisis, the CEO came in and said, “I know we are in a crisis. Do not worry; I have a plan. I will come back to you in six months.” I do not think any board of directors would keep a CEO who asked for a six-month grace period to start to address a problem.

The Prime Minister says he wants to build, but he refuses to repeal the very laws that stop us from building. He will not commit to repealing Bill C-69, the anti-pipeline bill. He refuses to repeal Bill C-48, the shipping ban that blocks western Canadian oil from reaching global markets. He is keeping in the energy and production caps and the industrial carbon tax. Here we have a situation in which our steelworkers, aluminum workers and manufacturers in Canada have to worry about their companies competing against American manufacturers when there is no carbon tax on the U.S. side of the border. My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore made a great point yesterday when she pointed out that saying we are going to fight with the Americans while keeping an industrial carbon tax on Canadian workers is like tying one elbow behind our back. It is not going to put Canada in a position of strength if the government keeps the industrial carbon tax.

The Prime Minister flippantly said, “When was the last time you bought a whole bunch of steel?” Does he not realize that there is steel in a lot of things that Canadians buy on a pretty regular basis?

Last time I opened my fridge, the fridge had steel; the car I drive has steel; lots of household components have steel; and lots of framing materials for new homes require steel. There are many things that Canadians have to buy on a regular basis that contain steel. That steel could be made in Canada, and we could export some of that steel to the U.S. and around the world if Canadian manufacturers had an advantage and did not have to pay that carbon tax. The irrational devotion to the carbon tax that the Prime Minister has in keeping the industrial side of it is a direct repudiation of anything he has said on helping Canada fight back from a position of strength. He is going to saddle us with higher taxes and higher regulatory regimes.

There is no mention of repealing the soft-on-crime laws, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which unleashed a wave of crime across the country. Those two bills drastically lowered penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders, which caused the crime wave. Crime is not like the weather; it is not like one day there might be a bit of humidity and the next day there might be a few extra car thefts. Crime is a direct result of justice policies. When the Liberal Party came in and started repealing mandatory minimum sentences and forcing judges to grant bail instead of jail for some of the country's most notorious and dangerous offenders, we saw a direct correlation in the rise in crime.

The same thing happened with the drug crisis. We had a government that decided to take taxpayers' money. We can think of the taxpayer working so hard, picking up extra shifts, working long hours, missing out on time with their children and their families, because they were hustling and striving to eke out a better quality of life, knowing that when those tax dollars came straight off their paycheque, a portion of those tax dollars was going to buy dangerous opioids to give out to people to use in communities and those drugs ended up in the hands of drug dealers. Imagine the insult to injury for those Canadians who are barely getting by, to find out that their tax dollars went to subsidize drug distribution in our communities.

These are simply the same old talking points dressed up in new packaging. The Liberals are trying to pull off a massive trick on Canadians. They are pretending that, if they just change their rhetoric a little bit and change the leader and the name, but keep the same ministers and keep the same policies, somehow Canadians will believe that things are actually different. However, changing superficial things is easy. The Liberals can swap out the talking points, and they can suddenly mimic some of the language they hear from other political parties, as they did when they lifted Conservative ideas. It is easy to wear black shoes and normal socks and pretend everything is going to be different. However, the things that actually affect Canadians' lives are not the superficial things. They are not words on pieces of paper. They are not the grand prose that comes from a monarch on a visit to the Senate to read a throne speech. Canadians' lives are changed by the laws, the tax rates and the regulations that governments set. So far, we have absolutely zero indication that there will be anything meaningfully changed under this Prime Minister.

There was absolutely nothing in the throne speech to talk about unleashing our businesses and our resources, but that is what Conservatives will do. The best way to fight back against a threat to our country is to fight back from a position of strength.

It is easy to use pretty words and make big speeches, but the reality is that Canadians' quality of life is changed only by the government's policies, not by speeches in either chamber. It is the bills and the decisions made by ministers that will truly change Canadians' quality of life. For now, there is no sign that the government is going to offer Canadians real change.

Our plan, which the Conservatives put forward to the Canadian people during the last election, will be what we fight for in this Parliament. We will build on the success our leader Pierre Poilievre had in achieving 42% of the vote, with millions of new Canadians voting for the Conservative Party.

I know my Conservative colleagues will agree with me on this. I guarantee that every single one of us, when we were knocking on doors in the last election, met people who told us that they had never voted Conservative before, any many of them said that they had never even voted before. They saw in our leader Pierre Poilievre's vision for this country something that they had not seen for a generation from the Liberals: hope that the promise of Canada could be restored, where hard work pays off, where we can earn a powerful paycheque that affords not just the basic necessities of life, but some of the nice extras as well, and the belief that every generation that comes after will be better off than the previous because our country continues to grow and improve upon itself.

That hope has been lost over the past 10 years because of Liberal government policies. While we have more work to do, as the Conservative Party, to win the next election, I can assure members that our leader Pierre Poilievre will continue to espouse that vision of hope and that promise to Canadians that life will get better.

In the meantime, we will hold the government to rigorous account. It is our job to go through, line by line, every dollar spent, every tax dollar taken out of the pockets of Canadians and every infringement on their liberty. With regard to any decision that comes from the government, we will do our job, not for ourselves, not because we are the blue team and they are the red team, but for Canadians who have to go to work every day and shoulder that government spending, pay off that government debt and put up with the terrible outcomes of disastrous policies that have hurt our country for so long.

More and more Canadians want a government that puts Canadian workers, Canadian energy and Canadian families first. That is what the Conservative opposition will be fighting for every single day, for as long as this Parliament lasts.

I will close with this thought. It was very disappointing, not just for parliamentarians but for Canadians themselves. There are a lot of economic headwinds that are not just on the horizon but are absolutely blowing through communities all across the country. TD Bank is predicting a recession just around the corner, with thousands of jobs lost. We heard from our housing shadow minister today about a phenomenon that only the Liberal Party of Canada could possibly create, where prices are so high that new buyers cannot afford to buy houses, but they are now lower than the inflated prices that the existing owners bought them at. We have a situation where sellers cannot afford to sell, because if they drop their prices any more, they will not be able to cover the mortgage that they owe, but prices are still far too high for buyers. Buyers cannot buy, and sellers cannot sell. Only a Liberal government could achieve such monumental failure.

We have a situation where the debt required to finance what the government has campaigned on will put enormous pressure on bond markets. We do not know where that will lead, but it has never, ever led to a good place when governments start borrowing so much money that lenders start to doubt whether the government will ever be able to fully pay it off and start demanding a higher premium for that.

We think of the man with the plan, the guy we hire in a crisis, the guy who claims that he can walk into a boardroom and solve these issues, but who still has not gotten results from his visit to the United States. Other countries have gotten deals. The Prime Minister has not gotten one.

There is still no plan to get new energy projects built. Worst of all, there is no budget to show Canadians just how bad the situation is and what they might be facing in the future. That lack of a budget is probably the most concerning thing that we have had heard from the government over the last few weeks. This is the number one job. The reason why the House of Commons exists is to approve taxation and spending. That is the origin story of our parliamentary system.

It is not just a matter of disrespect; it is a matter of hiding from Canadians the true consequences of government policies. The fact that the government will not commit to tabling a budget before it goes on vacation for the summer is telling. What it is telling me is that the Liberals are really afraid to share the bad news. They are afraid of coming clean with Canadians because the numbers are so bad.

The best thing we can do with tough medicine is to take it early, and then all of us can get together to try to fix the problem. We urge the government to table the budget.

In that light, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and we urge Your Majesty's advisors to include a firm commitment to present to Parliament an economic update or budget this spring before the House adjourns for the summer that incorporates measures aimed at unleashing Canada's economic potential including full accountability of Canada's finances.”

Public Safety

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, soft-on-crime Liberal bills, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, have unleashed crime waves in Brampton and across our country. Violent crime is up 50%. Auto theft is up 50%, and extortion is up 400%. The out-of-touch public safety minister said, during his campaign, that there was nothing wrong with the bail system. Repeat offenders should be in jail, not out on bail.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the minister, or does he stand with frontline officers, like Peel police officers, to bring in bail reforms?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a serious issue is the will of Canadians to live in peace, which they once did. Now they live in fear because of Liberal soft-on-crime policies. Liberal policies like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 put repeat violent offenders back on the streets, contributing to the suffering of communities across Canada. Premiers, police, legal experts and civil liberties advocates all demand change.

I ask the question one more time: Will the Prime Minister restore safe streets and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, yes or no?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the hell is going on? The country is without a finance minister and I am without a minister to be a critic of. The Prime Minister has not only lost control of his colleagues but has also lost control of his colleagues and has lost the confidence of Canadians. The only person he has not lost confidence from is the leader of the NDP, who is just waiting for his $2.2-million pension, and then maybe he as well might lose confidence in the Prime Minister.

Do members know who else has lost confidence in the weak, fake feminist Prime Minister? It is the two million Canadians visiting a food bank in a single month; the one in four Canadians skipping meals; and the parents, the moms, who are putting water in their kids' milk to extend how much they can give to their kids. They have all lost confidence. They lost confidence nine years ago.

After the weak Prime Minister doubled housing costs, doubled crime and doubled the debt, he basically doubled all the pain and suffering in this country. Then he blamed Canadians for it, and then he lectured them. Then on top of that, to pour salt in the wounds, he is slamming Canadians with another carbon tax scam hike, one that he wants to quadruple if by some chance he becomes prime minister again.

Now the former finance minister has joined a long list of women who were in the Prime Minister's caucus and cabinet who have exposed how big of a fake feminist he is. She joins women like Jane Philpott, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Celina Caesar-Chavannes. It is a slap in the face to women, not just parliamentarians but all women.

Let me quote what the former finance minister said in her letter today that exposed the fake feminist Prime Minister: “On Friday, you told me you no longer want me to serve as your Finance Minister and offered me another position in the Cabinet.” What a slap in the face that was. He was done using her.

On Friday he let her know, “Hey, I'm going to make you break through this fiscal guardrail that you promised Canadians, which was $40 billion. I'm going to make you crash through that guardrail and take Canada's finances off the cliff, but why don't you go and deliver that bad news, and then I'll switch you into a different post?” What kind of fake so-called feminist does that?

What kind of a leader and what kind of a boss does that? It is pathetic to the highest degree what the fake feminist Prime Minister has done. He proves it once again, and he just recently gave a big speech last week about being a proud feminist. Some feminist he is. He is a fake.

Let me go on to read what else the former finance minister said: “you made clear that I no longer credibly enjoy that confidence and possess the authority that comes with it.” I would argue that she never had it in the first place, because the fake feminist Prime Minister and carbon tax Carney are in the background.

Carbon tax Carney made his Canadian comeback just to fire the furious finance minister. That was his role. They used her, and they wanted to blame her for the finances of the country going over the cliff, only to disregard her afterward. This is all being done by the backroom boys of the fake feminist Prime Minister and carbon tax Carney.

The former finance minister goes on to say, “you and I have found ourselves at odds about the best path forward for Canada." She also says, “keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war. That means eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford and which make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment.”

I could not agree more. These are political gimmicks. The Liberals just introduced a two-month temporary GST tax trick, which was a vote-buying scheme that businesses all across hated, that was going to be costly to them and that is not really going to bring in much more revenue. The Liberals brought it in at the busiest time of the year, just so the Liberal-NDP government could buy votes from Canadians.

However, Canadians are experiencing much more pain than that. While Liberals want to take pennies off peanuts or nickels off Nutty Bars, common-sense Conservatives want to axe the tax on everything, for everyone, for good. Enough of these cheap political gimmicks.

This carbon tax scam is more than a gimmick; it is pain. It is no environmental gain with all financial pain for Canadians, to the point where we see seniors who need to choose whether they heat their homes or buy a little more at the grocery store. They are getting through by putting blankets on. This is the reality of nine years of the corrupt, inept and weak Liberal-NDP government.

Instead of standing with Canadians and standing up for Canadian values, the Prime Minister chose to start a war with the Americans. This is the same former finance minister, obviously with the guidance of the weak Prime Minister, who said, “Why don't you go ahead with your digital services tax? Why don't we join other countries doing it?” Can members believe we are in the same pod as countries like Pakistan, which has introduced this? We are not with our partners on this at all. Liberals knew it would be something that would impact Canadian businesses and could possibly get our tariffs raised by the U.S., but they still moved forward with it. They pissed everyone off. They pissed off the Americans.

This is how incompetent the Liberal-NDP government is. It has no game plan. Once again, these cheap political gimmicks have Canadians footing the bill. At the end of the day, Canadians are having to suffer for these really incompetent political policies that have impacted them.

The former finance minister goes on to say, “our time in government will come to an end.” Yes, it will. We should put the tired, corrupt government out of its misery and call a carbon tax election now. We should give people control back, give Canadians back control of their lives, which is something they have lost. When Canadians see crime on the rise, hate crimes on the rise, and that the cost of everything is out of control, it is because they have a government that has worked against them. They have a leader in the NDP who has propped up the corrupt Liberal government for nine years, and now he is doing it just out of spite, just to get his $2.2-million pension.

Canadians will remember this. Canadians will remember this at the next election. It is time for the government's time to come to an end. We have to give that power back to the people, where it belongs. There is only one leader in the entire House of Commons who will bring the power back to the people. That is the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton.

The former finance minister says something else I agree with, which is, “Canada will win if we are strong, smart, and united.” We need a leader who is strong, smart and will unite, one with a backbone and brains. Again, there is only one leader in the House of Commons with that, and that is the member for Carleton.

Once we have a common-sense Conservative government, we are going to axe the tax for good. We are going to get rid of the carbon tax to bring the cost of gas, groceries and home heating down. We are going to unleash the power of our natural resources, the world-renowned natural resources sector we have in Canada that the Liberal-NDP government has tried to kill with its oil and gas cap and all these other ridiculous policies like the carbon tax scam. We are going to axe the tax for good to bring home our natural resources and give them to the world in order to bring down emissions across the world.

We are going to build the homes. There will be no more photo op funds and no more giving municipalities and mayors millions and billions of dollars just to create more bureaucracy. We are going to build the homes, not more bureaucracy. We are going to bring home a GST tax cut for homes that are a million dollars and under, which will generate up to 30,000 new homes and save up to $50,000 on those homes, which is going to lower the cost of mortgages.

While I am on the topic of mortgages, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, housing costs have doubled. Whether one is renting or a mortgage holder, the costs have doubled. Why have they doubled? The Liberal-NDP government has fed into the bureaucracies at the municipal level, which have only increased their permitting fees. On top of that, it is the population control that they admit themselves is “out of control”. The Liberals did this; their incompetence did this. The Bank of Canada also confirmed that it is their out-of-control population growth that made costs to renters double.

In order to not give Canadians 40-year highs in inflation like the Liberal-NDP government did, we are going to balance the budget, something the Liberal-NDP government has no idea of how to do. This is the same Prime Minister who said that budgets balanced themselves and that he does not think about monetary policy. Then he said to let the bankers worry about the economy. He loves the bankers. Those are his Bay Street buddies, the same ones that Canadians have to send money to, with more in debt-interest charges than what goes to provinces for health care.

After the incompetent Prime Minister doubled the national debt, that is exactly what happened. Interest rates went up. Inflation went up. Of course, for the Prime Minister and his rich buddies, their assets got inflated, while everyday Canadians had to pay for that incompetence.

We are going to balance the budget and bring in a dollar-for-dollar law. We are going to make sure that any dollar spent in any department has to be matched with a dollar of savings. Canadians and businesses have had to do that under this government. The government should do the same and respect the money.

There is no doubt that we are going to cut the Liberal waste. The waste that went to Liberal insiders, such as the friends of the Liberals who got so much money for arrive scam and for the consultants, the McKinsey consultants. Now we just found out from the Auditor General about the CEBA loans that went to fraudulent corporations and companies. This is just another rerun of the last nine years of this government. First it was CERB, and now it is CEBA. This is what incompetence looks like. Who has to pay for it? Canadians always end up having to pay for this incompetence.

It is time for a common-sense Conservative government that will balance the budget, get rid of that Liberal waste and, of course, stop the crime. Canadians do not leave their houses now and sometimes live in their houses in absolute fear, because criminals have never had it so good. Under the Liberal-NDP government that brought in Bill C-5 and C-75, criminals have it way too easy. They commit crimes repeatedly and without any fear. They know they are going to get bail. They commit crimes over and over again.

However, just to virtue signal and to show that it is the most woke government, the Liberals created a bail system that is just too easy for criminals to get. That is why there is no more fear left within criminals. There is no fear in Canada. The only fear is from everyday Canadians who are just working to make it, to get by, to put food on their families' tables.

However, now carjackings are up, violent crime is up and gun crime is up. Every day there are new videos coming out, and it is a result of this incompetent, woke government that lets criminals have zero consequences for what they do. We are going to stop the crime and bring in common-sense Conservative policies once again that will keep repeat offenders in jail and not grant them bail like this woke government has done over the last nine years.

My parents came here because Canada used to have this reputation that one could work hard here and either get by or get ahead. Canada used to be a country where one paycheque could run the household. One paycheque used to be able to get people a house, whether they wanted a mortgage or to rent. One paycheque used to be able to afford groceries for the week. One paycheque used to put people's kids through school. One paycheque used to be able to put people's kids in other activities.

However, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, the Canadian dream that my parents came for and that Canadians had, whether they were born here or immigrated here, is broken. It is broken. Our reputation has been broken because this weak, woke, fake feminist Prime Minister broke Canada.

It is time for a common-sense Conservative government, led by our common-sense Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, to not only unite Canadians but to rebuild that Canadian dream and finally have a country where we can proudly stand and say we are from Canada, one where we see our flag and the rest of the world sees our flag and know we are represented by a competent leader who has the brains and the backbone to stand up for Canadians and do what is best for Canada first.

This is the same Prime Minister who, wherever he goes, is an embarrassment, not just nationally but all over the world. Literally, he is known as a clown now. He has turned the country into a circus. It is time for real leadership.

It is time to bring a serious government back that will put the people first, that will reduce those food bank lineups, that will reduce housing costs, that will reduce the cost of gas, groceries and home heating, and reduce the crime in this country, because that is how it used to be. Before the Prime Minister it was like that. When was the last time members heard of people lining up at food banks in record numbers or of people being afraid in their own homes or outside? We never used to even have to lock our doors in Canada.

In this next carbon tax election, the choice cannot be more clear: People can vote for a Liberal-NDP government that will punish their work, that will tax everything and that will double their housing costs on the Liberal-NDP government's path to quadrupling the carbon tax scam, or Canadians can make a choice to get back control of their lives and get back control of the country that they once knew and still love, under a common-sense Conservative government that will bring back the common sense that used to be common in the country, which we lost after nine years of the incompetent, woke Liberal-NDP government. Let us work together to bring home the Canada we all knew.

I turn to the leader of the NDP to make a request that he put the country and Canadians over his pension. Enough is enough. Canadians have had enough. Canadians cannot suffer anymore from the Liberal-NDP government. It is time. It is time for a carbon tax election. This country is in chaos. The Prime Minister and his entire caucus is in chaos. It is time to give the control back to the people. It is time to give this country a common-sense Conservative government under the leadership of the member for Carleton, the leader of the common-sense Conservatives.

Let us bring home the Canada we all once knew and still love. Let us bring it home.

École Polytechnique de Montréal

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, December 6 is always a hard day. It is always a harsh wake-up call. It brings back all the trauma. Exactly 35 years ago today, the unthinkable happened. It was in Montreal, on the eve of exams. The holidays were approaching. It should have been a time for celebration, but on that day, 14 female engineering students at the Polytechnique in Montreal were murdered in cold blood, because they were women.

The tragedy left us stunned with horror. We could not believe what had happened. We were all in shock. These 14 young women were all university students in the prime of life. They were probably feeling carefree, like people are at that age, when they think that they have everything figured out, that they are invincible, that the world is their oyster. That is how it should have been for these women.

Remember the 14: Geneviève Bergeron; Hélène Colgan; Nathalie Croteau; Barbara Daigneault; Anne‑Marie Edward; Maud Haviernick; Barbara Klucznik‑Widajewicz; Maryse Laganière; Maryse Leclair; Anne‑Marie Lemay; Sonia Pelletier; Michèle Richard; Annie St‑Arneault; and Annie Turcotte.

They were separated from the male students and murdered in cold blood because they were women. It is unspeakably cruel that a woman can be murdered and suffer this fate simply because she is a woman. In fact, it was so shocking that this Parliament decreed that every December 6 would be the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women.

I was in shock when it happened. I was 22. Obviously, we were all shaken by this tragedy. I also remember the moments surrounding the event. These women were my age. They were studying at university, just as I was. They had dreams and ambitions. In an instant, all that was shattered. Understandably, there were countless collateral victims, including family, colleagues and friends. Their journey came to an end, while mine continued. For all these reasons, they will forever be in my thoughts.

Today we pay tribute to these women, but we also pay tribute to the women in Canada and women around the world who are victims of hate and violence in all its forms. Thirty-five years later, this day is still necessary and just as relevant. Unfortunately, intimate partner violence, sexual assault and misogynistic speech still exist. The year is not over yet, but in 2024 alone, in Quebec, there have been 25 femicides. In Canada, there have been 169 so far in 2024.

In Canada, gender equality should not even be an issue. It should be settled question. It should be absorbed and learned from an early age. Gender equality is not up for debate. Everyone needs to understand that violence is never the answer, that women need to be completely free, free to study, free to govern, free to be MPs, free to be ministers, free from fear and from all forms of violence. They should never have to be in a constant state of hypervigilance when they walk down the street, as we are far too often. Only a woman can say that these days. Only women can say that.

At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I have incredible colleagues from all parties who I work with to improve this sad state of affairs, to ensure that women can move around freely and safely. We are making recommendations to the government.

Respectfully, I would like to make a few observations. This is not coming from a place of partisanship. I just want to share these ideas so that we can work together to fix this very sad trend of increasing violence. Violence has increased by 116% in Canada since 2015. Whether it is sexual assault or child abuse, all this violence is happening right under our noses. In my riding, people are firing guns. We really need to put positive measures in place in order for things to improve.

Quebec's justice minister, Simon Jolin-Barrette, says that Bill C‑5, which has been introduced in the House, allows people who commit violent acts to serve their sentences at home. Then there is Bill C‑75, which allows violent offenders to be released on bail. Normally, we would not allow people who have committed such acts to serve their sentences at home or to be released on bail. This is something that worries us on this side of the House. I am not saying this in a partisan way. The police forces are telling us this. Quebeckers are very sensitive to what the Quebec government says. It was Quebec's justice minister who shared this message about sexual assault. Women are being assaulted and men are walking around free. I say men because we know that 90% of sexual assaults are committed against women.

Today we are paying tribute to the victims. It is nice, and we are all giving fine speeches. We are joined in sadness. However, let us also take a close look at the actions we are taking and the decisions we are making as legislators. When we realize that something is not working, that we are not getting the desired results, let us have the collective intelligence to review, in this place, the measures that have been taken. I will pick up on something that was said earlier by the minister, whom I like very much. She talked about measures that have been put in place and an action plan she wants to table. I will just make this comment.

I would be remiss if I did not take a few seconds to commend the organizations in my colleagues' ridings and in my own riding, such as Fondation jonction pour elle, the Centre-Femmes Bellechasse, the Centre-Femmes l'Ancrage, and the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale. These are all women helping other women in need, including women fleeing violence. These women welcome them and help them move forward.

In tribute to all the injured, abused and murdered women, I say this: We must never forget them.

Public Safety

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 codified existing Supreme Court jurisprudence and added a tougher decision on bail for those who target women. That is a fact.

Let us talk about the actual combat against crime. Let us talk about crimes against children. We cannot make this up. What the Leader of the Opposition has said, and what his justice critic has reiterated, is that no matter what progress we make, with the help of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, on taking down child pornography off the Internet, they will reverse it. That is morally bankrupt as a policy and incredulous to assert in this chamber. The combat against crime includes the combat against child sex predators.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was just reported in Vancouver that two people were wounded in another random stabbing. After nine years of the Prime Minister, these tragic stories are sadly more common, as violent crime is up 50%. The NDP-Liberal soft-on-crime policies and laws have unleashed a crime wave across Canada, including random attacks.

Bill C-75 created a catch-and-release bail system. Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum sentences on many serious crimes. Will the Liberal government reverse these reckless policies?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the statistics on women speak for themselves. There is a 75% increase in sexual assaults. That is a 75% increase since the Liberals have been in power. Sexual violations against children are up 120%. Why is this? We have heard, at the status of women committee, over and over from abused women that it is Bill C-75. These monsters are getting out on bail and killing women. That is on the Liberal government, no matter what its members say. Their announcement today will not protect a single woman in this country.

When are they going to call an election so that Conservatives can get in power and do something about this?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the status of women committee, we hear from abused woman after abused woman who have been hurt and their lives endangered because of Bill C-75. Their abusers are getting out on bail easier than ever before.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has no credibility when it comes to protecting women. In the nine years the Liberals have been in power, sexual assaults have increased 75%. Ninety-four municipalities and the Province of Nova Scotia have declared intimate partner violence an epidemic.

In Canada, one woman in Peel region is strangled to death every single day and violent abusers of women are getting let out on bail easier than ever because of the Liberal Bill C-75. There is only one party in this place that is going to protect women from the monsters who abuse them and put criminals of gun violence behind bars, and that is the Conservative Party.

When will we get an election?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here because of the Liberal government's refusal to release documents, which is the will of this Parliament.

It really makes us question what the Liberals are trying so desperately to hide. The government should have obeyed the request of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is the voice of Canadians, and the government cannot ignore this request. It is not just a request; this is an order of the House. This is exactly what the Liberal government has done.

Our motion could not have been clearer. It demanded that all documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, now widely known as the Liberal billion-dollar green slush fund, be tabled with the law clerk of the House of Commons and transferred to the RCMP for investigation. The government had 30 days to comply, but it did not do so.

As a result, the opposition House leader raised a question of privilege with the Speaker. The Speaker agreed that the members' privileges of the House had been breached and that the government had ignored an order of the House. However, the Liberal government continues to ignore it. I know Liberal colleagues across the aisle will say they have tabled 29,000 pages of documents. What they do not say is that many of those documents were heavily redacted, against the instructions of this Parliament. It does not matter whether they table two pages or two million pages; if the documents are redacted and blacked out, we cannot see the information on those pages.

If the Liberals chose to hide the relevant information that the House requested to protect Liberal insiders, then those documents are not worth the paper or the ink that was used. Ultimately, the Liberal government is hiding the information from the RCMP. We have to question why this has gone on for weeks and weeks. What are the Liberals trying to hide?

Just to go back and give a little history for anyone listening who is not familiar with this ethical scandal at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, before the current Liberal government, this program was not controversial. Through past governments of other parties and all parties, SDTC provided funding to Canadian innovators seeking to develop clean new technologies. However, under the current Liberal government, SDTC became widely known as the green slush fund because it was known as a hotbed of corruption for use by Liberal insiders.

We know this because the Auditor General of Canada, the Ethics Commissioner and whistle-blowers uncovered clear and widespread corruption in favour of Liberal insiders. The issues began in 2018 when the Liberal industry minister at the time, Navdeep Bains, chose to appoint a new chair to the SDTC, an entrepreneur who was already receiving funding through one of her companies. The Liberals were warned internally of the risks associated with appointing a conflicted chair.

We had heard this and this has come to light. The Liberals were told that up to that point, the fund had never had a chair with interests in companies receiving funding, yet they chose to appoint her anyway. The new chair went on to create an environment where conflicts of interest were tolerated or managed by board members, as described by the Auditor General. Board members went on, through SDTC, to grant funding to companies that they held stock or positions in. It was a direct conflict of interest.

Bains, the Liberal minister at the time, went on to appoint two other controversial board members who engaged in unethical behaviour, in obvious conflicts of interest, acting by approving funding to companies in which they held ownership stakes. Department officials from the government sat in on board meetings. They were witness to 186 conflicts of interest at the board, but they did not intervene.

Then, in November 2022, whistle-blowers raised internal concerns with the Auditor General about unethical practices at SDTC. In September 2023, the whistle-blowers took the allegations public, forcing the Liberal industry minister to suspend SDTC funding.

In November 2023, the Auditor General started to conduct an audit. This audit found many approved projects that were ineligible for funding, a conflict of interest or both. There was $58 million that went to 10 ineligible projects that, on all occasions, could not demonstrate an environmental benefit or development of green technology, the actual purpose of the fund. The Liberal-appointed SDTC board approved $334 million, over 186 cases, for projects in which the board members held a conflict of interest. These numbers are absolutely staggering. The Auditor General found that the Liberal minister “did not sufficiently monitor” the contracts that were given to the Liberal insiders.

This is a culture of corruption that was Liberal-made. We know this because the Auditor General gave SDTC a clean bill of health back in 2017. It was only after the hand-picked Liberal board members were appointed that this fund began voting itself really absurd amounts of taxpayer dollars.

The Liberals will say this agency was at arm's length, but there were government officials sitting in on board meetings, so it was not at arm's length. The Liberal minister recommended board appointments, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada had senior department officials sitting in on every board meeting, monitoring the activities of the board. It is unbelievable that senior department officials said nothing during this time.

As well, we know the Auditor General did not analyze all of the projects and contracts. In fact, it was only approximately half that the Auditor General analyzed. Therefore, these 186 instances could potentially be considerably higher, maybe even double that. This is shocking. It is why this Parliament has been seized with this.

It really bodes the question: Why are the Liberals fighting so hard to not bring the documents forth and to not shine a light on what has occurred? If there were all of these conflicts of interest, why would they not want to shine sunlight on the situation and bring all of this to light so it can be analyzed, and if there is criminal activity, that could potentially be pursued? It is unbelievable that this is all being pushed under the rug because the government does not want it to come to light.

It is disappointing we are here discussing this matter of privilege rather than discussing issues that are important to residents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country and, in fact, all Canadians. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, there is really no shortage of issues to be discussing.

One issue I would like to talk about, and hear more on, is crime and how members of my community are worried over the rise in violent crime that has happened under the watch of the NDP-Liberals. The statistics are shocking compared to 2015. Homicides are up 28%, sexual assaults are up 75%, gang murders have nearly doubled, auto thefts are up 46% and extortion is up 357%. These are serious, violent crimes. British Columbia has seen the total number of violent Criminal Code violations increase by over 50% since 2015.

The situation of crime really is out of control. Instead of debating how to better keep our communities safe, we are debating this matter of privilege regarding this apparent Liberal cover-up. The legislative changes made by the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, serve to put the welfare of perpetrators, often violent ones, over the welfare of victims.

Law enforcement and policy experts are calling for reform. Liberal Bill C-75 directed judges to act with restraint when imposing bail conditions, even with violent repeat offenders. It has been a driving force behind the catch-and-release nature of Canada's bail system. Liberal Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum sentences for 14 Criminal Code sections, including serious crimes related to firearms and drugs. It is unbelievable.

Liberal Bill C-83 changed the correctional system in part to ensure those convicted and sentenced to penitentiaries are provided with the least restrictive environment for that person. Many believe it is this legislation that allowed serial killers like Paul Bernardo to move to a medium-security prison environment despite committing heinous crimes.

Across Canada, law enforcement experts and associations have made it clear they are fed up with the Liberal government's legislative agenda that increased crime and chaos in many of our neighbourhoods. For example, recently, the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Provincial Police Association and the Toronto Police Association issued a joint statement following an intense shootout in Toronto that led to 23 arrests and 16 firearms being seized. It states, “Our members are increasingly frustrated and angered as they continue risking their lives to apprehend repeat violent offenders.” It went on to say the incident “should serve as a call to action for the federal government to fix our bail system so repeat and violent offenders can’t continue to harm our communities while out on bail.”

The Vancouver Police Union, close to where I am in British Columbia, stated how Liberal justice reforms are “doing little to address actual crime and violence.” It also said the Prime Minister is “not aware of the ongoing gang war here in B.C. which is putting both our members and public at risk on a daily basis.” The Surrey Police Union, also in British Columbia, described its pressing current issue as “the surge of illegal firearms coming across our borders and ending up in the hands of violent criminals”.

Conservatives will stop the crime by first scrapping Liberal Bill C-75, Bill C-5 and Bill C-83. Conservatives have also put forth many common-sense bills to address public safety. My own private member's bill, the end the revolving door act, Bill C-283, would have expanded justice system sentencing to people suffering from addiction through treatment and recovery in federal penitentiaries. Unfortunately, this was voted down by most NDP and Liberal MPs.

Again, instead of discussing these common-sense solutions to stop the crime in our communities, we are discussing this matter of privilege. Many of our Conservative colleagues, too many to mention in the time I have here today, have also put forth really great private members' bills that would address the issue of crime, everything from looking at crime that is happening in hospitals to extortion, car thefts and many more. I could do a whole speech just on that. We are putting forth common-sense solutions.

There is another issue that I would like to be discussing more, instead of a matter of privilege. Although that is important, we are only discussing it because the Liberals are holding us in this place, because the Liberals are not abiding by the will of the House. Another issue that I would like to be discussing is fixing the budget and restoring affordability.

Inflationary spending and the lack of good economic policies have seen the Canadian economy deteriorate, and Canadians are worse off because of it. We know why. The Prime Minister has said that he does not think about monetary policy and that budgets balance themselves. His latest comment was, “I'll let the bankers worry about the economy.” How completely out of touch is this with what the role of government is and what his role is? The Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported that “rising inflation and tighter monetary policy have eroded purchasing power, particularly among lower-income households.” Most Canadians spend the bulk of their income on basic necessities like food, shelter and transportation. When their purchasing power suffers, it makes just getting by that much harder.

This reality has been realized when it comes to food bank use in Canada. The cost of food has increased by over 22% since 2020 alone, forcing many to go to a food bank. The committee that I am on, the human resources committee, has had a lot of testimony on this from food banks and from not-for-profits, who have talked about the fact that they had volunteers before who have now become clients, that seniors who would maybe volunteer now have to go back to work, that people are not volunteering because they literally cannot afford the transportation to come and volunteer, that donations are down. This is what is happening in Canada. This is the Canada that we are in right now, and this is after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. We know, for example, that over two million Canadians have visited a food bank in one month alone.

Something that is especially upsetting is the rise of child poverty. According to the 2024 report card on child and family poverty in Canada, 1.4 million children live in poverty in Canada now. We need to discuss how economic policies and inflationary spending have really gotten us to this point. Instead, we are discussing this matter of privilege. There are really serious and broad economic concerns that are happening in Canada. It just really illustrates the results of the disastrous Liberal government and how it has affected people's lives and Canadians' prosperity.

I will say as well that the Liberals have not given a fiscal update so that we would know where the debt is this year. They continue to have spending. We have no idea what the status of our debt is. Canada's federal debt will rise to $1.2 trillion this year. That is based on previous numbers. The interest we will pay in servicing the debt will increase to $54 billion. Again, this is based on previous numbers. Just to put that into perspective, that is more than the revenue that has been raised in the past from GST. It is unbelievable how much we will be spending on servicing our debt and how much our children and grandchildren will be spending.

As well, Canada's GDP per capita continues to decline, meaning that there is less money to go around for more people. This is really troubling, given that while Canada's GDP per capita fell by 3% in the last four years, the GDP per capita of the United States increased by 7% in that same time period. It is total economic mismanagement on the account of the NDP-Liberal government.

The government is continuing to not comply with the will of Parliament and refusing to bring forth the documents that are the will of Parliament. There are a lot of important issues that we need to be discussing here. I will just end with the carbon tax.

We have all of these tax increases that will be coming down the line early next year. We have the carbon tax, which will be increasing on April 1. We have the excise tax, which will be increasing on April 1. Especially with the carbon tax, this just makes the price of everything go up, everything that is grown, produced and transported, yet the government is bent on increasing these taxes. It is putting us really at an economic disadvantage. We are hearing testimony at a lot of committees about how tax increases are forcing people to leave Canada and forcing businesses to leave. These are the things we need to be talking about.

Public Safety

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the Liberal government is not worth the crime or the chaos. Just this week, a Winnipeg police officer was stabbed in the neck during an arrest at a shopping mall. While I am relieved to hear that the officer is recovering, incidents like these are happening far too often under the Liberal government.

The 50% increase in violent crime since the Liberal government came to power is a direct result of the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime catch-and-release policies. The Liberals made life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5, made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75 and failed to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border.

Canadians deserve a common-sense Conservative government that will ensure repeat violent offenders remain behind bars while awaiting trial and will bring back mandatory jail time for serious violent crimes. A Conservative government will bring home safe streets.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government often blames the provincial courts, for example, for the crime wave we are seeing across this country. Of course, the provincial courts are governed by the law, and the Liberals changed the law with Bill C-75, which made bail the default for repeat violent offenders.

The results are clear: There has been a 116% increase of gun crime in Canada and a 50% increase of violent crime since 2015 under the Liberals' watch; furthermore, there are 200,000 additional violent crime incidents each year. How many more people are going to have to get hurt before they realize that their policies have caused all this destruction?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, normally when I rise in the House to speak, I say I am pleased to rise today. However, I must say I am super sad to rise today in the House. I am super sad about the state of our nation. I cannot believe what happened in Montreal on Friday night and the state of events.

For those who are watching the debate today, we are still here, two months down the road, talking about the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund, which was $400 million of taxpayer money that ended up going to insiders who gave the money to their own companies. The Auditor General said there were 186 conflicts of interest. The whistle-blowers within the department itself said there was criminality involved.

Parliamentarians did their due diligence. It was the will of the House, with a majority vote, to have all the documents associated with this sordid affair produced and sent to the RCMP. The Liberals did what they always do. They redacted the good parts of the documents that were produced and did not produce the other half of them. Here we are, and the Speaker has ruled that no other government business will take place until this question of privilege is addressed and those documents are produced and sent to the RCMP.

My theme today is that this all comes back to the problem of the Liberals not having any regard for the rule of law in this country. Canada is built on the rule of law. It is what makes us a civilized society. We have seen, from the time the Liberals were elected in 2015, a lack of respect for the law and a continual erosion of the rule of law in Canada. Let me spend a few minutes talking about that.

In 2015, the Liberals were elected and they first brought forward Bill C-83, which forced judges, when considering bail, to put the least restrictive measures on an individual to reduce it to the easiest bail. That was the beginning of what has become catch and release in this country.

In 2017, the Prime Minister went to billionaire island, which was $215,000 of taxpayer fraud. The RCMP ended up not investigating it, but at the end of the day, that sets the expectation of what kind of respect for the rule of law we should have. If the Prime Minister does not have any, then we can see that that lack of respect would go through the whole lot.

In 2019, Bill C-75 was brought forward by the government. In that bill, the government removed a lot of the mandatory minimums and set sentencing to be either a fine or a summary conviction of up to two years. Again, that diluted the rule of law in this country. Many of the things on the list were egregious, such as kidnapping and some terrorism offences. There were a whole list of things that the government reduced to a fine or a summary conviction of less than two years, which is a slap on the wrist.

In 2022, the Liberals brought in Bill C-5. This was something that has led to further erosion of the rule of law. I want to read a couple of things just so people can understand the impact of all of this. Many of the comments were made by my friend, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who himself was a very experienced prosecutor when he came to this place. He said, when it comes to the different rules that were introduced, there were some that did not help. When former justice minister, David Lametti, introduced Bill C-5 in November of 2022, he described it as giving those who made small mistakes a second chance at life. The bill was really about eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for second and third convictions of serious gun and drug crimes.

We see that this continual erosion of the rule of law has led us to where we are today with the green slush fund. We know that the whistle-blower said there was criminality, and we see a number of subsection 119(1) violations. For those who do not know what that part of the law is about, subsection 119(1) says that no holder of public office can take an action that benefits themselves or their family.

We can see numerous issues with the green slush fund when people took these actions. Some of them were at the cabinet table. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change took an action as a cabinet minister to approve money, from the $400 million that was in the slush fund, to go to Cycle Capital, which he owns 270 million dollars' worth of. That company tripled its value, and that is a direct benefit to him. I will allow the RCMP to do its good work investigating.

We saw a similar problem with the WE Charity scandal when the Prime Minister was taking an action that benefited his mother, his brother and his wife. Now we see in the “other Randy” scandal that, while at the cabinet table, the former minister took an action to give money to a company that he was a 50% shareholder in. I see that the police are investigating that, and I expect them to come to the conclusion that any reasonable individual would come to.

As such, the introduction of all of these laws to chip away at the rule of law to allow criminals to go back on the streets has an impact, and I want to talk about what that impact is. Since the time these Liberals took power in 2015, homicide is up 33%; auto theft is up 39%; theft over $5,000 is up 49%; identity theft is up 121%; child sexual abuse is up 141%; human trafficking is up 210%; extortion is up 429%; child pornography is up 565%; and sexual assault is up 75%.

There is an impact when we remove the rule of law and the consequences that are put in place to disincentivize criminals from repeat offending. Many Order Paper questions have been asked to find out what is happening with catch and release and giving the least restrictive bail. It is said that one-third of homicides committed in Canada are committed by somebody who is out on bail for a previous violent offence. I want to speak to some of the human cost to that.

There was a shootout in Toronto, and of the 23 suspects collared, according the sources, one was wanted for an unsolved murder and four were free on bail conditions.

Here is another one: A gentleman was facing an attempted murder and gun charge and allowed out with an ankle monitor, which he cut off. Durham Radio News reports:

They say the man was ordered to wear a GPS ankle monitor after being let out on bail in September 2023 while his case was before the courts, but he cut it off and fled.

[He] is currently before the courts for:

two counts of Attempt to Commit Murder Using a Restricted Firearm...

Careless Use of Firearm

Possession of Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose

Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm

Unauthorized Possession of a Weapon

Knowledge of Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm

Possession Prohibited or Restricted Firearm with Ammunition

Use Firearm While Committing Offence

two counts of Possession of Schedule 1 Substance for the Purpose of Trafficking

Who thought it was a good idea to let a guy like this out with an ankle bracelet?

Similarly, there is a 36-year-old Montreal man who was let out on bail after allegedly uttering death threats against his partner. He is now accused of murdering her on the south shore.

Here is another one from CTV News:

Authorities have issued a public warning after a 19-year-old man facing multiple criminal charges, including two counts of sexual assault, was released on bail in Vancouver.

In a news release, the Vancouver Police Department said Bryce Michael Flores-Bebington poses a “risk of significant harm to public safety in relation to alleged unprovoked physical and sexual violence against strangers.”

This guy is a danger to the public and they had to issue a warning to the public about him. Who thought it was a good idea to let this person out on bail?

It was not a good idea, but the Prime Minister and the Liberal government has continued to allow criminals off to reoffend. Let us look at some of the most heinous examples, starting with Paul Bernardo.

I am from St. Catharines. I was born there. I went to school with Kristen French's brother Brian. I lived a block and a half from where they lived, and I walked the same street where Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy were taken every single day of the five years I was in high school. I followed this case, and it was disgusting what was done to these girls and the many other victims. He deserved to be in maximum-security prison but, under the Liberals, they put him in minimum security, where there is hockey and tennis. I am sure that he is having a much better time there. When he comes up for his parole hearing, they will not even allow the victim's family to attend. That is what the Liberal government has done to the rule of law in Canada.

Let me give another example. Let us talk about Terri-Lynne McClintic and Michael Rafferty. These two sickos took an eight-year-old Tori Stafford and they sexually assaulted her and murdered her. They are child killers. Yes, they were in maximum security until eventually Terri-Lynne McClintic was let out into a minimum-security healing lodge. It was not until the Conservatives found out and made a big stink about it that they put her back into a more secure prison. As soon as our back was turned, where did she go? She is now in a townhouse in a minimum-security facility next door to a mothers-with-children program. Members have heard that right. Terri-Lynne McClintic has access to children while in prison, and she is a child killer.

This is the undermining of the rule of law that the Liberal government has done. It is totally unacceptable and we see the results on our streets. For over a year, we have seen pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas illegal protests blocking roads, calling death to Jews and death to Canada, and burning our flag. All the while, what is being done from an enforcement point of view? Nothing has been done. There have been very few arrests. There was an incident in Montreal with thousands of people rioting, and there were three arrests. They will probably be out on bail before we know it. It is an undermining of the rule of law. It is also letting people into the country who are criminals and terrorists.

It has been admitted by the immigration minister that there was a period of time where, because of the backlog, they stopped doing security checks on people who were coming into the country. We have seen how that goes. They also decided to let 3,000 Gazans in when none of the other countries around would take them because of concerns about their links to Hamas, which is a designated terrorist organization. Canada brought them in. We have seen ISIS terrorists who were brought in through our immigration program.

This lack of respect for the rule of law extends to other departments that are inviting chaos into the country. When people want to become Canadian citizens, there are three things that they have to promise to do. The first is to obey the rule of law in Canada. It is one of the things that is part of any visa that we come to the country on, such as a tourist visa or work permit. Every one of these illegal protesters should be charged if they are Canadian citizens. Their files should be flagged if they are permanent residents so that they cannot become Canadian citizens, because they are not upholding the rule of law in Canada. They are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I am sure our neighbours across the aisle here will decide that I am a racist. I am not a racist but I am about the rule of law applying equally to all. If I get up and I block a road, I know that they are going to arrest me in a New York minute. If I commit a crime, I am going to get arrested, but that does not seem to be what is happening.

In Toronto, there was a protest. Protesters were calling death to Jews. They were harassing them in their own neighbourhood. One of the Jewish women went to the police and said to arrest these people. The police said that there was nothing they could do. What is the point of having laws if we do not enforce them? The federal government puts the rule of law in place. The federal government has a responsibility. If the rule of law is not being enforced by the police, it can be escalated to the RCMP. The military can be brought in.

We know, in the peaceful protest of the freedom convoy, that Liberals decided to declare the emergency measures act, which was deemed illegal because it did not meet the threshold.

What is the threshold? There has to be violence taking place across the country. We can check that box. There has to be proof that there is foreign interference. There has been a lot of proof about the Iranians backing up the pro-Palestinian protests, so we can check the box there.

It has to be beyond the resources of the police and the existing lots, so I would argue that maybe it is time to revisit that whole one. Of course, right now, even though it was declared illegal, not a single one of the individuals who voted for it is seeing any consequence at all while they appeal the process, whereas I, if I committed a crime, could appeal from prison. Again, that is not acceptable

Now we know that the reason that the government will not produce the documents is that there is criminality; there is something to hide there. It is not the first time. We have seen this pattern of behaviour before. We saw it with respect to the Winnipeg lab documents, where what was being hidden was the fact that we were complicit with the Chinese military in providing it with viruses to work on developing bio-weapons. What did the Liberals do to keep that from coming forward? Well, first of all, it was the usual: They redacted the documents, claimed national security, and did not give anything. Then, they sued the Speaker of the House to keep the Liberals from coming forward with these documents. It has dragged out for years and we may be here for years, holding them to account on this slush fund.

We saw it as well with respect to the WE Charity scandal. Clearly, there was something going on there that would have been a violation if the evidence came forward, but the Liberals claimed cabinet confidence and all of these kinds of things. When it got hot, they decided to prorogue and call an election so that they could go back to square one. It is a pattern of behaviour of not only undermining the rule of law in this country, but of obstructing when we are trying to get to the bottom and find criminality. That, again, is not a surprise to me when I look over there from the Prime Minister on down to his cabinet ministers and to many other individuals who have been in the Liberal government here during my term. Since 2015, we had Joe Peschisolido, whose law firm was accused of money laundering; Raj Grewal, charged with fraud; and multiple RCMP and police investigations that continue to go on today. We have the minister from Edmonton who is under investigation by the police and there are a number of fraud suits against the company that he was involved in. Therefore, it is not a surprise, but it is unacceptable.

The good news is that it was not like this before the Prime Minister arrived with the Liberals who are corrupt and it will not be like that when we get rid of them. We common-sense Conservatives would come with a plan to stop the crime. We would stop the gun crime by upping the security at our borders to keep out the smuggling of illegal guns that the police associations are saying is 85% of the gun crime. We would bring down the number of car thefts by doing more scanning at the ports. We have plans that would get the hard drugs off our streets and it would be jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. That is what we need in this country. We have good laws, but we have to start enforcing them. We cannot keep reinforcing to criminals that they can commit a crime without any consequences at all, which is essentially what happens when they commit a crime and are out again in the afternoon to commit another crime. We have all heard the statistics about the 6,000 crimes that were committed in Vancouver in one year by 40 individuals. I would argue that to take those 40 individuals off the streets, away from where they are damaging the public, is the wiser way, the common-sense way and it is something that we would do.

Again today, I call on the government to produce the papers and give them to the RCMP. It is the right thing to do. It is the way we would uphold the rule of law and not be secretive and not try to hide wrongdoing. If we do not do that, we will continue to be here on this side of the House speaking out against corruption and a lack of accountability in the Liberal government. We will make sure that when we become government, we restore accountability, restore the rule of law, and uphold and enforce the rule of law.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber.

My colleague before me lamented the fact that he had to speak twice on this. I will add to the lament, as this is my third time rising, because the government is not listening to ordinary Canadians as they are represented in this chamber.

Before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to take a moment to recognize the efforts of 40 extraordinary Canadians, for that is truly what ordinary Canadians are, for bringing the peace train to Ottawa two nights ago. MPs from a cross-section of this chamber, representing a cross-section of philosophical paths to peace, from our military veterans and peacekeepers to our peaceniks, all agreed on the message represented by the peace train participants: that Canada should do more for peace in our world.

It has been said many times that war is a failure of statecraft. We thank these folks for reminding us to invest more, in many ways, for peace.

Speaking of state and government failures, here we are again because the current government is ruling like an autocratic regime rather than a parliamentary democracy. Of course I am referring to the green slush fund and the Liberal refusal to hand over documents as ordered. The government is not being accountable on any front.

Today we are talking about the subamendment that is to be added to the amendment, and it reads as follows:

...except that the order for the committee to report back to the House within 30 sitting days shall be discharged if the Speaker has sooner laid upon the table a notice from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel confirming that all government institutions have fully complied with the Order adopted on June 10, 2024,—

That is my birthday.

—by depositing all of their responsive records in an unredacted form.

In other words, the government does not have to report back to the House if it actually complies with the ruling of the Speaker's office. At issue, of course, is the Auditor General's finding that the Liberal appointees gave 400 million tax dollars to their own companies, involving 186 conflicts of interest. This is about 400 million wasted taxpayer dollars while Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves.

The NDP-Liberals must end the cover-up and make the unredacted documents available, as ordered by the Speaker, so Parliament can get back to working for Canadians.

Let us review a few of the facts. The Speaker ruled that the NDP-Liberals violated a House order to turn over evidence to the police for a criminal investigation of the latest Liberal $400-million scandal, but why the cover-up? Why would they allow Parliament to be incapacitated rather than address the issues that Canadians really and truly care about, like the doubling of housing costs, food inflation, crime and chaos?

On the crime front, the government has made a mockery of our justice system. Terri-Lynne McClintic, who abducted, and then assisted her boyfriend in the sexually motivated killing of, eight-year-old Tori Stafford in 2009 was allowed to be in the presence of children through a mother-child program at a women's federal penitentiary. It is hard to even fathom. Where is the accountability? I spoke so much about accountability in my previous two interventions.

Time after time, the government has revictimized victims, just as it did when it allowed Paul Bernardo to be moved out of a maximum-security facility. The government created the problem by passing Bill C-83, which ensures that even the worst of the worst, like Paul Bernardo, Luka Magnotta and Terri-Lynne McClintic, must be incarcerated in the least restrictive environment.

The Prime Minister has unleashed a wave of crime across the country with disastrous policies like Bill C-5, which took away mandatory jail for violent crime and allowed sex offenders to serve their sentences in the same home as their victims, under house arrest. Bill C-75 also made it easier for repeat violent offenders to be given bail. While the Liberals are concerned about heinous criminals being given a less restrictive environment, Canadians suffer the consequences of unrestricted crime and chaos. Again, the victims of crime are revictimized.

The government must be held to account for its failures. It has allowed Parliament to be paralyzed by its refusal to be transparent about the SDTC documents. Its own self-interest supersedes all other issues in their minds. Refusing to hand over the documents is an affront to Parliament. What is so bad that the government would go to such lengths to hide it?

Why would the government not instead focus on the food inflation it has caused? Food bank use has doubled. Wholesale food prices in Canada have risen 36% faster than wholesale food prices in the U.S., a gap that has opened up since the introduction of the carbon tax. Sadly, now there are two million people lined up to feed themselves and their families at food banks. Our economy is teetering on the brink, but the worst is yet to come.

The coalition government voted for and legislated the quadrupling of the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre. In Ontario alone, Feed Ontario revealed last September, a record one million people visited a food bank in 2024. This is a dramatic increase of the 25% from the previous year, with Feed Ontario's CEO telling the media, “I never thought I would see this day”. She went on to say that she had been with the organization for almost 15 years and never thought it would see this level of demand. She cannot believe it has reached a point where the numbers are so dramatically high. However, the Liberals seem oblivious to the suffering.

In a parliamentary democracy, Parliament is supreme. If a citizen finds a certain law repugnant, their only option is to mobilize a change in Parliament, for example by campaigning in favour of a certain issue, by joining a political party or by standing for office, such that Parliament changes that law. Citizens who disagree with the law of this land and believe that their rights have been violated can push for political change.

The rule of law is crucial in a democracy because it ensures that everyone, including government officials, is subject to the law. Key points about the rule of law in a democracy include equality before the law regardless of social status, checks on power, and holding the government accountable, which is a fundamental point in the rule of law. Other key points are the protection of rights; social sustainability, where citizens trust the law will be applied fairly; and economic development. A strong rule of law fosters a predictable business environment, encouraging investment and economic growth.

It is evident that the government believes that it is above the law and above the sovereignty of the chamber. Holding leaders accountable for serious wrongdoings is a hallmark of democracy. That is why we are here today. Again I ask, where are the documents? What is in them that is making the Liberals so afraid of the Canadian public's finding out?

To the matter at hand, let us talk for a moment about what the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund could have done with respect to research and innovation, and in particular, for a moment, with the energy sector. If colleagues would please indulge me, I will come back to the direct issue of the corruption at hand in a moment. I have often talked about this next sequence in round tables at town halls that I host.

If we think back to the creation, development and increase of wealth in our western world, it has largely mirrored the increase and the densification of our energy. When we came out of the caves, we kept ourselves warm and heated our food with wood. Over time we moved to charcoal and coal and on to fossil fuels. Today we have nuclear energy. Potentially tomorrow we will have hydrogen. Each one of these sources of energy has come with its own set of environmental consequences. As we have moved to a new path to that densification of energy, we have found ways of reducing and eventually removing, hopefully, environmental consequences.

There is a question I often ask when I am hosting round tables. We often hear the opposition speak of fossil fuels, their use and a hope for the day of peak oil. Here is my question: When did the world achieve peak coal? I do not mean the metallurgical coal we need for steelmaking. When did the world hit peak use of thermal coal?

I often ask this question at home, and I get responses from my constituents. Some say it was probably during the 1870s, during the Industrial Revolution. Maybe it was in the roaring twenties in the lead-up to the great crash, or more recently, after the green revolution of the 1970s. However, our world hit peak coal, the record use of fossil fuels in the form of coal, in 2023, and we are going to break that record this year.

Why is that important? Coal has twice the greenhouse gas emissions of liquefied natural gas. If Canada truly wanted to address greenhouse gas emissions that had a material effect on the world, we would be championing the sale and use of our clean and ethically produced liquid natural gas. We had 15 projects on the books 10 years ago. That is not what the government has done.

We have had the world come asking for that energy. Instead, the government has introduced a carbon tax, and while it might make someone feel good by patting themselves on the back that they are doing something, Canada produces 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Weather and climate are a worldwide phenomenon. If we wanted to impact greenhouse gas emissions on a worldwide scale, we could. A carbon tax is not going to do it. We could, not as an end goal a century out but as an interim step, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a material perspective and fund our own wealth as we transition our economy over to even more environmentally benign technologies. That is what we could be doing.

There was a fund set up to direct energy, investment and innovation in that direction. The Auditor General took a look at it back in 2017 and that fund was working well then. However, here we are today. I will end in a few minutes after already speaking for an hour to the corruption that has come from the government, but I will note that if we wanted to do something, that is where the fund could truly be making a difference. Instead, we are here talking about corruption.

I have spoken at great length in the House about the lack of accountability and about the endemic corruption of the government. There was a lack of accountability by the former employment minister. After months of Conservative prosecution, he finally resigned. There have been allegations of fraud, of being involved in a private business while sitting at the cabinet table and of fake indigenous claims, and they were not enough to remove him from cabinet for months. Why is this behaviour seemingly endemic in the government?

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister defended the former minister and claimed, “I'm happy that he is continuing to lead on issues around jobs and employment and represent Alberta in our government.” It is now clear that the Prime Minister knew about the crime and corruption the other Randy was engaged in the entire time. That was not enough to remove him. He knew about the double identity but chose to look the other way. The Prime Minister knew that the member for Edmonton Centre was operating his own business while sitting at the cabinet table.

Members may remember that the former minister had the nerve to testify that the Randy referenced in texts was not him but another Randy who just happened to work at the company he has a 50% ownership stake in. His business partner has refuted these claims, stating now that he was the only Randy who worked at that company. I guess he thought if the Prime Minister was backing him, he could get away with it. After all, the Liberals have gotten away with a litany of scandals over their rocky nine-year tenure in government.

The Prime Minister knew he was falsely claiming to be indigenous to steal money from indigenous people. After firing a legitimate indigenous justice minister for upholding the rule of law in Canada against his wishes, the Prime Minister decided to protect a corrupt, fake indigenous minister. There is a double standard when it comes to the Liberals: They expect the rest of us to be responsible for our actions, but they are not accountable for theirs. Everything from Frank Baylis and the $273-million scandal to the former minister Navdeep Bains getting an executive position at Rogers after the government green-lit the Rogers-Shaw merger.

It is unconscionable. Every member of the House of Commons swears an oath to uphold the democratic institution of Parliament. Parliament is the foundation our nation was founded upon; it is a firm and solid base. As we come here to work every day, we are witnessing the rebuilding of Centre Block. The government is spending between $4.5 billion and $5 billion in part to provide a firm and solid foundation under that national treasure.

There is an old hymn whose refrain goes like this:

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand....

When we build a home, the foundation is arguably the most important part. Without a firm foundation, Centre Block would not be secure. Our security in a democracy is the firm foundation that our country was built upon. It provides the stability upon which we stand. When a democratic government rules as if it were a dictatorship, the supremacy and the stability of Parliament is lost. Freedom is not free.

Over 118,000 Canadians have died in military service for our country to keep this “land glorious and free”, a predominant line in our national anthem. It is time the government adhere to the principle of the rule of law in Canada. The fundamental principle of the rule of law means that everyone is subject to the same laws and no one is above the law. The rule of law is based on the idea that laws should be applied fairly and equally to all people, regardless of their power, wealth or societal position. It is time to restore accountability and democratic freedom in Canada.

Conservatives will continue to hold this government accountable and demand that the documents be released in an unredacted form. When will the government call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can vote out this out-of-control, corrupt government and vote in a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring home lower prices for all Canadians? For our home; for your home, Mr. Speaker; and for my home, let us bring it home.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, here we are, five weeks in, and we are still debating the Liberal government's refusal to produce documents relating to the latest scandal, the green slush fund scandal, as ordered by Parliament on June 10. This is the third time that I am rising to speak on this issue, so I want to take a slightly different approach. I want to talk about the legal principle of subsequent remedial measures in the law of evidence.

That rule says that evidence of a defendant or a possible defendant in a civil case effecting repairs to some obstacle that injured a person in order to avoid future similar injuries is not admissible in the court of law. The principle behind that is that we do not want to disincentivize people from actually making repairs to prevent future injuries. The example that is often given is when a homeowner repairs the steps up to the front door on which the postal delivery person was seriously injured the day before. Is doing the repair effectively an admission of liability? The answer is yes, probably, but here is the point. That evidence is not admissible in a court of law for the basic public policy principle that I stated before.

How does that apply to the current case relating to the green slush fund? A little bit of background is in order. The Auditor General revealed some shocking findings in her June 2024 report, which was tabled in Parliament on June 6, I believe, about how the Liberal government had turned SDTC, a federally governed and owned business, into a green slush fund for Liberal insiders.

Here are some of her findings. She found that SDTC gave out the following in taxpayer dollars: $58 million to 10 ineligible projects without even ensuring that contribution agreements were in place and the terms met. On some of them, the applicants could not even demonstrate the development of green technology or any environmental benefit at all. The purpose of SDTC was just ignored. There were $334 million and over 186 cases where there were clear conflicts of interest. This is board members at SDTC voting for each other's applicant grants, clearly a conflict of interest.

One of the whistle-blowers had this to say:

Just as I was always confident that the Auditor General would confirm the financial mismanagement at SDTC, I remain equally confident that the RCMP will substantiate the criminal activities that occurred within the organization.

This is very serious, not just mismanagement, but allegations from a credible source that there is criminal activity under way. Where there is smoke, there is fire. We, the opposition, did what we are supposed to do, which was to hold the government to account. Back in June, the Conservative Party put forward a motion in the House of Commons shortly after we received the Auditor General's report. That order reads, in part:

That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 30 days of the adoption of this order, the following documents....

There was then a long list of documents that had to be produced.

The Conservative motion passed on June 10 with the help of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. I thank them very much. It was only the Liberal members of Parliament who voted against it, because they were worried. They did not like it. They did not like the order. Over the summer months, they just ignored it. They delivered some of the documents but clearly not all.

When we got back here in September, things got ugly pretty quickly. Our House leader, the opposition House leader, on the first day back, rose on a question of privilege “concerning the failure of the government to comply with the order that the House adopted on Monday, June 10.”

That was presented to the Speaker, and the Speaker agreed with us, confirming that the Prime Minister's Office and all relevant government departments had not fully complied, but that they must comply with this order made in June for unredacted documents. At the time, the Speaker said, “The Chair cannot come to any other conclusion but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established.” In parliamentary terms, that is a serious allegation. There was a breach of privilege and that should have embarrassed the government.

It is pretty clear and easy to understand what the Speaker meant, so why are we still here, five weeks later, debating this question of privilege? The answer is simple. The Liberal government is still not complying with it. Why not? We do not know. The government has raised some smokescreens and innuendo, but it has not come clean to say why it is not complying. As long as that goes on, the longer this fiasco drags on, the more suspicious we become that perhaps the aforementioned whistle-blower is right that there was criminal activity going on here.

I want to get back to my original comments about the principle of subsequent remedial measures. Such evidence, as I said, is generally not admissible in a court of law. Did the Liberals actually take remedial action to try to fix SDTC after they claimed they were as surprised as the rest of us were that this corruption and mismanagement was going on? The answer is no, they did not do anything. As a matter of fact, they just wound up SDTC. There was so much corruption, so much smoke, so much contamination that even the Liberals were embarrassed by it. Rather than trying to fix it, they just wound it up altogether.

Now we are really suspicious, along with Canadians. What are the Liberals hiding? What was going on at STDC? Why are we not getting the documents? Canadians want to know. What does the Prime Minister's Office know? What is in those documents that the Liberals are refusing to produce? What are they hiding? Was there criminal activity? Can we recover some of the taxpayer money, $400 million altogether? Canadians deserve to know.

The total amount of money, as I said, was $400 million. What could we do with that money? We could do a lot of good, positive things, as the previous speaker, my colleague from Banff—Airdrie, just said. It could certainly help veterans and parents. It could help people who have been going to food banks who cannot afford groceries in these high inflationary times. Four hundred million dollars goes a long way to solve many problems. It could have been much better used than having it distributed by Liberal insiders among themselves.

I would like to compare this to the scandal of some years ago, the sponsorship scandal that brought down the previous Liberal government. That was only $40 million. This is 10 times as large. This is very significant and taxpayers, I think, need to understand what is going on here.

Things were not always corrupt at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It had a great reputation at one time. It was created by an act of Parliament back in the Liberal days of former prime minister Jean Chrétien to promote investing in green technology, a laudable goal. It continued its work under former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper and likely it would still be thriving today if the current Prime Minister had just resisted getting his fingerprints all over it. However, he just could not resist the temptation of putting his own friends in there. He and his industry minister at the time, Navdeep Bains, could not resist putting their own close friends in charge.

They fired the old board and put in their own friends. Many of them owned businesses that were applicants or potential applicants for grants under this program. Maybe somebody could have raised a red flag to say there was a lot of potential for conflict of interest, but that did not seem to concern anybody on the government side of the House. The result was that the Liberal-appointed board created an environment where conflicts of interest became the norm. Conflicts of interest were tolerated; they were managed.

In that orchestrated manner, these Liberal-appointed board members were able to, nicely, award grants to each other. This is the way it went: “Hey, you vote for my project, and I'll vote for your project.” That is what the whistle-blower told us. That is what the Auditor General uncovered. The Liberals broke SDTC, as they have broken so much else in Canada. I just want to raise a couple of examples.

Recent statistics from Statistics Canada about crime in Canada are really quite shocking. During nine years of the Liberal government, violent crime has increased by 50%. Homicides are up 28%. Sexual assaults are up by 75%. Gang violence has nearly doubled, and auto theft is up by 46%. Extortion is up by an astonishing 357%. Recently, the Liberal government has been forced to admit that 256 people were killed in 2022 by criminals who were out on bail or other forms of release.

This all happened under the Prime Minister's watch, with his Bill C-5, which eliminated many of the mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes, and Bill C-75, the catch-and-release bill that puts accused people out on bail on the least restrictive conditions possible. Canadians are concerned.

This is what our police are saying about the Liberals and how they have been mismanaging criminal law responsibilities and, specifically, their record on gun crime. The Toronto Police Association had this to say, speaking to the Prime Minister: “Criminals did not get your message. Our communities are experiencing a 45% increase in shootings and a 62% increase in gun-related homicides compared to...last year. What difference does your handgun ban make when 85% of guns seized by our members can be sourced to the United States?”

The Vancouver Police Union had this to say about the Prime Minister's record on managing gun crime: “Guessing he’s not aware of the ongoing gang war here in B.C. which is putting both our members and public at risk on a daily basis.”

The Surrey Police Union, right next door to my community of Langley, says, “The federal handgun freeze fails to address the real issue: the surge of illegal firearms coming across our borders and ending up in the hands of violent criminals.”

It is not just the police who are concerned about the drastic rise of crime in our streets and our cities. I heard from a group of CEOs and other directors of a group of downtown business improvement associations from across British Columbia. I am familiar with the work that business improvement associations do because I sat on the board of the Downtown Surrey BIA for a few years before I was elected to Parliament. That is where my law office was, so I am very familiar with the area and very familiar with the work the BIA does. I was happy to meet with this group to hear their concerns and their solutions to some of Canada's toughest problems.

I found it remarkable that this is what these community organizations are asking for. Number one is to invest in mental health, addictions and homelessness support across Canada. Indeed, homelessness is a problem right across Canada, but particularly so in our downtown cores. I am thinking of the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, which at one time was a beautiful place but is not anymore because of homelessness, crime and chaos.

The second ask is this, from the community organizers of our downtown cores: to ensure Canada's downtowns and main streets are safe and inclusive spaces by initiating a systematic review across the country concerning the bail system and implementing further changes to the system by reforming Bill C-48, which is a bill that went through the House not too long ago that took a small step in the direction of bail reform. They are saying it needs to be extended, not just for serious repeat violent offenders but also for theft offenders.

They are saying we need to stop the easy bail practices that have become the norm in Canada with the introduction of Bill C-75. The Vancouver Police Department talks about the same 40 individuals having negative interactions with the police 6,000 times in one year; that is every second day for 40 people. Imagine what the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver would look like if those 40 people were not on our streets. This is the message we are getting from community organizers.

The third thing they are asking for is to incentivize local entrepreneurs and commercial entities to form businesses in downtowns and on main streets. This is what they are asking for: give people shelter, keep repeat thieves off the streets, and create an environment where businesses and entrepreneurs come flocking back to the downtown core. This is what ordinary Canadian citizens want.

People are reporting that they feel less safe on our streets. Those fears are now being supported by evidence from Statistics Canada and from credible and, I would say, non-partisan organizations like police unions and business improvement associations.

The Attorney General should meet with people like that instead of just left-leaning law professors from Liberal-friendly law schools who teach their criminal law courses from a pro-accused perspective instead of from a pro-victim perspective. Our Attorney General would benefit, indeed, all of Canada would benefit, if he and the Prime Minister would listen to the concerns of ordinary Canadian citizens.

These are the things we should be talking about, or would be talking about if the Liberal government would just comply with the order so we could get down to business again. We should be talking about stopping the crime, building homes, implementing a fair and competitive tax regime by axing the tax, and fixing the Liberals' out-of-control, never-ending, inflation-producing deficit budgets.

Until the Liberals come to their senses and comply with the order, I guess we are just going to remain in this holding pattern. Here is a better idea: The Prime Minister could walk to the Governor General's house and acknowledge what everybody knows, that he has lost the confidence of this House and that the 44th Parliament should be dissolved and we should call an election. I spoke to many people when in my home community last week for Remembrance Day, as well as in the neighbouring community of Cloverdale—Langley City, where there is a by-election going on because the Liberal member of Parliament resigned.

I am hearing from people on the street that they are very anxious and eager to have a general election. They are happy with a by-election, but they want a general election. They want to stop the corruption, they want to fix what the Liberals have broken and they want a government that is going to have common-sense solutions.

Canadians deserve a government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Canadians deserve a government that does not play favourites for Liberal insiders but creates an environment where non-insiders can work and get ahead. They deserve a Canada that delivers on its promise to all who call it home: that hard work earns a powerful paycheque and pension, and buys affordable groceries and affordable homes on safe streets, in beautiful neighbourhoods, where anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything.

This is all achievable, but first, we need to have a general election and a common-sense Conservative government that will start working seriously on these issues that concern ordinary Canadians.

Public Safety

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the status of women committee, we heard testimony from Esther, a brave young woman from Nova Scotia. She came to Parliament to share her heart-wrenching story of the murder of her aunt by a repeat offender out on conditional release. She pleaded with the committee and the government to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which have become known as the catch-and-release and hug-a-thug policies of the Liberal-NDP government.

Although the leader of the NDP claims to have ripped up his contract with the Liberals, he supports these soft-on-crime policies that have led to a 75% increase in violent crimes against women.

Every day the Prime Minister remains in power, it is because of the leader of the NDP, who voted to support the carbon tax 24 times rather than to support women.

Public Safety and National Security

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to speak to the report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security entitled “A Path Forward: Reducing Gun and Gang Violence in Canada”.

This report was completed and tabled in April 2022, two and a half years ago. Now we want to debate and vote on this report. However, the report is no longer valid, given that a lot of information about public safety has changed in the past two and a half years. When we look at what was proposed in the report, it is important to first note that the report was not unanimous and that the three opposition parties all presented supplementary reports. The initial report, although lengthy, was not good enough for all the parties.

That is why we brought forward an amendment today calling for this study to be reopened in order to complete it and obtain much more up-to-date information on the public safety situation and the criminal use of firearms in Canada. We also need information on the rise of street gangs in cities across Canada.

We need to talk about this. We have known this for a long time, but, for the past nine years, it has always been clear to us that the Liberals and public safety are not synonymous. Measures were taken. Each time, the government said it was making investments, but the fact is, the right hand was spending money while the left was amending the Criminal Code to reduce the law's impact on criminals.

Consider Bill C‑5, which was brought into force, and Bill C‑75. Among other things, Bill C‑75 allows criminals to be arrested and released multiple times in the same day. Bill C‑5 allows criminals to serve jail time at home watching Netflix instead of in a penitentiary, where they belong. The public figured that out pretty quickly when these bills came into force. Most police services and victim protection groups have said it makes no sense. The report was tabled two and a half years ago, and nothing has been done about it since. Meanwhile, the government has enacted bills that have made the public safety situation in this country even worse.

The report contains a number of recommendations. One of them calls on the government to acknowledge the fact that a public safety problem exists. This is unbelievable. The idea that the committee would have to tell the government to wake up because we have a problem is disturbing enough.

On top of that, a huge number of witnesses who appeared before the committee clearly told us that the gun crime problem was not caused by registered gun owners. Representatives of the Toronto Police Association, the Toronto Police Service and police associations in Quebec and across the country told us the same thing. We have been saying this for a long time, and the witnesses confirmed it.

Unfortunately, the main report neglected to take the police recommendations into account. The Conservative Party had to draft a supplementary report to highlight the various recommendations made by these organizations, which clearly explain that street gangs and criminals are using trafficked guns arriving mainly from the United States. They say that over 80% of crimes involve guns that are not registered anywhere and were purchased illegally. That is the real problem. That is the main problem right there.

Rather than tackling the main problem, the recommendations call for guns to be taken away from all Canadians who have firearms licenses. This led to the infamous 2020 ban, which sought to take away all firearms. The Liberals and the Bloc Québécois were scaring Canadians by saying that law-abiding gun owners were criminals. Meanwhile, real crimes are being committed in the dark, behind the scenes. That is the problem.

I have a firearms licence myself, and I own guns. I am a law-abiding citizen and my guns are registered. I have been vetted. I am a member of a gun club. I do what I have to do. All gun owners are law-abiding citizens. However, the thugs on the streets of Montreal who drive around with guns hidden in their cars did not buy their guns at a firearms retailer. They bought them on the black market. They commit their crimes with these weapons, and they do not care.

It is important to understand that it is going to cost at least $3 billion to buy back the firearms that law-abiding citizens, who are doing nothing wrong, have at home. We could take that money and invest it in control mechanisms for the police, for the border, so that we can work with Akwesasne to check what is illegally entering the country. Unfortunately, that is an area where there is a lot of gun trafficking. The reserve abuts the U.S. and Canada in both Ontario and Quebec. We need to focus our efforts on gun control. That is where we need to put our energy and money. We should not be buying back firearms from law-abiding citizens, hunters and sport shooters who have done nothing wrong.

We have been talking about this for years. We are not even close to reaching an agreement. I do not know why my Liberal, Bloc Québécois and NDP colleagues cannot understand this logic. Instead of saying that this is what we should do, they are trying to scare people. We need to crack down on criminals. That is where we need to focus our efforts and investments. That is the situation with gun control.

Arms trafficking is another issue. We are talking about crime on the streets, especially the rise in gang crime. Even the Hells Angels are afraid of these criminals. They are incredibly violent and dangerous. Every police force and victims' group will say that this is the biggest problem. I introduced Bill C‑325, which was unfortunately blocked by the Liberals and the NDP. Its aim was to undo the legislation that came out of Bill C‑5. That law is completely stupid. When criminals on the streets saw it, they rubbed their hands together with glee and thanked the Prime Minister because now they can go about committing crime without the least bit of concern. At worst, they will serve a prison sentence at home. They will take a little break, drink a beer, watch Netflix, and then go back out on the street. They will not be out of commission for long. That is what is happening; we predicted it.

We said during debate that this was what was going to happen, as in the case of Bill C-75, and it is happening. It is happening now. None of the studies that were done prior to Bill C-5 and Bill C‑75 mention it. That is why we need to reopen the committee's study. We need to confirm what has been happening for the past two and a half years, since these two laws were passed and came into force. Crime has skyrocketed. If we do not, the current report might as well just sit on a shelf. It is really not up to date. Things have changed, and that is because the government has implemented completely stupid measures.

When it comes to firearms, Conservatives think that law-abiding citizens, sport shooters and hunters who have a licence and who are monitored should be left alone. First, Canada's laws are very strict. It is very complicated to own a gun. People who do own guns obey the law. Measures already exist. They are already in place. Why is the government attacking these people?

Second, we have to go back to the criminal side of things, strengthen the criminal laws, undo the laws that came out of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, restore order in the Criminal Code to allow judges and police officers to do their work and apply justice that is reasonable and makes the streets safer. It is simple, really. The rest is political gobbledygook that I do not understand.

I was the Conservative Party public safety critic for three years. I heard people, Liberal and NDP colleagues, say all sorts of things. I wondered what planet they were living on. We are not dealing with the same reality. We might say that there are virtual realities in Canada. We do not all have two feet on the ground.

Let us come back to the report and the recommendations. The Conservatives' supplementary opinion was essentially what I am saying today. That is what we want. That is what police services want. The victims' groups I met with, who supported my Bill C‑325, do not understand what the government, backed by the other parties, has done. They want us to restore order to this country.

It is simple. Change the law. Restore order. Instead of buying back firearms from law-abiding citizens, put money into border control to help police services do their job. That will solve the vast majority of the problems in this country.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberals are not worth the crime or the chaos that they have unleashed on Canada's streets. This study on gun and gang violence was conducted back in 2022, two years ago. In rereading our common-sense Conservative recommendations and conclusions that were made at that committee and in that report, I see that everything we said at the time has come to pass. Liberal policies have done nothing to stop gun crime in this country. The legacy of the current Liberal government will be a weak justice system, the absence of good enforcement and a border that is leaking smuggled guns and stolen cars as it never has before. In fact, violent gun crime has increased by over 100% since the Prime Minister took office with the current government.

Now, the Prime Minister has been saying that he will ban the firearms of law-abiding Canadians while completely ignoring the crime wave that his government has unleashed with its soft-on-crime policies. After nine years, committing a crime and getting away with it has never been easier.

Professional organized criminals are taking note; they are taking full advantage of the government's soft-on-crime policies. Canada has become a massive exporter of stolen cars and a net importer of illegal firearms under the current Liberal government. At one time in 2022, there was a vehicle being stolen every five minutes in Canada, and we know what these stolen vehicles are used for. They are used to fund organized crime and international terrorism, as well as to finance the purchase of drugs and guns, which are wreaking havoc on our streets.

These sophisticated, industrial-level organized criminals are targeting Canada precisely because of the soft-on-crime policies of the government. Auto theft is not a victimless crime, despite what some have said. It is a crime that costs all Canadians because our insurance premiums go up; moreover, as we increasingly see, these desperate criminals are carjacking people's vehicles in broad daylight. In fact, in some cases, vehicles are being stolen with children sitting in the back seat. It is an absolute disgrace. Why does it only take $1 billion in insured losses in our auto-theft sector for the government to finally start taking action?

Conservatives have been consistent in calling out the Liberal government's abysmal record. In fact, back in 2022, at the public safety committee, we had the then chief of the Toronto Police Service come to testify about the government's gun buyback programs.

I asked the chief of police, “If the government's policy was that they wanted to buy hard drugs off the street [in a drug buyback] as a means to reduce the proliferation of drugs on the street, would that be an effective tool to get hard drugs off the street?”

This is what Chief Demkiw said: “I do not believe it would be an effective tool.”

To that, I responded, “Then why should it be effective for gun policy?”

His response was:

I would not suggest it was effective for gun policy. The City of Toronto's experience is that guns that are being used in crime are not from law-abiding citizens. They're guns being smuggled from the United States. Those engaged in handling those firearms are not law-abiding, licensed gun owners; they are criminals with no firearms licence.

That is coming from the Toronto chief of police. The Liberals have now squandered $70 million, and they are promising to spend over $1 billion more on this gun confiscation program. They have yet to seize a single firearm. Conservatives, experts and frontline police officers have all said that this is a flawed approach to crime on our streets.

Let us talk about this border under the Liberals. Conservatives have repeatedly said that this gun confiscation regime was useless. Taxpayer money needs to be spent on the technology and the manpower to secure our borders. The brave men and women of the CBSA have not been given the proper support by the government. At the public safety committee in 2022, the CBSA union representative said, “not only is Canada's ability to prevent smuggling lacking, but its capacity to gather reliable and sound data is also inadequate.” That is after nine years of the current Liberal government.

The Liberals can come here and talk about what the Conservatives did, but they have had nine years to take action, and this is what the CBSA union is saying today. Moreover, the representative said, “[T]here's...a zero per cent chance that any illegal weapons entering the country via rail will ever be found.” There is a huge gap at our border.

Canadians have lost faith. As we saw with numerous alleged cases of terrorists who crossed our borders in this past year alone, we have seen ISIS-inspired terrorists evade our borders. United States border statistics have shown that, in 2023, there were 484 matches on the U.S. terrorist watch-list at land ports of entry along the Canada-U.S. border. Since 2017, these numbers have gone up by 123%.

How many more of these terrorists are being allowed to cross the border from Canada into the United States? Why is Canada not taking action to protect our border and to assure our ally that we are taking the necessary actions needed not only to protect Canadians but also to protect our allies?

With crime and chaos skyrocketing, police unions have come out publicly. I have never seen such a thing. It is quite unprecedented. They have taken the step of calling out the government's failed record. I am just going to quote some of these police experts. We have the chief of Peel Regional Police, who said that “90 per cent of...firearms that we seize are directly traced back to the U.S.” and that “the remaining 10% are likely also from the U.S.” He also said, “The availability of firearms has just saturated the community”.

The Surrey Police union is saying, “The federal handgun freeze fails to address the real issue: the surge of illegal firearms coming across our borders”. The Toronto Police Association says, “What difference does [their] handgun ban make when 85 per cent of the guns seized by our members can be sourced to the United States?” The National Post says, “Peel Police are seizing an illegal gun...every 30 hours — an 87 per cent increase over the year prior.”

People can maybe say that they like the government's intent, but if we are judging it by the outcome of this policy, it has been an abysmal failure. In fact, back in 2022, when we had the previous minister of public safety come to committee, he was more concerned about Canadians who are going to the RCMP and the Canadian firearms program and getting their firearms licence than he was about stopping organized criminals from smuggling guns over our border and committing crimes in Canada. That just shows us what the priorities of the Liberal government have been after these last nine years.

Liberals prefer to go after law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and indigenous hunters rather than the real criminals, whom they are giving softer bail sentences to. They are cutting minimum sentences. They are not doing anything to stop the flow of illegal guns over our border or that of stolen vehicles leaving our country.

The Prime Minister's radical catch-and-release policies are allowing repeat violent offenders to avoid jail. Since the government passed Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which gave a high priority to releasing repeat violent offenders and took away mandatory jail time for certain violent crimes, a crime wave has been unleashed across this country as a result.

Data shows that, in 2022, 30% of people who were murdered in Canada were killed by somebody who was out on bail. The outcome of these Liberal policies is shocking. Regardless of what we think about the Liberals' intent, the outcome has been an abject failure. Experts at committee have also said that 68% of car thieves in Ontario spend under six months in jail. These are the ideal conditions for organized criminals, who are carrying out violent crime on our streets, and our communities now offer a low risk but a high reward for criminals.

In conclusion, in 2015, our country was far safer than it is now. We have become a huge exporter of stolen vehicles. We have also become an exporter of fentanyl. Canada has become the top exporter of fentanyl to the country of Australia. It is absolutely shameful. Canada is becoming a playground for organized crime, and criminals are using our country's lax laws to commit mayhem, bringing crime, death and destruction across the world. This was not the case before the Prime Minister came into power, and it will not be the case after the Conservative government gets into power. We are going to axe the tax, fight the crime, get rid of the corruption and make our streets safe.

With that, I would like to move an amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, presented on Monday, April 25, 2022, be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the committee for further consideration, with a view to studying the rates of violent crime which have remained unacceptably high in the 31 months since this report was originally tabled, and updating the recommendations with proposals to stop the crimes which are creating far too many preventable tragedies, provided that, for the purposes of this study:

(a) the following be ordered to appear as witnesses, for at least two hours each, at dates and times to be fixed by the Chair of the committee, but no later than Tuesday, December 17, 2024:

(i) the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs,

(ii) the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; and

(b) it be an instruction that the committee

(i) hold at least four other meetings to receive evidence from law enforcement, victims' representatives, stakeholders and experts, proposed by the members of the committee,

(ii) invite representatives of the following organizations:

(A) the Toronto Police Association,

(B) the Surrey Police Union,

(C) la Fédération des policiers et policières municipaux du Québec,

(D) the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and

(E) the John Howard Society of Canada, and

(iii) report its findings to the House by Friday, February 28, 2025.”

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member for Winnipeg North was not listening to my remarks. I was talking about Bill C-75, which was passed by the Liberals with support from the NDP in 2019. That is what caused all of the mayhem that police are now having to deal with. The member is talking about Bill C-48. Bill C-48 was a seven-page bill in contrast to Bill C-75 that was 200 pages. It was a measly effort for the Liberals to say they were doing something about bail. That passed well over a year ago and it obviously has done nothing to help.

In fact, if the member does not believe me, as he is saying I am spreading misinformation, let us hear from the Toronto Police. I will just conclude on this. The Toronto Police Association, which represents 8,000 police officers, said, “ Our communities are experiencing a 45% increase in shootings and a 62% increase in gun-related homicides compared to this time last year. What difference does your handgun ban make when 85% of guns seized by our members can be sourced to the United States?” It continued with, “Your statement is out of touch and offensive to victims of crime and police officers everywhere.” That is what the police say to the Liberal government.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, presented on Monday, April 25, 2022, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

Today, we are discussing a report from the public safety and national security committee about guns and gangs, and frankly, we have been on this for quite some time. We began this study over three years ago, and boy oh boy have things gone downhill since then regarding gangs, guns and gun violence in this country. In fact, over the last nine years of the Liberal government, gun violence has gone up 116%, despite all of the announcements and all of the promises. We see that every day in the headlines.

Violent crime has doubled in the past nine years. Sexual assaults are up 75%. Sexual violations against children are up 120%. Canadians may be wondering why their once safe neighbourhoods have become havens for criminals. Why do we keep hearing announcements from the Liberals that something will be done about gun violence yet it is getting worse?

One of the reasons is the soft-on-crime legislation the Liberal government continues to bring forward. In 2019, the Liberals brought forward Bill C-75, which was specifically to reform the bail system. Members may have heard about the bail system from police and premiers across the country, because in the last few years, police associations, police unions and premiers from every political stripe have been screaming for change from the Liberal government. Of course, that has been falling on deaf ears.

They are demanding bail reform because it is exhausting our police services. They are unable to keep up and keep our communities safe because of the catch-and-release policies brought forward by Bill C-75. They are rearresting the same repeat violent offenders every other day, who are apparently going without being held accountable under the current Liberal government. We can see that right in the legislation. The aim of Bill C-75 was to bring forward the least onerous conditions for bail. In essence, it made bail the default position for violent repeat offenders.

That was in 2019. Here we are a few years later, and the impacts of that legislation have really come home to roost. Gangs and those committing violent gun crime in our communities are getting off scot-free in the revolving door of the so-called justice system under the Liberal government.

That same year, we saw Bill C-83, which made changes to the parole system so that it was least restrictive. Some people may wonder what all these things mean. These are legal terms. Unless they are a Crown prosecutor, it is difficult to understand them. For Bill C-83, I will talk a bit about what the Harper government was doing. Remember that under the Harper government, violent crime went down 26% and there was a decrease in gun violence in Canada. However, since the Liberals have come in, there has been over a 50% increase in violent crime and, as I said, over a 100% increase in gun violence.

If we look at Bill C-83, we see the priority for parole. Again, this is about violent offenders in jail with reason: They have committed atrocities in neighbourhoods, have hurt innocent people, have used guns illegally and have been involved in gangs causing crime and chaos in our streets. Under the Harper government, the parole parameters were as follows:

the Service uses measures that are consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders and that are limited to only what is necessary and proportionate to attain the purposes of this Act

The number one priority under Harper, under a tough-on-crime government that saw a decrease in violent crime among parolees, was for Correctional Services to use “measures that are consistent with the protection of society”. Under Bill C-83, under the Liberals, this was changed to the following:

the Service uses the least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders

The first priority became the least restrictive measures. That is important in a legal context. That signals to the Parole Board, corrections, judges and lawyers that the priority is the least restrictive measures.

Bill C-83 also facilitated, as we have heard, the movement of folks from maximum to medium to minimum security. For example, with Paul Bernardo, we have heard a lot about this in the last year. Bill C-83 helped facilitate his move from maximum security, where he should spend the rest of his days, to medium security. This bill has further permitted actions like that.

These bills have an impact. We debated them. The Conservatives fiercely fought these bills. We said this was going to happen and, of course, it did happen.

Since I have been elected, Bill C-5 has passed, in 2022. This bill, astoundingly, had soft-on-crime measures for criminals committing violent acts with guns. It removed mandatory prison time for individuals who commit drive-by shootings, robbery with a gun and extortion with a gun, or who discharge a firearm with intent to injure or use a firearm in the commission of an offence. All of these things had mandatory prison time. Someone who did a horrible crime and endangered their neighbourhood and community would go to jail for sure. They would be removed from society for a while, and rightly so, but Bill C-5 took away that requirement and, in fact, codified house arrest for a number of offences, like sexual assault. Someone can rape someone and serve their sentence in the comfort of their home. The priority of the Liberal government in bill after bill is making parole and bail easier to get for violent offenders and having less accountability and less jail time for people who commit gun crime.

We now have police associations across the country calling out the Liberals for their lack of action. Actually, that is not true. They have done a lot of things, have they not? They have done a lot of things on guns, but what they have not done is gone after the people responsible for gun violence. They have gone after people like me and the colleagues behind me, law-abiding citizens with firearms, which have been in Canada since its inception. They are part of our heritage of hunting and sport shooting and competing in the Olympics, and represent national pride.

That has been the target for the Liberals over the last nine years, people like us, innocent, law-abiding Canadians. They are the least likely to commit crime. Why is that? They are heavily vetted by the RCMP. They are tested. They are trained. We should take pride in our system, which ensures that only lawful, responsible people can own firearms. That is how it should be, yet those people have been the targets and punching bags, repeatedly, of the Liberal government.

Over and over, the Liberals fought election platforms targeting these people. Our hunters, like Grandpa Joe with his hunting rifle, have been the number one target of the Liberal government over the last nine years. Gang violence is up, violent crime is up and gun violence is up, and meanwhile, legislation after legislation is coming after lawful gun owners. That is going to cost the taxpayer billions of dollars.

We know about the Liberals' so-called buyback program, which is a misnomer because they are not buying back anything but confiscating lawfully owned property from lawful Canadians. So far, their confiscation regime has not taken one firearm from the hands of criminals and has already cost the taxpayer $100 million. It will purportedly cost, when all is said and done, as high as $6 billion. That is to go after Grandpa Joe while the Liberals, with their legislation, let criminals in and out of jail, with no jail time in many circumstances, and out early if they do finally get to jail for committing violent gun crime.

That is the priority of the Liberal government. That is why we are in this situation today. Those in Brampton, for example, see headlines every single day. The police, who are on the front lines risking their lives every day to protect society, saying goodbye to their families in the morning and praying that they come home, have to face these gangbangers every day. They know them on a first-name basis because they have arrested them so many times.

What are the police saying? They are saying that 85%, minimum, of the firearms and handguns smuggled in from the United States are being used in crimes. That is where the problem is coming from: violent criminals smuggling guns into Canada from the United States. We need to do better at our border. We need to ensure that police are being invested in. We need to ensure that legislative tools are being put in place that finally hold criminals accountable after getting off scot-free over the last nine years.

Ultimately, we will have a lot of work to do should the Conservatives get into government in the next number of months. Priority number one is going to be to stop the crime, cut taxes, of course, and finally make life more affordable. Stopping the crime is going to be a top priority for our government, finally holding criminals accountable. That is our mission, and we will fulfill that for communities and keep them safe.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise once again to address the sweeping corruption that grips the NDP-Liberal government here in Ottawa. Parliament is consumed with the issue of the Liberal government refusing to turn over unredacted documents to the RCMP for a criminal investigation.

These documents pertain to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, better known as the green slush fund. I have already spoken extensively on this issue, as did the Auditor General, I may add, so I am in good company. I encourage everyone to check out my Facebook and Twitter feeds to see my deep dive into the green slush fund and other Liberal criminal wrongdoings. For example, in today's case, these documents have been blotted out by the Liberals and, as a result, the police are at a standstill, but is this a surprise? In our country, police investigations of possible wrongdoing and criminal activity are not just esoteric questions confined to the Prime Minister and his cadre of NDP advisers. Crime is real.

The government may not take crime seriously, something they are demonstrating here by failing to provide to the RCMP documents that may very well hide criminal actions and connections to Liberal insiders, potentially even Liberal MPs or ministers, but crime is a crisis gripping our nation. It is a crisis that affects every community, family and Canadian.

I am speaking about the devastating convergence of drugs and crime, two interconnected issues that have spiralled out of control under the NDP-Liberal government's watch. This crisis is not about abstract statistics. It is about real people. It is about the family grieving the loss of a loved one to a fentanyl overdose, the shopkeeper who no longer feels safe in their store and parents who are afraid to let their children play in local parks because of discarded needles and drug paraphernalia. This is a crisis that touches all of us, and it demands immediate, decisive action.

For too long, the Liberal government, propped up by its NDP allies, have implemented reckless ideological policies that have not only failed to solve these problems but also made them worse. Their so-called evidence-based approaches have emboldened criminals, exacerbated addiction and left Canadians feeling less safe in their own communities. It is unacceptable. The Conservative Party offers a clear, common-sense alternative. We believe in holding criminals accountable, in prioritizing recovery over enabling addiction and ensuring that every Canadian can feel safe in their home, their neighbourhood and their workplace. All of this is against the backdrop of a government that commits scandal after scandal.

This discussion here today is only the latest one, which is the refusal of the government to provide the unredacted documents to the RCMP so it can determine if there were actual crimes committed. When we have a federal government so quick to bend the rules, and possibly even commit crimes, is it any wonder that we have a larger crime and drug problem in this country?

To address this crisis effectively, we must begin by understanding the root causes. Drug addiction and crime are deeply intertwined, each fuelling the other in a vicious cycle that devastates individuals, families and communities. The opioid crisis is a prime example. Since 2015, Canada has seen an explosion in opioid-related deaths, driven by the rise of synthetic drugs, such as fentanyl. These substances are cheap, potent and deadly. Between January 2016 and September 2022, over 35,000 Canadians lost their lives to opioid overdoses. In my home province, the Saskatchewan Coroners Service recorded eight deaths by fentanyl poisoning in 2016. Deaths by fentanyl poisoning peaked at 272 in 2021, during COVID, and levelled out at 252 in 2023.

Addiction is not just a personal struggle. It is also a societal failure. The current government's response has been to normalize and enable drug use through policies such as safe supply and harm reduction. These programs are based on the flawed assumption that addiction is a permanent condition that cannot be overcome. This defeatist mindset ignores the potential for recovery and consigns individuals to a life of dependency.

At the same time, our justice system has been systematically weakened. Bills such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have prioritized the rights of offenders over the safety of law-abiding citizens. These laws have made it easier for repeat offenders to obtain bail, have reduced sentences for violent crimes and have eliminated mandatory minimums for serious offences. The result is a justice system that no longer serves justice. We cannot afford any more years of inaction or misguided ideology.

It is time to chart a course built on accountability, safety and recovery. These are important words. We need accountability here in Ottawa, like today as we debate this motion on the green slush fund and the possible criminal wrongdoing of the NDP-Liberal government in funnelling money through the green slush fund. Why do I say “possible wrongdoing”? Well, it is because the Liberals are blocking this Conservative motion to release the unredacted documents necessary for the RCMP to investigate.

It is amazing that the Liberal Party has prioritized itself and its own selfish needs over the safety of Canadians, selfish needs like funnelling government cash to their friends through the green slush fund. How do I know that? Well, just look at the Liberals' legislative record when it comes to criminal matters.

The NDP-Liberals passed Bill C-5, which purposely took accountability and punishment out of the courts. Since the passage of Bill C-5, violent crime and drug-related offences have skyrocketed. Repeat offenders, no longer deterred by the threat of significant prison time, have become more brazen. Police officers across the country report increased difficulty in keeping dangerous individuals off the streets, knowing they will likely be released with minimal consequences. Simply put, Bill C-5 replaced prison sentences with conditional sentences, better known as house arrest, for crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, stealing cars, breaking and entering, arson, assault with a weapon, assaulting peace officers, and trafficking in dangerous narcotics and drugs.

The introduction of house arrest for these serious crimes is quite troubling. House arrest may be appropriate for minor, non-violent offences, but it is entirely inadequate for crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping or drug trafficking. This policy not only fails to hold offenders accountable, but also places an undue burden on victims and their communities. Imagine the trauma of knowing that one's assailant is serving their sentence just blocks away from one's home. One particular harrowing example is the case of a violent offender released on house arrest who subsequently commits additional crimes. This revolving door justice system undermines public trust in the legal system and places innocent Canadians in harm's way. That is why we need accountability restored to our criminal justice system.

Unfortunately, accountability is lacking in this justice system, which is why common-sense Conservatives brought forward the motion we are debating today to turn this criminal matter over to the RCMP. Indeed, common-sense Conservatives have put forward strong policy proposals on criminal justice matters since the last election. Perhaps the government, which is so intent on avoiding accountability around the criminal wrongdoings of the green slush fund, as well as everyday, common-sense Canadians, would like to hear about them. Perhaps this could distract from other conflicts of interest.

Conservative members have introduced numerous private members' bills designed to correct the failures of Bill C-5 and address the broader issues plaguing Canada's justice system. First, Bill C-299, the strengthening penalties for sexual exploitation act, seeks to increase the maximum penalty for offences like human trafficking and child exploitation to life imprisonment. While the Liberals redacted their scandals, we introduced Bill C-321, the protecting first responders and health care workers act, which proposes harsher penalties for assaults against first responders and health care workers. While the Liberals hid their wrongdoing with redacted documents, we introduced Bill C-394, the restoring mandatory sentences for drug trafficking act, which would reinstate mandatory jail time for criminals involved in producing, importing and trafficking dangerous drugs like fentanyl and cocaine. These bills tackle the root causes of rising crime. Rising crime requires urgent solutions, yet the Liberal government chooses in the House to defend redacted records and questionable spending on the green slush fund rather than tackling the root causes of crime.

These next two Conservative bills would make sure that criminals stay in prison and do not revictimize people over and over again. Bill C-325, the ensuring dangerous offenders stay behind bars act, would prohibit dangerous repeat offenders from serving sentences in the community. Bill C-296, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, would ensure that individuals convicted of heinous crimes, such as the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim, serve life sentences without parole for up to 40 years.

There is more. While the Liberals were giving money to their friends and hiding the evidence in these redacted documents, we introduced Bill C-351 to end least restrictive conditions for dangerous offenders, which would ensure that prisoners are confined under conditions necessary for public safety rather than trying to make criminals feel more comfortable. This change would keep dangerous individuals like Paul Bernard, in maximum-security facilities where they belong. I spoke to this bill when it was debated in the House, and the other side voted it down, voting in favour of Paul Bernardo.

These private members' bills reflect the core principles of the Conservative Party's broader justice reform agenda. Canadians can count on Conservatives to stop the erosion of public trust in the criminal justice system. The erosion of public trust caused by increasing crime mirrors the corruption and opacity surrounding the green slush fund, both of which harm the fabric of Canadian society, which is my point here today. If the Liberals would simply hand over the unredacted documents, we could get on with business here in Ottawa. We could get on with the important things Canadians are demanding, and one of those things is stopping crime.

Our Conservative plan to stop the crime includes the following pillars.

Number one is restoring mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes, drug trafficking and serious sexual offences. Mandatory minimum sentences are essential to ensure accountability and public safety.

Number two is implementing jail, not bail. Repeat violent offenders would no longer be released back into the community on bail. We would prioritize the safety of law-abiding Canadians over the convenience of criminals.

Number three is expanding treatment and recovery options. A Conservative government would invest in detox and rehabilitation programs, ensuring that individuals struggling with addiction have a path to recovery.

Number four is supporting law enforcement. We would provide police with the tools and resources they need to combat organized crime and drug trafficking effectively. This includes reversing the NDP-Liberal government's restrictions on law enforcement powers under Bill C-75.

Number five is enhancing victims' rights. Conservatives would ensure that victims of crime are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. This includes greater transparency in parole decisions and increased support for victims and their families.

It is important that Canadians understand the Conservative approach to these criminal matters, such as the possible criminal wrongdoing that we are debating here today. Today, we are debating documents that, once this Conservative motion is adopted, will allow the RCMP to conduct a proper and formal probe into NDP-Liberal actions around the so-called green slush fund. Unfortunately, the Liberals have chosen to paralyze Parliament rather than adopt our common-sense motion and release those documents.

While Conservatives propose common-sense solutions, the NDP-Liberals engage in one misguided policy decision after another, and the consequences of misguided NDP-Liberal policies are clear. Violent crime in Canada has increased by 39% since 2015. Homicides are up 43% and gang-related murders have more than doubled. In Toronto, sexual assaults have risen by over 11% in the past year alone. The link between drugs and crime is undeniable. Drug users desperate to fund their habits often turn to theft, burglary and other crimes. Organized crime groups capitalize on this desperation, using drugs as a tool to trap individuals and expand their influence. Public Safety Canada has stated that the illegal drug trade is a key driver of gang violence and organized crime.

The situation is particularly dire in British Columbia, where the government's experiment with decriminalization and harm reduction has backfired catastrophically. Drug overdose deaths in the province have increased by 380% since 2015, and this year alone, B.C. is on track to recording more overdose deaths than in any previous year. The evidence is clear. These policies are not working. The human cost of this crisis cannot be overstated.

Canadians are paying the price for the NDP-Liberal government's failed policies in very real ways. In Saskatoon, the police department's crime map reveals a city increasingly plagued by violence, theft and drug-related offences. Parents in neighbourhoods like Riversdale and Fairhaven tell me that they are afraid to let their children play outside. Small business owners report break-ins and vandalism at unprecedented levels.

The opioid crisis has also placed an enormous burden on our health care system. Emergency room visits for overdoses have skyrocketed, straining resources and diverting attention from other medical emergencies. First responders, already stretched thin, are now dealing with an epidemic of overdoses and drug-related violence. The emotional toll on these frontline workers is immense. It is an emotional toll that comes from the challenges of crime gripping our communities. This emotional toll reflects the consequences of a government more focused on rewarding insiders through the green slush fund than on ensuring the safety and well-being of Canadians.

Let me repeat the sad statistic of the green slush fund. The Auditor General found 186 cases where board members doled out $400 million with clear conflicts of interest. The Liberals were taking taxpayer money and giving it to their friends and each other. That is shameful.

An emotional toll is being paid by Canadians, who are suffering through the current government of the costly NDP-Liberal Prime Minister. The NDP-Liberals have wasted billions of dollars of Canadians' money on wasteful so-called green projects through Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The sad truth is that it is being funded through Canadians' carbon tax dollars.

All common-sense Canadians know that when we slap a massive carbon tax on the farmer, then on the transport truck bringing the food to grocery shelves and then on the grocery stores themselves, the price of food goes up. It is called inflation, and boy have Canadians suffered through inflation because of the carbon tax. It is simple: Canada is in crisis. Food Banks Canada's 2024 HungerCount report highlights this stark reality. In Saskatchewan, food bank usage has surged by 42% since 2019. Alarmingly, 23% of food bank users in the province are two-parent families and 18% are employed. It is a glaring sign that something is deeply wrong when hard-working Canadians cannot afford basic necessities.

This crisis is not limited to Saskatchewan; it is a nationwide issue. Since last year, business bankruptcies have climbed 16% while personal bankruptcies are up 14%. Do members know who is not starving? It is the NDP-Liberal insiders, who have funnelled millions of dollars of cash into their pockets from SDTC. That is who. Families and business alike are struggling under the weight of skyrocketing costs and failing policies. The Prime Minister's sunny ways of 2015 have turned into a storm of economic disaster, and it is clear that the government is not worth the cost.

That is why Conservatives have a plan to restore hope and opportunity. We will axe the tax to lower costs for families. We will build the homes that Canadians desperately need. We will fix the budget to end inflationary spending and we will stop the crime that threatens our communities. Canadians are ready for a change, and it is time for an election to bring it home. Conservatives are ready to fix what is broken and restore a brighter future for all.

Fixing the budget is part of the solution to increase public trust right here in Canada. Fixing the budget means respecting the demand of Parliament and finally releasing the documents about Sustainable Development Technology Canada, the so-called green slush fund. By releasing the documents to the RCMP, it can address the criminal aspects of this matter, because crime is crime. It does not matter if it is committed in the House by the government or on the street. Crime makes Canadians less secure. While crime rates surge across Canada, it is alarming that the government continues to block transparency around public funds, funnelling taxpayer dollars into dubious projects like this green slush fund instead of addressing public safety.

The Conservative Party offers a clear, common-sense plan to address the twin crises of drugs and crime. Our approach is rooted in three pillars: accountability, recovery and prevention.

First and foremost, we must restore accountability in our justice system. A Conservative government will repeal Bill C-75 and bring back mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes. These measures will ensure that dangerous offenders are kept off the streets and that justice is served. We will also implement a jail-not-bail policy for repeat violent offenders. Canadians deserve to know that individuals who pose a threat to public safety will remain behind bars while awaiting trial. Restoring such accountability is one step toward a brighter future that must not only stop the crime, but also address the NDP-Liberal government's disregard for fiscal responsibility, epitomized by the green slush fund scandal, which diverted resources from public safety.

We will also prioritize recovery over enabling addiction. The current government's safe supply program has been an unmitigated disaster, with up to 90% of prescribed drugs being diverted to the black market. The Conservative government will end this program and redirect funding to treatment and recovery initiatives. We will expand access to detox and rehabilitation programs, working with provinces to increase the number of treatment beds and support recovery-oriented systems of care. Programs like the Saskatoon drug treatment court, which offers alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders struggling with addiction, are good examples to follow.

Finally, we will invest in prevention. This includes supporting law enforcement efforts to dismantle organized crime networks and reduce the supply of illegal drugs. It also means educating young Canadians about the dangers of drug use and providing at-risk communities with the resources they need to thrive. How can Canadians feel secure when their government prioritizes schemes like the green slush fund over investments in policing and justice reform?

The crisis of drugs and crime demand immediate and decisive action. Canadians are tired of living in fear. They are tired of a government that prioritizes ideology over safety, that experiments with their lives rather than protecting them. They are tired of a government that gives their hard-earned tax dollars to Liberal friends and insiders and covers it all up by refusing to release the documents to the RCMP.

The Conservative Party is ready to lead. We will end the failed policies of the past decade and implement a common-sense approach to crime that prioritizes safety, accountability and recovery. We will bring back mandatory jail time for violent offenders, end taxpayer-funded drug dens and invest in treatment and prevention programs that actually work.

It is time to bring it home. It is time to restore safety to our streets, hope to our communities and dignity to every Canadian. I urge my colleagues in the House to join us on this mission. Together, we can build a safer, stronger Canada.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, at a time when Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables, when the dream of home ownership in Canada is just that, a dream for many young Canadians, and when our country is plagued by so many other serious challenges brought upon us by the failed policies of this incompetent and reckless NDP-Liberal government, here we are again this afternoon continuing debate on the government's failure to live up to its responsibilities and the Speaker's order to produce important documents pertaining to the Sustainable Development Technology Canada green slush fund scandal. In fact, this is my second time speaking to this important issue.

Today, I am here debating the amendment that would replace the reporting date of Friday, November 22, with the following: “the 30th sitting day following the adoption of this order”. This change makes sense given the uncertainty around when debate on this important issue will finish. No one knows for sure when that will be, but the Conservatives are doing our part in holding this corrupt Liberal government to account until it hands over the ordered and unredacted SDTC documents to the RCMP.

While Friday, November 22, sounds far away, it is in fact just around the corner when we consider that Remembrance Day is on Monday, and next week all members of Parliament will be in their constituencies catching up with their constituents, local stakeholders and their families. By the time we return to this place, it will be November 18, and November 22 is that Friday.

When November 22 was first proposed in the motion, no one could have imagined we would be continuing to debate this issue in the House of Commons. Back then, it sounded like a reasonable and realistic date to set as a deadline. However, the Liberal government has dug in its heels and is refusing to budge. That is how Canadians watching from home know that the Liberals are hiding something, and that something must be very concerning. That is why we are here today to hold this corrupt government to account.

It dismays me greatly that since the first time I debated this subject a few weeks ago, the Liberals have still not done what is right and handed over the ordered and unredacted SDTC documents to the RCMP. Consequently, the House of Commons remains seized by this issue and paralyzed from moving on from it.

For those watching at home, I will note that SDTC was established by the Government of Canada in 2001. As a federally funded foundation, it was responsible for the approval and disbursement of over $100 million annually in taxpayer funds to help Canadian companies develop and deploy sustainable technologies. For many years, SDTC operated responsibly and earned a generally good reputation for its work. However, that all changed in 2019 when former Liberal industry minister Navdeep Bains appointed Annette Verschuren as chair of SDTC. The issue at hand was a matter of conflict of interest. Verschuren was an entrepreneur who was already receiving SDTC funding through one of her companies, and then she was appointed by the NDP-Liberal government to hold responsibilities in overseeing the very same SDTC funds that her company was receiving.

That fact alone should have sounded alarm bells and set off flashing red lights to alert everyone in the government about the obvious conflict of interest at hand. In fact, it was no secret. The minister, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office all knew, and they were warned of the risks associated with appointing a conflicted chair. However, those warnings fell on deaf ears and there was indifference, as Verschuren was appointed by the Liberal minister anyway. How can we tell that a government has lost its moral compass? It is when it makes poor decisions like this one without concern for doing the right things and without fear of consequence.

Only two years later, in January 2021, Minister Bains announced that he had decided to step away from politics and not run again in the upcoming federal election. That same year, SDTC entered into a five-year, $1-billion agreement with the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Fast-forward to the fall of 2024, and it is clear that the Liberals are trying desperately to run away and wash their hands of this mess, one they laid the foundation for through their own actions, and especially after the Auditor General released a scathing report about SDTC in June 2024.

The AG found massive issues at SDTC, which resulted in the current Minister of Industry, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, abolishing the SDTC and immediately transferring its funds over to the National Research Council of Canada. These are truly astonishing developments in just three years for something the Liberal government does not want to talk about anymore.

What did the AG find that was so bad to cause all this carnage? In June 2024, the AG found that SDTC demonstrated “significant lapses in governance and stewardship of public funds”. Nearly 20% of the SDTC projects examined by the AG were in fact ineligible, based on the government's own rules for funding, with a total price tag of $59 million. There were also 90 instances where the SDTC ignored conflict of interest provisions while awarding $76 million to various projects. Indeed, the AG found 63 cases where SDTC agency directors voted in favour of payments to companies in which they declared interests. Further, there were serious matters of governance, including the fact that the board did not have the minimum number of members required by law.

The report concluded: “Not managing conflicts of interest—whether real, perceived, or potential—increases the risk that an individual’s duty to act in the best interests of the foundation is affected, particularly when making decisions to award funding.” It also blamed the government's Minister of Industry, whose ministry did not sufficiently monitor the contribution agreements with SDTC.

Believe it or not, it gets far worse. Since June, the Auditor General found that directors had awarded funding to projects that were ineligible and where conflicts of interest existed. Over $300 million in taxpayer money was paid out in over 180 cases where there was a potential conflict of interest, with Liberal-appointed directors funnelling money to companies they owned.

Time after time, this Liberal government and its Prime Minister have shown total contempt for Canada's ethics laws. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has been the subject of three ethics investigations and was found guilty of breaking ethics laws twice. The Liberal government allows the culture of law-breaking to persist, as six Liberals have been found guilty of breaking ethics laws. Liberals have gone through these ethical scandals before. That is why they are withholding these documents, breaching parliamentary privilege and trying desperately to sweep this mess under the rug and move on to the next thing. However, common-sense Conservatives are not going to let them get away with it.

The Conservatives are holding the corrupt NDP-Liberal government to account. It will be held responsible for its carelessness, recklessness and corruption. This is why, on June 10, 2024, the House of Commons adopted the following motion proposed by common-sense Conservatives on this matter. The motion read:

That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 30 days of the adoption of this order, the following documents, created or dated since January 1, 2017, which are in its or her possession, custody or control.

The motion then details what documents were to be supplied and then directed that “the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall provide forthwith any documents received by him, pursuant to this order, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.”

This common-sense Conservative motion passed with the support of the New Democrats, Green Party and Bloc Québécois. Only the Liberals opposed it. To be clear, nothing in the motion orders the RCMP to conduct an investigation. The House is simply asking that the documents be turned over to the RCMP.

Thirty days came and went, and instead of complying with the adopted motion, federal departments outright refused the House order or provided heavily redacted documents, citing provisions in the Privacy Act or the Access to Information Act. This is not a good look. Nothing in the House order contemplated redactions to documents being made by the government. The House of Commons enjoys the absolute and unfettered power to order the production of documents, which is not limited by statute. These powers are rooted in the Constitution Act of 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act.

In response to the NDP-Liberal government's failure to produce these documents, the Conservative House leader raised a question of privilege, rightfully arguing that the House privilege had been breached due to the failure to comply with the House order.

On September 26, the Speaker issued a ruling on the question of privilege raised and found the privileges of the House had in fact been breached. Now, nearly a month later, we continue our important debate on this matter today and continue our demands for the Liberal government to provide the RCMP with the unredacted SDTC documents. The Speaker has ruled the government has violated a House order to turn over evidence to the RCMP in its latest $400 million green slush fund scandal.

The NDP-Liberal government's refusal to respect the ruling has paralyzed Parliament, pushing aside all other work to address issues such as the cruel and crippling carbon tax, the cost of living crisis that Canadians face for food and shelter, and the increasing crime, disorder and chaos in our streets and in our communities and cities.

This is happening at a time when the costs of food, fuel and shelter are all up and millions of Canadians are having to line up outside food banks just to survive. Sadly, as Canadians continue to struggle, life for well-connected Liberals and insiders has never been so good.

One of the drivers of this hardship is the cruel NDP-Liberal carbon tax. In fact, this carbon tax will cost the average Ontarian $903 this year. This is completely unacceptable to the constituents in my communities of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie, who work hard for their money, who save carefully for their futures and who dream of a better tomorrow.

Instead of doing anything about climate change, the NDP-Liberal carbon tax is impoverishing Canadians. Recently, the PBO confirmed Canadians will suffer a net cost, paying more in the carbon tax than they will ever get back in rebates. Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal government does not care. Instead of giving Canadians the tax relief they deserve, they hiked the carbon tax by 23% last spring as part of their plan to quadruple the carbon tax by 2030. It turns out the carbon tax is not a tool to fight climate change like the Prime Minister argues; it is just another tax grab. Canadians can add it to the long and growing list of Liberal-NDP taxes they already pay including the income tax, sales tax, excise tax, underused housing tax, property tax, capital gains tax and more.

After listing all those taxes, it is easy to see why Canadians are getting poorer. It is because the government is taking more of their hard-earned money away. The SDTC scandal is also happening at a time when the cost of food is up. In fact, food will cost families $700 more this year than it did in 2023. That is because when we tax the farmer who grows the food; the trucker who ships the food; and the store that stocks, stores and sells the food, we end up taxing the family who buys the food.

As Sylvain Charlebois, Canada's “food professor”, who serves as director of Dalhousie University's agri-food analytics lab has said that the costly NDP-Liberal carbon tax “likely adds a significant cost burden to the Canadian food industry.” When it comes to food, Canadians are going hungry. That is evident by the massive surge in demand and need for food banks. Food bank usage has increased every year the NDP-Liberal government has been in office, because its inflationary spending and punishing carbon tax have hiked up the price of groceries, causing Canadians to skip meals, eat less healthy food and rely on food banks to survive.

This was confirmed recently by Feed Ontario, which revealed that a record “one million people visited a food bank in Ontario” in 2024. This is a dramatic increase of 25% from the previous year. In fact, Feed Ontario's CEO told media, “I never thought I would see this day.” Feed Ontario's CEO went on to say, “I've been with the organization for almost 15 years.... I never thought we would reach a number so high....” The CEO could not believe that we reached a point where numbers were so drastically high.

Across Canada, food banks reported earlier this year that they had seen a 50% increase in visits since 2021, with food banks handling a record two million visits in a single month in 2023. Of the people visiting food banks in Ontario, one in three visitors are children. One in six adults visiting food banks are unemployed. The NDP-Liberal government cost of living crisis has become so severe that even working Canadians are having to depend on food banks to get by. These numbers also reflect what is happening across Niagara.

We can try to wrap our heads around some of these statistics from Project Share, which serves vulnerable residents in Niagara Falls. Last year, Project Share saw a 20% increase in people served, compared to the previous year. There were 4,740 people who accessed its services for the first time. On average, 120 families per day access its essential support services. There were 13,995 people served last year, which equates to one in seven residents of Niagara Falls having accessed its essential support services.

We should be debating these issues, and we could if the government simply abided by the Speaker's ruling and provided the documents the House requested. Why are government members so hesitant to do what is right? Is it that they do not want to speak to the situation facing young Canadians and first-time homebuyers, which is so bad that the Canadian dream of home ownership is dying? Two-thirds of young people believe they will never be able to afford a home.

Canadians see this housing crisis most tragically in our streets, where there are now 1,800 homeless encampments across Ontario and thousands more across the country. Time after time, the NDP-Liberal government has promised to fix the housing crisis, but the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been clear that the number of new homes being built is not enough to reduce the existing supply gap and improve affordability for Canadians.

Crime is also getting worse under the watch of the NDP-Liberal government, and perhaps again this is why it refuses to hand over these documents, so we cannot debate these issues that are so important to all constituents.

Since 2015 when the Liberals formed government, the number of auto thefts skyrocketed by 45%, violent crime has increased 50%, human trafficking is up 73% and hate crimes have increased by 251%. Just recently, the Toronto Police Association had to come out publicly and fact-check the Prime Minister.

The reality is the Liberals' soft-on-crime approach is making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5, making it easier to get bail with Bill C-75 and failing to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border.

These issues I noted are all pressing issues parliamentarians should be debating, but the House of Commons is seized because the government is refusing to comply with the House order to hand over SDTC documents to the RCMP.

Canadians are suffering great hardship after nine years of the NDP-Liberal coalition. The country is headed in the wrong direction, and we are all worse off than we were 10 years ago.

The Speaker has ruled that the government has violated a House order to turn over evidence to the RCMP about its latest Liberal $400-million green slush fund scandal. The Liberal government's refusal to respect the ruling has paralyzed Parliament, which is pushing aside all other debate. It is time for the Liberals to end their corrupt cover-up and provide the ordered documents to the police so Parliament can get back to work and Canadians can have the accountability they so rightly deserve.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a month that the House has been at a complete standstill, paralyzed in the business of looking out for Canadians and of actually solving the problems that the House should be seized with. It may not be the worst news in the world. Certainly, many want to see the government take a walk after nine years; I hope Canadians can finally decide to send the government packing in a soon-to-come carbon tax election. Therefore, it may not be the worst thing.

After nine years of the government and its destructive policies, we have been at a standstill for a brief while. The government of the day, the Liberals and their NDP counterparts, can no longer ruin the lives of Canadians even more than they have, at least in the short term. In nine years, the government has doubled the cost of housing and rent. It has doubled a mortgage payment in this country over the course of the last nine years.

We have inflation and interest rates burning out of control because of the government's irresponsible spending. We do not have a revenue problem in this country; we have a spending problem. The Liberal government spends more than it has on things we do not want or need. Two million people are eating from a food bank in a single month. Hundreds of tent cities are popping up in Toronto and all across the country, from coast to coast to coast.

We have crime, drugs, chaos and disorder in our streets. There are violent offenders turned out on bail as soon as they commit a crime. We saw this weekend, in Toronto, a scene from what seemed to be a movie. Police were chasing down criminals who stole a car, who hurt a police horse, who put citizens shopping on a weekend at risk and who ruined a business, all to find out that these culprits were out on bail because of the government's weak bail policy.

Today, the justice minister told the House that he is not responsible for any of it, that he is not responsible for Bill C-75, which allows that to happen. He also cannot count; he was trying to make slogans using three words or four words. I do not know what that answer was, but the issue is that the justice minister in this country does not think he is responsible for the justice system.

We could be speaking about anything else in the House. However, it is because the Liberal government will not turn the documents over to the police that we are here debating this, and we will continue to do that until they hand them over.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, at a time when Canadians are struggling to put food on their table; when the dream of home ownership in Canada is just that, a dream for many young Canadians; and when our country is plagued by so many other serious challenges brought upon us by the failed policies of the incompetent and reckless government, we are here this afternoon continuing debate on the government's failure to live up to its responsibilities in your order to produce important documents pertaining to the Sustainable Development Technology Canada green slush fund scandal.

SDTC was established by the Government of Canada in 2001. As a federally funded foundation, it was responsible for the approval and disbursement of over $100 million annually in taxpayer funds to help Canadian companies develop and deploy sustainable technologies. For many years, SDTC operated responsibly and earned a generally good reputation for its work. However, that all changed in 2019, when former Liberal industry minister Navdeep Bains appointed Annette Verschuren as chair of SDTC.

The issue at hand was conflict of interest. Verschuren was an entrepreneur who was already receiving SDTC funding through one of her companies, but then she was appointed by the Liberal government to hold responsibilities overseeing the very same funds her company was receiving. That fact alone should have sounded alarm bells and set off red flashing lights to alert everyone in the government to the obvious conflict of interest at hand.

In fact, it was no secret. The minister, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office all knew and were warned of the risks associated with appointing a conflicted chair. However, the warnings all fell on deaf ears and indifference, as Verschuren was appointed by the Liberal minister anyway. How can we tell that a government has lost its moral compass? It is when it makes poor decisions like this one without concern for doing the right thing and without fear of consequences.

Only two years later, Minister Bains announced in January 2021 that he had decided to step away from politics and not run again in the upcoming federal election. That same year, SDTC entered into a five-year, $1-billion agreement with the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.

Fast-forward to Fall 2024, and it is clear that the Liberals are trying desperately to run away and wash their hands of this mess, which they laid the foundation for through their own actions, especially after the Auditor General released a scathing report about SDTC in June 2024. The AG found massive issues at SDTC, which resulted in the current Minister of Industry, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, abolishing the SDTC and immediately transferring its funds to the National Research Council Canada. These are truly astonishing developments in just three years for something the Liberal government does not want to talk about anymore.

What did the AG find that was so bad as to cause all this carnage? In June 2024, she found that SDTC had demonstrated “significant lapses in governance and stewardship of public funds”. Nearly 20% of the SDTC projects examined by the AG were in fact ineligible, based on the government's own rules for funding, for a total price tag of $59 million. There were also 90 instances when the SDTC ignored conflict of interest provisions while awarding $76 million to various projects. The AG found 63 cases where the SDTC directors voted in favour of payment to companies in which they had declared conflicts.

The AG report concluded, “Not managing conflicts of interest—whether real, perceived, or potential—increases the risk that an individual's duty to act in the best interests of the foundation is affected, particularly when making decisions to award funding." It also blamed the government's Minister of Industry, whose ministry or department did not sufficiently monitor the contribution agreements with SDTC.

Believe it or not, it gets far worse. Since June, the Auditor General has found that directors had awarded funding to projects that were ineligible and where conflicts of interest existed. She found that over $300 million in taxpayers' money was paid out in over 180 cases where there were potential conflicts of interests, where Liberal-appointed directors funnelled money to companies they owned.

Time after time, the Liberal government and its Prime Minister have shown total contempt for Canada's ethic laws. In fact the Prime Minister himself has been found the subject of three ethics investigations and has been found guilty of breaking ethics laws twice. The Liberal government allows the culture of law-breaking to persist, as six Liberals have been found guilty of breaking ethics laws. The Liberals have gone through ethical scandals before; that is why they are withholding the documents, breaching parliamentary privilege and trying desperately to sweep the mess under the rug and move on to the next thing.

However, the common-sense Conservatives are not going to let the Liberals get away with it. We are holding the corrupt Liberal government to account. It will be held responsible for its carelessness, recklessness and, indeed, corruption. That is why on June 10 the House of Commons adopted the following motion proposed by common-sense Conservatives on this important matter:

That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 14 days of the adoption of this order, the following documents, created or dated since January 1, 2017, which are in its or her possession, custody or control...

The motion then detailed what documents were to be supplied, and then directed that “the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall provide forthwith any documents received by him, pursuant to this order, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police”.

The common-sense Conservative motion passed with the support of the New Democrats, the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois. Only the Liberals opposed it. To be clear, nothing in the motion orders the RCMP to conduct an investigation. The House is simply asking that the documents be turned over to the RCMP.

Fourteen days came and went, and instead of complying with the adopted motion, federal departments outright refused the House order or provided heavily redacted documents, citing provisions in the Privacy Act or the Access to Information Act. This is not a good look.

Further, nothing in the House order contemplated redactions to documents being made by the government. That is because the House of Commons enjoys the absolute and unfettered power to order the production of documents. That is not limited by statute; the powers are rooted in the Constitution Act of 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act.

In response to the Liberal government's failure to produce the documents, the Conservative House leader rightly raised a question of privilege, arguing that a House privilege had been breached due to the failure to comply with the House order. On September 26, you issued a ruling on the question of privilege raised, and you found that the privileges of the House had in fact been breached. Today, nearly a month later, we continue our important debate on the matter and continue our demands for the Liberal government to provide the RCMP with the unredacted SDTC documents.

You have ruled that the government has violated a House order to turn over evidence to the RCMP in the latest Liberal scandal, the $400-million green slush fund scandal. The Liberal government's refusal to respect your ruling has paralyzed Parliament, pushing aside all other work to address issues such as the cruel and crippling carbon tax, the cost of living crisis Canadians face for food and shelter, and the increasing crime, disorder and chaos in our streets, our communities and cities. This is happening at a time when the cost of food, fuel and shelter are all up and millions of Canadians are having to line up outside food banks just to survive. Sadly, as Canadians continue to struggle, life for well-connected Liberal insiders has never been so good.

One of the drivers of this hardship is the cruel NDP-Liberal carbon tax. In fact the carbon tax will cost the average Ontarian $903 this year. This is completely unacceptable to the constituents in my communities of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie, who work hard for their money, who save carefully for their future and who dream of a better tomorrow. Instead of doing anything about climate change, the NDP-Liberal carbon tax is impoverishing Canadians.

Recently the PBO confirmed that Canadians will suffer a net cost, paying more in the carbon tax than they will ever get back in rebates. Unfortunately the NDP-Liberal government does not care. Instead of giving Canadians the tax relief they deserve, the government hiked the carbon tax by 23% last year as part of its plan to actually quadruple the carbon tax by 2030.

It turns out that the carbon tax is not a tool to fight climate change like the Prime Minister argues; it is just another tax grab. Canadians can add it to the long list of growing NDP-Liberal taxes they already pay, including income tax, sales tax, excise tax, underutilized housing tax, property tax, capital gains tax and more. After listing all those taxes, it is easy to see why Canadians are getting poor. It is because the government is taking more of their hard-earned money away.

The SDTC scandal is also happening at a time when costs are up for food. In fact food will cost families $700 more this year than it did in 2023. That is because when the government taxes the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who ships the food and the store that stocks, stores and sells the food, it ends up taxing the family that buys the food. As Sylvain Charlebois, the “food professor” and director of Dalhousie University Agri-Food Analytics Labs, has said, the costly NDP-Liberal “carbon tax likely adds a significant cost burden to the Canadian food industry”.

Canadians are going hungry. That is evident by the massive surge in demand and need at food banks. Food bank usage has increased every year the NDP-Liberal government has been in office, because its inflationary spending and punishing carbon tax have hiked up the price of groceries, causing Canadians to skip meals, eat less healthy food and rely on food banks to survive.

This was confirmed recently by Feed Ontario, which revealed that a record one million people visited a food bank in Ontario in 2024. That is a dramatic increase of 25% from the previous year. In fact Feed Ontario's CEO told media that she never thought she would see this day. She has been with the organization 15 years and never thought it would see this level of demand. She cannot believe it has reached a point where numbers are so drastically high.

Food Banks Canada reported earlier this year that it had seen a 50% increase in visits since 2021, with food banks handling a record two million visits in a single month in 2023. Of the people visiting food banks in Ontario, one in three visitors is a child. Only one in six adults visiting food banks is unemployed; the NDP-Liberal government's cost of living crisis has become so severe that even working Canadians are having to depend on food banks to get by.

The numbers reflect what is happening across Niagara too. Let us try to wrap our heads around the following statistics from Project Share, which serves vulnerable residents in Niagara Falls. Last year Project Share saw a 20% increase in people served, compared to the previous year, and 4,740 people accessed its services for the first time. On average, 120 families per day accessed its essential support services. In total, 13,995 people were served last year, which equates to one in seven residents in Niagara Falls having accessed its essential support services just last year.

We should be debating these issues, and we could if the government simply abided by the Speaker's ruling and provided the documents the House has requested. Why are the Liberals so hesitant to do what is right? Is it that they do not want to speak to the situation facing young Canadians and first-time homebuyers, which is so bad that the Canadian dream of home ownership is dying? Two-thirds of young people believe they will never be able to afford a home. Canadians see the housing crisis most tragically in our streets, where there are now 1,800 homeless encampments across Ontario and thousands more across the country.

Time after time, the NDP-Liberal government has promised to fix the housing crisis, but the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been clear that the number of new homes being built is not enough to reduce the existing supply gap and improve affordability for Canadians.

Crime is also getting worse under the watch of the NDP-Liberal government. Again, perhaps that is why they refuse to hand over these documents: so we cannot debate these issues, which are so important to all of our constituents. Since 2015, when the Liberals formed government, the number of auto thefts has skyrocketed by 45%, violent crime has increased by 50% and hate crimes have increased by 251%. In addition, just recently, the Toronto Police Association had to come out publicly and fact-check the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister attempted to brag about banning firearms for law-abiding firearms owners while continuing to ignore the crime wave he has unleashed across the country, the Toronto Police Association reminded him that, in just the last year, shootings have gone up 45% and gun-related homicides have gone up 62% in Toronto.

The reality is that the Liberals' soft-on-crime approach is making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5 and making it easier to get bail with Bill C-75. Meanwhile, it is failing to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border. The issues I noted are all pressing, and parliamentarians should be debating them. However, the House of Commons has seized because the government is refusing to comply with the House order to hand over SDTC documents to the RCMP.

Canadians are suffering great hardship after nine years of the NDP-Liberal coalition. The country is headed in the wrong direction, and we are all worse off than we were about 10 years ago. The Speaker ruled that the government has violated a House order to turn over evidence to the RCMP about the latest Liberal scandal, the $400-million green slush fund. The Liberal government's refusal to respect the Speaker's ruling has paralyzed Parliament, pushing aside all other debate. It is time for the Liberals to end their corrupt cover-up and provide the ordered documents to the police so that Parliament can get back to work and Canadians can have the accountability they so rightly deserve.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise for the 52nd time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime.

The community of Swan River is alarmed by extreme levels of crime caused by the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-75 allows violent repeat offenders to be in jail in the morning and back out in their communities in the evening, and Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home. It is no surprise that, after nine years of the Liberal government, Statistics Canada reports that violent crime has risen by 50%.

The people of Swan River see crime in the streets every day, and that is why they are calling for jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

RCMP Allegations of Foreign Interference by the Government of India

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, the news we heard last week from the RCMP was extremely concerning and must be taken seriously. I want to be very clear when it comes to this: Any foreign interference from any country, including India, is unacceptable and must be stopped.

Our government's first job is to ensure that Canadians stay safe and that their livelihoods are protected. No Canadian should feel unsafe living in our country or feel unsafe because they are getting foreign threats. We expect a full criminal prosecution of everyone who has threatened, murdered or otherwise harmed Canadian citizens.

As a country, we need to ensure that we do every single thing possible and necessary to protect Canadians, our democracy and our sovereignty. However, over the years, under the Liberal-NDP government and with the current Prime Minister in charge, we have seen a failure to protect Canadians. We have seen the government and the Prime Minister fail to protect our democracy and our sovereignty.

Back in 2015, while working in the previous Conservative government, it would have been unheard of for foreign governments not only to threaten Canadians and their lives but also to go after them and take their lives. That never happened before, under our Conservative government. However, the Prime Minister has allowed foreign interference to run rampant in our communities and our country. He has dragged his feet and made things worse by bringing in soft-on-crime laws. We have seen the bills the Liberals brought in, such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5; these catch-and-release bail policies are soft on criminals and hard on victims. These laws send a signal to criminals in other countries that we do not take this stuff seriously in our country. It sends a signal that organized crime can run freely in our country and that the criminals have more rights than Canadians. The Liberal policies fostered this environment. The Prime Minister's inaction made Canada a playground for foreign interference.

We heard some troubling news from the RCMP last week that foreign agents from India used organized crime to create a perception of an unsafe environment targeting the South Asian community in Canada, predominantly the Sikh community. We heard accusations of extortion and murder on Canadian soil, as well as the use of organized crime, intimidation and coercion.

Conservatives have been calling for action on foreign interference and clamping down on organized crime and transnational criminals for some time now. I have stood up in the House multiple times during question period to ask questions of the government on what its plan is to fight extortion. We got nothing from the government; it has been no action and all talk.

The Prime Minister did not want to act, and what that has meant for Canadians is the loss of safety in our communities. Under his leadership, homicides are up 28%. The member for Mississauga—Malton mentioned comparing the records of the two governments. I am talking about the Liberals' record. Violent crime is up 50%. Violent gun crime is up 116%. Can members guess how much extortion has gone up? That is the same crime that was mentioned by the RCMP last week. It has gone up about 360%. That is not a small number. Something had to have changed for that to happen.

It is the Liberals' policies. It is Bill C-75, Bill C-5 and the Liberal government's approach to fighting organized crime. If tough laws were in place, it would send a signal to criminals that we are not going to tolerate this in our country. Not just folks in Canada but those across the world would get the idea that Canadians will fight against this kind of action.

I have heard directly from business owners and members in the South Asian community who have been victims of extortion. I have listened to the calls they received, which they shared with us. Those are scary calls. Imagine a business owner, a prominent member of a community or an activist who gets a call from someone threatening to shoot up their home, their business or their family. Listening to those calls gives a person a chill down their spine. The Liberals' policies have allowed this to happen.

We have learned from the RCMP that transnational gangs are being used by foreign agents from India, who are trying to cause fear in our communities and take the lives of Canadians. Many people are afraid to return home. They are afraid to carry on with their businesses and worried about carrying on with their lives.

Some have separated from their families, with some living in different parts of the country and some living in hotels. Many have had to hire security and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep their families safe. They come from a wide range of industries. Some are in the trucking business; some are in hospitality or are restaurant owners. We have heard of prominent Punjabi singers being targeted in B.C.

This is not just happening in one part of Canada. We have seen this right across our country, in B.C., in the GTA, in Winnipeg and in Edmonton. No one should feel unsafe in their communities. Canadians from all faiths, Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, should not feel unsafe living in our great country.

That is why our Conservative deputy leader brought forward a common-sense Conservative bill to take on extortion head-on. The bill would have made it harder for extortion to happen in Canada. It would have sent a signal to these international gangs that we mean business here in Canada. These are the same crimes the RCMP mentioned just last week. The bill would have established mandatory minimum penalties and stopped extortion from happening, yet the Liberal and NDP members voted against the bill, leaving more Canadians susceptible to foreign interference.

Earlier today, the member for Calgary Skyview, who brought forward the motion for this important debate, shared stories similar to the ones I have heard from families who have been separated from their loved ones because of extortion. Here is what I do not understand. When we travel across our country and meet groups, as we have had town halls and seen other groups host town halls, they are asking for concrete solutions. When our deputy leader put forward that solution, a tangible piece of legislation that would have helped prevent this crisis, the NDP and the Liberal Party voted against it.

They voted against tangible solutions to the problems, and I know members hear about it in their communities. We have held dozens of town halls in the South Asian community where we have spoken to and heard concerns of those affected by extortion. They do not want symbolic gestures; they want real action. Our bill had real solutions. Those parties voted against it.

We have also seen the Liberals dragging their feet on this issue and not taking foreign interference seriously. The government was repeatedly warned about foreign interference within its own party, the Liberal Party, but refused to act. I wonder why. It is the Prime Minister and members of his government who repeatedly claim they just were not aware of foreign interference that was happening right under their noses, despite a paper trail of warnings from officials.

With Conservatives it is less talk and more action. Conservatives brought forward a foreign agent registry bill that, almost four years ago, was blocked by the Liberals and the NDP. The measures would have been useful as a tool to help keep our communities and the South Asian community safe. Despite multiple warnings, however, the Liberals continue to claim ignorance. The record shows otherwise, including mysterious delays of 54 days that we saw on a CSIS surveillance warrant for a Liberal power broker.

It is happening under their noses, yet they are not taking action. They plead ignorance. The ministers say they do not know anything about this. The Prime Minister makes excuses. We saw even former staffers who gave absolutely no answers to the commission. We heard in the Hogue commission that this is not a new problem affecting Canada. This has been happening for years under the current government.

The red flags have gone up, lots of red flags, but again, there is no action from the government. It makes no sense. We have seen flag after flag, leaks in the media, yet no action from the government.

If we look at the U.S., which has seen a similar situation unfold, within weeks it was able to arrest those involved, move forward with indictments and hold them accountable. Our government has not been able to do that. It has not been able to stop these attacks on our sovereignty. It has not been able to save the lives of Canadians. This is a serious matter. Canadians' lives are at risk, and the Liberals are in charge of keeping Canadians safe; it is their job.

At every single juncture, we have the Prime Minister and members of the government, backed by their coalition partners, who put pension and party before country, not acting on the information they have had. It is beyond rich for the Prime Minister to grandstand, given his government's record of not taking foreign interference seriously. Even with all the benefits he has from the government and agencies, and all the information he has from our great security services, he failed to act.

Conservatives are the only ones who have taken this foreign interference crisis seriously. The NDP members can laugh all they want, but they have been in bed with the government for nine years. If they cared so much about this, why did they not include it in the supply and confidence agreement? Why did they not make it a core pillar of their agreement? They do not care. They make it up on the fly.

Canadians deserve transparency. The Prime Minister must release the names of all members, from all the parties, who are collaborating with foreign entities, but he will not. The Prime Minister is doing what he always does. He is trying to distract us from the truth. He is trying to cover up a Liberal caucus revolt, which we are seeing. We saw four ministers recently announce they will not be running under his leadership again, because they continue to fail to make the lives of Canadians better. If the Prime Minister has evidence of challenges, he should bring it up to the public, because this is a public safety concern.

Conservatives are committed to protecting our democracy and our sovereignty from foreign interference. The Prime Minister must be held accountable for his government's failure to act, and we call on him to release all the names of MPs involved in foreign interference, to restore transparency and to defend the interests of all Canadians.

While some may try to divide our communities, try to stoke fear and hate, or spread disinformation to pit our communities against one another, it is important that we stand united as Canadians in protecting the integrity of our democracy. Our country depends on it.

Public Safety

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is bizarre that Canada's justice minister continues to blame the Quebec government for a crisis he created.

It was the Liberal government that tabled Bills C-5 and C-75. What is happening in federal prisons right now is because of Bill C-83. Everyone is complaining. Last year, even victims' groups like the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, the Maison des guerrières and the Communauté de citoyens en action contre les criminels violents supported us. Everyone from police officers to victims' groups agreed.

Why will the government not listen to us and kill Bill C-5?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise for the 49th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime.

The community of Swan River is alarmed by the extreme levels of crime caused by the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back in our communities in the evening. Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home.

It is no surprise that after nine years of the Liberal government Statistics Canada reports that violent crime has risen by 50%. The people of Swan River see crime in their streets every day. That is why they are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during an interview this morning, the Montreal police chief clearly said that to solve Montreal's problems, he would need the laws and regulations to make it possible.

For the past nine years, all the government has done is pass bills like Bill C‑5, Bill C‑75, and Bill C‑83.

These laws have left criminals free to roam the streets of Montreal and all the other communities in Canada. They have no fear of the justice system or the police. Will the government listen to the Montreal police chief? Will it change the laws back to what they were when the Conservatives held power?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 48th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is overwhelmed by the extreme levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Jail has become a revolving door of repeat offenders, as Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back on the street the same day, and Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home. The people of Swan River see crime in the streets every day, and that is why they are calling for jail, not bail, for violent, repeat offenders.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 47th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is overwhelmed by the extreme levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Jail has become a revolving door of repeat offenders, as Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back on the street the same day, and Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home. The people of Swan River see crime in the streets every day, and that is why they are calling for jail, not bail, for violent, repeat offenders.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that member voted for Bill C-5, which allowed house arrests for sexual assault. They also supported Bill C-75, which made it easier for repeat violent offenders, including rapists, to get bail. That is their record, which the NDP has supported every step of the way.

When will they call a carbon tax election so we can finally stop the crime in this country?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Government

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I will simply read the motion and then go over each item to prove that no one can vote against it.

That, given that, after nine years, the government has doubled housing costs, taxed food, punished work, unleashed crime, and is the most centralizing government in Canadian history, the House has lost confidence in the government and offers Canadians the option to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Let us start with the first point: that “the government has doubled housing costs”. There is no debating that. It is basic math. Unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister who says that the economy is not numbers or figures, it is people. Rent is a number. The cost of a mortgage is a number. When someone buys a house, the price is measured in numbers. Numbers control the universe.

Here are the facts. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in 2015 was $973. Now it is $1,877. It has doubled. For a two-bedroom apartment, again, rent has doubled from $1,172 to $2,337. That is twice as much. The amount needed for a down payment on an average home has doubled from $22,000 to $47,000. That is twice as much. The mortgage payment for an average new home was $1,400 in 2015. Now it is $3,000. It has doubled. There is no debating that.

Let us move on to the next point, which is that the government “taxed food”. People may agree with the Prime Minister and the leader of the Bloc Québécois that a carbon tax is good. People may think that a 61¢-a-litre tax is the best idea in the history of the world, but they cannot deny that it increases the cost of food because farmers use fossil fuels to power their machinery. Truckers have to use diesel. This is the first carbon tax, and it applies across Canada. It applies to Quebec indirectly because all the food produced in and transported from the rest of Canada costs more. The second carbon tax, which the federal government is imposing with the support of the Bloc Québécois, will increase the cost of gas by 17¢ a litre. That will directly increase farmers' costs, and therefore consumers' costs as well. There is no debating the fact that the government is taxing food.

The third point says that the government has “punished work”. According to the Fraser Institute, recognized as the most prestigious academic institute in the country, 80% of middle-class Canadians are paying more taxes than they used to. Taxes penalize work. People who work harder pay more. That is penalizing work. On top of that, the government has blocked a number of natural resource development projects. It is allowing the Americans to kill forestry jobs. It is considering issuing a radical Liberal order on caribou that will kill jobs and punish work at the same time. There is no debate on that either. The government is punishing work.

It is also allowing crime to spiral out of control. The Liberals passed three main bills. The legislation arising from Bill C‑75 provides for the automatic release of criminals, and crime in Canada has increased by 50%. Gun crime has increased by 121%. Despite spending $69 million, the Liberals have failed to remove a single rifle banned in Canada since their big election announcements on this issue. Today, gun crime is up, as is crime in general. In addition, 47,000 people have lost their lives to drug overdoses since the government liberalized drugs. There is no debating that. Since this government came to power, there has been more crime.

Lastly, this is a centralizing government. We have seen excessive centralization. There is no need for me to argue this point, since the House leader of the Bloc Québécois has done it for me. He said, and I quote, “For the first time in history, excessive centralization became a fact of life. Despite its difficulty in managing its own responsibilities, this government started poking its nose into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.”

This is the biggest, most centralizing and most costly government. It added 100,000 public servants, who meddle in Quebec's business. It doubled spending on consultants. It doubled the debt. This centralizing and costly government punishes work, taxes food and doubled the cost of housing. The evidence is clear. That is why Quebeckers deserve to choose a government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is exactly want we are proposing.

We are calling on all the opposition parties to show their independence from this centralizing government and vote to allow their constituents to choose a new government that would allow Canadians to bring home a bigger paycheque to buy food and gas in a safe community. That is common sense.

I am going to be very clinical here and simply read the motion and prove it is true. It states:

That, given that, after nine years, the government has doubled housing costs, taxed food, punished work, unleashed crime, and is the most centralizing government in Canadian history, the House has lost confidence in the government and offers Canadians the option to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Let us go through the items one by one.

Did the Liberals double housing costs? Let us look at prices. In 2015, the average rent for a one-bedroom was $973 and today it is $1,877. In 2015, the average cost of monthly rent for a two-bedroom was $1,072 and today it is $2,337. In 2015, the average down payment needed for a new home was $22,000 and today it is $47,000. In 2015, the average mortgage payment on an average new home was $1,400 and today it is $3,020. There is no debate; it is double trouble when it comes to housing.

Are the Liberals taxing food? Well, they admit they are taxing diesel, which is what powers combines, tractors and other equipment. They admit they are taxing the natural gas that dries the grains in the silos. They admit they are taxing the truckers who bring us our food. There is no debate there. They want to quadruple that tax to 61¢ a litre. There is no debate on that either.

Are the Liberals punishing work? They have increased income taxes on 80% of middle-class people.

Are the Liberals unleashing crime? Violent crime is up 50% and gun crime is up 120%.

Are the Liberals a centralist government? They doubled their debt. They have doubled the amount of money for consultants.

All of these points are proven. That is why Canadians deserve the chance to elect a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime so that hard work earns a powerful paycheque that buys affordable food and homes in safe neighbourhoods where the promise of Canada is restored in the freest country on earth, Canada. Let us bring it home.

I am splitting my time with the member for Toronto—St. Paul's.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the motion that we are debating today is pretty simple, but the effect it is having in Canadians from coast to coast is profound. The motion says that the House has no confidence in the Prime Minister and the government. That is not just what we are saying here as a Conservative caucus, but that is what I am hearing in my riding of Fundy Royal, where people now are hurting in ways that they were not hurting before this Prime Minister came along.

Under this Liberal government over the last nine years, we have seen some absolutely astronomical increases in the misery that Canadians are facing, and I want to just speak to a few of those. These are the facts, and Canadians are aware of these facts. In spite of what the Prime Minister will say to try to change the channel, Canadians are smart and attuned to what is happening around them. They know that this government's policies are hurting them and hurting their ability to put food on their table, to pay their mortgage, to pay their rent, to keep their houses heated and to put gas in their vehicles. Everyday Canadians are aware of the impact of this government's reckless actions.

Under this government, in nine years only, they have doubled the debt of this country. They have doubled housing costs: mortgage payments and rent payments are doubled. They have caused the worst inflation in 40 years. They have sent two million people to the food bank. Food bank usage has risen every year for the last nine years, and that is every year that this government has been in power. Every year, they have added to the misery facing Canadians.

We used to look at parts of Vancouver and see the tent cities that had risen up there, and we used to see that as something that was unique to that area, but now, whether I am in Saint John, New Brunswick; Moncton; Fredericton; Halifax; or anywhere from coast to coast, we are seeing tent cities. We are seeing an increase in the misery that Canadians are facing.

Canadians have been forced to pay more for gas, groceries and home heating thanks to this completely out-of-touch Liberal carbon tax. At a time when people are struggling and having to make choices between heating their home, putting food on the table or filling their cars so they can get to work, and heaven forbid if their kids are playing hockey or are into other sports and they have to transport them in their vehicle, Canadians are stretched to the limit. What does this government do? What does this Prime Minister do? They say that, no, Canadians are not paying enough. Even though the carbon tax is hitting people at 20¢ a litre, that has to go up. That has to go up eventually to 61¢ per litre.

In April alone, the Prime Minister increased the carbon tax by 23% as part of his plan to quadruple the tax to 61¢ per litre by 2030. According to the Fraser Institute, this will end up costing the average Canadian worker $6,700 per year and result in 164,000 fewer jobs.

As for the constituents I am talking to, their views on this Prime Minister are being reflected across the country in the by-election results that we have seen. In three by-elections in a row, he has lost, but the conclusion the Prime Minister comes to is that it is not that he is wrong; it is that Canadians are wrong. That is always his default, because he believes that he knows best, he is always right and that everything that we are facing is somebody else's fault.

After nine years, the blame for the situation that we are facing now as Canadians has to be laid squarely at the feet of this Liberal government and this Liberal Prime Minister. This is not some accident. The Prime Minister will often say that there are global trends and so on. The misery that we are seeing, for example the increase in crime, has to be directly blamed on the deliberate actions of this government.

Bill C-75, which was introduced and passed by the current government, created a revolving door so that the default is for an offender to get bail. Bail means that the person is back out on the street after committing a serious offence. We are hearing from experts, police officers and community leaders that the revolving door of repeat and, oftentimes, violent offenders is leading to tragic results. It is not that there are lots of Canadians involved in crime. It is that a small number of Canadians should be in jail, and they are committing a lot of crime.

Let us look at what Statistics Canada says about just how out of control violent crime has become since 2015, the year the Liberals took power. I think members will agree that the numbers are absolutely staggering and are an indictment on the entire approach, the entire soft-on-crime, revolving-door, catch-and-release system that the Liberals have created. Madam Speaker, notice that I do not call it a “justice” system. It is only a system because there is no justice for victims in it. I was very moved at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when we had a witness, who was a victim of crime, say that she does not call it a justice system, because she did not see the justice for her and her family in the system.

The crime statistics from Statistics Canada are as follows: Auto theft is up by 46%. Violent crime is up by 50%. Sexual assaults are up by 75%. Homicides are up by 28%. Human trafficking is up by 83%. Crimes against children are up by over 100%, at 118%. Gang-related murders have doubled. Extortion is up by 357%.

The Prime Minister talks a good game about gun crimes, but all we have seen now is $67 million spent on a gun confiscation scheme that has not collected one firearm. For all his talk about firearms crime, what is the result? Violent gun crime has gone up by 116%. In fact, gun crime has gone up every year since the Prime Minister took office. These are deliberate actions.

Bill C-5, another terrible bill by the government, eliminated mandatory penalties related to gun crimes, such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, possession of a firearm obtained illegally and using a firearm in the commission of an offence. What else did Bill C-5 do? It eliminated mandatory prison time for drug dealers, as well as for those who were convicted of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting serious drugs and production of a schedule I substance, such as heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth. All of these offences are now eligible for house arrest.

The bill also allows for house arrest for sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, motor vehicle theft, abduction of a person under 14, and assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon. Before the current government came along, all the offences I just listed would have meant incarceration; the offender would serve their time out of the community, in jail, where they belong. The community would be safe while the repeat offender was in jail. Instead, under the current government, these individuals are back on the street and committing the same crime over and over again.

I heard one Liberal member mention their so-called safe supply. Just today, the newspaper reported that a “police raid at a heavily used harm reduction site in Nanaimo resulted in” an individual being “charged with 14 counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and eight weapons offences.” This was so-called legal safe supply. In the same raid, another person “was charged with six possession for the purpose of trafficking and five weapons offences”. As Conservatives have been saying, this so-called safe supply is getting into our streets and harming our young people.

It is time for the Prime Minister to face reality. It is time to call a carbon tax election so that common-sense Conservatives can axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Justice

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister recognize that, since they made changes to the Criminal Code, including under Bills C‑5, C‑75 and C‑83, criminals are no longer afraid of anything?

Crime is running rampant in Quebec right now. A 14-year-old boy died in Beauce. Shots are being fired in broad daylight in Quebec City. The same thing is happening in La Baie, Saguenay, and elsewhere.

Will the government, supported by its Bloc Québécois friends, acknowledge its mistake and revert to an earlier version of the Criminal Code?

Online Harms Act

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry in our part of eastern Ontario. In this case it is to contribute to the debate going on today on Bill C-63, known to many Canadians, through the media or the debate on the bill, as the online harms bill.

I want to take the time I have today to lay out a case to Canadians that I think is getting clearer by the month and the year. After nine years of the NDP and the Liberals in office, crime is up significantly in this country. It is their record and it is their actions, or in some cases inactions, that have undone what was successful in keeping our streets safe.

When we looked at the metrics by Stats Canada before the Liberals came into office, we see that crime was decreasing across the country. After nine years of their legislation, their bills, their ideas and their policy proposals, here is what Stats Canada says is the record of the Prime Minister, the NDP and the Liberals working together: Violent crime has increased 50% in this country. Homicides are not down; they are up 28%. Sexual assaults are up by 75%, and gang murders have nearly doubled in this country over the course of the last nine years. A crime wave has been unleashed across this country.

I make the case. Sadly, now there is not one part of this country, a province or a region, that has not heard the stories in local media or by word of mouth in communities of crime going up: violent crime, robberies, theft and car theft. Auto theft is up 46%. The justice minister's own car in fact has been stolen three times. That is how bad crime has gotten under the Liberals' watch.

Extortion has exploded in this country under the Liberals' watch. It is up 357%. This side of the aisle, through our deputy leader from Edmonton, the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, proposed a private member's bill that would crack down and toughen up on Canadians who try to extort others. I would suggest that when there is a 357% increase, the status quo of whatever the Liberals are doing is not working. We proposed a common-sense private member's bill from this side of the aisle that was voted down, only to continue the status quo by the Liberals and NDP.

Recently, through our work in asking questions, we finally got some answers. The Liberal government was forced to admit that 256 people were killed in 2022 alone by criminals out on bail or another form of release. It is unacceptable and speaks to the many broken policies that the government has implemented in the last nine years. It is not by accident.

The province of Ontario paints a picture when it comes to the Liberals' public safety record. In Ontario, the total number of violent Criminal Code violations is up 51% to 164,723. Homicides in Ontario are up 50% to 262. Total violent firearms offences, for all the action the Liberals have claimed to have taken, and I will get to that in a bit, is up to 1,346. That is a 97% increase in violent firearms offences in Ontario alone. Extortion is up 383% in Ontario, at just under 4,000 cases.

Theft of a motor vehicle has gone up. When the Liberals came in, there were 16,600 vehicle thefts in Ontario. It has exploded 167%. Now, under their watch with their soft-on-crime approach, including Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and so forth, it is up to 44,459 thefts of a motor vehicle.

That is the Liberals' record. Bill C-75 was passed and implemented by the Liberals and the NDP, who implemented catch-and-release bail policies. Despite the legislation demanded by Conservatives and by every premier in this country, it did not go far enough, and Bill C-75 is still wreaking havoc on our law enforcement and on public safety in this country.

Bill C-5 passed, again by the Liberals and the NDP and supported by the Bloc in that case, I specifically remember as well. When it started to be implemented and Canadians saw the wacko examples of criminals of a violent, repeat nature being arrested and back out on the streets, the Bloc members tried to pretend they were not for it anymore, but they voted for Bill C-5. That bill removed mandatory minimum sentences for major crimes, ensuring again that violent criminals are out on the streets.

After all those numbers I took the time to lay out, that is the Liberals' record. They cannot go back and blame anybody else, but for the last nine years that the Liberals have been in office, it has been their government legislation that has allowed the crime wave to be unleashed across Canada, and here we have a justice minister who is touting how great the Liberals' latest solution is with Bill C-63.

Rightfully, Canadians have major distrust in the current government. Its record on public safety speaks for itself by the numbers and the examples that people are living and breathing. However, it was the current justice minister, on his first days on the job, who did a media interview and said he thought it was empirically unlikely Canada is becoming less safe. He said it is in people's minds; it is in their heads and is not really a problem. People are just envisioning that.

That just goes to show the mindset and perspective when it comes to public safety, to protecting our streets and getting the violent crime wave down in this country. That is the perspective: It is just all in our heads and there is nothing to think about.

I have mentioned Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The debate today is actually timely because it was just last week that we got an updated answer. Four years ago, the Prime Minister did a big stunt of a photo op and an announcement that he was going to ban assault rifles; he was going to clamp down and resolve all of this by way of the Liberals' legislation and their will. Well, the numbers are out. Four years later, after saying that, zero firearms from criminals are off our streets, and the only winner in this is the bureaucracy.

Sixty-seven million dollars of taxpayer money has been spent on a program that is not even running, not even active and has taken precisely zero firearms from criminals and gang members off our streets in this country. That is the Liberals' record. Worst of all is that we know what the Liberals are proposing to do and the reason there are all the delays. They are rightfully being called out that it will not affect the gang members and those involved in criminal enterprises who are committing the car thefts, violent crimes and firearms offences in big cities, suburbs and rural communities alike. They are not going to be participating in this terrible program, this costly, useless program, frankly.

The Liberals are targeting law-abiding firearm owners, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous communities that follow the law and have never been a public safety issue. They are going to be the ones paying the price on this, and it is taxpayer money, $67 million alone, going out.

One of the things I have said to many folks in our part of eastern Ontario and in my travels across the country is that there are not too many prerequisites to becoming a member of Parliament and sitting in the chamber. Members are democratically elected, which is obviously the right way to go. However, I feel if there were a little asterisk of what every member of Parliament must do before debating or voting on public safety legislation such as this, it would be that the member should do a ride-along with the frontline law enforcement in this country.

We are very blessed in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry to have the OPP, the Cornwall community police, a force in Akwesasne and the RCMP. One of the most rewarding events or annual visits I make is to those detachments, getting in a vehicle with a frontline law enforcement member and seeing first-hand and on the front lines what they have to go through day in and day out.

Officers are extremely frustrated after nine years of a soft-on-crime approach, a broken justice system, a broken bail system and a Liberal government that continues to make life easier for those criminals of a repeat violent nature, which takes valuable police resources and time away from important things. Instead, they are repeatedly arresting and re-arresting many of the same folks despite being out on bail.

I raise that today because under the Liberals watch and the broken bail system, where repeat violent offenders are back out on the streets within about 24 hours, on average, police are being redirected and dealing with the same percentage. The Vancouver Police Department said that in one year there were 6,000 police interactions, many of them arrests of the same 40 or 50 people. This means that every other day there was an interaction, an arrest, a bail hearing and back out on the street. That is a waste of police resources.

How much longer will it take? How many more calls from the Conservatives, premiers and law enforcement agencies will it take to fix our broken bail system? Instead, today, when we talk about the broad terms of protecting folk online, protecting children, or cracking down on Internet child pornography as the bill states, the basis of this legislation is admitting failure on the part of the government.

Our court system and existing law enforcement resources are so overloaded with the increase in crime, the broken justice system and the broken bail system, that now the government is proposing a brand new federal bureaucracy, with hundreds and hundreds of federal bureaucrats, to administer what it says cannot be done through existing means.

If we were able to go back to common sense, the way it was before the Prime Minister and the government came into office, we could revert and allow law enforcement and, in many cases, our existing laws to be enforced and protect Canadians, protect children, families, victims of child pornography, victims of all ages, and clamp down on the rising hate crime numbers happening under the government's watch.

I correlate it again to the government's record. We had legislation a couple of years ago passed under its watch, Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, which I basically called a censorship act, where the government would hire hundreds of new bureaucrats at the CRTC to watch and regulate the algorithms of Internet searches in Canada. At that time, the Liberals said not to worry, that it was not that big of a deal, that it would not cost that much. It is getting very expensive, and they are just getting started in the cost of the bureaucracy.

I am proud of our common-sense Conservative team on this side. Very early on, when the government came forward with Bill C-63, we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to look at what the cost of this proposal would be, an independent look to understand the true cost to administer the government's proposal. A little while ago the analysis came forward. Posted on the website, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that would cost a staggering $200 million to establish, the government's own data provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 330 new bureaucrats and a brand new bureaucracy to administer this. When does this madness stop?

The Liberals keep adding new bureaucracies, new commissions and new layers, but they do not tackle the problem we have in our existing justice system and law enforcement community. Whether it be the RCMP, a provincial force or local municipal force, they are stretched thin because of the broken policies that the government has implemented. Now its proposal is to separate all that into a new bureaucracy. Worst of all, when asked, there is no time frame. A lot of the regulations and details of what it is proposing will be dealt with later, of course, behind closed doors. A lack of transparency and details, that is what the Liberals are providing to Canadians.

We know how Ottawa works. We know how the Liberals work with the NDP. They make a great, big announcement of how wonderful the legislation would be and that it would solve every problem possible. They never follow through, it is never done cost-effectively and it is delay after delay, and more and more frustration and backlog. We will see the exact same thing when it comes to the new bureaucracy proposed under Bill C-63. For context, if we took the $200 million and invested in frontline law enforcement, if we hired more police officers, we could hire over 200 more per year to work the front lines each and every year.

I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who has been on the file of protecting women, children and all Canadians and victims of child pornography, of exposing intimate images and, in many cases, new emerging technologies of deepfakes and AI. We need to realize that this legislation is inadequate for many reasons. She, our shadow minister for justice and the Attorney General of Canada, and many other colleagues with a law enforcement background in the legal community have spoken up against the bill.

As Conservatives, we have said that, as always, the Liberals get it wrong again. They claim that we should pass this, get it to committee and just be fine with it, because for four years they have consulted experts in the field. They have tabled legislation before that they had to pull because they got it wrong. There are still many voices in the country speaking up against the bill in its current form and what it would do on the infringement of free speech. The Liberals are making decisions through regulation, through back-channel means and behind closed doors, putting the power in the hands of way too many people who do not deserve it, for example, Meta, Facebook, other tech companies that have these massive lobbying efforts they can use to pressure this new bureaucracy.

Instead, our common-sense Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-412, would enforce the existing laws in the country when it comes to hate crimes. The laws are there, but the government lacks the political will use those tools. If we are going to modernize legislation, which it does need at times, we could go after AI and deepfakes, which is not even addressed in Bill C-63.

The Liberals, like they have with Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and now with Bill C-63, talk a big game. We can look at other legislation such as their firearms confiscation program of law-abiding hunters and anglers who own firearms and so many other pieces of legislation. We can look at the Liberals' own numbers. The longer they are in office, the more they spend and the worse it gets from a financial situation, but, most important, from a public safety perspective.

Bill C-63 does not need to be as omnibus as it is. For the number of years the Liberals claim they consulted experts, they have gotten it wrong again. It is time to bring forward not this bill, but the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-412.

Let us get to the root causes, protect children, women and all Canadians from the abuse and hate and violence seen online through child pornography and other means. Let us trust our law enforcement on the front lines, with the tools and resources, to get that job done. They do not need a new bureaucracy or to be thrown aside. Law enforcement needs to be empowered with good legislation and support from this federal government, not the record we have seen after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak in the House.

On behalf of the wonderful people of Calgary Midnapore, whom I continue to be so proud to represent, I am here today speaking to Bill C-66.

I will start by saying that as a Conservative and as a woman here in the House of Commons, I believe and Conservatives believe we need to continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces, because all military members deserve a safe and respectful workplace. I believe this as the shadow minister for the Treasury Board as well. I will also say, with a lot of pride, that Conservatives are proud of and support all of our men and women in uniform who serve Canada. Let us give a round of applause in the House of Commons right now for all the men and women who serve Canada.

The principle of this bill is to be respected and appreciated. However, we need to really consider two major factors when we consider Bill C-66. Number one is the results we have seen from the Liberal government so far. Is its money where its mouth is? Second is what is really important in our military and what is really going on with our armed forces at this time.

The Liberal government has had several reports it could have acted on, but instead, here we are in the last year of a parliamentary session for the current government and only now is it taking action. These reports include the 2015 Deschamps report; the 2018 Auditor General report on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces; the 2021 Justice Fish report; the 2021 DND-CAF ombudsman report on sexual misconduct; and the 2021 “Eliminating Sexual Misconduct Within the Canadian Armed Forces” report from the status of women committee, which my colleague the member for Sarnia—Lambton alluded to in her question to the previous Liberal speaker. There also would have been a report by the Standing Committee on National Defence, but the government instead chose to filibuster and keep the committee in the same meeting for three months and then prorogue Parliament for the Prime Minister's impromptu election. Instead of taking action, the Liberals asked for another report by another former justice and got the 2022 Arbour report.

Meanwhile, according to Statistics Canada, since 2015, total sexual assaults at all three levels were up 74.83% and increased 71% last year alone.

My point is that the current government has had the opportunity through several reports to take action and it has deferred taking action. Most insulting, which my colleague referred to, is how the government handled the sexual misconduct cases in 2021. For over six months, the Prime Minister and the then defence minister, now Minister of Emergency Preparedness, continually covered up information on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are not surprised on this side of the House to see that these concerns, pleas and issues of great importance would only be spoken to, be given platitudes, with no real action taken.

The Liberals then went to great lengths to block investigations and hide the truth from Canadians. Again, this is not only with regard to harm within the Canadian Armed Forces. As a result of soft-on-crime bills, like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, Statistics Canada data since 2015 states that total sexual violations against children are up 118.85%, forcible confinement and kidnapping is up 10.63%, indecent harassing communications are up 86.41%, incidents of non-consensual distribution of intimate images are up 801.17% and trafficking in persons is up 83.68%. This is what we are seeing as a result of the inaction of the current government.

The Liberals put forward bills like Bill C-66, but they have done nothing. All of their previous platitudes and grandstanding were fake efforts to make real change, not only within Canadian society but within the Canadian Armed Forces. The annual number of reported incidents of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces was 256 in 2018-19; it went up to 356 in 2019-20, to 431 in 2020-21, to 444 in 2021-22, and was 443 in 2022-23.

The Liberals talk a lot about things they want to do, reports they are doing and announcements they make, but the results speak for themselves. Nothing has changed. Nothing has improved in the Canadian Armed Forces. Our first point is that we are not seeing the results for the Liberals' efforts, because frankly, the Liberals are not doing anything.

The second is that we need to admit to the serious status of our Canadian Armed Forces, and after nine years of the Liberal government, our military is in a state of disrepair. The government has failed our Canadian Armed Forces and the men and women who serve. Our troops are hurting at home and abroad. They have been sent overseas and forced to pay for their own meals and buy their own equipment. Military families are turning to charity because they cannot afford the basic necessities.

In 2017, the Prime Minister promised to invest more in our forces, but has instead let $10 billion lapse and is now cutting the defence budget by another billion dollars. This cut affects operational spending. This means the situation facing our troops is not getting better. It is getting worse after nine years of Liberal neglect. The Liberals have overspent in every department except our military. They have shown that they do not care about our troops or the Canadian Forces.

This is being noticed internationally. It is being noticed at NATO. It is being noticed by what is historically our greatest neighbour and ally to the south, the United States of America. It is the reason Canada was excluded from AUKUS, the Australia-U.K.-U.S. arrangement, as well as the quadrilateral security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. There are even discussions to exclude Canada from the G7, if members can believe it, as a result of our lack of commitment. We do not put our money where our mouth is.

Then again, this is not a surprise coming from a Prime Minister who told our heroes they are asking for more than we can give. We are not taken seriously abroad as a result of the constant lack of judgment, whether the Prime Minister is praising the Cuban regime or siding with Hamas over Israel and refusing to support the U.S. in moving its embassy to Israel. It is just a constant lack of making the decision to stand with our allies.

As I said on funding, the Prime Minister and the defence minister are cutting $1 billion per year over the next three years and allowed $10 billion to lapse in the defence budget over the last several years. In fact, according to the most recent public accounts, $1.2 billion lapsed in defence spending in 2021 alone.

In conclusion, the Liberals can say that they care, that they are doing these nice things. They have had the opportunity to do much. They have constantly kicked the ball down the field and not done anything. The results speak for themselves. The numbers show that crime and acts of violence have not improved in society with their legislation, nor within the Canadian Armed Forces. Most humiliating is the standing we have lost with our allies around the world, as kicking us out of the G7 is being considered. The numbers and the spending show it.

A Conservative government would commit the spending, stand with our allies and show our men and women in uniform that it supports them. I look forward to doing that along with the member for Carleton.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back after the summer break and have my first speech in the House and represent the good people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. I would like to start off by saying that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

I am happy to have been given the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-66, a bill to introduce changes to national defence aimed at modernizing the military justice system, and responding to the recommendations made by two former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is the government's long-overdue legislation to try and finally apply recommendations made in numerous reports regarding sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We must continue to address sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces because all military members deserve a safe and respectful workplace. The previous Conservative government accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment from the Canadian Armed Forces. This important report was ignored by the government, and it is disappointing that the Liberal government has failed to act on this important report. Liberals cannot be trusted to stop sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces because of their soft-on-crime policies. After nine long years of the Liberal government and two more reports from former Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly.

I support Bill C-66, but let me make this perfectly clear: it needs to be carefully studied at committee to ensure concerns from all stakeholders are taken into consideration and amended appropriately. There are also outstanding concerns about the ability of the civilian judicial system to handle these particular cases, given that the court system and courtrooms are already backlogged due to the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies and repeat offenders getting out of jail on bail and committing more crimes. It is a continual cycle that the Liberal government has created. Its present catch-and-release system is failing the people of Canada and, if implemented in the military, will fail both the military and the people of Canada.

The Liberals have had many reports that they could have already acted on, but instead we are in the last year of a parliamentary session, and only now are they taking any legislative action. The reports that I am speaking of include the 2015 Deschamps report, which I mentioned earlier; the 2018 Auditor General report on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces; the 2021 Justice Fish report; the 2021 DND Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman report on sexual misconduct; and the 2021 “Eliminating Sexual Misconduct Within the Canadian Armed Forces” report from the status of women committee. There would also have been a report by the Standing Committee on National Defence, but the Liberals instead chose to filibuster and keep the committee in the same meeting for three months, then prorogue Parliament for the Prime Minister's impromptu election in 2021. Instead of taking action, they asked for another report by another former justice and got the 2022 Arbour report.

I will add here that according to Statistics Canada data reported since 2015, disappointingly, total sexual assaults in Canada were up 74.83% and increased an additional 71% last year. These are horrific to hear. These are stats that we do not want to hear but we cannot ignore.

We did our own study in veterans affairs committee on women veterans, and spent a lot of time speaking with survivors of military sexual trauma. This study took the better part of a year. We heard several difficult stories, dating back to when women were first admitted into the Canadian Armed Forces. For me, personally, these were horrific to hear and have left a lasting impression on me that we need to act correctly and do better.

One of the issues we heard about was the Canadian Armed Forces' ability to investigate these claims. Jennifer Smith said in her testimony:

I've spoken about it in Federal Court. I've given this information to many, many high-ranking officials. I've even provided the names of some of my attackers as well as pictures. Again, I've never been offered the opportunity [to file a complaint]. I still don't know what avenue I have to go forward with this. I've been told to write it down on a claim form. I feel that this goes beyond that. This is criminal activity. I know who did it. I know some of the people who did it. I'm just wondering why no one has come to me or reached out to me. I've given the information. I haven't been asked if I want to go forward with that or been presented with some options. That has not happened.

Clearly, there is a need to have civilian courts investigate these cases outside the chain of command of military. Our committee made that recommendation. However, this same recommendation has been made several times before, going back to the Deschamps report of 2015, nearly a decade ago.

Just now, a year away from the next scheduled federal election, the government is finally going forward with legislation on this. It is instances like this that make it so difficult to take the Liberal government seriously, to reconcile horror stories I hear first-hand of pain and suffering and not acting.

On top of that, the Liberal government has spent the last decade pushing our courts to the breaking point. The Liberals' soft-on-crime bills, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, have led to a skyrocketing crime rate in Canada. Statistics Canada lists total sexual assaults as increasing by 75% since 2015.

The Prime Minister has continuously shown that he does not take the safety and security of Canadians seriously. His Liberal government is watering down serious offences. These offences include date rape, drugs and human trafficking, which is on the rise. They once again prioritize the rights of criminals over the rights of victims. At a time when our courts are overworked and understaffed, this legislation aims to add more cases to their dockets. This is one of the serious issues that needs to be examined in committee.

I want to share that I have seen the military justice system work while I served. Whether it was summary trial, court martial, or dismissal of military personnel, I have seen it work. However, there has to be another level of oversight.

The next Conservative government would rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces by cutting down the bureaucracy and the consultants. We would make sure that the money is going to the Canadian Armed Forces. We would restore the honour and integrity of our military heroes that Canadians can be proud of. Finally, we would reverse the left-wing Liberal woke culture and return the war-fighting capabilities of the brave women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise for the 43rd time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime.

The community of Swan River is overwhelmed with alarming levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Jail has become a revolving door for repeat offenders, as Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and then back on the street the same day. Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home.

The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 42nd time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is overwhelmed with the alarming levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Jail has become a revolving door for repeat offenders. Bill C-75 allows violent offenders who are in jail in the morning to be back out on the street in the afternoon. Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home.

The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. They demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

Report Stage

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-20, which is an act that would establish the public complaints and review commission. It would essentially replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP by creating an external body and then combining it with the Canada Border Services Agency, which at the moment does not have an independent review system at all. The bill would create a new review commission for both of those organizations. It would have certain rules, tools and procedures to deal with the issues that would typically come up in a review body.

There are many different things that can come up. For example, just a few years ago in Saskatchewan, there was a terrible, tragic incident on the James Smith Cree Nation, where Myles Sanderson murdered 11 people on that reserve just north of Saskatoon. A coroner's inquest was held, which, in the future, could be done by a commission like the one we are talking about tonight. In this case, it was done by a provincial coroner's inquest. The inquest was completed in January of this year, and I want to highlight a couple of the things it found.

For example, one of the findings was that the RCMP gives patrol officers access to the most current photos of people. In addition, the enforcement and suppression team provides a list of its 60 most-wanted targets to all Saskatchewan RCMP detachments. When a most-wanted person is affiliated with or is a member of a first nation, RCMP detachment commanders work with the first nation's leadership to advise them of the individual's wanted status. That is an example of the kinds of findings and outcomes that could come from a commission like the PCRC. This is important and useful work that is done when there are complaints.

One of the interesting things in that particular incident was that the perpetrator, Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend regardless of his racial background. This is really important because a lot of the work that commissions like the proposed one end up doing comes from a lot of the crime that is happening, obviously. The tragedy that occurred because of someone who was released on parole but maybe should not have been is an example of the soft-on-crime Liberal policies that we are seeing in Canada these days.

In 2021, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-5, which essentially removed mandatory minimum sentences from all Criminal Code offences committed with a firearm, such as robbery, assault, break and enter and extortion, as well as drug crimes such as trafficking, production and selling. In addition, Bill C-5 replaced prison sentences with conditional sentences, which is house arrest, for crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, arson for fraudulent purposes, assault causing bodily harm with a weapon and assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon. Those are just some examples of types of offences for which prison was removed and conditional sentencing, or house arrest, was granted.

In 2018, Bill C-75 was introduced by the Liberal government. Essentially, it made it much harder to put someone in jail and, conversely, much easier to get out. That is the essence of Bill C-75. The problem with that, and what leads to much of the crime we are seeing, is that it takes away the consequences in many cases for criminals, so they lose their fear of punishment. I will give an example. Imagine a youth who is struggling and is a little down on his luck. We could talk about how the government has made life so expensive with its reckless spending that has caused inflation and its carbon tax that has caused grocery prices to get more expensive, but that is another conversation.

Imagine this youth who is struggling to put food on the table. He may live with five or more other people in a two-bedroom apartment. Again, the policies of the government have caused housing to be so expensive. Now imagine that a gang member or somebody in a criminal organization asks him if he wants to make $500 by stealing a car, and tells him he will never go to go to jail and that the worst case scenario is that he will get arrested and be released back into the community, but that there are really no consequences.

What is that youth going to do? There is a good chance they are going to take the opportunity because they need the money. This is a problem in our culture today, that the consequences of their actions, the punishment for doing crimes, has been lessened so much that it becomes a viable option for a person like the one in the example I have given. What do we see in our country? We see that violent crime is up. Since 2015, when house arrest, which I mentioned in the examples I gave, was brought in, violent crimes are up 32% nationally.

Now, just to focus in on Saskatoon a little, in 2023 there were 12 murders in Saskatoon, 10 of which, by the way, were in the riding I represent, Saskatoon West, where I live and work. I have lived there for a period of time, and I have experienced many of the things that people experience on the west side of Saskatoon, including having my bike stolen, having to deal with people outside my home and things like that. These are things that we get used to and put up with.

As I said, in 2023 there were 12 murders in total in Saskatoon. So far this year, up to the end of May, there have been 10 murders, all of them in the riding I represent. I will look at a few other numbers on arrests, and this is quite concerning. In Saskatoon in the first five months of this year, there have been 830 assaults, versus 742 all last year. Sexual assaults so far this year are at 120, versus 84 all last year. Weapons charges are at 250, versus 256 all last year. Abductions so far are at 17, versus 14 all last year. Robberies are at 147, versus 131 all last year. Break and enters are at 500 so far, versus 600 all last year. Vehicles broken into or stolen so far this year are at 1,000, versus 1,200 last year.

We are not bad people on the west side of Saskatoon, far from it, and it is not a bad place to live. It is a beautiful area. There are lots of nice houses and lots of nice neighbourhoods. However, because of the soft-on-crime policies that we are seeing from the government—

Public Safety

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to the table two petitions on behalf of my constituents in New Brunswick Southwest.

The first petition is concerning the rising rate of crime in rural communities. The petitioners no longer feel safe in their communities because of the soft-on-crime laws passed by the Liberal-NDP government. They note that Bill C-75 made it easier for repeat violent offenders to obtain bail, Bill C-5 removed mandatory prison time for serious gun, drugs and sex crimes, and Bill C-21 redirects valuable police resources away from our streets and toward too much back-office work.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to protect victims of crime by giving jail, not bail, to repeat dangerous offenders and to bring home safe streets for rural communities by immediately passing the Conservative reforms found in Bill C-325.

Women and Gender Equality

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, on this day in 1990, members of Parliament passed a Conservative bill that would sentence doctors to jail for providing abortions. Thankfully, that bill died in the Senate.

Abortion is health care. Canadian women should always have access to abortion. Recognizing this constitutional right to abortion, Liberal Bill C-75 removed abortion from our Criminal Code entirely in 2019. That is the exact same bill the Conservative leader keeps promising to repeal.

While Conservatives speak at anti-abortion rallies and venerate American restrictions on abortion, this Liberal government will always stand up for women's rights.

Justice

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table my very first petition as member of Parliament for Durham on behalf of my constituents and Canadians across the country who are concerned about rising rates of auto theft. This petition is signed by Canadians who are concerned about Liberal bail policies, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, and their enabling of repeat offenders to continue committing crimes in our community.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague brought up the issue around crime. Last month was the tragic one-year anniversary of a young mother and her young child being murdered on the streets of Edmonton by a man who had just been released on bail after assaulting a young girl and another person while he was out on parole after stabbing someone randomly and charged with attempted murder. He was out on parole after also trying to stab someone to death while also out on bail on four different violent assault charges.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, soft-on-crime bills. I wonder whether the member could perhaps give some feedback on why he thinks the Liberal government is prioritizing the rights of criminals instead of innocent victims.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 38th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The people of Swan River are upset that jail is a revolving door for repeat offenders, as Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back on the street the same day. The Manitoba West district RCMP reported that just 15 individuals were responsible for 1,184 calls for service.

The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community.

I support the good people of Swan River.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, no judge ordered the government to make it easier to restrict judges from looking at other options, including keeping dangerous and repeat offenders in jail longer. The direct result of Bill C-75 is that Canada now has a catch-and-release bail system. The minister does not have to take my word for it. He can listen to the Victoria Police Department, which said in a statement, “Bill C-75, which came into effect nationally in 2019, legislated a 'principle of restraint' that requires police to release an accused person at the earliest possible opportunity”.

Let us look at what that language says. It specifically states, “a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

Can the minister just answer a simple question? There are only two options: Since Bill C-75, either the crime rate went up or the crime rate went down. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, has the crime rate in Canada gone up or down?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that as a former Speaker, the member used to consult Speakers' decisions, but I also would appreciate that he knows about Supreme Court jurisprudence. What Bill C-75 did was codify a Supreme Court decision called “Antic”. The law was already in place. We took that law from the court cases and put it into the Criminal Code. That is what codification involves.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will get to auto theft in a moment, but first I want to just clarify: Bill C-75 made specific changes to make bail easier for dangerous and repeat offenders. I am not talking about any other aspect of bill C-75. Since those specific changes in Bill C-75, has the overall crime rate gone up or down in Canada?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 dealt with a number of things. It dealt with trial delays. It dealt with responding to Jordan. It dealt with changing how to select a jury trial after the Gerald Stanley matter and the systemic racism that was disclosed. It also dealt with enhancing penalties for things like auto theft, which that member voted against.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there has been so much misinformation from the Minister of Justice, so I am going to try one last time to get some clarity around some key points.

The NDP-Liberal government made a conscious decision to not just make it easier but actually force judges to grant bail for dangerous and repeat offenders. That was in their bill, Bill C-75. Since those changes in the government's bill, has the overall crime rate in Canada gone up or down?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very open to looking at what is transpiring in California. Centring victims at the heart of our criminal justice strategy is important, and we have been attempting to do that with respect to victims of hatred, through the online hate bill; victims of child sex predation, through Bill C-63; victims of intimate partner violence, through our changes to the bail regime, not once but twice, through Bill C-48 and Bill C-75; and fundamentally, victims of gun violence in this country, through bills like Bill C-21, which would put a freeze on handgun sales and ensure tougher penalties with respect to things like gun trafficking. These are important provisions, but I am definitely willing to entertain suggestions about what California is doing and look at whether the model could be brought over.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contributions at the justice committee and to today's debate, but let me just outline a few things. The first is that I am not responsible, or the decision-maker, for individual bail decisions. Those are made by independent and impartial adjudicators around the country. Second, the decisions are meant to be guided by principles under the Criminal Code of Canada and by Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The member is referencing Bill C-75, and what it entrenched is the constitutional principle that already came from case law, such as the Antic decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. All we were doing was codifying a jurisprudential decision that had already been made. However, in terms of decisions that are being made about repeat offenders, that goes to the hallmark of the likelihood of reoffending. That is a consideration for bail under the Criminal Code of Canada. It needs to be applied in all instances.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was another story also coming out of the city of Victoria that a person charged with illicit drug trafficking three times was released on bail three times, and people are wondering what is going on with the police. Now the police, in their public notices, have taken to highlighting Bill C-75 of the Liberal government, which directs them to release people with the least restraint possible.

My question for the minister again is this: How many times is too many before a repeat violent offender like the drug trafficker I mentioned should be kept behind bars for the sake of public safety?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, our commitment to victims, including victims of intimate partner violence, is steadfast, and that is witnessed through our reforms in Bill C-48 and Bill C-75, which dealt with the reverse onus on bail for people who are victims of intimate partner violence. That is demonstrating our commitment to victims, and we will continue to do so.

Motions in Amendment

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to speak about Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to trafficking in persons.

This is a bill that presents the opportunity to consider Canada's criminal justice response to human trafficking.

Human trafficking is a devastating crime that involves recruiting, moving or holding victims in order to exploit these individuals for profit, usually for sexual exploitation or forced labour. Traffickers can control and pressure victims through force or through threats, including mental and emotional abuse and manipulation.

Human traffickers prey on individuals who may be in challenging situations. This could be someone who is not in contact with their family, struggling with their identity, a survivor of abuse or someone in desperate need to work for money. Whatever the reason, victims are often unaware that they are being groomed, as traffickers are often expert manipulators.

Human trafficking can involve crossing borders and, according to the UN, is becoming more difficult to detect. In 2022, for the first time, the UN reported a decrease in the number of victims detected globally. The “Global Report on Trafficking in Persons” posits that this decrease may be due to a lower institutional capacity to detect victims, fewer opportunities to traffic resulting from COVID-19 preventive restrictions and a proliferation of clandestine trafficking locations.

The UN also highlighted that climate change is multiplying trafficking risks. Climate migrants are vulnerable to trafficking, and in 2021, 23.7 million people were displaced by weather-induced natural disasters, while many others crossed borders to escape climate-induced poverty.

Importantly, human trafficking is not just a problem that occurs internationally; it is happening right now in communities across Canada.

Most trafficking convictions in Canada involve Canadian citizens. In some cases, however, they involve permanent residents or foreign nationals who are trafficked into Canada. These individuals may enter the country willingly, only to later find themselves in exploitative situations. For both internationally and domestically trafficked persons, vulnerability to being trafficked is heightened by economic deprivation, lack of opportunity or social isolation. In Canada, this includes population groups such as indigenous women and girls, migrants and new immigrants, members of the LGBTQ2 community, persons with disabilities, children in care and other at-risk youth.

I would also like to underscore the particular impact of human trafficking on indigenous women and girls.

The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls emphasizes the disproportionate impact of human trafficking and sexual exploitation on indigenous women and girls due to intersecting factors that increase the likelihood of being targeted by a trafficker. These include systemic racism, violence against indigenous women and girls, intergenerational trauma from colonization, lack of access to social and economic resources, and colonial assimilation policies.

That is why Canada has continued to demonstrate leadership in combatting human trafficking. Back in 2005, Canada enacted human trafficking offences in the Criminal Code. Those offences have been amended several times—including by our government in 2019 through former Bill C-75, which Conservatives are fond of maligning—to ensure a robust response.

For example, Bill C-75 brought into force a provision that allows prosecutors to prove one of the elements of the human trafficking offence, that the accused exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a victim, by establishing that the accused lived with or was habitually in the company of the victim. We have heard the Conservatives say they would repeal Bill C-75, so I am curious as to whether they also plan to repeal this provision.

Moreover, in 2019, the Government of Canada launched the national strategy to combat human trafficking. This strategy is led by Public Safety Canada and is a five-year, whole-of-government approach to address human trafficking. It frames federal activities under the internationally recognized pillars of prevention, protection, prosecution, and partnerships. It also includes a fifth pillar of empowerment, which aims to enhance supports and services for victims and survivors of human trafficking.

Additionally, the Department of Justice's victims fund helps to ensure that victims and survivors of crime have improved access to justice and to give them a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. Since 2012, the Department of Justice has undertaken policy and program development through the federal victims strategy to support non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders to provide services and supports for victims and survivors of human trafficking. Since 2018, the victims fund has had an allocation of $1 million annually to support victims and survivors of human trafficking.

In terms of our legislative approach, the Criminal Code's main trafficking offence prohibits recruiting, transporting or harbouring victims to exploit them or to facilitate their exploitation by someone else under section 279.01. Separate offences criminalize materially benefiting from human trafficking under subsection 279.02(1) and withholding or destroying identity documents, whether authentic or forged, to facilitate human trafficking under subsection 279.03(1). In addition to these adult-trafficking offences, the Criminal Code also contains child-specific human trafficking offences. I stress that all of these offences have extraterritorial application, meaning that a Canadian or a permanent resident who engages in this conduct abroad can be prosecuted in Canada under subsection 7(4.2).

Importantly, convictions have been secured under these offences, including where traffickers have exploited their victims' vulnerabilities without using physical violence. Both the Ontario and the Quebec courts of appeal have found that under the existing human trafficking offences, prosecutors do not need to prove that the victim was actually afraid, that the accused used or threatened the use of physical violence or even that exploitation actually occurred. Prosecutors need only prove that a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would believe their physical or psychological safety would be threatened if they failed to provide the labour or services required of them.

We look forward to proceeding with this discussion this evening, and I will end my comments here.

Public Safety

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was not forced by the courts to allow career car thieves to do their sentences in their living rooms playing Grand Theft Auto. He chose to do that through his Bill C-5. He chose to bring in catch-and-release bail through Bill C-75. He chose to pass a law allowing Paul Bernardo out of max pen.

Now, the Prime Minister can make another choice. Instead of trying to ban Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle, will he put extortionists who use machine guns in jail?

Protection against Extortion Act

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the debate today and the first session of it as well, I am quite disappointed in hearing that the NDP and the Liberals will not be supporting tougher penalties for such serious crimes as extortion.

The fact is that after nine years, backward, soft-on-crime Liberal policies have resulted in a full-blown crisis across Canada. Canadians are suffering the consequences of the Liberal government's failed policies on crime with skyrocketing auto theft, extortion, gun violence, random assaults and arson right across the country. Crime is not only more frequent, but the severity of crime has also gone up.

In fact, we see extraordinary crime statistics in almost every possible crime category. Statistics Canada paints a very grim picture, reporting that car thefts are up over 300% in some cities across the country, and the rate of firearm-related or violent crime in 2022 was the highest ever recorded. According to a recent report, violent crime is only getting worse, and Canada's violent crime severity index is at its highest level since 2007.

Extortion, which we have been discussing today, is up across the country. In Ontario and Alberta, extortion offences are up almost 300%, and 386% in British Columbia since 2015. This is the result of the last nine years of soft-on-crime Liberal policies allowing crime, chaos and disorder to run rampant in our Canadian streets.

Instead of addressing this Liberal-made crisis, the government continues to make life easier for criminals and their organized crime organizations. In today's Canada, it is common for criminals to get released within hours of arrest, allowing them to return to the same communities that they terrorized just hours earlier.

Under the current Prime Minister, our police are sick and tired of arresting the same criminals over and over again just to see them walk away unpunished. They know that despite doing their job and catching these criminals, the criminals will be released because of the bills the government brought in: Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It is not surprising that Canadians are losing faith in our justice system. After nine years of the Liberals' catch-and-release chaos, the majority of Canadians do not have confidence in our justice system anymore.

None of this is normal. None of this makes any sense, but most importantly, it does not have to be this way. Our Conservative plan in Bill C-381 would ensure that anyone who commits extortion will serve jail time. This common-sense bill would establish a mandatory sentence of three years for any criminal convicted of extortion. It would send a clear message to organized crime rings that if they do the crime, they will do the time under a Conservative government.

The bill would undo the serious damage caused by the government's reckless Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for committing extortion with a firearm. Not only would Bill C-381 restore a mandatory four-year prison sentence for committing extortion with a firearm, but it would also make arson an aggravating factor. Additionally, any criminal who commits extortion on behalf of a gang, criminal organization or crime ring would get a mandatory five-year sentence. Finally, we would reverse the damage done by the government's Bill C-75 and restore jail, not bail, for repeat offenders who continue to benefit from Liberal soft-on-crime policies.

This common-sense bill would give prosecutors and the police an important tool to go after the ringleaders of criminal organizations and allow them to put away those who work on the ringleaders' behalf.

Canadians deserve safer streets and secure communities that are free from extortionists and organized crime. It is our Conservative common-sense plan that would bring home safer streets, reverse the damage of the last nine years of the Liberal government's chaos and restore peace in our neighbourhoods.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, after listening to my colleague's remarks, there is no doubt in my mind or in Canadians' minds why crime is absolutely out of control after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. Liberals simply do not get it.

They talk about resources for police; I will share one story we heard recently. Police in Victoria arrested the same man three times in three days for stealing vehicles and committing other offences. This is not a matter of the police's ability to arrest, catch or find an individual. They were able to do that, but I will tell everyone what happened. First, the man was arrested for trying to steal an occupied car and released on bail. The next day, he pushed a woman out of her car and caused several crashes before trying to take a second vehicle. The police caught him; he was arrested and then released on conditions again. Incredibly, on the third day, police were called to a home invasion in progress. The suspect left and attempted to enter an occupied vehicle before he was finally arrested. Following this out-of-control crime spree, a statement from Victoria police leads with the question: Why was this person originally released?

That is the question Canadians have been asking of the government over and over again. The results are in, the evidence is in, and the evidence is staggering. Since 2015, violent crime in this country is up 39%. Why do I mention 2015? That happens to be the year that the Liberal-NDP government took power. It began the Liberal governance and the running of our justice system. Since 2015, homicides are up 43%, the highest rate in 30 years. Since 2015, gang-related homicides are up 108%. As I mention these statistics, we should remember that they represent victims from across the country, victims from urban and rural areas, individuals whose families will never see them again. Therefore, these are not just statistics. They represent Canadian victims.

Violent gun crimes are up 101%, and they have gone up every year since the Liberals took office in 2015. Assault with a weapon is up 61%, sexual assault has increased 71% since 2015, and sex crimes against children are up 126%. We all know that auto theft is out of control. Incredibly, since the Prime Minister took office, Toronto alone has seen a 300% increase in the number of vehicles stolen. Therefore, members will forgive me if I find it absolutely incredible to be lectured by the NDP or the Liberals on what works and what does not work. Canadians know and are ready to pass judgment on the government and its weak crime legislation.

It is incredibly weak in that there were deliberate efforts in Bill C-75 to create catch-and-release bail reform. Bill C-5 removed mandatory jail time for an individual who commits extortion with a firearm. I will get to this issue of extortion. The deliberate actions of the NDP-Liberal government have led us to the travesty that is our justice system. I use the words “justice system” very reluctantly; at the justice committee, a victim of crime appeared as a witness and said that Canada does not have a justice system anymore. It has a legal system. There is no justice for victims. When we look at these statistics, we see that the witness was absolutely right.

I am speaking today on the excellent legislation by my colleague from Edmonton Mill Woods, Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act.

We know that, over the last nine years, the rate of violent crime, as I just mentioned, has gone up in Canada; the rate of extortion is no exception. Extortion is the act of obtaining something, typically money, through force or threats. Since 2015, the rate of extortion in Canada has increased 218%; again, this should be no surprise for anyone who listened to the general stats around crime. In 2022, the rate of police-reported extortion increased 39% in a single year. Bill C-381 is part of our common-sense plan to crack down on extortionists and to protect Canadians.

I would like to mention some of the concrete measures that are in the bill. The bill would establish a mandatory jail sentence of three years for criminals convicted of extortion. This is Parliament's way of saying that the current sentencing on extortion is too soft and that the criminal justice system is too lenient. The revolving door that allows someone to commit serious crimes and then be released into the community has to be shut for individuals who commit such crimes, and this is an entirely appropriate mandatory jail sentence for the serious crime of extortion.

The bill would also restore the mandatory jail sentence of four years for the offence of extortion with a firearm. Now, who in their right mind would think that we should have removed a mandatory four-year sentence for the offence of extortion with a firearm? Nobody would, except that the Liberals did exactly that with Bill C-5. They removed a penalty for extortion with a firearm, allowing individuals to serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home and requiring no mandatory jail time for using a firearm in the offence of extortion. However, this is the same bunch that are happy to go after law-abiding Canadians: If a person is a hunter or a sport shooter, the Liberals want to take their guns and want to make sure that they harass them to the maximum. They are going to spend millions, if not billions, of taxpayers' dollars to buy back legally owned firearms to go after the good guys. What do they do to the bad guys, the individuals who are committing extortion with a firearm? They say, “You know, there's probably no need for you to even serve any time in jail.”

What I heard the previous speaker say, which is that criminals are somehow not aware of the penalties in our justice system, is incredibly naive. Of course criminals know that we have a lax justice system. Canada is a target for many of these criminal offences because of our lax regime. Of course, criminal organizations know that minors are subject to a different legal system than adults, which is why minors are often used in the commission of some of these offences.

The private member's bill would also extend the five-year mandatory jail sentence for the offence of extortion when “committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization”. We are seeing criminal organizations targeting, for example, business people, saying that if they do not pay up, there will be consequences. It may be done using a firearm, or as has been the case throughout our country, with individuals using arson and burning down a project that is under construction if a person does not pay up. This is why the bill establishes arson as an aggravating factor for the charge of extortion.

For too long, the Liberal government has ignored the rising rate of extortion while communities are targeted by gangs and business owners face threats, such as having their property torched by arsonists. We know that these are not empty threats, and gun violence and arson are often associated with these extortion schemes.

Since 2015, the rate of extortion has skyrocketed under the Liberal-NDP government; it is up 263% in Ontario, 284% in Alberta and 386% in British Columbia. This is why, in January, the mayors of Brampton, Ontario, and Surrey, B.C., wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Safety asking him to take urgent action. The Liberals have not taken action. The NDP are certainly not going to take action. The Conservatives will stand up for Canadians and fight against extortion.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I can be very concise, because the insurance company told my staffer that the reason for the $1,000 increase in premiums was inflation and car theft. The Liberal government, with Bill C-75, made car theft go up 100% across the country, and it is driving inflation by pouring deficits on the inflationary fire.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

I am honoured to rise in the House and add the voice of the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte to today's debate. I want to take a moment to go over the unfortunate state of this country's finances after nine years of deficit budgets and how the Liberal government's inflationary policies are affecting families in my community.

Under the Liberal government, mortgage payments have doubled, down payments have doubled, rents have doubled, the cost of gas, groceries and home heating has skyrocketed and people cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves. The Prime Minister said repeatedly that doubling the national debt would have zero consequences and the budget would balance itself. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not have the foresight to realize that doubling the national debt would drive up interest rates to historic modern highs, and now the government will spend over $54 billion in interest on the national debt. That is more than the government is spending on provincial health care transfers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his latest report, stated that budget 2024 marks the third consecutive fiscal plan in which the government's new measures, even after accounting for revenue-raising and spending reviews, have exceeded the incremental “fiscal room” resulting from economic and fiscal developments.

Conservatives had three simple demands leading up to this year's budget. We committed that if the Liberal government introduced measures to immediately pass Bill C-234 in its original form, require cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money, and cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, we would give our support to the budget. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the finance minister ignored our pleas for a balanced budget, lower taxes and more homes for Canadians, and decided to add more than $60 billion in new spending that will keep inflation and interest rates higher than Canadians can afford. That means higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher rents and higher mortgage payments.

I would like to spend some time discussing three central issues that I hear often from members of my community: the high cost of housing, the carbon tax and public safety.

First, one of the top concerns for residents in my community is housing affordability. In my riding, the cost of housing has skyrocketed under the Liberal government. Residents in my riding are now forced to spend almost $2,000 a month on a one-bedroom apartment. The only solution to this crisis is for the Liberals to build more homes. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister told Canadians directly that housing is not a federal responsibility, and bureaucrats in his own housing department have confirmed that the government has no plans to bring down housing costs by building the homes that Canadians need.

According to Statistics Canada, between January 1 and November 30, 2023, Canada built 17,000 fewer homes than in the previous year. Instead of taking real action to address this issue, the Liberal government is concerned with photo ops and ribbon cuttings. The numbers do not lie. The government has failed an entire generation of Canadians who fear that they will never be able to own a home.

I see the crisis surrounding interest rates playing out in my community. I receive calls and emails constantly from residents whose mortgage rates have doubled. Recently, a retiree in my riding saw their mortgage jump from $1,100 a month to $2,600 in less than a year. It has not always been like this in Canada. Nine years ago, the average down payment on a home was approximately $20,000. Now the massive cost of even a modest home in my community is forcing residents to save for longer and longer. It now takes 25 years to save up for the cost of a down payment, and the needed down payment for a home has doubled.

Roughly 64% of the average pre-tax monthly income is needed to pay the monthly costs associated with housing. This crisis has made the dream of home ownership impossible for all but the wealthiest few. In fact, 76% of Canadians who do not own homes believe they never will. The Liberal government had nine years to address this issue. The housing crisis is a policy and leadership failure from the Liberal government.

I will go on to an issue that is directly affecting families and farmers in my community: the carbon tax. Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister hiked his punishing carbon tax by 23% as part of his plan to quadruple the carbon tax over the next six years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told members of this House that Canadians would be better off without the carbon tax, saying that they would experience higher income growth while the price of food would come down, but the Liberal government went ahead with its tax anyway.

To illustrate the impact this tax is having on the lives of Canadians, I want to share some of the correspondence I have received from people living in my community. I have a bill here from a family of six in my riding that is paying $142 a month plus HST in carbon tax on their home heating bill.

I have another Enbridge bill from a Barrie resident where the carbon tax makes up 33% of the total bill when the HST is factored in. This resident bought a programmable thermostat that automatically turns down the temperature in her home to 15°C from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. She believes that she is doing all she can do lower her gas bill, but she still feels punished by this costly carbon tax.

I hear this government boast often about the rural top-up of the carbon rebate. Meanwhile, we know that the calculations it made on who qualifies as a rural Canadian are deeply flawed. Residents in my riding who live in rural places like Anten Mills, Elmvale, Hillsdale, Midhurst, Minesing, Phelpston, and Snow Valley are deemed to be living in urban areas, according to the Liberal government's rural top-up formula. Budget 2024 finally says that the government will look to better define rural areas, but it only commits to putting forward a proposal to do so later in the year. This is unacceptable for residents in my riding who are forced to pay more in carbon tax, and it is proof of why we simply need to axe the tax for everyone, forever.

I will move on to how this tax is affecting the hard-working farmers in my riding. I am proud to represent a riding with a large, vibrant agricultural industry. I was recently sent an Enbridge bill for almost $10,000 from a farmer in my riding who runs a poultry operation. Their bill shows a carbon tax charge of $2,700 on the cost of fuel to dry grain corn. Shockingly, the carbon tax is more than the value of the gas before delivery and global adjustment. The Prime Minister just does not understand that if we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, we end up taxing the food that a family buys.

Finally, I will spend some time discussing the crime and chaos that the Prime Minister has unleashed, which is deeply affecting members of my community.

Small businesses bring life and a sense of community to our downtowns and neighbourhoods, yet they are sounding the alarm about the impacts of crime on their livelihoods. These businesses, including in my community, face significant challenges related to vandalism, theft, loitering, and public intoxication.

In my riding, a beloved Italian restaurant named Limoncello Bistro was recently broken into for the sixth time. Thieves who recently broke into Limoncello Bistro stole everything from the restaurant, even the meat and seafood. These repeated break-ins have cost the owners thousands and thousands of dollars. One of the owners of Limoncello Bistro has stated, “I find it hard to swallow that I have to pick up and leave a place where 5 short years ago this wasn't as bad as it is today. We fell in love with downtown Barrie. The waterfront, the community and the people. We as business owners shouldn't have to leave because criminals are putting us out of business.”

I agree. Small businesses like Limoncello Bistro are on the front lines of the Canadian public safety crisis, and we urgently need to address this issue of skyrocketing crime rates. We know that the Liberal government caused this problem with its soft-on-crime laws: Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Another issue that is directly affecting small businesses in my community is the Liberal government's nonsensical attack on law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters. The budget proposes to spend $30.4 million on a hunting rifle buyback plan that does not exist. This is on top of the $42 million it has already committed. Members can think about that. The Liberal government will now spend $72.4 million to buy exactly zero guns from owners and businesses. Not one gun has been bought back after spending $72.4 million.

I recently received an email from a small business owner in my riding. He is a responsible business owner who gives back to the community and is facing devastating financial losses because of this failed policy. He is now struggling to pay for his everyday expenses. He has over 40 firearms, worth almost $50,000, sitting in safes that cannot be sold but must be insured and housed in a secure rental space, while the Liberal government forces him to pay GST on them. The owner of this business says that this government is “clearly bent on just winning political points and not truly caring about the safety of the general public surrounding firearms and criminals who use them.” I agree with him. While the Prime Minister wants to protect turkeys from hunters, common-sense Conservatives want to protect Canadians from criminals.

The only way to reverse the damage the Liberal government has caused is by reversing course and doing the opposite. Canadians want change. They want lower taxes, lower mortgage rates, lower grocery bills and safer communities. Most of all, they want a change in government. The Conservative promise is simple: no gimmicks, no half measures. We will axe the tax, build more homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring home affordability for all Canadians.

I will be voting alongside my Conservative colleagues against the budget, and we will be voting no confidence in this costly NDP-Liberal coalition.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present petitions on behalf of my constituents.

I rise for the 35th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. Jail has become a revolving door for repeat offenders. Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back on the street the same day, while Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home.

The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. They demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

Motions in Amendment

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my remarks.

It is vitally important that we debate the proposed legislation. As it came out of committee, there were numerous concerns that we, as Conservatives, raised in the amendments to the legislation; they were not addressed. Certainly, it is not enough to impede the legislation, but it is critically important that we have a debate on it and see it come through.

I find it curious that the NDP-Liberal government, which told us last fall how important it was to get the legislation passed, has dithered. The legislation came out of committee in November, and we have had months to bring it forward for third reading debate. Here we are in May, and the government has finally brought it forward. Therefore, we do not take it very seriously when the NDP-Liberal government talks about how important it considers the legislation to be, while it is only bringing it up in May.

Our RCMP and CBSA officers make incredible sacrifices, and we need to do the very best we can to ensure that they and their families are safe and protected. They are consistently putting their lives in danger every day. It is in the interest of the public, as well as the brave members of the RCMP and CBSA, that complaints be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner. This is crucial to guard against potential abuses of power and to maintain Canadians' trust in their agencies.

Canada has the largest undefended border in the world, and the lack of resources for the CBSA to perform its role to the fullest extent is seen in the rising crime in cities, such as Montreal and Toronto, and across the country. Illegal firearms are being smuggled through our porous border and used every day in horrific crimes. Even in rural areas, including in my riding, in towns such as Bon Accord, crime is on the rise after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies.

Unfortunately, it seems that the government is more focused on targeting law-abiding Canadian firearms owners and hunters than on fulfilling promises to implement a policy and provide resources for our border. There, we find rampant illegal activities, such as auto theft and gun smuggling; it is at a point where the fastest-growing export in this country is stolen vehicles.

At the public safety committee, we heard the Liberals continually attempt to distract from their miserable record on crime. Amidst this ongoing auto theft crisis that is impacting communities across the country, desperate Liberals have resorted to blaming car dealerships, small businesses, for the rise in car thefts. It is clear that they do not want to talk about the facts, and the fact is that auto theft has risen to unprecedented levels as a direct result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda.

We can all agree that the proposed bill is important for maintaining public trust in the RCMP and the CBSA. However, we cannot have productive debates unless we discuss the tremendous strain that is currently being placed on our brave men and women. Our law enforcement agencies, much like the Canadian Armed Forces, are suffering from significant recruitment and retention issues. What exactly is the government doing to ensure that these brave men and women feel valued and supported in their role?

Of course, the public should have a right to an independent and effective complaints commission to hold the RCMP and CBSA accountable for their actions. However, when we are not providing the resources for frontline police officers, the CBSA and other first responders to do their job effectively, it is no surprise that we are seeing mistakes. Our law enforcement personnel are under tremendous pressure as they deal with the impacts of the crime wave that is occurring across this country. When mistakes happen in the line of duty, it is frequently because these exemplary men and women are being pushed to their limit, overwhelmed by the crisis the government has created.

In fact, the National Police Federation put forward very commonsensical amendments that it wanted to see in this motion. Its members are concerned because RCMP officers are often being pulled off the front lines to do bureaucratic paperwork and deal with complaints, when complains should really be dealt with by an independent commission. Unfortunately, the proposed bill has some flaws, because it would still maintain a requirement for extensive bureaucratic red tape for RCMP officers in providing information and supporting these investigations, which would pull our resources off the front line.

We want to see an independent commission that does its job and that is resourced and staffed. In this way, RCMP officers and CBSA officers could focus on the front lines and not the back lines.

Let us talk about drug use. Our law enforcement officers are expected to act as social workers. They are confronting daily crime and disorder that the government's drug policies have inflicted on our communities, and we know this is causing a mental health crisis within the ranks.

On violent crime, we have heard at the public safety committee that the chiefs are fearful for the safety of their officers, especially since violent offenders are able to continuously terrify communities as a result of the “bail, not jail” provisions of Liberal Bill C-75. It should come as no surprise that the government does not want to have these conversations. Its record on crime is miserable.

Since this government came to power in 2015, Canada has become a massive importer of illegal firearms from the United States, a massive exporter of stolen cars to Africa and to the Middle East, and also has become an exporter of fentanyl across the world. It is shameful. While implementing this soft-on-crime agenda, the Liberal government has taken very little action to ensure that the brave men and women who choose to serve their communities and their country feel supported and respected in their work.

Everyone who goes through a border crossing should be able to go without facing discrimination or unfair treatment by border agents. Bill C-20 would allow people who have had negative experiences and who feel that their rights have been violated to submit complaints formally and to have them reviewed within a six-month period. I think it is critically important that we talk about this six-month period because we have seen some cases that witnesses have brought forward, where people made complaints, and those complaints were not addressed for months, and in fact, some complaints were not addressed for years. In some tragic cases, the complainants actually passed away before they could get responses to their complaints, and we do not want to see that happen. Of course, sometimes it is unavoidable, but we need to set standards to ensure that these complaints are being dealt with in a timely manner.

Currently, CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada without any independent oversight body for public complaints. Establishing an independent review body would foster and would enhance public trust and confidence in Canada's law enforcement and border services institution, which I think is something that we can agree is desperately needed in this country.

In closing, we know that the NDP-Liberal government has ignored its promises and has put off this critical legislation for years. It failed to deliver this important change; although, we hope this change will soon be delivered. It would help Canadians to renew their trust in our public safety agencies. It is a trust that I know many Canadians have, but when they see things like the police complaints commission not operating effectively or not being in existence in some cases, I think it causes some people to have some doubts about the transparency and accountability in the system.

How is it that so many Canadians had to face nothing but endless bureaucracy, when for years, we could have had legislation and a system to streamline the process for public complaints and could have established an oversight body for the CBSA?

The government has had plenty of opportunities to deliver and to fulfill its promises over these last nine years, but it failed to do so. If we have proven anything to Canadians it is that the promises of the NDP-Liberal government are just empty words, and years go by before any meaningful action or promise can be accomplished, if at all.

To perform their jobs effectively and to deliver the best possible service to Canadians, the RCMP and the CBSA require an efficient complaints process. While common-sense Conservatives are supportive of this effort, we believe that the Liberal government needs to do more to support our brave men and women in uniform who support our communities. My Conservative colleagues and I will continue to advocate on behalf of Canadians and to ensure that the highest standards are being met within the CBSA and the RCMP.

Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the truth hurts. The hon. member who just protested was proclaiming that he has all the answers and that, in British Columbia, auto theft is not an issue. Did colleagues know that in Victoria, British Columbia, an individual was arrested for auto theft? He was let out on April 21. On April 22, he was arrested for auto theft and let out again. Then, on April 23, he was arrested for breaking into a house in Victoria to steal an automobile. In three days, he had three arrests and was out on bail. The facts run contrary to the suggestion that the Liberals and the NDP have all the answers.

There has been a 216% increase in charges in Toronto from 2015, when the Liberals took government, to today. There have been increases of 190% in Moncton, New Brunswick; 122% in Ottawa; and 105% in Montreal. Toronto has seen a 300% increase in vehicles stolen. In the last few years, the automobile that is used to transport the Minister of Justice of this country has been stolen not once or twice, but three times. The Minister of Emergency Preparedness has had his vehicle stolen. The minister for the CRA had their vehicle stolen, and it is still not recovered.

For colleagues to suggest that everything is okay and that we do not need a bill such as the one that the member for Prince Albert has proposed is completely wrong. Canadians are listening. They understand that auto theft is an issue across the country, in every province, whether one lives in an urban centre or a rural community. As well, crime is an issue. Since the Liberal government took power in 2015, just nine years ago, violent crime is up 39%; homicides are up 43%, for the highest rate in 30 years; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%; assaults with a weapon are up 61%; sexual assaults are up 71%; and sex crimes against children are up 126%. I already gave some of the statistics on the subject matter of this bill, which is auto theft.

We are not going to turn to the failed policies of the NDP and the Liberals for the answers. We need common sense, and this is a common-sense piece of legislation. Let us talk about what it would do. The members opposite falsely claimed that it introduces a new mandatory minimum penalty. It does not. There is a six-month mandatory penalty in the Criminal Code for the third offence of stealing an automobile. Most Canadians would agree with this: It would increase the mandatory penalty to three years if someone is arrested, charged, convicted and then commits an offence again; they are arrested, charged and convicted, with the full benefit of the charter, and then there is a third offence.

The police tell us the number of Canadians stealing vehicles is not large. Quite the contrary, a small number of criminals are stealing a lot of vehicles. If those individuals are taken off the street, then they will no longer do so. That is why the police in Victoria laid blame for the out-of-control incident that happened there and said it is the fault of the Liberal government; it is the fault of Bill C-75, legislation that allows for catch-and-release. I mentioned this incident earlier, where an individual was arrested three times in three days for stealing automobiles.

The police do their job. They investigate; they catch the criminal. They have done a fantastic job, but the Liberal justice system has been letting those people back out onto the streets. That is no way to keep Canadians safe or to have a justice system.

We had a victim of crime at our justice committee who said that, in Canada, we do not have a justice system anymore; we have a legal system. That is how Canadians are feeling and why they are looking for answers. That is why the member for Prince Albert has put forward this tremendous piece of legislation. As I mentioned, on a third offence, an individual would receive a mandatory penalty of jail time for stealing a motor vehicle. It would remove the eligibility for house arrest if someone is convicted of a motor vehicle theft by way of indictment. That would be a more serious case of motor vehicle theft.

Who in the world would think it is a good idea that, when a serious criminal steals automobiles, is caught by the police, and is charged and convicted in our system, a judge should be able to sentence them to serve their sentence in their own home in the community where they stole the vehicle? No one would think that is fair.

However, that is a direct result of the Liberals' bill, Bill C-5, which allows for house arrest for such issues as arson, theft over $5,000, motor vehicle theft and sexual assault. These are all serious offences that people should get serious jail time for.

The member for Prince Albert has rightly said that is wrong. If one is a serious auto thief, one should serve time not in the comfort of one's own home and one's own community, not where one could revictimize members of the community, but in jail.

Finally, as has been mentioned, organized crime is increasingly active in motor vehicle theft in Canada. We hear the cases where individuals' vehicles are stolen and show up in the Middle East, across the ocean. That is organized crime. This legislation would create an aggravating factor in sentencing if the offence of motor vehicle theft is committed for the benefit of organized crime.

We all increasingly have examples of the victimization from motor vehicle theft. In fact, two out of five Canadians have either had their vehicle stolen or know somebody who has had their vehicle stolen. As a matter of fact, every member of Parliament knows at least one person who has had their vehicle stolen. We know the Minister of Justice has had his stolen three times. There is absolutely no doubt that this is an epidemic in Canada.

In my home province of New Brunswick, there was a situation where someone stole a motor vehicle. The police did their job and arrested him. He was brought before a judge in Saint John, and because of the Liberal legislation, Bill C-75, the judge had to let him out. How was he going to get back home? Of course, he stole a motor vehicle in Saint John and drove it home.

These are the kinds of things happening across the country, and only one party seems to be serious about doing something about it. We hear a lot of victim blaming. We hear that people should pay more money and have more expensive theft deterrents. We even hear from police that we should probably keep our keys right at the entrance of our home rather than inside so we do not end up in a conflict with car thieves in our home.

That is not a Canada any of us wants. We want a Canada where people are safe and the Canada where people used to leave their doors unlocked. We are a long way from that now. We need a Canada where we take crime seriously, where we have a true justice system and where Canadians do not go to bed wondering if their car is going to be in the driveway in the morning.

I commend the member for Prince Albert on a fantastic private member's bill, and I am happy to support it.

Justice

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada's biggest city, gun crime is up 66%. It is 100% nationwide. I just shared the tragic story of someone out on bail, slamming his car into an innocent family. Two wonderful grandparents are dead. A beautiful baby is dead. He was out on bail under the Prime Minister's catch-and-release bill, Bill C-75.

How many more will have to die before he repeals catch-and-release, and brings jail, not bail, for repeat offenders?

Public Safety

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that member knows and should know that the bail reform bill, which the member actually voted in favour of, tackles serious violent repeat offenders, which include those who use serious violence in committing an auto theft.

What the member should also realize is that when the very bill he impugned, Bill C-75, was before this chamber in the 42nd Parliament, we promoted an augmentation, an increase in the penalty available for auto theft. He and all of his colleagues voted against that.

What I would prefer is some collaboration and a bit less hypocrisy.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, that member knows that repeat violent offenders are already dealt with by our bail regime. He voted in favour of that. He should also know that when Bill C-75, the very bill—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the Prime Minister, car theft in Canada is completely out of control. Two out of five Canadians have either had their car stolen or know someone who has.

Last week in Victoria, a repeat offender was arrested three times in three days for stealing cars. The police in Victoria had to put out a statement and they laid the blame for this on the Liberals' failed bill, Bill C-75.

Will the justice minister listen to the police and reverse their soft-on-crime Bill C-75?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight on a very important issue.

In November of last year, a 12-year-old child committed suicide in British Columbia, after being the victim of online sexual extortion. The Liberal government has known that this has been a growing problem during the entirety of its nearly nine-year mandate and has taken no action to address this issue. It has gotten worse, and more children have been victimized. It is not just children who are the victims of extortion, and it does not just happen online, but I want to specifically address the extortion of children in Canada, particularly sexual extortion.

This is a federal problem. The gaps in the Criminal Code that allow these criminals to operate are in the federal jurisdiction. The RCMP, which is responsible for catching these organized criminals, is federal. The Prime Minister passed federal Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for committing extortion with a firearm. On top of this, he brought into place very detrimental, very poor bail reform, with Bill C-75, which makes it easier for offenders to get back on our streets.

Instead of reacting in a way that would address these gaps, the federal government has proposed a very large bureaucracy that is extrajudicial, that has no costing associated with it, that does not have a set timeline for coming into force and that would be subject to regulations that would not be built for years down the road. That is opposed to supporting common-sense measures, like establishing increased mandatory sentences for criminals convicted of extortion; bringing in five-year prison sentences for any criminal convicted of extortion who is acting on behalf of gangs, and there could be modifiers for cases of children; also restoring mandatory four-year prison sentences for the offence of extortion with a firearm; making arson an aggravating factor for the charge of extortion; and reversing the damage done by Bill C-75.

There are other things the government could be doing as well. We know that the problem of bringing people to justice, for any crime in Canada, but certainly for serious criminal issues, has been a problem since the government took office because the government has not been appointing judges. Across the country, there is a lack of judges. That lack of the ability of the government to appoint judges, coupled with Jordan's principle, has created this system where essentially the criminals act without any sort of deterrent.

I am just wondering why the government has chosen this “kick the can farther down the road” approach to dealing with child online sexual extortion, as opposed to closing loopholes in the Criminal Code and ensuring that there are adequate resources and tools for law enforcement agencies and the judiciary to bring criminals to justice.

Justice

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the crime. Today, we learned that thieves who stole $20 million in the biggest gold heist in Canadian history are out on bail. This is because of the Liberal government's shameful Bill C-75, which allows offenders to be in jail in the morning and back on the streets in the evening.

Will the Prime Minister reverse his bail-over-jail policies in Bill C-75?

Public Safety

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I think that the Minister of Justice is forgetting that car thieves and other criminals in Montreal are not afraid because of Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75, which deal with catch-and-release. They know that there will not be any consequences. If they are arrested, then they will be immediately released. That is what Bill C‑75 does.

Can the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister answer the question? Will they impose harsher sentences for car thieves so that these individuals are afraid of being arrested and stop stealing cars in Montreal?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would like to point out.

First of all, as soon as Bill C‑75 was introduced in the House two Parliaments ago, the member opposite voted against it, even though it included longer sentences for auto theft.

Now we have a budget. In the budget, we have already announced that we are going to increase the maximum sentences for auto theft. However, the member and his leader have already said that the Conservatives oppose our budget and our efforts to control auto theft.

Justice

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it did not work because Liberals do think that these criminals should be released back into the community. They passed the very bills that made it possible. They are the reason why gunrunners and gangsters who steal millions of dollars in gold get turned back loose onto the streets.

Did the Prime Minister get a little golden nugget from these criminals to pass his catch-and-release bill, Bill C-75? When will the government finally reverse these policies, protect our communities and keep criminals in jail where they belong?

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not finished.

I will continue in English. I want to share this great speech with English-speaking Canadians.

After nine years of the Prime Minister's deficits doubling the national debt and doubling housing costs and a new budget that brings in $50 billion of new unfunded spending on promises he has already broken, this budget, just like the Prime Minister, is not worth the cost, and Conservatives will be voting no.

Before I get into the reasons, and my common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, I would like to pay the Minister of Finance a compliment for a page in her speech I thought was extremely illustrative. She said, “I would like to ask Canada's 1%, Canada's 0.1%, to consider this: What kind of country do they want to live in?”

Before I go any further, let us point out the incredible irony that, as she and her leader point out, Canada's 0.1% are doing better than ever after nine years of the Prime Minister promising to go after them. Yes, they have benefited from the tens of billions of dollars of undeserved corporate welfare handouts and grants, ironically supported by the NDP; of corporate loan guarantees that protect them against losses in cases of incompetence or dishonest bidding; of contracts, of which there are now $21 billion, granted to outside and highly paid consultants, many of them making millions of dollars a year in taxpayer contracts for work that could be done inside the government itself if that work is of any value at all; and finally, of those grand fortunes that have been inflated by the $600 billion of inflationary money printing that has transferred wealth from the working class to the wealthiest among us. That 0.1% is doing better than ever after nine years of the Prime Minister pretending he would get tough on them.

Let me go on. I am interrupting myself. The Minister of Finance asked, “Do [you] want to live in a country where [you] can tell the size of someone’s paycheque by their smile?” Wow. How many Canadians are smiling when they look at their paycheque today? People are not smiling at all, because a paycheque cannot buy them a basket of affordable food, according to Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor. He has said that the cost of a basket of food has gone up by thousands of dollars per year, but the majority of Canadians are spending hundreds of dollars less than is required to buy that basket. That means they are not getting enough food. We live in a country now where the average paycheque cannot pay the average rent, so nobody is smiling when they look at their paycheque.

The minister went on to ask, “Do [you] want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry?” According to the Prime Minister, one in four kids are going to school hungry after his nine years. I look here at a press release his government released on April 1, on April Fool's Day of all days, where he says, “Nearly one in four children do not get enough food”. In fact, it says that they do not get enough food “to learn and grow”.

No, we do not want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry, but according to the Prime Minister's own release, we do live in a country where one in four kids do go to school hungry. The Minister of Finance then said, “Do [they] want to live in a country where the only young Canadians who can buy their own homes are those with parents who can help with the down payment?” No, we do not want to live in that country, but we do live in that country today.

According to data released by RBC Dominion, for the average family to afford monthly payments on the average home in Canada, the family would have to spend 64% of its pre-tax income. Most families do not keep 64% of pre-tax income because they pay so much in taxes. Therefore, most families would have to give up on eating, recreation, clothing themselves and transportation to be mathematically capable of making payments on the average home. For young people, it is even worse because they do not have a nest egg. They cannot afford a down payment that has doubled in the last nine years. That is why 76% of Canadians who do not own homes tell pollsters they believe they never will. Do we want to live in a country where the only young people who can afford a down payment are those whose parents can pay it for them? No. However, that is the country that we live in today.

“Do [you] want to live in a country where we make the investments we need in health care, in housing, in old age pensions, but we lack the political will to pay for them and choose instead to pass a ballooning debt on to our children?”

Are we living in the twilight zone here? These are the minister's words: Do we want to live in a country where we pass the bill on to our children with “ballooning debt”? She asks this as she is ballooning the debt by adding $40 billion to that debt. She asks this while giving a speech about the perils of passing ballooning debt to our children. She is the finance minister for the government that has added more debt than all previous governments combined in the preceding century and a half. It is worth noting that the Prime Minister has added deficits as a share of GDP that are bigger than we had in World War I, in the Great Depression and in the great global recession of 2008 and 2009.

I should also note that the majority of debt that has been added under the Prime Minister was unrelated to COVID. The “dog ate my homework” excuse, of blaming COVID for all that is wrong in Canada, no longer works. I will add that we are now three years past COVID and the deficits and debt continue to grow, putting a lie to that entire endless, nauseating excuse that the government has made.

The Prime Minister has added so much debt that we are now spending more on interest for that debt than we are spending on health care; $54.1 billion in debt interest this year; more money for those wealthy bankers and bondholders who own our debt; and less money for the doctors and nurses whom we await when we sit for 26 hours in the average emergency room right across the country.

No, we do not want to live in a country that passes on a ballooning debt to our children, but after nine years of the Prime Minister, that is exactly the country in which we live.

The Minister of Finance asks, “Do [you] want to live in a country where those at the very top live lives of luxury?” Who does that remind us of? There is somebody who flies around in a private jet to stay on secret islands on the other side of the hemisphere, where they treat him to $8,000- and $9,000-a-day luxuries, and he pays for it with the tax dollars of Canadians and emits thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Somebody luxuriates in that way at the expense of everyone else. He shall remain unnamed because we cannot say the Prime Minister's name in the House of Commons, so I will not break that parliamentary rule. However, I do point out the irony.

I will start again. The Minister of Finance asks:

Do [you] want to live in a country where those at the very top live lives of luxury but must do so in gated communities behind ever-higher fences using private health care and private planes because the public sphere is so degraded and the wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns so hot?

She says that the wrath of the majority of less privileged compatriots burns so hot. She is right that some people do not have the ability to live in gated communities, behind armed guards. Those people are told that they should leave their keys next to the door so that the car thieves can just walk in and peacefully steal their cars.

Communities across the country are being ravaged by crime, chaos, drugs and disorder. What she has described is exactly what is happening after nine years of the government. We have nurses in British Columbia hospitals who are terrified to go to work because the Prime Minister, in collusion with the NDP Premier of B.C., has decriminalized hard drugs and allowed the worst criminals to bring weapons and narcotics into their hospital rooms, where they cannot be confronted. We have 26 international students crammed into the basement of one Brampton home. We have a car stolen every 40 minutes in the GTA. We have a 100% increase in gun killings across the country.

We have communities where people are terrified to go out. We have small businesses across Brampton and Surrey that are receiving letters weekly, warning them that if they do not write cheques for millions of dollars to extortionists, their homes will be shot up, and their children will have bullets flying through the windows as they are sleeping.

That is life in Canada today. Do we want to live in that country? No, we do not want to live in that country. After eight years of rising costs, rising crime and rising chaos, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. We will replace him with a common-sense Conservative government that will bring home a country we love.

What does that country look like and how will we get there? Fortunately, we have a common-sense plan that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Let us start with the carbon tax, which went up 23% on April 1. Now we see the raging gas prices at the pumps across Ontario. There is chaos as people are desperately trying to get to the pumps and fill up before the latest hikes go ahead.

The Prime Minister celebrates, saying that high gas prices are his purpose, and he has the full support of the NDP leader on most days, when the NDP leader can figure out what his policy is. The NDP leader has voted 22 times to hike the carbon tax. Both parties, along with the help of the Bloc, have voted for future increases that will quadruple the tax to 61¢ a litre, a tax that will also apply on home heating bills and, of course, a tax that applies to the farmers who produce the food, the truckers who ship the food and therefore to all who buy the food.

That is why common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax to bring home lower prices. We take exactly the opposite approach to that of the Prime Minister when it comes to protecting our environment. His approach is to raise the cost on traditional energy we still need. Our approach is to lower the cost on other alternatives. We will green-light green projects, like nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, carbon capture and storage, mining of critical minerals, like lithium, cobalt, copper and others. We will do this by repealing the unconstitutional Bill C-69 so that we can approve these projects in 18 months, rather than in 18 years.

Here is the difference, the Prime Minister wants taxes; I want technology. He wants to drive our money to the dirty dictators abroad; I want to bring it home in powerful paycheques for our people in this country.

The same approach that will allow us to unleash energy, abundance and affordability is the approach we will take to build the homes; that is to say getting the government gatekeepers out of the way.

Why do we have the worst housing inflation in the G7 after nine years of the Prime Minister? Why have housing costs risen 40% faster than paycheques? It is by far the worst gap of any G7 country. Why did UBS say Toronto had the worst housing bubble in the world? Vancouver is the third most overpriced when comparing median income to median house price according to Demographia. Why? It is because we have the worst bureaucracy when it comes to homebuilding.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, Canada has the second-slowest building permits out of nearly 40 OECD countries. These permitting costs add $1.3 million to the cost of every newly built home in Vancouver and $350,000 to every newly built home in Toronto. Winnipeg blocked 2,000 homes next to a transit station that was built for those homes. The City of Montreal has blocked 25,000 homes in the last seven years. Literally hundreds of thousands of homes are waiting to be built but are locked up in slow permitting processes.

What do we have as a solution? The Prime Minister has taken the worst immigration minister in our country's history, the guy the Prime Minister blamed for causing out-of-control temporary immigration to balloon housing prices, and put him in charge of housing. Since that time, the minister has said that his housing accelerator fund of $4 billion does not actually build any homes.

Since he has doled out all of this cash to political friends in incompetent city halls across the country, homebuilding has dropped. In fact, homebuilding is down this year and, according to the federal government's housing agency, it will be down next year and again the year after that. That is a housing decelerator, not an accelerator.

That is what happens when a minister is chosen because he is a media darling and a fast talker rather than someone who gets things done, as I did when I was housing minister. The rent was only $973 a month for the average family right across the country, and the average house price was roughly $400,000. Those are results. There was less talk and less government spending but far more homes. That is what our common-sense plan will do again.

Our plan will build the homes by requiring municipalities to speed up, permit more land and build faster. They will be required to permit 15% more homes per year as a condition of getting federal funding, and to permit high-rise apartments around every federally funded transit station. We will sell off 6,000 federal buildings and thousands of acres of federal land to build. We will get rid of the carbon tax to lower the cost of building materials.

Finally, we will reward the working people who build homes, because we need more boots, not more suits. We will pass the common-sense Conservative law that allows trade workers to write off the full cost of transportation, food and accommodation to go from one work site to another, so they can build the homes while bringing home paycheques for themselves.

These homes will be in safe neighbourhoods. We will stop the crime by making repeat violent offenders ineligible for bail, parole or house arrest. That will mean no more catch and release. We will repeal Bill C-5, the house arrest law. We will repeal Bill C-75, the catch-and-release law. We will repeal Bill C-83, the cushy living for multiple murderers law that allows Paul Bernardo to enjoy tennis courts and skating rinks that most Canadian taxpaying families can no longer afford outside of prison.

We will bring in jail and not bail for repeat violent offenders. We will repeal the entire catch-and-release criminal justice agenda that the radical Prime Minister, with the help of the loony-left NDP, has brought in. The radical agenda that has turned many of our streets into war zones will be a thing of the past.

We will also stop giving out deadly narcotics. I made a video about the so-called safe supply. I went to the tragic site of yet another homeless encampment in Vancouver, which used to be one of the most beautiful views in the entire world. Now it is unfortunately a place where people live in squalor and die of overdoses. Everyone said it was terrible that I was planning to take away the tax-funded drugs and that all of the claims I made were just a bunch of conspiracy theories, but everything I said then has been proven accurate, every word of it.

I noticed that the Liberals and the pointy-headed professors they relied on for their policies have all gone into hiding as well. Why is that? It is because the facts are now coming out. Even the public health agency in British Columbia, which has been pushing the NDP-Liberal ideology, is admitting that the tax-funded hydromorphone is being diverted. The police in Vancouver said this week that 50% of all the high-powered hydromorphone opioids are paid for with tax dollars and given out by public health agencies, supposedly to save lives. Now we know that those very powerful drugs are being resold to children, who are getting hooked on them, and the profits are being used to buy even more dangerous fentanyl, tranq and other drugs that are leaving our people face-first on the pavement, dying of record overdoses.

The so-called experts always tell us to ignore the bumper stickers and look at the facts. The facts are in. In British Columbia, where this radical and incomparable policy has been most enthusiastically embraced, overdose deaths are up 300%. They have risen in B.C. faster than anywhere else in Canada and possibly anywhere else in North America. The ultraprogressive state of Oregon has reversed decriminalization, recognizing the total chaos, death and destruction the policy has caused.

What does the radical Prime Minister, with the help of his NDP counterpart, do? They look at the death and destruction that have occurred in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver and other communities and say we should have more of that. They took a walk, or better yet, these two politicians probably drove through the Downtown Eastside in their bulletproof limousines. They looked around at the people who were bent over, completely tranquilized by fentanyl, saw the people lying face-first on the ground, saw the tents that the police would have pointed out are filled with dangerous guns and drugs, saw all the small businesses that were shuttered by this policy and said that we should have more of that. They want to replicate all the policies that have created it, so that we can have tent cities and homeless encampments in every corner of the country.

That is exactly what they have done. In Halifax, there are 35 homeless encampments in one city after nine years of the Prime Minister, his NDP counterpart and the Liberal mayor of Halifax. If we look at every town in this country, we will find homeless encampments that never existed before the last nine years. This policy will go down in infamy as one of the most insane experiments ever carried out on a population. Nowhere else in the world is this being done. The Liberals gaslight us. They love to say that all the civilized people believe that giving out these drugs will save lives, but nowhere else is this being done. When we tell people this is happening, they have a hard time believing that we are giving out heroin-grade drugs for free to addicts and expecting it to save lives.

Now they spill into our hospitals, where nurses are told by the NPD government in B.C. and the Liberal government in Ottawa that they are not allowed to take away crack pipes or knives or guns. They are just supposed to expect that someone is going to consume the drugs, have a massive fit and start slashing up the hospital floor. This is something out of a bad hallucination and a hallucination that will come to an end when I am prime minister. We will end this nightmare.

We will also ensure that Canadians have a better way. We are not only going to ban the drugs. We are not only going to stop giving out taxpayer-funded drugs. We are going to provide treatment and recovery.

If people are watching today and are suffering from addiction and do not know how they can turn their lives around, I want them to know that there is hope. There is a better future ahead. We will put the money into beautiful treatment centres with counselling, group therapy, physical exercise, yoga and sweat lodges for first nations, where people can graduate drug-free, live in nearby housing that helps them transition into a law-abiding, drug-free life, and come back to the centre for a counselling session, a workout or maybe even to mentor an incoming addict on the hopeful future that is ahead. That is the way we are going to bring our loved ones home, drug-free.

As I always say, we are going to have a common-sense dollar-for-dollar law, requiring that we find one dollar of savings for every new dollar of spending. In this case, that will include how we will partly pay for this. We will unleash the biggest lawsuit in Canadian history against the corrupt pharmaceutical companies that profited off of this nightmare. We will make them pay.

Finally, we will stop the gun crime. We know that gun crime is out of control. Just yesterday, we saw this gold heist. By the way, all of the gold thieves are out on bail already, so do not to worry. They will have to send the Prime Minister a nugget of gold to thank him for passing Bill C-75 and letting them out of jail within a few days of this monster gold heist.

Why did they steal the gold? They stole the gold so that they could buy the guns, because we know that all of the gun crime is happening with stolen guns. The Prime Minister wants to ban all civilian, law-abiding people from owning guns, but he wants to allow every criminal to have as many guns as they want. I am not just talking about rifles. I am talking about machine guns, fully loaded machine guns that are being found on the street, which never existed since they were banned in the 1970s. Now the criminals can get them because the Prime Minister has mismanaged the federal borders and ports and because he is wasting so much money going after the good guys.

The Prime Minister wants to ban our hunting rifles. He said so in a December 2022 interview with CTV. He was very clear. If someone has a hunting rifle, he said he will have to take it away. He kept his word by introducing a 300-page amendment to his Bill C-21, which would have banned 300 pages of the most popular and safe hunting rifles. He only put that policy on hold because of a backlash that common-sense Conservatives led, which included rural Canadians, first nations Canadians and NDPers from rural communities. He had to flip-flop.

I know that in places like Kapuskasing, the law-abiding people enjoy hunting. While the NDP leader and the Prime Minister look down on those people and think that they are to blame for crime, we know that the hunters in Kapuskasing are the salt of the earth, the best people around, and we are going to make sure that they can keep their hunting rifles. God love them. God love every one of them.

While the Prime Minister wants to protect turkeys from hunters, common-sense Conservatives want to protect Canadians from criminals. That is why we will repeal his insane policies.

By the way, I should point out that he has not even done any of the bans. We remember that he had that big press conference during the election. He said to his policy team that morning that he needed them to come up with a policy that would allow him to put a big, scary-looking black gun on his podium sign. They said, “Okay, we will think of something.” He put that scary-looking gun on his podium sign, and he said he was going to ban all of these assault rifles. They asked him what an assault rifle was, and he said he did not know, just that it was the black, scary thing on the front of his podium sign. That was the assault rifle he was referring to.

It is now three years since he made that promise. He was asked again in the hallways what an assault rifle was. He said he was still working to figure it out. These rifles that he says he is going to ban one day, he does not know what they are but one day he is going to figure it out and ban them. In the meantime, he has spent $40 million to buy exactly zero guns from owners. He said he was going to ban them and buy them from the owners. Not one gun has been taken off the street after he spent $40 million.

We could have used that money to hire CBSA officers who would have secured our ports against the thousands of illegal guns that are pouring in and killing people on our streets. When I am prime minister, we will cancel this multi-billion dollar waste of money. We will use it to hire frontline boots-on-the-ground officers who will inspect shipping containers and to buy scanners that can pierce inside to stop the drugs, stop the illegal guns, stop the export of our stolen cars and stop the crime.

What we are seeing is a very different philosophical approach. The finance minister said in her concluding remarks that what we need is bigger and stronger government. Does that not sound eerie? In other words, she and the Prime Minister want to be bigger and stronger. That is why they are always trying to make Canadians feel weaker and smaller. The Prime Minister literally called our people a small, fringe minority. He jabs his fingers in the faces of our citizens. He calls small businesses tax cheats. He claims that those who own hunting rifles are just Americans.

The Prime Minister points his fingers at people who disagree with him. He has the audacity of claiming that anyone who is offside with him is a racist. This is a guy who dressed up in racist costumes so many times he cannot remember them all. He has been denigrating other people his whole life. That is because it is all about him. It is all about concentrating more power and more money in his hands. This budget is no different. It is about a bigger government and smaller citizens. It is about buying his way through the next election with cash that the working-class people have earned and he has burned.

By contrast, I want the opposite. I want smaller government to make room for bigger citizens. I want a state that is a servant and not the master. I want a country where the prime minister actually lives up to the meaning of the word: “prime” meaning “first”, and “minister” meaning “servant”. That is what “minister” means. “Minister” is not master; “minister” is servant.

We need a country that puts people back in charge of their money, their communities, their families and their lives, a country based on the common sense of the common people, united for our common home, their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House reject the government's budget since it fails to:

a. Axe the tax on farmers and food by passing Bill C-234 in its original form.

b. Build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities permit 15% more home building each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money.

c. Cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation by requiring the government to find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, after nine years and nine deficit budgets, the Prime Minister has doubled the national debt. He has added more to our debt than all the other prime ministers combined.

He has doubled the cost of housing and forced two million people to rely on food banks. Now, he is presenting a budget with $50 billion in additional inflationary spending, while repeating the same election promises he has failed to keep for a decade. That is why this budget and this Prime Minister are not worth the cost. We will be voting against this budget to show the government that we have lost confidence in it.

The Conservative Party has a common-sense plan: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Before I get into my common-sense plan, I would like to pay the Minister of Finance a compliment for asking Canada’s wealthiest some very good questions. She said, “I would like to ask Canada's 1%, Canada's 0.1%, to consider this: What kind of country do they want to live in?”

First, it bears mentioning that the minister and her leader do recognize that Canada's 0.1% are doing very well indeed after nine years of this Liberal government. They have benefited from enormous corporate handouts and grants—the biggest in the history of our country, in fact. They have received massive loan guarantees that protect them against losses from poor investments, which means that working class Canadians are left holding the bag. Millionaire businessmen like the GC Strategies contractors are surely part of the wealthiest 0.1% thanks to the gifts given them by this Prime Minister, such as the 100% increase in the number of outside contracts. In addition, by printing $600 billion of new money, this government made billionaires even richer. Lastly, the Prime Minister is a member of the 0.1%, since he inherited millions of dollars from his grandfather and placed the money in a trust that shelters it from taxes and protects it, just like those billionaires who invite him to their private island in the Caribbean. It was therefore a very good idea to put this question to the wealthiest 0.1% who are doing better than ever after nine years under this prime minister.

I am going to quote other questions that the minister asked them, including the following: “Do they want to live in a country where we can tell the size of one's paycheque by their smile?” After nine years of rising taxes, inflation and interest rates, Canadians are no longer smiling when they look at their paycheque, because it is disappearing. After nine years, Canada has the lowest personal income growth of any G7 country. Our GDP per capita is down from what it was five years ago. People have no reason to smile. Their paycheque does not buy them as much food or cover as much of their housing as it did nine years ago.

The minister also asked, “Do they want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry?” Obviously, the answer is no. However, that is the reality after nine years of this Prime Minister. According to the documents published by his own government, the Prime Minister admits that nearly one in four children go to school without food every day. After nine years of this Prime Minister, who taxes the farmers who produce our food and the truckers who deliver our food, a quarter of all children do not have enough to eat. We see today in the budget a promise to feed them. That promise was made in 2021, three years ago. How many meals have been provided since? Not a single one has been provided. After nine years of this Prime Minister, our children are going hungry.

The minister also asked, “Do they want to live in a country where the only young Canadians who can buy their own homes are those with parents who can help with the down payment?” That is the country we live in now, after nine years of this Prime Minister.

After nine years, he has doubled the cost of housing, doubled the down payment needed to buy a home and doubled the mortgage payment for an average home. Let us not forget that nine years ago, the average down payment was around $20,000. I remember because I was the minister responsible for housing at the time and it was possible to buy a home with a modest down payment of $20,000. Now, the down payment that is needed has doubled. Roughly 64% of the average monthly income is needed to pay the monthly costs associated with housing. That is nearly double what it was nine years ago. As a result, only the rich, only the children of the wealthy can buy a home right now.

“Do they want to live in a country where we make the investments we need in health care, in housing, in old age pensions, but we lack the political will to pay for them and choose instead to pass a ballooning debt on to our children?” I am quoting the Minister of Finance.

This Prime Minister is the one who doubled our national debt nine years after saying the budget would balance itself. He said he would run three small deficits totalling less than $10 billion. Now he has added nearly $700 billion to the debt, most of which has nothing to do with COVID-19 spending. He continues to rack up deficits of approximately $40 billion, three years after COVID-19. He can no longer say that the dog ate his homework and that the deficits are tied to COVID-19. He is choosing to go deeper and deeper into debt.

I would like to tell the minister that we do not want to live in a country where we leave our children with a growing debt, but that is the country we now live in after nine years under this prime minister.

“Do they want to live in a country where those at the very top live lives of luxury but must do so in gated communities behind ever-higher fences using private health care and private planes because the public sphere is so degraded and the wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns so hot?” I am again quoting the finance minister.

That is the country that we are living in now after nine years under this Prime Minister. Yes, the wealthy, like him, have private planes. He uses his private plane more than anyone else, while he is forcing single parent mothers who dare to drive their Toyota Corolla to pay a carbon tax. He is spending taxpayers' money to take illegal vacations on private islands. He and his cronies are the ones benefiting from this, while things on our streets and in our neighbourhoods are worse than they have ever been. It is complete chaos. Auto theft has become so commonplace that the police are telling people to leave their keys next to the door so that the thieves will have an easier time of it. That is the country that we are living in after nine years under this Prime Minister.

Minister, do we want to live in a country where we can tell the size of one's paycheque by their smile? No, but that is the country we live in. Do we want kids to go to school hungry? No, but the government says that is the country we live in now. Do we want to live in a country where the only young people who can buy a home are those with rich parents? No, but that is the country we now live in after nine years of this Prime Minister. Do we want to live in a country where our children are saddled with more and more debt year after year? No, but that is the country we now live in after nine years of this Prime Minister. Do we want to live in a country where the rich, like this Prime Minister, can travel around the world in private jets, while the majority live in the chaos and hell of our crime-ridden cities? No, but that is the country we now live in.

We do not want that kind of country. That is exactly why we need an election to elect a new common-sense government, a government that will deliver the country we love for all Canadians.

Just for a minute, let us talk about the myth that they are very rich. Nine years ago, members will recall, the Prime Minister said that he was going to spend, spend, spend, that it would not cost anyone a cent, and that some rich guy on a hill was going to pay all the bills. Where is he?

After nine years of this government, the rich are paying less than ever. After nine years of this Prime Minister, and for the first time in our history, owning a home is beyond the reach of an entire generation. After nine years of this Prime Minister's promises to help the so-called middle class, the middle class no longer exists. The middle class is poor.

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating, I have one simple question: Can a middle-class person afford to buy a house today? It is mathematically impossible for a middle-class person to buy an average home. I am not the one saying it. According to the Royal Bank of Canada, it takes 63% of the average family's pre-tax income to pay the average costs of a home today. It is a mathematical impossibility. Nine years ago, it took 38% of a monthly paycheque to pay the mortgage. Now, it takes twice as much.

If someone cannot buy a house, they are not part of the middle class. One in four families cannot feed their own children—one in four, and that is from the government's own statistics. That family is not part of the middle class either.

Yesterday's budget tabled by the finance minister was a major admission of failure. She admitted that after nine years of her government, life is hell for the so-called middle class. Middle-class Canadians have become Canada's poor. This Prime Minister has presided over the worst decline in middle-class quality of life in the history of our country. Things may even be worse than during the Great Depression. That is not me saying this, that is the minister herself and the Prime Minister.

When the Prime Minister talks about the condition this country is in, he describes it as a living hell for the poor and for workers. He describes a hell for the children who do not have enough food to eat. He describes a country where the elderly cannot pay their bills.

It is as though he has not been Prime Minister for a decade. Waving a magic wand, he tries to convince us that this is his first day on the job. After nine years, the Prime Minister is right: Life is hell for the middle class, and it is because we have a Prime Minister who is not worth the cost.

Fortunately, it was not like that before this Prime Minister and it will not be like that after this Prime Minister. We will replace him with a common-sense government that will lower taxes, build housing, fix the budget and stop the crime. I will explain how we will do this.

First, Canadians pay more in tax than they spend on food, housing and clothing. That is how things are after nine years of this costly government. That is why the trend must be reversed. Spending must be brought under control so that taxes can be lowered and Canadians' paycheques can go farther. Workers, businesspeople and seniors must be allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Second, more housing must be built. After nine years of this Prime Minister, we have less housing per capita than any other G7 country. That is because we have the worst bureaucracy. Our bureaucracy prevents housing construction, adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of each home and causes years-long delays. Among OECD countries, Canada is the second slowest to issue building permits. This adds $1.3 million to the price of each new home in Vancouver and $350,000 in Toronto. The City of Montreal prevented the construction of 25,000 homes. The City of Winnipeg prevented the construction of 2,000 homes next to a public transit station built specifically for these future houses. That is absurd. The federal government should not be sending $5 billion to municipal governments for them to build bureaucracies that prevent homebuilding.

On the contrary, we must begin to encourage municipalities to allow more construction by freeing up land and authorizing construction more rapidly. Real estate companies are paid for each house sold. Builders are paid for each house built. We should pay municipalities for each housing unit approved. My common-sense plan will require municipalities to allow 15% more construction per year and authorize the construction of high rise apartment buildings near transit stations funded by the federal government. That will be the condition to meet to receive this money.

We will do this by entering into agreements with the provinces, fully respecting their areas of jurisdiction and allowing them to achieve these results as they see fit, without federal interference. Then we are going to sell 6,000 buildings and thousands of acres of federal land to allow for more construction. We will also reduce taxes on housing construction to accelerate construction. This is a common-sense plan to return to a situation where housing is affordable, as it was nine years ago, when I was the minister responsible for housing.

Third, we are going to fix the budget by imposing a dollar-for-dollar rule. For each new dollar spent, my government will find a dollar of savings somewhere else. That is how we cap the cost of government to allow taxpayers and the economy to grow and reduce the size of the government relative to the country.

It is a decentralizing and responsible approach. This is how we will eventually balance the budget, reduce interest rates and bring down inflation.

I find it very ironic that the Bloc Québécois has voted more than once to increase the size of the federal government. It voted in favour of $500 billion in centralizing, inflationary and discretionary spending by the current Prime Minister. I am talking about the kind of spending that increased the size of the government and the number of federal employees by 40%. The Bloc Québécois voted to double spending for external consultants, who now cost $21 billion, in other words, $1,400 in taxes for each Quebec family just for consultants.

We understand why this Liberal centralist government would want to do that, but we do not understand why a so-called sovereignist party would vote for such an increase and concentration of powers and money at the federal level. It makes no sense. It is because the Bloc Québécois does not want to free Quebeckers from federal costs. It wants to implement a leftist ideology born on the Plateau Mont-Royal. It just wants a bigger role for government, whether federal, provincial or municipal. The Bloc Québécois's leader is obsessed with more government, more costs for workers. We Conservatives want a smaller federal government for a bigger Quebec. We want less control by Ottawa and more power for Quebeckers. A smaller federal government for a bigger Quebec is simple common sense. We are the only party that will be able to do it.

At the same time, we need to eliminate inflation, which widens the gap between the rich and the poor. A monetary system of printing money naturally favours the wealthy. It is something the Prime Minister borrowed from the United States. The United States' monetary policy causes inflation year after year to inflate Washington's spending and to inflate shares on Wall Street. It is an alliance between Wall Street and Washington, between big companies and big government. Of course, it favours the wealthy. The people who live in Manhattan and Washington are the richest people in the country. This is due in part to the fact that the United States prints a lot of money to help both groups.

Here in Canada, for the first time, a Prime Minister tried to copy and paste that approach by printing $600 billion to finance his own spending. It caused the worst inflation since the time of his father, who did the same thing. What are the consequences? Those who have shares or investments in land that is ripe for speculation, in gold, or in exclusive luxury wines get richer. The value of their assets is inflated. Conversely, people who rely on a paycheque or pension get poorer. The value of their paycheque diminishes. It is a transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest, and it is a benefit that often goes untaxed.

It is a benefit the Prime Minister keeps adding to day after day, causing this inflation. I would add that the people who receive these big financial gifts from governments often pay no taxes at all because they never sell their assets. They borrow money by using their assets as collateral to purchase more assets, whose value swells more with inflation, and then they use those assets to purchase even more assets, and so on. Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of the infamous 1% or 0.1% of the population. This trend has been accelerating since the Prime Minister came to power, because it helps the wealthiest Canadians and also allows his government to indulge in uncontrolled spending. Both sides get what they want. The Prime Minister can spend the money he prints out of thin air, and the wealthiest benefit from the inflation of the value of their assets and their wealth. It is always the working class that ends up footing the bill for this irresponsible approach.

I will put an end to that. I will restore the Bank of Canada's mandate, which is to keep inflation low and the dollar higher. We will make sure that we do not print money just to spend it, because that is an inflation tax. It is an unjust and amoral tax. I will axe the inflation tax by fixing the budget. I want people to bring home more powerful paycheques.

Speaking of home, home is more dangerous after nine years of this Prime Minister, who automatically releases criminals on bail or allows them to be sentenced to house arrest, the “Netflix sentences” that he implemented with bills C-5, C-75 and C-83. These laws have allowed people to be released mere hours after their arrest so that they could commit more crimes. That is why street crime is surging all across Canada.

Yesterday we heard reports of a major shootout in downtown Montreal. There has been a more than 100% increase in the number of car thefts in Montreal, Toronto and other major cities. My common-sense plan will keep the most dangerous criminals in prison by making those with dozens of convictions ineligible for bail, getting rid of “Netflix sentences,” forcing car thieves to serve their sentences in prison, and not going after our hunters and sport shooters. If someone has a gun they bought legally after going through an RCMP background check, receiving training and passing tests to prove that they are a safe, responsible person, they will be able to keep it. However, if they are criminals, we will stop them from having guns. We will strengthen the border and our ports. We will scan containers to make sure that no weapons or drugs enter the country and that no stolen vehicles leave. That is the common sense needed to stop the crime and make our communities safe again.

We are going to implement a common-sense plan that will rebuild the country that we want, a country that is the opposite of what the Minister of Finance described in her speech. It will be a country where it pays to work, where everyone who works hard can afford to buy a home and put food on the table in a safe neighbourhood. That is what Canadians are entitled to and deserve, and that is what they will have with a common-sense government.

Protection Against Extortion Act

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to say that we all need to come together to find a solution, but the fact is that the member is part of the government that brought in Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which make it easier for violent criminals to get back out onto the streets and terrorize the same communities they come from. If we talked to police officers right across the country, they would tell us they are arresting criminals in the morning who are being released later that day.

The member and the government had the power to keep criminals in jail. They chose their ideological ways and soft-on-crime policies and are allowing these criminals back onto the streets. Only Conservatives would put criminals behind bars with jail, not bail.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

moved that Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (extortion), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, crime is wreaking havoc in our neighbourhoods and communities right across this country. We see extraordinary crime statistics in almost every single category. We continue hearing about incidents that are committed by the same repeat offenders. They get arrested, get released and commit more crimes, and the cycle repeats.

This is a result of the last nine years of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies. After nine years under the Prime Minister, our nation faces a full-blown crisis that demands urgent action. Each day, Canadians wake up to the news of more gun violence, gang shootings, extortion, auto thefts, robberies and arson. That was not the case nine years ago.

What happened nine years ago? Canadians got a new Prime Minister, a Prime Minister whose soft-on-crime policies unleashed chaos in our once peaceful towns and suburbs, a Prime Minister who made Canada a safe haven for organized crime and gangs, a Prime Minister who makes life easier for criminals, not Canadians, with his broken catch-and-release bail system.

According to the Liberal government's own news release, auto theft in Toronto has skyrocketed by an alarming 300% since 2015. In just nine years, there has been a terrifying increase in extortion across the country. In fact, the rate of extortion was five times higher in 2022 than a decade prior. In 2022, the rate of police-reported extortion increased for the third consecutive year. Extortion has skyrocketed in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, where it has risen 263%, 284% and 386%, respectively, since 2015. These numbers are extremely alarming. In the GTA alone, extortion has increased by 155% since 2015 and, in Vancouver, by 228%.

I would like to remind my colleagues in the House that, behind every number and every statistic, there is a real family, a business owner who fears for their safety and their family's well-being. Canadian's lives and their livelihoods are at stake. There are examples of terrified families right across the country. I met one such family in the GTA, who ran a very successful business. They worked hard to get where they are today, but earlier this year they started receiving extortion threats. Soon after that, their house was shot at. The family had to stay separately in different hotels. They wore bullet-proof vests to go outside, and they had to purchase a bullet-proof vehicle as part of a long list of security measures. That was all because they ran a successful business.

I also want to tell colleagues about Mr. Buta Singh Gill. He moved to Edmonton from Punjab, where he was a trained lawyer. Like many new Canadians, he worked in a meat processing plant when he got to Edmonton, and then he went on to drive a bus for the Edmonton transit system. Then he followed up on his dream to become an entrepreneur. He started building homes, first with single-family homes and then multi-family homes. Eventually, he started building apartments for Canadians to live in. He also gave back to the community. In fact, he and his family were heavily involved in revitalizing one of the gurdwaras in Edmonton.

His family also received extortion threats. His family home was shot at. Houses that he had under construction were burned down. He and his family also had to take extraordinary security measures, which would obviously be extremely expensive for any family or business to undertake, but Buta would not let thugs slow him down.

Last week, Mr. Buta Singh Gill, a prominent Edmonton businessman, a family man who had just welcomed his first grandkids, twins, and a community leader, was murdered in broad daylight at one of his construction sites. It seems the murder had nothing to do with the extortion letters. Regardless, he is another tragic victim of violent crime in our country.

I went to his home and met with his family. His sister-in-law and brother said they cannot believe that this is happening in Canada and that they moved to Canada for a better life for their family, a safer life for their family. They are right that this is not the Canada they moved to. Things have been very different in the last nine years.

Mayors in British Columbia and Ontario have written to the Prime Minister's top government officials asking them to take concrete action to combat extortion in their once-peaceful communities. Despite this, we continue to see the government's complete inaction.

Extortion is a federal problem. The Criminal Code that allows these criminals to openly operate freely is federal. The RCMP, which is responsible for catching these criminals, is also federal, yet our neighbourhoods are grappling with the reality of the Prime Minister's indifference to their suffering. Law enforcement continues to catch and release the same individuals, who terrorize our communities and continue to commit crimes, because of soft-on-crime Liberal policies.

Of course, it is not just extortion. Auto theft continues to rise across Canada. Statistics Canada paints a grim picture, with auto theft up by 190% in Moncton, 122% in the Ottawa-Gatineau area, over 100% in Montreal and 62% in Winnipeg. These staggering statistics underscore the urgent need for action to address this growing threat to our communities.

In 2022, the insurance industry spent over $1 billion on car theft. Where does that extra $1 billion come from? It comes from the pockets of hard-working Canadians. They pay the cost of auto theft crime. With insurance premiums skyrocketing, some Canadian drivers are facing a staggering 25% increase in premiums this year alone. Again, the responsibility to combat auto theft lies squarely with the federal government. In fact, all primary prevention tools, such as the Criminal Code, the RCMP, the CBSA and our port systems, are at the Prime Minister's disposal.

Liberal catch-and-release, soft-on-crime policies, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, have allowed crime to thrive in our country. Liberal Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory prison time for drug traffickers and those who commit acts of violence. It allows criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences at home, in the same communities they have terrorized.

According to a recent report published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, violent crime is only getting worse and Canada's violent crime severity index is at its highest level since 2007. This means that the overall severity of crime has risen significantly in Canada.

To put things in perspective, under the previous Conservative government, the violent crime severity index decreased by almost 25%. Under the Liberal government, it has increased by 30%. According to Statistics Canada, the rate of firearms-related violent crime in 2022 was at the highest level ever recorded. This is a 9% increase from 2021 alone. Because of Liberal catch-and-release policies, criminals who get caught are able to walk away and are back on our streets terrorizing our neighbourhoods, sometimes within hours. Just talk to local police officers and they will say that. In addition, an increasing number of criminal cases are being stayed or withdrawn thanks to the Liberal justice minister, who has simply failed to appoint enough judges.

What does the government have to say to the victims of these crimes or to our hard-working police officers, who are sick and tired of catching the same criminals over and over again? Not surprisingly, Canadians are losing faith in our justice system. After eight years of Liberal catch-and-release policies letting crime and chaos run rampant on our streets, only 46% of Canadians still have confidence in our justice system.

For Conservatives, combatting crime is a top priority. What we want to tell Canadians today is that they do not have to live like this. Conservatives have a common-sense plan to protect our businesses and neighbourhoods, with common-sense legislation that would prioritize the safety of Canadians.

My private member's bill, the protection against extortion act, Bill C-381, is a common-sense bill that addresses extortion and those who terrorize our communities with demands for protection. First and foremost, this bill would undo the serious damage caused by the government's reckless crime policies, such as Bill C-5. Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for committing extortion with a firearm. On top of this, the government also brought in catch-and-release bail policies in Bill C-75, which make it easier for extortionists to get back onto our streets.

Bill C-381 would establish a mandatory prison sentence of three years for a criminal conviction of extortion. In addition, we would bring in a mandatory five-year prison sentence for any criminal convicted of extortion who is acting on behalf of a gang or organized crime. This mean that not only would the criminals who carry out these crimes go to prison, but also that prosecutors and police would have another tool to go after the ringleaders of these organized crimes.

We would restore mandatory four-year prison sentences for the offence of extortion with a firearm. We would make arson an aggravating factor. Finally, we would reverse the damage done by Bill C-75 and restore jail, not bail, for repeat offenders. Conservative Bill C-381 would ensure that extortion crime means mandatory jail time. It would go after the criminals, their gang leaders and anyone who participates in threatening our community members with arson or violence.

With Bill C-381, common-sense Conservatives would send a clear message to criminals and their organized criminal bosses that, if they do the crime, they will do the time. My colleagues and I will not tolerate the exploitation of our citizens for financial gain, and we will not allow organized crime rings to terrorize our communities.

Canadians deserve safe streets and secure communities. They deserve a government that will listen to them and take their safety concerns seriously. It is our duty to deliver on this fundamental promise. Common-sense Conservatives would fix the damage and the chaos that the government's nine years in power has created. We would ensure that the extortionists who scare and intimidate our neighbours will stay longer in jail. We would go after the leaders of these organized crime rings to make sure they get shut down once and for all.

Extortion has no place in Canada. Conservatives would bring home safe streets for all Canadians. Let us bring it home.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 34th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is struggling with extreme levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-75.

The people of Swan River are upset that jail is a revolving door for repeat offenders as Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back on the street the same day. Manitoba West district RCMP has reported that just 15 individuals were responsible for 1,184 calls for service. The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member opposite, but what I respect most of all is that he actually was not here when we were voting on Bill C-75. That piece of legislation actually enhanced the penalties on summary conviction for auto theft, something that most of his colleagues voted against. He was not here, so I will excuse him on that one.

On the issue of mandatory minimum penalties, there is a guy named Ben Perrin. He might remember that individual. He used to be the lead adviser to a guy named Stephen Harper. Ben Perrin has been on the record as saying that mandatory minimum penalties were a gross error, a miscarriage of justice, and perpetuate systemic racism. That is why we reversed them. I wish these guys would get on board.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals did was bring in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which allow these same criminals to quickly get bail and be out on the streets, sometimes on the same day. As a result, small businesses across the country are not only dealing with higher taxes, like the carbon tax that the Liberals brought forward, but are now having to pay for extra security to protect their businesses and their families from property theft, organized crime, extortion, shootings and arson.

This is the new reality for businesses and families in Canada after eight years of the Prime Minister. He is not worth the cost, the corruption or the crime. When will it end?

Justice

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

Domestic violence and intimate partner violence is a top priority on this side of the House. We addressed this issue twice, in Bill C‑75 and in Bill C‑48 with respect to bail conditions for persons charged with or involved in this type of crime.

We will always fight domestic violence and protect women and men across Canada.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 33rd time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is overwhelmed with alarming levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Jail has become a revolving door for repeat offenders. With Bill C-75, violent offenders could be in jail in the morning and back on the street the same day. With Bill C-5, criminals could serve their sentences from home.

The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. They demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise, for the 32nd time, on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is consumed with unprecedented levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home, and Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back on the streets in the evening.

The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community.

I support the good people of Swan River.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 31st time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is consumed with unprecedented levels of crime because of the government's soft-on-crime laws, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home, and Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back out on the street in the afternoon. The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

Gender-Based Violence

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has seen a sharp increase of sexual assault reports since 2015, with 20,948 violations. Stats Canada has reported an increase between the years 2015 to 2022 at 71.66%. Although these stats are not broken down by gender, we know that the crime is more likely against female victims of violent crime, especially sexual assault. Women are five times more likely to experience sexual assault compared to men. According to a report, victimization reporting rates were 106 out of 1,000 for women and 59 men out of 1,000. These stats are a direct correlation to the failure of this government's catch-and-release bail policies passed in Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which removes mandatory minimum sentences for certain major crimes.

A common-sense government can ensure that repeat offenders remain behind bars while awaiting trial and will bring back mandatory jail time for serious violent crimes that were repealed by the Liberal government. Conservatives will always stand with victims of crimes. Conservatives will bring home safe—

Public Safety

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition likes to make base political accusations. He likes to talk about Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 as the reason there is auto theft in this country. The reality is that Bill C-5 is the bill that keeps mandatory minimum penalties for car theft on the books, and Bill C-75 is the bill that raises the maximum penalty on car theft.

We have continued to step up in terms of keeping Canadians safe. We will continue to invest in the CBSA and in the resources necessary to counter these challenges. We will keep working based on facts and evidence.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, organized crime is responsible for the rise in auto theft across the country. The Conservative Party's attacks on Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 are simply not the solution or the way to solve this problem.

We will continue to invest in the fight against auto theft with, for example, $121 million for the Government of Ontario.

We will continue to work with the CBSA to increase its staff. We are there to do our part.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Unlike some members of the Liberal Party, particularly the member for St. Catharines, I do not think we should be here doing cartwheels about the fact that the Liberal government has essentially been asleep at the switch and is now finally convening a meeting.

At the end of the day, this is a government that has failed, and that is why we, as Conservatives, have four very clear priorities: one, to axe the tax; two, to build the homes; three, to fix the budget; and four, to stop the crime.

We require common sense. Where is the first place to start? Let us look at where we are now. Again, the member for St. Catharines will say we have no problems and there are no real big issues here. He will say the Liberals have been responsible. That is what I took from his speech, that they have been eminently responsible. Tell that to all the people who are now suffering from car theft.

I can say this: There are people who, historically, would not have even sought release on bail, based on a bail system that we, as Conservatives, may have even criticized as being too lenient. Now those people are released in what I would called a pro forma way.

That is why I am excited to rise on what our common-sense plan is. Why? This is a Liberal government that loves to say, “We are going to.” We are going to do this. I believe somebody said today, “We are going to crack down on auto theft.” When have we heard that before? The member for St. Catharines expects us to believe it: “We are going to.”

This is just like when the Liberals said they were going to make it easier for people in the middle class and those entering the middle class. “We are going to balance the budget”, after a series of what? It was a series of deficits. They said, “We are going to run small deficits; just trust us.”

After eight years, the trust has evaporated. We can no longer trust that the Liberals are going to address problems when it comes to crime. People have talked about importing American-style justice, and certainly I would not advocate for that. There have been varying degrees of consequences. At the same time, I also would not advocate for the leniency we are seeing.

The member for St. Catharines can misrepresent my words when it comes to the fact that Bill C-75 raised summary offences from six months to two years less a day. We can do cartwheels about that. That is actually something that I believe was done based on the Jordan principle and based on system actors, when we did not want to proceed by indictment yet wanted a greater sentence than six months.

Nobody here on this side has ever said we will repeal those sentences, yet the Liberals will stand up repeatedly and say they have a minimum sentence, and bail is working. How many times have we heard that? The bail system is working. I think that all one needs to do is walk down the street and see circumstances that are largely inhumane for a lot of people, and that does not just have to do with bail. That has a lot to do with substances and, in large part, what the Liberal government has done when it comes to substance abuse.

This is a government that, at the end of the day, loves to convene, but convening does not get results. Where were they four years ago when it was clear that bail was becoming a problem? Where were they when key decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada came down? Typically, Parliament used to respond to those decisions. The Liberals said no, they were comfortable and they would just let them be.

We then had a series of decisions that Parliament did not respond to. That was a deliberate choice, a value judgment, based on the Liberals' saying, essentially, in my view, that they just do not care. It is just like they do not care and have not cared about housing, like they have not cared about inflation, and now, how they have not cared about auto theft.

It is a government, frankly, that does not have its head in the game when it comes to crime. It does not have its head in the game when it comes to just about anything. We have a Prime Minister who stayed with friends for an $84,000 vacation. His response was not to apologize to Canadians. No, he can never admit fault on his own behalf. What was his response? He said that, like many Canadians, he stayed with family or friends.

I am going to get to some of the things that were said yesterday by the justice minister. It is interesting, because there are Liberals, again, like the member for St. Catharines. I know he is a lawyer, and perhaps he went to a faculty of law in American Samoa.

I say that in jest.

On proceeding by indictment, there is a maximum term—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Imagine someone waking up in their home, their castle, where they should feel safe at all times, pouring their morning cup of coffee and looking out the window at their driveway, only to realize that their prize possession, their family vehicle that was parked there the night before, is now gone. After eight years of the Prime Minister, this has become a situation all too common for Canadians.

We have heard other stories of victims being robbed in parking lots and in front of their homes, some held at gunpoint in broad daylight. We will remember the story of Toronto Maple Leafs' Mitch Marner being held at gunpoint while his vehicle was stolen. Others have had criminals break into their homes searching for the keys to their vehicles.

According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, on average, more than 200 vehicles are stolen every day, meaning that a car is stolen almost every six minutes in Canada. I cannot do the quick math, but members can imagine the number of vehicles stolen since the start of this debate. During my 10 minutes of debate and five minutes of questions and comments, another three vehicles will have been stolen. This is the result of the failed approach of the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime agenda.

How did we get here? We got here due to a number of important decisions made by the Prime Minister and his government, starting with Bill C-75, which allowed repeat offenders to get bail, often within hours of their initial arrest, and reoffend multiple times, sometimes on the same day, leaving police powerless to stop car thieves. Then, after criminals are convicted, the Prime Minister's reckless Bill C-5 allows them to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes. We all know that those who serve conditional sentences are not monitored on a regular basis, so repeat car theft offenders, while serving their sentences at home, are out on the streets creating more havoc and stealing more cars.

I have said many times in the House that criminals in this country are laughing at the government. They love the soft-on-crime approach. We all know Canada is now a haven for car thieves, for organized crime to thrive, for money laundering and human trafficking. That is the legacy the Prime Minister is leaving for Canadians.

After eight years of his soft-on-crime policies, the Prime Minister has created an auto theft crisis in Canada. Auto theft in the GTA alone is up 300% since he took office. Additionally, statistics tell us that, since he formed government, auto theft is up 190% in Moncton, 122% in Ottawa-Gatineau, over 106% in Montreal and over 60% in Winnipeg.

It is the responsibility of the federal government to reduce auto theft as the primary prevention tools, including the Criminal Code, the RCMP, the CBSA and our port systems, are all under the federal government's jurisdiction. However, as a result of the mismanagement of these prevention tools, organized crime has taken over our ports, turning them into parking lots for stolen vehicles, which are then shipped overseas.

The port of Montreal, a major hub for stolen vehicles to be shipped out of Canada, only has five CBSA agents to inspect the over 580,000 containers that leave the port each year. According to Le Journal de Montréal, one law enforcement agent said the CBSA has no resources to check containers and they check less than 1%, making it clear that the increase in auto theft is directly related to Liberal mismanagement. It is costing Canadians far too much.

In places such as Ontario, insurance companies are set to increase premiums by 25% this year. As reported by Équité, it is estimated that $1 billion in vehicle theft claims were paid out in the year 2022 alone, and these costs are being passed down to drivers.

What is the Liberal plan? We have been hearing about this great summit, where all the stakeholders are going to gather and talk about the problem and the solutions. Maybe in another two years from now, we might see solutions.

As per our foreign affairs minister, she proudly announced to the whole world that Canada is known for convening. That is all we hear about with the government. There is meeting after meeting, summit after summit, and no action.

To stop the increase in crime rates and reduce auto theft, today Conservatives are calling on the government to immediately reverse the changes to the Liberal government's soft-on-crime Bill C-5, which allowed for car-stealing criminals to be on house arrest instead of in jail. We want to strengthen the Criminal Code provisions to ensure repeat car-stealing criminals remain in jail, following the principles of both general and specific deterrents in the Criminal Code, and provide the Canada Border Service Agency and our ports with the resources they need to prevent stolen cars from leaving the country.

I asked the vice-president of inspections of the CBSA today at committee how he could explain having only five agents. He said that the CBSA does not have the resources or the funding, and that if it had to inspect every container, our trade system would completely shut down. That is small comfort to victims of auto theft crime in this country, but it is a pleasing announcement for the thieves out there because, not only are our cars being shipped abroad, but also we are accepting containers from countries in Asia loaded with deadly drugs such as carfentanil and fentanyl, which are poisoning our Canadians.

As the member for Brantford—Brant, I can speak to these issues personally, as my community has had over 600 vehicles stolen between the years of 2022 and 2023 alone for a population of just under 100,000 people. Sadly, it does not have the necessary funds to put into fighting car theft.

We heard from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada numerous times. The justice minister can speak all he wants about how he and his Liberal colleagues are hitting organized crime where it hurts, “funding the fight against crime” and “working with police, provinces [and] ports”, but the facts are the facts. He cannot change the fact that over 80,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada in the past year alone.

The minister and his Liberal colleagues have consistently taken a dismissive stance on pressing issues. Just last summer, they brushed off concerns about rising crime rates, suggesting that Canadians were imagining the problem.

What is our solution? The Prime Minister's reckless policies have caused an explosion of car thefts and made our communities dangerous, and the only action he has taken to fix this mess is to hold a summit. We do not need another summit. We need a common-sense plan to stop the theft and the crime.

The solution is simple. It is the first plank of our Conservative plan to hit the brakes on car theft. To combat this Liberal oversight, Conservatives will go after the real criminals by restoring jail, not bail; increasing mandatory jail time; ending house arrest for car thieves; and increasing sentences for gang-associated car thieves.

This is a pressing and urgent matter that Public Safety has a mandate to review thoroughly. Canadians cannot wait for the summit to produce results. It is time for the government to move beyond conferences, meetings, announcements and press conferences, join Conservatives and show up for Canadians.

I call on all members of the House to support our motion. Help us put the brakes on auto theft once and for all, protect our communities and bring home safer streets for all Canadians. That is just common sense.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of members from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I will say this much. Sometimes, people say really funny things, and my colleague just said something very funny. Perhaps it was because the speech was just not that compelling.

At the end of the day, the member has spoken all about what they have done about auto theft. I will remind him that Bill C-75 did not just raise the sentence, as though he is saying that we are targeting auto theft. It was actually two years less a day that it raised it on summary conviction. It raised every summary conviction to two years less a day. The Liberal government can say that it is targeting this time after time.

There is an epidemic here, and I want to know this: Will the member admit, fundamentally, what police and citizens across the country are telling us, that there is a problem?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, I only hope that I can speak half as well as the other Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. That is my goal. It is aspirational. It is a very high bar, but I will do my best.

We all know auto theft is impacting more and more Canadians. In doing so, it is undermining public confidence and feelings of safety. A serious conversation is best needed to address this issue, as we owe it to our constituents to ensure we propose a meaningful impact for solutions in this area.

That is why I was disappointed yesterday to see unserious proposals coming from the Leader of the Opposition. His alleged reforms would be to do things that are already being done and would have no practical effect. We know that criminal law is not always the best solution here. We are focused on improving enforcement and working with manufacturers to increase security for vehicles. This Thursday, we are bringing together federal, provincial and municipal governments, law enforcement and industry to discuss how we can combat auto theft.

The Conservatives, and I think the Bloc just momentarily, are saying these are empty gestures, but it is an understanding of the complexity of this issue. The Conservatives think that, magically, we will change the Criminal Code, and this will disappear. They have even said they would repeal some of the provisions we have brought forward, which I believe have been to actually increase sentencing for auto theft, which again shows how unserious and slogan-based the Conservative Party is.

However, we are bringing together all people at the table. The face of auto theft varies from place to place in Canada, and what we know about auto theft is different from what it may have been 30 or even 10 years ago. According to available data, Ontario, Quebec and Alberta are the jurisdictions most impacted by auto theft, but the circumstances facing these jurisdictions differ. For instance, Alberta vehicles are being stolen for parts or resale domestically after having their vehicle identification numbers, or VINs, replaced. In Ontario and Quebec, we know that certain cars are targeted for theft so that they can be shipped to overseas markets in Africa or the Middle East. This activity is mining the pockets of transnational organized crime.

Make no mistake; transnational organized crime activity is big business. I was astounded to read about the scale. Even in data reported by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime from 2009, it was estimated that $870 billion, annually, was being generated by transnational organized crime. We can all imagine that number is much larger today. That number is staggering and far exceeds the GDP of most countries around the world.

We need to think about what that means. Money in the hands of organized crime, including money generated by auto theft, can be used to facilitate other criminal activity, like drug trafficking, people trafficking and migrant smuggling. Therefore, in the fall economic statement we proposed a number of measures to combat money laundering in Canada. Those measures would target organized crime in Canada and, in turn, would have an effect in combatting auto theft.

However, the Conservatives are opposing legislation, slowing it down at every turn. Even in the committee I sit on, the committee on public safety, the Conservatives are filibustering legislation to deal with cybercrime and cyber-activity to prevent us from getting to a study on auto theft. They talk a good game. Again, it is slogans. They get angry and pound the table, but when it comes to actually doing something and listening to experts, Conservatives are nowhere to be found. They are even filibustering legislation that I think they support, and the odd time we get to hear from a witness, cyber-activity is funding these same types of criminals.

Again, when it comes down to taking action on crime and protecting Canadians, it is crickets from the Conservative caucus. Maybe “crickets” is not the proper word, since there are lengthy filibusters, but I think the analogy still holds.

It is truly unfortunate to see all this legislation being slowed down. It is unfortunate to see the Conservatives voting against funding the police. We know, when they were in power, that they cut the RCMP, and they cut 1,000 officers from CBSA, and we are struggling to get back at it. It takes years. It takes time. The Leader of the Opposition the other day boasted about more cuts coming and that they can do more with less. I do not think that is what Canadians want to hear, that the Conservative Party is going to, once again, like it historically has done, cut police.

That is not what Canadians want to hear when there is a situation that needs to be addressed, but that is what the Conservatives are offering. They will change the Criminal Code in the hopes that it will do something, and cut frontline policing. They have voted against it at every turn. They are showing us what they are going to do by voting against it.

It is also interesting at the public safety committee to hear Conservative members beat the drum on American-style criminal law. That is a great thing for them to bring forward, but when I ask, time after time, if they could point me to a place that has enacted those types of laws in the United States that have made those communities safer. It is great for them to tell their constituents that they are going to bring these things in, but we can see the laboratory down south. We can look across the border and see that it has not worked. Again, it is empty rhetoric that is not going to do anything.

Our government is committed to the work of public safety. As I mentioned, this Thursday, ministers responsible from across Canada, will join federal counterparts and leaders of law enforcement to consider the impacts of auto theft here in Canada and to identify the ways to work together. The federal government is showing leadership in this space by convening this urgent meeting. As the Minister of Public Safety said, “Collaboration is the key to identifying solutions.”

The Bloc and the Conservatives can disagree and say that we should take action without listening to the experts and without understanding the complexity of crime. There is a place for the federal government. It needs to be there. However, there needs to be a place for the provinces, which oversee policing, and it is the same for municipalities; they need to work together. We are there.

We made a big announcement with the premier of the Province of Ontario, in terms of money to help curb guns and gangs and to go after organized crime. Again, the federal government is taking action. What does the Conservative Party of Canada do? It votes against that money, and that is truly shocking.

I have said before that the sole component of the Conservative Party environmental plan is recycling slogans. It really is in full gear when Conservatives talk about criminal justice, but there is nothing to back it up. It is just empty words. When it comes time to answer questions, they are nowhere to be found. They are a completely unserious party on this particular issue.

I would like to note that we already have an extremely robust criminal law framework to address auto theft. This legal framework includes specific offences that target auto theft and related activity. It includes things like tampering with vehicle identification numbers, possessing items used to break into a vehicle or using computer systems to intercept car fob signals in order to steal a vehicle. In fact, the Liberal government, in 2019, raised the maximum penalty on summary conviction for theft of motor vehicles to two years. The previous government had it at 18 months, I believe.

Would members like to know what legislation the government did this with? It was Bill C-75, the very legislation the Conservative Party leader is proposing to repeal. I am surprised he wants to lower penalties for those who steal motor vehicles. Again, it is empty slogans. His plans are unserious. The Conservative Party is unserious when it comes to public safety.

The Criminal Code prohibits possession of stolen cars for the purpose illegally exporting them. Sentencing courts have the ability to impose significant penalties in cases where organized crime is involved. Sentencing courts must impose penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offences and the responsibility of the offender. Sentencing courts cannot impose conditional sentences for auto theft when prosecuted on indictment or committed for organized crime. Again, this flies in the face of the empty promises from the Leader of the Opposition. Serious criminals cannot and should not get house arrest. This is what the law says.

Again, we hear some heckling that it is incorrect, but that is the fact. That is in the legislation that they, with their slogans, say they are going to repeal to actually make it easier for criminals to get away with it. Conservatives want to lower sentences, and they are laughing.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to our opposition motion and a very serious subject. Auto theft is a problem that is happening right now, and I do not know whether my colleagues are aware of this, but Canada has the highest rate of auto theft in the world. We are the number one exporter of stolen vehicles. Is that something we want to see? No, not at all.

It is important to understand that auto theft is a big deal. It has gone up by 34% in Canada since this Prime Minister and his government came to power. Even worse, it has gone up by 300% in Toronto. In Montreal and the Ottawa-Gatineau region, it has gone up by more than 100%. It is up by 120% in New Brunswick and 122% overall in Ontario. One of the reasons we are seeing these numbers is that inflation has driven up the price of cars. Compared to last year, cars are worth 20% more. They are very attractive items. Nowadays, we are no longer talking about cars that were worth $15,000 or $20,000 back in the day. They now cost $45,000 on average. The most desirable cars are in the $60,000 to $70,000 range. This means someone can steal a car and resell it for more than $100,000, even as much as $120,000, abroad. It is a very attractive market for organized crime and thieves.

This is causing stress. People are stressed right now. When they wake up in the morning or go to the grocery store, they wonder whether their car will be where they left it. Things cannot go on like this. Theft has a financial impact too. Last year, insurance companies paid out $1 billion to settle claims by the owners of stolen cars. What comes next? All car owners end up paying more for insurance. Insurance companies have to cover their losses, so they raise premiums. Once again, in addition to inflation and rising rates everywhere, insurance premiums go up because auto theft is out of control.

The solutions for controlling auto theft are not limitless. Some things are easy to do. The government is not being called out for nothing. Before I rose to speak, we heard from the Leader of the Opposition. For the past two days, he has been proposing concrete solutions to the problem. I would like to talk about the first two. First, there was Bill C‑5, which was enacted. We criticized it from the start. We made every possible and impossible representation to say that it does not work. Here is a concrete example: People are convicted, but instead of going to prison like they should, they get to stay at home. What do we think these people are doing? They think nothing of it; they are criminals. They unapologetically go out and commit more crimes.

The other issue with Bill C-5 was minimum sentences. The government stood up and the justice minister said that the Conservatives were wrong. No, we are not wrong. Auto theft currently carries a six-month sentence. What we are saying, and we are not going too far, is that if the same person has stolen three cars and has been charged with three thefts, they should get a minimum of three years in jail. I think this is just common sense. When we talk about common sense, this is a perfect example. People are looking at this and wondering whether it is normal for a criminal to continue stealing with impunity, with no penalty other than to be sent home to watch Netflix. We said before that there was a problem with Bill C-5, and we are seeing it now. We are calling on the government to fix it and rework what was done with Bill C-5.

Then there is Bill C-75, which was implemented by the Liberals and has led to people being arrested and released in the same day. At times, it happens that someone is arrested in the morning, their case is processed and, after a few hours, they are released and continue to commit crimes. It is a vicious cycle. We do not want to exaggerate; we know that very few people are doing that. However, here is a really incredible statistic. In Vancouver, 40 criminals were arrested 6,000 times in one year. That is 150 times each. It is the same 40 people. There is a small number of them, but they commit a lot of crimes. Basically, what we want to do is prevent these individuals from being released again and again and from committing crimes over and over. The repercussions of Bill C-75 are being felt everywhere.

The same thing applies to the auto theft market. These people know that there are not really any consequences under the laws that have been put in place by the Liberals. They will get arrested, go to the station to deal with a little charge and then they will be back on the street. It does not bother them. It is as though they are not afraid, they have no fear. They know they will be able to carry on doing whatever they feel like doing.

Let us talk about the technical aspect. Take, for example, the Port of Montreal. There are only five border agents to inspect the some 580,000 containers that leave the port each year, and they only have one scanner. I had the opportunity to visit the facilities there, and I saw that this big arch-shaped scanner does not always work and it is not really effective. Sooner or later, the port is going to need effective state-of-the-art equipment to get the job done right.

I want to come back to our Liberal friends. What have they being doing in the meantime, over the past several years? The Prime Minister wasted $15 million on management consultants for the CBSA. That was useless. He also spent $54 million on the failed ArriveCAN app, and the RCMP is even investigating that contract. What is more, the Liberals did not spend the $117 million that was approved by Parliament.

It is much like the support for Ukraine. Our colleagues like to talk to us about Ukraine. What is being done with the $406 million we voted on and was announced with great fanfare to buy anti-aircraft systems for Ukraine? Absolutely nothing has been done about it in a year. What is happening with the 83,000 decommissioned air-to-surface missiles that are warehoused in Manitoba? As Conservatives, we said they need to be given to Ukraine. Ukraine sent a letter asking for them. We said we needed to send them. This is war, it is urgent, but, no, they are asleep across the way. That is another file.

The fact is that the Liberals are good at making accusations, but today we are here to work on things that are happening here, in Canada, things for which immediate action is needed and expected.

What we are asking for is not complicated. As I said earlier, there is the legislation stemming from Bill C‑5. There is a way to fix at least that part of that law, which actually covers many types of crimes. I introduced Bill C‑325, which would fix the problems in that law. Obviously, it was not accepted by the Liberals or the NDP. I thank my friends in the Bloc Québécois who understood me and supported me on this.

What we are asking for today has to do specifically with auto theft. There is a way to amend the law to deter crime. First, we need to actually incarcerate criminals. More importantly, we need to discourage those who are considering becoming car thieves. Those are some of the things that we need to do. People will see that and think to themselves that it is better not to get involved in auto theft. I was saying earlier that the vehicles are worth tens of thousands of dollars. Auto theft benefits organized crime and those on the other side of the ocean who buy the vehicles, but the thieves themselves are not paid very well, even though they are the ones who are taking all the risks. If we were to target them, to make young people understand that it is not a good idea to enter a life of crime because they will end up in prison, then that would be more effective than what is currently being done.

The Conservatives get it. The Liberals did not do it, but when we take power, we are going to remove the right to house arrest. There will be no more Netflix sentences.

We are going to create a new aggravating circumstance when the offence of motor vehicle theft is committed for the benefit of organized crime. This is important, because we must stop encouraging organized crime, and that starts with tackling the root cause.

We will repeal the arrest and release rules in Bill C-75 to ensure that repeat offenders are jailed and not released on bail.

We will fire the useless management consultants at CBSA and take that money to properly equip federal ports. We will invest in state-of-the-art X-ray equipment to enable rapid scanning of containers at our major ports in Vancouver, Montreal, Prince Rupert and Halifax.

A total of 24 scanners will be purchased. Canada's four largest ports have a combined total of 12 terminals that handle container shipping. All of these terminals allow for goods to be transported by truck and rail, and each requires its own scanner and operator. The total cost for the 24 scanners is $55 million, with an ongoing service agreement of $300,000 per scanner, or $7.2 million per year.

Let us talk about spending. Two days ago, our leader presented very clear proposals. He demonstrated how a Conservative government might make “investments”, as the Liberals like to say. Well, it takes money to do that. We have solutions for finding wasteful spending. We will be able to recover that money and invest it in immediate needs to ensure the safety of Canadians and put an end to auto theft and the too-easy shipping of stolen cars to the rest of the world.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am going. I was not invited, but I will go anyway and share my common-sense ideas. I hope that, after eight years, they will learn, because I was part of the government that managed to reduce auto theft by 50% while reducing the cost of bureaucracy at the Canada Border Services Agency.

The Bloc voted in favour of Bill C-5, which allows sentences to be served at home, thereby enabling more crime. They voted in favour of Bill C-75, which allows for the automatic release of repeat car thieves. The Bloc also supports wasting money going after sport shooters and hunters, which takes money away from our border forces.

The Bloc supports all public safety policies. It makes no sense. Only the Conservative Party makes sense for Quebeckers.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

After eight years in power, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost, he is not worth the crime and he is not worth the cost of crime. After eight years with this Prime Minister in power, everything costs more, work no longer pays, housing costs have doubled, and crime, chaos, drugs and disorder are out of control.

I want to give an example from a CTV article. A 26-year-old man is facing a slew of charges filed by police officers in Bradford. Police say the suspect was arrested for stealing a vehicle at around 11 p.m. but was more or less automatically released on bail. That morning, he was arrested again at 4:30 a.m. for another theft. There will be a bail hearing. He will likely be released a second time to commit a third theft in less than 24 hours.

We are hearing these sorts of stories after eight years of this Prime Minister because Bill C-75 gives automatic parole to chronic auto thieves. Even the bail reform the government presented under pressure from the Conservatives did not address auto theft. As a result, these same criminals can continue to commit hundreds of crimes, even if they are caught. It is no big deal if they are found guilty, because, under Bill C-5, they can serve their sentence in their living room, meaning they can watch Netflix or play a game while they wait to go out and steal another vehicle. That is why, after eight years of this Prime Minister, auto theft is up 300% in Toronto, 100% in Ottawa and Montreal and 100% in New Brunswick.

The government is releasing recidivists who terrorize our streets and then it helps them send stolen goods around the world to fund terrorism and organized crime. The ports are wide open to criminals. Even though the Prime Minister has spent billions of dollars on bureaucracy, we see that the Port of Montreal has only five border officers to inspect more than 500,000 containers. Less than 1% of the containers are inspected. They have a scanner that barely works. It is easy to see why theft has massively increased. Even after all of these increases, we see that the number of containers being intercepted is the same as it was eight years ago. There is more theft, more illegal exports, but more containers are not being intercepted. That does not make sense.

We did exactly the opposite when we formed the government: We cut the number of car thefts in half. That is a massive reduction that makes me proud. The Prime Minister likes to point out the fact that we did that by cutting costs. It is true, we cut costs and reduced crime at the same time. That is a good thing, a win-win, as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles would say.

Today, I continued to present our common-sense plan. First, we will bring in three years of jail for three stolen cars. Second, we will end house arrest. Third, we will bring in harsher penalties for theft tied to organized crime. Finally, we will strengthen our ports.

We will do this by hiring 75 border officers to carry out inspections at Canada's four largest ports, namely, Vancouver, Halifax, Prince Rupert and, of course, Montreal. They will be able to use new scanners that can look into the boxes to see if they contain stolen goods. Each of those 24 scanners will be able to scan one million containers a year.

How are we going to pay for that? With a common-sense approach, dollar for dollar. We are going to cut $165 million from the budget for external management consultants. We are going to get rid of consultants and put the money into boots on the ground and box scanners.

It is really very simple. We have a common-sense plan to stop auto theft by strengthening our ports and keeping thieves behind bars. That is just common sense.

After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. After eight years, he is not worth the crime. After eight years, he is not worth the cost of crime. Crime is costly, because after eight years of the Prime Minister, we are paying $1 billion in higher insurance premiums to pay for the stolen cars. In Ontario, that adds $120 to the insurance bill of every family that has a car.

Let me tell the story that was on CTV News on December 27:

A 26-year-old man faces a slew of charges after police arrested him twice less than six hours apart for alleged crimes in Bradford and Innisfil.

Police said he was caught stealing a car at 11:00 p.m. on Sunday. They arrested and released him, and then he was arrested at 4:30 a.m. the very next morning. That was five hours after his last crime.

This is the new normal after eight years of the Prime Minister and his catch-and-release Bill C-75, which forced police to arrest the same 40 offenders 6,000 times in Vancouver and contributed to a 300% increase in auto theft in Toronto, 100% in Ottawa and Montreal, and over 100% in New Brunswick. It is crime, chaos, drugs and disorder.

If these repeat career car thieves are actually convicted, they do not have to worry about that either, because under the Prime Minister's Bill C-5, which has the full support of the NDP, they will have house arrest, meaning they can watch Netflix or play a game of Grand Theft Auto in their living room. Then they can get up whenever they say they need a few more bucks to fill their pockets, open the front door, walk out onto the street and steal another car. That car then goes to the port and is gone.

Our common-sense plan is very straightforward. We are going to get rid of house arrest for career car thieves. We are going bring in jail and not bail for people who have long rap sheets. We are going to bring in a mandatory three years' jail for three cars stolen. We are going to increase penalties if the stolen car was related to organized crime.

Then, we are going to reinforce our ports. I am going to cut $165 million that we are now giving to management consultants, because if the managers over at CBSA cannot manage, they should not be managing; they should be fired. We will fire the management consultants, and we will put that money, $135 million of it, into hiring 75 border agents who will use 24 new scanners that are able to scan a million shipping containers every year at our four biggest ports. If a stolen car is in there and there is a phony claim on the manifest, the scanner will show it. If someone calls saying, “Look out for my stolen car,” the scanner will catch it. The box can be put aside. The car can be put back in the hands of the rightful owner.

In other words, our common-sense plan is to put boots on the ground, to scan the boxes and to put the career car thieves in jail. Our common-sense plan is to stop the crime and bring home safe streets. It is the common sense of the common people, united for our common home.

Public Safety

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, he is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to his own facts. Bill C-5, which he just mentioned, maintained a mandatory minimum penalty for auto theft. That is what the Conservatives apparently want to repeal. Bill C-75, which he just mentioned, actually enhanced the maximum penalty for auto theft, moving it from 18 months to two years less a day. That apparently is what they want to repeal.

This problem cannot be fixed by suggesting redundant changes that already exist in the Criminal Code. We fix this problem by being the adults in the room, convening people and coming up with a complex solution to a complex problem.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals continue to hold meetings, criminals are going to continue to steal cars. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal soft-on-crime policies, our police forces are powerless to stop car thieves. Liberal Bill C-5 allows house arrest for these criminals and Bill C-75 allows repeat offenders to be released on bail just hours after they were arrested.

The Prime Minister has caused this crisis and he is not worth the cost. When will he reverse the soft-on-crime policies that have caused this auto theft crisis?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that slogans and videos are not going to fix this very complex problem. Our approach to addressing complex problems is to develop a complex solution.

In Bill C-75, the very piece of legislation that the Leader of the Opposition is asking us to repeal, our government raised the maximum penalty on summary conviction for motor vehicle theft from 18 months to two years. Why does the Leader of the Opposition want to—

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Prime Minister that he is responsible for the ports, the RCMP, the CBSA and our Criminal Code.

Canadians are paying $1 billion more in insurance premiums because of skyrocketing auto theft claims. The Prime Minister has caused this auto theft crisis with bills like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which allow criminals to be on the streets the same day.

Will the government reverse its policies and replace them with our common-sense plan of jail and not bail for repeat violent offenders?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, he talks about boots on the ground, but the government he was part of, that he is taking credit for now, actually cut thousands of jobs, of boots on the ground, at the Canada Border Services Agency. We have continued to step up to support Canadians.

They like to mention Bill C-5. It is a bill that kept mandatory minimum penalties for car thefts on the books. They mention Bill C-75, which is a bill that raised maximum penalties on car theft. We are going to continue to invest in fighting money laundering and organized crime, and we hope that the Conservatives change their mind and vote with us to crack down on organized crime.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this very important issue. Auto theft is a critical one that impacts Canadians.

As a GTA resident, and as a GTA member of Parliament, I have heard from my constituents, friends and neighbours about fear of theft and increased risk in their communities. I can assure each and every one of those individuals right across the country that I take these concerns very seriously and I am determined to address this problem alongside the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Transport and other colleagues.

What is not helpful is spreading disinformation and stoking fear even in this very chamber. It is disappointing, but unsurprising, that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues across the way have taken this very tactic.

To start, let us discuss what we have done to address the issue of auto theft.

In December, we increased funding to fight organized crime. Last week, we redoubled our efforts by announcing $121 million for the Ontario police forces to combat guns, gangs and organized crime.

Let me open a parentheses here; that is guns and gangs funding. On the night of a marathon vote initiated by the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, in his infinite wisdom, returned to cast a direct vote against guns and gangs funding. Let the record be clear about which side of the House actually supports guns and gangs funding to keep our communities safe.

I was delighted to attend the announcement a week ago in York region in the GTA alongside the Minister of Public Safety, Premier Doug Ford, and other key players who will help prevent auto theft by organized crime.

We are also holding a meeting in Ottawa this Thursday that will bring together the provinces and representatives of cities, ports, insurers, automakers and other key stakeholders to discuss and develop a coordinated approach to combatting auto theft.

While Conservatives are busy tweeting out videos, as a result of a news release by our government that they decided to read, and repeating childish slogans, we have a plan to keep communities safe.

I want to point out the very bill the Leader of the Opposition has weaponized on this issue, a bill I was pleased to work on as the parliamentary secretary at the time to the then minister of justice, Bill C-75. It raised the maximum penalty on summary conviction for motor vehicle theft from 18 months to two years. For everyone who is watching right now, let that sink in. Either the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the Criminal Code or he is purposely misleading Canadians. Either way, his objective is to repeal Bill C-75 and therefore lower the maximum penalty for motor vehicle theft. If it sounds a bit illogical, it is.

Additionally, a pillar of his so-called plan is to add an aggravating factor on sentencing to this issue. As I said yesterday in the House, and as I will repeat today, the Criminal Code already includes this provision. Section 718.2(a)(iv) specifies as an aggravating factor, allowing for a more increased sentence, involvement with organized crime.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, Mr. Speaker.

This is a critical measure. We know that the majority of auto thefts are not one-off crimes committed by first-time offenders. Auto theft is most often coordinated through an operation of organized crime networks. What are we doing with respect to those organized crime networks? We are cracking down, as the police agencies have asked us to do, on organized crime and the financing of it.

How are we doing that? We have the fall economic statement being debated in this very House, Bill C-59. That bill contains provisions to crack down on money laundering to stop the organized criminals who are making our communities unsafe.

What has the Leader of the Opposition done in his infinite wisdom? He has directed every one of his Conservative colleagues to vote against this measure, to vote against measures that would keep our communities safe and to basically empower organized criminals. Is this illogical? Yes, very illogical.

In a video posted just this morning, the Leader of the Opposition threw the CBSA under the bus for failing to solve the issue of auto theft. What he conveniently failed to mention, in a very polished video that was very professionally done, is that under his watch, when he was part of the Conservative government at the cabinet table, the Conservatives cut 1,000 jobs from the CBSA.

If one of the problems with this, which we will be discussing at the auto summit, is border security, I am not sure how we keep the borders safe when we are cutting employees working at the border. Is it illogical? Indeed, very illogical.

In addition, the Conservatives routinely vote against bolstering CBSA funding. They talk out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. Canadians watching right now deserve a heck of a lot better.

I am always open to good-faith suggestions for improving the Criminal Code. I take my mandate to keep our streets and communities safe very seriously. I look forward to working with the leaders on Thursday.

What I do not see from members of the official opposition is any sort of leadership on this issue. Instead, I see trifling slogans and redundant suggestions about how to amend the Criminal Code with provisions that are already there. Canadians deserve a lot better from that opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was really surprised to see the Liberals issue a press announcement that talked about the huge increase in car theft since they were elected in 2015. It is interesting that they did nothing about the problem, other than make it worse with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, until we started raising the issue. Now the Liberals' answer is a meeting.

Would the member agree that this is simply not enough?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a couple of headlines that dominated the radio and the online and social media news in my home community this past weekend. They really underscore the debate we are having today. The first is “Gun-wielding men forcefully entered Dundas home, stole two luxury cars: Hamilton police”. The second is “High-end vehicles stolen in ‘targeted’ home invasion in Hamilton, Ont.”. Those are just a couple. Twenty years ago, I lived on the street where this particular crime took place on Friday night. It is a few houses down from where I used to live. It was shocking to hear that this was taking place. My grandparents lived on that same street when I grew up.

I talked to one of the neighbours yesterday, and people on Hopkins Court now live in fear. There were other vehicles at the targeted residence that the thieves did not get on Friday night, and the residents are now fearful the thieves will be back because they were a target. This is, as my colleagues have mentioned, a sophisticated gang operation that is taking place; it is an organized crime operation. That is the crux of the problem. They will be back because federal enforcement and federal prevention actions are woefully inadequate.

Less than 24 hours later, I received a text from my neighbour on an unrelated incident, but one of similar concern. There was a vehicle prowling around his workshop building and garage. It had to go around a steel barrier, through the grass and across a hill in order to get there. Alarmed by what he was seeing take place in the early hours of Sunday morning, my neighbour followed the vehicle and was able to get part of the licence plate number and report it to Hamilton Police Service.

These are just two recent incidents that are not isolated at all but are part of an epidemic.

I have talked to a number of constituents who have been victims of vehicle theft. One couple was able to trace their vehicle that was stolen from their driveway in Waterdown to Montreal. This was the second vehicle stolen from the couple's driveway. Waterdown is a bedroom community in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. The couple actually walked by the person they believe was the criminal responsible on the street of Montreal near the port. Eerily, the individual gave them a knowing glance. These are incidents we are hearing about. The couple also heard that as part of this organized crime network, groups are paid thousands of dollars per night just to scope out vehicles in driveways and locations that will be targeted in the coming nights. Just to spot vehicles, they are getting thousands of dollars. We are talking about millions of dollars in criminal activity.

Truck and auto thefts are in not just my community; they are across the GTA. There have been a number of local headlines about this across Niagara, Waterloo Region, southern Ontario and, in fact, across the country. We know that local law enforcement is hamstrung because it needs the federal government to act. The Criminal Code, the RCMP, CBSA and certainly federal ports are all matters of federation jurisdiction. In order to puts the brakes on auto theft by organized crime, we need the federal government to act.

At the transport committee, which I am privileged to sit on, there was a Conservative motion put forward today to look specifically at what is going on at the port of Montreal. Unfortunately, it was voted down by the Liberals and the NDP, the cover-up coalition working together. They do not have any interest in getting to the bottom of this.

It is costing all of us, even those people fortunate enough not to have had a vehicle stolen, because we know there has been $1.2 billion in insurance payouts for stolen vehicles; this is causing an increase in insurance premiums, up 25% in some cases in Ontario. These are brazen acts of theft and violence, and they are affecting people in our communities. In 2022 alone there were a staggering 9,600 motor vehicles stolen from the GTA. This leaves families traumatized and financially burdened. The impact goes far beyond the immediate victims; it undermines the fabric of our society. It is eroding the trust and confidence in our institutions and is contributing to a pervasive sense of insecurity.

The repercussions are felt not only in the emotional toll exacted on individuals and families but also in the economic consequences borne by our communities as a whole. One of the most concerning aspects of this crisis is the failure of federal ports to stem the tide of stolen vehicles leaving our shores. These cars and trucks, pilfered from the streets of the GTHA, are effortlessly smuggled into containers, loaded onto trains and illegally shipped out of the country, primarily via the port of Montreal. Ironically, that port is in the backyard of the Minister of Transport.

In December I asked the CBSA, via an Order Paper question, how many vehicles it had intercepted at the port of Montreal. Despite the exponential rise in auto thefts that we have seen, over 300% in the GTA since the Liberal government took office in 2015, the number of vehicles intercepted at the port of Montreal remains stagnant, year over year, at somewhere between 1,000 and 1,100. We know that 105,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada in a year. We are talking about fewer than 1% being retrieved.

We know that the technology exists, through X-ray scanners, to scan more of the containers and actually track the vehicles down. However, there is just one scanner right now at the port of Montreal, and it does not work half of the time. That is insufficient.

As my colleague mentioned, there are African countries begging the Government of Canada to take action on this issue. The action is not being taken, and that is cause for concern. Like so many things in Canada, this is something that should not be happening. It should not be this way.

Even when Canadians resort to practical measures like putting Apple AirTags in their vehicles, recovery is far from guaranteed. Railway agents often refuse to inspect cargo already en route to the ports, and there are inadequate resources at the ports for inspection; therefore there is a highway facilitating this.

The root cause is the soft-on-crime approach by the Liberal-NDP government, with bills like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 that have emboldened criminals to be repeat offenders. They are often released on bail within hours of arrest and go on to commit further crimes. Even after being convicted, these individuals are often granted house arrest, which is really insufficient.

We say, “Enough is enough.” Common-sense Conservatives are committed to really hitting the brakes on car theft and restoring the sense of security to our communities. The Leader of the Opposition has put forward a common-sense plan that includes a number of measures, such as mandatory prison sentences, ending house arrest for convicted car thieves, tougher sentencing for those crimes that are gang-related and have an organized crime element, and, of course, jail, not bail for repeat offenders and repeat violent offenders, as we saw in the examples I brought up from my community this past weekend.

In addition to that, we need to address what is happening at the ports. We need more CBSA officers. Right now there are only five at the port of Montreal. We need to cut the waste on consultants at CBSA and invest in enforcement at the ports. We also need to have more scanners that could actually address the issue.

There is some urgency now. Violent crime is up across the country. What the Liberal government has proposed is a summit: more convening and fewer results.

Common-sense Conservatives have a plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Indeed, we are going to stop crime. We are going to slam the brakes on auto theft. We will restore law and order. We will bring home safer streets to Canadians from coast to coast.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion and to illustrate our action in taking up the fight against organized crime and auto theft. It goes without saying that Canadians must be able to live free from fear of crime in their neighbourhoods. Not only can auto theft cause financial devastation, but it also makes people feel unsafe in their own homes.

I know that auto theft is a top of mind issue for many. In fact, I expect most of us here know someone who has had their car stolen recently. In fact, one of my colleagues had his car stolen recently.

As a resident of the GTA, I understand the toll these crimes can take on individuals and communities. It disrupts our lives and it undermines our feelings of safety. It also costs Canadians significantly. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, auto theft claims totalled $1.2 billion in 2022. This is unacceptable. It puts on us an onus to work together to find ways to denounce this conduct.

This is why our government is throwing its weight behind the solving of this issue. We have been working on measures to tackle auto theft for months now. Most recently, we announced $121 million in funding for Ontario to combat gun crime, gangs and organized crime, including auto theft.

Auto theft is a timely topic for discussion this week, as the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice have invited key players from across the country to come together and identify solutions to auto theft.

Political leaders, police, border agents, auto and industry executives will be among the attendees. I am confident that these productive conversations will lead to concrete suggestions for how we can better stop auto theft from occurring in Canada.

It is ironic that members opposite are highlighting the problems of auto theft when they refuse to support our solutions. The Conservatives have promised to vote against the fall economic statement and are delaying its passage. This critical legislation contains anti-money laundering provisions that will crack down on organized crime networks and contribute to fighting auto theft.

The vast majority of auto thefts are not spontaneous crimes committed by one or two individuals. Highly organized networks of criminals are involved at various stages, from targeting a vehicle to the theft itself to its trafficking through major ports destined for resale markets in Africa or the Middle East.

Criminals may use the proceeds of crime from stolen vehicles to facilitate other forms of serious crime like trafficking drugs, people and firearms. This is why I am sad to see my colleagues across the way opposed to the important changes with which we are trying to fight organized crime.

The Leader of the Opposition announced his so-called plan to combat auto theft the day before yesterday. We know it would not actually accomplish anything. He proposed measures that are either ineffective or already exist.

We have real solutions.

The Criminal Code has a comprehensive framework that addresses motor vehicle theft along the spectrum of the crime. This includes preparatory offences, offences for the actual theft, trafficking and possession of stolen property offences, and proceeds of crime offences.

The Criminal Code also includes specific offences to address organized crime activities. It includes many offences that address the situation when violence is involved during a theft, such as the use of a firearm.

Many of us are aware of devices that thieves use to acquire a key fob signal and relay that signal to unlock or start a vehicle. These devices are illegal under the Criminal Code. It is also illegal to knowingly possess any instrument that can be used to break into a motor vehicle for that purpose. Both of these offences carry a maximum penalty of 10 years if proceeded by way of indictment.

The Criminal Code also has general provisions that address auto theft. For example, theft of property over $5,000 is punishable on indictment by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or two years less a day imprisonment on summary conviction. Theft under $5,000 is punishable on indictment by a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment or two years less a day on summary conviction.

The Criminal Code also has a specific motor vehicle theft offence, which is punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment on indictment and two years less a day on summary conviction. In the case of a third, or subsequent conviction, a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment of six months applies.

In fact, our government took action to crack down on auto theft in Bill C-75, by raising the maximum penalty for motor vehicle theft from 18 months to two years less a day. This is another example of our sustained focus on eradicating auto theft from our communities. This is the very legislation that the Leader of the Opposition wants to repeal. He would lower maximum sentences for auto theft. As always, the leader of the Conservatives would rather spread disinformation and spark fear across the country than focus on facts.

The Criminal Code also contains a comprehensive legal framework that targets criminal organizations, offences relating to criminal organizations, including participating in criminal organization activities; recruitment to a criminal organization; the commission of an indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization; and instructing the commission of an offence for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization.

The organized crime provisions have specific sentencing outcomes. First, sentences imposed for any of the organized crime offences must be served consecutively with sentences imposed for other offences arising from the same transaction. Second, courts are required to consider, as an aggravating factor at sentencing, that an offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. This is one of the measures the Leader of the Opposition has committed to enacting to solve the problem of auto theft. It is already in place; he is catching up. Again, he is not proposing real solutions.

There are also Criminal Code measures that aim to prevent offenders from benefiting from the proceeds of their crimes. This includes pretrial seizure or restraint of proceeds of crime and the possibility of forfeiture of proceeds of crime following conviction or a fine in lieu of forfeiture in certain circumstances when the proceeds are no longer available.

These are just a few of the offences that currently can be leveraged by law enforcement and prosecutors to address auto theft.

The Criminal Code is a helpful tool to penalize auto thieves, but we are also working on comprehensive solutions to prevent auto theft from occurring. On Thursday, key players will gather in Ottawa to discuss more solutions. The meeting will feature law enforcement, industry leaders and all levels of government coming together to identify short, medium and long-term actions to combat auto theft to continue to strengthen our initiatives that are already under way.

There are many ways we can address the problem of auto theft, and everyone has to be part of the solution. The Leader of the Opposition wants to boil things down to empty slogans that do not solve anything. We will be looking at regulatory change, what industry can do to help, how provinces and municipalities can help and how to improve enforcement. I look forward to working with everyone who is serious to solve this problem.

I am grateful for the efforts that are already under way to combat auto theft and I look forward to a productive day of discussion on Thursday for the next steps.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is very rich coming from the Bloc when its members supported these catch-and-release, soft-on-crime bills, like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

Quebec alone has seen a 50% increase of auto thefts in the last few years. Instead of standing up, joining the common-sense Conservatives and supporting our motion to help those in Quebec, he is not. It is time that the Québécois stand with our party, stand with Canadians, and start putting the rights of victims first, not the criminals.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a passionate speech by the member for Thornhill about this issue, the common-sense motion we have brought forward. Axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime: These are the common-sense priorities needed to get our country back on track. That is why it is an honour today to rise in the House on behalf of the good people of Oxford to speak to our fourth priority, stopping the crime.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, everything costs more. Work does not pay, and housing costs have doubled. Rent has doubled. Mortgages have doubled. The amount needed for a down payment has doubled. For the first time, the government has priced an entire generation out of owning a home.

Even if people are able to get a home, there is now crime in our neighbourhoods. Our families do not feel safe any more. Eight years of the Prime Minister’s soft-on-crime and dangerous catch-and-release bail policies have unleashed a wave of violent crime across our country, which has led to a massive increase in car thefts.

Looking at violent crime at large, homicides are up 43%, up for the fourth year in a row. Gang-related homicides are up 108%. Violent gun crimes are up 101%, up for the eighth time in a row. Aggravated assaults are up 24%. Assault with a weapon is up 61%. Total sexual assaults are up 71%. Sex crimes against our children are up 126%. Kidnapping is up 36%, and car thefts are up 34% across our country.

Every morning, Canadians are waking up and looking out of their windows, not to check the weather but to make sure their cars are still in their driveways. This may sound like we are being a bit dramatic about this issue, but the numbers do not lie. One in four Canadians either have had their car stolen or know someone who has. We as members all know somebody just down the aisle from here. The former justice minister had two of his government cars stolen. If that does not speak to how much of an epidemic this is, I do not know what will.

For the sake of clarity, let us review the data. According to the Liberal government’s own admission and press release, which came out a few days ago, since 2015 car theft is up 34% nationwide. It is up by 300% in Toronto, 100% in Montreal, 100% in Ottawa-Gatineau, 120% in New Brunswick, 122% in Ontario and 59% in Quebec. However, this is no longer just an urban issue. After eight years of the Prime Minister’s soft-on-crime policies, even rural communities like Oxford are not immune to the rising crimes we are seeing. Crime and car thefts are trickling into our small, peaceful communities. While I was preparing for this speech I was in the habit of reading our local morning newspapers, and I could see that there are even pickup trucks being stolen in Beachville, Tillsonburg and Woodstock.

It was not like this eight years ago. Back in the day, a person could leave their car unlocked and leave their doors unlocked, and that was enough for them to stay safe, but the hard-working people of rural Ontario are now directly impacted by the Prime Minister's reckless policies.

I recently spoke with someone who had two cars stolen from their driveway within a single hour. Local police detachments cannot respond once a stolen vehicle reaches a federal port, so Canadians are now forced to take these thefts into their own hands. Many are using air tags to track their stolen cars, which are now being shipped to the ports and, from there, out of the country. Recently I heard from a man who tracked his car from Ontario to Montreal and all the way to Dubai, and he was completely powerless to stop it.

It is at these ports that the Prime Minister's absolute mismanagement of the RCMP and CBSA is highlighted. The port of Montreal, a major hub for stolen vehicles being shipped out of Canada, has only five CBSA officers to inspect the containers. They have 580,000 containers to inspect every year, according to media reports. One agent said that the CBSA has no resources to check the containers, so they check less than 1% of containers. They apparently have only one X-ray scanner, which constantly breaks down.

How on earth can we expect them to inspect 580,000 containers that will be leaving our country, with one scanner? Federal ports in Prince Rupert, Halifax and Vancouver all report the same thing. Is the Prime Minister working with CBSA to fix the problem? No; he has done the exact opposite. Despite rates of car theft skyrocketing, CBSA is seizing about the same number of cars today at the federal Port of Montreal as it was doing years ago, and it is frequently ignoring suspicious containers even when they are reported or even if there is somebody standing in front of the container, looking at their phone and saying that the tag is showing their car to be in that container.

Just last year, the Prime Minister spent $15 million on useless management consultants at the CBSA. Let us not forget the $54 million the Liberals spent on the arrive scam app, which not only did not work but also is now being investigated by the RCMP for corruption. Common-sense Conservatives would use these dollars to put boots on the ground and support our CBSA officers. We would not pump more money into bureaucracy.

The CBSA has failed to spend $117 million that had already been approved by Parliament. This is yet another example of Liberal mismanagement and the inability to deliver desperately needed results for Canadians. The failure of the current government and the CBSA allows stolen cars to be shipped abroad to Africa, the Middle East and parts of Europe. They are resold and used to fund organized crime and terror networks to profit evil globally. This is simply unacceptable. With federal ports, the federal CBSA, the federal Criminal Code and the federal Prime Minister, this is a federal responsibility, and we need to respond immediately. Car theft has become a get-rich-quick scheme for violent criminals and gangs, and hard-working Canadians are paying the price.

This rise in car theft has made Canadians less safe at a time when many are already struggling as a result of the Prime Minister's reckless debt and costly carbon tax. Car theft is an additional burden on Canadians. In 2022, car insurance payouts totalled more than $1 billion. In Ontario, car theft claims were up 329% in the first half of 2023 alone, adding up to more than $700 million in losses. The Insurance Bureau of Canada has estimated that auto theft will cost every single driver an extra $130 a year.

The failure of the government is to respond to the violent crime crisis, costing more and more at a time when Canadians are hurting and life is unaffordable. Only a Conservative government would stand up for Canadians and bring home safe streets. We have a common-sense solution for the real problem.

A Conservative government would go after real criminals by restoring jail and not bail, increasing mandatory jail time and ending house arrest for car thieves, while also increasing sentences for gang-associated crimes. We would increase the mandatory prison time from six months to three years for a third offence of a motor vehicle theft. We would remove eligibility for house arrest for anyone convicted of a motor vehicle theft by way of indictment. We would create a new specific aggravating factor where the offence of a motor vehicle theft is committed for the benefit of organized crime. We would repeal the catch-and-release rules in the Prime Minister's Bill C-75 to ensure that repeat offenders would get jail and not bail. We would fire useless management consultants at CBSA and use that money to fix our federal ports. We would invest in state-of-the-art X-ray equipment to allow for rapid scanning of containers at our four major ports in Vancouver, Montreal, Prince Rupert and Halifax. We would purchase a total of 24 new scanners, and we would hire more CBSA officers.

After eight years of this Prime Minister, crime, chaos, drugs and disorder run rampant in our communities. People's homes are where they are supposed to feel the safest, and all Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes. We need to do more to ensure our communities are safe places for our children to grow and for people to raise their families.

It is very simple: The Prime Minister's reckless policies have allowed car thefts to explode in our communities, and his only action to fix this is to hold summits. Canadians do not need more summits; they need a common-sense plan to stop theft and end the crime. Stop the photo ops, stop the talk and let us have more action. Let us put a stop to auto theft, protect our property and bring home safer streets for all Canadians. That is just common sense.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague and good friend, the member for Oxford.

Since 2015, the Liberals have pursued a systematic agenda of dismantling Canada’s judicial system and undermining the rule of law in this country. They have not only done so with their repeated ethics violations and blatant disrespect for the charter but have also done so through more legitimate means, like through acts of Parliament. Thanks to Liberal bills that passed under a former justice minister, committing crimes has become easier and more common than before.

It seems that under the current minister, the streak will continue, given the responses we have heard in the House already, along with some colourful language of course. At every step of the way, Liberals have placed the rights of offenders over the rights of victims, and their woke, out-of-touch ideology over common sense and safety.

With respect to deterring crimes, the Liberals' Bill C-5 eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for dangerous crimes such as robbery with a firearm, sexual assault and drug trafficking. There are others. Not only that, but it also allows hardened criminals to serve their reduced sentence in the comfort of their own home, to serve time while watching TV in their living room, sleeping in their own bed and enjoying the privileges that all those who have not committed crimes enjoy.

With respect to arresting criminals, the catch-and-release practices now mean that it is nearly impossible to keep dangerous offenders in jail for more than a few hours. They are then released back into the world, free to commit crimes, sometimes even the same crimes and on the same day, over and over again. The revolving door spins, cycling through a rotation of hardened, merciless lawbreakers who face no accountability. They are free to break the law over and over again, putting the public at risk and propagating unnecessary harm on communities, innocent victims, families and neighbourhoods.

Finally, with respect to prosecuting criminals, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP incompetence, the government has decayed our justice system and made it just a shell of its former self. It takes months to get a court date. Resources have been stretched to the limit, which makes it harder to catch criminals, and it is harder to keep them accountable. Therefore it is no surprise that our streets are more dangerous and that Canadians are worried that their once-safe neighbourhoods are subject to crime, chaos, drugs and disorder. Every single day we see new, outrageous headlines about individuals who are putting communities in danger and about a system that is failing Canadians.

Just last week, a 43-year-old man stabbed a total stranger with a syringe in broad daylight in downtown Toronto. The man was out on bail for previous assaults and has had more than 40 convictions in his lifetime, including failure to comply with the court and failure to attend court dates. The incident was in the middle of the day in Toronto. However, thanks to the Liberal policies, we know he will get bail one more time and that the cycle will continue again and again.

Stories like these add up; that is what makes Canadians feel unsafe. It is not just a feeling; it is based on empirical data and evidence. The stories not only add up to broken communities, broken victims and broken families; they also a story about the state of our country. Since 2015, gang crimes have doubled and violent crime is up 37%. Canada’s murder rate is the highest it has been in 30 years, since the last time there was a Liberal government in power, and nowhere is the story more out of control and more apparent than when it comes to auto theft.

Too many people wake up, look out the window and see that their car that was sitting in their driveway the night before is no longer there. It is gone. It was taken while they were sleeping in safe communities like mine, where, at one time, nobody locked their front door. Since 2015, car thefts have tripled in Canada. More than 100,000 vehicles are being stolen every year, including nearly 10,000 in Toronto alone. That means that every six minutes in Canada, a car is stolen. Gangs and criminals profit from the criminal activity and use it to finance even more criminal activities, like more car theft, arms trafficking, human trafficking and drug trafficking.

Do not listen to me; the Prime Minister actually admitted it in his own press release. It costs every Canadian who drives almost everywhere more to pay for this. It cost the insurance industry a billion dollars in 2022. Everyone in the province is now paying more to drive. In Ontario, car theft claims, just in the first half of last year, were up 329%. That accounts for $700 million in losses. It means $130 more for every Ontario driver on insurance.

Why is this happening? Let us lead ourselves back to the dangerous catch-and-release policies that unleashed crime and chaos in communities. Bill C-75 allows repeat violent offenders to be released on bail within hours of arrest. They then often re-offend. Last year, even Mayor Steven Del Duca, who is the mayor of Vaughan and probably a familiar name to many on the other side, wrote to the Prime Minister, calling on the federal government to urgently modernize Canada’s bail system to ensure that dangerous offenders are kept off our streets for committing crimes ranging from gun violence to home break-ins and auto thefts.

The mayor wrote to Canada’s then public safety minister, asking about auto theft specifically and asking that CBSA protocols be tightened for screening and inspection of exports leaving our country. It fell on deaf ears. There was nothing until last week from the government's member of Parliament who represents a riding in Vaughan. The letter was written in January, after the problem got so out of control that the council had to step in to demand action for something it had been asking for.

For what happens after offenders have been convicted, the government did not let it stop at Bill C-75. Bill C-5 gives convicts house arrest, even those with long, storied histories of stealing multiple cars. This means that they can just walk out their front door, be on the streets again and start stealing cars and terrorizing neighbourhoods when they are done doing whatever they do in the comforts of their own homes.

One last thing is that the federal government controls our ports, the places where organized crime is taking place: en route to federal ports and at federal ports. Stolen cars are waiting at federal ports to be shipped overseas.

It is time for a new approach. It is time to start increasing mandatory jail time to deter the actual crime and not to have people keep doing it over and over again. We propose three years for three thefts, and of course ending house arrest for car thieves while also increasing sentences for gang-associated car thieves.

Police, insurance associations, community groups and business organizations have been sounding the alarm bell about this for years. Our own constituents send us videos of it happening right in their front driveway, but their concerns have fallen on the deaf ears of the Liberal government, which in the meantime still continues to stand with lawbreakers instead of with law enforcement.

Now the calls have reached a breaking point, and the Liberals are finally going to do something about it. What is that something? Are they going to increase the punishments? No, they will not. Are they going to end catch-and-release policies that turn repeat violent offenders back onto our streets? Are they going to crack down on the incompetence at Canadian ports that allows thousands of cars? Nope, they will not.

They are going to have a summit. They are going to sit around a table. They are going to have a meeting. They are going to come out with a press release. They are going to take some photos. They are going to talk about it, after eight years, this problem that has gotten out of control.

They had a summit on food prices; food prices went up. They had a summit on housing; housing prices have doubled. I can hardly wait to see the results from this summer. In fact, I think Canadians would beg them not to have a summit. Instead, they should start cracking down on the violent offenders, keep them behind bars when they re-commit, stop the house arrests and actually get serious about fighting crime in every single neighbourhood across the country.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois just has a tendency to support the Liberal Prime Minister.

The Bloc Québécois voted for the Liberal law arising from Bill C-75, which allows car thieves to be released on bail the same day they are arrested. The thieves are arrested, but the next day, they are free to start stealing again.

The Bloc Québécois also voted for Bill C-5, which allows car thieves to serve their sentence at home, watching Netflix in the comfort of their living room.

The Bloc Québécois does not want a solution that will stop criminals and stop auto theft. They proved it when they voted with the government for Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

moved:

That, given that,

(i) after eight years of soft on crime policies, this Prime Minister has created the auto theft crisis,

(ii) according to the Liberal government’s own news release, auto theft in Toronto is up 300% since 2015, and Statistics Canada data shows auto-theft is up 190% in Moncton, 122% in Ottawa-Gatineau, 106% in Montréal, 62% in Winnipeg, since 2015,

(iii) the Port of Montreal, a major hub for stolen vehicles to be shipped out of Canada, only has five Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA) agents to inspect the 580,000 containers that leave the port each year, according to the Le Journal de Montréal, with one law enforcement agent saying, “CBSA has no resources to check the containers, they check less than one per cent of containers”,

(iv) it is the responsibility of the federal government to reduce auto theft as the primary prevention tools, including the Criminal Code, the RCMP, the CBSA and our port systems, which are the federal government’s jurisdiction,

(v) the increase in auto theft is costing Canadian drivers as insurance premiums are increasing, and in Ontario, insurance companies are able to increase premiums by 25% this year,

(vi) a report by Équité estimates $1 billion in vehicle theft claims were paid out in 2022, and these costs are being passed down to drivers,

in order to stop the crime and reduce auto theft to lower insurance premiums, the House call on the government to:

(a) immediately reverse changes the Liberal government made in their soft on crime Bill C-5 that allows for car stealing criminals to be on house arrest instead of jail;

(b) strengthen Criminal Code provisions to ensure repeat car stealing criminals remain in jail; and

(c) provide the CBSA and our ports with the resources they need to prevent stolen cars from leaving the country.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canada is becoming less and less safe. Violent crime, car theft and gun crime have unleashed chaos and disorder in our communities. Crime, chaos, drugs and disorder are common in our streets now, and the Liberal government is responsible for making this situation even worse.

Since the Liberal government was elected in 2015, there has been a 34% surge in car thefts across Canada. The Insurance Bureau of Canada says that auto theft has become a national crisis, with more than 200 vehicles stolen, on average, every day.

The explosion of car thefts is making life even more unaffordable for Canadians. In 2022, car thefts cost the insurance industry over $1 billion, resulting in higher insurance costs for every Canadian on their insurance premiums. In Toronto alone, auto theft crime is up by 300% and in other Canadian cities, it is over 100%.

While the NDP-Liberals say that they care about the safety of Canadians, they have had no real solutions to the rising auto theft crime across the country. In fact, their only real solution we have heard so far is to host another fancy meeting in Ottawa. They are calling it the auto summit. That means more meetings and no solutions.

The Prime Minister let this auto theft crisis happen under his watch. His reckless policies have allowed car thefts to explode in our communities and right across the country. His only action to fix this is to hold another summit. Last week, in his own press release, the Prime Minister admitted it was not like this before the Liberal government took office in 2015. We can all agree on that one.

Canadians do not feel safe in their communities and on the streets, but the Liberal justice minister and Attorney General told Canadians that this is just in Canadians' heads and that the increasing crime is empirically likely. Here are the facts. Violent crime is up 39%. Gang-related homicides are up over 100%. Violent gun crime has steadily increased every year and now, it is over 100% since 2015. Murders are up 43%, the highest in 30 years. The crime wave that the Liberal government has caused is not imaginary. It is real, and Canadians are experiencing it in every way.

We continue to see news stories of violent crimes committed by repeat offenders who are out on bail. According to a report published last week by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, violent crime is only getting worse and “Canada's violent crime severity index”, which tracks changes in the severity of violent crime, is “at its highest [level] since 2007.” During the last Conservative government, the violent crime severity index, decreased by 24.66%. Under the Liberal government, it has increased by basically 30%. A recent Statistics Canada report shows that the rate of firearm-related violent crime in 2022 was at the highest level ever recorded, a nearly 10% increase from 2021 alone. According to Edmonton police, the number of shootings in 2023 went up by 34%.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadian businesses across the country are now being extorted by international gangsters. In January, the Toronto Sun reported that the mayors of Brampton, Ontario and Surrey, British Columbia sent a letter to the Minister of Public Safety saying that they are “deeply concerned for their communities due to [these] threats” and that “recent reports from their provinces have confirmed links between...extortion attempts and violent acts, including shootings” and arson.

The Edmonton Police Service now reports it is “investigating 27 events related to an ongoing extortion series that has affected [a number of members of] the...community in the Edmonton region since October, including...extortions, 15 arson cases and seven firearms offences.” Businesses and family homes are being shot at in Edmonton. Over a dozen houses that were under construction by different home builders were burned to the ground just since November. While the police are doing their job and are catching these criminals, the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime legislation, such as Bill C-75, allows them to be released within hours of their arrest.

These reckless soft-on-crime policies benefit only the thieves, the criminals. In fact, only criminals are getting rich under the Liberal government. The Liberals' Bill C-5 eliminates mandatory prison time for serious crimes such as this. It allows them to serve their sentence in the comfort of their own home. The government has shown more concern for the criminals than for defending our communities. It has eliminated mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings.

The reckless policies have made police powerless in stopping career car thieves and other criminals. In today's Canada, a convicted criminal can just walk out the front door and be on the streets again, stealing cars and terrorizing neighbourhoods soon after they have been arrested. It is no wonder that more and more Canadians are losing faith in our justice system. In fact, only 46% of Canadians still have confidence that their government will protect them. To make matters worse, the Liberal justice minister is failing to appoint enough judges to handle the cases, resulting in an increased number of cases that are being stayed or withdrawn. The Liberals are just not worth the cost.

The Liberals' mismanagement has allowed organized crime to turn our federal ports into parking lots for stolen vehicles that are then shipped overseas. The port of Montreal has become a major hub for stolen vehicles to be shipped out of Canada. Despite that, it has only five CBSA agents, who inspect 580,000 containers that leave the port each year. In a recent article out of Montreal, a law enforcement agent said that CBSA has no resources to check containers and that they check fewer than 1% of them. This is completely unacceptable given the current car theft crisis happening in Canada. I want to remind the Prime Minister and the government that the RCMP, the Criminal Code, the Canada Border Services Agency are all federal responsibilities. It is their responsibility to reduce auto theft as the primary prevention tool.

Conservatives have a common-sense plan to bring back safe streets and protect our communities. We must hit the brakes on car theft with common-sense Conservative tough-on-crime policies. Our Conservative plan would make prison time mandatory for repeat car thieves. Repeat offenders should not be allowed to serve their sentence in their living room, watching Netflix. We would put a stop to house arrest for convicted car thieves, toughen sentences for gang-related car thieves and eliminate the Liberal soft-on-crime bail policies for repeat violent offenders.

Conservatives will go after the real criminals by restoring jail, not bail. The NDP-Liberals have allowed career car thieves back on our streets to continue spreading chaos and disorder. Common-sense Conservatives will ensure that repeat criminals are where they belong: behind bars. A Conservative government will not go easy on organized crime thieves. It would designate a new, specific aggravating factor where the offence of motor vehicle theft is committed for the benefit of organized crime. We would increase mandatory prison time from six months to three years for a third auto theft offence. Conservatives will not stand silently by as our communities are terrorized by criminals who should be in jail, not on bail.

A common-sense Conservative government will ensure that repeat violent offenders remain behind bars while awaiting trial and will bring back mandatory jail time for serious violent crimes, which was repealed by the Liberal government. Common-sense Conservatives will put a stop to auto theft, protect Canadians' property and bring home safer streets. That is just common sense.

Public Safety

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois voted for the Liberal legislation that came out of Bill C‑75, which allows car thieves to be released on bail the same day they are arrested. The Bloc Québécois voted for the legislation that came out of Bill C‑5, which allows car thieves to serve their sentence at home. These laws have resulted in a 100% increase in car theft in Montreal and a 300% increase in Toronto.

Will the government reverse its policies and replace them with a common-sense policy to put an end to this problem?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Liberal government has allowed catch-and-release criminals to cause chaos in our streets, resulting in car theft numbers unlike anything we have ever seen in the past.

According to the Liberal government's own news release, auto thefts in Toronto are up 300% since 2015. What happened in 2015? The Liberal government happened in 2015. This auto theft crisis has happened under its watch and ports are full of stolen cars waiting to be shipped overseas while Canadians are left paying the price through increased insurance premiums.

The Liberal-NDP coalition and Prime Minister are not worth the costs. Change is needed, and only Conservatives would increase the mandatory minimum penalty for a third offence of motor vehicle theft. We would repeal the catch-and-release rules in the government's bill, Bill C-75, to ensure repeat offenders get jail and not bail.

A Conservative government would hit the brakes on car theft, protect the property of Canadians and bring home safe streets. It is just common sense.

Criminal Code

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that, of course, her private member's bill had a poison pill in it for people like me who want to vote for things that are effective.

Does reform to the bail system cause crime? No, it does not, and reforms to the bail system in Bill C-75 did not increase the crime rate. There are lots of other very complicated factors we could look at about why that happened, but the Conservatives like to point to the headlines and not actually point to the things that really work when it comes to combatting crimes and preventing future victims.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about making changes that would actually make a difference.

One of the things that I had proposed in a private member's bill was to get those people who are incarcerated in federal institutions access to addiction treatment and recovery, but the NDP, unfortunately, did not support that. How does the member rationalize saying that he wants to vote for legislation that would actually make a difference and yet he will vote against a bill like that? He also supports bills like Bill C-75, which actually lessened the bail system, and we have seen from the stats how many more victims there are because of Bill C-75.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I had a piece of advice, and I try to give some constructive advice and commentary around here once in a while, I would encourage every member of Parliament, every member of the House, regardless of party, to spend a little time on the front lines.

I have had the honour of serving here in the House for four years. One of the most impactful things I am able to do a couple of times a year is a ride-along on a Friday or Saturday night from eight o'clock until about two or three in the morning. One morning, I was out until about 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. I have done it with the OPP in SDG and with the Cornwall Police Service.

I want to build on what my colleague just said: The bill does not go far enough with respect to the changes the government is proposing. All any member of Parliament needs to do is spend a night or two on the front lines, at least, each year. Talk to frontline law enforcement. They will tell us the demoralizing aspect, the demoralizing environment, that is being created with the bail reform under Bill C-75, and now with only this partial fix. They would tell us, I think, the intention, the message or the morale with respect to criminals. They know they are getting out all the time. They know the revolving door. MPs need to spend more time on the front lines. I think all Canadians would benefit from it.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that Canadians are less safe. I see that in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country. We know that this crime wave has been created by bail reform changes that happened with Bill C-75. We now have a revolving door of criminals in Canada.

As you mentioned in your intervention, this would fix some of the issues, but not all of them. It certainly would not bring it back to the level that it was before the government made the changes. Could you comment on the fact that it would not be going back to the same level and would not actually fix a lot of the crime issues we are seeing with bail?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that the member needs to dig a little deeper into the testimony and into the words being said.

Again, Bill C-48 would fix a small part of a very big problem in this country. It is not the end. It is not that we just pass the bill and walk away and clap, saying that it is a job well done. There is a lot more that needs to be done. There are many examples, as I cited in my speech, of repeat violent offenders getting out through a revolving door, over and over again.

The Liberals are taking a narrow approach that would not fix the problem and would not get crime rates and the crime wave addressed in this country. The NDP always does this. New Democrats go along with the Liberals; they go along with the plan, and now, they are just as responsible for the backtrack. They pushed the initial bill, Bill C-75 every step the way. They are admitting, just as much as the Liberals are, that they were soft on crime and that they are wrong in their approach. They need more humility. They need a little more water in their wine, and they need to do a full backtrack.

Law enforcement, Canadians and numerous experts are saying that this is one step, but many more steps are needed to fix the problem. The work is not done yet.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the current Prime Minister, Canada is not as safe these days. Canadians know that and they feel that. They hear example after example of that fear right at home. Members need not take my word for it. Canadians can share, sadly, many personal examples of that. However, I want to start my comments by framing the context of why we have this bill before us in Parliament again.

Earlier this summer, the government's own numbers agency, Stats Canada, released some staggering numbers that show just how bad the crime wave in Canada is after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government. It summarized a scary national breakdown of public safety in this country for an increase in occurrences of crime since 2015. Total violent crimes are up 39%. Homicides are up 43%, and are up for the fourth year in a row. Gang-related homicides are up 108%. Violent gun crimes are up 101%, and have been up every single year the Prime Minister has been in office. Aggravated assaults are up 24%. Assaults with a weapon or bodily harm are up 61%. Total sexual assaults are up 71%. Sex crimes against children are up 126%. Kidnappings are up 36%. Car thefts are up 34%.

When we look at the violent crimes severity index, under the previous Conservative government, it decreased by nearly 25%. Under the current Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government, it has gone in the total opposite direction. We can do a regional breakdown. I am taking the time to put this data from Stats Canada into the record for a specific reason.

In the city of Toronto, the total number of violent Criminal Code violations increased to 57,896 in 2022. That is a 30% increase since 2015. Homicides are up. After eight years, they are up 65.85%. In Toronto, violent firearms offences increased to 655 in 2022. That is an increase of 64%. Last year, 44 murders were committed with a firearm in Toronto. Twenty-four of those were by someone who was out on bail.

In the city of Winnipeg, the total number of violent Criminal Code violations increased to over 14,000, a 48.5% increase in eight years. Homicides increased by 136% in the city of Winnipeg.

In Calgary, the violent Criminal Code violations increased to nearly 16,000 last year, a 40% increase over eight years since the Prime Minister came into office. Violent firearms offences increased by 42.8% in Calgary.

Let us go a little bit further to Edmonton. Violent firearms offences increased by 97%.

Let us go a little further west to Vancouver. Violent Criminal Code violations increased to nearly 32,000 in 2022. That is a 22.5% increase since the Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal government took office. Homicides are up 55% in Vancouver and violent firearms offences are up 22% in that city alone.

Coming back here to the nation's capital, the Ottawa-Gatineau region, the number of violent crime violations is just shy of 14,000, which is a 37.1% increase over eight years. Homicide has increased in the nation's capital by 112%. Violent firearms offences have increased by 115%. This is the situation after eight years of the Prime Minister and the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies. This is the record they sadly own.

Just over my shoulder behind me is my colleague for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, which is in rural Manitoba. I have highlighted the stats of many of our major cities, but rural crime is also out of control. My colleague has raised this, I would say, at least a couple of dozen times. I have heard him tabling multiple petitions in the House from Canadians begging the Prime Minister to understand the public safety threat and the crime wave that has been unleashed in this country because of the government's policies, but it is to little or no avail. This is what is so frustrating for Canadians.

The Prime Minister is the best at photo ops. He loves selfies. He loves making announcements about the things he will do, how great it is, and how it has never been so good for Canadians. This is what we hear him talk about often, but any time the going gets tough, or we read the data and statistics as I just did, the Prime Minister heads for the hills. He goes up to the cottage and refuses to answer questions.

I have never, in my 36 years of life, seen somebody skirt from accountability based on their own record. It is always somebody else's fault. When we watch debate in the House and watch question period, we never see the government take an ounce of responsibility for the problems of this country. The Liberals will blame the provinces. They talk about law enforcement. They talk about everything but what they are actually responsible for and the policies that are doing this to every part of the country.

Before I get to Bill C-48 specifically, it is important for Canadians and the House to be reminded why we are talking about Bill C-48, and for the Liberals and the NDP to be humbled. It all emanates from an idea they had less than five years ago with Bill C-75, which made significant, major and wrong reforms to the bail process in Canada. It was passed in 2019, and it legislated a “principle of restraint”, which is what they called it, concerning bail. This was for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity would be favoured over detention. Bail by default is a simple way of explaining this.

However, make no mistake about it, I read all those comments into the record about the severity of public safety in this country, which is being felt by millions of Canadians in their communities. This is not because of some random chance. It is not because of some phenomenon that just came along. It is because the Prime Minister passed Bill C-75 and wrecked our bail reform process. A revolving door of bail is happening in every part of this country.

Now, with Bill C-48, the Liberals have admitted it. This was after immense pressure from Conservatives, premiers of all parties in every province, territorial leaders and law enforcement officials who are working on the front lines of this crisis day in and day out. They were polled and forced to make this change to backtrack on their soft-on-crime policies. However, let me make it clear that this is only one small step of what needs to happen when it comes to bail reform in this country. They have gone back an inch, but they need to go back a heck of a lot further to solve the problems we are facing. It is simple, as members have heard us say before: jail not bail for repeat violent offenders.

I will nip this in the bud right off the bat. The Liberals always say that people make mistakes. Now I am not perfect, and I have made some mistakes, believe it or not. We all have. Canadians are concerned and frustrated that there are these repeat violent offenders in all those crime stats I just talked about. They are also seeing that law enforcement is extremely frustrated because, when someone gets arrested, they go in, and within a day or so, they are out on bail.

We are seeing a correlation. Law enforcement statistics are showing that repeat violent offenders are out causing chaos. They are causing numerous police interactions, numbering in the thousands. We are not talking about a speeding ticket, a small amount of substances or even a first offence. It is repeat violent offenders, and Canadians are getting tired of the revolving door. Our law enforcement is demoralized at how the government is ignoring the very valid concerns it is raising.

The Vancouver Police Union had an unbelievable statistic. I had to reread it probably two or three times just to comprehend the magnitude of how broken the bail system has become under the Liberals and the NDP. The Vancouver Police Union said that the same 40 offenders last year had 6,000 police interactions. Members can think of the resources of the revolving door, which is, over and over again, deferring police resources from keeping our communities safe. There were 6,000 times involving the same 40 people. That is insane. That is a broken Liberal soft-on-crime policy.

The frustrating part about all this is that the Liberals still do not get it. This bill goes nowhere near far enough to reverse the damage they have done and the public safety crisis, the crime wave, they have unleashed across the country.

The Prime Minister is in trouble. He was in trouble back in the summer. He desperately wanted to reset things. He is down in the polls, and after eight years, Canadians realize he is just not worth the cost, the corruption or the lack of safety we have in this country. He shuffled his cabinet. A few people announced their retirements and went to the backbenches or the side benches. New fresh faces came into cabinet.

There was a new justice minister, who I am going to guess on the very first day, after visiting Rideau Hall and heading to the Department of Justice for a briefing, was given a summary of the same Stats Canada data I just read. The first opportunity is not a full reversal on the failed Bill C-75.

We will fast-forward to the new justice minister going on CBC, of all places, for an interview. When he was confronted about those stats and how devastating they were, with the rapid increase of violent crime in this country, his response to Canadians was to say that it was all in their heads. He said, “empirically it's unlikely” that Canada had become less safe. That is the reset. That is the new justice minister advocating for public safety in this country saying that it is just in Canadians' heads and that it is just a thing you hear on TV. He is out of touch.

This is what we have seen time and time again with the government's approach to bills such as Bill C-48. Premiers, law enforcement and millions of Canadians who have become victims of crime and/or know somebody who has become a victim of crime are saying that enough is enough.

The justice minister gave a slap in the face to victims of crime. To have the Prime Minister double down, denying just how bad the public safety crisis is in this country, shows us where the Liberals are starting from. The Liberals should frankly be embarrassed about Bill C-48 because they are admitting that the approach in their previous bills was absolutely wrong. They have backtracked.

As I said before, Conservatives have been clear that this does not go far enough to fix the revolving door of bail in this country. This bill is before us only because of the efforts of Conservative members of Parliament at committee, of provincial premiers who were united against the federal government and the Prime Minister and of courageous frontline law enforcement in every part of this country. They have all had enough. We owe it to them to not just pass Bill C-48 but to do the full fix to protect law enforcement and Canadians and keep people safe. This bill is an admission of failure by the Liberals and NDP. It is an admission that they were soft on crime, and it is proof that they are failing Canadians in keeping them safe.

I want to highlight the months of testimony that was heard at the justice committee on Canada's broken bail system. There were many key points raised that need to be brought into the debate we are having on the floor of the House. Comprehensive bail reform is urgent. Repeat and violent offenders are becoming a bigger problem for law enforcement. The public's right to be protected against violent repeat offenders must outweigh the violent repeat offenders' right to bail. That, as we would say, is common sense.

There is agreement among numerous individuals with a background in law enforcement and public safety who testified that Bill C-75 has failed to help victims of intimate violence. The current bail system now has put frontline officers at risk, and the Liberals, with their efforts, have sadly eroded the integrity of Canada's bail system. Judges have to apply the Criminal Code as written, and now people who pose a risk to public safety are too often receiving bail. The government is sending the wrong message to Canadians.

It did this only after all of this pressure, whether it was at the justice committee, in question period, in the letter that the premiers signed, from numerous police unions and provincial and national chiefs of police associations or, most importantly, through the devastating stories from way too many Canadians about how they have become victims of crime and about living in neighbourhoods where, for generations and decades, they felt safe in their hamlets, subdivisions, communities and small towns, and now that has been eroded.

It is important in these debates to humanize what is going on. The sad part that is not in Bill C-48 is the devastating and sad story from only a few months ago of OPP Constable Grzegorz Pierzchala. His killer was out on bail. We now know that, based on this bill and its small fix, which is not the full fix but a partial fix, that individual would have still been out on bail. It is extremely frustrating. The list goes on of media story after media story that highlight the crisis we are in.

It was the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that begged for an urgent meeting with premiers and national leaders about this bill. It does not go the full way that it has been asking for. It says easy bail policies make “much of our work pointless”. That is what the chiefs of police are saying about the Liberals' legislative record on justice and public safety.

The BC Urban Mayors' Caucus compiled data showing more than 11,000 negative police contacts by just 204 offenders who “rarely faced any consequences for their criminality”. I spoke before about the Vancouver Police Union. Police officers in Vancouver themselves have released data on the 44 most recent stranger attack suspects, showing that 78% of them had already been charged in a previous criminal incident.

Most notably, the law requires that the top priority in any bail hearing is “the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”. That has got to change. Again, jail, not bail, for repeat offenders must be the goal of the government. After eight years, Canadians cannot afford any more of this nonsense from the Liberals, propped up every step of the way by the NDP.

I want to end my comments tonight with a reflection on where we are at when it comes to the priorities of public safety of the Liberal government and the Prime Minister. I want to talk about the benefit of the doubt, and have Canadians reflect on something that would tell them everything they need to know about the broken approach the Liberals have and the contrast on this side of the aisle with Conservatives, which could not be more clear.

With respect to bail reform, with Bill C-75 in the Liberals' legislative record, they want to give the principle of restraint, the least onerous bail conditions, and give those who are accused the benefit of the doubt so they can get out on bail. Even if, over and over again, they are being arrested or charged, or are having interactions with the police, by default, by benefit of the doubt, they get out. The result has been a crime wave, with skyrocketing numbers from Statistics Canada on where we are at in this country.

By contrast, when we talk about the benefit of the doubt, what is the solution for the problem, in the minds of the Liberals? It is to take away hunting rifles and go after law-abiding hunters, farmers, indigenous communities and sport shooters alike. There is zero benefit of the doubt for those who are law-abiding, have their PAL, have a criminal record check and have never had an issue or an interaction with police whatsoever. The Liberals and the Prime Minister do not think they deserve any benefit of the doubt; they just want to confiscate and waste billions going after Canadians who are of no concern with respect to public safety. That benefit of the doubt tells us everything we need to know about the Prime Minister. There is no common sense there.

It is time, not just to pass Bill C-48, a small fraction of a solution, but to do the right thing for Canadians who are tired either of being the victim of crime or of hearing of a neighbour, a friend or a co-worker who has been the victim of crime. Do it for the frontline law enforcement members in this country, who deserve the resources to keep repeat violent offenders behind bars. We need jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders.

It is time in this country for common sense. It is time for a real plan for public safety. It is time for the Prime Minister to put a little water in his wine, have a little humility, listen to premiers, listen to law enforcement and bring change, not only with Bill C-48 but also with the full fix this country needs in order to be protected.

Public Safety

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is another bill blocked by more Liberal senators.

It was actually the Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 that let serious violent criminals back onto our streets, and incidents of violent crimes have skyrocketed since then. Violent crime is up by 39%. Murders are up 43%. Gang-related homicides and violent gun crimes are up over 100%.

Only Conservatives would end Liberal-NDP soft-on-crime policies that keep violent offenders on the streets. When will the Liberals get out of the way and allow common-sense Conservatives to bring home safer streets?

Criminal Code

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act. I am pleased to reiterate the government's support for Bill S-205. This legislation has the important goal of better protecting victims of intimate partner violence.

In light of last week's tragic instance of intimate partner violence in Sault Ste. Marie, we are reminded of the devastating impact these crimes have on individuals and communities. My heart breaks for the senseless loss of life in Sault Ste. Marie, and I am thinking of the victims' loved ones. Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence in general have no place in Canada. I know my colleagues from all parties share this sentiment.

Bill S-205 would make changes to the Criminal Code's bail and peace bond regimes in order to address intimate partner violence. The bill would also make consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. These are important objectives. Today, I will elaborate on some concerns that we have with this bill and how we think it can be improved. I will also discuss our government's most recent complementary efforts to support victims of intimate partner violence and victims of crime in general.

As my colleagues have mentioned, Bill S-205 would require prosecutors to ask courts whether the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs prior to making a bail order for an individual who is charged with an intimate partner violence offence. In addition, Bill S-205 would require courts to ask prosecutors whether victims have been informed of their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court.

The next element of Bill S-205 that I would like to highlight is the expansion of a reverse onus for bail on intimate partner violence crimes. The reverse onus would be expanded so that it applies not only to accused persons who were previously convicted but also to those previously discharged, conditional or absolute, for an intimate partner violence offence. This particular measure is also contained in our government's bill, Bill C-48, which already passed this House and is awaiting third reading in the Senate. We were certainly concerned to see that the senators voted to remove this measure from the bill, and I hope that my colleagues agree that we should reinstate it in Bill C-48. This provision builds upon previous government legislation that enhances our federal response to intimate partner violence, including former Bill C-75. I hope this House rejects the amendments to Bill C-48.

Next, Bill S-205 would require a justice to consider, on request of the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release. I want to point out that this provision would also undo an important change made by Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, violence against an intimate partner, which received royal assent on April 27. If Bill S-205 is passed, electronic monitoring would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases, and not just in cases involving violence against an intimate partner as is now the case because of the changes enacted in Bill C-233.

Last, this bill would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence with a duration of up to two years, or three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence.

I want to reiterate that I support the objectives of this bill, but I believe that changes should be considered to better align the proposed amendments with its objective. These changes could also minimize the potential for unintended negative impacts on groups who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and ensure coherence with existing criminal law.

Next, I want to discuss how Bill S-205 fits into a broader framework of our government's support for victims of crime. I have already mentioned Bill C-48, which passed here on unanimous consent of all members. I want to thank colleagues across the aisle for their support and for recognizing the importance and urgency of Bill C-48. It is a direct response to requests made by the provinces and territories, as well as law enforcement agencies from across our country. This piece of legislation would strengthen Canada's bail laws to address the public's concerns relating to repeat violent offenders in offences involving firearms and other weapons.

Bill C-48 would introduce a reverse onus at bail on the use of dangerous weapons such as firearms, knives and bear spray. Bill C-48 would also create a reverse onus for additional indictable firearms offences, including unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking and entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm.

Through this bill, we are sending a strong message that crimes committed involving a firearm are unacceptable and represent a dire threat to public safety. We have seen too many lives lost to gun crime.

As I have mentioned previously, Bill C-48 would also strengthen the existing reverse onus that applies to accused persons charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence when they have a previous conviction for this type of an offence. Bill S-205 has this same objective, and I am glad to see members from all parties take intimate partner violence seriously.

Another proposal in Bill C-48 relates to what considerations the court must make when deciding whether to release someone on bail. A former bill, Bill C-75, passed in 2019, amended the Criminal Code to provide that before making a bail order, courts must consider any relevant factor, including the criminal record of the accused or if the charges involve intimate partner violence.

Bill C-48 would expand this provision to require courts to consider if the accused's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence. Bail courts would be specifically directed to consider whether the accused has any previous violent convictions and whether they represent an increased risk of reoffending, even when the proposed reverse onus does not apply. This change would enhance public safety, and I am again pleased that my colleagues support the passage of Bill C-48.

A second bill I wanted to highlight is Bill S-12. Just this week, we debated this legislation. Bill S-12 would improve our national response to sexual offences by strengthening the national sex offender registry regime. We have responded to concerns raised by the Supreme Court and law enforcement agencies in this legislation. The list of designated offences that qualify an offender to be registered on the national sex offender registry would be expanded by Bill S-12, and this list would include non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sextortion, two crimes that have had terrible impacts on the lives of Canadians, especially women and children. This would be a very positive step forward.

Bill S-12 is a direct product of conversations with survivors and victims of sexual crime. Bill S-12 would reform the publication regime to recognize the diversity of victim experiences and ensure that survivors have agency to tell their own stories if they so choose. Bill S-12 would also change the process for providing victims with information on their cases to better reflect the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Both of these changes are about one key element: choice. There is no one right way to be a victim. Bill S-12 reflects this reality.

I am happy to support Bill S-205, and I hope that the elements I have raised as potential concerns with the bill can be further studied at committee.

Public Safety

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, public safety is one of the most important roles government has. As elected representatives, we create laws and policies to keep Canadians safe, but increasingly, people from my community in Kelowna—Lake Country are feeling that the Liberal-NDP government is not prioritizing the safety of our streets and community. The former public safety minister defended Liberal laws and policies that left people traumatized in our communities. After a summer reshuffle, the Liberals put forth a new justice minister, who denies basic facts about crime rates. In an interview with Reuters, he said that “empirically” it is unlikely Canada is becoming less safe.

Here are a few facts after eight years of the Liberal government: Violent crime is up 39%, and murders are up 43%. Gang-related homicides are up 108%, and violent gun crime is up 101%. Aggravated assaults are up 24%, and assaults with a weapon are up 61%. Sexual assaults are up 71%, and sex crimes against children are up 126%. Kidnappings are up 36%, and car thefts are up 34%. The violent crime severity index is up 30%. Youth crime has risen by 17.8% in a single year. Bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have created laws that are more lenient on criminals and do less to protect victims.

In British Columbia, disturbing statistics showed that just 40 offenders were responsible for 6,000 negative interactions with law enforcement in one year. Residents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country are increasingly disturbed by random attacks and by seeing crimes being committed by repeat violent offenders who are out on bail. Criminals who repeatedly terrorize communities do not deserve to be out on our streets. The revolving door does nothing to help victims, to keep people safe and to reduce recidivism.

I introduced a private member's bill, the “end the revolving door act”, to help people in federal penitentiaries receive a mental health assessment and treatment and recovery while they serve out their sentence. A report showed that 70% of people in federal penitentiaries have addiction issues and that recidivism is high. Receiving treatment and recovery would help the person serving the sentence, their family and the community they would go back to. The NDP-Liberal coalition voted down my non-partisan, common sense bill. Instead, its members have chosen to take a very different path by allowing drug decriminalization policies and taxpayer-funded hard drugs in British Columbia. Investigative reporting showed a new drug black market that emerged from taxpayer-funded hard drugs both on streets and also now online.

More than a dozen addictions doctors wrote to the Liberal government calling for changes in policies around government-funded “safe supply” drugs or to not provide them at all. Today, I ask the government, on behalf of those residents in my community concerned about this shocking rise in crime, when will the government reverse course on all its failed policies?

Criminal Code

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister's weak-on-crime policies, Canada has become a more dangerous place and he is not worth the cost.

Liberal law Bill C-75, the catch-and-release act, has unleashed a wave of violent criminals onto our streets and incidents of repeat and violent crime have predictably surged as a result. This increase in crime is particularly true when it comes to sexually based offences. Under this NDP-Liberal government's watch, sexual assaults have gone up 71%. Sex crimes against children have seen an astonishing 126% increase.

Thanks to extreme politicians weakening our laws, those who commit sexual assault can now serve their sentences at home in the same community as their victims.

According to Statistics Canada, only one in five cases of sexual assault reported to police result in a trial. Only 6% of sexual assaults are reported in the first place, due to fear and stigma, the lowest of all violent crime.

I know that when I was sexually assaulted, as a child of 12, by two perpetrators, I was too afraid to tell my parents, even. I did not tell my mother until I was 40 years old. That is the story for many women in Canada.

The Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter points out that only one in nine cases of sexual assault reported to police results in a conviction. Worse, only one in 15 reported cases results in the perpetrator being sentenced to jail. As a mother of three daughters, I find these statistics alarming. As a lawyer and member of the official opposition, I must hold the government presiding over this crime wave responsible. The lack of urgency of the NDP and Liberals to protect women and children is shocking. They must act now to fix the problems they created with this radical ideology that puts criminals first and victims last.

These stats only tell part of the story. The assault is traumatic enough for the victim to live once. The effects last a lifetime. To get justice, they are required to relive the trauma during the rigours of a criminal trial. They are often revictimized, forced to recount their assault through their own testimony and cross-examination. It is understandable that sex crimes and assaults are significantly under-reported, making it impossible to accurately quantify just how widespread this picture is.

It is not just sexual assault. Other forms of sexual violence are also on the rise. Online child exploitation has increased.

According, again, to StatsCan, my province of British Columbia accounted for 54% of Canada's reported incidents of making and distributing sexually explicit images. The RCMP in British Columbia dealt with 9,600 cases of child exploitation last year alone.

This is unacceptable in the extreme and speaks to the NDP-Liberal government's failure to protect the most vulnerable in our society, particularly women and children.

The House must acknowledge that Canada has a problem with sex crimes, as we debate legal changes to the sex offender registry.

In my family law practice, I handled a case where a woman was concerned for the safety of her child during a custody dispute. She expressed concern that unsupervised contact with extended family members on the father's side of the family could put her child at risk of sexual assault. I discovered, through a sex offender registry in the United States, that the family member in question was a known offender. We were able to secure conditions in the custody arrangements that kept the child safe and under supervision.

This underscores the need for a strong, effective sex offender registry, to help law enforcement keep the public safe.

The legislation before us today, Bill S-12, amends the Sex Offender Registration Information Act, following a Supreme Court ruling that determines that sections of this law were unconstitutional.

The court gave the Liberals one year to fix the unconstitutional provisions. That was on October 28, 2022. The so-called “feminist government” has dragged its feet yet again, and here we are today at the 11th hour debating the bill with a looming deadline just three days away.

Bill S-12 would change the Sex Offender Registry Information Act that was first passed in 2004 with the support of all parties. It was created to assist law enforcement agencies by requiring the registration of specific information about sex offenders, such as addresses, phone numbers, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of the victims and their relationship to the offender. At the time it was up to the discretion of the judge as to whether a sexual offender should be on the registry.

However, this led to several issues. In 2009, the public safety committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to enrol in the sex offender registry. Conservatives recognized that to be effective and to actually protect women, children, victims and survivors, the national registry had to be enforced consistently across the country. Conservatives are the party of law and order. We support tough sentencing and enforcement against sexual crimes.

The previous Conservative government brought in the law that required convicted sex offenders to be automatically listed on the national sex offender registry to better protect the public, a measure that was also supported at the time by all parties. Conservatives remain supportive of legislation that would protect the public from sexual offenders, including Bill S-12. However, the bill is another missed opportunity to improve public safety.

At committee, the Liberals amended their own bill to further prioritize the interests of the accused in sexual assault cases. Frankly, accused sexual offenders do not need more support in the criminal justice system. It is the victims and survivors who need the support. This was a chance for the coalition government to stand with victims, but once again it abandoned them. Common-sense Conservatives believe all sex offenders must be listed on the national sex offender registry, and we will amend the legislation to ensure this is the case when we form government.

As a family lawyer, I often dealt with custody cases where the sex offender registry was especially used to protect the interests of children. It is an essential tool for police and law enforcement agencies. I am concerned that the court's decision will water down the effectiveness of the registry and make it harder for police to prevent and investigate sexual offences.

At committee, that soft-on-crime NDP-Liberal government opposed our common-sense amendments to strengthen the bill and opposed amendments to publication bans that key stakeholders, such as My Voice, My Choice, which was earlier praised by the member opposite, have advocated for. While the government claims it stands for women's rights and supports survivors of sexual violence, its actions say otherwise.

Victims and survivors welcome stronger penalties and protections like mandatory enrolment in the national sex offender registry. They have asked for increased flexibility and victim input regarding publication bans and access to case information. The Liberals had a year to get the legislation right. Their delayed response has opened the possibility of sex offenders escaping registration if Parliament does not comply with the court-imposed deadline looming close now, something Conservatives will not allow.

We will agree to pass the bill through the House today to avoid putting the registry at risk. However, make no mistake, there is only one party committed to ending the crime wave, keeping vulnerable Canadians safe and fixing the flawed legislation. Only common-sense Conservatives will act with the urgency and the specificity required to keep women and children in Canada safe.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to my hon. colleague from Oshawa's private member's bill, Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims).

When I was asked to speak to this bill, the answer was an easy yes. It is easy to support Bill C-320 because this crucial piece of legislation prioritizes victims' rights in the Canadian justice system. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. It is time that victims and their families are prioritized by our justice system, not continuously revictimized by it.

However, the Liberal government repeatedly fails on that account. It has been easy on criminals while tough on families. After eight years of the Prime Minister's failed catch-and-release bail and soft-on-crime policies, crime has never been worse.

Ever since the Liberal government passed Bill C-75, it unleashed a wave of violent crime across our country. Since 2015, total violent crime has increased by almost 40%, homicides have increased by 45% and are up for the fourth year in a row, gang-related homicides have increased by over 100%, violent gun crime has increased by over 100%, total sexual assaults have increased by almost 75%, sex crimes against children have increased by over 125% and kidnappings have increased by almost 40%. With more crime and chaos across our country, there are more and more victims, and it seems that the system is putting the rights of criminals over the rights of victims.

That is why victims and families of victims like Lisa are speaking out and are the inspiration and driving force of this bill. Lisa's father was brutally murdered in 1991, and the offender received a conviction of 25 years to life. Lisa and her family, like many victims of crime, were caught off guard when they were notified that the offender was eligible for parole before the 25 years indicated on the conviction record. Her father's killer was eligible for early parole only 20 years into his sentence of 25 years to life. Victims usually think life means life. She believes, and I agree, that the lack of transparency regarding how parole dates and eligibility are determined causes the victims of crime to experience confusion, frustration, trauma and resentment of the criminal justice system.

This legislation makes a simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide respect and dignity to victims and their families. It would require that information regarding the review eligibility for all forms of parole be communicated in writing to the offenders' victims, including explaining how the dates were determined for parole and explaining this process, to be as transparent as possible. Victims deserve accurate and timely information regarding the parole process.

Hearing about this bill and Lisa's story, I was reminded of a similar case in my own riding, a story I am sure all members are familiar with, the tragic case of Tori Stafford, a young girl whose life was cut short by a horrific murder. It serves as a stark reminder of why we must advocate for the victims' rights.

In April 2009, Tori, an innocent eight-year-old, was abducted, raped and murdered by two individuals. It was a senseless act that sent shockwaves not only through Oxford but through our country. The pain and anguish that Tori's family and loved ones endured was unimaginable. This traumatized Tori's family, our community of Oxford and our country.

Unfortunately, the Stafford family's journey with the justice system has not been a smooth one. Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic were both guilty of murdering Tori. McClintic pleaded guilty in 2010, and in 2013, after his appeals, Michael Rafferty received the same sentence. Both were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years in maximum-security facilities. However, in 2018, we saw that McClintic made headlines for being transferred to a minimum-security healing lodge.

With the advocacy of Tori's family, the public outcry was strong and swift, and McClintic was returned to prison after the public safety minister intervened. However, this raises the question of how we have gotten to the point that, eight years after raping and murdering a child, a violent offender can be transferred to a low-security facility. Why is the criminal justice system providing false comfort to the families of our victims?

When I spoke to Tori's father about this incident, he stated that the Parole Board did not notify him of McClintic's transfer. He shared how, each time the offenders were transferred, it brought back the terrible memories, picked at the wounds they were trying to heal and caused them pain. At times when the offender of the crime was transferred to a lower-security facility or granted temporary leave from a prison for various reasons, it was not always communicated to them. It was traumatic for their family.

Tori Stafford's story is a heart-wrenching example of the dire need for comprehensive reform of our parole and justice systems. We need greater transparency. We must prioritize victims and victims' families, rather than allowing criminals to dictate how the process will progress.

While this incident is older, Rodney Stafford, Tori Stafford's father, was again in the media this summer when we heard about Paul Bernardo's transfer happening without much warning to his victims' families. Rodney discussed the need for transparency surrounding the incarceration of his daughter's killers, especially when they become eligible for parole. He knows that there is a chance that one or both will one day be released, but until then, he says that victims' families deserve more respect. He said, “The victim families, we don't have any rights”. He went on to say, “They've been eliminated.”

Ultimately, that is why we are here today. Bill C-320 would address the fundamental issue of victims' rights and aim to provide them with the support and recognition they deserve. This legislation would acknowledge that victims such as Tori Stafford and her family, and advocates such as Lisa and Rodney, should be at the forefront of parole board considerations.

The bill would seek to rectify the power imbalance that often exists between victims and offenders. It would ensure that the system itself does not revictimize the families. That is why this bill would be a crucial step forward in making our justice system more compassionate, supportive and responsive to families' needs.

It is necessary reform that pays homage to victims who have suffered immeasurable pain and deserve better. This policy has the support of the victims' rights community, and this amendment is a very simple one. It is the addition of a single sentence that would put victims first and make a world of difference.

Bill C-320 is an essential piece of legislation that acknowledges the pain and suffering endured by victims. By passing this bill, we would send a clear message that Canada stands with the victims and not the criminals. We would stand with victims by providing them with the rights and support they deserve throughout the parole process.

Let us not forget the lessons learned from cases such as Tori Stafford's and Lisa's: We have an urgent need for further parole reform and a justice system that would put our victims first. I urge my honourable colleagues to support Bill C-320 and make our justice system a more compassionate and just place for all.

We will and we must do more to support victims and their families. It is the right thing to do.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-325, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the conditional release system. This is the private member's bill of my friend and colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and I am happy to support it for the few reasons I will detail in these remarks.

The main reason is that our criminal justice system needs a serious overhaul to prevent violent offenders from committing further violent crimes, and this bill would work to combat that societal harm. One of our Conservative Party pillars is to bring home safe streets. To do this, we need to take serious action to reverse the precipitous rise in violent crime that has transpired over the last eight years with the Liberal government.

Data from Statistics Canada in August indicated that the national homicide rate has risen for the fourth consecutive year and is now at its highest level since 1992. This is largely due to gang violence. Violent crime is up for the eighth year in a row. The per capita victims of violent crime have increased 60% since 2013. Fraud is twice as prevalent as it was 10 years ago, and extortion is five times higher. It is a country-wide problem, not restricted just to our biggest cities. As an example, an article from the National Post from the past summer stated, “Reports from Newfoundland—which experienced one of the steepest rises in crime last year—reveal a growing sense of fear and abandonment among those living in St. John’s downtown core.” Our communities feel less safe. Crime, chaos, drugs and disorder are common, and the Liberal government is responsible for making the situation worse.

The common denominator here is the Prime Minister and his lenient approach to violent crime. The measures to reverse this trend in Bill C-48, which the House passed unanimously on September 18, were but a start to the serious overhaul necessary to create real change, to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, who used it eight years ago.

Bill C-48 does not go far enough to reverse the damage that the Liberals have done with their catch-and-release laws that let repeat offenders back onto our streets to cause more crime and chaos. It started with Bill C-75 and continued with Bill C-5, which had a soft-on-crime approach. That is why I am here to support Bill C-325, as it would take further measures to combat the violent crime waves.

Bill C-325's summary states:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to create a new offence for the breach of conditions of conditional release imposed in relation to certain serious offences and to require the reporting of those breaches to the appropriate authorities.

It also amends the Criminal Code to preclude persons convicted of certain offences from serving their sentence in the community.

Namely, Bill C-325 would strengthen the conditional release regime by creating a breach-of-condition offence in the Criminal Code at section 145, for breaches of condition on parole or statutory release. It would be an indictable offence and would be liable to imprisonment for a maximum of two years, or an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The bill would also amend the 1992 Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require parole supervisors to report breaches of conditions. It states that if a breach exists, parole supervisors must inform the Parole Board of Canada, the Attorney General and appropriate officials of the breach and the circumstances surrounding it. It is currently not the case that probation officers are required to report breached conditions. This provision would go a long way in reducing recidivism among violent criminals.

Bill C-325 would also restore the former version of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, which was repealed in 2022 by the Liberals' Bill C-5. This would reintroduce a list of serious offences for which a shorter sentence of less than two years cannot be served in the community via house arrest. This includes kidnapping, sexual assault and some firearms offences. Bill C-5 should never have been allowed to pass, as it puts communities at risk with violent offenders serving sentences for serious crimes in the comfort of their own homes while watching Netflix. This includes, for example, drug traffickers serving their sentences at home. How convenient is that? This also includes sexual assault offenders who are serving their sentences in their homes in the communities where they have victimized and can now revictimize.

To avoid an argument from my opponents off the bat, I will say that this bill would not bring out stronger sentences or raise rates of incarceration for the sake of it. Breaches of conditions imposed during conditional release, which is after sentencing, are often committed by a minority of offenders. However, when parole conditions are breached, it can be frustrating and damaging to the victims of the crimes committed, not to mention to the community at large in which they live.

The Canadian Police Association said that it is important to effectively target repeat offenders because, as frontline law enforcement officers know all too well, a defining reality of our justice system is that a disproportionately small number of offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large number of offences. In fact, our leader, the member for Carleton, often cites the example of Vancouver, where 40 criminals were arrested a total of 6,000 times in a year.

It is important to note as well that offenders designated as long-term offenders would not be covered in this bill. They are already covered by breach-of-condition language in the Criminal Code.

We need this bill because of offenders like Myles Sanderson. He had been granted statutory release in August 2021, after serving a five-year sentence for assault, robbery, mischief and making threats. He had 59 previous convictions, one of which included assaulting a police officer. He had been charged for 125 crimes, with 47 cases filed against him in the province's criminal courts. He violated his parole conditions 28 times. In February 2022, following a hearing, the Parole Board did not revoke his statutory release despite these violations. He stopped meeting with his case worker in May 2022, which led the police to look for him. Unfortunately, they did not find him before he and his brother murdered 11 people and injured 18 others in a mass stabbing spree on the James Smith Cree Nation and in Weldon, Saskatchewan in September 2022. This horrific tragedy broke the heart of the nation and devastated these communities. It would have been utterly preventable had Bill C-325 been in place and Sanderson had been indicted for violating the conditions of his parole.

While it is important to minimize the potential harm to our communities, we must still respect the rights of those involved. The law currently provides that federal offenders sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment be released under supervision when they have served two-thirds of their sentence. Statutory release is a statutory right and not within the Parole Board of Canada's decision-making authority. The conditions on parole that may be violated include a prohibition on communicating with a person, often a victim; being in a specific place; observing a curfew; not possessing a weapon; and not drinking alcohol, among others that may apply to the specific case at hand. Sanderson's parole conditions included a ban on weapons and a ban on alcohol and drugs. As records indicate, he had a history of drug use since the age of 14 and a history of rage and violence against his partner.

Tragedies like this can be prevented. Our justice system should not allow violent offenders to serve their sentences at home. This view is shared by several organizations, all of which support Bill C-325. The president of the Canadian Police Association, the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal, the founder of Montreal's Maison des guerrières, the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association, the Communauté de citoyens et citoyennes en action contre les criminels violents and others have all expressed their support for Bill C-325. Tom Stamatakis, president of the CPA, says, “The Canadian Police Association has long advocated for statutory consequences for offenders who commit new offences while on conditional release, and this proposed legislation is a common-sense solution that effectively targets those very specific offenders.”

The bottom line is that we absolutely need to be doing more to protect our communities and increase public safety. This is not an issue of partisanship, but a shared need for action on a common goal: a safer and better Canada. We were elected here to uphold the principles of peace, order and good government, but we cannot claim that we are doing so if Canadians do not feel safe in their homes and communities. We have a responsibility to our constituents and the regions we serve. They deserve to be safe and protected. We need to bring home safe streets, and this bill would be an excellent stepping stone on the way to doing so.

I hope all my colleagues share this goal of increased public safety and that they vote to support Bill C-325 on its way to committee.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was a needed response to a Supreme Court decision, but I feel it could have gone further. It could have been tighter. There are a number of offences now that will not meet the threshold for inclusion in the registry, and there will be people who should have been included who will not be with the passage of this legislation.

Absolutely what happened with the issue around Bernardo's transfer is a travesty. It should have never happened. A witness came to us in our study on the government's obligation to victims of crime, and she said that in Canada we no longer have a justice system. We have a legal system, but not a justice system. I remember her words because I think of what happened with Bill C-75 to change our bail laws to create a revolving door that puts criminals back out on the streets. I think of the fact that Bill C-5 removed mandatory penalties for serious crimes against individuals. I also think of instances like the transfer that was put in place for Paul Bernardo. The government, by changing legislation, made that transfer inevitable. That is laid completely at the feet of the government. When it changed the law to put in a requirement that minimal holdings be implemented for each prisoner, it made that inevitable.

Absolutely we have a lot of work that needs to be done to protect our communities and to protect victims.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. I would also like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove.

The last eight years have not been kind to Canadians, since the Liberal government took power, when it comes to safe streets, safe communities and crime. One only needs to look at the recent StatsCan release to see the drastic increase in crime in this country since 2015. The numbers are absolutely staggering. Total violent crimes are up 39%; homicides are up 43%, up for the fourth year in a row; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%, up for the eighth year in a row; aggravated assaults are up 24%; assaults with a weapon are up 61%; sexual assaults are up 71%; and sex crimes against children are up 126%.

That is the context when we look at Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. That is the context by which we, as parliamentarians, addressing the fear in our communities around crime, around keeping Canadians safe, around protecting victims, look at Bill S-12.

Bill S-12 is due to be passed at all stages by October 28. This is a deadline that was put in place by the Supreme Court, when it gave the government 365 days to get this done, in response to a Supreme Court decision. Yet, here we are, with just 24 days left, to make sure that the national sex offender registry continues to be a critical resource for police to investigate and to prevent crime.

The last time the Liberal government had a court-imposed deadline to respond to decisions, around medical assistance in dying, we ended up, tragically, with a bill that would expand medical assistance in dying to Canadians living with mental illness. The government waited too long and rushed through legislation. That is, again, what is happening here.

I am going to focus my speech on amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act as opposed to changes in the publication bans that were brought forward by our Conservative-led justice committee study on the federal government's obligation to victims of crime.

What is the sex offender registry? Conservatives will always stand up for victims and victims' rights. That leads me to these amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. The act was established in 2004 to help Canadian police authorities investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information on sex offenders. To help police services investigate crimes of a sexual nature, the sex offender registry contains information such as the address and telephone numbers of offenders, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of victims, and their relationship to the offender.

At the time, enrolment on the registry was up to the discretion of a judge. That discretion led to significant problems. The public safety committee review of the implementation of the sex offender registry in 2009 found glaring issues. The committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to register their information. This was happening for a number of reasons. An official from the Department of Public Safety told the committee at the time that with the pressure of time or workload, Crown attorneys would forget to ask for the order. The committee was also told that the order application rate varies widely by province and by territory. One witness stated that the absence of an automatic inclusion on the registry for all offenders convicted of sexual crimes has led to the inconsistent application of the law across the country.

The committee recommended to the government that the automatic registration of sex offenders would fix these holes in the legislation. In order to be effective, the national registry must be enforced consistently across the country.

I was proud to be part of the Conservative government that passed the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, introduced in 2010. That legislation passed with the support of all parties. The bill broadened the purpose of the sex offender registry by adding the purpose of helping police prevent crimes of a sexual nature in addition to enabling them to investigate those crimes.

We made sensible changes to strengthen the sex offender registry. For instance, we made registration automatic for convicted sex offenders. Our legislation also added the obligation to report any person ordered to serve an intermittent or conditional sentence. This is even more important today than it was then, because Liberal Bill C-5 now allows conditional sentences for crimes like sexual assault and Liberal Bill C-75 now allows bail to become more easily obtained by individuals charged with serious offences.

Conservatives also brought in the requirement of registered sex offenders to report the name of their employer or the person who engages them on a volunteer basis or retains them, and the type of work they do. Police should be aware if a sex offender is spending any amount of time with or in proximity to potential victims. We made these sensible amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to protect victims and to prevent crime.

On October 28, 2022, a split decision, five to four, of the Supreme Court found that the mandatory and lifetime registration on the sex offender registry was unconstitutional. The Liberals have simply accepted this decision. We have urged them to respond as forcefully as possible, and Bill S-12 does fall short of that.

I want to read from the dissenting judgment. It was a very strong dissent, in which it says:

...the exercise of discretion was the very problem that prompted Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to provide for automatic registration of sex offenders under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act... The evidence is clear that even low risk sex offenders, relative to the general criminal population, pose a heightened risk to commit another sexual offence.

That heightened risk is, by some counts, eight times the likelihood of someone with a prior conviction to reoffend. That is why incorporating and improving as many offenders as possible in the sex offender registry is so very important. We have seen how this has played out before. When it was left simply to the judges to decide who needs to register with the registry, nearly 50% of offenders were never required to register. This is before we brought in mandatory registration.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We can expect that individuals who certainly should be listed in the registry, even after the passage of Bill S-12, would be left out. We have to take every step to protect Canadians, to protect victims and to ensure that sex offenders are not given the opportunity to revictimize our communities.

After eight years of the Liberal government, the rate of violent crime is up 39%, police-reported sexual assaults are up 71% and sex crimes against children are up 126%. Canadians deserve so much better than this. I can think of no greater obligation for us as members of Parliament to enact laws that protect our communities and protect the safety of the most vulnerable. With legislation like Bill C-75 that has made bail so easy to get, legislation like Bill C-5 that has allowed for house arrest for sex offenders, Conservatives do not trust the government to take the necessary steps to protect Canadians. It has proven an inability to do that.

It is important that we pass Bill S-12, it is important that we respond to the Supreme Court decision and it is important that we go as far as possible to protect the most vulnerable. We look forward to the quick passage of this legislation. It is unfortunate that the government took so long to bring us to this point, but it is also important that we act expeditiously to protect Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

One thing my colleague has highlighted is the vast nature of the problem we are dealing with when it comes to crime. Whether it be Bill C-5 or Bill C-75 in the former Parliament, the Liberals have really made a mess of the situation. When I think of Bill C-5 and other ways the Liberals have dropped the ball here, I am thinking about sex offenders who are able to serve their sentences on house arrest and serious firearms offenders who, again, can get house arrest. I wonder if my hon. colleague can tell us where he thinks we should go next, especially when we think about how much work there is to be done.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for showing candour and acknowledging the candour I have shown. However, let us remember what the focus of Bill C-75 and the focus of Bill C-48 are. They are to ensure that we keep Canadians safe. They are to ensure that we put the right legislation in place. Naturally, no legislation is perfect, and we have to make sure that as time comes and as evidence presents itself, we amend the existing laws to ensure that we continue to keep Canadians safe and ensure that our laws are representative of the facts of the day and are strong in protecting Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I noted in his speech that toward the end the member did acknowledge that there were shortcomings in Bill C-75, and it was refreshing, because that is about as close as we have come today to hearing that the necessity of Bill C-48 is in large part due to the disaster that the government has been on criminal justice since it came into force. I congratulate him on his candour and thank him for it.

I would ask if he would go a step further and admit that Bill C-75 was a mistake.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today in support of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code, otherwise known as bail reform.

It looks like my intervention is going to come after the unanimous motion that was tabled by the Conservatives and passed by all members of this House. First of all, let me congratulate all parties and all members of the House for passing this bill and getting it to the Senate. It is my desire to see the Senate pass it in an expedited manner as well.

Since the passing of the motion a bit earlier today, a lot of focus has been shifted toward how inadequate Bill C-75 was. It was not a perfect bill, but I can say that it is not as bad as some of my colleagues across the aisle are making it out to be. I think it might not be a bad idea for the sake of Canadians, now that they are reassured that the amendments in Bill C-48 are going to pass, to spend a bit of time trying to understand not only what Bill C-75 was and what some of the challenges were, but also the regime in the bill, which needs a bit of demystification.

I want to start by noting that Canada's bail regime works well, not in all cases but in most cases. However, the government has recognized the growing concerns relating to repeat violent offending and offending involving the use of firearms and other weapons resulting from the recent and horrific acts of violence committed by some individuals while out on bail. This has to do with members of our community: repeat offenders who are out on bail. That issue has to be addressed, and Bill C-48 is addressing it.

Naturally, all Canadians deserve to feel safe where they live and work, during their commute and in the duties they attend to every day of their lives. That is why we have identified problems and are trying to deal with them. The federal government has introduced Bill C-48 in order to address these concerns, promote community safety and reinforce public confidence in the administration of justice.

I am not going to spend a lot of time on the details of Bill C-48, although that was my intent, but I will briefly touch on them. The bill proposes reforms to create a new reverse onus to target repeat offending involving a weapon, add additional firearms offences to the existing reverse onus provisions, broaden the reverse onus targeting repeat offenders of intimate partner violence, clarify what constitutes a prohibition order in an existing reverse onus for offences involving a weapon and require the courts to consider an accused person's history of conviction for violence, and community safety and security concerns, when making any bail decisions.

We have seen examples of violent crimes in communities across our nation. I think colleagues across the aisle raised this to the next level, but the fact is that those offences are happening. I mourn for the families who have lost loved ones through these senseless acts, and I want to assure them that our government cares deeply, not only for them but about protecting public safety. We stand with all Canadians on issues of public safety and their and their families' security. After all, we know that Canada is known as a country of democracy where public safety is at the forefront.

What do safer communities and safety look like? True safety requires both holding criminals to account and attacking crime at its roots to prevent violence from occurring in the first place.

I was glad to hear some of our NDP colleagues actually talk about some of the root causes and how we can address some of them. That was welcome news to me.

Our government believes fervently in both objectives. We will not sensationalize violence. We will not use catchy slogans to argue for draconian measures, and we will lead with evidence-based policies that make a real difference.

My remarks today, as I said, will focus on the core principles that underpin the law of bail in Canada, on clarifying the impact of the former bill, Bill C-75 and on our bail regime, with a very light touch on Bill C-48.

Accused persons are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty of the offence charged, and they have a constitutional right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. I highlight "reasonable bail". As such, they must be released on bail unless their detention in custody is required in order to ensure their attendance in court; for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim or witness of the offence; or to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. There are fundamentals in place. I just highlighted the conditions that need to be considered when an individual is requesting bail, and these conditions are reviewed by the judge.

Accused persons who are released on bail may be subject to release conditions linked to the accused's risk related to the three statutory grounds for the detention I just mentioned. For example, the court can impose, and I emphasize this, any reasonable condition that it considers desirable or necessary to ensure the safety and security of any victims or witnesses to the offence. The point here is that the law is there and the court is empowered through the law to be able to consider the safety and the security of the victim and the witnesses and also assess the risk.

Such conditions could include that the accused remain in a specified territorial jurisdiction, abstain from communicating with any victim or witness to the offence, abstain from going to a specific place or geographical area, or deposit their passport as specified in the order. Once again, as we see, the guidelines are clear. The tools have been given to our justice system to be able to find that fine balance between doing the right thing and ensuring that we protect the community.

I will close by referring to some of the decisions that were made in the past. In the St-Cloud decision from 2015, the Supreme Court emphasized that, in Canadian law, the release of an accused person is the cardinal rule and detention is the exception. In its 2017 decision in Antic and its 2020 decision in Zora, the Supreme Court held that for most alleged crimes there should be release on bail at the earliest reasonable opportunity, with minimal conditions.

I am bringing up these three cases because we are trying to say that although Bill C-75 was not a perfect solution, and hence we have Bill C-48, we will see that fine balance, that it protects the rights of individuals in the Charter and that it allows them to benefit from the opportunity of receiving bail if they are a first-time offender and the crime is not extensive. However, all of the tools are provided to the justice system and to the bail law to ensure that repeat offenders can be punished.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I send my congratulations to our colleague across the way for his promotion.

In light of the government's record of being crime rate deniers, it is a relief to see it reversing one of the many measures implemented in Bill C-75, but I was particularly interested in the aspect of firearms making the potential for bail even more unlikely.

Specifically, on October 31 of this year, tens of thousands of people across Canada are going to become paper criminals because they have not handed in their AR-15, although they legally own them. Because these violations involve a firearm and it is a criminal offence, I am wondering where they are going to put all the tens of thousands of people who become criminals on October 31 because they legally own an AR-15.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me first echo the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in response to the news earlier today and offer my sincerest condolences to the family of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was murdered near my home in Surrey.

Crime, chaos and disorder is the Prime Minister's legacy after eight years. This is the direct result of his dangerous soft-on-crime policies. Canadians' lives and sense of security are being destroyed in record numbers by criminals who should never have been out roaming the streets in the first place. Canadians are not feeling safe in their communities, on public transit, at public events or in coffee shops. They are rightly worried that they may be the next victim of the Prime Minister's crime wave.

The government's own statistics illustrate a stark reality. Violent crime has gone up 39%. Gang-related homicides are up 108%. Sex crimes against children are up 126%. Gun crime has increased every year and is up over 100% since 2015. The Prime Minister's response is to go after law-abiding hunters.

Across the country, murders are up 43%, the highest rate in 30 years. In Vancouver alone, murders have gone up 55%, and firearms-related offences are up 22%. In the last seven months alone, eight police officers were killed in the line of duty. There were eight in seven months. These statistics are alarming. We in the federal government, charged with national security, can never forget that they are more than statistics. These are real crimes happening to real people, with devastating consequences.

There are commuters carjacked at gunpoint, students lit on fire on the bus, teenagers stabbed at the subway and executions in the street, parking lots and driveways. This crime wave is a direct result of Liberal legislation passed, which was sponsored by the most radical minister of justice in Canadian history, the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. His bill broke the bail system. Where is he now? He is no longer in cabinet. Under his bill, Bill C-75, the catch-and-release act, violent offenders are arrested, then released on a promise that they will appear in court. They then commit another offence within hours. They have time and opportunity to commit crimes literally morning, afternoon and evening.

Take Vancouver, for example. As my colleague just mentioned, the same 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in a single year. That is 150 arrests each. Last year in Toronto, there were 17 gun-related murders committed by violent criminals out on bail. This summer in Edmonton, a father of seven children was stabbed in the chest, murdered at a transit station. Again, the accused was out on bail. The crime wave is evident in B.C. as it is elsewhere. In Surrey last April, a 17-year-old boy named Ethan Bespflug was stabbed and killed on a bus. A few days later, a young man was stabbed on the SkyTrain. In August, a man was shot in the face at a Surrey bus stop.

Recently, at Vancouver's Light Up Chinatown! festival, meant to bring the community together, a man who previously had murdered his teenage daughter by stabbing her stabbed three people. Last Thursday, Vancouver police arrested a man for four assaults committed in the span of 45 minutes. He used a chain and a concrete block.

One of the most horrific incidents in downtown Vancouver was last March. It was videotaped and shown on social media. A man standing outside a Starbucks was brutally and senselessly attacked, stabbed to death in front of his wife and daughter in broad daylight. We are talking about mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbours.

Sadly, the urgency of this crime wave seems to be lost on the new Minister of Justice. Just days after he was sworn in, he said, “'I think that empirically it's unlikely” Canada is becoming less safe. He is in complete denial of the dangerous reality on the streets. He is telling victims of crime and Canadians who are rightly concerned, many living every day in fear, that it is all in their heads. Even by Liberal standards this was a ridiculous statement. Frankly, he should apologize for it.

For Liberal elites in their ivory towers, understanding the reality Canadians are facing in our communities is a difficult concept. I am pleased to see that the Liberals have finally woken up and are paying some attention to the heinous violence committed by criminals on bail. They should be listening to the experience of frontline law enforcement officers.

Constable Shaelyn Yang was tragically and senselessly stabbed to death while on duty by a man who was arrested for assault and out on bail on the condition that he would appear in court. He failed to appear. A warrant was issued for his rearrest, and when Constable Yang found him living in a park in Burnaby, he murdered her.

The case of Constable Yang is sadly not isolated. Last December, Constable Greg Pierzchala was shot and killed in the line of duty. The accused was out on bail, had a lengthy criminal record, including assaulting a peace officer, and was the subject of a lifetime firearm prohibition. Did I mention that he was shot?

Following this despicable murder, all 13 premiers wrote a joint letter to the Prime Minister demanding urgent action. Finally, after public blowback, the united call for change from the premiers and fierce criticism in the House from the Conservatives, the Liberals have admitted that they broke the bail system.

Today the Liberals have brought forward Bill C-48. We should all support this bill because it imposes a reverse onus on certain firearms offences and requires courts to consider the violent history of an accused. This is the reason the Conservatives asked for unanimous consent to pass this bill today. The NDP initially denied consent but has since agreed with the Conservatives that this bill should be passed today at all stages.

It is our view that Bill C-48 is a good start but still falls short, and a Conservative government will take steps to strengthen it. The legislation in its current form ignores several key recommendations put forward by the premiers, including the creation of a definition within the Criminal Code for serious prolific offenders and to initiate a thorough review of Canada's bail system.

Under Bill C-48, the accused killer of OPP Constable Pierzchala and countless other repeat violent offenders would have still been released back into the community. Under pressure from the Conservatives, the Liberals have now proposed a partial fix to an obviously broken bail system. The Conservatives can be counted on to fight for common-sense, thorough and meaningful improvements when we form government. It remains doubtful that the dangerous NDP-Liberal coalition will ever put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals.

Last year, this coalition passed Bill C-5, removing mandatory prison time for serious crimes, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, drug trafficking and the production of heroin, crystal meth or fentanyl. Bill C-5 also expanded the use of house arrest for several offences, including criminal harassment, kidnapping and sexual assault.

Thanks to NDP and Liberal MPs, those who commit sexual assault can serve their sentence at home in the same community as their victim. Think about that. The Liberals and the NDP would rather be on the side of violent men than their female victims. There is perhaps no greater example of this than the case of Paul Bernardo, a notorious serial rapist and killer of teenage girls. The Liberals allowed that monster to be transferred out of maximum security and into medium security over the objections of the victims' families. We brought a motion to the House calling for Bernardo to be returned to maximum security but Liberal members denied consent.

All of this is proof that the Liberal Party and its partners in the NDP cannot be counted on to protect victims or to restore safe streets. For that, we need a change in government. A common-sense Conservative government will bring home desperately needed safety to our streets, and we will do it by ensuring that prolific offenders remain behind bars while awaiting trial. The days of catch and release will be over.

After eight years, crime, chaos and disorder in our streets is the new normal. It should never be normal. Conservatives know we have a lot of work ahead, but we will fix our broken bail system and bring back safety to our communities.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

One of the things my hon. colleague highlighted is the fact that what we are dealing with is really a small piece of the overall crime pie. The pie itself, and the difficulty that we are in, really lies with the Liberal Party, whether it be Bill C-75 from the last Parliament, Bill C-21 or Bill C-5. We now have sexual offenders or people who have committed serious gun crimes who can serve their sentence from the comfort of their home.

I would ask my hon. colleague this: How much further do we need to go, and is this going to help in a meaningful and significant way?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to split my time with the hon. opposition whip.

I know that we are at the point where we are going to pass this legislation, but I must put on the record that we do not believe that this is enough.

I will start with this question: How did we get here? After eight years of the Liberal government, we often ask this. The problem is almost always worse, and the answers are never satisfactory. The Liberals allocate blame to everyone and everything else. They are always claiming that it is outside of the government's control. The excuses are near endless, and either the policy prescriptions are absent in their entirety or they lack basic common sense.

Are crime rates up, or do we just think they are up when everything is actually fine? The justice minister in the Liberal government believes that Canadians simply think it is worse, even though crime is, in fact, getting worse. He basically says that it is all in their head.

Let us play back the tape, because two days after the new justice minister replaced the last one, he actually said this when asked if the country was less safe than it was before: “I think that empirically it's unlikely.... But I think there's a sense coming out of the pandemic that people’s safety is more in jeopardy.” That is a direct quote.

The reason people believe that safety is in jeopardy is because of the very fact that this country is less safe, and this is backed up by empirical evidence. The overall crime severity index was up 4.3% from 2021-2022, while the violent crime severity index was up 4.6% compared to the year earlier. Since the Liberals took office in 2015, the violent crime severity index has gone up 30%. Youth crime has risen by 17.8% in a single year.

The evidence is not hard to find. These numbers are from Stats Canada. They are the government's own statistics. In fact, Stats Canada said that the overall crime rate may be resuming an upward trend that was interrupted by the pandemic because of lockdowns and other government measures. This is what the latest data indicates. Somebody should let the minister know.

In Toronto, major crime is up this year by more than 20% since last year. Their cops are saying that; it is not us. That means more assaults, thefts, sexual violence and break and enters. Last year, I documented some of what was happening on Toronto's public transit. Public transit used to be an option for many in my community, until those who could do so simply opted out; those who cannot opt out have reason to feel unsafe, because what is happening on public transit in Toronto is unacceptable.

Here is a review from the last full year on record for the very city that the new justice minister represents. I will start with February 9 of last year. A TTC employee was randomly stabbed at Dupont station while just trying to do his job. One week later, a TTC bus driver was stabbed at Keele and Lawrence. Just over a month after that, a TTC operator was assaulted by six people in a swarming attack. In April, a man was shot dead on the TTC, this time at Sherbourne station, and 12 days later, another man was randomly stabbed at St. George station. That same month, a woman narrowly survived after being pushed onto the tracks. Less than a month later, a 12-year-old girl was sexually assaulted while riding a bus. Then in June, we all read the horrible story of a woman who was set on fire at a subway station. She later succumbed to her injuries.

This violence is already unconscionable, and we are only halfway through last year. In July, a man was assaulted while two men committed robbery at Don Mills station. The next month, a woman was the victim of a random assault at Sheppard-Yonge station. In October, a man fell asleep on the TTC and was assaulted and robbed. Just a few days later, a woman was stalked when she got off a bus in Scarborough; she was sexually assaulted. Then in December, things started to get worse.

On December 8 of last year, two people were randomly stabbed at High Park station, with one woman dying from her wounds. Two days after that, a TTC operator in Etobicoke was assaulted and robbed. In the same month, a woman was arrested for allegedly assaulting six different people on the subway.

In a separate string of incidents, a man allegedly sexually assaulted and exposed himself to multiple TTC riders. Toward the end of the month, an 81-year-old woman was left with a concussion after being assaulted on our city's transit system.

It is the fall of 2023, and the violence still has not abated. In fact, it has gotten worse, which is what the empirical evidence also says. It is not in anyone's head. Now, these are not all repeat violent offenders, but many are. However, my point is that the new justice minister ought to go outside, because this is happening in our own neighbourhood.

I will go back to my original questions: How did we get here? How did it get so bad?

In 2019, with Bill C-75, the Liberal government eased access to bail considerably. Bill C-75 legislated the principle of restraint concerning bail for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. The principle of restraint is a linchpin that supports a catch-and-release justice system. This is clear in the numbers and the pressure on the federal government to fix issues with the bail system. It had no options. This is where we are at now. What Conservatives said would happen at the time is happening all over the country, including in the city where the justice minister and I both come from. Repeat violent offenders became the unintended consequence of changes to the bail law in 2019, which made it difficult to hold violent offenders in pretrial custody.

First, there was pressure that came from provincial and territorial justice ministers. Then, in December 2022, as members might remember, there was the murder of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala. He was shot and killed by a 25-year-old who was out on bail. This shocked us all. The killer had a lengthy criminal record, including assaulting a peace officer, and he was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition. Then, 13 premiers sent a letter to the Prime Minister calling on the Liberals to reverse their catch-and-release policies in order to protect the public, as well as first responders. The justice committee of the House also heard witness after witness calling for changes to the bail system. Witnesses from law enforcement to victim services and municipal leaders right across the board all said the same thing. In the face of random violent attacks committed by repeat offenders out on bail, the government is now touting this long-awaited plan to address the catch-and-release justice system it has enabled and overseen until it could no longer ignore the pressure and the evidence.

The bill before us would add the reverse onus provision for just four firearms offences and for individuals previously charged with intimate partner violence facing similar charges. This is not going to reverse the disastrous course that I just talked about in our own city. I do not know how to say this nicely, but it is not going to work. The Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-48 are only a tiny step to reversing the damage that the Liberals have done in masquerading as the be-all and end-all solution to the danger and the chaos unleashed on our neighbourhoods. It is hardly a solution.

The bill is very specific about what it considers violence, but it is not specific in a helpful way. To qualify for the new reverse onus provision, the suspect has to be charged with a crime involving violence and the use of a weapon, and their record over the last year has to have the same conviction in it. Therefore, it would not apply if a person committed a crime with their hands, if a person repeated a property crime that put somebody in danger, or if a person's second crime did not use a weapon but the first one did, or vice versa. One starts to get the picture.

The system has become accustomed to immediate bail for violent offenders. If the Liberals are going to showboat about an eight-page bill that would change the structure of bail hearings, they might want to ensure that there is something that would ultimately result in a prescription for judges to make different decisions in the face of this system. There is nothing in here that would change that, so it would not end the catch-and-release policies that were initiated by Bill C-75. The bill before us would not even have restricted bail for the accused killer of Officer Greg Pierzchala, which is one of the very obvious cases that led the government to be forced into admitting failure and presenting Bill C-48. The question is this: Why not fix it?

I hope that the Liberals go back to the drawing board and actually solve for the problem, which is backed by empirical evidence in every single one of our communities right across the country. It is not in the heads of Canadians; violent crime is a problem, and these guys are not the solution.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I know.

Madam Speaker, I would now like to turn to Bill C-75, which has been the subject of much debate recently. My thanks to the hon. member from Calgary.

Hon. members may recall that the former Bill C-75 made the most recent set of amendments to the bail regime, amendments that were informed by extensive consultation with the provinces and territories and that were debated and voted on in Parliament.

The former Bill C-75 did not change the law on bail. It codified binding Supreme Court of Canada decisions and sought to reduce the number of accused persons in pretrial custody for low level, non-violent offences. It also enacted a reverse onus for accused persons charged with an offence and involving intimate partner violence if they have a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner. This amendment effectively made it harder for those accused of repeat intimate partner violence, or IPV, to obtain bail. This bill would again strengthen this reverse onus by ensuring that it applies not only to previously convicted persons, but also to those previously discharged of an IPV-related offence. Offenders who are discharged of an offence are found guilty but are not convicted, in appropriate circumstances, in order to avoid the implications of having a criminal conviction. Again, it is so important that intimate partner violence be reduced in Canada. We know that every year countless numbers of women are killed by their partners and we must put a stop to it with all the tools we have available. Through Bill C-48, we are acting on that.

I am going to take a moment to remind hon. members of the systemic discrimination inherent in Canada's criminal justice system. In developing Bill C-48, the federal government was mindful of the potential impacts on indigenous people, Black persons and members of all vulnerable groups, such as accused persons facing mental health or substance abuse challenges who are already overrepresented in pretrial custody. That is why this bill proposes targeted amendments to the bail regime and addresses violent offending specifically.

Any reform to the current bail regime must seek to promote community safety and reinforce public confidence in Canada's bail system, while also considering and attenuating any potential disproportionate or negative impacts on these groups.

Ministers of justice and public safety across the country have agreed that both legislative and non-legislative action is required to ensure that our bail system operates as intended. We know from key stakeholders that enhancing public safety requires non-legislative solutions such as improving reintegration programming, allocating our resources to community-based bail supervision and enforcing bail conditions. I am pleased to see that all levels of government are stepping up to take action within their respective areas of responsibility.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that Bill C-48 as a direct action taken at the federal level strikes the appropriate balance in promoting community safety, reinforcing public confidence in how Canada's bail system deals with repeat violent offenders and in respecting the Charter of Rights. I am glad to see that all members have come together to pass this bill with unanimous consent.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course we all stand behind the age-old principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail. However, I am going to talk again about the 40 people who have been responsible for 6,000 interactions with the police, which is 150, on average, per person. At some point, perhaps they lose their right to be free on bail.

The problem with Bill C-75 is that it gutted the court's ability to punish people who breached bail conditions, which is why people keep coming back time and time again with no consequences. The public is losing confidence in the criminal justice system because of that revolving door insanity.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague completely.

The problem with Bill C-75 is that it favoured the criminal and did not find the right balance between the rights of the accused and public safety. Also, there is the perception that the public has in the fairness of our criminal justice system, which is the problem.

In Vancouver, and this stat has been mentioned a number of times, 40 people were responsible for 6,000 negative interactions with the police. This is just a revolving door. This is insanity. This needs to be fixed.

Bill C-75 caused that problem. Bill C-48 is a step in the right direction, but it would not solve the underlying problems.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his great intervention on bail reform.

With the Liberal's Bill C-75, which was soft on crime, they allowed so many criminals back on the street. They went back so far in time that they actually reversed a lot of the bail requirements for things such as committing a crime with a firearm, which started under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. They even undid things that were done on mandatory minimums going back to the Liberal era of the seventies and eighties.

I would ask my colleague if he really believes that, because of Liberal ideology in Bill C-75, the hug-a-thug approach, it has ultimately resulted in what we have today with an increase in violent crime of over 32%. The city of Winnipeg, where I come from, is now one of the most dangerous cities in all of North America. It all has to do with the bail reform, and how the Liberals have always stood up for the criminal and never stood up for the victim. It is time for jail and not bail.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada's criminal justice system is broken.

Earlier this year, Leger, a polling company, polled Canadians on how they feel about public safety in this country. A significant majority, two-thirds, feel that they are now less safe than they were before the COVID-19 pandemic, and most Canadians think that provincial and federal governments are doing a poor job of addressing crime and public safety.

Another shocking statistic comes out of British Columbia. In B.C., people charged with violent crime committed while on bail pending trial on previous charges are released on bail again 75% of the time. That statistic comes from a recent review on bail hearings done internally in British Columbia the last couple of weeks of 2022 and the first few weeks of 2023.

The B.C. Prosecution Service, the crown prosecutors, asks for pretrial detention, but the judges deny that, so the accused are again free to go out and commit another crime. We have been hearing too much of that.

Public safety is taking a back seat to the rights of the accused. However, let us not blame judges. They are bound by the law. One B.C. mayor, the mayor of Nanaimo, who is a former provincial NDP cabinet minister, was quoted in The Globe and Mail in April: “The judges are applying the law as it exists.... The law needs to be changed. It diminishes public safety and destroys public confidence in the justice system. This needs to be fixed, yesterday.”

Unfortunately our new Minister of Justice does not have that same sense of urgency when it comes to bail reform. Shortly after being appointed to his new position, he acknowledged the obvious saying, “there's a sense coming out of the pandemic that people’s safety is more in jeopardy.” He then added that he thought “that empirically it's unlikely” Canada is becoming less safe.

Our Minister of Justice has his head in the sand. Other law enforcement agencies are doing what they can to face the crisis in confidence in our criminal justice system and public safety. For example, the British Columbia government has directed their prosecution service to push for more restrictive bail conditions in cases where public safety is at stake.

However, these efforts are being blunted by the federal Liberal government's legislation, which requires judges to release detainees at the earliest possible opportunity and on the least onerous conditions. That catch-and-release bail system thinking, which needs to be fixed, is based on Bill C-75, legislation from the 42nd Parliament, passed just before the House rose for the summer four years ago, in June 2019.

It is poorly thought-out legislation. It is the Liberal government's response to its understanding of what the Supreme Court of Canada said in a series of cases about defending and protecting the rights of accused people to reasonable bail and the presumption of innocence. It is poorly thought-out legislation.

What is the result of Bill C-75 four years later? Is it general support for this catch-and-release? Absolutely not at all. As a matter of fact, we have a letter signed by 10 provincial premiers and three territorial premiers, from all political parties, unanimously telling the Prime Minister that our bail system is broken and that it needs to be reformed and fixed urgently.

The premiers are hearing from their citizens and reacting to deep concerns from the public about the perception that the criminal justice system favours the accused at the cost of the public. Here is what the premiers said: “We write to urge that the federal government take immediate action to strengthen Canada’s bail system to better protect the public and Canada’s heroic first responders.”

That letter was initiated at a meeting of the attorneys general from across the country in October 2022. It asks for reverse onus. They are saying reverse onus for repeat violent offenders would be one way to fix our criminal justice system. Reverse onus ostensibly makes it more difficult for an accused person to be let out on bail. They said, “This is just one proposal for much-needed reform”.

They are asking for general reform of the bail system. Certainly, the police services and the people I talked to across the country over the summer have been saying the same thing.

Between the time of the meeting and the writing of the letter in January, there was another tragic event in Canada that underlies the need for urgent bail reform. OPP officer Greg Pierzchala was shot down and was killed. He did not make it home after his shift on December 27, 2022. He was responding to a traffic call. He did not stand a chance. They opened fire on him, and he died on the scene.

His boss, OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique, stated that one of the two people who were charged with his murder was out on bail at the time. He had been banned from owning any firearms for life since 2018. Three years later, that same person was charged with several firearms-related offences and assaulting a police officer.

He was released on bail on a number of conditions, including remaining in his residence under his mother's care, not possessing firearms and wearing a GPS ankle bracelet, which he somehow removed. His trial date was set for September 22, but he failed to appear. There was a warrant for his arrest.

At the justice committee, when we were studying this, we had chief of police Darren Montour of the Six Nations Police Service, which was charged with supervising this killer's bail conditions. One witness had this to say: “What we've seen with the increased release of people on bail conditions is effectively a downloading to the police services of jurisdiction to become professional babysitters”. Darren Montour added, “We don't have the manpower or resources to do that.”

Commissioner Carrique of the OPP said at a press conference, “Needless to say, the murder of Const. Greg was preventable. This should have never happened. Something needs to change. Our police officers, your police officers, my police officers, the public deserve to be safeguarded against violent offenders who are charge with firearms-related offences”.

Premier Doug Ford, shortly thereafter, said, “OPP Commissioner Carrique's comments on the tragic killing of Constable Grzegorz Pierzchala is the latest plea for the federal government to address the revolving door of violent criminals caused by our country's failed bail system...Too many innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of dangerous criminals who should have been behind bars — not on our streets. Enough is enough.”

I agree with that, as does the vast majority of Canadians.

That is why we are here today debating Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code on bail reform. This is the government's response to concerns expressed by many Canadians, including the premiers. The premiers' letter captures the public perception, what we have all been hearing on the ground, but let us now see whether Bill C-48 captures that same mood.

There are a number of preambles in the introduction of this legislation. I am just going to read two of them that I think are informative. The fourth one reads, “Whereas a proper functioning bail system is necessary to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system, including in the administration of justice”. I agree with that.

The eighth paragraph in the preamble says, “And whereas confidence in the administration of justice is eroded in cases when accused persons are released on bail while their detention is justified”.

I would say that this sounds good. This is certainly a step in the right direction. This is a recognition that Parliament needs to find a balance between the rights of the accused and the protection of the public.

What would Bill C-48 actually do? It would introduce a reverse onus for serious offences, with serious offences defined as an accused person being charged within the last five years on something that would have had a 10-year sentence. However, I think the bill is too narrow. I do not think this legislation addresses all the concerns that we are hearing from the public, and more work needs to be done.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this first day of the new parliamentary session.

I would start by saying that the role of debate is to separate the wheat from the chaff, to use our experience, intelligence, discretion and insight to pinpoint what is really going on as opposed to what we think is going on, which can be influenced by the rush to easy assumptions and various biases, personal and societal, and so on.

The point of intelligent and informed debate, that is, of reasoned democratic discourse, is to safeguard against the kind of populism that appeals to simple intuition or, to use the new Conservative code word, simple common sense. Common sense sounds so right, so good. Who could object to it? Common sense is a deceptively appealing slogan, but there is a difference between common sense and good sense.

There is a distinction to be made between good sense and common sense. Good sense that is thoughtful, nuanced and based on facts and rigorous analysis is an excellent thing. On the other hand, what is referred to as “common sense” can be reductionist and simplistic, a populist trope designed to get the public to buy into easy solutions that serve narrow ideologies and well-established political agendas.

“Common sense” is a catchphrase that seeks to oversimplify and to get the buy-in of the public for simple solutions to complex problems, solutions that are not always the best but that serve an ideological agenda like cost cutting or rolling back environmental protections. I believe there is such a thing as collective wisdom that offers up time-tested notions, like the difference between good and evil, the need for caution in the face of too much rapid change or the value of preserving order in society. However, age-old collective wisdom cannot always guide us in dealing with technically and legally complex matters of contemporary public policy. So-called common sense can be off the mark.

So-called common sense can lead us down the wrong path. It can actually lead us right off the road.

With respect to bail reform, this seems to be the Conservative common-sense approach or belief: Those apprehended and accused of a crime are guilty and therefore should remain in jail while awaiting trial. However, in our justice system, the product of centuries of accumulated wisdom and reason, in law one is, thankfully, innocent until proven guilty.

Traditional small c conservatives are supposed to put faith in accumulated wisdom and the organic evolution of thought, laws and institutions, as opposed to promoting reactive solutions. Canada's bail system is the product of English common law dating back hundreds of years.

Let me be clear: One murder because someone is out on bail who should not have been is one death too many. It is a tragedy and we should not stand for it. There is not a single person in this House who disagrees. However, to claim, as the opposition does daily, that the streets are being overrun by murderers on automatic bail in a revolving-door justice system is, I believe, demagoguery.

How does the bail system work, versus the opposition's truncated version of it? Namely, it is up to police and prosecutors in provincial jurisdiction to make the case against granting bail to an individual. In other words, the onus is on the state to justify why someone who has not yet been found guilty should have to remain behind bars while awaiting trial. However, something not generally understood is that when it comes to charges of murder and certain other offences, the onus is actually reversed. The accused must convince the court why they should be released while awaiting trial.

In 2019, Parliament adopted Bill C-75, which extended the reverse onus to repeat offenders charged with an offence against an intimate partner, or what we call intimate partner violence. Again, this will be news to many listening today. The burden of proof is also on the accused for certain firearms offences, including weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, illegal importation or exportation of a weapon, discharging a firearm with intent, discharging a firearm with recklessness and the following offences committed with a firearm: attempted murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery and extortion. Again, that is a far cry from a revolving door. Furthermore, the law is already clear that detention without bail is justified when deemed necessary by a judge to protect the safety of the public.

When someone is granted bail, they typically are required to have a surety, that is, one or more people who commit to supervising the behaviour of the accused and who will pay a certain sum if the accused breaches their bail conditions. There are many reasons bail can be denied: the accused has a criminal record or failed to comply with past bail conditions; or, as mentioned, the accused is thought to pose a risk to the public; or the accused lacks a surety or place to live, which is a problem that more often afflicts members of disadvantaged groups.

Here is a news flash that will come as a surprise to many people listening today: In 2020, 77% of people in Ontario's jails were in custody awaiting trial. In other words, we are not a lenient country, contrary to the Conservative populist narrative. To quote Queen's University professor Nicole Myers, “We've had more people in pretrial detention than in sentence provincial custody since 2004.”

All that said, we do need bail reform, and Liberals are reformers by nature.

How do we reconcile the need to protect the public while at the same time preserving the central tenet of our criminal justice system, which is “innocent until proven guilty”? The answer is Bill C-48. The bill would add a reverse onus for an accused person charged with a serious offence involving violence that was used, threatened or attempted, and the use of a weapon such as a knife, where the person was previously convicted, namely within the previous five years. This makes sense because a previous offence is an indication of risk. A serious offence would be defined as an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, such as assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

The bill also expands the list of firearms offences that would trigger a reverse onus. These offences include unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking or entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm. Currently, there is a reverse onus when the person is subject to a weapons prohibition order and violates it. The new law would clarify to include prohibition orders made at bail.

Bill C-48 would also broaden the reverse onus for repeat offenders of intimate partner violence to those who have received a discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code, or, in other words, where the offence no longer appears on a criminal record.

Finally, Bill C-48 would require courts to consider an accused person's history of convictions for violence as well as concern for community safety. As OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique told The Globe and Mail recently, the changes in Bill C-48 “go a long way to help eliminate and prevent harm and senseless tragedies in our communities”.

We need to keep in mind that indigenous people are denied bail more often than others, while Black people in Ontario spend longer in custody while awaiting trial than white people for the same offences. This is because courts use police reports to decide on bail, and police reports can contain racial bias. Another reason is that members of disadvantaged groups often have trouble finding sureties or bail money. It is worth noting that the longer someone is detained without bail, the greater the probability of a plea bargain or that the person will plead guilty despite having a viable defence. Either way, justice is compromised.

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, accused persons in Canada have the right to bail unless there is a very compelling reason to keep them in custody. This is constitutional law, whether Conservatives like it or not.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, some of the reverse onus provisions in this bill apply only to violent offences with a weapon. I wonder why the government did not include other violent offences where a weapon was not used. Does the member believe that these crimes are less serious? Conservatives have been calling for a total repeal of Bill C-75. Why did the government not do that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes I was. In fact, I would have undone the Liberal bail law in Bill C-75 six years ago, the day it was passed.

Not only did the minister go on vacation before addressing bail, but he also went to a radio station and claimed that we were holding up the reversal of Liberal bail policy. He thought no one would find out about this. In fact, he was on vacation and had allowed Parliament to rise without bail reform occurring in the first place. Let us not forget that what little good this bill would do is just undoing the damage his party already did.

Finally, I would ask the minister to stand in his place and apologize to Canadians for trying to gaslight them and tell them that rising crime is just a perception issue. I have given him all the data published by his own government, which shows that violent crime has raged out of control after eight years under the Prime Minister. These are data points. These are facts. Will he admit it and apologize for gaslighting Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister, the cost of living is going up because of an inflationary tax that the Bloc supports and that they want to drastically increase. The cost of living is also going up because of inflationary deficits.

It no longer pays to work and the cost of housing has doubled. The desperation that these policies have caused is leading to a crisis of homelessness, drug use and crime. That is the situation after eight years of this Prime Minister.

Today, we are rising in the House of Commons to talk about the utter chaos that the Prime Minister has unleashed on our streets with his changes to the bail system. He introduced Bill C-75, which was passed. That law allows criminals who have been charged dozens of times to be released on the very day they are arrested.

That bill was supported by the Bloc. Yes, voting for the Bloc is not worth the cost. A vote for the Bloc is a vote for Liberal policies that cause crime in our streets. What are the consequences of that Liberal-Bloc policy?

After eight years of this Prime Minister, violent crime has increased by 39% and homicides by 43%. Gang-related homicides are up 108%. Gun crime is up 101%. I will stop there for now. The Prime Minister thinks that fighting gun crime means banning hunters’ weapons. He stated in his comments that he wanted to ban firearms that are used for hunting. That is what he proposed in Bill C-21, to which he added 300 pages containing the list of hunting weapons he wanted to ban.

The Bloc Québécois was beyond happy, it was ecstatic. The Bloc said it wanted to adopt that list and that it had been waiting many years for this major ban on hunting weapons. Now the Bloc leader is trying to do an about-face, trying to make the people in Quebec's regions forget that the Bloc betrayed them with its agenda of banning hunting weapons. The Bloc Québécois also voted in favour of a law that allows criminals who use firearms to commit violent acts to return to our streets on the day they are arrested.

That approach did not work. We Conservatives will protect hunters and put the real criminals in prison. We will allocate resources to the border to prevent weapons from entering the country illegally from the United States.

Moreover, we see that assault causing bodily harm has increased 61%. Sex crimes against children increased 126% after eight years of this Prime Minister. Car thefts increased 34% after eight years of this Prime Minister.

This is the record of this government’s approach of freeing the most violent criminals while banning hunting weapons. This does not actually work. It does not make sense. That is why the Conservative Party is the only party in the House of Commons that had the common sense to oppose this and stand up for the rights of hunters. We are going to put criminals in prison and protect law-abiding citizens.

We know that the Conservative approach works, because when we were in power the crime rate decreased by 26%. We targeted the most violent and vicious criminals and made sure that repeat offenders were sent to prison. All the other parties said that this would increase the prison population. In fact, the number of prisoners decreased by 4.3%. There were fewer people in prison and less crime on our streets. In addition, we were able to eliminate the gun registry to protect our hunters.

Our approach works because by targeting the most violent criminals and denying their release to prevent them from committing the same crimes again, we can protect society and deter crime by others. We will take that common-sense approach again when I am prime minister of Canada.

Today, we have a bill that partly reverses the damage that the Prime Minister has caused. We all know that after eight years of the Prime Minister, life costs more, work does not pay, housing costs have doubled, and crime, chaos, drugs and disorder are common in our streets. We know that his policy of freeing repeat violent offenders the same day they are arrested came to us in Bill C-75, supported by both Liberals and their coalition partners. In fact, the NDP wanted to go even further.

What are the consequences of their catch-and-release policy? Violent crime is up 39%. Homicide is up 43%. Gang killings are up 108%. Aggravated assault is up 24%. Assault with a weapon causing bodily harm is up 61% increase. Sexual assault is up 71%. Sex crimes against kids is up 126%. Kidnapping is up 36%. Car thefts are up 34%. These crimes are almost always committed by a very small minority.

The good news is that we do not have a lot of criminals in Canada. The bad news is they are very productive. They are allowed to be productive because of the catch-and-release policies passed in Bill C-75 that allow an offender to be arrested often within hours of their latest crime. In Vancouver, the police had to arrest the same 40 offenders 6,000 times, because the police and the system required them to be released under the Prime Minister's bill, Bill C-75.

The bill before us today partly and modestly reverses the catch-and-release bail system that the Prime Minister created, but it does not go far enough. Our policy is very clear. A common-sense Conservative government led by me will bring in jail and not bail for repeat violent offenders. Those offenders with a long rap sheet who are newly arrested will be in our jails today.

When we brought in policies of this sort under the previous Conservative government, we not only reduced crime by 25%, but we actually reduced incarceration rates. That was against all of the rhetoric of the radical left that said that we would have to build mega prisons to accommodate all the criminals. In fact, our laws were narrowly targeted at the worst repeat offenders and they scared the rest of the criminals away. We actually had fewer criminals, less crime and, therefore, fewer prisoners. That meant safer streets.

The Prime Minister has unleashed a crime wave over the last several years.

I was just in Whitehorse yesterday at Antoinette's restaurant. The owner told me that his restaurant had been robbed 12 times in 18 months, multiple times by the same offender who was released again and again. In fact, police officers told him they were going to stop arresting the offender because it was not worth the time of having him arraigned and being released almost immediately. It was easier and more cost-effective to just leave the thief on the streets and let him do his business.

That is how broken our criminal justice system is after eight years of the Prime Minister. Now he has appointed a radical justice minister who says that crime is all in the heads of Canadians, that their imaginations have gone wild. However, the data proves otherwise.

It turns out that Canadians and Conservatives are right. A common-sense Conservative government will fix the mess the Liberals made. It will fix what is broken with jail and not bail. Now, let us bring it home.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, even if the Liberals give us an inch when we need miles of reform on public safety, it is very important that we move forward with the small pittance they are providing us in this bill.

However, Bill C-48 is not bail reform, which is what premiers, police forces, provincial justice ministers and civic leaders are all asking for. They are not asking for tweaks on the margins; they are asking for broad bail reform. What the Liberals are proposing today is not that.

I will draw the minister's attention to the fact that there has been a consistent Liberal government theme over the last number of years of going soft on criminals. It is not just Bill C-75 that made it easy to get bail. Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimums for violent gun offences and permitted more house arrest for rapists. Bill C-83 allowed mass murderers, like Paul Bernardo, to be transferred to medium-security prisons.

This is a theme, a perspective that the Liberals bring to the table, which has resulted in more violent crime, and that will not be solved by a measly seven-page bill, Bill C-48.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this past summer, on July 7, a mother of two young children, Karolina Huebner-Makurat, was fatally shot by a stray bullet from a gunfight between drug dealers near a so-called safe injection site in Leslieville, just east of downtown Toronto. The alleged suspect responsible for her death was out on bail at the time. He was also banned from possessing weapons and was obviously not allowed to deal illegal drugs. A man out on bail involved in a drug deal gone wrong got into a gunfight with another drug dealer, and a mother of two young children was shot to death in Toronto.

Just the other day, on September 14, a man who had been charged with first-degree murder for gunning down a person sitting in their car pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was out on bail following that. He is now wanted on a second charge of homicide, after killing someone else when he was out on bail.

On June 14, in southwest Edmonton, a man shot multiple rounds, killing another man in a back alley. At the time of this murder, he was wanted by police for failing to attend a sentencing hearing for murdering another person in July 2020. After pleading guilty to manslaughter for that murder, he was let out on bail, then failed to appear in court and murdered someone else.

Murderers are being let out on bail and are murdering more people. All of this is in the past number of months.

Also in June, a video went viral that I am sure members probably saw. I know a number of Conservatives did. It was very alarming and disturbing. The video that went viral online was of a man stabbing another man multiple times on a subway in Toronto. The suspect, who has been charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and two counts of failing to comply with a release order, was out on bail at the time.

I have taken public transit and the subway in Montreal and other cities on multiple occasions. We could be sitting next to someone who is out on bail for a violent crime, like this man who stabbed another man multiple times, and that is not something that Canadians deserve to deal with every day. I do not think that is not something Canadians ever thought they would have to deal with, yet if we read the news on a regular basis, we know that assaults, stabbings, shootings and murders inside and outside public transit have unfortunately become the norm in many parts of our great nation.

I will just wrap up with a few more examples. I could go on all day. We have all heard and read about them. It is endless.

In August, news broke that a man accused of four cold cases of sexual assault in Vancouver was released shortly after being charged. A rapist, accused of four counts of rape or sexual assault, was released on bail into the community. He could be walking among us. I did not realize that Canada had become like this. When researching for today, I saw tale after tale of violence against women, murders, shootings, stabbings and physical assaults, over and over again.

The crime stats back this up. It is not just in our heads; we are not just paying more attention to the news or social media, not that we can get the news on social media anymore thanks to the Liberal government. The stats from Stats Canada back this up. In fact, since the Liberals formed government in 2015, violent crime has gone up 39%, murders are up 43%, gang-related homicides are up over 108% and violent gun crime is up 101%. Again, this is in light of OICs and so-called gun control legislation that go after law-abiding hunters and sports shooters in this country that the Liberals have promised will end gun violence. After all of that effort and all of that division, gun crime is up over 100% under the Liberals' watch in the eight years that they have been in power. Obviously it is a very failed approach to addressing violent gun crime in this country.

Sexual assaults are up 71%. Again, this is a feminist government, as they say at every opportunity. We know that sexual assaults are mostly against women, and there has been a 71% increase in sexual assaults since 2015.

The next stat is difficult to say, but sex crimes against children are up 126% since 2015. Also, car thefts are up 34%, which pales in comparison to sex crimes against children, but as MPs we hear that car thefts are through the roof, especially in major cities. People cannot leave their cars outside. Even if they are in the garage there are devices to steal them now. We hear about this over and over again.

I will remind the House that of the 44 shooting-related homicides in Toronto last year, 17 of the accused were out on bail at the time. In Vancouver, the same 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times. There were 6,000 interactions with police in one year with 40 people. The people of Vancouver deserve far better. Why can we not do something with those 40 people who are causing mayhem, who are causing hardship, assaults, harms, rapes, thefts and abuse? Why is it that they continue to walk free time and time again?

Even more troubling is that the overall severity of crime in Canada, tracked by the violent crime severity index, has increased by nearly 30% under the Liberal government during its eight years. I will remind the House again that under former prime minister Stephen Harper, the same metric fell by 25%. It was down 25% and now is back up 30% under the Liberal approach.

Crime is one of the top things I hear from my constituents in Winnipeg. It is not just in their heads. In fact, violent Criminal Code violations increased from 9,400 in 2015 to over 14,000 last year. There were 9,400 in 2015 when the Liberal government took the wheel, and there are over 14,000 eight years later. The statistics speak for themselves: The Liberal approach to dealing with public safety and violent crime is failing Canadians. It is actually costing lives, as we have seen. This is not just a partisan issue or just a difference of ideology. This is really about the safety and security of women, children, the elderly, people riding public transit and men and women who are just going about their day.

It is very important that we are having this discussion. The Conservatives have been leading the charge on violent crime reduction discussions in the House for years. We have been talking about bail reform for a very long time, and it is just in the past few months that the premiers have sounded the alarm. Premiers from every political party have written multiple letters to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform. Every police force across the country that I have talked to says we need bail reform. There are also issues with people getting out early on parole. There are issues with conditional sentencing, with people given house arrest instead of jail time, not following that house arrest and going out and creating more mayhem for people in their communities.

I did congratulate the new Minister of Justice for his new role. It is a very important role in Canadian society. He is tasked with the Criminal Code. He alone is responsible, in addition to his boss, the Prime Minister, for fixing these problems. What concerned me, though, is that mere days after being appointed, he unfortunately said, as quoted in Reuters, that “empirically it's unlikely” that Canadians are becoming less safe. Those are his words. I asked him about it today and he seemed to backtrack, but that was his initial position.

How do we trust the Liberal government given this is its record and given that it has made no moves to make any changes until recently because of public pressure from the premiers and from police? Everybody and their dog is asking for bail reform and tough-on-crime measures. Now the Liberals are doing something. They are bringing forward a small bill of about seven pages to fix a problem that was created by a bill that was over 200 pages, Bill C-75, from a few years ago. That was a Liberal bill from about five years ago that made it easier to get bail, bottom line.

Now they have brought forward a piddling little seven-page bill that they are telling Canadians will solve all the problems. I do not believe them. I believe the minister's words when he said he did not really believe there was a lot of crime going on, though I am paraphrasing. The Liberals have sort of downplayed the concerns of Canadians. I have read the statistics and the stories, and clearly there is a problem.

I do not think there is any way we are going to solve this problem unless we have a change of government. The Conservatives have a proven track record of reducing crime in this country. It has been proven. It is in the data. The Liberal approach has failed, and people are being harmed as a result. We have a justice minister who, right out of the gate, downplayed these concerns, making it seem like they are all in our heads.

I will quote from the National Post. Adam Zivo wrote about this recently, which will sum it up really well. He said, “Canadians deserve political leaders who don’t gaslight them about violence in their communities. If the Liberals want to tackle this issue half-heartedly and do only the bare minimum needed to temper public anger, then that’s their choice—but it will be the end of them.” I very much agree with Mr. Zivo.

I hope we will see much more effort to address public safety in the remaining days of the current government, but if not, this side of the House is ready and waiting to get to work, roll up our sleeves and clean up our streets.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-48.

As this is my first time rising in this chamber as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I want to first thank the Prime Minister for placing his confidence in me and appointing me to this position. I want to thank the constituents of Parkdale—High Park for their faith in me over the past three elections. I look forward to continuing to earn their support in this new role. I also want to thank my parents and my sister for always empowering me to dream, and I want to thank my wife and children for supporting me in realizing my dreams.

There is another person in this chamber without whose work I could not be engaging in this, and that is the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. The work he has done over the past four and a half years has made Canada a better place and the justice system more fair. His work will continue to inspire me in the work that I do in this role.

Lastly, I want to congratulate my parliamentary secretary, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I have the pleasure of having him as a riding neighbour in Toronto, and I am very excited to work with this excellent lawyer and parliamentarian to improve Canada's justice system.

Bill C-48 will strengthen Canada's bail laws to address the public's concerns relating to repeat violent offending and offences involving firearms and other weapons. It is a response to direct requests we have received from provinces, territories and law enforcement.

I know that these issues are of top concern for all parties in this chamber and indeed all Canadians. I look forward to seeing everyone in this chamber, across party lines, help pass this bill quickly in order to make Canadians safer. We have heard support for this package from provincial and territorial counterparts across the country of all political stripes as well as municipal leaders, police and victim organizations.

I want to begin by expressing my sincere condolences to the families of those we have lost recently in senseless killings. My mind turns to the family of Gabriel Magalhaes who was fatally stabbed at a subway station in my very own riding of Parkdale—High Park. The country mourns with them. This violence is unacceptable and we cannot stand for it. Canadians deserve to be safe in their communities from coast to coast to coast.

As a father, I am personally concerned about crime and violence. I want to make sure that my two boys are protected, as are all Canadian families. That is one of my goals as justice minister. This bill will help advance that goal.

Our government is working to ensure that these crimes cannot be repeated, which means tackling crime as well as what causes crime. We are the party of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians expect laws that both keep them safe and respect the rights that are entrenched in the charter. In Bill C-48, we have struck that important balance. This legislation recognizes the harms posed by repeat violent offenders and would improve our bail system to better reflect this reality.

I will take a moment to remind my colleagues about the values we hold on this side of the House. Public safety is paramount for our Liberal government. This means ensuring that serious crimes will always have serious consequences. It also means improving mental health supports and social services that will prevent crime in the first place and help offenders to get the support or treatment they need to reintegrate safely into communities after they have served their sentence. We believe that investing in our communities ensures safety in the long term.

I was dismayed by the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in the spring. He would rather engage in fearmongering for political gain instead of doing what is right: coming up with real solutions. He advocates for measures that would limit Canadians' charter rights. He points fingers instead of acknowledging the root causes of crime. The Leader of the Opposition has ignored evidence; he has voted against progress. I am dismayed, but I am not surprised. The Conservative approach to criminal justice has been short-sighted. We cannot return to Harper-era policies of clogged prisons, court delays, wasted resources and increased recidivism.

However, I was heartened to hear the Leader of the Opposition, on August 18, just about a month ago, say, “I am happy to bring back Parliament today and will pass bill reform by midnight” tonight. Well, Parliament is back. We are here. I am willing to put in the work to have this bill pass by midnight tonight. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will stay true to his word and is ready to do the same along with his caucus colleagues. Premiers around the country want this. Police around the country want this. Canadians around the country want this. Let us get this done; the clock is ticking.

What are the specific measures we are speaking about in Bill C-48? According to existing Canadian law, bail can be denied in three circumstances: to ensure the attendance of the accused in court, to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Justice ministers across Canada agree that the bail system functions properly in most cases. However, at the same time, we heard there are challenges with the bail system when it comes to repeat violent offenders. Circumstances change and our justice system should reflect those changes. We are always open to making the system better. When we see a problem, we act. That is what Bill C-48 is about.

The targeted reforms in this bill would improve bail in five regards, as follows: first, by enacting a new reverse onus for repeat violent offending involving weapons; second, by adding certain firearms offences to the provisions that would trigger a reverse onus; third, by expanding the current intimate partner violence reverse onus, fourth, by clarifying the meaning of a prohibition order for the purpose of an existing reverse onus provision; and last, by adding new considerations and requirements for courts regarding the violent history of an accused and community safety.

Let me start, first of all, with the newly proposed reverse onus. A reverse onus at bail starts with a presumption that an accused person will be detained pending trial unless they can show why they should be released. The onus is on the accused. It sends a strong message to the courts that Parliament believes bail should be harder to get when there is an increased risk to public safety or because a release in these cases would undermine confidence in the system. Importantly, the decision and the discretion to deny bail rests with the courts, which are best placed to make such determinations.

This new reverse onus would apply in the following situations: when violence was used, threatened or attempted with the use of a weapon in the commission of the offence; when the offence is punishable by a sentence of 10 or more years in prison; and when the accused has been charged with another offence that meets these criteria in the past five years.

Bill C-48 targets repeat violent offending. My provincial and territorial counterparts and the police have told us this is what we need to address. We are delivering in terms of that specific request.

The new reverse onus targets the use of dangerous weapons. What am I speaking about? I am talking about firearms, knives and bear spray, which I know has been a particularly acute problem in the prairie provinces, thus the direct ask that was made of me and my predecessor.

In the second category, we are cracking down on firearms offences. Bill C-48 would create a reverse onus for additional indictable firearms offences. When the premiers of the country came together in January and wrote to the Prime Minister, they said a reverse onus was needed on unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. This bill would deliver that.

On top of what they asked us for in January, we added additional provisions. Those are if one is charged with breaking and entering to steal a firearm, if one is involved in a robbery to steal a firearm and if one is charged with making an automatic firearm. In all those additional instances, the onus would be reversed, which would make bail much more difficult to receive.

Gun crime is a serious threat to public safety. We heard this from coast to coast to coast in this country. We heard about this in this chamber. We have seen too many lives lost and innocent people hurt because of guns. Our government knows when a gun is involved the risk is so much greater. That is why we are expanding the reverse onus provisions to make it harder to get bail in those circumstances.

These reforms respond directly to the calls of the 13 premiers across this country, some who share my political party stripe, many who share the Speaker's and Conservative Party's political stripe, and some who share the NPD's political stripe. What is important is it is a multipartisan approach. The reforms also reflect the perspectives of law enforcement partners to make bail more onerous for accused persons charged with serious firearms offences.

My third category is that this bill would strengthen the existing reverse onus that applies to accused persons charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence where they have a previous conviction for this type of offence. As members may recall, this particular reverse onus was enacted through former Bill C-75, which received royal assent in June 2019. It makes it more difficult for an accused person to get bail where a pattern of violence against an intimate partner is being alleged. The goal is to provide further protection to victims from the escalating nature of this type of violence. Our Liberal government, under the direct leadership of the Prime Minister, has always taken the issue of intimate partner violence seriously and will continue to protect victims of such violence.

The fourth key element of this bill is that it clarifies the meaning of a prohibition order at the bail stage.

Right now, the reverse onus applies at the bail stage when a person has allegedly committed a firearm-related offence while subject to a firearms prohibition order.

The bill clearly states that the reverse onus will also apply in cases of bail orders that carry a condition prohibiting the accused from being in possession of firearms or other weapons. This amendment serves to strengthen the existing reverse onus provision by making it clearer and easier to apply.

The final key proposal among the group of five that I mentioned at the outset relates to what considerations a court must make and take when deciding whether to release someone on bail. In 2019, the former Bill C-75 amended the Criminal Code to provide that before making a bail order, courts must consider any relevant factor, including the criminal record of the accused or whether the charges involved intimate partner violence. That very provision would now be expanded to expressly require courts to consider whether the accused's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence. This would help strengthen public confidence and public safety, because bail courts would now be specifically directed to consider whether the accused has any previous violent convictions and whether they represent an increased risk of reoffending even when the proposed reverse onuses do not apply.

The bail provisions would be further amended to require a court to state on the record that it considered the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence. Let me repeat that: This bill, once it passes, and indeed I hope it passes today, would require a court to state on the record that it considered the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence when making a bail order. That is listening to communities and responding to their needs directly through parliamentary action. It would complement the current requirement that the court consider the safety and security of any victim.

This amendment would address specific concerns I have heard from municipalities, indigenous communities, racialized communities and marginalized communities. Our collective safety matters critically in bail decisions. This is an important change. Members of small rural communities have told us that the release of an accused on bail can have significant implications for their residents. This change would require the courts to explicitly consider the wishes of those very communities.

It is our government's responsibility to ensure that legislative measures are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am confident that the proposed measures are compliant. More information is provided in the charter statement for this bill, which is available on the Justice Canada website.

I am deeply committed to ensuring that any measures taken in the chamber by this Parliament would not exacerbate the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black and racialized persons in our criminal justice system. We must not further marginalize and disadvantage vulnerable people, including those struggling with poverty, homelessness and mental health and substance use issues.

The government is committed to addressing systemic discrimination in Canada's criminal justice system. I believe that the approach taken in this bill, which makes narrow but important changes, is evidence of that.

The measures proposed in the bill are the result of extensive collaboration among federal, provincial and territorial governments. Members may be aware that the previous ministers of justice and of public safety convened an urgent meeting on March 10 of this year with their provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss ways to strengthen the bail system. This was a productive meeting. The ministers agreed that law reform was necessary but was only part of the solution. The provinces and territories expressed willingness to take action in various areas themselves, including improved data collection, policies, practices, training and programs in the area of bail support and bail enforcement.

I am very encouraged by the efforts by these provincial and territorial partners that are already taking place to improve the bail system in Canada. They are our partners in this issue. They will be our partners in rendering Canada more safe. For example, Ontario and Manitoba have announced commitments to enhance bail compliance measures, among other things, to increase public safety and to address concerns posed by those engaged in repeat violent offending. In British Columbia, the premier has also stepped up and made significant investments to strengthen enforcement and improve interventions in relation to repeat violent offending. I believe that any criminal law reform enacted by Parliament will be even more effective because of such actions taken by the provinces I have just listed, and I am hoping that every province follows suit.

The position I am taking and pronouncing here in the chamber, which is entrenched in Bill C-48, is backed up by law enforcement. Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, said this on this very issue:

We also see the federal government's tabling of Bill C-48 in June as a good first step, but this cannot be the only solution. Provincial and territorial governments must now look at their own justice systems and make needed improvements. Our justice system is complex with many interrelated challenges and flaws that cannot be addressed through legislation alone.

Apart from the Criminal Code reform, our government is also fighting crime through non-legislative means. For example, the Minister of Public Safety announced $390 million in funding to help fight gangs and gun crime. This kind of funding will support provincial government initiatives related to the bail system and will complement our efforts to crack down on firearms through Bill C‑21.

Ultimately, we all have a role to play in keeping our communities safe. I would be remiss not to acknowledge the dedication and service of law enforcement personnel across our country in doing exactly that: protecting the safety of our communities, sometimes jeopardizing their own personal safety in doing so.

We are pleased that the police associations across the country have come out in support of Bill C-48. This past weekend, in my very own riding of Parkdale—High Park, I hosted the Toronto chief of police, Myron Demkiw, for a festival. He personally expressed to me his hope that Bill C-48 would become law as soon as possible. When I told him it would be debated first thing on Monday, he said, “Dyakuyu”, which means “thank you” in Ukrainian.

We have also discussed bail in meetings with representatives from national indigenous organizations. Their views were and continue to be welcomed. This helps us to better understand what is needed in relation to criminal justice system reform and keeping all communities safe.

Our government takes cases of repeat violent offending and offences involving firearms or other weapons very seriously. Our goal of protecting public safety and victims plays a major role in our analysis of how the bail system operates and whether it is performing as planned.

Bill C-48 demonstrates our commitment to taking action at the federal level to strengthen the bail system in response to the challenges raised over the past several months. Provinces, territories and law enforcement have all lauded this legislation. They come from political parties of varying stripes. This is not a partisan issue. It is about safety, and it is now our turn to pass this bill swiftly.

I started off by acknowledging some people who have been important in my life, and I want to return to that message right now. I talked about my parents and my sister. When those three people and I came here from Uganda as refugees in 1952, we were fleeing the persecution of General Idi Amin. We came here for one thing above all else: safety. We came here because Canada offered that safety and the prospect of a better life. That concern remains alive and well 51 years later for me and everyone who has the ability, honour and privilege of calling this country home. We have the ability today to do something that promotes and advances safety. I hope we can all do it co-operatively and collegially, and can get this done today.

Justice and Human Rights

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with former prime minister Stephen Harper, ministerial accountability was alive and well in many regards on a couple fronts. There was a principled approach, unlike what we have seen in the last eight years.

Just to conclude on the justice file, Stephen Harper brought forward about 80 justice bills in favour of being tough on crime and in favour of victims. I mentioned one of the bills today, and all of the bills the Liberals have brought forward are for the least restrictive environments for criminals. That is the reason the most vile killer in Canadian history has been moved. It is because of legislation like this.

We saw it with bail reform. It has never been worse in this country. That is directly related to Bill C-75, also a 2019 Liberal bill. I am getting pretty sick and tired of these soft on crime Liberals. It is time for a Conservative government to clean up our streets and keep Canadians safe.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

The seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights speaks to improving the response to victims of crime. I can honestly say, and I think all Canadians agree, if we believe what we are seeing in the news, that the response of the government to victims of crime has been woefully inadequate. I can go further. When we talk about victims of crime, we are also talking about the victims' families, and that came through loud and clear in our report. Once again, even today we are talking about the impact on victims of crime and their families of the government's soft-on-crime revolving door justice system.

I will speak to some of the measures in our report.

One of the things we heard loud and clear was the need to address the unfair situation of sentence discounts for multiple murders. What that means is that in Canada, someone who is convicted of first-degree murder receives a life sentence but is eligible for parole in only 25 years. What this has led to is a ludicrous situation. For example, in Moncton, New Brunswick, an individual killed three of our Mounties, three police officers, just trying to do their job, and that individual would have received a 25-year parole ineligibility, the same as if they had killed one person. We have seen situations of mass murder in this country where someone kills three, five or six people, and they would receive the exact same parole ineligibility as if they had killed one person.

We believe, on this side of the House, that every life should count, every victim should be counted and every victim's family should be respected. That is why when we were in government, we brought in legislation for ending sentence discounts for multiple murders. This meant that an individual who committed multiple murders would receive multiple consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. It is why the individual who killed the three Mounties in Moncton received a 75-year parole ineligibility. Other mass murderers in Canada sentenced since that legislation have received similar sentences.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down that provision. We all know that a charter dialogue takes place between the legislature, Parliament and the Supreme Court, and it is absolutely scandalous that the government has not responded to that Supreme Court decision. We have called on it for over a year to respond to this decision, to make it right and to listen to victims' families.

When we were studying the response to victims of crime, that came up more often than not. One of our great witnesses was Sharlene Bosma. Many members will remember that name, as it was her husband who was killed by a mass murderer, someone who murdered at least three individuals. What Sharlene said left a lasting impact on me as well as on many members, certainly on this side of the House.

She said that through the whole process of attending hearings every day, attending court and working to ensure a conviction of this individual who took the life of her husband, the one solace she took when he was sentenced is that her daughter would never have to attend parole hearings and face this monster. However, with one decision from the Supreme Court, that has been ripped away. Now this individual will be eligible for parole in what is left of his 25 years, and Sharlene Bosma, her daughter and other victims' families will have to face unnecessary parole eligibility hearings. Once again, the government throws up its hands.

Even in today's headlines it is reported that one of the worst killers in Canada, one of the most notorious, the Scarborough rapist, Paul Bernardo, has been moved, to the horror of the victims' families and all Canadians, from a maximum-security prison, where he should have spent the rest of his life, to a medium-security prison. We see, on the other, side feigned outrage. We see crocodile tears. We hear “How could this happen? We're going to look into this”, but now we are finding out every day that the Minister of Public Safety knew. Now we are finding out that the Prime Minister knew.

Why did it happen in the first place? Part of the reason it happened is the government's own legislation. When the government brought in Bill C-83, which amended section 28 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it meant that, when considering transfers from one institution to another, the litmus test brought in by the government is that offenders have to be held in the least restrictive environment. When the Liberals passed that legislation, and when they refused to act when they found out about this transfer, they made this an inevitability. This is on the Liberal government.

I also want to address bail in this country. This came up again and again in our victims study. There are victims who are unnecessarily victimized. They are victims because our justice system has failed to protect them from repeat violent offenders. Just last week, we had a witness at justice committee, and what she said left an impression on me. She said that we do not have a justice system; we have a legal system, but many victims do not see justice in our system.

Canadians fail to see justice when this government, through Bill C-75, put in a principle of restraint when it comes to bail. It has led to the outrageous situation of individuals who are repeat violent offenders, individuals who have been caught for firearms offences and are out on bail, committing another firearms offence. This is happening in Toronto, and the Toronto police helpfully provided us with the statistics. While out on bail for a firearms offence, offenders commit another firearms offence and get bail again. This is outrageous. The Liberals will say, “This is too bad. It is unfortunate that gun crime is taking place”, but it is taking place as a direct result of both their actions and their inaction, their failure to respond to a revolving-door justice system. I can tell members that Canadians are fed up with it.

There is only one party that is committed to ending the revolving door, committed to ensuring that victims voices are heard, committed to appealing the measures in Bill C-75 that have led to this revolving door, committed to ending the outrageous situation in which individuals who commit gun crime are given no more than a slap on the wrist, and committed to ensuring that individuals who commit arson and burn down someone's home are not eligible to serve their sentence with a conditional sentence. What is a conditional sentence? It is house arrest. Under our Criminal Code, somebody could burn down a house and serve their so-called sentence playing video games from the comfort of their own home.

When we were in government, we brought in legislation to change that, to end the revolving door, to have consequences for criminal actions and to protect the most vulnerable. We made sure that sex offenders were listed on the sex offender registry. We made sure that sex offenders served their sentence in prison and not in the community where they offended.

However, under the current government, with both actions and failure to take action, we have a situation where communities are more and more in danger. Members do not have to take my word for it; this information is publicly available. Violent crime is up 32% in this country. Gang-related homicides are up almost 100% in this country. The approach of the revolving door, of allowing repeat offenders to continue to offend, is not working, and a Conservative government, led by Pierre Poilievre, will address—

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

moved that Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak to Bill C-320, I would like to talk about a special event that took place on Saturday, May 27, in which I was honoured to take part. Durham Region Remembers was a victim awareness and candlelight vigil that provided community support for those bereaved by homicide and to remember those we have lost. This very important event, which will now become an annual occurrence, was organized by Lisa Freeman, and I am happy to say that Lisa is here in Ottawa with me today. She is the person who inspired Bill C-320, a bill that we like to call the “truth in sentencing act”.

Since 2019, Lisa and I have made efforts to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding disclosure of information to victims; at Durham Region Remembers, Lisa and I had the opportunity to share our efforts with the families of victims who were present. I can say that this was well received, with murmurs of hope that we might be able to help families that are plunged unasked into unfathomable situations. These families have then been further demoralized and retraumatized by the actions of the government through the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Services, institutions that say they are supportive of victims of crime. Unfortunately, at best, this is an illusion.

Lisa is an inspiration not only to me but also to a very special community. This is a community, sadly, that has been forgotten by our criminal justice system. It is made up of victims, families and friends who have had to endure and re-endure trauma, emotional pain and endless suffering regarding their families' safety. Ms. Freeman is the author of the 2016 book, She Won't Be Silenced, described as the “story of my father's murder and my struggle to find justice WITHIN the Parole Board of Canada.”

After years of fighting to have her family's voice heard, while decisions were made about parole and the passage of information concerning her father's murderer, Ms. Freeman has petitioned the federal government to amend the ineffective Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and the opaque Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide improved transparency to victims of violent crime and their families.

This “truth in sentencing” bill was first tabled in the House of Commons as Bill C-466 by the Hon. Lisa Raitt in June 2019 and then again in the Senate by the Hon. Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu in December 2020 as Bill S-219. I want to thank Ms. Raitt and Senator Boisvenu for their work on this file. Now, I am hoping that I am three times lucky, and that this bill will finally make it through our process and become the law of the land.

It is important to recognize that this bill is a short bill; it would add just a few words, a common-sense phrase. It may make a small change in the law, but it would make a huge difference to victims. This bill would add the following words: “and an explanation of how that date has been determined”.

The aim of Bill C-320 is twofold. It would amend the current Canadian legislation to better meet the needs of victims of crime by providing timely and accurate information upon sentencing of an offender and avoiding the false comfort of misleading parole eligibility dates. It would also ensure that the victims of crime are provided with improved transparency and passage of information from the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. I admit that these changes would not fix the system, but they would certainly be a step in the right direction, and they could not occur at a better time.

In Canada we are now starting to see the effects of changes made to our justice system through the government's bill, Bill C-75, the bill that accelerated the government's catch-and-release bail system and bail policies. This change has unleashed a wave of violent crime across the country. We are hearing from Canadians that they do not feel safe walking down the street or taking transit. Canadians are telling us that our communities feel less safe. It is our responsibility to turn this trend around and avoid making the situation worse. We cannot allow violent offenders to repeat—

Criminal Code

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing the hard work done by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on this bill and on the issue of public safety.

Our justice system is broken. The catch-and-release policies that the Liberal Party introduced in Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have led to a 32% spike in violent crime across the country.

As the Conservative Party's shadow minister for public safety, I meet with public safety workers from all across the country. What am I hearing from police officers? They tell me we need to increase funding. However, what they really need is to stop arresting the same repeat offenders and violent offenders every weekend. Sometimes the police are on a first-name basis with these individuals because they have arrested them so many times. Sometimes they arrest them again the very next day. These repeat offenders get back out on the streets and go right back to terrorizing innocent Canadians by committing violent crimes.

We are seeing this in Vancouver. Last year, 40 individuals were responsible for 6,000 violent crimes. It is easy to imagine how much better police officers could do if those 40 individuals could be kept behind bars. How many networks of drug traffickers, gun smugglers, human traffickers and other complex criminal networks could be dismantled if police were not forced to deal with the 40 people responsible for 6,000 incidents who are spreading fear among Vancouverites?

It is the same thing in all the towns that I have heard about. Police officers are exhausted and are suffering serious PTSD because they are overworked. No amount of money can solve this problem. The only solution is a government that focuses on fighting crime, on jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders, and on improving the parole system to keep dangerous criminals behind bars.

Measures like those would definitely help the police fight violent crime and would really bolster the fight against gun violence. That is what the Toronto Police Service and the premiers of every province and territory are saying. They all agree. They have written to the Prime Minister many times calling for bail reform. These kinds of measures would really have an impact on reducing gun violence.

Instead, the Liberal government is spending an estimated $6 billion on its so-called firearms buyback program, which is really a confiscation program. That is where the Liberals are sending resources. That is their priority. A Conservative government led by the member for Carleton would get Canadians results, clean up our streets and reduce gun violence. That is our commitment to Canadians.

We need a complete overhaul of the Liberal system, which has caused violent crime to skyrocket across the country and has led to innocent Canadians being killed by repeat violent offenders. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced Bill C-325 a few weeks ago. This bill would fix the major flaws in Bill C-5, which allows repeat violent offenders to serve their sentences at home, and would keep Canadians safe in their communities.

The bill makes three important changes to our justice system. The first has to do with parole. Some inmates are charged with serious and violent crimes, including drug trafficking or worse, yet they are granted parole and face no consequences if they breach their release conditions. The police may catch an offender breaching their conditions, but all they can do is submit a report to the parole officer. This bill amends the law to introduce consequences for non-compliance with release conditions.

As far as parole officers are concerned, the bill requires them to notify the authorities when one of their parolees breaches their conditions. If that happens, the parole officer must inform the police so that an arrest can be made. These are violent offenders. This seems like a common-sense policy to us. However, the reality is that it is not currently mandatory to report repeat violent offenders who breach their conditions.

Finally, this bill fixes the “Netflix sentences” created by Bill C‑5. The third component of the bill seeks to correct the problem created by Bill C‑5, that of allowing violent criminals to serve their sentences in the community by sitting at home watching Netflix. Bill C-325 would strengthen the parole system by creating a new offence for breaching conditions. It would require parole officers to report breaches of conditions and would reinstate the old version of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, which was repealed by the Liberals' Bill C-5.

That bill made it possible for criminals convicted of aggravated sexual assault to serve their sentence in the community. That is very serious. I hope that this monumental error will be fixed and that the Bloc Québécois and NDP members will support Bill C‑325. Those violent criminals should not get to serve their sentences at home while watching Netflix. They should be behind bars. I remind members that because of Bill C‑5, a 42-year-old man managed to avoid prison after committing a violent sexual assault.

Even a Quebec Crown prosecutor criticized the government for Bill C‑5. He said that, right now, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice probably owe victims of sexual assault an explanation, and that he could not remain silent about this regressive situation.

It is clear that we cannot trust the Liberals to protect women and children from violent repeat offenders. With the support of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, the Liberals are putting Canadians at increasing risk of becoming victims of violent crimes.

Only a Conservative government led by the member for Carleton will make legislative changes to improve public safety with bills such as Bill C‑325, proposed by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague could see from the description I gave of the support that Bill C‑325 has received, it is pretty unanimous.

However, there is a distinction to be made. I think we often confuse things when we talk about bail. I know that the government is in the process of making changes to the law with Bill C‑75. For my part, I am adapting what was problematic with Bill C‑5. I am also introducing something new that does not exist anywhere else in the Criminal Code, namely making it an offence to fail to comply with release conditions. That is parole, which is different from bail. Bill C‑325 is not at all similar to what the government is currently proposing.

Justice

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of these Liberals, violent crime is up 32%. Recently, in Toronto, a 75-year-old woman was approached from behind and stabbed in the neck.

This Liberal bail legislation fails on bail reform. Under the proposed bill, the accused killer of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala and countless other repeat violent offenders would still have been released on bail.

Will the government stop the catch-and-release agenda, stop making our streets more dangerous and undo its irresponsible changes in Bill C-75?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 codified a number of Supreme Court of Canada decisions and did not fundamentally change the law of bail in Canada.

However, listening to provincial premiers, provincial ministers of justice and public safety, and police officers, we have proposed amendments to the bail regime to answer their concerns.

Here is the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: “We commend the government for acting on the urgency for legislative change and for recognizing that our...amendments were not calling for a complete overhaul of Canada's bail system”.

We are listening and we are getting results.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent most of my adult life working in the criminal justice system and I can say, unequivocally, that I have never seen bail in such a precarious state. After eight years of the Liberal government, violent crime is up 32%.

The wheels really started to fall off with the passing of Bill C-75 and now the Liberals have tabled amendments to bail that, in my reading, would not have applied to Constable Pierzchala's alleged killer.

When will the Liberal government undo the harmful effects of Bill C-75, to end catch-and-release and keep Canadians safe?

Sitting Resumed

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

I rise in strong opposition to Bill C-21, the latest ideological, evidence-free attack by the Liberals on law-abiding firearms owners.

Canada is facing a crime wave after eight years of this disastrous Liberal government. Violent crime is up 32%. Gang-related homicides have nearly doubled, up a staggering 94%. An unprecedented 10 police officers since September have been murdered in the line of duty. Random violent attacks on public transit and on the streets are now commonplace in cities right across Canada. More and more Canadians are feeling less safe in their communities, and that is because more communities that once were safe are no longer safe or are less safe now than when the Liberals took office.

By contrast to the staggering 32% increase in violent crime under the Liberals, under Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives, violent crime went down 33%. In fact, the Liberals have managed to do something that no government has done, which is to reverse a 30-year trend in which Canada, until the Liberals came to power, saw a downward spiral in crime. Now it is up 32%.

I say that because this violent crime wave did not happen in a vacuum, it did not happen by accident and it did not even happen as a result of inaction on the part of the Liberals. It happened as a result of very deliberate and very specific policies regarding Canada's criminal justice system embraced by the Liberals.

The Prime Minister has embraced, full stop, a series of virtue-signalling, woke criminal justice policies. These are policies that the Prime Minister has imported from the United States. They are disastrous policies that have been implemented south of the border by radical, left-wing, big-city mayors and district attorneys. They are policies that have resulted in large swaths of once great American cities, such as Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Oregon, turning into crime no-go zones. It is these American-style policies that the Prime Minister is importing to Canada.

Let us look at the disastrous record of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in 2018, was responsible for passing Bill C-75, which established catch-and-release bail. Thanks to the Prime Minister, a judge is now required to make it the primary consideration that an accused be released at the earliest opportunity with the least onerous conditions possible. This has resulted in a revolving door. It has meant that, in many instances, criminals are released back onto the streets and are out committing crimes the very same day they were arrested for the crimes they committed. That is catch-and-release Liberal bail.

Let us look at some of the statistics as a consequence.

In the city of Vancouver, 40 hard-core criminals are responsible for 6,000 arrests a year. That is 150 arrests per offender. Liberal catch-and-release bail has meant that a small number of hard-core criminals are overwhelmingly and disproportionately responsible for a significant number of criminal incidents.

In Edmonton, a community I am proud to represent in this place, a young mother, Carolann Robillard, and her 11-year-old daughter, Sara, are now dead thanks to Liberal catch-and-release bail. Carolann and Sara were brutally murdered, stabbed to death at a park, of all places, at an elementary school.

They were brutally stabbed to death by who? It was a total stranger who happen to be a hard-core violent criminal, who, thanks to Liberal catch-and-release, had been released on bail just 18 days prior. Who was this violent offender who stabbed to death an 11-year-old girl and her young mother outside an elementary school? He was someone who had a 14-year rap sheet of committing violent attacks.

He had been convicted multiple times of serious offences such as aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, multiple robberies and assaulting a correctional officer. Last year, he attacked a 12-year-old girl on an LRT in Edmonton. That is who was released thanks to Liberal catch-and-release bail. He never should have been released. He should have been kept behind bars. He never should have been on bail. It is outrageous that he was.

It is outrageous that the folks across the way can so sanctimoniously defend a series of policies that are indefensible. They are putting lives at risk and endangering public safety. How dare they.

It is not just catch and release. This is a government that, last year, passed Bill C-5, the fourth piece of legislation the government introduced in this Parliament. It is obviously a top priority for the government. What does Bill C-5 do? It significantly expands house arrest for some very serious offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking. In other words, criminals convicted of such offences will not have to spend a single day in jail.

What about firearms? We hear a lot about the Liberals' professed concern about firearms. It seems they are obsessed with firearms as objects, but they have not figured out that firearms do not commit crimes; criminals with firearms commit crimes. What have the Liberals done about criminals who go out and commit offences with guns? Bill C-5 actually eliminates mandatory jail time for serious gun crime, including robbery with a gun, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure and weapons trafficking. That is the approach of the Liberals.

It is a policy of the woke. It is a policy grounded in absurdity. Compounding that absurdity is Bill C-21, which is now before the House. It is a bill that does not take illegal firearms off the streets. It does not keep repeat offenders behind bars where they belong. Incredibly, it goes after law-abiding, licensed firearms owners, who are among the group of Canadians least likely to commit a crime.

Those are the people the Liberals are going after. It could not be more absurd. The government's set of priorities could not be more backwards.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to measure up to my colleague. It is not easy to speak after the official opposition whip. She gave a wonderful speech and did a great job of illustrating the challenges we face.

Today, I am speaking to Bill C-21, this government's flawed gun bill. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the hard work my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul has done on this file, as well as the work put in by all of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Since the bill was introduced in the House, the Liberal Party has changed direction so often that it is difficult to keep up. The Liberals' inordinate attacks on the Canadian people have not gone unnoticed. The Liberals have shown their true colours to Canadians. Instead of cracking down on illegal guns and gang members, this government has introduced legislation targeting hunters, farmers and indigenous communities.

As usual, the Liberal government is completely out of touch with rural Canada, widening the all-too-real divide in our country. No one believes that going after hunters will reduce violent crime across the country. This is part of the Liberal plan to divide Canadians.

As Conservatives, we support common-sense gun policies that prevent guns from falling into the hands of dangerous criminals. The most important thing we can do is to crack down on smugglers at the borders and prevent illegal weapons from getting into Canada and falling into the hands of criminals and gang members.

I have had the opportunity to talk with many citizens in my riding about this bill. I talked to Mr. Vachon from Saint‑Georges, who served in the army for 14 years and who is very worried about the impact this bill will have on him and his ability to hunt and sport shoot. He is an advocate for the safe use of firearms and understands very well that those who commit crimes with illegal firearms will not be concerned at all about this bill. The only people who are worried about it are law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.

I also talked to Mr. Deschênes from Sainte‑Marie, who is extremely concerned about the impact this bill will have on shooting clubs in the region. They may have to close their doors in the future. He is a federal agent and needs to regularly train at these shooting ranges to keep up his skills and keep himself safe. He emphasized the importance of these shooting ranges for public safety because many police services use them to perfect their skills and maintain their accreditation, and they also educate other Canadians about gun safety.

Finally, Ms. Turcotte from Beauceville contacted my office just last week to express her dissatisfaction with amendments G‑4 and G‑46. These amendments were completely inappropriate and were subsequently withdrawn. However, hunters still worry about what the Liberal government will do next. How far is it prepared to go? Will it amend the same bill once it comes into force, introduce those amendments and shut down debate again?

In my riding, countless farmers also contacted me for fear that they would no longer be able to protect their livestock, which is their livelihood. The problem with this government is that it has a strange way of sending messages. It claims to have discussed this bill with stakeholders, but when the text of the bill and the amendments were published, many groups, such as hunters, indigenous groups and professional sport shooters were taken completely by surprise.

A member of the Alberta Mounted Shooters Association said that they are a very safety-conscious group. She added that before they can become mounted shooters, they must complete training, testing and background checks to obtain their restricted gun licences. They want more Canadians to practice their sport. They want to grow and develop skilled target shooters and equestrians. They also want the ability to continue the legacy for our youth and produce more world champions.

At the rate this bill is going, I do not know if there will be any sport shooters left when this is all over. New athletes will have so many regulatory hurdles to overcome that any shooting discipline outside of the Olympics will be eradicated. Even Canadian Olympians will be forced to spend countless hours obtaining the necessary licences to travel with their sporting equipment.

This lack of comprehensive consultation has not just affected hunters and sport shooters; it has also affected the most important segment of the Canadian population, indigenous communities. As Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake put it, the lack of thorough and comprehensive consultation with indigenous communities is demonstrated by the incoherence and inconsistency of the proposed legislation, the amendments and the lack of recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples.

This is further proof of the complete ignorance shown by this government and the Minister of Public Safety.

Let us talk about how the Prime Minister continues to fail Canadians when it comes to public safety. With bills like C-5, the government is making our country less safe. Bill C-5 removes mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. How backwards can this government be?

For people who are guilty of armed robbery or firearms trafficking or who recklessly discharge a weapon, it is easier to get away with it thanks to the Prime Minister's soft on crime approach. This government has made things twice as bad with Bill C‑75. The Prime Minister's bail policy has triggered a wave of violent crime in our country.

Our communities feel less safe, and the Liberal government is responsible for making the situation worse. A common-sense Conservative government will ensure that violent reoffenders stay behind bars while awaiting trial, and it will bring back the mandatory sentences for serious violent crimes that were cut by this government.

The bail reform measures that were announced this week are reactive and respond to weeks of news about the dramatic increase in violent crime in this country. Why does the government always have to play catch-up? It is incapable of getting ahead on anything. A Conservative government will ensure Canadians' safety and introduce bills that will truly keep Canadians safe.

Does the government realize that illegal guns are used in 99% of gun crimes? More than 85% of those guns are smuggled in from the United States. Why are they not allocating more resources at the borders to prevent these firearms from entering?

In my riding, there are two border crossings that do not even have CBSA officers. Truckers coming into Canada simply pick up the phone and call the nearest border service officer to open the gate and the shipments come into Canada without any screening. I am sure this may surprise some members of the House, but it shows just how low a priority border security is for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety.

In conclusion, I think everyone in this House wants to make Canada a safer place to live, but Bill C-21 was never the right way to go about it. This bill was flawed from the start, and the government has completely missed the mark.

I also think the NDP has a lot to do with this failure, as the New Democrats continue to support the government in this process. However, many of the NDP members are from rural ridings. I hope their constituents have been watching them all this time and will remember this failure. Conservatives will always be there to keep Canadians safe and to protect law-abiding gun owners, whether they are hunters, farmers, sport shooters or indigenous people.

We will always protect their right to own and use firearms safely and lawfully. We will ensure that violent criminals and smugglers are prosecuted, instead of our law-abiding neighbours and farmers.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

I want to speak today in solidarity with all the honest, law-abiding people in Lévis—Lotbinière who legally own guns for reasons other than committing violent crimes.

My colleagues will no doubt understand that I have come here to defend honest hunters and shooters, farmers, and collectors who own guns passed down from one generation to another.

The absurd thing about the Liberal government is that their bills miss their targets most of the time—that is probably a bad pun—as does their budget, for that matter.

How will legalizing drugs prevent or reduce crime? That is utter nonsense. How can anyone believe that restricting the use of certain registered and legal weapons is going to reduce the same criminal activity that continues to rise because of bad Liberal decisions?

The solution to the ever-increasing crime is quite simple, and it is the same for everything else that has not worked in our country since 2015. We are headed straight for a cliff because the Liberals are in power and they are making bad decisions.

The goal of the new Liberal amendments to Bill C‑21 is not to protect us, but to score political points and instill a false sense of security in the population. The facts prove otherwise and nothing will change.

I would like to talk about academic and government stakeholders, such as Dr. Caillin Langmann, assistant clinical professor at McMaster University. He stated that available research has demonstrated that the proposed ban on handguns and semi-automatic weapons would not reduce the rates of homicide and mass homicide.

Someone who wants to inflict harm has the imagination and means to do so. What causes an individual to commit the irreparable quite often begins with the family violence that children witness. These children will become uncontrollable adults who abuse drugs that have become legal and who commit increasingly serious crimes.

The rehabilitation system for these individuals is not working and the Liberal Party encourages this scourge through bad policies and complacency. As proof, the Liberal Party's catch-and-release policies are not working. After eight years of Liberal governance, violent crimes have increased by 32% and gang-related homicides have doubled.

Rather than cracking down on the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is working to take hunting rifles away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples.

Let us be clear. The Liberals' new definition is the same as the old one. The commonly used hunting firearms targeted by the Liberals in the fall will likely be added to the ban by the new Liberal firearms advisory panel.

Let there be no mistake. There is nothing new in the amendments proposed by the Liberals. They have just wrapped the initial amendments up in a new package. Hunters, farmers and indigenous peoples are not naive, and neither are the Conservatives. The Conservatives do not support taking guns away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples. When the Liberals say that they are banning so-called assault-style firearms, they really mean that they are banning hunting rifles. The Prime Minister even admitted as much a few months ago.

No one believes that the government is going to reduce violent crime across the country by going after hunters and legitimate hunting rifles. That is part of the Liberal government's plan to distract Canadians from the real issues our country is facing and to divide them.

For eight years now, have the Liberals been aware that they are making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with legislation stemming from Bill C‑5?

Are the Liberals aware that they are making it easier for violent criminals to get bail with legislation stemming from Bill C‑75?

Are the Liberals aware that they are making life easier for violent criminals by not stopping the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border?

Conservatives support common-sense gun policies, policies that will stop dangerous criminals from getting guns. That is why a Conservative government will invest in policing and securing our borders rather than spending billions of dollars confiscating guns from farmers, hunters, indigenous people and law-abiding Canadians.

Let us not be fooled. The Liberals are the champions of wishful thinking. The Liberals are also the champions of empty gestures, empty words and wasting our hard-earned money.

Quality of life has gone down considerably in Canada in the past eight years in every area of daily life and not just because of the increasing crime rate, which, again, jumped by 32%. When we look at the facts, the current situation and the numbers, we see that this is no longer working. One just needs to look at the number of available jobs, the backlog in immigration cases, the applications for temporary foreign workers that are blocked and have caused businesses back home such as Olymel to shut down.

I am thinking about the Liberals' rejection of my Bill C‑215, which sought to promote life by allowing people with a serious disease such as cancer to be entitled to 52 weeks of employment insurance to get back on their feet. I am thinking about all these young people to whom the Liberal Party is offering addiction to dangerous substances as a life work; as we all know, using hard drugs brings more problems. That is obvious and it only makes sense to acknowledge it.

I have a hard time seeing how Bill C‑21 will achieve the Liberal Party's murky goal of lowering the crime rate and making our streets safer.

In closing, in Lévis—Lotbinière, the majority of us are responsible, law-abiding people. More than ever, we need a return to a Conservative government to restore order in our country and in our politics, and to put money back in our pockets.

Criminal Code

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am happy to be rising today to discuss this piece of legislation, but I am happy to be rising as a law-abiding firearms owner to defend my fellow law-abiding firearms owners.

How did we get here? I will put things in context so the people who might be watching at home know whom they are listening to. I am a member of Parliament for an urban-rural split riding in central Alberta. Half of my constituents live in Red Deer, the third-largest city in Alberta, and the other half live on a first nation reserve, or in a rural setting in Red Deer County, Lacombe County or Ponoka County, or in a small town, city or village therein.

I would consider the people I represent to be honest, hard-working, law-abiding folks who want their tax dollars spent wisely and want the freedom to pursue whatever they want to pursue in life. Many of them pursue various things that involve firearms, including hunting, farming on farms like the one I grew up on, where firearms are just a tool and an everyday part of life, or sport shooting. This is very popular in my constituency. There are numerous stores and vendors in central Alberta that supply firearms, ammunition and parts because of the demand that is there.

I can tell members that we do not have the problems that my colleague who just spoke talked about in her large urban centre, because we respect the law. We put policies in place at the provincial level, and when we are the governing party, we put laws in place that actually crack down on criminals. That is where the actual issue lies.

I can assure Canadians who might be watching at home that the firearms I own are doing nothing right now. They do not do anything until someone picks them up. The issue at hand is violent crime and who has access to firearms. There are numerous provisions in this bill, Bill C-21, that do not address, penalize or in any way affect the outcome of dealing with the wrong people getting a hold of firearms.

How did we get here? Over the course of the preceding decades, Canada was a country that was a rugged place to settle, and it is still a rugged place for some who live in rural areas or adjacent to wild areas or who are farming, involved in forestry, or doing something as seemingly innocuous as keeping beehives. Anybody watching at home who grew up with cartoon books would know that Winnie-the-Pooh was addicted to honey. This is not by chance. Bears often frequent these places, and good, honest people have bought firearms to protect themselves, many of whom were caught up in the order in council that came out a number of years ago.

It all started in the 1930s. If we go back that far, every single firearm and handgun in this country has been put in a registry, but that does not stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally. The government of the day, whenever it is Liberal or Liberal-leaning, seems to want to blame the law-abiding citizen, so, for decades, we have had a firearms registry and the government knows where all the lawfully owned handguns in this country are. Changes were brought in back when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister, including a long-gun registry, which was wasteful and ineffective. The government of the day said it would cost only $2 million, but it was actually closer to $2 billion. Of course, it did not do anything to address violent crime.

We have seen the current government, in its first mandate, put in place Bill C-75, which basically codified in law bail provisions that would let people out in the shortest amount of time with the smallest number of restrictions, and now we see what has happened with that.

What did Bill C-21 originally do? When the members of this House were invited to speak to the bill, it was simply the codification in law of an order in council to ban the transfer of handguns. Then, sneakily, the government decided to table-drop, back in November, a huge stack of amendments that had absolutely nothing to do with handguns. They were all about long guns, and of course the government bit off far more than it could chew.

The government managed to alienate almost all of its voting base when it comes to indigenous Canadians, who were offended by the fact that the firearms used by indigenous people were largely going to be caught up in amendment G-46, taking away their ability to use that firearm.

There was also an evergreen clause in G-4, and I am sorry to report that there is a new evergreen clause put in place that does virtually the same thing, with a minor exception, which I will explain in a few minutes, when I get back to what the problem actually is with the government's notions going forward on its new evergreen clause.

We all remember what happened. It was pretty obvious, because we heard the recordings from the Mass Casualty Commission. The government actually interfered. It took this mass casualty event in Nova Scotia and interfered in the investigation by demanding that the officers who were investigating at the time turn over information to advance a political agenda of the government of the day.

We know it is not about evidence. It is not evidence-based policy-making; it is policy-based evidence-making and evidence-finding, even if it interferes with a police investigation. That is why there is very little trust by law-abiding firearms owners in the intentions of the Liberal government, which is supported by the NDP, and what it is doing.

What is the problem? The problem is violent crime. In the last eight years, violent crime has risen because of the provisions that have been passed by the government when it had a majority and with the support of other left-leaning parties in this place. They passed numerous pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, that have basically eliminated any consequences whatsoever for people who commit crimes, so much so that violent crime in the last eight years is up 32% over what it was when the Prime Minister and his government inherited the government offices of this place.

More astonishing is this number: 94% increase in gang-related homicides. One would think that an almost doubling of the number of homicides by gang members would trigger a response from the government to crack down on organized crime, but it actually has done the opposite. The passages and clauses in the Criminal Code that would deal with people who are repeat violent offenders have largely been removed, as well as any semblance of a minimum sentence. I am not even talking about mandatory minimum sentences put in place by Stephen Harper when he was prime minister, and by the way crime went down over those 10 years, but I am getting to the point of the fact that numerous basic minimum sentences were removed.

These were put in place by people like Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. Of the 12 firearms-related clauses in that piece of legislation, 11 were actually put in place by previous Liberal governments, and the current version of the Liberal government has removed even the most basic minimum sentences for violent crime, including smuggling, firing a gun irresponsibly or even holding a gun to somebody's head for the purpose of extortion. It has removed any mandatory jail time whatsoever for those.

That is the tone and the signal Liberals have sent to the country. Why would criminals not want to increase their activity? There are no consequences, and this is the problem.

I will give an example of the illogic of what the government is doing right now. According to the RCMP's website, there are approximately 430 gangs in Canada with 7,000 members in those gangs. If we look at the average number of homicides committed by people associated with gangs over the last five or six years, it is about 50% of murders. Fifty per cent of murders are committed by gang members, or about 125 a year. There are 2.2 million licensed gun owners in this country. If we look over that same time period, we will see that they are charged for homicide about 12 times a year.

That is 12 out of 2.2 million people versus 125 out of 7,000 people. Who does the government go after? It goes after the 2.2 million. It does not make any sense whatsoever. If we do the math, a gang member is 3,300 times more likely to commit murder with a firearm than a law-abiding firearm owner is, yet the government focuses only on the law-abiding firearm owner.

Gary Mauser, professor emeritus, did an analysis for Statistics Canada that shows that Canadians who are not licensed firearms owners are still three times more likely to commit a homicide than a vetted, licensed gun owner is. For the people who are watching at home, the safest people in Canada for them to be with are legally vetted, law-abiding firearm owners who, at any time, could have their firearms taken away with any complaint lodged against them. That means that every firearm owner meticulously follows the laws of storage, the laws of transportation and the laws of safe discharge. As a matter of fact, we jokingly quip sometimes that gun control meetings are about making sure one's muzzle is always pointed downrange. That is what gun control is to a law-abiding gun owner. We follow all the rules because we do not want to risk losing our privileges, because the fact is that every firearm in Canada is illegal unless it is in the possession of somebody with a licence who is authorized to have that firearm.

We have to go through a renewal process every five years, during which our entire history, including our mental health history, our medical history and anything that might have happened before the courts is reviewed in detail. We wait months to get our licence renewed. Sometimes it is not renewed on time. This puts us in a situation, as law-abiding firearm owners, where we are now in possession of our firearms, which were legal one day, but of which, because of the incompetence of the government to process an application on time, we are now technically, according to the law, illegally in possession. We actually had a clause, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, where people had a six-month grace period. I am very frustrated by the removal of that grace period, and I will get to that in a minute.

In committee, Dr. Caillin Langmann from McMaster University basically laid it out for everybody to see. His brief states:

The foregoing research papers are peer reviewed and conclude that Canadian legislation to regulate and control firearm possession and acquisition does not have a corresponding effect on homicide and suicide rates.

It also states:

I was asked to produce a review paper for the Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2021. This paper entitled, “Suicide, firearms, and legislation: A review of the Canadian evidence” reviewed 13 studies regarding suicide and legislative efforts and found an associated reduction in suicide by firearm in men aged 45 and older but demonstrated an equivalent increase in suicide by other methods such as hanging. Factors such as unemployment, low income, and indigenous populations were associated with suicide rates....

My conclusions are based on sound statistical analysis and information specifically related to Canada. I am not aware of any other Canadian research which uses reliable statistical models to dispute or disagree with my conclusions.

The brief also states:

Bans of military-appearing firearms, semiautomatic rifles and handguns, short barrel handguns and Saturday night specials in the 1990s has resulted in no associated reduction in homicide rates.

To summarize the results, no statistically significant beneficial associations were found between firearms legislation and homicide by firearm, as well as spousal homicide by firearms, and the criminal charge of “Discharge of a Firearm with Intent”....

Other studies have demonstrated agreement with my studies that laws targeting restricted firearms such as handguns and certain semi-automatic and full automatic firearms in Canada also had no associated effect with homicide rates. Canadian studies by Leenaars and Lester 2001, Mauser and Holmes 1992, and McPhedran and Mauser 2013, are all in general agreement with my study.

The issue is violent crime. It is about controlling violent criminals, controlling those people. One can control inanimate objects all one wants, but it will not change anything. Therefore, the “who” is not the problem. It is not hunters. Over eight million people in this country hunt and fish, contributing $19 billion annually to the GDP, and the order in council has already banned rifles used for hunting, some that even conservation officers use. I was a conservation officer. I was a national park warden and I was issued firearms for my duties. I was a park ranger in charge of a park in the province of Alberta and I was issued firearms for those duties as well. Every person I dealt with as a conservation officer was at least a camper who had an axe, a fisherman who had a knife or a hunter who had either a rifle or a bow and arrow. I had no trouble with those good people, no trouble whatsoever.

We are going to ban the very guns that conservation officers use, but they do not have those firearms. The Yukon government actually had to go around the order in council to buy firearms for its conservation officers, because those are the best firearms available to protect its officers from bears, mountain lions and all of the other issues that conservation officers face, because that is where the real issue lies.

It is very clear to me as a hunter, that, with the changes the Liberals have made, they are weasel words, especially the evergreen clause that deals with magazines. I laid it out very clearly at committee that anybody who wants to interpret it that way can say that, as long as a firearm can take a magazine that holds more than five rounds, it shall be banned. After this becomes law, we would end up in a situation in which, with guns that are functionally identical, one from 10 years ago and a new firearm, one would be prohibited and the other would still be legal. This is because of the clear lack of knowledge and understanding, when it comes to firearms, of people who do not own guns, making laws that simply do not work. We are going to have that scenario again.

However, if people think their gun is safe because they have an older gun that is not included in the new evergreen clause, they should think again, because the firearms committee that would be struck would still have the same authority to do a firearms reference table analysis and ban whatever guns it does not like.

I have news for everybody in this room. If we look at all of the hunting regulations in all of the provinces and territories in this country, a hunting rifle is a rifle that is in the hands of a hunter, used for the purposes of the hunt. It does not matter what it looks like; it just matters what the calibre of the bullet is, so the animal can be safely dispatched.

I could go on for literally a couple more hours and talk about the end of cowboy mounted shooting, cowboy action shooting, IPSC, all of these sports for all of these good people. They are mostly Filipinos there, by the way, when I go to an IPSC event. They are people who have moved here from a country that never allowed them to own firearms, but they have come here and taken up this sport and activity. They are frustrated because, when we take away the ability to transfer these handguns between law-abiding citizens, it will be the end of thousands of people's enjoyment of the sports that involve handguns. I look forward to answering some hopefully logical questions from around the room.

Before I conclude, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 0.1, 1.1 and 17, with a view to ensure that the government cannot take away hunting rifles from law-abiding farmers, hunters and Indigenous peoples.”

Justice

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when he starts talking about his interest in improving public safety, the Prime Minister will say anything. His actions tell a different story, though.

To start with, he passed Bill C-75, which makes it easier for violent criminals to obtain bail. After that, he passed Bill C‑5 to get rid of mandatory jail sentences for serious crimes. Now he has a bail reform bill, which was tabled yesterday, that is so weak that even the person charged with murdering police officer Greg Pierzchala would still have gotten bail.

Can the Prime Minister admit to his mistakes and simply repeal the law arising from Bill C‑75?

Criminal Code

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country, including, in this very late hour, to talk about an important piece of legislation, Bill C-21.

I would like to express my concerns about this legislation and the potential consequences of it. While the intention of this bill may be to address issues of public safety, it is crucial that we critically examine its provisions and the implications they may have on our society as a whole, especially for law-abiding citizens.

It is important to prioritize public safety. However, this bill fails to acknowledge that attacking responsible law-abiding firearms owners is not a solution to the 32% increase in violent crime we have seen since the Liberals took office. Casting a wide net and imposing bans on firearms owned legally infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens, who use firearms for legitimate purposes such as sport shooting and hunting.

This firearms legislation, Bill C-21, is one of the biggest topics I have heard about during my time as a member of Parliament. There is so much about this bill that does not make sense. It treats law-abiding firearms owners as criminals, undermining the principles of due process and fairness. The overwhelming majority of firearms owners in Canada are law-abiding citizens who have undergone thorough background checks and are responsible in their use, transport and storage of firearms.

This bill has wide-reaching effects on law-abiding farmers, sport shooters, hunters and indigenous peoples. Instead of going after illegal firearms used by criminals and street gangs, the Liberals are focused on going after law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples.

This is from Blane, a resident from Kelowna—Lake Country who reached out to me:

The gun buy back and focus is a bad idea and I reject it. I would hope that you would too. The program targets people who are not the typical culprits in violent crimes. Go after the criminals. And the cost to implement and maintain the proposed program is outrageous! I protest the Liberal program and even its intent because it will neither alleviate nor change violent crimes with guns. Criminals, as a reminder, don't follow the rules.

This bill does not adequately address the root causes of gun violence in our society. Instead of focusing on addressing mental health issues, improving law enforcement and strengthening border controls to combat illegal firearms trafficking, Bill C-21 targets legal firearms owners. No one believes that going after hunters and legal firearms owners will reduce violent crime across the country. This is part of the Liberal plan to distract and divide Canadians.

The Liberals' approach on firearms fails to address the core issues and instead burdens law-abiding citizens with unnecessary restrictions. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police pointed out that restrictions on legal firearms would not “meaningfully address the real issue” about gun violence, as it is illegal weapons that have led to gun violence.

Recent reports have shown that about 85% of handguns used in crimes are imported from the United States illegally. Criminals do not adhere to laws or regulations, and they will continue to access firearms through illicit means regardless of the restrictions imposed on law-abiding citizens. In essence, the bill penalizes responsible gun owners while doing little to address the criminal elements driving gun violence.

A comprehensive approach to reducing gun violence should involve measures that address underlying causes, such as poverty, inequality and mental health issues, while also targeting illegal firearms trafficking and strengthening law enforcement efforts. While the goal of enhancing public safety is important, the Liberals' Bill C-21 misses the mark by imposing ineffective measures that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

If we are truly committed to addressing the issue of gun violence, we must invest in comprehensive solutions. They include strengthening mental health services, focusing on addiction treatment and recovery, getting tough on criminals through bail reform and securing our borders against firearms smuggling. By focusing on these efforts, we can address the root causes of violence and ensure that firearms are used responsibly and safely by law-abiding citizens.

Since the Prime Minister took office, violent crime has increased by 32% and gang-related homicides have nearly doubled. The Liberals are making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5. They have also made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75 and are failing to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border.

If the Liberals were serious about addressing public safety, they would listen to Canadians. Recently, I sent out a survey in my community in Kelowna—Lake Country, and the results were astonishing. More than 91% of people said that living in Kelowna—Lake Country had become less safe in the last eight years. This is not due to law-abiding local firearms owners.

Canadians are no longer feeling safe in their own country. There is a demand to get tough on crime, and these Liberals refuse to. Ninety-four per cent of people who filled out my survey said that our bail system is broken, and the overwhelming majority of respondents called for stronger sentencing, the return of minimum sentences and no bail for repeat offenders. A legacy of these Liberals will be disorder and a crime wave on Canada made worse by the Liberal, revolving door bail system.

Here is another part of the firearm legislation that will continue to evolve into the future with no debate in Parliament. There will be a firearms advisory council that will continue to add firearms to the banned list, and this group will be set up by the Liberals. That is the order in council list from May 2020. Regardless of what may be in this legislation, the list will continue to grow with no public consultation.

This firearms legislation has been a disaster from the beginning. It created so much uncertainty from the very moment the order in council occurred in 2020. Then there was the legislation and the dropping of last minute amendments at committee. There was public outcry, government backbenchers speaking out, and many law-abiding residents in my community and across Canada getting involved. This is how the Liberals govern: It is always a mess.

There are so many people that the government did not even consider when it was initially putting this legislation together. A resident reached out to me very concerned as he stated he was a local elite athlete competing in the sport of target shooting. Another issue that has been bought up to me by my local fish and game clubs is that law enforcement officers use the local ranges to train. If these local clubs are not able to sustain themselves because this legislation is making it just too difficult for residents to continue with their sport shooting and training for hunting, this could put in jeopardy the ability for law enforcement members to train. This is a real concern for the clubs and RCMP members I have spoken with.

I have heard from law-abiding firearms owners in Kelowna-Lake Country, who are licensed and follow all the rules. They are concerned with turning in firearms they have collected, and in many cases they have said that they have never used, as they may have been passed on from a deceased family member. They have them stored properly, and they say they have not been anywhere outside of proper areas.

We must strive for a balanced approach that respects the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens while addressing the underlying causes of gun violence. Rather than imposing blanket bans and restrictions, we should focus on comprehensive solutions that promote responsible firearm ownership, address mental health concerns, strengthen law enforcement efforts and combat the illegal trafficking of firearms. Canadians are suffering, and everything feels broken.

Conservatives support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and secure our borders rather than spending billions confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand tonight and speak to the debate on Bill C-21, discussing firearms in this nation of ours, Canada. I am not simply standing here as a Conservative member of Parliament. I do not want to improperly represent anything or anybody, because the people I am representing here tonight are amazing people. They are not just people from my riding; they are people from right across this country who see this legislation as something nefarious, quite honestly.

I look at the whole process that the government, the NDP-Liberal coalition, has gone through in contortions of creating an order in council that banned certain firearms, then moving to handguns and then bringing in amendments to add in a huge plethora of other firearms to that list. Then it reneged on that and took the list away, and now it just has a definition. Whoever made that list up for the government had fun doing it, because it is clear they really did not understand the breadth of firearms on that list and how ridiculous it is that so many of them were even there.

When I am speaking here tonight, I am speaking on behalf of people across this country who truly understand firearms and know exactly what this legislation is. I get the impression that Liberals are talking about firearms owners, hunters, farmers and even indigenous people as those who do not really know what is going on here, and they are the ones who are speaking out.

As with so many issues in this House, we are standing on this side of the floor and I firmly believe we are the ones who are representing the majority of Canadians in this place, who see legislation brought forward that says one thing but suddenly there are all these additional amendments, or it is a bill brought in with nothing and everything needs to be added in after they have made their speeches about what it is.

It is very clear that what we have here is a government and its partner turning themselves into pretzels trying to figure out how to carry on with what they truly want to do. I can say very confidently that I hear over and over again that this emperor has no clothes. Canadians are seeing through what their intentions are. It is so clear because common sense does not exist in the majority of this legislation.

What we are supposedly talking about here is public safety and protecting Canadians, yet as the government is introducing this legislation and other pieces, crime in Canada has grown exponentially. There is no clear rational reason to focus on hunters, farmers and indigenous people who use firearms responsibly, safely and legally as a means of dealing with the violence we are facing, which is growing in our nation.

It is really clear that this legislation would not impact the important things in regard to violence in our country. Catch-and-release policies of the government have been brutal, where Canadians have become victims because it has been so poorly laid out. Now all of a sudden Liberals will say they are fixing this and fixing that. My word, it never should have gotten to where it needs to be fixed to this extent eight years into the government's mandate. Violent crime has increased 32%. Gang-related murders have doubled. People have been killed across this country in all kinds of scenarios in larger numbers, with no relation to the person who was attacking them in any way.

It seems the only focus of the legislation before us is on the law-abiding people in Canada, so that is a question that comes to me all the time, not just from people in my riding, but quite honestly from rural ridings right across the country. We know that on that side of the floor there are Liberal members who have barely won their ridings in rural Canada. We pit east against west, but rural Canada is rural Canada, and firearms owned by respectable, honest Canadians, rurally, should not even be considered by the government in trying to deal with the issues it has with growing violence in this country. It is the Liberals' poor mandates and it is their poor legislation that are opening up crime more and more in our country.

The new Liberal definition is exactly the same as the old one. It is simply under a new look and a new package, because that definition still describes many of the firearms that are used legally, that are used properly and that are not part of the dynamics of violence in our country. We do not support confiscating the firearms of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people, and we are on the right side of the Canadian public on this issue.

No one believes that going after hunters and legitimate hunting rifles would reduce violent crime across this country. This is part of the Liberals' plan to distract and divide Canadians, and we refuse to be divided on this issue. Right across the nation, the majority of Canadians agree that this emperor has no clothes. There is some reason behind this mandate that the Liberals want to press onto Canadians to remove the freedoms we have in this country to be law-abiding firearms owners.

The Liberals are making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5. How in the world does that make sense next to removing firearms from law-abiding Canadians? The Liberals have made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75, and they are failing to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border. I would suggest that they focus their energies on doing what would make the big difference on violence in this country, because as we have heard, and it is true, in cases where a firearm is used illegally and violently, it is about the person holding that firearm.

Maybe we need to do more research on who commits these crimes and why we let them out of jail over and over again to the point that, as we heard earlier today, the majority of crimes in our large cities, and New York City was actually mentioned as well, are committed by repeat offenders who get out and do it again, and then get out and do it again. The focus here is on law-abiding firearms owners: hunters, farmers and indigenous people. We support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

I am going to switch to some comments where there is unity in this country on firearms. I am going to quote Vice-Chief Heather Bear from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations. She said:

When you go out to hunt, you're not just hunting. You're teaching your child courage and you're bonding. You are passing on protocols, ceremonial protocols, of how to look after your kill. There are the rites of passage, the reverence to the animal and the tobacco. Along with that tool come many teachings and also matters of safety. When you take a gun away, you take away the opportunity for that oral tradition to happen.

I am just going to quote something I said at the Parkland Outdoor Show & Expo in Yorkton, the largest outdoor show in Canada, where the focus is on outdoor activities. I said, “The Parkland Outdoor Show & Expo champions our great outdoors heritage by celebrating nature, environment, hunting, angling, trapping, hiking, camping and more. What impacted me the most as I reflected on my experiences year after year with this event is the visible passion and joy I see for those who spend quality time with family and friends while they are teaching skills, respect and how to deeply enjoy the great outdoors to the next generation.”

“On behalf of the federal Government of Canada,” I said, “and as the member of Parliament for Yorkton—Melville, serving His Majesty's Official Opposition, with an amazing group of people, under the servant leadership of the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I thank them for enjoying, promoting and valuing Canada's natural beauty, our heritage and outdoor traditions— ”

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting evening and an interesting debate, but we need a little history when we are talking about guns.

The Chinese invented gunpowder, and by the 10th century they figured out how to put it in bamboo and invented guns. By the 13th century, we had the old metal barrels attached to them. By the 17th century, we figured out how to do muzzle loaders. By the 20th century, there was the Lee-Enfield gun and the Ross rifle. In the First World War, Canadians were quickly dumping the Ross rifle, a beautifully made Canadian gun that had no place in the trenches of World War I, so they could find a Lee-Enfield. By the way, we still use that rifle in an indigenous context, and the rangers in the north are still using the Lee-Enfield rifle. The Canadian Ross rifle is long gone. Today, the most popular hunting rifle in Canada is the .30-06 Springfield gun.

I have shot a .30-06. I am not an avid hunter, but I have shot most guns. When I grew up, as kids we started with air rifles and then moved up to BB guns. Yes, we had those, and our mothers always warned us that we were going shoot each other's eyes out eventually with those things. We were pretty good at taking them apart, putting them back together, finding other parts and making them work. However, we did progress to the bigger guns as we got older.

To the point we are talking about, the Prime Minister has said, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. That is concerning, in a sense. Some people say we are out there spreading falsehoods and not talking about the truth, but when the Prime Minister says that, people get a little concerned.

There is a list of places in my riding. There is the Bassano Gun Club, the Brooks & District Fish & Game Association, the Brooks Pistol & Smallbore Rifle Club, the Mossleigh Gun Club, the Taber Pistol & Revolver Club, the Taber Shooting Foundation, the Vauxhall Fish & Game—Rod & Gun Club, the Hussar Fish and Game Club, the Milo gun range and the Vulcan and District Gun Club. These are shooting groups within my riding.

There is a report out there about violent crime. It said that of all instances of violent crime in Canada, a rifle or shotgun was present in 0.4% of cases. There is a lot of violent crime, a 32% increase, but very little has a rifle or shotgun.

It has been said many times in the House today that the Liberals introduced legislation by order in council. They have put about 1,500 types of guns in there. That did not go so well, so finally they introduced legislation, Bill C-21, about a year later. Then it headed to committee stage, and at the end of the committee stage, the Liberals dropped in a bunch of amendments, 500 pages' worth of them. We pushed back, and they withdrew those. Then they finally introduced more legislation.

We can tell that legislation is really flawed when the government brings in a zillion amendments to its own legislation. It is nuts. We can tell how flawed it is through the process that has been going on for three years. It is not well-designed legislation and will not work in the end.

Last, the Liberals put in an advisory committee. What is the advisory committee for? It would get to define more stuff afterwards. What? It is not in the legislation, other than that it is there. More consultants are going to be hired to figure out how to do an advisory committee.

The root cause of this, in my mind, is legislation that has been passed, Bill C-75, on bail reform. The police, whom I have met with a lot over the years, for rural crime in particular, work really hard to solve crimes and find criminals. However, after the police get the criminals charged and go to all that work, those guys are out in the parking lot in their vehicles before the police can get out of the courthouse. They are out there stealing another car before the police can get out of there.

The bail reform bill the minister announced today does not go anywhere near covering the problems we have with Bill C-75. Violent crime is up 32%.

I want to talk a bit more about the organizations in my riding. One of them is the Brooks Pistol & Smallbore Rifle Club. It had an economic study done. It found that for events in 2021, $337,000 came in from non-residents to this one gun club in my riding. The economic output for that year for one gun club was $1,088,000. That is one club out of the many I listed. Some 46% of people spent more than $500 a person in my community on accommodations and food. This is what those organizations do and this is what the government wants to get rid of.

Sport shooting furthers youth in firearms training, local hunter education, and safety in firearms and handling courses. There is a place where the local police and conservation officers come for their training and recertification, but this legislation would get rid of it. Sport shooting is a huge part of our communities. I listed the different places in my riding where people learn how to properly use sport shooting equipment. What this piece of legislation is going to do is eliminate them.

How about Canada-wide, as that is one constituency? Regarding the impact on sport shooters in Canada, according to a survey conducted in 2018, Canadians spent an estimated $8.5 billion on hunting and sport shooting, with Albertans accounting for more than $1 billion of that number. A survey also found that the recreational firearms industry accounted for 48,000 jobs. Small businesses that have an inventory of things to support sport shooting are now going to lose part of their businesses. Part of their businesses, the government says, is going to be illegal. Sport shooting is done.

Sure, we will grandfather the people who have them. However, what we will have is a bunch of old people like me left in the gun clubs because that is who will be left with the guns. New youth will not be trained, will not know how to use them and will not be involved in competitions. This hurts small businesses in this country.

I want to go back to my quote one more time. The Prime Minister said, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. The problem we have here is that people do not understand sport shooting. In a rural area like mine, guns are tools that families grow up with. They are tools in the ranching business and in the farming business. They are useful tools and needed tools.

This piece of legislation is flawed. It has been three years making its journey to where it is now, and it will not work in the end. It is not going to deal with illegal handguns. The problem we have is gang violence and criminal activity, and this will continue on. This legislation will not stop it. In fact, handguns will become more valuable on the black market, and the criminal element is going to make money off that. This is a flawed piece of legislation and it will not solve crime.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining this debate at this late hour. I have been sitting through many hours of debate on this particular subject of Bill C-21.

I will begin by thanking constituents again for returning me to Parliament. It has been a few years now since the election, but I am thankful every single day that I can represent them in this House. Part of my thanks for them will be that I am going to read into the record later many of the emails I have received with respect to Bill C-21 from hunters and sport shooters who are upset that the government is continuing on with Bill C-21.

I want to begin, though, with a quote from someone I consider an expert on firearms legislation, Dr. Teri Bryant, Alberta's chief firearms officer:

Even after the withdrawal of G-4 and G-46, Bill C-21 continues to undermine confidence in our firearms control system while contributing nothing to reducing the violent misuse of firearms. Bill C-21 is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. Prohibiting specific types of firearms is not an effective way of improving public safety. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been used on more effective approaches, such as the enforcement of firearms prohibition orders, reinforcing the border or combatting the drug trade and gang activity.

That is just common-sense Alberta right there from a well-known Albertan, for many of us.

The original definition of a firearm, or what I will call the old definition used by the government, was: “...a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed,...”.

That original definition alone was in proposed clause G-4, and I have rarely seen so many emails received in my constituency office, that were written by people who were upset that they were being targeted after having done nothing. They were simply sport shooters and hunters who, through no fault of their own, were being targeted by the Minister of Public Safety. Now the Liberals have changed the definition to something new.

It says now, “It would include a firearm that is not a handgun...”, and I draw attention to “not a handgun”. It continues, “...in a semi-automatic manner and that was originally designed with a detachable magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more.”

I will note also that in the French version of the legislation they have dropped the reference to fusil de chasse, and now are using a very odd wording that looks like bad French maybe, but fusil de chasse for most francophones anywhere would mean hunting rifle, which is what the Prime Minister said was the intent of Bill C-21. It was exactly to go after hunters. He himself said, outside of the House, that some hunters would have to lose their hunting rifles. That was the purpose of Bill C-21.

I go on now to some of the comments made by my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, again drawing attention of people to comments made by the public safety minister. I have more to expand on that, too. He called into question the fact that in the future, they will have to do something about “permanent alteration of magazines”. Now, permanent alteration to magazines of any sort would go a step further than what is being done now and would impact many firearms.

I want to draw attention of the House to the fact that changing magazines would also require changes to a firearm like the Lee-Enfield, a very popular British firearm until about the 1950s. It was used broadly in World War I. It is a firearm widely used in Canada by many indigenous hunters. Many hunters in my riding have these firearms that were passed down through generations. Requiring them to alter that magazine would basically destroy the firearm. That is something the public safety minister is musing publicly. When I see other members of different parties say to trust them and it is written in the legislation, why would we trust them? Why should any hunter or any sport shooter trust them? There are 2.3 million firearms owners in Canada. Why should any of them trust what the Liberals have said so far?

I will draw attention to one more fact that kind of disturbs me. It is that the public safety minister, when Bill C-21 first came in, said there was a public safety crisis across Canada. He said that there were these “assault-style rifles” and then said it was a public emergency that Bill C-21 needed to be passed right away. Now in this legislation, months and months later after so much public blowback, the Liberals are grandfathering all previous firearms. Therefore, now it is okay to have these so-called by his own words assault-style rifles and now they are grandfathered in. They are not affected; only future firearms are affected. It is actually a point that has been made by several members of the Bloc and by the New Democrats as well that it is only future firearms that have not been manufactured yet, and hunters should be satisfied with that.

One, two or three generations from now, these firearms will get older, break down, be lost or damaged through use or misuse or simply be sold off due to families not wanting to keep them anymore because there is so much licensing involved. The Liberals are talking about the future. There will be a dwindling number of hunters, and the intention of the government is to dwindle them down. The public safety minister claimed there was this crisis going on, that we must seize these firearms from lawful firearms owners, that they should be taken away from hunters, and now, suddenly, we do not have this crisis. Now it is suddenly okay. Now they are grandfathered. I find that interesting. Constituents pointed it out to me.

More seriously, though, a member is a former member of the RCMP, in I Division. We used to joke in our caucus that decades ago, if we heard a cough at the end of our analog phone line, it was probably I Division listening in. The member was an RCMP officer. I was looking at the statistics for how many peace officers and police officers have been killed. In the past 20 years, 40 police officers and peace officers have been killed in the line of duty, 11 in the last 30 months and eight in the last nine months.

The reason we are going down this dark path is government legislation that has been passed since 2015. Bill C-21 is trying to make up for the errors the Liberals have made in criminal justice legislation, from Bill C-75 that hybridized a bunch of offences to Bill C-5. In Bill C-5, they changed things like extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting, knowing the firearm is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, including things like drive-by shootings, possession of a firearm, knowing its possession is unauthorized or illegally possessing a firearm. None of those have mandatory prison time any longer. The offenders serve their time at home if the judge determines that is appropriate.

I have a Yiddish proverb, before I read some thoughts from my constituents, who are my bosses. The proverb is, “The truth comes out like oil on water.” It percolates right to the top. I have been listening to the speeches and interventions by different members so far in this House. Again, we were told by the public safety minister that there was an urgent public safety crisis on our streets with these Black Stock firearms that should be taken off our streets, and now, suddenly, they are all grandfathered in. That has now become a talking point with some members. Something has changed. What has changed is low polling numbers and bad emails from upset constituents.

I will read some emails from my constituents, but I will only use their first names because I do not want the government to go after them. Ryan said, “Today, the federal Liberal government and their disgusting coalition with the federal NDP, as well as the Bloc, shut down the possibility of any further debate around their proposed amendments to C-21. The plan moving forward will be to appoint a meaningless panel that will essentially prohibit any firearm that they see fit.” A wise man is this Ryan. He knows exactly where this is going with this so-called firearms advisory committee. He went on to say, “All whilst completely disregarding the long heritage and tradition of firearms in Canada. This is a vicious slap in the face to the millions of responsible PAL and RPAL holders in Canada.”

I should probably disclose to Ryan and other constituents that I do not have a PAL or an RPAL, but I do appreciate the fact that they have a right to hunt and sharp shoot.

Christina and Maury said, “Considering the unethical and unconstitutional implementation of Bill C-21 originally, I would suggest that the bill be scrapped in its entirety.” Terence said, “Stop motion on Bill C-21.” Matthew said, “I'm not asking to kill the bill but vote against the Liberals' motion to ram the bill through the House without proper representation and debate.”

Craig said, “What the Liberals are doing is not democratic or constitutional. As a law-abiding firearms owner I feel insulted this bill is before us in the first place. We are not the issue, the criminals are the issue and yet it feels like they are getting a free pass.” Darren said, “This federal government is circumventing democratic and parliamentary due process and it must be stopped.” Another Matthew said, “I want it also to be known that I strongly oppose bills C-11, C-15 and C-21.”

When the general public knows the numbers of the bills, we know that there is a problem. We know that the oil has floated up to the top of the water, and the common-sense Canadian is seeing that Bill C-21 makes no sense.

An email from Brian said, “Like the many law-abiding hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous peoples in this country I feel betrayed [by the Liberal government].” Pat said, “It will cost taxpayers upwards of a billion dollars, money that would be better spent on increased monitoring of our borders to prevent gun trafficking.” Lee-Ann said, “Those of us who own guns have gone through training and vetting to be able to legally purchase and own these guns. We are responsible members of society who are being unfairly penalized because of leftist ideology, and it needs to be stopped.”

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak out today concerning Bill C-21.

It is National Police Week, and today we stand with the women and men of the OPP, their families and their friends, who have seen three of their own shot, one of whom, sadly, has passed away. Since September 2022, we have seen 10 Canadian police officers killed in the line of duty. This trend cannot be allowed to continue. One soul taken is one too many. There is an illegal gun problem in Canada that needs to be addressed. Police officers go to work every day, leaving their families behind, to protect Canadians. They know they might not make it home at the end of the day. It is the responsibility of lawmakers and the House to do what we can to support and defend the police who protect us all.

Unfortunately, the current government is all set this week to point its ideologically driven legislative guns at law-abiding Canadian hunters, sport shooters, guides, outfitters and farmers to solve the problem. That will not work. It appears that the government, with the support of the NDP, has replaced an evidence-based system with a politically driven, ideologically based system void of evidence. How else can we explain the war on hunters in Kootenay—Columbia? The constituents in my riding are perplexed by this, so, on their behalf, I recently asked the Minister of Public Safety if he could share with me what percentage of crimes were committed by criminals with illegal guns versus the percentage committed by law-abiding Canadians who have legal guns. In an evidence-based legislative system, this is a logical question to ask. It requires a logical answer based on the facts of what is actually happening on the streets and communities across our country. I received a non-answer from the minister.

Today, I would like to answer that question for all Canadians, and specifically those in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia who have been in contact with my office expressing concern over the actions of the government. After 35 years of policing, I know the answer: very few legal gun owners using legal guns. This is the truthful answer that the public safety minister refused to provide Canadians. The facts and evidence around gun crime are inconvenient for the current government, so it conveniently ignores them.

Conservatives will not ignore them, and will continue to stand up for law-abiding Canadians. We will go after gangs and organized crime and will provide our policing agencies and border services with the funds needed to effectively stem the importation of illegal guns. Targeting hunters like Bill in Yahk, who uses a legal firearm to put food on his family's table, will not solve the problem. Targeting responsible sport shooters like Ron in Salmo, who uses a legal restricted firearm for sport and competes internationally, will not solve the problem. Targeting hard-working farmers like Mike, who uses a legal firearm to protect himself from bears while out in the field, will not solve the problem.

I agree we need to have gun laws, but the government is targeting Canadians who have legal guns. Why does it not go after the ones who have illegal guns, the criminals? Why does it not redirect the billions of dollars it plans to spend on the confiscation program into education programs? Successful crime prevention, again, not directed at lawful Canadians but at gangs and organized crime, starts with youth and must continue throughout their life. Education programs steering our youth away from gangs and organized crime can be successful when delivered at the right time.

The government should scrap Bill C-21. It is not effective and will not be successful. Once again, there is a fundamental difference in approach between the current government and the government-in-waiting. On this side, we have an evidence-based approach, and on that side they have a politically driven, ideological approach. It is not just with respect to guns that we see this approach failing, but also on housing, violent crimes, bail policies and addictions. After eight years, it all feels broken. The evidence will not be found on the front step of Sussex Drive but is happening in real time in cities like Cranbrook and Nelson, in my riding, where chaos and disorder are rampant.

Over the last eight years, our communities, people and brave police have become less safe, with a 32% increase in violent crime and a doubling of gang murders. We need to immediately bring in tougher laws to address serious, violent offenders. We must end the catch-and-release bail system. We need serious sentencing laws to ensure that violent offenders are kept in prison. We need to support our police by giving them the laws and tools they need to do their job and keep them safe. Several high-profile violent street crimes are in the news. These crimes are often committed by offenders released on bail or parole. This crime wave is causing Canadians to feel less safe taking transit or simply being out in their community. Police associations, provinces and other stakeholder groups have called, for months, for significant bail reforms, stricter penalties and other measures to enhance safety.

Just recently, a man in B.C. was given only 67 days in jail before becoming eligible for release after a violent, random assault on a 70-year-old person who was on a bus. Our communities feel less safe, and the government is doing nothing to stop it. Under current justice laws, mandatory minimums on some gun crimes have been reduced, and we see violent offenders released back on the streets, sometimes the same hour they are arrested. The catch-and-release system puts everyone at risk.

Canadians deserve to feel safe in their community, and repeat violent offenders deserve jail, not bail. The government-in-waiting would bring back mandatory jail time for serious violent crimes, which was repealed by the government, and would crack down on the easy access to bail in Bill C-75, which makes these tragedies more likely. We would bring in bail rules that would ensure serious repeat violent offenders remain behind bars as they await trial. We would put the safety of Canadians first and we would do what is necessary to keep violent criminals, gangs and organized crime, those who are perpetuating gun violence, where they belong, behind bars.

To my constituents, I would say that the government has tried a few variations of Bill C-21, using legislative tricks and last-minute amendments. Each time, the Conservatives have forced them to be accountable to Canadians. However, the public safety minister recently introduced new amendments to the bill to create a definition by which new firearms would be banned. The minister also announced that he would appoint a firearms advisory committee, which would determine future bans of firearms that are presently owned by law-abiding Canadian gun owners. It is expected that, between these measures, most of the firearms previously targeted by the Liberal amendments last year, including hunting rifles, would also be targeted for future bans.

The government passed Bill C-21 through committee late in the night by heavily limiting debate on clauses and amendments. Let me be very clear. The Liberals have not changed their ideology; they are simply changing their approach to this legislation, which would allow them to decide, without consultation with the members of the House, the people's representatives, which hunting firearms they would confiscate and which ones they would allow. The Prime Minister already admitted that taking hunting rifles is his goal, when he said, “Our focus now is on saying okay...yes...we're going to have to take [them] away from people who were using them to hunt.”

Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is focused on taking hunting rifles and shotguns from law-abiding farmers, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous peoples, with the support of the NDP. The new definition of firearms to be banned is the same as the old one. It is safe to assume that the commonly used hunting firearms targeted by the government this past fall would be added to a ban by the new government-appointed firearms advisory panel.

Ramming the bill through committee in the dead of night is evidence that the government wants to circumvent democracy, stifle debate and take firearms away from law-abiding Canadians without their knowledge. This ban is not about handguns or so-called assault-style firearms; it is about the government taking steps to confiscate hunting rifles. Canadians are wide awake to these tactics. Conservatives support common-sense firearm policies that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The government-in-waiting would invest in policing and a secure border rather than spending billions confiscating firearms from law-abiding farmers, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous Canadians. We would crack down on border smuggling and stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada.

If the House is serious about returning safe streets to Canadians, we will vote on Bill C-21 based on evidence, not ideology, and we will lay responsibility of gun crime and lost souls at the feet of those responsible: criminals who use illegal guns.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine I waited an extra hour for that question.

The problem with the Liberal government is that it hides one or two small, good parts in a massively flawed bill. If it was so concerned with the so-called ghost guns, the government should introduce legislation to address that, not hide it in this overall package so it could fundraise in municipalities and urban areas, pretending Liberals are against gun crime, when in fact they are promoting it with Bill C-75 and other actions on their part.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-21. It is an act to make certain consequential amendments in relation to firearms, which is really the government's way of saying that this is a bill to confiscate hunting rifles from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people, and distract from the real issue of the crime wave that is going on in Canada right now. That is really what this bill is. It is purely a distraction to distract from what is going on in our streets, on our subways and in some of our schoolyards right now. It is another virtue-signalling bill from the current government, to pretend it is going to do something about smuggled handguns, illegally attained guns and gang violence, but not actually do anything.

It is a distraction bill to take the focus away from the disastrous result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It is a distraction from the multiple police officers who have fallen on the job very recently and the random stabbings in Toronto, the Lower Mainland and my hometown of Edmonton. All these random attacks hurt, but the one in Edmonton strikes very close to home. A mother and her 11-year-old child were stabbed to death in a schoolyard park. EPS police chief, Dale McFee, commented on the attack. He said it was “completely random. In no way could the victims have anticipated what would happen to them. There is no making sense of this.” This was a mother and her daughter who were in the playground of a schoolyard. A person drove up, got out of his car, stabbed them to death and just left. It was completely random. The police chief said, “There is no making sense of this.” I agree with Chief McFee that it makes zero sense that this would happen. He also said that the victims could not have anticipated the attack, and I agree with that as well.

However, here is the kicker: The court system could have anticipated this attack, and should have, and we should have had laws to protect this family. The killer had been released just 18 days earlier, on bail from a previous assault. He had a record. The killer was only 33 years old, and he had a record going back 14 years, having been in and out of jail, released on bail, and having had constant charges of assault with a weapon. He was in and out of prison repeatedly. There were robberies. He had stabbed someone who was just sitting on a bus bench. His parole documents stated to him, “You were armed with a knife and stabbed your victim once in the upper back. You then fled on foot. Your victim's injuries include a punctured aorta and a laceration to his spinal cord.” These are not simple injuries. This is attempted murder, yet he was back out on the streets. Between committing that crime and committing the murders in Edmonton, the attacker assaulted a corrections officer and two inmates, and was released, despite the warnings from parole officers. We have to ask where we have heard this before. He was sent back to prison after testing positive for meth, but was released again and assaulted four more people; three of them were assaulted with weapons. He attacked a 12-year-old on the bus just last year, and on the same day was charged with assaulting someone else. Then, he assaulted someone else with a weapon. He was sent to prison on April 14 for another assault and then released on bail. He then went on to murder someone and her young child.

That is what the Liberals are trying to distract from with this bill. It is to distract from their disastrous catch-and-release laws that they have inflicted upon Canadians. The Liberal government will sit and say that it fixed catch-and-release today. However, for five or six years now, the Liberals have denied it was a problem. I want to quote the present public safety minister, in debate. He said that this would simplify the release process “so that police and judges are required to consider the least restrictive and alternative means of responding to a breach, rather than automatically detaining an accused” and that “police would...be required to impose the least onerous conditions necessary if an accused is released.”

A mother and her child are dead in Edmonton because of this law. The Liberals can claim that they are fixing it, but they had half a decade to do something, with warnings from the police chief, warnings from the opposition bench and warnings from the premiers. It is not good enough that they are saying, “Well, we're going to play around with it today. Everything is fine.” It is not fine.

I want to go back to Edmonton police chief Dale McFee. We are talking about the catch-and-release program. For a three-year period, Edmonton saw a 30% increase in shooting victims. Chief McFee stated that the biggest problem is building to attack gang violence, and that most of the problem is gangs and organized crime. It is not a law-abiding hunter going out for a catch. It is not a farmer with his shotgun plinking away at varmints or pests. The police chief says it is organized crime and gangs. Subsequent to Bill C-75 being introduced, 3,600 individuals were arrested for violent crimes in Edmonton in a one-year period. Two years after that, 2,400 of those 3,600 reoffended, a total of 19,000 times, including 26 homicides. That is the result of Bill C-75, the catch-and-release program of the government. That is what this government is trying to distract from. Instead of going after criminals, repeat offenders, they want to confiscate shotguns and hunting rifles from hunters, farmers and indigenous people. The government should be going after the criminals and trying to make life miserable for them, not trying to make life miserable for law-abiding hunters and farmers.

Canadians should not be fooled by this new bill, Bill C-21. The Liberals brought in some amendments and said, “Oh, we fixed all your concerns.” Canadians should not be fooled by this. The Liberals' so-called new definitions are basically the same as the old ones that are targeting hunting rifles. The same ones that they went after before, they will go after again. I do not think anyone should believe that this new Liberal firearms advisory panel would be any different than what they had proposed previously.

This is the same government, members will remember, that politicized the Nova Scotia shooting tragedy. It is the same government that said that it was the police forces that recommended the Emergency Act, but we asked the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP, and they both said no.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments, firearms, at report stage. The bill has gone through quite the journey in this place, filled with huge backtracks, misleading statements from the government, and the repackaging and introduction of previously repealed amendments.

As a reminder, let us look at that journey. The introduction of Bill C-21 was first announced at the end of May last year, with all the fanfare that the government could muster when trotting out yet another misguided and ineffective policy. The Liberals claimed the bill would, among other things, ban the future legal sale of handguns in Canada, increase the allowable penalties for gun smuggling and trafficking, and introduce new red-flag provisions that may allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a dangerous domestic situation more quickly.

Shortly after seeing the bill, Conservatives attempted to introduce the following motion:

...that given that the debate on combatting gun violence needs to be depoliticized and centred on the rights of victims and the safety of communities, the House should call on the government to divide Bill C-21 into two parts to allow for those measures where there is broad support across all parties to proceed separately, namely curbing domestic violence and tackling the flow of guns over the Canada-U.S. border, from those aspects of the bill that divide the House.

Conservatives were clear. We supported the elements of Bill C-21 that were focused on protecting potential victims of gun crime and tightening up laws that address gun smuggling. Unfortunately, the Liberals were not willing to back down on their political agenda and separate the ineffective and divisive parts of their bill that would do nothing to stop gun violence and provide no benefit to vulnerable Canadians. They blocked this common-sense motion, proving they were more interested in playing division politics than addressing gun violence in Canada.

I will fast-forward to November, 2022, when the Liberal government introduced amendments to Bill C-21 that would have banned millions of hunting rifles with a new prohibition of any “rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges”.

For weeks, the Liberals denied that their amendments would outlaw any hunting rifles, then the Prime Minister finally came clean, this past December, and admitted that the government’s amendments would outlaw hunting rifles. While speaking to CTV News he said, “there are some guns, yes, that we’re going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt.”

The Prime Minister finally admitted what the Liberals had been denying the whole time, which was that the Liberal government, with the support of their NDP allies, were going after law-abiding Canadians. Thanks to the leadership and hard work of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul and my Conservative colleagues on the committee, Canadians were made aware of these attempts by the government to attack the rights of law-abiding citizens. The backlash to the attempts of the government was rightly fierce, and the Liberals retracted their amendments, supposedly learning a lesson.

However, we soon learned that they were just biding their time, waiting to try to catch Canadians off guard. Earlier this month, the public safety minister announced new amendments to Bill C-21 to create a definition by which new firearms would be banned. The minister also announced that he would appoint a firearms advisory committee that would determine future bans of firearms that are presently owned by law-abiding Canadian gun owners.

To be clear, the new Liberal definition is the same as the old one, and the new amendments that were brought to the committee were simply original amendments in a new package. It is expected that, between these measures, most of the firearms previously targeted by Liberal amendments late last year, including hunting rifles, would once again be targeted for future bans. It would seem the only lesson the Liberals learned was to give Canadians less time to object to their amendments, so they could force them through and try to cover it up.

That is why the government used some of the most heavy-handed tactics the House has seen, by moving to limit debate on Bill C-21 at committee in an attempt to pass the bill before the break week at the end of May. The Liberals forced multiple midnight sittings of the public safety committee, two of which I did sit in on. They passed Bill C-21 through committee in the wee hours of Friday morning last week by heavily limiting debate on over 140 clauses and amendments.

Even more surprising, both the NDP and the Bloc supported this heavy-handed attempt to pass the bill. They supported the government in enforcing strict time limits at the public safety committee and shutting down debate in the House. It would appear the governing party has suddenly grown by 57 members, which brings us to today and midnight sittings again being scheduled for this week to ram this bill through report stage.

I represent a rural riding. I represent thousands of hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous Canadians. I know they are not supportive of this bill. They have told me. The sentiment from my constituents has been clear. They do not support Bill C-21, and they think it will do more harm than good.

Betty from Delisle raised concerns with the bill that many of my constituents have raised with me. She noted that this bill would target and severely handicap hunters who are trying to feed their families, noting it would cause another skill, which was a staple of our ancestors, to disappear. She also noted this bill would go after target shooting, stating that this bill would have negative consequences for gun clubs that offer training to young people as an activity that keeps them off the streets and away from bad influences. These sentiments are the same as those of rural Canadians across the country.

In fact, the backlash from rural Canadians forced the NDP to backtrack on its support for the government’s initial amendments last time. There are several NDP MPs who represent rural ridings, and my hope, although it is waning, is that they will stand up to the Liberals, stand up for their constituents on this issue, and fight for them here in Ottawa.

The truth of the matter is that this bill is an attack on law-abiding citizens who are legal gun owners. Hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians will not be fooled. They know this is part of the Liberal plan to distract and divide Canadians. No one believes going after hunters and legitimate hunting rifles will reduce violent crime across this country.

This bill is also a distraction, another attempt for the government to distract and divide. It is targeting law-abiding gun owners to distract from its failures on public safety. The Liberal government has given easier access to bail for violent, repeat offenders through Bill C-75. In doing so, it ensured that violent offenders are able to get back onto the streets more quickly. It has removed mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5, and it has failed to stop the flow of illegal firearms coming across the U.S. border.

Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is focused on taking hunting rifles and shotguns away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples. We know going after hunters and hunting rifles will not reduce crime across the country. The government needs to come clean with Canadians. The only thing worse than doing nothing is pretending to be doing something when one is not.

Conservatives believe we must ensure at-risk and vulnerable Canadians are protected. We must target the criminals and gangs responsible for rising gun violence in Canada. That is why, under the leadership of the member for Carleton, we will continue to support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and ensure there are strong consequences for those who commit gun crimes to make our communities safer.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I read the bill this morning and was shocked at its lack of understanding of the total issue. If we look at what is actually being proposed in the legislation, it barely begins to scratch the surface of the issues affecting Canadians with the violence in our communities.

If we look at the restrictions placed on the types of offences that are going to be covered, it is a start. With Bill C-75, the Liberals were warned to begin with about what exactly it was going to cause and were told to stop it. They did not, and now they have to backtrack and try to fix it.

It does not go far enough. It is a beginning, and it certainly is not something that I can support in its entirety. It needs a lot more work.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise again to continue speaking to Bill C-21.

I mentioned before that I do not think there could be any more stark a contrast between Conservatives and all the other parties in the House, as Conservatives are the only ones who will defend the rights of law-abiding firearm owners in this country. I said earlier, and I have said many times in this debate about Bill C-21, that Liberals and the members of all the other parties seem dedicated to eliminating firearm ownership in this country by one small cut after another, particularly hunting rifles.

We have been saying that the Liberals have been going after Canadians' hunting rifles, which the Liberals have adamantly denied. Then, just before Christmas, when nobody was working and nobody was watching, the Liberals introduced an amendment to Bill C-21 that would have, in fact, banned many hunting rifles in Canada.

The Liberals were caught with that, so they repealed, or pulled back, that amendment. It is no longer a part of this bill. The Liberals have been quick to point that out, but we know that their true intention is to ensure that firearm ownership is onerous, if not outright illegal over time, in Canada. I must say this more often: Only Conservatives will stand up for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners in Canada.

It was fascinating to watch the NDP members do somersaults on this particular bill. Initially, the New Democrats were supportive of the amendment, and then they were not supportive of the amendment. It took them some time to come to this position, so we are happy to see that they came to, saying that they did not support that amendment, but here we are.

Again, members might be wondering what the major difference between Conservatives and Liberals is when it comes to this particular bill. It goes back to the idea of right and wrong, good and evil, and the fact that Conservatives believe that good and evil live inside of everyone. The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of humankind. It is not instruments that are inherently evil, but it is the actions or thoughts of humanity that can be evil. That is what we need to deal with in this.

We have seen that the Liberals, time and again, every time there is a tragedy that involves firearms in this country, right away want to ban firearms, yet when it comes to treating hardened or violent criminals in this country, they introduce bills, such as Bill C-75, that reverse the onus on bail, let violent criminals out of jail quicker and reduce minimum sentences. They talk about maximum sentences, but one of the things we need in this country are minimum sentences, where people who do the crime would go to jail for a minimum amount of time. Over and over again, we have seen the government remove those minimum sentences, and some of those minimum sentences were brought in by previous Liberal governments in the 1990s. The Chrétien Liberals brought in these minimum sentences. It is only now that the current Liberal government removed them with Bill C-75.

We see that there is a misunderstanding of where evil comes from. Evil does not come from instruments. It does not come from inanimate objects. It comes from human beings who enact evil. The Christian world view talks about sin and that there is a missing of the mark, a right way to live and a wrong way to live. That is what we are living with when it comes to violent criminals who are using firearms in terrible ways.

Firearms have been in long-standing use in Canada. I have to say that they are a big part of our history and a big part of our heritage. Firearm ownership ought to continue to be available to Canadians across the country. I am excited to pass that heritage on to my own children.

Bill C-21 would do nothing to enhance public safety here in Canada, as Canada has some of the most well-regulated firearms—

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the justice system and the penal system cannot be reduced to a mere slogan. To improve the system and ensure that Canadians have confidence in the system, we must work with the provinces, territories, stakeholders and police associations.

That is exactly what we did for Bill C‑75. That is exactly what we have done for Bill C‑48. That is exactly the government's approach, and it will yield results.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all the government is trying to do is fix the mistakes it has made in the past few years.

The legislation resulting from Bill C‑75 is a mistake; the government is trying to fix it, but has not yet succeeded. Bill C-5 is a serious mistake; it must be fixed. All the government is doing at this time is making mistakes that cause problems in the system of checks and balances for public safety.

Can the minister confirm today that the bill he introduced will completely solve the legal problem arising from Bill C‑75, yes or no?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ever since Bill C‑75 was passed by the NDP-Liberal coalition, criminals no longer fear law enforcement officers because they know they will be released the same day.

We are currently marking Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. Since 2015, under the Liberal government, this seems to be the era of repeat offenders, while victims come second.

The premiers are certainly going to ask that the Prime Minister fix this colossal mistake, this legislation resulting from C‑75. Will he do it?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that this minister celebrated when the Liberal government's catch-and-release policies were brought in by Bill C-75. We need an entire overhaul of the Liberal system that has created the violent crime surge across the country and has led to the deaths and harm of innocent Canadians from violent repeat offenders.

The reality is that the only way this gets fixed, the only way that violent repeat offenders get jail, and not bail, and the only way that the rights of victims are put first, is with a Conservative majority government. Is that not right?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' Bill C-75 entrenched the catch-and-release bail system that is devastating Canadian communities. Violent crime has shot up 32% under the Prime Minister's watch. Premiers, police officers and victims groups have been desperately calling on the government to fix their broken bail system, but the bill they introduced today is nothing more than a slap in the face. It will not keep repeat violent offenders behind bars. The Liberals' catch-and-release system remains in effect.

When will these Liberals finally end catch-and-release for violent criminals?

Criminal Code

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of my constituents of Niagara West once again. I never take this privilege for granted and I always want to thank them for their trust in me.

This time I rise to relay my constituents' concerns on the Liberal government bill, Bill C-21. My office received hundreds of regular mail, phone calls and emails disagreeing with what this bill would do. Since its introduction, Bill C-21 has had a long journey. I want to assure folks in my riding who are watching today that I have fought against this bill every step of the way.

Let me start by acknowledging something that always comes up in conversations around firearms, perhaps rightly so. Yes, gun crime in Canada is a real problem, but let us not forget that gun crime in Canada is almost always committed with illegal guns, trafficked and smuggled over the border from the United States. Last month, a police operation in Toronto seized 173 firearms and over 1,400 rounds of ammunition. All of that was smuggled across the border.

Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related murders have doubled. Let us contrast that with the previous Conservative government, which saw a record 33% drop in gun crimes. That is a huge difference and a huge difference in approaches. Today, in cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, there is a real and concerning gang presence.

Criminals and their illegal guns put Canadians at risk every single day. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, yet somehow the Prime Minister cannot seem to figure it out or does not want to. In fact, the government is making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5, and made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75. On top of everything, the Liberals continue to fail to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border.

We also need to acknowledge that legal firearms in Canada are very tightly regulated. The process to obtain one is long and can take several months. Someone who wants to obtain a firearm legally must take safety courses, exams and go through rigorous background checks. After the process is complete, the firearm can only be used at a range and to hunt.

We would think that with all these safety precautions, legal gun owners would be the least of the government's worry. However, they are not. The government seems to think that gang members are attending firearms safety classes and studying diligently for their exams so they can go hunting or shooting on the range after.

The logic of the Liberals use on legal firearm owners is mind-boggling. It does not seem like they understand a simple fact, which I will repeat. The overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes are smuggled into Canada through the U.S. border and are obtained illegally.

Instead of addressing the root cause of gun crime, the Prime Minister takes the easy route and groups our law-abiding gun-owning grandpas with some of Canada's worst criminals. While the government attacks hunters and sport shooters, criminals and gang members stock up on guns and continue to use them to cause mayhem on our streets. For some reason, the government believes that taking away legal guns will solve crimes committed by illegal guns.

Over eight long years of the tired government, it seems the Prime Minister just cannot stop taking things for himself. He wants to take Canadians' money by skyrocketing taxes, their freedoms and, now, their legal firearms.

Back in 2020, the then Minister of Public Safety's office said the government would not target guns designed for hunting. In 2023, it has done exactly the opposite. In 2020, it also said it would treat law-abiding gun owners with fairness and respect. In 2023, that could not be further from the truth.

For millions of Canadians, legal firearms ownership is a way of life. It is a culture that feeds families and ties communities together.

For example, sport shooting clubs in my riding and across the country provide opportunities for people to learn about firearms. They train and learn how to use them safely and responsibly. These clubs are not a hub for criminal activity, but rather they give both recreation and education to folks who are interested in hunting or sports shooting.

For hunters, guns are not just a tool of recreation, but also a tool with which they feed their families. For millions of Canadians, hunting is a means to feed their family, bond with others and connect with their culture. Humans have lived off the land by hunting for many generations, but the Prime Minister wants to end this lifestyle. Hunters, farmers, sport shooters, indigenous people and so many others all use their firearms for benefit, yet the government seems to think they are one of Canada's biggest threats.

As I mentioned earlier, I have received an incredible volume of correspondence from constituents who are all against this bill. These are usually folks who acknowledge the risk illegal and smuggled firearms pose to the safety of our communities. However, they are also very clear that legal gun ownership is not the issue. These folks are also confused as to why they are being targeted and are worried their legally obtained hunting rifles will be taken away.

As we heard throughout the day, the opposition to this misguided bill is not just in my riding but also across the country, and even in some ridings of the Liberal Party. Even some NDP members oppose it. However, do they admit that anymore? They will need to answer to their constituents when they return to their ridings. I would love to hear the reasons they will give their constituents. More than likely it will just be Liberal talking points.

In the face of the strong opposition to the bill, the Prime Minister is trying to do everything he can to ram this bill through Parliament. He knows Canadians are against it. In my view, I think he is just desperate to make it seem like he is in control. It is a destructive pattern I have noticed over the last eight years of trying to gain control over the lives of Canadians, while simultaneously infringing on some of their most basic freedoms.

This is where I will repeat something I said many times in this place, especially in the last three years, which is to let folks live their lives. Leave them alone. At this point, the Liberals have pushed and rushed Bill C-21 through committee because they do not want to hear some of the views and opinions of hunters, farmers and indigenous people. The government knows what committee witnesses will say about the bill.

However, this is not happening just in committee. The Liberals are rushing Bill C-21 through the House, to have as little debate as possible here as well. What is even more interesting is their ever-changing terminology. To dodge scrutiny, they are redefining Bill C-21 as a ban on “assault-style” firearms when they are just trying to take the firearms away from law-abiding gun owners. It is that simple.

The government is trying to make it seem as if this new definition will save hunters and legal gun owners. Instead, all this definition does is give the Liberals more time to reapproach the issue in the fall and come up with another ill-defined and ineffective ban. All this definition does is put hunting rifles and shotguns at risk of being confiscated in the future.

I also need to mention that farmers are also deeply affected. Farmers use firearms for various important purposes on the family farm, such as protecting cattle from predators or handling pests. Let us be clear that Bill C-21 is not about stopping criminals and it is not about fighting gang violence. The Prime Minister has already admitted and is on record that he wants to ban legal hunting guns, and he said so himself in an interview on CTV.

This is about the Prime Minister doing everything he can to take more rights away from Canadians. He is not satisfied after three years of wedging, dividing and stigmatizing Canadians at every opportunity possible. If it really were about fighting crime, the Prime Minister would stop removing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. It is that simple. He would stop making it easier for criminals to get bail and get back on the streets. Once again, it is that simple.

Already in 2023, half of the murder suspects in Toronto were out on release. The Liberals try to paint Bill C-21 as being tough on crime. This is ridiculous and they know it. They want the country to believe they are coming in like a knight in shining armour to save the country from an evil dragon, the hunting rifle of one's uncle.

Canadians see this bill exactly for what it is, a fairy tale. Canadians are tired of the government's fairy tales. They are tired of seeing their rights be diminished and stepped on by the power-hungry, overreaching and intrusive government.

Let me share what Bill Baranick, a volunteer firearms safety instructor, said about Bill C-21. Bill lives in my riding and he is also a grape grower. He said, “Bill C-21 appears to be nothing more than a wedge issue to be used in the next election. By banning the sale and transfer of legally owned handguns, entire collections and family heirlooms etc. have zero value now, taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the economy. These firearms cannot be passed down to the next generation or sold. It's a devastating blow to shooting sports in this country as well as affecting thousands of jobs in the firearms industry. C-21 in it's current form needs to be redrafted to be tougher on criminals and addressing root causes of gun violence, and not going after the safest demographic in Canada...legally licensed, daily vetted women and men of the hunting and sport shooting community.”

I am absolutely in when it comes to fighting crime with tough measures. None of us on this side of the House do not support that issue. We very much thing that when it comes to fighting crime we need to have tough measures.

I think I can speak for my Conservative colleagues that we must work together as a country to fight gun violence and work toward safer streets. However, how do we do this? It is simple. We need to do this by tackling illegal guns used in criminal activities, targeting gun smugglers and being tough on gang activity. We must bring back serious sentences for violent gun offenders, while supporting common-sense policies for farmers, sports shooters and indigenous peoples.

What we must not do is take away the rights and freedoms of lawful Canadians. The rights of lawful gun-owning Canadians must be respected.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously share the hon. member's concern.

Bill C-75 did not fundamentally change the law on bail in Canada. It codified a number of Canada's Supreme Court decisions, and in certain cases with respect to sexual assault made it harder to get bail by adding another reverse onus provision in that particular bill.

We have heard the call with respect to repeat violent offenders. We have heard the call with respect to offences with weapons. We have promised to act. It is a complicated problem, but we are doing it together with the provinces and territories.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the challenging thing is this. How can Canadians trust the Liberal minister when it is his Liberal government that created the problem, and it is not just us saying this?

If we look at last month, the Victoria Police Department warned the public that a man charged with 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon had been released on bail. Why was this vile rapist released on bail, we may ask. The Victoria Police Department pointed to Bill C-75, a Liberal bill from 2019, that reformed the bail system.

Again, I am asking if the Liberals will reverse all their reckless and dangerous catch-and-release bail policies and keep Canadians safe once and for all. Will they do that?

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the member very sincerely for working hard on this alongside all the Conservatives to fight against what the Liberals are doing to law-abiding citizens while ignoring and abetting the easy release of criminals on our streets.

As the member mentioned, and she told me this earlier as well, the police in her community are so desperate because the bail system is weak that they are having to turn to social media. They say, “Here is a picture on social media, moms and dads, and hopefully you notice it. This is a vile criminal on the streets, and there is nothing we can do about it, because the bail system has been made so weak by the Liberals with Bill C-75.” It is unbelievable that this is the case for members in her community. It is unacceptable.

Lastly, I would say that this is a Liberal government that has spent more money than any government in the country's history. If the government cared about youth diversion, it would be showing it. Yet, the government will spend over $6 billion going after law-abiding citizens and not impact public safety one bit.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be resuming, in the remaining time that the Liberals and the NDP have permitted me. Of course, they are silencing me in this debate in the House and they are going to be further silencing us in committee on Bill C-21, despite the millions of people whom this bill impacts.

I want to acknowledge that it has been a terrible year for police, to say the least. This comes during a violent crime wave across the country. We have seen a 32% increase in violent crime since the Liberals formed government about eight years ago. We are seeing the result of their soft-on-crime, catch-and-release policies that they work very closely on with the NDP. Those are coming home to roost, and people are being violently assaulted and murdered on public transit.

Our police officers, of course, are on the front lines, fighting these violent criminals. Often it is the same criminals every single weekend whom our brave, dedicated men and women in uniform are putting their lives at risk to deal with. They actually sometimes know these violent repeat offenders on a first-name basis.

I think it is important that we acknowledge, in the House, the failures of the policies of the current government, working with the NDP, and the consequences of that in real life.

Of course, there are multiple factors that contribute to violent crime, but we know, from police, that Bill C-75, which was a Liberal bill from a number of years ago, exacerbated the catch-and-release policies. This was evident on a Victoria police department news release that was talking about a vile rapist who committed 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon, rapes with a weapon. On the bottom of the press release, because the police wanted to ensure that the public knew that it was not their fault that this horrible, vile man was being released, they said that this person was being released because of Bill C-75, the Liberal bill from a number of years ago.

The Liberals just passed Bill C-5, which I alluded to yesterday, and I talked about the series of violent crimes that no longer will have mandatory prison time as a result of Bill C-5. Talking about rapists, one result of Bill C-5 is that a man in Quebec who violently raped a woman will get zero days in prison, and gets to serve his sentence, a conditional sentence for 20 months, from the comforts of his home.

These are real consequences. As I mentioned, I know that there are a multitude of factors in violent crime, but we are hearing directly from police that the Liberal bills have impacted these things.

It has been a very tough year for police, and Bill C-21 would do nothing to solve the violent crime problem in Canada, because, when it talks about firearms, it goes after law-abiding citizens, who, of course, by definition, are law-abiding. That is why they have the ability to own firearms, because they have been proven and vetted to be law-abiding. They are the only people who would be impacted by the firearm measures in this bill.

Meanwhile, while this is happening, with all of these resources and all of this time and all of these announcements from the Liberals, who are targeting law-abiding citizens, we have had many police officers, just in the past few months, who have been murdered.

I would like to name them today: Constable Andrew Hong, September 12, 2022, murdered by gunshot on the job; Constable Morgan Russell, October 12, 2022, gunshot; Constable Devon Northrup, October 12, 2022, gunshot; Constable Shaelyn Yang, October 18, 2022, stabbing; and Constable Greg Pierzchala, whom I talked about yesterday. He was murdered on December 27, 2022, by gunshot, by a man who was out on bail and had a lifetime prohibition against owning firearms and a very long rap sheet of violent crimes, yet was out on bail.

This is the state of public safety and crime under the Liberal government. Greg Pierzchala is dead because of our weak bail system. This is what we have heard from Toronto police, who deal with this on the front lines more than anybody else. There are more: Constable Travis Jordan, March 16, 2023; Constable Brett Ryan, March 16, 2023; Sergeant Maureen Breau, March 27, 2023; and Constable Harvinder Singh Dhami, April 10, 2023.

It has been a rough couple of years for police. The morale is very low. Recruitment numbers are very low, and, at the same time, Canada is dealing with 124,000 more violent crime incidents in 2021 than in 2015.

That is the record of this Liberal government. It does not like to acknowledge it. It does not like to talk about it. It likes to brush off responsibility and blame everybody else.

The fact is that, compared to 2015, there are 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year in Canada. Meanwhile, police morale is in crisis, recruitment and retention are in crisis, and police officers are being murdered every other week. However, we hear more announcements from the Minister of Public Safety about going after law-abiding citizens than about going after anybody else. I do not know how many times we have to say this. The Liberals are going after, and spending resources and precious time on, the wrong people, the most vetted people in the country, who, statistically, are one-third as likely to cause crimes as anybody else, than non-firearm owners. It is insane, if someone just looks at the raw data. These are heavily vetted, tested and trained Canadian citizens.

The Conservative Party firmly supports responsible gun ownership laws. We are talking about licensing, vetting and safe storage. These things are very important. Only responsible Canadians should ever come near a firearm. If there are any gaps in that, we are happy to have that discussion, but we have a very robust system in Canada.

We are seeing 124,000 additional violent crimes and hundreds of thousands of other violent crimes every year. They are going up every year as a result of the Liberal government's policies, as pointed out by many police forces. Of the hundreds of thousands of violent crimes that happen every year, do members want to know how many are as a result of long guns, for example, which have been the primary target of the Liberal government in recent months? I am referring to long guns belonging to law-abiding citizens, not criminals, because, of course, they do not listen to the laws. Do people know how many are a factor in those hundreds of thousands of violent crimes? It is less than 0.5%.

We also know that, of those who do commit violent crimes with firearms, the vast majority are not legally allowed to own firearms. Therefore, any law and all this time wasted would have no impact on them whatsoever. We are talking about a fraction of a fraction of people whom the Liberals are spending all this time and resources on.

I will remind the House that the Liberals are bringing forward phase two of their regime of confiscation of private property from law-abiding citizens. They call it a “buyback” program. They never owned the firearms in the first place, so I am not sure how they are buying them back. They are going to be spending billions of dollars on it.

There is an estimate from the Fraser Institute. Before the latest round of long gun bans coming forward with this so-called new definition and the hidden list that is being passed over sneakily to the firearms advisory committee, which would add hundreds of firearms to the ban list, the Fraser Institute estimated that the original May 2020 order in council, in essence, would be $6 billion.

Do people know how much good could be done in fighting violent crime and gun crime by criminals and gangsters with $6 billion? We could equip every port of entry with scanning technology. We could hire so many more police officers. We could heavily invest in youth diversion programs. We have seen that, in addition to the responsible gun ownership measures I have mentioned that have been in Canada for a number of years, which Conservatives firmly support, other measures that are important are getting youth when they are just getting led down the path of crime.

If we can get a 12-year-old when he is romanced by the gang to steal his first car, if we could just catch him then, extend a hand and show him a better way, speak to him in a way that is relatable, and have members of his community have the resources to support him, that young man could have a real life. He could have a family and a job, and be a responsible contributing member to his community. That is when we have to catch them.

If we could just take all the money the Liberals would be wasting, which would do nothing, as it says right in the data, to prevent violent crime and gun violence, we could do a lot of good. However, the Liberals are not open to that conversation. They do not want to talk about that. They are too busy fearmongering.

I mentioned this earlier, and I got a bit emotional about it, but the turn that the Minister of Public Safety has taken with his rhetoric against me and members of my party is very concerning. We can have a professional debate. We can have this factual discussion. We can have our viewpoints. They do not want anyone to own firearms, no matter how vetted they are. We believe in protecting the culture and heritage of Canadians. We can have that robust debate; we have been having it for decades. For him to have taken the turn he has taken, to go so dirty on this when I have done my best, as have members of our party, to ensure that this is a professional conversation and that we are leading and protecting people who are being kicked by the government and used as a political wedge on a daily basis, particularly in rural Canada, is very upsetting. I mean that very honestly.

I called him out on it today, and he did not apologize for his disgusting remarks. I found it very disappointing. Why can we not have a civilized conversation based on facts when it comes to this? I do not know. Maybe it is because they are not doing so well in the polls and we are doing pretty well. Maybe they want an election soon and this is a real winner for them, or has been in the past.

Now that we are building on the work of all the Conservative members and we are talking about the people this really impacts, it is resonating with people. Nobody believes it in the suburbs. Nobody believes it in Winnipeg. I represent an urban riding, and no one believes that Grandpa Joe and his hunting rifle are responsible for the gangsters in Toronto who are 3D-printing guns, smuggling guns, wreaking havoc and murdering innocent people and police officers. No one believes that going after hunters is going to solve that, yet we are seeing billions of dollars, countless resources, misinformation, disinformation and disgusting rhetoric from the public safety minister and others on the Liberal benches. It does not make any sense. There is no science or data to back it up whatsoever.

I could go on for quite some time, but of course I have been silenced by the Liberal-NDP coalition. In my remaining moments, I will move an amendment to the motion.

I move, seconded by the member for Peterborough—Kawartha:

In paragraph (a) by deleting all the words after the words “expand its scope” and substituting the following: “to (i) address illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, (ii) modify provisions relating to bail rules in offences involving firearms to ensure serious, repeat, violent offenders remain behind bars as they await trial, (iii) bring in measures to crack down on border smuggling and stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada”;

In paragraph (b) by deleting all the words after the words “by the committee” and substituting the following: “the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, other ministers of the Crown and senior officials be invited to appear as witnesses from time to time as the committee sees fit,”;

In paragraph (c) by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “Standing Orders 57 and 78 shall not apply to the consideration at the report stage and the third reading stage of the bill”; and

by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e).

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to continue my remarks concerning what is, in my opinion, a very undemocratic motion put forward by the Liberals.

What just transpired in this House was a closure motion to basically shut me up and stop the discussion we began as a result of the Liberals and the NDP working together. They did not like that I was going on and on. I had a lot to say, so they voted to keep me quiet. I will be silenced, in essence, after these 20 minutes by the Liberals and the NDP, who are working together to ultimately ensure the slow and painful removal of hunting rifles from everyday Canadians who are trained, tested and vetted by police. That is just the context for folks so they know what is going on in this House.

Ultimately, Motion No. 25 is a time allocation motion, in essence. At committee, we are talking about Bill C-21 and the many amendments brought forward by the Liberals, the NDP and other parties, which are worthy of discussion, debate and questions for officials. If the motion passes, which it is sure to do because the NDP and the Liberals are working together so closely on this, it will severely limit our ability as opposition members to heavily scrutinize a bill that would impact 2.3 million gun owners, hundreds of millions of dollars in our economy and tens of thousands of jobs, not to mention the hundreds of years of culture and heritage in Canada. Just to be clear, that is what the Liberals and the NDP are working together on today.

The Conservatives have been relentless in standing up for rural Canadians and for law-abiding citizens. Certainly, I have been honoured to be given this role by our leader, the member for Carleton, but there are many other members in our caucus who have done extraordinary work for all firearms owners, hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous Canadians. I want to make sure they are acknowledged, because they only reason we are here and have mobilized the country to pay attention to this injustice by the Liberals and the NDP working together is the work that has come from people before me and the work of committee members now. I just want to acknowledge them.

At the public safety committee, I have worked very closely with the members for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner and Sturgeon River—Parkland, and recently we also had on committee the member for Langley—Aldergrove. We have worked very hard over the last six months and over the year and a half I have been on committee. Certainly, we have gotten a lot of expertise from folks in our caucus who really live and breath this culture in Canada. They are a true testament to how important it is in Canada that we fight for this to maintain it. They are the members for Red Deer—Lacombe and Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

I come after very strong members of Parliament who have done extraordinary work. I have been able to stand on the shoulders of those who have come before me. Notably, the member for Lakeland is an extraordinary woman and did incredible work on this file. I am very honoured to follow her and follow in her footsteps in this role. There is also the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

We have a team of Conservatives who are working on the right side of this debate. They are making history to stand up for a culture that continues to be kicked like a football, a political wedge, by the Liberals. Every time they are not doing well in the polls and every time our message is resonating, it is like they break out an emergency, and firearms is one of them. They spread misinformation, when really we know all of what they are doing does not impact the criminals who are shooting up the streets, and does not impact the gangsters who are in highly organized smuggling rings across the border to bring in the nine out of 10 firearms used in Toronto. The drugs and human trafficking are related.

This is rather than attacking those issues and repeat violent offenders, and it is a result of the government's catch-and-release bail system from Bill C-75 a few years ago, a Liberal bill that the police tell us over and over again is causing what is happening on our streets. We see all these repeat violent offenders stabbing people and wreaking havoc on our streets. Forty individuals in Vancouver were responsible for 6,000 interactions with police last year. This is a result of the reckless catch-and-release policies the Liberals brought in, and they were heavily supported, in lockstep, by the NDP.

While all of this is happening, our message is resonating and the public is concerned about public safety. However, what do the Liberals do? They bring in gun control, which we know really means they are going after heavily vetted, trained and tested individuals who are licensed to own firearms. They hunt, protect their livestock and represent us at the Olympics in sport shooting. These are the kinds of people the Liberals are targeting with Bill C-21, and the NDP is working in lockstep to slowly but surely, step by step, destroy this way of life in Canada.

Shame on the NDP. The New Democrats have plenty of rural and northern members whom they are failing given what they are doing with the Liberals. I am going to name a few of those members. There are so many, honestly. These are good rural people who are being failed by what the NDP is doing here.

We have the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in Ontario; the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski from Manitoba, which is all of northern Manitoba, where they live off hunting; and the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I know there are a lot of hunters and sport shooters in his riding. We have the member for Courtenay—Alberni and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in B.C., and we have the members for North Island—Powell River, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Timmins—James Bay and Nunavut. People are being failed by their members of Parliament in this regard.

For a moment, we thought there was a light, and the NDP members were supportive, saying, “No, this is crazy.” I do not know what the Liberals are offering them, but then, all of a sudden, they completely abandoned the rural people they are supposed to represent, who are continuously kicked by the Liberal government. It is disgusting.

I have a lot to say with my remaining time. Again, I have been silenced and limited to 20 minutes now because the Liberals and the New Democrats do not want to hear the facts. All they want to do is work together to destroy a way of life in this country that the Conservatives are very proud to protect and fight for. We will continue to do so.

Honestly, I had four binders of facts and data, which the Liberals pretend they care about while they follow the science. We will never get to that. We will never get to have the opportunity to talk about that because they have voted to silence the debate on this. I wonder why. They are running, perhaps, from the reality of what they are facing. They do not want to face the facts on the ground of what this means to the Canadians it impacts and what it means to let criminals off the hook yet again.

It is very disappointing that the Liberals are working with the New Democrats and that the New Democrats are going along with this. They should be ashamed. They should be ashamed that they are letting down rural Canadians in this way, who thought they had a voice when they voted NDP. Clearly they were wrong. I am very sorry to those voters, but we will have their backs. We will continue to have their backs, and we will also have the backs of all the folks in cities who are being misrepresented by the Liberals.

We will pick this back up in an hour.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will remind the Liberal member that, if he is looking to throw me off, he is severely underestimating me, just like many a man before him. I have a lot to say, and I will be here for quite some time, so hopefully he is hydrated and fed because he is going to be waiting a long time.

I have more to say on the announcement last week, which was impacted by Bill C-21. The minister at the same time announced the firearms advisory committee, the so-called new definition, but with the old definition, but sneakier.

He also announced that there is going to be something about a permanent alteration to magazines, which we have already, but the way he worded it would signify to me that there is going to be a change in what that means. When we tried to ask about it at committee, we did not get any answers because apparently it was not technically within Bill C-21, but he announced it at the same time he was talking about the bill. The Liberals and officials would not answer our question, but what was taken from that in the firearms community is that the permanent alteration of magazines would go a step further than what is being done now and would impact many a firearm that really is Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle.

For example, the Lee Enfield, is a very popular firearm. It was the British firearm until about the 1950s. It is well made and has been passed down through generations. It is made completely from wood stock and is exactly what we would think of and picture when we think about Grandpa Joe going out to hunt deer. However, one cannot permanently alter the magazine capabilities of that firearm without destroying it. There is no way. Therefore, is the minister now saying that he is going to destroy the Lee Enfield? He will not answer. I have urged people to write to the minister to ask him about that because he will not answer our questions, nor will the Liberals on the public safety committee.

I will also note that the tubular magazine hunting rifle, where the bullet goes right into the tube because there is no magazine, as in the image the Liberals are trying to bring forward, is an old school, 1800s-level technology. For example, the Winchester 1873, I think it is called, is a tubular magazine firearm that holds seven to 14 cartridges or bullets. It cannot be altered in any way, as that would destroy the firearm.

These are heirloom firearms. I am pretty sure my grandfather had one in the closet for when coyotes would try to get into the chicken coop. That is how old school these firearms are. There are hundreds of versions of these in rural Canada. It is owned by collectors, and certainly by hunters and indigenous Canadians. If the SKS is popular in indigenous communities, so too is the Lee Enfield, so why would the Liberals not be clear on what they are talking about with respect to these permanent alterations to magazines? Why are they being so cagey about that? Is it because they do not know? Is it ignorance, or are they hiding something? I do not know.

I have given them the benefit of the doubt before. However, here we are, and they are forcing an end to the democratic discussion and scrutiny that is needed on this bill at committee today, so I really do not trust anything they are about to say on that, if they say anything at all, because they have refused to answer my questions and our questions at the public safety committee about the Lee Enfield and tubular magazine long guns.

While this has been going on, and we have heard so much about this, the Liberals are attacking us, particularly me. I suppose it is because I have been the lead on firearms. They talk about the Conservatives more in their announcements than they talk about the crime that is wreaking havoc in our communities, which they are not doing a lot about.

I want to say that I know this debate is very heated and very personal to people on all sides. I have always done my best to lead this discussion from our perspective, from a professional and authentic standpoint, and what really shocked me was last week, or it might have been the week before, when the minister was announcing phase one of his so-called buyback, which I will get to. He said, in essence, that Conservatives were at fault and bear some of the responsibility for the abuse the Liberals are getting from what they say are gun owners. I have no idea, as I have not seen that.

It is interesting that they talk about it as if we have not received any abuse from people who do not agree with our position. I can tell members that I have certainly received very threatening abuse for the position we have taken. I am the lead on this file. I have received many threats and have been concerned for my safety in this debate, so I was very offended when I heard them trying to blame Conservatives, particularly me because I am the lead in this regard, when I have not been spared or kept from any of that abuse myself.

I am undeterred. I will continue on. I will not be bullied into silence on this. However, just to be clear, the rhetoric from the Liberals is trumping up a lot of hate toward me and others on this side of the House as well. I do not like talking about it. We do not want copycats. We do not want any heroes from these evil, sadistic people, but when I heard something like that, I thought that I had to say something.

I have kept quiet, but I will not stand idly by while the Minister of Public Safety blames me for the abuse he has gotten for his underhanded policies, when I too have suffered abuse because of his rhetoric. I just wanted to put that on the record. I hope to speak to the minister personally about that.

We are talking a lot about firearms. Of course, exclusively, Bill C-21 only impacts, with the so-called handgun freeze or ban, which is really not any of that, people who follow the law. They are the trained, tested and vetted Canadian citizens who are approved by the RCMP to own firearms. Those are really the only people who are impacted by all of these measures since the May 2020 OIC and Bill C-71 before it. It only impacts regular, everyday Canadians who are legally allowed to own firearms. They are heavily vetted Canadians, who are legally allowed to own firearms.

However, the government continues to bring forward measure after measure to attack this group of people. Meanwhile, criminals are running rampant on our streets. I have talked at length about the crime issues. Canadians know full well what has been going on, on public transit and on the streets of Toronto. Everywhere we go in Canada there seems to be horrific headlines of innocent people being attacked by complete strangers who are deranged.

We are facing very serious issues, yet the Liberal budget 2023 really failed to address those violent crime issues. In fact, violent crime was not mentioned once, zero times, in that budget.

Do members know what else was not mentioned once in that budget? Bail reform was not mentioned once in the budget and has not been mentioned in the priorities of that budget from the Minister of Public Safety, despite the fact that every premier of every province and territory in Canada has written two letters to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform because of what is happening in their provinces and territories with crime and repeat violent offenders continuing to get bail and getting back on our streets, hurting Canadians.

When have we ever heard every premier in the country agreeing on a letter? It is very rare. Maybe when they are asking for health care funding, but aside from that, it is a very rare occurrence. There have now been two letters sent to the Prime Minister.

There are also municipal police forces. I just spoke at the big ten police conference, which included every major police association, municipal police forces across the country. I just flew to Calgary last week to speak to them. They are demanding bail reform. Every big city mayor in Ontario is demanding bail reform. While everyone seems to agree on bail reform, there has been no meaningful action or change taken by the Minister of Public Safety on bail reform. I will remind those watching of violent crime in this country, which is up 32% from 2015 to 2021.

When we get to 2022 stats, it will be deeply concerning, I am going to guess that they are going to be way up, just based on the headlines, but they are up 32% between 2015 and 2021. It equates to 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year, which is an insane amount of additional crime that the police are having to deal with, despite police numbers really suffering, which I will talk more about in a minute. We are seeing that crime wave steadily increase, year by year, under the Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety's watch. That is all happening.

On that, bail reform is a huge issue. If we look at Vancouver, there were 6,000 crime incidents, interactions with police, for crime. Of these, 40 people were responsible for 6,000 interactions with police. Those 40 people are sure keeping police busy in Vancouver. These are violent repeat offenders causing havoc on transit, when we walk down the street with one's family and when we are trying to enjoy the parks. There are 40 people causing 6,000 interactions with police in one year, yet there are crickets about bail reform. They say, “Oh, we are meeting and talking about it”, but that is all we hear. It has been months.

In fact, the Victoria police recently put out a news release about a vile rapist who committed 10 sexual assaults with a weapon. Why was he released? The police wanted to make sure the public knew why it was not their fault he was released. At the bottom of the news release, there is a question that asks, “Why was this person released?” I think this is consistent on their news releases, when it is relevant. It was because of Bill C-75. That is a Liberal bill from a few years ago that made bail, in essence, the default for violent repeat offenders. They got bail by default.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. We are seeing a massive crime surge, and this is one of the reasons police are underlining this and making this heard by MPs over and over again. That is all going on. We are hearing through Toronto police statistics that of the 44 murders, I think it was either last year or in 2021, in over half, 24 or 26 of the 44 murders, the murderers were out on bail at the time. Over half of 44 murders could have been prevented if the Liberals had not brought in such a weak bail regime. They are getting up at the mike and talking about how this so-called new definition, old definition, no list, sneaky list given to the firearms advisory council is going to solve crime, or is one of the things that are going to solve crime.

It is not going to do anything about the people in Toronto who are getting out on bail and murdering people. Toronto police will remind us that about nine out of 10 firearms used in crime in Toronto, mostly handguns, are smuggled in from the U.S. We could outlaw, and I am sure the Liberals are working on it, every single handgun legally owned in this country, and the situation will get worse in cities. The statistics will continue to go up because these criminals are not legally owning the guns. Most of them are prohibited from ever going near a firearm.

Most repeat violent offenders should be in jail, because they smuggle the firearms in quite easily through the Prime Minister's very porous border, through which he has allowed all these drugs and guns to come into the country. That includes human trafficking and all kinds of other things he has allowed under his watch. They are flowing into Toronto and other big cities, such as Montreal and Winnipeg. I have seen the firearms myself, as the Winnipeg police have shown me smuggled ones. There are 3-D-printed guns as well. People are using 3-D printers and printing plastic handguns that are going for $7,000 a pop on the streets of Winnipeg. Bill C-21 would really not do a lot about that.

We worked together on an amendment to perhaps give police a teeny extra tool, which I supported, but going after lawful firearms owners is not going to do anything about the problems in Toronto. Nothing in Bill C-21 would really have stopped the murders of those 20-odd people who were murdered by those on bail who smuggled guns in or printed them. The Liberals say they are increasing maximum sentencing on gun smugglers. That is technically true, but in reality it is baloney. One of my Conservative colleagues, who did great work, made an information request to the government asking how many people have received the maximum sentence, up to right now, for gun smuggling. Do members know, for the eight years that the Prime Minister has ruled the country, how many people got the maximum 10-year sentence for gun smuggling activities? Zero people have gotten the maximum, so to increase it to 14 years is really not going to do a whole heck of a lot.

Perhaps what they should have done is to bring in mandatory minimums for gun smuggling. That would have taken criminals off the street. That would have actually done something, maybe. Conservatives were looking at maybe doing that with an amendment, but we were told it was out of scope so we could not bring forward mandatory maximums. Maybe that is something the member for Carleton, as prime minister of the country, will look at, because that would make a real, actual difference in cracking down on gun smuggling.

I will remind the House that, at the same time as the Liberals were going after lawful firearms owners to such a degree, with so many taxpayer dollars and so much effort by the Minister of Public Safety, in the fall, the Minister of Justice brought forward a bill, which he apparently celebrated quite excitedly when it was passed, to remove mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes and violent crimes. Does everyone want to know what the list of those crimes is? On the list is robbery with a gun. Someone can rob a store with a gun, and it is no longer guaranteed that they will go to jail. That is the Liberal Prime Minister's vision of what we should do about crime: People can rob someone at gunpoint, and there is no longer a mandatory minimum for them.

The list continues with extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting, knowing the firearm is unauthorized; and discharging a firearm with intent, including things like drive-by shootings. There is no longer mandatory prison time for the people who commit these offences. Also on the list, there is using a firearm in the commission of an offence, or breaking the law with a gun; there is no longer a mandatory prison time for this. For possession of a firearm, knowing its possession is unauthorized, or illegally possessing a firearm, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For all those criminals in Toronto, it was a good day when Bill C-5 passed.

There is also possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. A person could have a prohibited gun with a whole bunch of ammunition, and there is no longer mandatory prison time for them. Again, gangs are celebrating every time the Liberal Prime Minister is elected. For possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, stealing one, in essence, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, excluding firearms ammunition, there is no mandatory prison time.

For discharging a firearm recklessly, there is no longer mandatory prison time. People die in cities because there are gangsters discharging firearms recklessly all the time, firearms they have smuggled in or 3D-printed. There is no longer mandatory prison time for them. In fact, in that same bill, Bill C-5, the Liberals brought forward a supposedly improved option for people who commit sexual assault. Now the law ensures that people who commit sexual assault, rape, do not have to go to prison. They can actually serve house arrest in the comfort of their homes. Rapists can serve their sentence playing video games, with their feet up, in their own homes. It is unreal. I should not be laughing about it, but it is so outrageous and ridiculous that it is hard for me, as a woman, to wrap my head around a so-called feminist government saying that rapists can serve house arrest for their sentence. This just happened in Quebec, where a vile rapist violently raped a woman and got zero days in prison and only 20 months under house arrest.

This is all in the scope of what the Liberals view as their crime priorities. They are getting up at the mike every other day, announcing new gun control measures to go after folks who are lawfully allowed to own firearms, and saying that that is going to make a difference. What would make a difference is repealing Bill C-5 and making sure violent criminals and rapists go to jail. That would make a difference in public safety.

It is not just about firearms. In fact, a lot of the crime we are seeing involves knives. Where is the conversation about knives? We just had what I believe was the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history, and we barely heard a peep about that, certainly not from the Liberals. We tried to study it at committee, and they would not let us. It was in the fall, the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history. A man who got out on parole despite—

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about budget 2023, and there are many serious issues facing Canada. Unfortunately, I do believe that many of them are not addressed in the federal 2023 Liberal budget.

I am the shadow minister for public safety and the vice-chair of the public safety and national security committee for Canada, and so when I was looking at the budget, I was looking at it through a public safety lens: How is this budget going to improve public safety in Canada? Again, there are very serious issues in public safety that need dire and immediate attention from the Liberal government, and I do not feel that they were given that attention in budget 2023.

We are facing a 32% rise in violent crime since 2015, which is the 2015-21 statistic. I am confident that, unfortunately, the 2022 statistic is going to be even worse, given the headlines that we have seen over the past year and a half. Also, 32% is not just a number. In fact, it represents 124,000 more very serious violent crime incidents that have impacted innocent Canadians across the country. That is how many more violent crime incidents per year we experienced in 2021 versus 2015, when the Liberal Prime Minister first came to power. So, there are very serious issues not being addressed, from my perspective, in the budget.

Many of us read the news and watch the headlines, and we have seen a lot of very concerning stabbings, shootings, murders, assaults on innocent Canadians and stranger attacks on public safety, and a lot of it has to do with repeat violent offenders in our community who continue to get bail and wreak havoc on innocent Canadians. For example, there was a violent knife attack on a Surrey SkyTrain, which is its public transit, that left a young man in hospital. The attempted murderer was released on bail less than two weeks later. A man was almost stabbed to death, and the culprit was back on the streets. This follows the death of a 17 year old who was murdered, stabbed to death, in B.C. on a bus. This follows a 16-year-old boy who was stabbed to death in a Toronto public transit station. There are countless other examples of these horrific attacks in Canada. It seems that there are more and more every day.

It is not just civilians; it is also police. In fact, 10 police officers have died in the past year, eight of them on the job, and notably repeat violent offenders is a theme in many of the murders. Of course, everyone has heard of OPP Officer Greg Pierzchala, a young OPP officer who was murdered just after Christmas this past year. He walked up to a vehicle in a ditch and the driver shot and murdered him. That driver, that murderer, was out on bail and had a lifetime prohibition from ever owning a gun. Yet, he got out on bail, got a gun and shot and murdered that young police officer. We mourn the loss of Greg Pierzchala with his family.

Notably, his death sparked a necessary national conversation about bail reform, which is not mentioned once in the federal budget, despite every premier in the country joining in on one letter, which is very rare, and sending it to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform. Despite big-city mayors and municipal police forces across the country demanding bail reform, we see no action, no results on bail reform from this government. It is not mentioned in the budget at all. I find it very concerning, and it is very serious. Last year, in Toronto, of the 44 murders when someone used a gun to murder someone, 24 of the murderers were out on bail at the time, and so 24 of 44 could have been prevented if our bail system was a bit tougher. It is quite serious.

In B.C., the NDP provincial government has written urgently to the Prime Minister just in the last few weeks outlining what they are facing in terms of bail and violent crime. Only about 16% to 17% of those who are going through a trial for a violent crime actually get detained. I was shocked at these statistics, and I had to read them a number of times. Fewer than 20% of violent criminals are being denied bail in B.C. Something is seriously wrong, and the B.C. NDP government is demanding bail reform as a solution from the Liberal government, and yet it is not mentioned as a priority in the Liberal budget. I found that very disappointing, given the national conversation and the deaths that we have seen. We could say that maybe bail will be mentioned somewhere else, but violent crime was not mentioned as a priority. Members can google it themselves; it was not in the budget.

Again, folks at home need to understand that a government's budget is telling Canadians what its values are and what it is prioritizing for the year ahead with the billions of taxpayer dollars it accumulates over the year. If violent crime is not mentioned, then clearly it is not a priority for the Liberals to fight violent crime or to deal with bail and repeat violent offenders. There are issues in our parole system as well.

What is in the budget? It is not something that is answering the calls of police. Before I move on, I want to say I found something quite shocking this week. The Victoria Police Department, just to drive this point home, recently released a news release about a vile rapist who was charged with 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon. It says, “Why was this person released? Bill C-75....”

Bill C-75 was a Liberal bill from a couple years ago. Where is the mention of fixing this problem in the budget? Where are the resources to fix this problem in the budget? Why was it not prioritized by the Minister of Public Safety? I have not received any answers for these questions yet.

There are a few things in the budget that I did find notable in the public safety realm. There is $29 million over five years for an IT computer program for the government's so-called buyback program of long guns. I know this is very contentious. I have talked about this extensively elsewhere.

There is no evidence to suggest that long gun confiscation is going to do anything for all the issues I have outlined. In fact, of the multitude of violent crimes in this country, fewer than 0.5% are committed with long guns. We know the majority of crime committed with firearms is committed by people who are not legally allowed to own them.

Spending millions of dollars on an IT program, millions of dollars buying inventory from small gun shops and then billions of dollars buying property from law-abiding citizens who have been trained, tested and vetted by police to own firearms, is not going to make any difference to everything that I have been talking about.

However, it is a top priority for Canadians that it get solved. I put this to the minister. He said there are a lot of ways to fight gun violence. I said sure there are, but I asked what they were in his opinion. He said he is investing money in the border. Is he doing that?

I took a closer look at the budget since the Liberals formed government. In 2015, there were 8,400 frontline officers and investigators working for CBSA, our border agency. We know, as Toronto Police have told us, about nine out of 10 guns that are used in crime in Toronto are smuggled in from the U.S. We hear this quite universally from police departments across the country. It is a gun-smuggling problem from the U.S.

In 2015, we had 8,400 frontline workers who were tasked with stopping things like this from happening and stopping the gun smugglers. The Minister of Public Safety has said to Canadians multiple times, every time he gets a microphone, that he is spending all this money on the border to stop gun smuggling.

However, eight years later, there are only 25 more frontline officers, yet a lot of money has been spent. There are only 25 more frontline officers to fight gun smuggling, which is the source of violent crime in this country. Every chance he gets, he boasts about how much money he has invested.

Where is that money going? A closer look at the employees at CBSA shows that middle management has gone from approximately 2,000 people in 2015 to 4,000 people in 2023. It has doubled middle management, not the frontline workers who are working hard and putting their lives at risk to apprehend gun smugglers at the border, but the middle managers.

I greatly respect all of our middle managers in public safety, but the point is that it has doubled, while there has been almost no movement of the frontline officer numbers. How serious is he about cracking down on gun smuggling? The numbers are not telling me that the results are going to be there.

We know the RCMP is facing significant issues as well. Recruitment is way down, as is morale, across the country. Police say this is an issue, yet there is not any new money in the budget to encourage recruitment or for new recruits. We are seeing serious declines in recruitment in our police forces. Why is that not being addressed? We need more frontline police officers to fight violent crime.

We also know there has been a 12% funding cut to the Parole Board and a 36% decrease in staff at the Parole Board. Perhaps that is why we have major mass casualties like the murderer in Saskatchewan who murdered, with a knife, 11 people and sent 17 more people to hospital. He was out on parole with 59 prior convictions.

After all that, we see cuts to parole and no increase in this budget, yet increases everywhere else. Public safety is not a priority for the government from what I have seen in the budget.

I do feel very strongly about this, as does the Conservative Party. We know Canadians care about public safety. I call on the Minister of Public Safety and the Liberal government to bring forward real measures to address public safety because so far, they are getting a failing grade from me.

Public Safety

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe, and as a government, we are taking action so that they will.

Bill C-75 already reduced the burden of proof in intimate partner violence cases when it came to bail. We are going beyond that. We have met with our provincial and territorial counterparts to bring reform to the bail system.

We recognize that this is something we have to work on with the provinces. Obviously we will take action in areas of our jurisdiction. We will move, and we will find a solution together.

Justice and Human Rights

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 was introduced four years ago. One of its stated purposes was to reduce the number of indigenous people in our criminal justice system and in our prisons. However, our correctional investigator, Dr. Zinger, said in his latest report that the number is going in the wrong direction, particularly for indigenous women. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a Friday afternoon, and my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has brought forward a very important conversation today.

I do not really want to get into a political debate, but I want to put on the record that the member and the party opposite have consistently spoken out against Bill C-75, which in many ways addresses the issue of gender-based violence. Many provisions were brought in that were not available in protecting victims, so I find it a little disingenuous when the party opposite starts going into a political discussion on timing of an appointment, where the real issues are addressed in Criminal Code amendments we have brought forward as a government, which they continuously criticize, demean and in fact misinform the public on.

Telecommunications Act

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House on behalf of the people of my riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

The safety and security of our nation is of paramount importance, and I understand the need to enhance the safety and security of Canadians, both here at home and abroad. This would include many of our international corporations, which are large contributors to our economic base, and of course our own government institutions and interests. Having the opportunity to speak to cybersecurity in Canada gives us an opportunity to enhance or increase our country's ability to protect us from cyber-threats.

A significant concern for all Canadians is security. This concern has increased in recent times, as we see the rise in organized crime and gang-related offences, which have gone up 92%. The question I ask myself when I see this increase is this: Will the Liberal government be led by evidence and act on the evidence that has been reported?

Cybersecurity is extremely important for our nation to protect itself from inside and outside threats. I welcome Bill C-26, but I do have some concerns pertaining to the success of the bill, and one concern is about accountability. This is a question that we in opposition bring up every day in this House and regularly.

Bill C-26 is essentially divided into two different parts. The first part is to amend the Telecommunications Act to promote the security of the Canadian telecommunications system, adding security as a policy objective; to bring the telecommunications sector in line with other infrastructure sectors; and to secure Canada's telecommunications system and prohibit the use of products and services provided by specific telecommunications service providers. This amendment would enforce the ban on Huawei Technologies and ZTE from Canada's 5G infrastructure and would remove or terminate 4G equipment by the year 2027. What stands out to me, which has been a concern, is the time that it took the government to react to enforce the ban on Huawei.

The second portion of this bill is to enact the critical cyber systems protection act, or CCSPA, designed to protect critical cyber systems and “systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated...within the legislative authority of Parliament.” As a report by Norton Rose Fulbright notes, the purpose of the CCSPA is, first, to “[e]nsure the identification and effective management of any cybersecurity risks, including risks associated with supply chains and using third-party products and services”; second, to “[p]rotect critical cyber systems from being compromised”; third, to “[e]nsure the proper detection of cybersecurity incidents”; and finally, to “[m]inimize the impacts of any cybersecurity incidents on critical cyber systems.”

The impacts of this bill would be far-reaching, and here are the things that need to be considered when this bill is in place. The government would have the power to receive, review, assess and even intervene in cyber-compliance and operational situations within critical industries in Canada; to make mandatory cybersecurity programs for critical industries; and to enforce regulations through regulatory and legal enforcement, with potential financial penalties. With this in place, the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry would be afforded additional powers.

As the report notes:

If any cybersecurity risks associated with the operator’s supply chain or its use of third-party products and services are identified, the operator must take reasonable steps to mitigate those risks. While the Act doesn’t give any indication of what kind of steps will be required from operators, such steps may be prescribed by the regulations [at committee].

It goes on:

The Act also addresses cybersecurity incidents, which are defined as incidents, including acts, omissions or circumstances, that interfere or could interfere with the continuity or security of vital services and systems, or the confidentiality, integrity or availability of the critical cyber systems touching upon these vital services and systems. No indication is given as to what would constitute interference under the Act. In the event of a cybersecurity incident, a designated operator must immediately report the incident to the CSE and the appropriate regulator. At present, the Act does not prescribe any timeline or give other indication as to how “immediately” should be interpreted.

Some deficiencies in Bill C-26, as it is presently drafted, can be listed as follows:

The breadth of what the government might order a telecommunications provider to do is not sufficiently bounded.

The secrecy and confidentiality provisions imposed on telecommunications providers threaten to establish a class of secret law and regulations.

There is a potential for excessive information sharing within the federal government and with international partners.

The costs associated with compliance with reforms may endanger the viability of smaller providers.

The vague drafting language means that the full contours of the legislation cannot be assessed.

There exists no recognition of privacy or other charter-protected rights as a counterbalance to the proposed security requirements, nor are appropriate accountability or transparency requirements imposed on the government.

Should these recommendations or ones derived from them not be taken up, the government could be creating legislation that would require the public and telecommunications providers to simply trust that it knows what it is doing and that its actions are in the best interests of everyone.

Is it reaching the right decision to say that no need exists for broader public discussion concerning the kinds of protections that should be in place to protect the cybersecurity of Canada's telecommunications and networks? The government could amend its legislation to ensure its activities conform with Canada's democratic values and norms, as well as transparency and accountability.

If the government is truly focused on security for Canadians, should we not start by reviewing the gang and organized crime evidence showing that our present policies have failed? Should we not look at safety and security in our bail reform to protect innocent Canadians who become victims?

If Bill C-26 is a step in protecting Canada from cybersecurity threats, what is the review process to ensure compliance? What is the review process to ensure effectiveness and goals are met when we look at Bill C-75 regarding bail reform? The NDP-Liberal government is not interested in reviewing bail reform even though the evidence clearly shows that Bill C-75 failed.

Cybersecurity is important to our country's security, as are the victims of crime after their safety and security are violated. I am deeply concerned that the government is struggling with evidence-based information to review Bill C-26, as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 are not supported by evidence. In fact, offenders and criminals are a higher priority than their victims are. My concern is if Bill C-26 requires amendment or review.

Bill C-26 proposes compliance measures intended to protect cybersecurity in sectors that are deemed vital to Canadian security. Therefore, although late out of the gate, Bill C-26 is a start.

In conclusion, I would like to see some clear accountability to ensure the objectives of this bill are met and that a proper review process is conducted that holds individuals, corporations, and most importantly, our government accountable.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the last several months, we have seen accountability raise its head here in Parliament with Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-11. Without accountability, it is as though the government does not actually care what we are doing because with a majority government, the NDP and Liberals can make decisions based on what they think is right and there is no accountability.

With Bill C-5, the evidence is not there. Bill C-21, taking legal guns from legal gun owners, is another non-evidence-based process. With Bill C-26, which we are talking about today, it is time that we start building in some processes for accountability so the government is actually accountable for what it is doing.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House, especially when I can talk about safety and security.

I always try to enhance safety and security for Canadians at home and abroad, for our corporations that are major contributors to our economic base, and of course, for government institutions. Today, discussing cybersecurity in Canada is an opportunity to enhance our country's ability to protect us from cyber-threats.

Security is a significant concern for all Canadians. Lately, with the rise in organized crime and gang offences to the tune of a 92% increase in gang crime, I have to wonder when the government will be led by evidence, or in other words, provide evidence-based action. It is extremely important for our country to have cybersecurity to protect itself from threats, and I welcome Bill C-26. However, I am apprehensive about how successful this bill may be since accountability is a question that the opposition brings up every day in this House.

Bill C-26 is basically divided into two parts. The first part aims to amend the Telecommunications Act to promote the security of the Canadian telecommunications system. It aims to do this by adding security as a policy objective to bring the telecommunications sector into line with other infrastructure sectors.

By amending the Telecommunications Act to secure Canada's telecommunications systems and prohibit the use of products and services provided by specific telecommunications service providers, the amendment would enforce the ban on Huawei Technologies and ZTE from Canada's 5G infrastructure, as well as the removal and termination of related 4G equipment by 2027. Of concern is the time it took the government to react to enforce the ban on Huawei.

The second part aims to enact the critical cyber systems protection act, the CCSPA, which is designed to protect critical cybersecurity and systems that are vital to national security or public safety or are delivered or operated within the legislative authority of Parliament. The purpose of the CCSPA is to ensure the identification and effective management of any cybersecurity risks, including risks associated with supply chains and using third party products and services; protect critical cyber systems from being compromised; ensure the proper detection of cybersecurity incidents; and minimize the impacts of any cybersecurity incidents on our critical cyber systems.

The effects of this bill will be far-reaching, and there are some points to consider: The government would have the power to review, receive, assess and even intervene in cyber-compliance and operational situations within critical industries in Canada. There would also be mandatory cybersecurity programs for critical industries, as well as the enforcement of regulations through regulatory and law enforcement with potential financial penalties.

Under both provisions, the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry would be afforded additional powers.

If any cybersecurity risks associated with the operator's supply chain or its use of third party products and services are identified, the operator must take reasonable steps to mitigate these risks. While the bill does not indicate what steps would be required from the operators, such steps may be prescribed by the regulations during a committee review.

The act also addresses cybersecurity incidents; a cybersecurity incident is defined as an:

incident, including an act, omission or circumstance, that interferes or may interfere with

(a) the continuity or security of a vital service or vital system; or

(b) the confidentiality, integrity or availability of the critical cyber system

touching upon these vital services. It does not indicate what would constitute interference under the act.

In the event of a cybersecurity incident, a designated operator must immediately report the incident to the CSE and the appropriate regulator. At present, the act does not prescribe any timeline or indicate how “immediately” should be interpreted. Again, there is an opportunity to address this at committee.

There are some concerns with Bill C-26 as it is presently drafted. What the government might order a telecommunications provider to do is not clearly identified. Moreover, the secrecy and confidentiality provisions of the telecommunications providers to establish law and regulations are not clearly defined.

As has been brought up today, potential exists for information sharing with other federal governments and international partners, but it is just not defined. Costs associated with compliance with reforms may endanger the viability of small providers. Drafting language needs to be in the full contours of legislation, and that could be discussed at committee as well. In addition, there should be recognition that privacy or other charter-protected rights exist as a counterbalance to proposed security requirements, which will ensure that the government is accountable.

Some recommendations, or ones derived from them, should not be taken up, such as that the government should create legislation requiring the public and telecommunication providers to simply trust that the government knows what it is doing. Of course, this is a challenge. Telecommunications networks and the government must enact legislation to ensure its activities support Canada's democratic values and norms of transparency and accountability.

If the government is truly focused on security for Canadians, should we not be reviewing our gang and organized crime evidence? Our present policies have failed. Should we not look at the safety and security of our bail reform in an effort to prevent innocent Canadians from becoming victims?

Bill C-26 is a step in protecting Canada from cybersecurity threats. What is the review process to ensure compliance and effectiveness, as well as that goals are met?

In terms of bail reform, even though the evidence clearly shows that Bill C-75 has failed, we see that the NDP-Liberal government is not interested in reviewing bail reform. Cybersecurity is important to our country's security; so are victims of crime after their safety and security has been violated.

I am concerned that the government is struggling with evidence-based information to review Bill C-26, as it has with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. These bills are not supported by evidence. In fact, offenders and criminals have a higher priority than victims do. My concern is as follows: If Bill C-26 requires amendments and review, will the government follow up? It is so important to be flexible and to be able to address changes, especially in a cybersecurity world, which changes so rapidly.

Bill C-26 proposes compliance measures intended to protect cybersecurity in sectors that are deemed vital to Canadian security. Therefore, although late out of the gate, Bill C-26 is a start. However, since this bill proposes compliance measures intended to protect cybersecurity in sectors that are deemed vital to Canadian security, I would like to see individuals, corporations, and most importantly, the government held accountable. There should also be measures to ensure that the objectives of the bill are met and that there is a proper review process.

As I have stated, government accountability has not been a priority. For the proposed bill to succeed, there have to be processes for review and for updating the critical cyber systems protection act.

The failure of Bill C-75 on bail reform is clear with recent violent acts by murderers and individuals who should never have been out on bail. Today we are debating Bill C-26, and I would hope that there are lessons learned from our failure to review Bill C-75. In addition, we can learn from the failure of Bill C-5, as gang violence and organized crime rates are up 92%. Surely the government will open a door for review and making required changes to Bill C-26 on cybersecurity.

I am thankful for the time to speak on the responsibilities related to cybersecurity.

Canadian Heritage

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that everything the Bloc-centralist-Liberal alliance is currently doing for Quebec is not working. Just think of Bill C‑5, which allows rapists to stay at home, or Bill C‑75, which lets criminals who have been released to obtain bail even if they are still violent. Now, there is Bill C‑11.

To add insult to injury, they are refusing to consider the motion that was adopted unanimously. Even the Bloc voted unanimously for the federal government to move on Bill C‑11.

Can the minister tell us if Bill C‑11 will be sent to committee to be studied together with the amendments?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who often says that the Bloc is picking fights, all of sudden say that the Bloc is his biggest ally. As was the case for several bills, bills C‑5, C‑75 and C‑11, the Bloc is a great ally to the Liberals.

Can the minister give us an answer? Will the government send Bill C‑11 to committee so it can study the request of the Government of Quebec?

Criminal Code

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today to an important bill.

We have to ask ourselves: why are we here this evening debating Bill C-39? What brought us to this place?

What brought us to this place was a government, once again, that had acted completely irresponsibly and with great overreach, ignoring the experts, ignoring Parliament and ignoring the most vulnerable.

We will back up a little bit. Bill C-7, which expanded medical assistance in dying in this country, went through the House of Commons and went through our committee, the justice committee.

Accompanying any piece of government legislation is a charter statement from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. A charter statement is the government's certification that the legislation complies with our Canadian Charter of Rights.

I want to read, just briefly, from that charter statement. The minister's charter statement stated, for Bill C-7, that it excluded individuals with mental illness from eligibility to access MAID, because of:

the inherent risks and complexity that the availability of MAID would present for individuals who suffer solely from mental illness. First, evidence suggests that screening for decision-making capacity is particularly difficult, and subject to a high degree of error, in relation to persons who suffer from a mental illness serious enough to ground a request for MAID.

At the time, the minister said that there was not the public support nor was the infrastructure in place to allow medical assistance in dying for individuals whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.

The bill, Bill C-7, then goes to the Senate, the unelected Senate. The Senate amends the bill to include mental illness with no safeguards, no accounting for the fact that it was an extreme broadening of Canada's MAID legislation and would, in fact, lead Canada to become an outlier.

That bill came back to the House and was passed by the government, with the opposition from our Conservative caucus members. Conservative parliamentarians were strongly opposed, because we knew that MAID should not be expanded to those who are suffering with mental illness.

When we are reaching out to those who are struggling, for example through Bell Let's Talk, and I see members of Parliament posting that on their social media, the terrible message that it sends is that we as a Parliament think that, for those suffering with mental illness, offering them death should be an option.

One may say, well, that is not what this is about. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it is about. It is already happening. Many of us were horrified to hear of bureaucrats from the Canadian government in a department to which we entrust vulnerable veterans, veterans suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder. Can one imagine the family of a veteran who goes to Veterans Affairs for help and, without even mentioning the issue, is offered the opportunity to explore medical assistance in dying, when they are suffering from PTSD?

Imagine how that would make one feel, for someone who is struggling and who is trying to stay motivated to stay alive. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that this was a one-off, that this was just one problematic situation.

Unfortunately, we found out that it was not a one-off and that it had happened many times, an untold number of times. We do not know how many times it happened. This is before medical assistance in dying is officially expanded to those suffering with mental illness.

Why are we here today? We are here because the Minister of Justice supported this and pushed this forward in spite of, we know, the Liberal caucus members who are very uncomfortable with this, because they know it is wrong.

Just today, we read an article saying that only three in 10 Canadians support the idea of allowing patients to seek MAID based purely on mental illness. Seven in 10 Canadians, the constituents that these Liberal caucus members represent, do not support this going forward.

The Minister of Justice said, in the same article, “To be honest, we could have gone forward with the original date, but we want to be sure. We want to be safe. We want everybody to be on the same page.”

The government is saying that it needs everyone to think like it does and that everyone needs to warm up to the idea. We do not accept that. We are going to continue to fight for the most vulnerable. This is happening right now in Canada. It is very upsetting for many of us.

Then we read, in the same article, of a report that noted that an Ontario man recently made news after he requested MAID, not because he wanted to die, but because he thought it was a preferable alternative to being homeless. A disabled Ontario woman also applied for MAID after seven years of applying for affordable housing in Toronto with no luck.

The abuse of this system is happening in real time. It is happening now. Because of the passage of the amended Bill C-7, we were set for next month to have, without any safeguards, those suffering from mental illness be eligible for MAID. Bill C-39 is the government's attempt to kick this down the road another year.

Where have we seen these U-turns? We saw them with Bill C-75 on bail changes. The government overstepped, and now it is reversing course. On the gun legislation, the government realized there was a big overreach, and now it is time to climb down from that.

Canadians suffering with mental illness deserve better. They deserve a thoughtful approach. I stood in the House not long ago, back in October 2020, and Parliament was observing mental health week. Unfortunately, at that time, parliamentarians did not know that the Liberal government would soon include mental illness in its planned expansion.

The point in that speech was that one of the key foundations of Canadian society, in our collective identity, is that we are a caring and compassionate country. Canadians, many in this chamber, do not see anything caring or compassionate about making people who are living with mental illness eligible for medically assisted death.

What message does it send to Canadians who live with mental illness? They are not people who are at the end of their lives. These are not people who would otherwise die. Why is the Liberal government pushing to include them in its medical assistance in dying regime?

The president of the Canadian Medical Association said, “We have a responsibility, we believe, as physicians and as society, to make sure that all vulnerable Canadians have access to proper care and the support they need.” I listed two scenarios, and we all have these scenarios in our ridings of individuals in need who are not getting the help they need.

If we have not succeeded to make sure that every Canadian living with mental illness has access to timely mental health care or adequate support, how is it that the government and the minister were comfortable in proceeding with broadening medical assistance in dying in such a radical way to take effect next month? All this despite the fact that this radical expansion of MAID was passed in early 2021. Conservatives have not given up the fight to do what is right and to protect vulnerable Canadians. We will not give up that fight.

The government failed to conduct a mandatory review of its own MAID legislation. That was supposed to happen, and it did not happen. The minister was to complete a charter statement. He did that on Bill C-7. The Bill C-7 charter statement very clearly rationalized why individuals suffering with mental illness were not included in Bill C-7. That is how they arrived at the constitutionality of the bill.

With this massive change, we do not see the updated charter statement. We do not hear the minister talking about the charter rights of those who are suffering. This is remarkable because the statement was written over two years ago.

A few days ago, more than 25 legal experts signed a letter addressed to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet, challenging them to do better on this.

This expansion is wrong. Conservatives will support extending the coming into force by this year, but in that time, we will not give up the fight to protect the most vulnerable.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, typically, I think our answers are supposed to be as long as the questions, which means that I am going to be making another speech given how long my colleague's question was.

First of all, I could respond to the member for Drummond that his question does not matter to me one bit either, but I will try to be a little more polite than he is on that front.

As I said in my speech, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois wants sovereignty; it is a left-wing party that supports the Parti Québécois. There is no denying it.

The Government of Quebec is not the Parti Québécois. The Bloc Québécois does not have the sole authority to speak for all Quebeckers. That is patently untrue. I am a Quebecker and proud of it, as are my Conservative colleagues and even several Liberal members. We are all Quebeckers and we all speak for Quebec.

When I make connections between Bloc Québécois positions, I look at their platform and I look at the state of affairs, such as bills C-5, C-75 and C-21. I could go on and name more, but I do not have enough time.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.

After eight years of the Prime Minister's dismal governance, he is now trying to turn attention away from his record, the cost of living crisis of his own making, the highest spikes in inflation in 40 years and the doubling of the price of rent and the cost of mortgages. He wants to turn Canadians' attention away from the record use of food banks, the record credit card debt and the fact that he tripled the carbon tax. He wants Canadians to forget that violent crimes have increased by 32%, that gang-related homicides have increased by 92%, that he has close ties to lobbyists who cost a fortune and that he has violated ethics rules.

The Prime Minister is trying once again to sow division in Canada. He is also trying to create a fake constitutional crisis. That is his latest attempt at dividing people and turning attention away from his failures.

The Bloc Québécois has no solutions for Quebec's real problems. On June 15, 1991, more than 30 years ago, in protest at the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and a few other MPs founded the Bloc Québécois for a “temporary” period. Would I have been part of that group? Perhaps. However, the temporary Bloc Québécois of 1991 in no way resembles the Bloc Québécois of 2023. In any case, this was not what Lucien Bouchard intended at the time.

Today, we understand why the Bloc Québécois, like the Liberal Party of Canada, is completely out of touch with the reality of Quebec residents. It is using a full day, an opposition day, to talk about the Constitution, when there are so many other matters that are more important to Quebeckers.

As the Quebec lieutenant for the Conservative Party of Canada, I am trying to understand where the Bloc Québécois is going with its sometimes nebulous strategies. I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the duly elected members, but rather the political party, which only cares about Quebec sovereignty and which, despite the rhetorical flourishes of its leader, has only one thing in mind: to bring down the Canadian federation.

This is why I question its strategic decision to devote a full day of debate to a subject that does not interest Quebeckers: the Canadian Constitution. Are there no topics that are more important to Quebeckers nowadays?

Despite its grand patriotic speeches, I sense that the Bloc Québécois is only focused on the Liberal government and its leftist agenda.

In the last eight years, we have seen a disoriented Bloc Québécois trying to score political points on various issues, but the people of Quebec expect their federal members of the House to work for them.

Article 070 of the main proposal prepared for the Bloc Québécois' upcoming national convention in May states: “We have the right to make mistakes, rethink our positions and change our minds”. That being the case, it should take this opportunity to course correct.

I can think of several examples of questionable choices made by the Bloc Québécois. Was it a good idea to support the Liberal government's Bill C-5, the infamous bill that allows street thugs to avoid prison time and sex offenders to serve their sentence at home instead of in jail where they belong? Was it a good idea to vote with the Liberal government in favour of Bill C-75, which allows the worst criminals to be released on bail when they are still a threat to society? Was it a good idea to punish hunters and indigenous people by supporting the Liberals' Bill C-21?

The Bloc has a very leftist agenda. It is the Liberal government' best ally. Are Quebeckers aware of that?

I hear members laughing. They can go ahead and laugh all they like, but facts are facts.

When Lucien Bouchard formed the Bloc Québécois, he clearly indicated that the party was meant to be a temporary measure. Over 30 years later, we are really seeing the wear and tear. Paragraph 018 of the Bloc Québécois's main position paper states, and I quote, “We, like the vast majority of Quebeckers, naturally think of the Quebec National Assembly when we talk about our government.” We see here a party that is still trying to find itself.

This political party claims to support the Quebec National Assembly and the Government of Quebec. However, during the most recent Quebec election campaign, the Bloc Québécois put all of its energy and resources into supporting the Parti Québécois and working against Coalition Avenir Québec, the party that won the election by a landslide and now forms the government. How can the Bloc claim to be an ally of the Quebec government when its objective is to get PQ members elected? Also, how can it be recognized as an effective voice for Quebec when it only managed to get three PQ members elected?

Justice

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will continue to work with his provincial counterparts to see what improvements can be made, but while the members opposite continue to attack the improvements that were made to the system, they are misinforming Canadians.

When we brought out, for example, the criteria for when accused persons can be released, they were not changed by Bill C-75. The law is clear that people should be detained if that is necessary to protect public safety. The bill also put in place a reverse onus for certain firearms offences, meaning it is up to the accused to prove they can be released.

We are going to continue to stand up for Canadians.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be there for victims of crime. We will continue to ensure there is less violent crime so that fewer people are made victims.

When we moved forward on our bill, Bill C-75, we did not change the criteria for when accused persons can be released. The bill put in place a reverse onus for certain firearms offences, meaning it is up to the accused to prove they can be released. The law is clear that people should be detained if that is necessary to protect public safety.

I know the Minister of Justice will continue to work with his counterparts across the country to ensure we are keeping people safe.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will surely know from his experience, what Bill C-75 did was codify Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence and it tightened bail provisions by adding a reverse onus for intimate partner violence. There was already a reverse onus on prohibited weapons.

Notwithstanding that, we are willing to work with the provinces to see if there are additional measures we can take. Certainly, we will help the provinces in the administration of the bail—

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague and all members in this chamber that we are introducing common-sense policies, like Bill C-75, that allow us to concentrate on the most serious offenders so we can protect our communities.

I would also point out to my Conservative colleagues that this government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to support law enforcement and to address the root causes of crime so that we can stop it before it starts. What have the Conservatives done? In each of those instances, they have voted against.

If they are serious about taking crime seriously, they should get serious about supporting this government's policies.

Public Safety

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to elaborate on something that is related to our opposition day motion today. It was a question I put to the government back in November about violent crime, Bill C-5 and the current Liberal government's soft-on-crime approach, which is not doing anything to make Canada safer.

In particular, I talked about how violent crime has risen 32% since the Liberals formed government, which equates to over 124,000 more violent crimes since they have been in government. I talked about local headlines of people “arrested again” for participation in a criminal organization, failure to comply with a probation order, 11 counts of knowledge of possession of a firearm while prohibited, two counts of disobeying a court order and two counts of breaching a weapons prohibition.

I am going to provide more local statistics from my own riding, because this is a prevalent problem. We see the media coverage all the time in our urban centres, but this problem of repeat offenders committing crimes is pervasive right across Canada.

Here is something from December 16, 2022, in my riding: “Charges laid in drive-by shooting”. Charges included possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose, careless use of firearm, assault with a weapon and discharging a firearm with intent. The key point is possession of a firearm contrary to a probation order. This individual also faces an attempted murder charge after a shooting in my riding back in August.

Here is another one: “Man suffers fractured skull in Hanover hammer attack”. I know the Prime Minister likes to speak about banning assault weapons. Well, guess what. A hammer used in an assault is an assault weapon, and good luck trying to ban all the hammers in the country. I do not think that is going to achieve much for public safety either. This happened at a convenience store. There were seven different charges, including several counts of breaching probation.

I have another one here, just miles from my own farm. It required significant resources from our law enforcement in the local area. A 53-year-old woman and a 48-year-old man were each charged with countless drug trafficking issues. The woman was additionally charged with two counts of disobeying a court order and failure to comply with a probation order. The man was additionally charged with two counts of breach of a weapons prohibition.

The fourth example is of a man in my riding. He has 25 weapons charges, with 15 different counts of a restricted or prohibited firearm and two breaches of a firearms prohibition.

Finally, I have one more example that required multiple police units to be involved. A 40-year-old man, a 63-year-old woman and a 24-year-old woman all got drug charges, and one was in possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

What is the government's solution? It removed mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders, including 10 of the 12 that were introduced by two former Liberal prime ministers, Trudeau senior and Chrétien. I do not know what the Liberal government had so wrong back in those days, but now we have seen every premier in this country table a letter to the government demanding bail reform. We also have police groups calling for stricter rules against these violent repeat offenders.

When are the Liberals going to repeal portions of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 and stop targeting law-abiding firearms owners, sport shooters and farmers?

Opposition Motion—Bail Reform

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the current Liberal government's soft-on-crime agenda that perpetuates a catch-and-release revolving door of repeat offenders, the brutal reality is that crime is up and Canadians are less safe.

I am grateful to Conservative MPs from every part of Canada who have always been and continue to be steadfast advocates for victims of crime, law-abiding innocent Canadians, and real measures to combat criminals and gangsters while reducing recidivism. I particularly want recognize the work of the members for Fundy Royal and Kildonan—St. Paul for bringing forward this motion today.

Five years ago yesterday, I brought forward my private member's motion, Motion No. 167, which called on the Liberals to undertake a comprehensive assessment of factors related to skyrocketing rural crime, which had the highest spike in rural Alberta and was steadily increasing across Canada at the time, and to make it a priority in the House of Commons.

Over several months, thousands of Canadians expressed support for Motion No. 167, along with more than a hundred victims advocacy groups, rural crime watch associations and municipalities from all across Canada. Alberta Conservative MPs at the time were actively working with rural constituents, law enforcement and others to highlight growing rural crime and push for action. It was heartening when Motion No. 167 passed with unanimous support from all parties, and I truly believe there was concern and goodwill from all MPs at that time.

The motion was wide-ranging. It included important amendments that I accepted from the NDP, and pushed for a deep dive into several factors, including but not limited to rural crime rates and trends; existing RCMP and other policing resources and policies in rural, remote and indigenous communities, particularly in relation to population density, policing geographic area and staff shortages; partnerships with provincial, municipal and indigenous police forces; possible recommendations to improve rural crime prevention and to curb emerging crime rates; measures to increase the tactical and operational effectiveness of indigenous police forces; strategies and resources dedicated to the judicial and rehabilitation systems in rural areas; and improved support for victims of rural crime.

What followed was a drawn-out, disappointing and rude awakening. When the final report from the Liberal-dominated public safety committee was dragged out beyond the six-month timeline that the motion set for reporting on real action, to the point that I had to ask the Speaker to get the Liberal-dominated committee just to respond, it then resulted in a report that was three pages long and effectively punted total responsibility over to the provinces, suggesting those governments should simply spend more on emergency response services and dispatch centres.

I am mindful of this today as I listen to passionate Conservative colleagues from all over Canada talking about rising crime in their communities: horrific acts of violence on transit in Canada's largest city, the murder of police officers just trying to do their jobs and keep their fellow Canadians safe, neighbourhoods in fear of all-too-regular gangster activity, and shootings with primarily illegally owned and trafficked guns from the U.S. in Canada's major cities from coast to coast. Of course, I think of my own constituents and those of other rural MPs facing record levels of ever more brazen and violent theft and robberies, trespassing, assaults and murders.

I think of the compassionate and serious work of colleagues like the MP for St. Albert—Edmonton and the courageous Shelly MacInnis Wynn, who brought forward Wynn's law specifically to close a loophole in bail hearings to mandate that an assailant's criminal history would be disclosed during a bail application, which may have prevented the murder of her husband, Constable David Wynn, who was killed by a career criminal out on bail. The majority of MPs initially supported it, but the Liberals ultimately defeated it.

I think of the “no body, no parole” initiative by the MP for Sturgeon River—Parkland, the “life means life” legislation by the MP for Calgary Signal Hill, the bill by the MP for Tobique—Mactaquac to initiate a national recidivism reduction strategy involving all the different organizations that worked to prevent repeat crime, or the constant pressure by the MP for Fundy Royal for the Liberals to appoint the victims ombudsman, an office they left empty with zero urgency for more than a year.

The common thing among all those MPs is that they are Conservatives, and there are too many to list for all the good work they have done to advance work to protect victims of crime and innocent Canadians.

However, this is the reality after eight years under the Liberals, and now unfortunately their coalition partners and boosters, the NDP: a 32% increase in violent crime across Canada and a shocking, but horribly not surprising, 92% increase in gang-related homicides across Canada.

What have the Liberals actually done? They have targeted, demonized and criminalized law-abiding firearms owners, hunters and sport shooters. They have reduced sentences and brought in house arrest for robbery, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging firearms with intent, drive-by shootings, discharging firearms recklessly, using firearms in crimes, possession of illegal firearms or ammunition, possession of weapons obtained by crimes, and all kinds of serious assaults and violent offences.

They considerably eased access to bail in Bill C-75, specifically saying that “primary consideration” should be given “to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity”. When Conservatives say this is the wrong direction, the Liberals respond with false and vile accusations, bigotry, and close-mindedness, the usual approach they take to any Canadians who challenge them.

Just last month, all 13 premiers from all different regions and different partisan stripes asked for real urgent action to reform the broken bail system, which the Liberals created. The Liberals keep saying they want to work with everyone to make improvements, but it is hard not to notice that it is the system most recently impacted by their legislation that all their provincial counterparts are asking them to fix.

I am disheartened to say that, just like with inflation, driven by excessive spending, squeezing Canadians from all sides struggling to ends meet, I am not sure why anyone should trust the arsonists to put out the fire. I agree with colleagues today who have talked about how emotional this subject is. I am sure almost everyone has been touched in some way by crime.

What really matters is what elected representatives actually do. Both the results and the records of the last eight years of the Liberals are heartbreakingly clear that their actions speak so much louder than their words.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I got to know my colleague from the Bloc quite well last year in Europe. However, I would like him to reread the motion. He made a statement that was factually incorrect when he said that our motion is calling for the complete repeal of Bill C-75. The motion does not state that. It states that we want to repeal those aspects that are allowing violent repeat offenders to get out there and commit additional violent crimes and murders.

My question is simple enough. Does the member agree the bail system does need reform and, as all the premiers have called for, including the premier of la belle province, we need that reform immediately and it needs to happen now?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my Conservative Party colleague from Lakeland. Not surprisingly, I will be sharing my time, but not the same views.

I want to put all this in context. Today is the Conservative Party's opposition day. The motion was moved by the member for Fundy Royal. It is a direct attack on Bill C-75, which was passed in 2019, three years ago already.

The Bloc Québécois feels that Bill C-75 is a good bill overall, but there are some flaws. We do not believe that there is such a thing as a perfect bill, to be honest. Eventually, at some point in the future, there will be amendments, additions or deletions made to certain elements of Bill C-75.

The day is winding down, and we have been discussing this bill all day. Everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the Conservative motion. Yes, we know there are real problems when it comes to crime, but the solutions proposed by the Conservative Party are not the right ones we need to make the changes that we will eventually have to make.

As we have been seeing all day, this bill really gets people fired up. Everyone's emotions are running high, and everyone keeps firing off demands. This bill also opens the door to a lot of misinformation. Certain groups of people hide behind their ideology, which, sadly, has nothing to do with science. Others adopt a more sensationalist approach and, as in the current case, appear to be electioneering.

The motion is based on individual cases. All day, we have been hearing about two or three specific cases: murdered police officers and a man accused of rape who is serving his sentence at home. I do not want to downplay these situations, but I do want to point out that these are all individual cases the Conservatives are talking about here today, cases they are using as justification for upsetting the apple cart and going back to square one with Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois is against that. We want to move on, and we will vote against the motion.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that there is a bit of bad faith involved in moving this motion and that our Conservative colleagues are trying to create a false sense of security. Repealing Bill C-75 as it was passed is not going to enhance public safety. That is just not true. Let us keep in mind that we are talking about laws, justice and social justice. The Bloc Québécois supports victims. We will always side with the poor and with victims, and we think that, in this case, it is inappropriate to pursue the repeal of Bill C-75.

The Bloc Québécois hopes that we can take a sensible, reasonable and balanced approach to such important bills. We are well aware that Bill C-75 is not a cure-all, but it meets a lot of needs.

Of all of the misinformation our Conservative colleagues are spreading, there is one allegation that really irks us. They are saying that Bill C-75 requires judges to release violent repeat offenders who can then go out and commit other crimes. That is obviously misinformation, and it is easy to prove it. The Conservatives keep making this argument, but it does not hold water for the Bloc Québécois. It is not true at all. Judges still have the final say in the cases they try.

Another thing that is based on misinformation is the presumption that the Canadian justice system puts the rights of violent repeat offenders ahead of the rights of law-abiding Quebeckers and Canadians. That has been repeated all day, but it is totally false. It is clear that the claim that the bail system puts the rights of repeat offenders ahead of the rights of other individuals is a complete falsehood.

Another claim that keeps coming up is that the bail system is bad. To us that is a false claim. Bail is a way of finding a balance between the presumption of innocence, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and public safety. That is why we think that statement is false. They are talking about things that do not exist, that are not there, that are purely made up.

Again, this is a very delicate exercise.

On what are the Conservatives currently basing their claim that we have to take an axe to Bill C‑75? Are they relying on empirical data? No, they did not present any empirical data today, absolutely none. Are they relying on peer-reviewed studies? No, they did not present any such studies today.

Of course, we have heard plenty of anecdotes about individual cases. We have been hearing about the same cases all day. However, that does not justify a major reform of a bill like Bill C-75. It is not possible and it is not logical. In a system like ours, to begin with individual points like this and reshuffle the deck would be madness. We could go round in circles forever.

Canada has a population of 35 million people. What do these individual cases represent out of 35 million people? I do not want to minimize the cases that have been put forward, but we cannot decide these things based on individual cases.

What is both interesting and useful about research and science is that they provide for studies to be done on large numbers of individuals. This is what validates research and why it can be presented and shared with some degree of certainty. Not all research results are perfectly accurate. At times, there are contradictory findings from one study to the next, but overall, this is what can be expected.

I want to touch on a couple of pieces of research. Earlier, in a question, my colleague referred to Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Guelph. She is an expert in this area and has spent part of her life studying bail. The findings of her studies, of which there are several, suggest that a tougher approach to bail would not improve public safety.

That said, she is just a scientist, just a girl who does research and has spent most of her life studying this topic.

Furthermore, Jane Sprott, a professor of criminology at Toronto Metropolitan University, says that there is no reliable way to predict who will commit a violent crime, regardless of the type of crime. She says it would be fiscally irresponsible and unrealistic to increase the number of people in remand. This is related to what we are talking about today. She also states that pre-trial detention hurts a person's chances of not reoffending and their social reintegration. This is obviously contrary to Conservative values. I would also like to share one other small study, but I do not think I will have enough time.

Seeing as people are making assertions based on nothing, here is a big one: From 2006 to 2015, while the Conservatives were in power, crime rates dropped. Dig no deeper, and that sounds great. Three cheers for the Conservatives. The problem is that as soon as they lost power, crime rates started going up.

Is it fair to say the Liberals were responsible for what happened in that first year or two? No. It takes time for a law—

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the impulse. I understand the intention behind this motion, given the proliferation of firearms these days and the rise in violent crimes in recent years. There is no ill intention here. However, making the provisions of Bill C‑75 harsher is based on the ideology of law and order.

Experts, including Carolyn Yule of Guelph University, are currently studying this issue. She studies the bail system. She says that, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest that a harsher approach to bail would necessarily improve public safety.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing sets us apart from the Bloc Québécois. One day, we will be in power and we will be able to introduce bills. We will then be able to correct the provisions spelled out in Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois will never be able to do that.

The Bloc Québécois should ask itself some serious questions about certain positions it has taken in the past weeks and months. For example, there is Bill C‑21 and the amendments it supported to ban certain firearms. That happened. It is true.

It also supported Bill C‑5, which is directly responsible for the release of this rapist to his home. The Bloc Québécois should ask itself these types of questions when it is time to support and adopt motions.

The Conservatives have a solution. It is not perfect, but it is a starting point. I hope once again that the Bloc Québécois will make amends and support our motion.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to comment on what my colleague said in his speech, when he asked why the Bloc Québécois will not vote in favour of today's motion.

He is right that there are several elements in the Conservative motion that we agree with. For example, the increase in violent crime in recent years is undeniably true.

However, point (a) of his motion is not entirely true, not to say downright false. There is nothing in Bill C-75 that requires judges to release repeat violent offenders. What the Conservatives are suggesting is false.

There is no point in searching high and low to figure out why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this. If the Conservatives really want to make changes to certain provisions of Bill C-75, I invite them, with all due respect, to introduce a bill to amend certain provisions of Bill C-75. I think that would be better than waiting for either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to agree with this motion.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

I want to talk about a word that seems to have escaped the Liberal government since it took office eight years ago and that is “consequence” or being accountable for one's actions. The Liberals seem to have a really hard time being accountable for their actions. Even though it has been eight years, they seem to have a really hard time taking responsibility for being in power. They seem to have a really hard time owning up to the mistakes they have been making for the eight years that they have been in office. Perhaps that explains why they have hard time asking others to be accountable for their own actions, which is even more serious when it comes to crime.

Let us look at this government's track record when it comes to failing to be accountable. It will likely explain the Liberals' position on today's opposition motion.

In 2016, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner found the Prime Minister guilty of breaking ethics laws. The Prime Minister apologized, but suffered no consequences. In 2018, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. He apologized, but suffered no consequences. Just apologize and move on.

In 2019, the Prime Minister once again violated the Conflict of Interest Act, this time in the SNC‑Lavalin case. The Prime Minister says he took responsibility for his actions. However, he suffered no consequences. In 2021, again, the Prime Minister and, this time, the then Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau, were charged under the Conflict of Interest Act and Mr. Morneau was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Morneau suffered no consequences.

In 2022, in a file currently before us, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act for giving a lucrative contract to her best friend. The minister suffered no consequences. She rose in the House, said that she apologized and that she would take responsibility for her actions. What does taking responsibility for one's actions mean to this government? What does ministerial responsibility mean? It means absolutely nothing.

This week, I asked the Prime Minister a question about the case of a rapist who received a 20-month sentence to be served at home. The Prime Minister stated that it was none of our business and that it was not the responsibility of we, the politicians, to manage the law. The Prime Minister has forgotten one thing: He and his government created the law that resulted in this individual receiving a 20-month sentence to be served at home. That is the reality. Those are the facts, and I want to present them to my Liberal colleagues and even my colleagues who belong to other parties. I encourage them to listen carefully to the meaning and the words of the motion that we moved today. I will read the motion, which is important.

(i) violent crime has increased by 32%, (ii) gang-related homicides have increased by 92%, (iii) violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily, (iv) increasing daily acts of crime and violence are putting Canadians at risk, (v) five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year

We are not asking for anything major. We are asking that something be done to help victims and to help Canadians feel safer. Here is our first request:

(a) fix Canada's broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by Bill C‑75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend;

I want to repeat those last few words: “which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend”. That is one of the effects of the legislation from Bill C‑75 that we are talking about today. Our second request is this:

(b) strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail;

In all honesty, how can anyone oppose this? Someone explain to me how the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois could disagree with that. Our last request is as follows:

(c) ensure that Canada's justice system puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of violent, repeat offenders.

It is just common sense. We know that the Liberals will vote against it, but I do not understand why the NDP and the Bloc will vote against it. There is absolutely nothing partisan about this motion, absolutely nothing negative for Canadians in general. It is meant only for violent criminals, who unfortunately are too often released and commit crime after crime. This is a direct consequence of Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5.

I know the parties supported Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75. Unfortunately, it is now time to make amends. Past mistakes can be corrected. Why are the NDP and the Bloc Québécois not voting for this motion in order to correct this situation?

We are not the only ones saying this. The premiers of all the provinces, including Quebec, have signed a letter calling on the federal government to do better on bail to prevent tragedies from occurring, dangerous criminals from being put back on the streets, and women, children, men and families from being sadly affected by violent crimes committed by individuals who should be behind bars and not on the streets.

That is exactly the point of the motion we moved. It is entirely consistent with the letter that Canadian provincial and territorial premiers sent to the federal government. Unfortunately, the government seems to have chosen to turn a deaf ear.

I get that the Liberal government does not want to admit the Conservatives are right, so let us listen to someone else. I am talking about the famous case I mentioned earlier, the individual who sexually assaulted a woman and was sentenced to 20 months to be served at home with his cellphone and Netflix. That kind of sentence for that kind of crime is totally unacceptable.

Here are some quotes from the article in La Presse:

A Crown prosecutor chastised the [Liberal] government for its recent law opening the door to house arrest for sex offenders.

Right now, [the Prime Minister] and [the Minister of Justice] probably have some explaining to do to victims of sexual assault, said Crown prosecutor Alexis Dinelle after the hearing.

This is a direct consequence of Bill C‑5 becoming law, and I am asking the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to make amends for that today.

The article goes on to say the following:

Until last November, a judge could not impose a sentence to be served at home for sexual assault. Hard time in prison was the norm for such crimes, and sentences ranged from 12 to 20 months for assaults similar to this one.

Without any fanfare, the Liberal government's Bill C‑5 made it possible for offenders to serve a sentence in the community for sexual assault.

It is not me or the Conservatives who said that. It is a Crown prosecutor who has to live with the consequences of the passage of Bill C‑5.

For these reasons, because I hope that my colleagues from all parties want to protect Canadians who have been the victims of violent crime and prevent new crimes from being committed, I encourage them to help us make the necessary changes to ensure that violent repeat offenders stay behind bars and not in our communities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member caught the beginning of my comments. I talked extensively about how the government plays an important role in dealing with the types of issues the member has raised, whether it is through budgetary measures or legislative measures. I would cite Bill C-75, which the Conservatives are critical of.

Bill C-75 actually made it harder to be released on bail. For example, the bill imposed what they call a reverse onus. There is a wonderful opportunity for the House of Commons to be able to debate the importance of the need for making changes. However, we also need to recognize that it is not just for the House of Commons and that we have an obligation to work with others. Those others include the shared responsibilities with our provinces, territories and indigenous communities, among many other stakeholders.

It is not as simple as saying here is an idea, let us make it happen and bring in the legislation. There is a need for consultation when we have shared responsibilities. This is something that the government has strived to do. We have tangible examples of investing financial resources and legislative resources to try to improve upon our system. It is far better than it was, but it is something we can always look at ways of improving.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a great deal of the debate on the motion that has been brought forward by the Conservative Party today. Suffice it to say, if members have not detected it in my questioning of the Conservative Party, they will find that I am somewhat disappointed in the Conservative motion that we have before us.

I have had the opportunity to act in many different capacities over my parliamentary career, whether it was as a justice critic in the province of Manitoba or sitting in a quasi-judicial youth justice committee as a chairperson and as a board member, dealing with the issues surrounding things like parole, bail and so forth. I would like to reflect on the things I have done in the past and, more importantly, reflect on what I believe based on discussions I have had, whether it was with law enforcement agencies, officers, constituents or the many different stakeholders out there. I will try to summarize it all by saying that we are all concerned about safety in our communities. We all want to feel safe in our communities, and I think we all have a responsibility to do what we can.

I would suggest to my Conservative friends across the way that, yes, there have been some tragedies that have occurred where real lives have been affected in a very profound negative way because of criminal behaviour. One does not have to belong to one political party over another in order to understand and appreciate the severity, the emotions, the anxiety and the blame that take place. I appreciate that and I am very much concerned about victims, not only today's victims, but the ways in which we, as a government or as parliamentarians, can advance the minimizing of future victims by investing.

This government has invested literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of resource dollars and others in non-profits and other levels of government, whether provincial, municipal or indigenous communities, and so much more in terms of dealing with issues such as dysfunctional families, alcohol and drug abuse or addictions and investing in communities, health centres and issues such as mental health. These are all things that I have a holistic approach to.

We want to prevent crimes from happening. We realize that criminals will eventually leave jail, and we are discouraged by that revolving door. At the end of the day, we have a system in place. It is not perfect, and I myself have some very serious issues with some of the things I have seen over the last number of years, but those years go beyond just this government. If one listens to the Conservative Party, one would think that people who were out on bail or on probation when Stephen Harper was prime minister were never in violation or never committed any crimes. However, not that much has actually changed.

The Conservatives make reference to Bill C-75, but that bill did not make it easier to get bail. I would argue it might have even been the opposite. However, the digging and taking advantage of tragedies that have occurred, those high-profile cases, and trying to say that the system is broken, well, that is something the Conservative Party leadership is trying to say on all issues. They are trying to convince Canadians that in every way society is broken because of what has taken place over the last seven years under this administration, and they are wrong on all accounts. Let us be very clear on that.

When the Conservatives say it is broken, which they say about everything because that is the theme of the Conservative Party, they are wrong. They are saying some numbers today to try to get Canadians worried and try to convince them that things are broken. To those who are following the debate, I would suggest they do not listen too closely to what the Conservatives are spreading in terms of misinformation.

I went to Statistics Canada. Listening to the Conservatives, one would think there is crime in every corner and everywhere we look. Stats Canada, in 2021, said the violent crime rate did increase 5%, while property crime rates decreased 1%, following a large decrease in 2020. The property crime rate was the lowest it has been dating back to 1965.

The Conservatives talked about homicides. They said that is where we have really seen this huge, dramatic change and that is why the whole system is broken. Let us look at the first three full years of Stephen Harper. During the first three years, and this comes from Stats Canada, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the numbers were 608, 597 and 614 for the number of people who were murdered. For our first three full years, the numbers were 616, 667 and 662. Our population might have grown by a million, but that is a side point.

The point is that the system is not broken. The example that many of the members stand up and talk about is the issue in the province of Quebec. I am upset about it. I am very upset about it. I think anyone who assaults and rapes a woman should have to spend time in jail. That upsets me, but it was a provincial court that made the decision and it was a provincial prosecutor. That is still to be determined. Is the prosecution going to appeal that decision? I would hope so. I am not in a position to make that decision.

That is why the minister himself has said we are working with provinces. Here is a newsflash: We have been working with the provinces on bail reform since well before the Conservatives raised the issue within the last few days. In fact, back in October, the Minister of Justice and the department were actually working on consultations. During the last couple of days, those discussions have been even more amplified.

Conservatives do not care more than the Liberals care about the victims of some of these crimes we are hearing about. Our prayers, best wishes and condolences go out to the families that have been so profoundly impacted by it.

Today, we have the Conservative Party taking a look at those tragedies and putting together a motion. All one needs to do is take a look at the word “broken”. How often do they use the word “broken” nowadays? It is a political spin message, to try to give the impression that the Conservatives want to be tough on crime.

It is interesting that the critic for the Conservatives said that under Stephen Harper the number of days in jail actually went down from an average of 126 to 105. She implies that when they were in government, the number of days in jail went down, yet they are really tough on crime. It is because they are in opposition. The wording they are using is to help them, as an opposition party, get a few more headlines and create more false impressions, at least in part, in order to be able to raise more money for their coffers. It is no reflection on the law enforcement officers, the non-profit organizations, the victims or anything of that nature. I would suggest they might even be taking advantage of that situation.

We are trying to deal with it in a very real and tangible way, with legislative changes and budgetary measures, which is making a difference. We will continue that dialogue.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Quebec. The Conservatives' solutions are too easy and do not take into account the reality that exists in our country.

Bill C-75 was adopted following a binding Supreme Court decision. There is a reverse onus in Bill C-75 with regard to bail. At the same time, our government's top priority, like any government's, is to keep Canadians safe and make sure they feel safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. I know in my community this is an important topic, and we will not rest until we know that police officers have their resources.

We must also remember that the Conservative Party of Canada was the party that cut CBSA's budget. We are now putting more money into CBSA to make sure illegal arms do not come into Canada, do not harm our citizens and are kept away from criminals. We will make sure we arrest those criminals and support our police officers day in, day out, hour by hour and day by day.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about justice, about real problems on the streets, about the increase in violence, our discussions must be guided by the idea of justice and what is right. A fair balance means not distorting certain elements.

As much as we are sympathetic to the Conservatives' motion that refers to certain realities, they are masters at crafting motions that only they can vote for. They distort certain things, and of course we cannot support something that distorts reality.

My colleague talked specifically about Bill C‑75, which passed. If the prosecutor does his or her job properly, what happened in Ontario should never happen. The burden of proof regarding bail lies with the accused, not the Crown.

Could my colleague comment on the Conservative view that Bill C‑75 should be repealed because it does not meet the reverse onus?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I will point out to the member. First and foremost, the Criminal Code in this country is a responsibility of the federal government, and any amendments, consequential or otherwise, that are made to it fall under the Minister of Justice and Attorney General in this country. With one fell swoop of a pen, they can change laws, bring them to Parliament, we can debate them and they can pass.

Second, the prosecutor in Quebec is actually blaming Bill C-75 for that situation.

I want to address an issue he brought up, because I have heard this today. Liberals talk about fundraising. We are the voices of Canadians. The fact is that they are accusing us of using this for fundraising, but we are actually being the voices of Canadians. When this member says that, he does a great disservice to police chiefs, police officers, police associations, premiers and others who are calling for bail reform. They are not sending out fundraising letters. They are asking us to do something about a broken system.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I see you occupying the Chair, I want to congratulate you.

I thank my colleague for his speech. There are several elements of the Conservative motion before us today that we agree with. Obviously, we want to see an end to the increase in violent crime that has occurred in recent years, and the government needs to do more in that regard.

If the Conservatives do not agree with certain provisions of Bill C-75, I have to wonder why they have not introduced a bill to amend those provisions, rather than moving a motion on an opposition day.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Is this the beginning of a process? Will a bill be introduced in the near future? Why not?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

It is always a privilege to stand in this House to speak on behalf of my constituents of Brantford—Brant. After eight years, the Prime Minister and his government are solely responsible for our failing justice system. This is pressing and urgent; bail reform is needed now. Far too often, we are hearing Canadians use language such as “catch and release”, “a revolving door” and “an unequal justice system” to describe the state of affairs in Canadian bail courts.

In my almost two decades of prosecuting in the trenches of our criminal justice system, I have repeatedly witnessed dangerous criminals being released on bail. I am honoured to add my experience working in the criminal justice system to such an important debate. A major concern during my lawyer years was our inability to keep violent repeat offenders off the streets and in custody where they belong. I was unable to vocally criticize the lenient bail system as a Crown attorney, so I made the decision to become a politician to effect change.

The Liberal government wants Canadians to believe it has crime under control with its justice policies and that it is on the right track. I thank our Conservative leader and all my Conservative colleagues for bringing this debate into the House and for showing Canadians that this Liberal soft-on-crime agenda has broken our bail system and eroded confidence in our judicial institutions.

In 2019, to codify the principles outlined in the Supreme Court of Canada case Antic, the Liberals passed Bill C-75. Although it was intended to modernize the bail system, the effect of this legislation was to allow offenders arrested for violent crimes to be released back on the street fast enough to commit other crimes, sometimes on the same day. In fact, this was an occurrence that I routinely saw as a Crown prosecutor. I would often read Crown briefs noting the accused laughed and bragged to the arresting officers that they would be released in hours.

After receiving numerous calls and emails from my constituents, who shared their concerns about Canada's justice system, I met with the Brantford police chief, Rob Davis, and the president of the Brantford Police Association, Constable Jeremy Morton. It was important to learn directly from them what the root causes are and how we as parliamentarians can address them.

Chief Davis shared with me that it is disheartening to all police officers to see that they are doing their job, they are catching people, they are putting them before the courts, they are asking that they be held in custody but they are being released. He said that criminals are brazen and are laughing at the current justice system. He said oftentimes, they are getting back home before the officers do, and the next thing he knows, they are committing twice as much crime. It is a telltale sign of the level of brazenness among criminals. He also reflected on how the system has dramatically shifted and said that criminals' rights have now superseded the rights of victims.

For years, Canadian law enforcement worked hard to build trust in the police and give victims a level of security if they came forward, and the perpetrator was put into the justice system. Now, everything, according to him, is upside down. The Liberal soft-on-crime approach, he says, is bringing the justice system into disrepute, and the concern that law enforcement now has is that if society loses faith in the justice system, we may find ourselves in a situation where citizens will decide to take things into their own hands.

I never thought as a parliamentarian that I would be quoting Oprah Winfrey, but on her show, every Christmas, she would have giveaways. She would point to the audience and say, “You get a car”, or they got another gift. That is precisely what has happened with the Liberal government and the Prime Minister given their approach to the bail system in Canada. With the Prime Minister, for the last eight years we have said, “He gets bail. She gets bail. Everyone gets bail”, regardless of the fact that they have repeated criminal offences on their record, regardless of the fact that they have an outstanding charge and regardless of how serious the charge is.

It is a statistical fact that the majority of serious violent crimes committed in this country are committed by a handful of repeat offenders. For example, in Vancouver alone, 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in one year. That is 150 arrests per person, per year. Brantford Police Chief Davis further spoke on this issue and stated that we have entire neighbourhoods that one or two bad apples will terrorize as repeat violent offenders.

The data published by Statistics Canada clearly shows that between 2008 and 2014, under the Harper government, Canada witnessed an annual decrease in the crime severity index. From 2015 onward, this trend changed dramatically.

Since the Prime Minister took office, the number of crimes has grown year after year. Violent crime has gone up 32% in one year. Gang-related killings have gone up 92% since the Liberals formed government. In 2021, there were over two million police-reported Criminal Code incidents, marking an increase of 25,000 incidents since 2020.

Since the fall of 2022, tragically, five Canadian police officers have been killed while on duty. With hundreds of murders in 2021, one Canadian was murdered every 10 hours throughout the year. The 2020 data shows that Canada's homicide rate is roughly double that of the U.K. and France, and four times higher than that of Italy.

Even though the Prime Minister and his government are claiming that Bill C-75 was meant to clear the backlog of people waiting for bail hearings, experts say it has done much more than that. Essentially, the government has told judges dealing with bail applications that they need to make sure anyone accused of a crime is released at the earliest opportunity and on the least serious conditions. Let that sink in. Primary consideration is for the accused, not for the victim and not for society at large. Some judges and justices of the peace feel that the bill has put shackles on them and has resulted in an increase in releases, even by violent offenders.

Last month, all 13 premiers sent a letter to the Prime Minister calling for amendments to keep more people in custody as they await trial. This call was supported by police chiefs, police associations, mayors and provincial attorneys general from coast to coast to coast. Recently, the Toronto police chief opined on the issue of bail reform and argued that only judges and not JPs should be allowed to hear bail cases when serious gun charges are involved.

A multipronged approach to bail reform is required. According to the Supreme Court, everyone is entitled to a speedy trial. However, it can often take years to get to trial. We need to speed up the system so that when criminals show up in court, the judge knows they will get a speedy trial and may be less inclined to bail them out.

The Liberals said they were open to discussions, but that has been their position since the provincial justice ministers raised that issue last March, almost a year ago. Instead, the government has been busy passing Bill C-5 and Bill C-21.

This January, a judge in my riding of Brantford—Brant said that my hometown community is “plagued by gun violence—murders caused by guns and people walking around with firearms. It never used to be as prevalent as it is today.” She said, “Now it’s an epidemic”, and that the Crown should get tougher on offenders.

To put it into perspective, the Liberals and the NDP have ignored the real way that most criminals get their guns under Bill C-21. They eased bail conditions for serious violent crimes under Bill C-75 and decided to put the safety of victims at risk with Bill C-5. The Conservatives have been calling for a balance to the justice system and bail reform for years, but the Liberal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada continues to defend the current system.

I have a very quick primer on bail. Bail legislation reflects the fundamental principles outlined in Canada’s charter that attempt to balance the rights of the accused by upholding the presumption of innocence with public safety and confidence in the system. The law allows for people who are deemed risky to be detained for certain indictable offences, or when confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by releasing a person into the community.

Canada needs bail reform now to pull back from the failed views put forward by the government. We cannot continue to endanger our communities by letting repeat violent offenders walk freely on our streets and simply wait before they harm somebody. How much more blood needs to be spilled on our streets? How many more police officers need to lose their lives before the government finally acts?

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 codified what were essentially Supreme Court decisions and made it harder to get bail in a number of cases. It did not change any of the severity of bail conditions for violent criminals, yet we are still going to look at other possibilities with the provinces to move forward to make Canadians feel safe.

Opposition Motion—Bail Reform

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat the question I asked earlier.

I think everyone agrees on the fact that the provisions of Bill C-75 need to be looked at and improved. That being said, no one is born violent. That tendency develops over time. Without support from our social services, which have been undermined as a result of 30 years of health transfer deficits, violence may increase.

I would like to know whether the government will increase health transfers to 35%.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Richmond Hill gave us a very long overview of what the bill is intended to do and what Bill C-75 is supposed to do. However, I want to share some facts.

In my riding alone, in December of this past year, in a drive-by shooting, one of the charges was possession of a firearm contrary to a probation order. In December as well, a man was attacked with a hammer and, again, there were several charges, including several counts of breach of probation. In November, a man and a woman were arrested on numerous drug charges, but again the man was charged with additional two counts of a breach of a weapons prohibition. There was another one in my riding, with multiple agencies in a drug bust, where again charges were tied to a prohibition order.

If this bill is so good and we do not need bail reform, why do the stats show that it is not working and we desperately need changes to our bail system?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the outset, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury. I am thankful for the opportunity to join today's debate relating to the criminal justice system, focusing on bail and repeat violent offenders.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Fundy Royal for his motion and his long-standing commitment to public safety. His motion provides me with an opportunity to discuss recent reforms to the Criminal Code, specifically former Bill C-75, and reflect on what is happening in my community and what we are doing in Richmond Hill.

Bill C-75 was introduced on March 29, 2018, in the House of Commons and subsequently received royal assent on June 21, 2019. The changes enacted by the bill came fully into force in December 2019.

While the reforms were enacted principally to address delays and criminal justice system efficiencies related to the concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2016 Jordan decision and 2017 Cody decision, they also modernized and streamlined Canada's bail regime. These reforms represented the most significant changes to Canada's bail regime since the Bail Reform Act of 1972. Bill C-75 also reflected the reasoning of Canada's top court in the 2017 Antic decision. It was a product of significant consultations with the provinces and territories. It was a thoughtful and broad-ranging reform.

With respect to the bail amendments in Bill C-75, they were designed to specifically streamline the bail process by increasing the types of conditions police can impose on accused in order to avoid sending unnecessary cases to court and to reduce the need for unnecessary bail hearings, and by no means were they designed to reduce the conditions assigned during bail; codify a principle of restraint to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention when appropriate, and I will go into detail on that later; provide guidance so the bail conditions imposed are reasonable, relevant to the offence and necessary to ensure public safety; and finally, require that the circumstances of indigenous accused and of accused from vulnerable populations be considered at bail to better address the disproportionate impact that the bail system has on these populations.

My colleagues suggest that Bill C-75 has broken Canada's bail system, that its reform forces judges to release violent repeat offenders back onto the street, and that receiving bail is easier now than ever for violent repeat offenders. By no means does the data support this. These claims are, at best, ill-informed and, at worst, very misleading. We have the data to prove that.

In the past 15 years, more than half of the admissions to adult provincial and territorial facilities were for remands to await trial instead of admissions to sentenced custody. A lot of people were waiting to be sentenced or were waiting to be heard. According to Statistics Canada, the proportion of admissions to remand has increased from 54% in 2006-07 to 67% in 2020-21, despite a constant decrease in the number of adult admissions during the same period.

This increase in the remand population has disproportionately affected indigenous people and persons from vulnerable populations. As a result, Bill C-75 enacted in the Criminal Code a requirement that the circumstances of indigenous accused and of accused from vulnerable populations be considered at bail in order to address the disproportionate impact that the bail system has on these populations.

The amendments in the bill sought to reduce the imposition of bail conditions that are unreasonable, irrelevant and unnecessary, which was also a codification of the rules developed by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the criteria for when accused persons can be released by police or justices were not changed. The law remains clear that detention of an accused person is justified if it is necessary to protect the safety of the public.

We hear so often about the repeat offenders. It is in the hands of the justice system to ensure that it has the tools to be able to detain them. We have not changed that. Moreover, police are required to detain an accused person if there is a risk of reoffending.

The Bill C-75 amendments significantly expand protection for victims of intimate partner violence, particularly within the bail regime. The bill created a definition of “intimate partner” that applies throughout the Criminal Code to clarify that it includes a current or former spouse, common-law partner and dating partner.

It also created a reverse onus provision in the Criminal Code for an accused person charged with an intimate violence offence if the accused has a prior conviction for an offence involving violence against an intimate partner. This reverse onus applies regardless of whether it is the same partner, a former partner or a dating partner. What this means is that the presumption that the accused should be released pending trial no longer applies. The accused, not the prosecutor, would have to justify their release to the court. All the tools needed to prevent recidivism are there.

The change to impose a reverse onus reflects what we know about the heightened risk to safety that victims of intimate partner violence face. It also signals to bail court the seriousness of the alleged offences, as well as the increased risk of reoffending in this context.

Bill C-75 also added two new factors a judge must consider before making an order to release or detain an accused person. First, in an important change, bail courts now have to consider an accused's criminal record, something that may have occurred but was not mandated by the legislation. Second, the court needs to consider whether an accused has ever been charged with an offence that involved violence against an intimate partner. These two factors help ensure that courts are better informed and have a more a complete picture of prior history of violence that could threaten the safety of a victim or the public at large.

As a result of these changes, bail courts are now required to take these factors into account when making a number of different possible bail-related determinations, including the decision to impose an order not to communicate with a particular victim, witness or other person, a detention order or an order to release the accused on bail.

If the accused is to be released on bail, the court would have to consider whether the alleged offence was against an intimate partner in determining whether bail conditions are necessary and, if so, what type of conditions are appropriate, such as a condition prohibiting contact with the victim.

Requiring bail courts to consider the safety of intimate partners before releasing an accused on bail affords increased protection to victims of intimate partner violence. Bill C-75 made changes to the bail system that respond to guidance on bail-related charter rights of the accused as found in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. These changes aimed to help address the overrepresentation of indigenous people and vulnerable populations in the criminal justice system, while also increasing the efficiency of the bail system.

I emphasize that Bill C-75 did not change how the bail system should respond to violent or repeat offending, and it made some admirable changes to bail for those charged with offences relating to intimate partner violence.

In closing, contrary to the hon. member's suggestion, Bill C-75 has strengthened our bail system and helped protect victims of intimate partner violence.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, the issue at the border is a major one. We have raised it many times. The government needs to put far more effort into controlling illegal weapons trafficking at the borders. These weapons are being used by criminals on the streets of Montreal, Toronto and all over Canada.

We did not include it in the motion today because we are specifically targeting Bill C-75 and the fact that Bill C-5 is harmful. However, the problem of weapons trafficking at the borders is indeed a priority issue. I hope the government will speed things up.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I admire him greatly, but I do not agree with what he is saying. Bill C‑75 was not perfect. We all agree on that, on both sides of the House. There are some improvements to be made.

I would like my colleague's opinion on the remarks made by Carolyn Yule, a sociology and anthropology professor who studies bail. She says that there is no evidence to suggest that a tough-on-crime approach to bail would improve public safety.

Can we please trust these academics?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, things always get emotional when we talk about crime, but facts are facts.

The streets of Montreal would be safer had Bill C-5 not been passed, for example.

Last week, we saw one of the harmful effects of Bill C‑5, which was passed before Christmas. An individual who committed aggravated sexual assault eight years ago was sentenced last week. There were many delays related to the court process, and Bill C‑5 was passed in the midst of all that. The sentence that the judge handed down was 20 months to be served in the community, whereas, in the past, that individual would have been jailed. Seeing what the judge had done, the Crown prosecutor said that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice had a lot to answer for to the victims.

Ever since this government took office eight years ago, I have been astounded by its total lack of sympathy for victims.

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was enacted during the Conservative era. My colleague, Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, then prime minister Stephen Harper, then minister of justice Peter MacKay, and Steven Blaney, who was also a minister, created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights as a way to give victims of crime the right to be protected and informed. We know victims have been totally overlooked in recent years. Criminals are laughing at the justice system because they know that justice is much weaker now and they can commit crimes over and over without fear of prison time. It is victims who are living in fear, too scared to even file a complaint anymore because they know that nothing will come of it. The Liberals can say what they want, but facts are facts.

On this day of debate on our motion, we are not addressing the problem in a partisan way at all. When the premiers of all 13 provinces and territories ask for exactly the same thing and the police associations in Canada all ask for exactly the same thing, I would say it is because there is a problem.

I hope my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will understand the approach we are taking today. As I said earlier, if anyone reads our motion carefully, they will clearly see that we are specifically targeting firearms offences, among others.

Say a criminal who commits an offence and is charged with a firearms offence is able to get parole easily and goes on to commit another firearms offence. If we asked Canadians if they thought that was okay, they would all say no. One of the problems with Bill C-75 is that it allows criminals to be released too easily. That is what we want to be fixed. We are asking that the situation that was created by passing Bill C‑75 be resolved to prevent recurring crimes.

As I said earlier, in British Columbia, 40 individuals were arrested 6,000 times in one year. That is unbelievable. In Canada, the group we are targeting amounts to a few hundred individuals. We are talking about 1,000 criminals at most. We are not talking about applying a law to every person in Canada who is facing any kind of charges. Rather, we are focusing specifically on the problem of criminals who commit firearms offences and dangerous repeat offenders. That is all we want, and we would like the Liberal government to show some understanding.

After eight years, this Liberal government needs to understand that we need more rules and that what we are talking about right now is a very valid issue. As I said, it is not a partisan issue when 13 provincial and territorial premiers from all parties are saying the same thing. These premiers are Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats. I think it is perfectly reasonable.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to our motion, which is very important. I will begin by saying that I have been here for eight years, the same amount of time that this Liberal government has been in power. Under this Prime Minister's reign—and I say “reign” because the Prime Minister behaves like a king who is not accountable to anyone, whether the decisions are good or bad—it has become clear that this government and this Prime Minister are very sympathetic to criminals.

This is evidenced by several decisions that have been made and several legislative changes that have been introduced over the past eight years. Whether those decisions are in relation to prisons, Bill C-75 or Bill C-5, we find that they are always oriented towards helping criminals, not victims.

In the eight years since the Liberal government came to power, we have seen an increase in crime with all these legislative changes that favour crime. This is particularly true when it comes to bail. I remember the debates we had on Bill C‑75 quite clearly. The Conservative Party was very critical of what was proposed in that bill, because it made no sense.

Today, four years later, we see the result. I want to make it clear to my colleagues on the Liberal side who are here, and even to my colleagues from the Bloc who endorsed Bill C‑75 at the time but who may have changed their minds by now, that today's motion is very specific. We are asking the government to urgently review certain elements of Bill C‑75.

In particular, we want to review the provisions regarding criminals who use firearms and who, unfortunately, because of Bill C‑75, are able to obtain bail too easily. We had evidence of this just before Christmas, when a Toronto police officer was murdered on his first day working solo. This young police officer was murdered by a repeat offender who should never have been released on bail.

This is the most serious type of crime in Canada right now. We are not here today to table a sweeping motion to revamp Bill C-75 in its entirety. We want to target this problem specifically, as requested by all the premiers of all the provinces and territories of Canada, as requested by the police associations, and as requested on January 23 by Pierre Brochet, president of the Quebec association of police chiefs. He urged the government to change the way it deals with the worst criminals of all, repeat offenders, who commit violent crimes over and over again.

We are seeing that now. British Columbia has published reports. My colleagues love talking about reports, so let me point out that a report from British Columbia said that 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in just one year. That is mind-boggling. The same individual could be arrested and released three times in the same day. That is hard for anyone to understand, but it is one of the harmful effects of Bill C‑75, and that is what we want to fix.

We want to fix this very specific problem. Today's motion is aimed at that. Earlier, I heard my Bloc colleague speak about young offenders. We are not talking about that. All we want to do is close the loophole in Bill C-75 regarding violent criminals, those who commit dangerous offences over and over day after day and got a 28-year-old police officer killed just before Christmas.

When we talk about lax Liberal policies, the facts speak for themselves. All the changes that have been made over the last eight years have led to the 32% increase in crime we are seeing these days. There has also been a 92% increase in murders committed by street gangs.

Why is that happening, if not because, as I said at the start, criminals are no longer afraid? Criminals are thumbing their noses at the justice system. In the streets of Montreal, criminals were eagerly waiting for Bill C-5 to be passed.

I hear my Liberal colleague on the other side saying “come on”. I would invite him to go meet with—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Canada's bail system is broken. Why do we say it is broken? It is because it is not working for law-abiding citizens who fear for their safety, and it certainly is not working for victims. Cities in B.C., including my hometown of Surrey, are facing an onslaught of crime, including gang activity, property damage and violence. It is no wonder why.

In 2019, the Liberals passed legislation, Bill C-75, that directed a “principle of restraint” when imposing bail conditions. Under this soft-on-crime policy, police are forced to release known criminals on a promise that they will show up in court, a practice known as catch-and-release. This approach is not working in British Columbia, nor anywhere else in Canada.

Let us look at the tragic murder of Constable Shaelyn Yang. She was stabbed to death while on duty by a man previously arrested for assault. He was released on the condition that he would appear in court, something which he failed to do. A warrant was issued for his re-arrest, but when found living in a tent in a Burnaby park, he took the life of Constable Yang. He stabbed her to death.

Sadly, crimes of this violent nature are becoming commonplace in British Columbia. A tourist was stabbed multiple times in the back while waiting in line at a Tim Hortons in Vancouver. His assailant was the subject of a Canada-wide warrant for failing to follow the conditions of his release.

Last December in Surrey, a man with a criminal record, which included 23 convictions for assault, attacked a mother and her 11-month-old child. Last year, a man stole a ferry vessel from Victoria harbour. He was arrested, released and was later caught shattering the windows and doors of local businesses.

In Vancouver, and we have heard about this before but it bears repeating, 40 offenders accounted for 6,000 arrests last year. That is an average of 150 arrests each. No one should pretend that this is acceptable. In Kelowna, one man is responsible for 346 complaints to local police in the last six years, which led to 29 convictions for assault and property crimes.

The rates of crime, especially violent crime, have reached a crisis point in B.C. The BC Urban Mayors' Caucus has sounded the alarm bells and is calling for action to prevent this cycle of crime. In its letter to the premier, it states that its cities have to divert precious resources away from other public safety priorities to deal with repeat offenders.

Even NDP Premier David Eby, who was here just the other day, signed a joint letter with all premiers to the federal government calling for the broken bail system to be fixed. The letter states, “The justice system fundamentally needs to keep anyone who poses a threat to public safety off the streets. And this starts with meaningful changes to the Criminal Code..., an area solely within the federal government's jurisdiction.”

The Surrey Board of Trade, an organization normally associated with economic development in my region, is expressing its concern with crime on the streets. It recently said, “The economic development of any community relies upon its reputation as a safe, viable region in which to locate and do business”.

The breakdown of public safety has hit my community of South Surrey—White Rock, but the problem extends far beyond B.C. It is a national mess. This past summer, we all watched with horror the mass killing on the James Smith Cree first nation in Saskatchewan. The perpetrator had previously been charged with over 120 crimes, but none of that prevented him from taking 10 indigenous lives.

Following that senseless tragedy, the Leader of the Opposition stood in the House pleading for change. He said:

The James Smith Cree Nation was not only the victim of a violent criminal, but also the victim of a broken criminal justice system.... A system that allows a violent criminal to reoffend over and over again with impunity does not deserve to be called a justice system. Leaving victims vulnerable to repeat attacks by a violent felon is not criminal justice. It is criminal negligence.

I agree that the broken bail system needs to be fixed. For someone who makes one mistake, of course they should be given every opportunity to build a productive life for themselves and others, but dangerous, violent, repeat offenders cannot be allowed to terrorize our streets.

Bill C-5 would make the problem worse. The Liberals rewrote sentencing for serious crimes, putting dangerous criminals back on the street sooner than they deserved to be. They lowered sentences for crimes such as assault with a weapon, abduction of a minor and participation in the activities of a criminal organizations, making these crimes eligible for summary convictions. They expanded house arrest for other serious offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, motor vehicle theft and arson. Imagine how victims feel marginalized, how their suffering is ignored.

The Liberals eliminated mandatory prison time for serious gun crimes, including robbery or extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in commission of a crime, and reckless discharge of a firearm. While the Prime Minister is letting drive-by shooters and gunrunners back into our community, he is going after law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.

Meanwhile, in the middle of the opioid crisis, he eliminated mandatory prison time for drug dealers. Over 31,000 Canadians have lost their lives to overdose since the Liberals took office eight long years ago. Now the crime of producing heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth is not subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. The same goes for drug smuggling and drug trafficking.

The blame for this mess lies at the feet of the Prime Minister and his Liberal Party, but in a minority Parliament, he cannot act alone. The NDP are complicit. Thirteen NDP MPs from B.C. voted for the reckless erosion of the justice system, and they too must be held to account. They changed the justice system to cater to the sensibilities of left-wing activists who want to defund the police rather than provide safe streets for our citizens, and now five police officers have been murdered in the past year.

The new justice system puts the criminal first and the victim last, and offenders first and the needs of the community last. It frees the felon while tying the hands of law enforcement. What is the result after eight years? Violent crime is up 32%, homicides are up 30%, gang-related murders up 92% and sexual assaults have increased by 61%.

Next election, voters in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island can count on Conservatives to clean up the mess made of our cities and our rural communities. We will fix Canada's broken bail system by repealing the elements enacted by Bill C-75, which forced judges, some of whom are now publicly complaining, which is very unusual for an independent judiciary, to release violent repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend.

We will strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearm offences do not easily get bail, as they do now. We will target violent repeat offenders and ensure that Canada's justice system puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians first. We will restore safe streets and protect our citizens from violent crime.

Canadians are hurting in so many ways under these Liberals. They do not care, but the Conservatives do.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government is listening to these groups. Back in October, the justice minister met with leaders throughout our country who were demanding these changes. That is when they initially had a discussion about this. He has indicated in the House today, which I am sure the member for Barrie—Innisfil was present to hear, that those discussions are ongoing and that he would be meeting with them again in February.

The member asks why we will not agree to change Bill C-75, but Bill C-75 was just about fixing the mistakes the previous government made that were identified by the Supreme Court. My colleague from the NDP made a really good point earlier when he said that despite the fact that these laws may have been found unconstitutional 10 or 15 years later, lives were still affected in the meantime. Charter rights were legally infringed upon in the meantime, and that is what the Conservatives would like to see happen. They have no problem at all with seeing that occur.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, a while ago, a wise man told me never to argue with a fool because they will never know I am right, so against my better judgment I stand up here.

The difference between the Liberals in government and the official opposition party, the Conservatives, putting this motion forward is that we are actually listening to the voices of Canadians, those of police chiefs, police associations, big-city mayors and the premiers of all the provinces and territories in this country who are demanding bail reform as a result of the failures of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. They are seeing it on the streets. What happened with Constable Pierzchala was the top blowing off a volcano. As sad and as difficult as that situation was, it was festering underneath in the judicial system, and now all of these groups are calling for changes.

Why will the government not listen to these groups and implement the changes that are being called for?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Conservative fundraising motion. Why do I say that? It is not that I do not think this is an extremely serious issue. I do, and I will get to that in a second, but I feel as though the Conservative Party is taking a serious issue and exploiting it for its own gain.

We all know the Conservatives pretty much came into the room knowing this motion would not be supported by a majority of parliamentarians, but they are looking forward to the opportunity to use it in a fundraising email blast, probably later this evening, or something of that sort. It is extremely disingenuous when we treat the House of Commons this way. I do not think it was ever intended to be used this way, but unfortunately we see the Conservatives doing that more and more.

To start, bail reform, as we know and as we have been hearing from leaders throughout the country, is a very important thing we need to tackle. That is why the Minister of Justice met with leaders back in October and committed to working with them. That is why he is meeting with them again in February. That is why he will work with them to make the genuine reforms they are looking for and need in order to increase public safety. In my opinion, he is genuinely working toward an objective of trying to make Canada a better place and improve the quality of life of all Canadians.

I am disheartened by this motion because, for starters, the first resolve paragraph in it specifically speaks to Bill C-75 and directs the government to make changes to Bill C-75. The irony, though, is that Bill C-75 was brought in to fix Harper Conservative legislation on mandatory minimum sentences. At least three pieces of legislative have been struck down by the courts at this point. By bringing in Bill C-75, we mirrored what the courts were saying. The courts were saying that the law infringes upon people's charter rights, that it cannot be imposed on people and that it must be changed.

What would the Charter of Rights look like for the Conservatives? If they continually brought in legislation that was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, would that not imply they would rather have a different Constitution with a different Charter of Rights in it, a Charter of Rights that did not give what ours currently gives? I cannot understand how we could land on any other assumption than that.

In his address today to the House, the Leader of the Opposition specifically talked about the Conservative approach. He outlined what the Conservative approach would be. However, what he did not talk about was that this approach has been struck down repeatedly by the Supreme Court. He has to come clean with Canadians and say how he would deliver on his approach. Would he use the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court? Would he change the Charter or Rights so that it does not look how it looks now? How else would we effectively get the Conservative approach to become legislation that could be upheld and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court?

I find it very confusing and very disingenuous when a motion like this comes in. It has to do with a genuine concern being brought forward by leaders throughout our country, but the Conservatives are utilizing it and piggybacking off it to try to exploit something else they are doing. They are trying to exploit fears and anxiety in order to raise money. That is the only conclusion I can come to. That is why I said that I cannot see the purpose of this motion being anything other than a fundraising tool for the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives talked a lot about Bill C-75 making bail easier. That is not what Bill C-75 was about. As a matter of fact, one of the changes in Bill C-75 made it more difficult for people to get bail. It put the onus on the accused to explain why they should be getting bail. That was specifically related to intimate partner violence.

I keep coming back to this point: Why would the Conservatives intentionally exploit these fears if it was for nothing other than political gain? Time after time, we see this narrative coming forward from the Conservatives. We see them standing up in this House and suggesting that this government is directly responsible for some of the things that were put in Bill C-75, specifically as they relate to reforms, which were only needed because the former Conservative government that put in legislation did so in a way that infringed upon people's charter rights, if we are willing to accept the ruling of the court.

As I said, Bill C-75 did not change the criteria of when an accused person can be released by police, a judge or a justice of the peace. It is important to point that out because we have heard repeatedly from the Conservatives today that this is the case. In fact, as I indicated, we made it harder for some individuals to get bail, especially as it relates to intimate partner violence.

Bill C-75 also imposed what is called a reverse onus, as I indicated, for bail imposed on an accused charged with certain firearms offences. This means that the accused will be detained pending trial unless they can prove that bail is justified.

Bill C-75 was adopted following a binding Supreme Court decision, so the Conservatives' first resolve paragraph in the motion asking that we immediately repeal the elements of Bill C-75 is disingenuous at best, because we were replying to what the court was telling us. The Supreme Court of Canada was telling us this had to be done in order to maintain people's charter rights.

I come back to where I started: What is it going to be? Do the Conservatives believe in the charter? Do they believe in those rights? They keep bringing forward legislation that imposes upon them. Do they believe in them, or would they like to see the charter changed? If they do want to see the charter changed, what would they have it look like? I am very curious about what the Charter of Rights would look like per the definition of the Conservatives and per the legislation they have been bringing forward. What do they see for those rights? It is a legitimate question. We have to get to the bottom of that because it is the underpinning and fundamental document upon which the vast majority of challenges are made.

I will continue to listen to the debate today. I am obviously opposed to this motion, and I am glad to see that the majority of colleagues in the House are coming from the same position. It is the responsible thing to do. We need to make sure we continue to have very important conversations about bail reform with leaders throughout our country who are asking for it. We have to have them in an honest way that genuinely impacts Canadians' lives and makes the lives of Canadians safer in the process.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-75 was definitely not perfect. There were many ways it could have been improved. However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It is also important to take a broader view of the situation and ask what causes the violence. A child is not born violent. Various aspects of a person's life leads them down that road.

Across Canada, social services have been greatly affected by cuts to health transfers over the past 30 years. Are those services still effective? Should we not be reinvesting in health?

Therein may lie part of the solution. It will not happen overnight, but over the long term. Health transfers have suffered 30 years of cuts, and it is time for that to change.

I would like to hear from my colleague on this issue.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been eight years of the Prime Minister and thousands of new victims of crime across Canada in those eight years.

I stand here not only as the voice of my constituents in Thornhill, but also as the voice of thousands of people in every corner of the country who want us to start taking the safety of our communities more seriously.

I grew up in the place that I represent in the House of Commons today and I have spent almost my whole life living in the Toronto area. Even though the city is home to millions, we have always been blessed to have a feeling of big-city safety. That is not often found elsewhere. For years, we rode transit without fearing the random attacks. Now all we have to do is open the newspaper, go to Twitter or turn on the news to see violent attack after violent attack throughout the last number of months.

We gathered in public places with our loved ones and we were free to do the things we wanted to do whenever we wanted to do them without fear. We went about our daily lives, safe from criminals and the people who wanted to harm others, for the most part. We used to feel safe in the city. That feeling is fading away. All one has to do is open the newspaper to see it.

With every day that passes comes another story about the out-of-control violence in our streets and the innocent people who are being terrorized by it: stories of people being stabbed in the head and face with ice picks; stories about people being swarmed and beaten, in some cases by teenagers, or pushed in front of moving trains or shoved to the ground; stories about people being set on fire in the biggest city in our country.

All the recent attacks, the ones have outlined a number of times, were random. All of these attacks were in Canada. The GTA is used to making international news, it is a big place, but not international news like this. Last week, it was on the BBC. A few weeks ago, it was in the New York Times. Even my hometown of Vaughan made it onto CNN last December after a horrific shooting.

We are obviously seeing more of this. The rate is rising. The stats are clear. Rising crime is not just something that is tearing into my community and it is not isolated. It is something that is happening in every neighbourhood across the country. It is happening in Vancouver where entire sections of the city are being taken over by out-of-control drug and gang activity. It is happening in rural communities, where only 18% of all Canadians live but 25% of violent crimes take place. Those numbers are shocking.

There were more homicides in our nation in 2019 than in 2018. There were more in 2020 than in 2019. There were more in 2021 than in 2020. That is a pattern and somebody has to say it. Things are not okay because each day we see more suffering in our communities and more inaction or, frankly, not the right action in our Parliament.

While our neighbourhoods are affected by crime, the Liberals are busy telling us, once again, that it is somebody else’s fault or it is somebody else’s job, deflecting blame and denying guilt again. However, the stats are clear; we only need to turn on the news.

While families are grieving the loss of loved ones to violence, the Liberals are busy reducing the penalties for heinous acts like robbery with a firearm, fentanyl trafficking that is ravaging the streets in places like Vancouver, or in smaller places like Peterborough and London or places like right outside the House. Kidnapping is also on the list.

While victims of crime are struggling to get justice, the Liberals are standing by their policies and making it easier for the very people who are responsible for those crimes to go back out in the world and do it all over again. The Liberals are standing by Bill C-75, which is what we are talking about today. It makes it easier to get bail, easier to be let out of custody, easier for criminals to go back to their illegal activities and harm even more people. It is broken. What we are doing is not working and everybody else knows it.

Last year in Toronto, there were 44 shooting-related murders. Seven of those arrested were out on bail already for charges of gun crime and 17 of those were out on bail for other crimes. If people are keeping score that is more than half. Of the 44 murders in the city in which I have spent most of my life, more than half, or 24, of those accused were out on bail; 24 additional families that lost loved ones because of the Liberal broken bail system. Every premier says that the system is broken along with every police union and police chief.

If we listen to everyone else who is talking about it, they say that bail reform could save lives. There are a lot of other things that we can talk about, but not talking about this when we know it can save lives would be irresponsible.

In 2021, 165 people in Toronto, who were out on bail for gun charges, were arrested, including 98 people who were arrested on gun charges. It is broken and what we are doing is not working, and everybody agrees.

Since the Liberals have been in power, violent crime has increased by 32%. Gang-related homicides have increased by a staggering 92%. Car jacking has doubled in Toronto. Property theft has gone up. It has all gone up; it is broken. What we are doing simply is not working. Our laws are broken.

It is shocking that the Liberal member for Scarborough Southwest is a cabinet minister and former Toronto police chief, and he said more about crime in Memphis last week than he has said about crime in his own city. That is disgraceful.

Today, Liberal members continue to insist that everything is fine, that nothing is wrong and that they are working on it. There was a meeting last November where all premiers and the federal government agreed to do something, and there is still nothing.

All 13 premiers have written a demand letter to the Prime Minister to fix our broken bail system. The voices are united. It is police officers, it is frontline officers, it is police unions and it is people on our front lines who are all begging the government to do something about it.

We will always stand on the side of law enforcement in our country. We are also going to stand on the side of victims of crime, and not on the side of criminals. We are going to stand for ending soft-on-crime laws like Bill C-75 that put the rights of criminals above those of the victims. That is wrong. All we have to do is open a newspaper to read about it.

We are here today to demand action because if the Liberals will not anything, we will. If they are not prepared to make a change, to do their job and protect Canadians, they should step aside and let somebody else do it.

It is not about some archaic regulation. It is not about political posturing. Everybody agrees. All premiers from different stripes agree. The mayor of my hometown, who just ran for the provincial Liberal leadership, wrote a demand letter to the Prime Minister asking for bail reform.

This is not a Conservative issue. It is an issue that speaks to public safety and to the protection of the rights of victims over the rights of criminals.

Our proposal is simple: prioritize the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens, not the criminals, and fix the broken bail system that lets murderers and repeat offenders out, free to recommit crimes in the community.

We need to bring back penalties and punishments that actually fit the crime, particularly for violent repeat offenders. We need to fight crime where it exists, at our borders and in gangs, not in the home of law-abiding firearm owners or hunters.

It is time to go back to the time when people felt safe in their communities, where people can walk on the streets without being randomly attacked, where criminals are punished for the crimes they commit, where Canadians have the right to travel wherever they want whenever they want and be free of fear on public transit, to go out in public with their families and feel safe.

I hope all members, on behalf of their communities, their constituents and their loved ones, stand up for those rights. We can do that by passing this motion today. I hope hon. colleagues in the House see that too.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his speech.

This is a very emotional subject. We all want disinformation to be set aside. To some extent, we all want to be able to rely on science and research to make changes. Clearly, Bill C‑75 is not perfect. We would like to comment on that.

We must focus on the good elements and work towards implementing them, which is not happening now, in my opinion. Furthermore, there is clearly a vote-seeking aspect to the Conservatives' motion.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition what his reaction is when I talk about science and research. Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about the Conservative approach. What we know about the Conservative approach as it relates to their “tough on crime” legislation is that on multiple occasions the Supreme Court has shot down their legislation saying that it is unconstitutional and infringes upon charter rights. In fact, Bill C-75 only mirrors exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled.

In order for the Conservatives to use their approach, they would have to do one of two things: either invoke the notwithstanding clause or change the charter in a way that suits their ability to bring forward the legislation they want. My question for the Leader of the Opposition is quite simple. If he was the Prime Minister and wanted to bring in this legislation, which of those two choices would he do? Would he change the charter or would he use the notwithstanding clause?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know, I am always pleased to rise to talk about issues of criminal justice and public safety. My background, before I came here, was 20 years as an instructor in this field. I am also always pleased to talk about this as a former member of a municipal police board. Of course, right now, I am particularly pleased to get to address this question as a member of a community that, like many others across the country, has seen a rise in public disorder, which is of great concern to citizens and, I have to say, specifically small businesses in my riding, which quite often bear the brunt of that public disorder.

I am also pleased, as always, to get to talk about solutions, and that is why I am not so pleased to be discussing the Conservative motion before us today.

As I mentioned earlier in a question, something perplexes me a bit. On Monday, we came together in the justice committee on a very reasonable motion put forward by the member for Fundy Royal, which I supported and which the government eventually supported, to agree that the committee should work on practical solutions to the real problems that have been raised by municipal leaders, the public and premiers to find practical and effective solutions that would increase public safety by changes to the bail system.

There we were on Monday getting ready, and we have actually scheduled those hearings to start within two weeks, so we are moving rapidly, for the House of Commons, to try to find those solutions. I must say that we are moving more rapidly in the Commons than the government has moved. These issues were presented to the government months ago by the premiers, and we have not seen much happen. However, I am optimistic, I and was very optimistic on Monday, yet here we are, three days later, with the Conservatives bringing forward a very divisive motion full of inflated rhetoric, sensational statistics and claims about the bail system that are really not true.

As I said before, it makes me wonder which is the real Conservative Party on this issue? Is it the one that is doing this sensational motion, which I cannot help but conclude is about motivating its base and fundraising, or is it the party that put forward a reasonable motion that we could all agree on, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP, to work together in the justice committee to find practical solutions to the real concerns Canadians have about the bail system?

I guess the proof will be in the pudding when we get to the committee, where we will see if the Conservatives will work with the rest of us to find those practical solutions, because this motion really does fan the flames of public fear rather than make a contribution to solutions to the problem.

New Democrats agree that we need to find ways to address the problem created by certain violent criminals who have been previously charged and convicted of serious offences and who have ended up receiving bail. We need to look at how we tighten up the system in that aspect.

At the same time, we are also concerned about the public order questions. We know that there is probably not an easy legislative fix to those public order problems. They create real fear among citizens, rightfully so, but we know that most of those public order problems are rooted in things such as mental health issues, addiction and poverty.

Until we as a society address the poverty, the addictions and the mental health questions, and until the federal government actually delivers on its promises to provide more funding for those kinds of programs and to the provinces, then I do not think we will have a real solution to the public order problems before us.

At the heart of what we are talking about today is something that is sometimes lost, and that is the presumption of innocence. In any just society, those who are accused of a crime have the right to be presumed innocent, which is enshrined in our charter, until they are found guilty.

In our system, we do have a presumption against pretrial detention. We really believe that we should not be penalized by being detained before one has actually been convicted of anything.

It is quite disturbing to me to look at our system and find that up to two-thirds of people in provincial detention centres, on any given day, have never been convicted of anything. They are there awaiting trial. That is a very large number.

When we hear people talk about our bail systems as a catch-and-release system, it is not a catch-and-release system. We detain very large numbers of Canadians before trial. Who ends up being detained? Who does not end up getting the benefit of bail? It tends to be indigenous people, racialized Canadians, new Canadians and low-income Canadians.

Why is that? It is because for people to get bail, we demand certain things. We say that people must have a stable job, a stable address and someone who can supervise them while they are out on bail. Of course, the people who have the least resources in society have the least ability to meet those fundamental conditions for getting bail. If they do somehow get bail, they also have the least resources for meeting the conditions that might be imposed on them.

I know someone quite well who worked with an individual with mental health challenges who was required to report to their bail supervisor on a regular basis, but they could not get it together to do that because of their mental health challenges. Those people risk ending up with bail violations, with another offence, even if they were not guilty of what they were charged with in the first instance. What we have, honestly, operating in our system contributes to the overincarceration of indigenous people, racialized people and poor people in this country, starting with the bail system.

While, yes, we acknowledge there are some problems with the bail system that we need to look at, New Democrats would expand that to take a look at what we can do to make sure we are not penalizing people unnecessarily by putting them into detention for long periods while awaiting trial.

Most upsetting to me in this bill is the misuse of statistics by the Conservatives. We all know that the overall rate of crime in this country has been on a 30-year decline. That is still the general trend. We know, though, that in the past five years there has been a spike in public order crimes, violence on the streets and serious violent crime.

Where does that come from? We need to take a serious look at what causes those increases. We have had some unusual things happening in the world and in this country in the past five years. Therefore, some of it is related to the pandemic; some of it is related to the mental health challenges that we honestly failed to deal with, which resulted from the pandemic. When we are talking about finding solutions to these problems, it is not good enough for me to look at a spike in statistics and say we must make general changes in our system. That is really throwing out the baby with the proverbial bathwater.

We have specific problems we need to address, and we need to look very carefully at those problems and find effective solutions that really contribute to public safety.

As I mentioned earlier, provincial and territorial ministers of justice brought concerns forward at the justice ministers' meeting in Nova Scotia last October. They had concerns about serious violent offenders and the bail system and about the public order crisis at the community level, and the Minister of Justice promised to review the bail system. I am told again and again that the government is working on this. Maybe we need a faster gear; this is something we often hear from the New Democrats when we are talking about the Liberals. Yes, they have said the right thing; now let us actually complete that task.

In January, after the high-profile murder of an Ontario Provincial Police constable, where one of the accused was on bail, the premiers had heard nothing specific from the Liberal government. They drafted a letter making a very specific suggestion to the Prime Minister that reversing the onus for additional serious and violent offences should be considered as a reform to the bail system. This is something I take very seriously, and I think New Democrats are quite prepared to look at it.

To be clear, reversing the onus for bail means that one would need to demonstrate why one should be released rather than the prosecution demonstrating why one should be retained in custody, which is the norm. There is a list of offences already for which there is reverse onus for bail, including murder and serious violent firearms offences. This also includes something Bill C-75 did, which was reversing the onus in domestic violence cases. The presumption is now that those who are charged and have been previously charged or convicted with domestic violence offences need to show why they should be released rather than the prosecution showing why they should stay in jail.

Considering this issue means hearing from some experts, police and prosecutors about how we can fix the problems and what we specifically need to do. What offences should be added to that list?

Again, there is a bit of irony. We tend to hear the Conservatives as defenders of firearms owners, but in this motion, they are saying that any firearms offences should get a reverse onus, that it should get a restriction on bail.

That seems peculiar to me coming from the Conservatives because my concern is about serious violent offences, not technical violations of gun laws. Therefore, when they say we should get rid of all of Bill C-75, it begins to sound like this was a bill about bail reform. Actually, it was an omnibus criminal justice bill that had many things the New Democrats supported and many things that I had long advocated for, including reversing the onus on bail in domestic violence cases. However, the claim that Bill C-75 somehow forces judges to do things is simply false. The claim in this motion is not true.

What Bill C-75 did was put into law the Supreme Court decision from 2017, called R. v. Antic. In that decision, the Supreme Court was very clear that fundamental justice and the charter require that those who are awaiting trial be released at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions in order to respect the principle of the presumption of innocence. Are there some unintended consequences of that decision in Bill C-75? Perhaps there are. I am looking forward to the committee looking at the specifics of what we can do if we have those unintended consequences. However, as the member for Saint-Jean so rightly pointed out, repealing Bill C-75 would not change anything about the law on bail because the charter and the Supreme Court decision would still exist. Therefore, to single out Bill C-75 for repeal is really not realistic as a solution to the problems.

What is it I want as a New Democrat and a member of Parliament? I want us to do that hard work at committee to figure out how we can reassure Canadians that those who are accused of serious violent crimes and already have a record of serious violent crime do not get bail before a trial for another offence.

I also want us to take a look at that broader question of how we make sure that changes in the bail system do not inadvertently contribute to the denial or inordinate detention of indigenous people, poor people or racialized Canadians. We cannot make sweeping changes to that system and still respect the need to make the justice system fair for all Canadians.

With that, I am going to conclude my remarks today. I want to say that I am disappointed with this motion, and for that reason, New Democrats are voting against it. However, it remains obvious that there is at least a part of the Conservative Party that came to the justice committee on Monday prepared to work seriously on these issues and find real solutions to the concerns that the public has about public disorder and violent crime. They are prepared to find things that are effective in increasing public safety as a way of addressing those, and not a motion like this, which sensationalizes the problem and provides no real solutions.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched upon something I think is very important. Bill C-75 did impose a reverse onus on serious offenders to prove that they have conditions and reasoning to obtain bail. She said something about it is getting harder to get bail, especially for those offenders.

Can she elaborate on that and assess whether weakening Bill C-75 served the purpose of this opposition day motion?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few seconds to wish you a happy new year, good health, happiness, love and anything else your heart desires. I want to also send that message to my constituents in Saint-Jean, as this is the first time I have spoken in the House this year.

I am not going to put the Conservatives on trial for their motion today. I would like to believe that this idea stems from a genuine desire to reduce violent crime and prevent the proliferation of illegal firearms. I hope that I will not be put on trial either, despite the fact that I am going to describe the problems with this motion. In my opinion, it does not provide a solution. I will be disappointed if I hear, yet again, during question and comment period, that the Bloc Québécois has helped put dangerous criminals back on the street and refuses to admit that there is a problem. I hope that does not happen, but I will be sure to manage my expectations.

There are a few problems with the motion, and I will go through them one at a time. For instance, no distinction is made between correlation and causation. Some members have presented statistics showing an increase in certain crimes and said that this is caused by Bill C-75. That is correlation. There is a theory about that, known as the hemline economy theory. According to this theory, when short skirts are in fashion, the economy is doing well, and when long skirts are in fashion, the economy is doing poorly. If we were to rely solely on this index, we would probably all make some very poor choices in the stock market. Similarly, if a temporal correlation is the only correlation that exists between an increase in crime and the passage of Bill C‑75, then we are probably overlooking the real solutions to a multi-faceted problem.

Another problem is that some of the “whereas” clauses and demands in the motion are based on somewhat fallacious arguments, and some are not supported by any evidence. I will come back to that aspect when I go through the motion in greater detail.

The arguments raise another problem. We are hearing a lot of references to the case of Randall McKenzie, who allegedly killed a police officer in December while out on bail. If we look at this case more closely, we might find that it is not just him being out on bail that is the problem. Randall McKenzie had already been locked up and was released on bail with some of the strictest conditions possible. He was on house arrest 24 hours a day, he wore an electronic tracking device and he was allowed to leave home only for medical reasons or to get legal advice from his lawyer. The question is, what happened? How did he end up out in public when the company monitoring the GPS device should have sent an alert to have him immediately apprehended? There may be a problem there too. No one has raised that issue yet, but the analysis should go beyond the simple issue of bail.

I heard it said that if Randall McKenzie had not been out on bail, the police officer would still be alive. I am sorry, but we have still not heard all of the evidence in this case. The authorities are not certain that he is the one who pulled the trigger. There is a co-accused in the case, so the argument is perhaps a little thin. This is only a secondary point, I only wanted to mention it. However, it is perhaps a stretch to say that a life would have been saved if bail had not been awarded.

I would like to point out a fourth problem with the motion. Making it more difficult to obtain bail in the case of illegal arms possession will not dissuade people from procuring illegal arms. The motion will not have an impact on first offences with a firearm. Adopting the motion could leave us with a false sense of security.

I will quickly review some of the points in the motion.

The motion states, “That, given that, after eight years of this government's soft on crime policies, (i) violent crime has increased by 32%”. According to Statistics Canada, this number includes sexual assaults.

In recent years, thanks to greater awareness among other things, there has been an increase in the number of crimes reported, which contributes to the increase in this number. When we talk about violent crime in general, we are not necessarily referring to violent gun crime or cases in which the accused was awarded bail. That, however, is how the question for the government is being framed.

The motion states that “violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily”. I still have not heard a clear explanation of whether this is true, and, especially, if it is related to the repeal of certain aspects of Bill C‑75 requested in the motion.

The motion also states that “five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year”. That is both deplorable and tragic. We should do something about that. However, no connection is made between the murder of these police officers and the bail system. Statistics are used to justify strengthening bail provisions, but there is not necessarily a rational link between the statistics and what the motion is asking for. That is deplorable. I think that the Conservatives could have been more thorough in presenting their motion.

One of the things the House is being called to do is the following:

(a) fix Canada's broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by Bill C‑75...which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend;

As my colleague mentioned, there is a fallacy in this paragraph. There is nothing in Bill C‑75 or the Criminal Code forcing judges to release people. In fact, when we get right down to it, the only thing that forces judges to release people is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are two fairly specific rights in the following paragraphs of section 11 of the Charter:

Any person charged with an offence has the right...

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;

The charter, not the former Bill C‑75, sets out that requirement for judges. The charter and the sections that allow for bail have established criteria.

Custody of an accused is only justified by the Criminal Code in certain cases, for example, “(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court”, such as someone with dual citizenship who is afraid of losing citizenship in another country, or “(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public”.

There are pre-existing criteria that judges can use to maintain institutional custody. Where “(c) the detention is necessary to maintain confidence”, the judge has the discretion to keep an accused in custody.

Section 515 of the Criminal Code also provides terms and conditions. For example, consideration must be given to “(iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used”, which we already do, and “(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.”

The Conservatives are saying that they want to, and I quote:

strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail;

However, that is already included in section 515 of the Criminal Code. Will that really change anything? It is a fair question. When we talk to criminal lawyers about the gun problem, we see that it is getting harder and harder to get bail when a firearm was used to commit a crime, so the motion contains some things that are already covered.

The motion seeks to repeal the former bill without really explaining what it is about. It attacks Bill C‑75, which actually does some other worthwhile things. For example, it creates a reverse onus for domestic violence. The accused must prove that they will not be a danger to the public if they are released on bail, whereas for other crimes the opposite is true. With regard to gun violence, the onus is already on the accused, or in other words, it is up to them to prove that they do not pose a risk to society.

As I mentioned, although this motion addresses a real and serious problem, it may not be the right solution. As I also mentioned, if a person makes their stock market decisions based on the hemline index, then they will likely make poor choices.

I think the same applies here. We need to have conversations about the best way to proceed so we do not opt for a bad solution to a real problem.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point. It is indeed a call for action. That is a good thing, because we are talking about this issue today.

Premiers and police associations across the country have also sounded the alarm. However, I have doubts about the means the Conservatives are trying to use today to take action. Is today's motion the right way to resolve the issue or to provide solutions? Would the ideal way not be to introduce a bill to amend certain provisions that were in Bill C‑75? Perhaps that would be a better way to take action.

Obviously, we, the parliamentarians, are not really the experts. We invite experts and listen to them. If certain police associations are saying one thing or another, it is our duty to listen to them.

I am not sure that today's motion is the right way to move forward. I understand why the Conservatives are putting this issue on the table. It provides us with an opportunity to discuss it. However, if they really want to change the provisions included in Bill C‑75, I think that they should introduce a bill.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a happy new year. I know that February is a bit late, but this is one of the first times we have seen each other this year. I would also like to wish my constituents, the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, a happy new year. I will begin by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

I am very pleased to speak to this issue, which I believe is exceptionally important. Law and order is obviously an area that we, as members of Parliament, are concerned about.

I agree with my Conservative colleagues on several aspects of this motion. In the past eight years, violent crime has increased by 32% and gang-related homicides by 92%. The number of violent crimes has skyrocketed, inevitably jeopardizing Canadians' safety. Five police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year. That is enormous when compared with previous years.

In Ontario, 44 police officers were killed in the line of duty between 1961 and 2009. That is about one per year, and, in my opinion, that is one too many. In 2022, five police officers died while on duty. That is not just too many, that is totally unacceptable. The people who undertake to protect the public should never pay with their lives.

In this respect, I am in complete agreement with my colleagues, and I must say that the efforts made by the Liberal Party in recent years to prevent violence, limit the number of firearms in circulation and help break up gangs have been less than stellar.

It would be wise to try not to get lost in the statistics. There are many statistics out there, and they support some of the facts included in the Conservatives’ motion. Overall, the number of crimes reported by police in Canada in recent years shows an alarming increase.

Hate crimes have increased by 72%. These are mainly crimes motivated by hate towards a religion, sexual orientation or ethnic origin.

Gun crimes have risen 25% in the past 10 years. As I was saying earlier, there were more murders in Montreal in 2021 than in any of the previous 10 years. Some 37 murders were committed, compared with 28 in 2020, with 25 being the result of a dispute or settling of scores within organized crime and 12 involving Canadians between the ages of 12 and 24.

In 2021, police reported 34,242 cases of sexual assault. That is about 90 cases of sexual assault for every 100,000 citizens, keeping in mind that only about 6% of sexual assaults are reported to police.

Let us not fool ourselves: This increase in violence is not just a big-city problem. In my own rural riding in the Gaspé, in Eastern Quebec, a man was arrested for weapons trafficking in Pointe à la-Croix barely three weeks ago. He allegedly supplied illegal weapons and narcotics to Montreal street gangs. In 2021, a raid in Gaspé led to the seizure of multiple illegal firearms, more specifically, 50 long guns, 10 handguns, bullet-proof vests and ammunition of every calibre. Last August, shots were heard in a residential neighbourhood in Gaspé, and an individual was arrested.

The picture we are painting here is pretty grim. The government must take concrete and legitimate measures to address Canadians’ concerns and to ensure their safety.

In its motion, the Conservative Party calls on the government to repeal the elements enacted by Bill C-75. Although it is true and entirely legitimate to point out that certain elements of the bail reform are problematic, as we have seen in the news recently, the fact remains that the wording of the motion is also problematic. Some elements are simply false.

Let us be clear: No changes made by Bill C-75 require any judge to release violent repeat offenders. With all due respect, saying otherwise, intentionally or not, is more of an opinion than a proven and verified fact.

To say that the bail system is no longer working is also not entirely true. The bail system is based on the art of finding a balance between public safety and the presumption of innocence, which is protected by something that is quite dear to the Conservatives, specifically, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Bloc Québécois had a number of good reasons to vote in favour of Bill C-75, even though, as we said, given recent events, we can now see that the legislation has its flaws. I am sure that my colleague from Saint‑Jean will elaborate on this idea because she is an extremely competent and seasoned legal expert. I will be happy to just go over some of the facts that were checked and quantified.

While the convicted offender population has been gradually declining in recent years, the number of people held in pre-trial detention almost tripled in the past 35 years. This increase occurred while the overall prison populations remained relatively stable during the same period. In fact, the crime rate had been falling since the 1990s.

Under the law, there were more innocent people held on pre-trial detention than actual offenders serving custodial sentences, after being convicted, in provincial and territorial correctional facilities since 2004-05. This data is widely available. It comes from an analysis conducted by the Department of Justice in 2015 in connection with Bill C-75. My colleagues should therefore be able to obtain the report and base their decisions on those facts, which were checked.

We must keep in mind that, financially speaking, a growing population in pre-trial detention will result in considerable additional costs for governments at every level. This only places more pressure on already limited resources.

The debate surrounding the bail system is perfectly legitimate, and it is a good thing. On this point, once again, I agree with my Conservative colleagues. Bill C-75 has several flaws, as the provincial premiers unanimously pointed out to the federal government. Basically, they are asking for the same thing as one of the elements included in today’s motion. They claim that it is justifiable to strengthen bail laws so that people who are prohibited from possessing firearms and are then accused of a serious firearm offence cannot easily get bail. I think that some work could be done in this area.

This inevitably leads me to the actions that the government should take to prevent gun crime. We have said it often enough: Bill C-21 does not necessarily fix the problem of the proliferation of firearms. I was happy to be able to discuss this with the minister. Other actions must be taken in other areas.

More specifically, we need more border controls and prevention measures in large cities. Obviously, financial investments must be made, and the government always enjoys showing off its financial record in this area. However, there are other things that can be done, and the Bloc Québécois has presented several options, for example, collaborative efforts between the various police forces. There are a lot of things that can and should be done.

Although we agree with the Conservatives on several aspects of this motion, the idea of strengthening legislation is rooted in the ideology of law and order. Right now, the proliferation of firearms in our major cities is a problem, we cannot say it often enough. Although this reflex reaction is understandable, a number of experts, including Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Guelph who studies the bail system, claim that there is no evidence to suggest that a harsher approach to bail would improve public safety. I think that is something to think about.

Given that the text of the motion moved today includes elements that may not have been fact-checked and that could potentially turn out to be false, it is impossible for the Bloc Québécois to support this motion, unfortunately. As I said, we agree with several aspects, and the government must do more. It is true that crime has increased in recent years, but unfortunately, because of certain elements in the motion, we cannot support it.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for the opportunity to have this important debate about bail reform. Before I come to the remarks that have been prepared for me in advance, I want to take a few moments to acknowledge the grief, trauma, loss and the sense of suffering being felt by communities across the country. I had the chance to visit with many communities, whether it was out west in Vancouver or out east in the Atlantic communities with the families and the victims in Portapique and Truro.

More recently, it was in Quebec City, with all the families and survivors at the commemoration of the sixth anniversary of the mosque shooting.

It is also in my hometown, where we are seeing a recent spate of violence in our public transit system. It is imperative that we have a thoughtful discussion based on a number of pillars. Yes, we need to take a look at our policies and our laws.

I want to commend the Minister of Justice for many of the reforms he has advanced to improve the administration of justice so that we can focus on serious offenders who do, in many instances, need to be separated from the community for protection. Also, I want to underline the work that he and our government are doing to address many of the systemic challenges that have led to overrepresentation in federal incarceration facilities, as well as provincially, when it comes to indigenous peoples and racialized Canadians. We cannot have these discussions in isolation.

I have grieved with families. I have grieved with the community of law enforcement officers who have lost five of their own. We owe it to them and to every single Canadian to make sure we are informing our discussion on the basis of principles that are underlined in the charter, but equally by the experiences of those who have suffered. It is in that spirit that I hope we can have this debate today.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has spoken about an openness to receiving proposals with regard to the bail system. I have worked on the front lines of the criminal justice system. I have seen how these laws are applied in a very real, practical and tangible way. Even as we navigate the proposals being put forward by the various constituencies, including the law enforcement community, I hope all members will appreciate that there is no one cure-all for the challenges we face. We need to take a look at the entire suite of laws and policies, not only with regard to bail but also with regard to how we are tackling gun violence.

There is a bill currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Bill C-21, which would equip law enforcement with additional tools to tackle gun violence by raising maximum sentences against hard traffickers and by giving law enforcement additional surveillance tools to interdict the organized criminal networks that would seek to traffic illegally firearms that make their way into our country, potentially to be used in violent crime to terrorize our communities.

We also need to take a look at the other investments the government is making to support law enforcement in keeping our communities safe, including a $450-million allocation over the last few years for CBSA. That will enable law enforcement agencies to acquire the resources, the technology and the techniques that they need to build on the progress that they have made in the last two years where they have seized a record number of illegal firearms.

Beyond those investments, I do think it is important as well to talk about prevention. One of the challenges I find around the debate on public safety is that we place great emphasis on laws and policies. We talk about Bill C-21. We talk about the acts that have been passed, and led and shepherded by my colleague, the Minister of Justice. We talk about Bill C-75, which, by the way, was a piece of legislation aimed at addressing the systemic and chronic backlogs in our court system so we could focus on the most serious offenders who commit the most serious crimes and pose the most serious risk to public safety. That was the genesis of Bill C-75.

The purpose of Bill C‑75 was to reduce the case completion times.

To hear some colleagues from the Conservative Party mis-characterize that bill as catch-and-release legislation does a disservice to this debate. We do not need slogans; we need concrete solutions. I would submit to the chamber that this is precisely what the Minister of Justice and this government have been doing. I would also say the same thing with respect to Bill C-5.

We heard a colleague from the NDP point out that the last time the Conservative government had the reins of government, it introduced a number of policies that were reviewed and then struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. We do not need a return to the failed policies and overreach, which detract and diminish from the independence of the judges to assess on the merits and based on the facts and circumstances of each offender who comes before them. What we need is a thoughtful, constitutional approach to this matter, and that was the point of Bill C-5. It was not to promote catch-and-release policies, which has been overly simplified and distilled. That may play well on YouTube or in social media, but, again, it does a disservice to the complexity of the challenges that are faced when it comes to keeping our community safe.

As we focus on laws and policies, we do not talk enough about the underlying root causes. We do not talk enough about the need to provide additional support for mental health care, homelessness and poverty. We do not talk enough about the need to provide additional skills, experience and confidence to those who are most at risk of being exposed to criminal elements, which I have seen across the country and in my own community.

When I had the chance to travel to James Smith Cree Nation and grieve with those families, community members told us that they knew their own, that they knew how to ensure they could take care of them and put them on the right footing. It is only through collaboration and partnership with those communities through initiatives like the building safer communities fund, a $250-million federal initiative that is administered out of Public Safety Canada, that we can start to address these challenges at the root cause so we can stop crime before it starts.

In the context of the debate we are having today, we need to put as much emphasis on looking at preventative strategies, which we can work together on to advance, to see crime come down. No matter which side of the debate we are on, no matter which party we belong, no matter which constituency we represent in the chamber, the one thing I am assured of is that all Canadians are unified behind the common cause of wanting to reduce gun crime, wanting to reduce any kind of violent crime, which may find its stem in the systemic challenges that I have discussed. We need to come together to have that debate and not resort to slogans, bumper stickers or any of the other catchy phrases that we heard in the to and fro of the heated debate in the chamber, but have an actual and thoughtful debate that is based on facts and constitutional principles. That is precisely what I hope we can do today.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to the hon. member that he reread not only the Supreme Court decision, but also Bill C-5. I realize the problem was the inflammation of rhetoric during the debate on Bill C-5. We did not remove all the minimum mandatory penalties with respect to those gun offences. We only did it in a very narrow band, and it mirrored exactly what the Supreme Court did.

We have been on this question for a long time, since at the very least the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of last October. As I mentioned in my speech, Bill C-75 basically reframed the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence that had evolved over previous years. It added reverse onuses with respect to intimate partner violence. There are some reverse onuses that already exist.

We are working with the provinces to find other ways to improve the law while remaining charter compliant. These discussions have been going on, particularly at a technical level with our experts. We are going to continue to do this.

We have a responsibility to do this. We have exercised that responsibility. We do not wait until inflammatory rhetoric drives us. We have been doing this for a long time in a prudent way in collaboration with our partners.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. Minister of Public Safety.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the important issue of bail and a possible reform in Canada. I know that Canadians are concerned about this issue. Making sure that our laws are effective and fair and that they protect Canadians is certainly a priority for my government.

First, I would like to express my condolences to the families of Constable Greg Pierzchala and Michael Finlay and Katie Nguyen Ngo, and of all victims of the disturbing incidents of violence across this country that we have seen in recent months. Each has been a personal tragedy and a blow to our communities.

Canada has a strong and effective criminal justice system, including its bail laws, but we all know that things could always be improved. Canadians deserve to be and to feel safe, and we have a role to play in protecting our communities. I want to reassure Canadians that, if someone poses a significant threat to public safety, the law tells us they should not be released on bail.

I am disappointed that the official opposition is using tragedies to try to score political points. Canadians know that these are serious and complicated issues, and there are no quick or easy solutions. That is why we have been working hard for months, in collaboration with our provincial and territorial counterparts, to find solutions that would ensure the long-term safety of our communities.

Canada is not broken, despite what the Leader of the Opposition would like people to think. Indeed, data from Toronto shows that between 2019 and 2021, there was a decrease, both in the percentage of individuals granted bail and the number of people rearrested while on bail.

That being said, our government is always looking for ways to improve public safety and the efficiency of our justice system. At the federal-provincial-territorial meeting in October, the Minister of Public Safety and I committed to continue working with our counterparts on the issue of bail. This work is well under way. We also received a letter from the premiers about bail and we are carefully reviewing their proposals and other options.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting with my B.C. counterpart, Minister Sharma. Minister Sharma and I agreed that the best way to address the complicated issue of bail reform is by working together. I am hopeful that all of my provincial and territorial counterparts will agree.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there on the old Bill C-75. Bill C-75 is the result of a lengthy collaborative effort with the provinces and territories. It codified the bail principles set out in binding Supreme Court of Canada rulings.

I want to reiterate that Bill C-75 did not make any fundamental changes to the bail system. It did not change the criteria under which an accused can be released by the court. On the contrary, Bill C-75 made it harder to get bail for certain offences, such as violence against intimate partners, by reversing the onus of proof.

I trust that the hon. member for Fundy Royal will also be reassured to learn that there is already a reverse onus where an accused subject to a weapons prohibition is charged with a firearms offence, exactly as his motion calls for. That means the accused would be denied bail unless they can prove to the court that their release would not pose a significant risk to public safety or undermine the public's confidence.

I also know the hon. member for Fundy Royal well enough to be sure he was not deliberately trying to mislead the House on the recent Supreme Court decision, which actually confirmed everything we did in Bill C-5. The minimum mandatory penalty we struck down, the court struck down as unconstitutional, and the minimum mandatory penalties we chose to retain in that bill have been upheld by the court. I would suggest the member read the Supreme Court decision a bit more closely.

One of the calls in the letter from the premiers is to establish a reverse onus for additional offences. I can assure the House that I am giving this serious consideration, and the work is well under way. We have also heard calls for law enforcement reform. I am grateful for their recommendations based on frontline experience. Work is under way to develop legislative and non-legislative options to address the particular challenges of repeat violent offenders.

We also know that it will take more than a legislative reform to completely fix this problem. The police need the necessary resources to monitor offenders who are out on bail and to arrest those who breach their release conditions.

We have already provided significant funding and we are open to providing more where it is needed. There has to be support and care for mental health, as well as for addictions treatment. There needs to be a social safety net. The previous government cut social programs and now we are seeing the very real and serious consequences of those cuts. As a government, we have made unprecedented investments in mental health, including $5 billion for the provinces and territories to increase access to care.

I commend our partners in B.C. for the action they took on bail in November as part of their safe communities action plan. I encourage all provinces to use the many existing tools at their disposal to ensure bail laws are applied safely, fairly and effectively. Yesterday I was happy to see the Premier of Ontario commit to action in this space, and I will reach out to my counterpart in coming days to discuss how we can collaborate.

Addressing the particular challenges posed by repeat violent offenders requires a comprehensive approach that crosses jurisdictions and levels of government. We will be acting at the federal level, and I hope my provincial counterparts will do the same. The only way to solve this problem is by working together. To this end, as has been planned since our last meeting in October, in the coming days I will be reaching out to justice and public safety counterparts to convene an urgent FPT meeting to continue our important work on bail.

I am hopeful that together we can review the product of months of joint work by federal and provincial officials and agree on a comprehensive path forward.

We know there is no easy solution to such a complex problem. We strongly believe that we need to protect Canadians.

At the same time, we must ensure that any measures taken will not exacerbate the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples and Black and racialized Canadians in our jails. We must not further marginalize vulnerable people, including those struggling with mental health issues and addiction, and we must also ensure that everything we do is compliant with the charter.

I look forward to sincere debate in this House today, and I will happily take any good-faith suggestions made by members of Parliament. I discourage members from wasting this opportunity with empty rhetoric designed to inflame the fears of Canadians. Let us debate real solutions and focus our energy on offering ideas for how the system can be changed to better keep Canadians safe while respecting our fundamental rights and values.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the facts do not back up my colleague's assertion. Bill C-75 enshrines in law the principle that the least onerous provision possible has to be put in place for offenders. That means that the onus is on the prosecution to show why a less onerous provision would not be appropriate, which has resulted in a broken bail system.

Members do not have to take my word for it. We are on opposite sides of the House here. However, they should listen to the 13 premiers from their own provinces. The Ontario Provincial Police and the Toronto police are saying the same thing. They are all laying the blame on Bill C-75. They are saying it is easier for repeat violent offenders who commit gun crimes, since Bill C-75 passed, entrenching this in law, to get bail. The results are in. Individuals who are out on bail are committing murders. Over half the murders in Toronto are committed by individuals out on bail. What more evidence do we need to see?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-75, I just want to make something absolutely clear. Bill C-75 imposed a reverse onus on those who are charged to prove they should be released. It is a very important tool in the criminal justice system. It is one that imposes an onus on the individual to prove that they should be released, whereas in most cases it is a presumptive release.

Can my friend opposite outline what change he would make to Bill C-75 that would undo this, or is he asking that we strengthen this? I am not clear on where he is going with this. As is, Bill C-75 did strengthen bail and it made our communities stronger. I think my friend opposite is misleading us in that regard.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on what is a very important and pressing issue in our country today.

Our justice system under the Liberals is broken. Everybody knows it. All 13 premiers have gotten together to demand change. Our bail system is the responsibility of the federal government. Those provisions are in the Criminal Code. It is this Parliament that has jurisdiction over the Criminal Code. Our bail system is badly broken.

Some of the recent stats that we have seen out of Toronto will absolutely amaze members. We have heard from police associations across the country. We have heard from the Ontario Provincial Police. We have heard from the Toronto police. We have heard from police officers, and my fellow members have probably heard in their own ridings, about the dangers of our current catch-and-release bail system: the same individuals being caught for a crime and being let back on the street.

In Toronto, and I find this amazing, there were 44 shooting-related homicides last year. Of those 44 perpetrators, the accused, 24 were on bail. Our system is broken. That stat alone will tell us that our system is badly broken, when over half of the homicides in Toronto are committed by people on bail. There are people walking the streets in our community whom we had in custody. The police did their job. They caught them after committing a crime. They charged them, but because of a broken Liberal bail system, they are back out on the street.

This other one, again, amazes me, from the Toronto police: In 2021, 47 individuals were let out on bail. Who are these 47 individuals? They were individuals who were arrested for a firearms offence but were given bail. They committed a firearms offence, but now they are out on the street. They were re-arrested for another firearms offence, and 47 of them were given bail again, given bail twice for firearms offences. The system is broken.

Now we look at the tragic death of a police officer that has galvanized police organizations and has galvanized the premiers, every premier in our country. As my colleague just said, it is hard to get multiple parties from multiple provinces, different premiers, to all agree on something. We do not expect, in Canada, that we would all agree on something, but every single premier in this country, of every province and every territory, agrees that we need bail reform. They are saying that repeat violent offenders who commit gun crimes should not be let out on the street. That is not too much to ask.

Two days after Christmas, a young police officer was gunned down by an individual who was on bail, an individual who had a lifetime firearms prohibition order against him. If someone with a lifetime firearms prohibition commits a firearms-related offence and we cannot keep them in custody, the system is badly broken.

Who broke the system? It was the Liberals. In 2019, Bill C-75 made it far more difficult for offenders who should be behind bars to be kept behind bars. Bill C-75 was a sweeping bail reform by the Liberal government that established a catch-and-release system that ensured that even repeat violent offenders who use guns to commit their crimes would be back out on the street.

It gets worse. The Liberals like to say that the Conservatives' “tough on crime” does not work. The fact of the matter is that it does work. Violent crime went down when we were in government. What is happening with crime now? Crime is up 32% in Canada since the Liberals took government. Gang-related crime and gang-related homicides nearly doubled since the Liberals took government, less than eight years ago. To lay this at the feet of the Liberals is entirely appropriate. It is their system.

What does Bill C-5 do? It removes mandatory minimum sentences for crimes like extortion with a firearm, robbery with a firearm and for drive-by shootings. It allows house arrest for individuals who burn down homes, arsonists. They burn down someone else's house, but they get to serve their sentence from the comfort of their own house. Those who commit sexual assault are now able to serve their sentence from their home and possibly in the same community as their victim.

When we say the Liberal justice system is broken, it absolutely is. Liberals will often talk about the tough-on-crime approach of the Conservatives. If someone is a repeat offender and commits robbery with a firearm in this country, if someone walks into a store or into someone's home with a firearm and robs them, they do not need to be out on the street. They need to be in jail.

It is not helping anyone. We are not helping the victims. We are not helping our communities. We are not even helping the offender. How does putting an offender back on the street help them? Under the Conservatives, if someone committed robbery with a firearm, they went to jail for a minimum of four years.

Under Bill C-5, which recently passed into law, the Liberal Bill C-5 that is soft on crime, there is no longer a mandatory jail sentence for committing a robbery with a firearm. There is something interesting I heard the justice minister say many times. He said that tough on crime is not constitutional.

Less than a week ago, just yards from here, the Supreme Court of Canada said the mandatory penalty of four years for robbery with a firearm is constitutional. It was a seven-to-two decision. The Supreme Court of Canada said that a mandatory penalty of five years for robbery with a prohibited weapon is constitutional. What a surprise. That was a seven-to-two decision. Those were two separate cases.

Soft on crime does not work. Canadians know it. Conservatives know it. Premiers of all political stripes know it. The only people in this country who like this approach would be the Liberals and repeat offenders. That is poor company to keep.

We have to take action on behalf of victims. I do not know how we can look a victim's family in the eyes and say the system does work. Then we say that the person who was out on bail for a firearms crime, who had a lifetime firearms prohibition, was able to murder their loved one and the system is working. The system is not working.

We need strong changes. We need to repeal Bill C-5. We need to that ensure if someone robs another with a firearm they go to jail. We need to ensure that if someone burns someone's house down or commits sexual assault, they are not serving their sentence from the comfort of their own home. We need to ensure that a repeat firearms offender serves their time in jail.

We need to make sure that when the police catch someone who has a firearms prohibition order and who has committed another firearms-related crime, like a drive-by shooting or robbery with a firearm, it is not too high a bar to meet to say that while that person is awaiting trial, for the safety of the victims, the community and our frontline police officers, they are going to be held behind bars.

That is appropriate. It is reasonable. It is what all premiers are calling for. It is what the police are calling for. It is what Canadians are calling for. Unfortunately, for three days in a row, we have asked the government, in good faith, to do something and correct the mistake it made. Will it change the bail laws so individuals, who should absolutely not be roaming our streets, committing crimes and murdering people, are held behind bars? It is crickets over there.

The Liberals said if the opposition wants to come up with something, they will consider it. They are almost victim blaming by saying the police and the provinces have a role. No, the Criminal Code is their job. We are calling on them and demanding that they do something to reform our broken Liberal bail system. They have to do it today.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

moved:

That, given that, after eight years of this government's soft on crime policies,

(i) violent crime has increased by 32%,

(ii) gang-related homicides have increased by 92%,

(iii) violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily,

(iv) increasing daily acts of crime and violence are putting Canadians at risk,

(v) five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year,

the House call on the government to enact policies that prioritize the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens, namely:

(a) fix Canada's broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend;

(b) strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail; and

(c) ensure that Canada's justice system puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of violent, repeat offenders.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fundy Royal.

There are two reasons we are here today talking about bail reform and violent crime.

The first reason is that Canadians across the country are growing increasingly alarmed by the violent crime wave impacting every major community and our rural communities across the country. Canadians are waking up every day to headlines of violent crime, police officers being murdered and people being murdered on public transit. That is why we are here. We hear their concerns and are here to represent them and demand change.

The second reason we are here today is to demand change from the Liberals, which have done absolutely nothing to address the violent crime surge in this country. They have taken no responsibility. They have made no commitments to Canadians that they are taking this seriously and will do anything about it. They have brought forward no new ideas on how to address the need for immediate bail reform in this country, address the violent crime surge in this country and address the repeat violent offenders who are being caught and released by police over and over again and who are wreaking havoc on our communities on a daily basis.

That is why we are here today. We want to talk about bail reform and crime for our Conservative opposition day motion, which was just outlined.

What I would say to Canadians is that it is not just in their heads that violent crime is going up. It is going up. In fact, it is up 32% in the last eight years under the Liberal Prime Minister. More than that, gang murders have almost doubled. They have gone up 92% in the eight years that the Liberal Prime Minister has been at the helm.

We have also seen, as I mentioned earlier, that police officers are being murdered on the job. There were five in the last number of months, particularly over the holidays. A young new constable in the Ontario police, Greg Pierzchala, was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was out on bail. He was shot and murdered by that man. That man also had a weapons prohibition order. He was deemed too dangerous to possess a firearm by our law system and had a long rap sheet of harming people in his community. This repeat violent offender was let out on bail, and then he murdered a young, innocent police officer over the holidays. That story, unfortunately, is becoming less and less unique in this country.

This is not just happening in Toronto. Of course, folks from Toronto will know better than I do that public transit is becoming less and less safe. In fact, increasingly, women are concerned about riding the subway because people are being murdered. There are teenagers swarming people and stabbing them to death. People are being lit on fire. People are being assaulted and pushed to the ground. We just saw a CBC reporter get assaulted and die. Four days earlier, an elderly woman had the same thing happen in Toronto. They were just walking down the street minding their own business and were murdered.

In Vancouver, the community is facing serious drug issues, with people face down in the street overdosing. It is horrible. I think everyone agrees that we need immediate action on that. We are also seeing terror inflicted on that community, on the most vulnerable communities and in Vancouver at large by a very small group of people. In fact, last year, 40 people were arrested 6,000 times. That means each of those 40 people was arrested 150 times in one calendar year. That is every two or three days, or sometimes multiple times a day. Police say they are sometimes arresting the same person committing violent acts twice in one day. Forty people were arrested 6,000 times. I think that is astounding, so I will keep repeating it. What kind of justice system do we have if 40 people can wreak havoc and commit 6,000 crimes in one year?

The bail system is broken in this country, and it is not just the Conservatives saying this. The Conservatives have been saying we need bail reform for quite some time, but it is also a non-partisan issue. It is also said by every single premier in Canada. It is all three premiers of the territories and all 10 premiers of the provinces, representing Conservatives, the NDP and Liberals. This is a non-partisan issue.

They all signed a historic letter to the Prime Minister in the last couple of weeks demanding bail reform. Do members know how difficult it is to get every region of the country to sign on to one letter and agree on a specific policy? It is pretty rare and very difficult, and they did that on their own volition. They came together, signed the letter and demanded bail reform from the Prime Minister. One would think we would have heard the Prime Minister call a press conference and say he is going to do something about this as every region in the country is concerned about it, but there were crickets. Nothing is happening on the Liberal benches.

Liberals have made no announcement and no commitment to bring in bail reform. When we have asked questions in question period, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the man tasked with the responsibility for the Criminal Code, says that is on police and provinces, blaming police and provinces for the issues in this country.

The minister says they are open to ideas. There is an idea right here from the premiers, every single premier in this country, in fact, and more ideas, if the Liberals would like them, from the Toronto police, the epicentre of violent crime in this country. The Toronto police penned a letter, on their own, to the Prime Minister of this country proposing three measures concerning bail. In fact, police associations across the country and municipal police forces are saying bail reform will save lives. That is what police are saying. Those are the frontline people putting their lives at risk for community safety, the ones dealing with violent repeat offenders, saying that we need bail reform and Canadian lives will be saved.

The data tells us that as well. I recently heard from Chief Myron Demkiw of the Toronto police, who said there were 44 murders by shooting in Toronto last year, 44 innocent lives taken by violent criminals using guns. Of those 44 murderers, 24 were out on bail. If our bail system was a little tougher on repeat violent offenders, 24 people would still be alive. Therefore, the data shows that the police are correct that bail reform would save lives, and yet there is nothing from the Liberal benches. They are not taking this seriously. They are taking no responsibility, and people are dying. I do not understand it. They are tasked with public safety.

The Minister of Public Safety spent the better part of January touring the country and talking to hunters about taking away the tools they use because the Liberals are getting tough on guns, as they say, gun control, on duck hunters, farmers and sport shooters. He spent considerable time and resources going to talk to hunters about taking their firearms away. Meanwhile, police officers are being murdered in Toronto. People are being murdered on the subway. Why was the public safety minister of Canada not touring our cities to talk to police about what they are facing on a daily basis? Where are the time and resources on that?

This is a Liberal government that is going to spend billions and billions of dollars going after people like me, people on these benches who have firearms legally and lawfully, who hunt and shoot with their families. That is what the Liberals are focused on. That is what all the resources are being focused on by the Liberal government when it comes to guns, for the most part. Meanwhile, people are being murdered by repeat violent offenders who continue to get bail. That falls at the feet of the Liberal government.

We can look at Bill C-75, a bail reform bill the Liberals brought forward a few years ago. When we talk to police, all those changes in policies that made it easier for repeat violent offenders to get bail are coming home to roost now. That is what we are hearing from the brave frontline police officers in this country.

We need to repeal the most harmful aspects of Bill C-75. That would be leadership from the Prime Minister: to get tough on crime, tough on the 40 people being arrested 6,000 times for violent crime in Vancouver, and ensure that we save 24 people in Toronto next year. The statistics are about the same every year in Toronto: Over half of the shooting murders are by people who are out on bail. Let us save those lives next year. That could be done in the next few months. That could be announced today by the Liberal government.

To conclude, the Conservatives have a tough-on-crime record. In fact, under Stephen Harper, in the 10 years he was Prime Minister, crime went down 26%. They brought forward 80 criminal justice bills. It was a top priority for Stephen Harper. In the eight years that the Liberal Prime Minister has been at the helm and in power in this country, violent crime reversed and went up 32%. There is a clear difference in approach to dealing with crime, and a Conservative government will be the one to save lives in Canada, get tough on crime, treat law-abiding citizens with respect, put victims' rights first and ensure that repeat violent offenders stay off our streets.

Justice

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, violent crime is rising because of the actions of this Liberal government. Under eight years of the Prime Minister, Canada has become a more dangerous place. Police are putting the blame on Liberal Bill C-75 that mandated judges to grant bail to dangerous repeat offenders with minimal conditions. The consequences of this have been fatal.

When will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility for his failure to protect Canadians and apologize to the victims of his reckless legislation?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in a number of important cases, the bail reform that we undertook in Bill C-75 made it harder to get bail. As I have said, we are open to any good proposal from the opposition, as well as from provinces and territories.

At a conference of federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers in the fall, I committed to that long before this became a hot issue in the House of Commons. We are working with the provinces and territories to look at legitimate suggestions for bail reform.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last month, the OPP's Constable Greg Pierzchala was murdered by a violent criminal out on bail. Chief Myron Demkiw of the Toronto police said that this murder was senseless and preventable and that Canada needs bail reform. Unfortunately, access to bail for violent criminals was made easier by the Liberal government's Bill C-75. Countless Canadians have been harmed by the Liberal bail system; it must be reformed.

Will the Liberal government make that commitment today?

Criminal Code

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity today to speak to this legislation. I would like to start by recognizing the sponsors of the bill, the Hon. Senator Ataullahjan from the other House and our member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, for the leadership that they have shown on this important issue. I want to thank them, and it is encouraging to see a bill brought forward that can be supported across all party lines and in both Houses. I am excited to see this legislation come to fruition.

I will begin with how we view the human body, and the dignity and worth that we assign to that human body. My faith teaches me that every human being is created in the image of God and that there is sanctity and a sacredness to human life, including the physical body. That is why, unlike so many other ancient civilizations or religions, those who follow and have followed Christianity, Judaism or Islam have historically practised burial rather than cremation. There is the belief that, even after death, the human body remains important. Christianity and even some branches of Judaism teach that the body will one day be resurrected and transformed. As such, the body is of value and must be treated with care and respect, even after death.

If the human body is viewed as important, worthy of care and dignity, and sacred even in death, how much more should it be treated as sacrosanct while the human person is alive? Even those who reject the tenets of the three Abrahamic faiths would agree that the body after death should be treated with dignity. In fact, here in Canada we have laws that relate specifically to the handling of a human body after death. Section 182 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a criminal offence to improperly or indecently interfere with or offer any indignity to a dead human body, and there are similar laws around the globe. Why? It is because as humans we recognize there is a sacredness to humanity, including the physical body. Again, if treated with such dignity and reverence after death, how much more so while still alive?

For those who prefer a more humanistic argument, I would point the House toward Immanuel Kant and his piece, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in which he casts the innate dignity of every human being as a categorical imperative. If we follow Kant, we must recognize that when a human organ becomes a commodity, a monetary value is placed on that organ. By assigning a monetary value to the organ, we essentially assign a monetary value to the individual who provided it. I am quite confident that we all agree with Kant, in this aspect, that putting a price on any part of a human being violates his or her intrinsic dignity.

Moreover, the removal of organs by force, under coercion or with consent, violates another Kantian principle: that of bodily autonomy. We hear a lot about bodily autonomy. We hear very different perspectives on what that entails, but there is a near-universal belief, at least in the western democracies, that what happens in an individual's body should be the sole purview of that individual or, in the case of young children, of their parents. Sadly, there are still individuals, criminal organizations and even some governments who refuse to respect the sanctity of the body.

No country officially endorses the practice of organ trafficking, but many turn a blind eye to this dehumanizing and often dangerous practice. In some cases, individuals, often those who live in poverty, sell their organs. In others, organs are obtained without the consent of a donor. An example of this would be what is happening in China with political prisoners, particularly people of faith. Again and again we have raised the plight of the Uighurs, practitioners of Falun Gong and Christians.

There have been many petitions presented in this House to that effect, with respect to individual groups who have been persecuted by China's brutal regime. Organ harvesting of these religious minorities by China is well documented. Typically, these extractions and the transplants themselves take place outside of national medical systems, so even assuming the donor is kept alive, which is never a guarantee, there is a high risk associated with the extraction and implantation of these organs, and as such these practices violate the sanctity and dignity of the human person. Therefore, we can all agree that human life is precious, and the body and the organs therein are worthy of the protection this legislation seeks to provide.

I am pleased that we are standing up for the value of human life. I wish we would also have the courage to show a similar concern and do what the Supreme Court of Canada instructed Parliament to do three decades ago, and finally enact legal protection for the preborn child in the womb. It is time we acted.

I am in favour of the bill's crackdown on foreign nationals who have been involved in organ trafficking attempting to come to Canada. I think that is good. It is high time that we crack down on who is allowed to come to Canada and who is not. However, I think that we need to be careful to differentiate between those who have been involved as traffickers and those who the traffickers may have exploited. If an individual has been involved in trafficking proper, that is, if they have facilitated or received monetary benefit from facilitating the illegal trafficking of organs, like those who traffic in drugs or slaves, that individual should not be admissible to Canada.

As an aside, I think it is reprehensible and hypocritical that the current government, even though it is supporting the legislation, also brought forward Bill C-75, which lowered the penalties for those involved in profiting from human trafficking. It is frankly absurd, and I hope some of the members on the opposite side see the disconnect, but any foreign nationals who traffic or profit from trafficking in human organs should not be admissible to Canada.

That said, as I read this legislation, I think that there should be a clear enough differentiation between traffickers and those who have willingly donated their own organs.

I am also a bit concerned about the first part of proposed subsection 4.2, where it says, “a person who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under section 240.?1 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada”. As far as it relates to this piece of legislation, I think it is good, but I understand and I have to admit that I do struggle a little with that portion for a couple of reasons. The first is that other countries are not Canada, and every country around the globe has its own laws and legal systems. In the same way that we would expect those who come to Canada to respect our laws, we also need to be willing to respect the laws of other countries.

I know there are good counter-arguments to that point. Many of them are excellent reasonable arguments, but I think that something needs to be said where we respect other jurisdictions.

I would like to reiterate again that I am happy we are having this discussion. I would like to see that handful of concerns addressed, but overall I am pleased to be supporting this legislation. Our party is pleased to support it.

I want to again thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and Senator Ataullahjan for their hard work on this file. I am looking forward to supporting it.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make other related amendments. While I have much to say on this bill, I want to briefly talk about some the failures of the Liberal government on crime in general and crime specifically.

Rural crime is a serious issue, and one that has been ignored by the Liberal government for far too long. In my area, in Haliburton County for example, incidents increased from 526 back in 2017 to 758 in 2021. Police are now trying to keep up with more people charged than in any of the previous four years.

The crime severity index, or CSI, is a measure of police-reported crime in which more serious crimes are given a higher weight in the overall measurement of all crimes. The index provides a picture of regional crime trends. In the case of Kawartha Lakes, specifically in Lindsay, the picture is not as good. Like Haliburton County, the CSI numbers for Lindsay in 2021 showed a significant increase compared to previous years. Lindsay's overall CSI was 93.1 last year, which is a jump of more than 20% over 2020, and is significantly higher than the country's CSI of 73.7 and nearly double the province's CSI of 56.21 for the same period.

Kawartha Lakes Police Service Chief Mark Mitchell described the increase as “death by 1,000 cuts”, referring to the lack of murders but an overall increase in other non-violent crimes. He further added, “Our calls for service were up 20% in 2021, our criminal charges were up 25%, break and enters, frauds were all significantly higher, and our theft charges were up 80% compared to the year before and the current year.”

I have spoken with residents who are afraid to walk in their community. They are afraid to basically be inside their own homes. They are frustrated and angry. These concerns came to a boiling point about a year ago at a community meeting I attended that was hosted by the Kawartha Lakes Police Service.

At the meeting, residents learned that the Ross Memorial Hospital's mental health program had already received roughly 1,700 referrals just this year. Concerns were raised about the impact the Central East Correctional Centre is having on the community. The John Howard Society noted the challenge given the number of those who have come to the area to support the incarcerated and those who are released into the community on their own recognizance, bail or after completing their sentence.

The Kawartha Lakes Police Service is doing everything it can, but the government is sadly making its job harder. While it was distressing to hear the first-hand stories shared by many in attendance, it was evident to me that Canada's justice system has failed those law-abiding citizens. Lindsay resident Al Hussey raised concerns about the victims of crime, asking, “When does the support start flowing to us?” He was speaking of the victims of crime such as the residents living next to known drug houses, the business and property owners who are being robbed and the people who are afraid to walk near certain areas of town.

It is true a small number of people are creating a disproportionate amount of work for our law enforcement agencies, the court system, social services and not-for-profit organizations. However, those who continually refuse help and continue to reoffend should not be repeatedly returned to the streets in a revolving door justice system.

A big part of this is linked to the passage of Bill C-75. In 2017, the Liberal government's legislation watered down penalties for over 100 serious crimes, including the use of date rape drugs, human trafficking and impaired driving causing bodily harm. Sadly, the government severely underestimated the heartbreaking impact this decision would have on individuals, communities and families. It is unacceptable that taxpayers are once again being forced to pay more while at the same time receiving a lower quality of life.

Police officers I speak with say that Bill C-75 is the root of much of the issue regarding the catch and release bail concepts through the ladder principle, a principle that instructs justice system actors to release the accused at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive conditions.

I firmly believe that serious crimes deserve serious penalties. Most importantly, the law should always put the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens above dangerous or reoffending criminals.

It is clear that Bill C-75 has hurt our community. To that end, I recognize that federal lawmakers must make bold changes to our criminal justice system. New methods, such as restorative justice, should be expanded, especially for those who show a desire to be rehabilitated and released as productive members of our society.

This brings me to Bill S-4. It may come as no surprise to anyone listening that the first thing I looked at was how much this bill would impact crime in the communities I represent and how it would impact those victims of crimes. The impetus for this bill is born from the increasing backlog facing the court system here in Canada. I believe we all have stories about that.

The judicial system has been facing a series of delays in cases proceeding to trial, which has been exacerbated by COVID. This is not lost on us here in the official opposition. We have continuously raised concerns about the delays and the potential for criminals to walk free due to the Supreme Court's Jordan decision, which said that no more than 18 months can pass between laying a charge and the end of the trial case in provincial courts or 30 months for cases in superior courts. We have raised our concerns in the House and in the media.

It was the Conservatives who called for a study into the impacts of COVID–19 on the judicial system at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Now Bill S-4 hopes to alleviate this backlog through several initiatives. It will amend the process for peace officers to obtain warrants without appearing in person, will expand the provisions to fingerprint the accused later should fingerprints not previously have been taken at the time of arrest, and will allow the courts to deal with administrative matters for accused persons not represented by lawyers.

Of these provisions I have no issue. Anything to move the process along that does not diminish the rights of the accused persons or victims or brings the justice system into disrepute is a good thing. I expect that these initiatives will be thoroughly examined at committee and perhaps even acted on.

However, I do have concerns, perhaps cautions is a better word, with the remaining provisions in the legislation, particularly around the expansion of the accused's ability to appear remotely by audio or video conference and to allow the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference. I would caution the members at committee to pay particular attention to the rights of victims and those citizens who are doing their duty as jurors.

We must ensure that the anonymity of jurors is protected. Technology has come a long way and the risk that recognition software might compromise jurors and risk the integrity of the trial is a real concern.

We must also take into consideration the impact of the expansion of telecommunication options, particularly when allowing accused persons to call in using a phone, which may impact the healing process for victims and their families. The bill will permit an offender to appear remotely for sentencing purposes. This measure would require the consent of the criminal prosecutor. The court would also weigh the rights of the offender to have a fair public hearing.

Nowhere is the victim asked or required to consent to the offender being allowed to call in for his or her sentence. The balance of rights in the court process is already heavily weighted in favour of the accused and I am afraid that Bill S-4 tips the scale even further.

That reminds me of another failure of the Liberal government, which is the delay in the filling of long vacancies, such as the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. Without that person in place, Bill S-4 will not be critically analyzed by a key advocate for victims to advise on how the bill will impact victims of crime.

Conservatives remain steadfast in our commitment to victims of crime and will ensure that legislation like Bill S-4 helps victims and their families in their pursuit of justice. We will stand up for law-abiding Canadians to ensure communities remain safe places to live and that delays in the court process do not allow criminals to walk free.

With that, I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be here this afternoon and rise to speak on Bill S-4, a bill that demonstrates co-operation on a jurisdictional basis with the provinces, and a bill that moves our justice system forward so Canadians know our justice system is accessible, efficient and effective, and provides true access to justice for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is with much pleasure that I rise to speak to the bill.

I am pleased to be here and to have the opportunity to provide an overview of some of the key areas of reform proposed in Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

Informed by federal, provincial and territorial dialogue and key stakeholder input, the proposed amendments are intended to mitigate the impact of court delays on accused persons and on victims by supporting the efficient and effective operation of the criminal courts during and in the aftermath of the pandemic. They are designed to enhance the courts' ability to ensure that their operations respect both public health concerns for all participants in the criminal justice system and the charter rights of accused persons to be tried within a reasonable time in order to maintain public confidence in our justice system.

The proposed amendments are based on the following criteria: One, they were critical to increasing the efficiency of the criminal justice system during the conditions of the pandemic; two, they address the current impediments to efficiency in the Criminal Code; three, they would have little or no prejudicial impact on accused persons; four, they are likely to receive broad-based parliamentary support; and five, they would result in amendments to the Criminal Code that would continue to provide efficiencies post pandemic.

The pandemic significantly impacted the operation of the criminal courts in Canada, as we all know, with courts either temporarily closing or severely restricting their operations due to public health orders. Furthermore, the pandemic exposed weaknesses in our criminal court system that can be fixed by providing remote access to proceedings under special circumstances. Bill S-4 would go beyond correcting for issues discovered during the pandemic and would make the justice process in Canada more efficient and accessible.

Bill S-4 addresses issues that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light regarding the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in this country. It also builds on past government initiatives, including Bill C-75 from a previous Parliament, which came into force in 2019 and made significant progress in modernizing our criminal justice system, including by facilitating the appearance of accused persons, lawyers and judges by audio or video conference throughout the criminal justice process.

Criminal justice is an area of shared jurisdiction, and co-operation with provincial and territorial partners is key. Parliament has exclusive authority to enact criminal law, including criminal procedure. Provinces and territories have jurisdiction over the administration of justice, including criminal courts.

While the courts and criminal justice professionals are, for the most part, managing to maintain essential services in the criminal justice process during the pandemic, accused persons, offenders, victims and witnesses are nonetheless being impacted by delays.

While many challenges facing the criminal courts have been operational in nature, some have arisen due to legislative impediments in the Criminal Code. Consequently, the pandemic has revealed the need for a number of amendments to the Criminal Code to provide clarity to the courts on issues that have arisen and to make the criminal process more efficient and effective by expanding the permissible use of technology during the pandemic, for the recuperation period and beyond. These proposed reforms are for the benefit of all participants in the criminal justice system.

Bill S-4 would modernize our criminal justice system by employing video conference and audio conference technology to accommodate for pandemic-era challenges, and it would equip our courts to handle similar challenges that may arise in the future. Furthermore, we would improve all Canadians' access to justice.

The bill would not change the principle that all persons involved in the criminal justice process must physically appear in person unless otherwise authorized under the Criminal Code. Courts will still have discretion in this area. However, this bill would ensure that the judicial process is not unduly stalled, by permitting remote conference options under extenuating circumstances.

Canadians deserve a justice system that is accessible, efficient and effective, and that provides true access to justice for all. The pandemic has taught us that technology can help make the justice system work better for all people who come in contact with it. Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that will make court proceedings more flexible while protecting the rights of all participants.

The reforms proposed in Bill S-4 flow from the important work of the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Chief Justice Richard Wagner. They are also informed by important contributions from the provinces and territories, as well as other justice system stakeholders. With Bill S-4, we have the opportunity to improve our justice system by making those good ideas permanent.

Since March 2020, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has engaged regularly on the impacts of the pandemic on criminal courts with provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety. The proposed amendments take into consideration input received from provinces, territories and other key stakeholders.

In addition, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has continued to be kept apprised of the challenges faced by courts across Canada in his role as co-chair of the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19. These discussions have all informed the proposed changes introduced in the bill.

A more efficient justice system will benefit all Canadians. I ask that all members of this House support the quick passage of the bill. I believe Bill S-4 helps transform and modernize our criminal justice system while ensuring respect for all persons involved in the criminal court process, including accused persons and prospective jurors.

I am confident Bill S-4 and the proposed reforms will improve our criminal justice system while facilitating careful oversight by the courts to ensure that the rights of accused persons and offenders are protected.

The gist of this bill, its main purpose, is that Canadians deserve a justice system that is accessible, efficient and effective, and that provides access to justice for all. I thank everyone for allowing me the time to speak on a very important bill for all Canadians.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not cover everything. That is another complaint from the Barreau du Québec: There should be an in-depth review of the criminal and penal system, rather than doing it bit by bit.

In the previous Parliament, the House considered Bill C‑23, which is a previous incarnation. Before that, there were bills C‑75 and C‑5. The Criminal Code is always reviewed piecemeal, turning it into a massive, inscrutable tome with sections that refer three sections ahead and eight sections back and a bunch of case law to help understand what is going on. It is impossible to make heads or tails of.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of a more comprehensive review of the Criminal Code. On the issue of connectivity, yes, adding more telecommunications may be a good idea, but it will not apply everywhere, unfortunately.

As for legal aid, even though it is not under federal jurisdiction, I think there is always room for discussion, because there are disparities between the provinces.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

I am pleased today to have an opportunity to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts on the COVID-19 response and other measures. This bill would increase our justice system's efficiency and ensure that all Canadians have equal access.

The COVID-19 pandemic altered our everyday lives, including necessitating new ways of accessing the criminal justice system. The solutions invented to accommodate our circumstances proved efficient and should be used going forward to optimize the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in Canada. This bill's proposed amendments support the increased use of technology in criminal courts across Canada. This has a variety of applications, such as the use of technology in the jury selection process, remote participation of prospective jurors and remote appearances for accused persons and offenders.

I want to focus first on the amendments relating to the jury selection process. The amendments would enable a court to allow or require prospective jurors to participate by video conference so long as the court considers it appropriate and the accused person and Crown prosecutor consent to the jury selection process occurring this way. When a court allows prospective jurors to participate by video conference, it will be an individual's choice whether they want to participate in person or remotely.

Importantly, Bill S-4 accompanies the government's efforts to increase remote Internet access across our country and close the digital divide. However, while we work toward efficient Canada-wide Internet access, there are measures in place to help individuals who may not have optimal connection. When the court requires prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process by video conference, it would need to approve a location equipped with the technological infrastructure for them to participate by those means, such as a community centre or courtroom set up with the requisite equipment.

If the court does not approve such a location, it will only be able to permit prospective jurors to participate by video conference from other locations, such their homes or offices, if they choose to participate that way. However, in this case, the court would also need to provide the option for prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process in person.

These amendments would help our jury system represent the face of Canada. Increased representativeness would be ensured by first reducing the barrier of attending in person. Prospective jurors living in rural or remote areas would enjoy minimized travel time and costs, and those who need to find child care or who hold precarious employment would experience reduced time required to find alternative child care or time needed off work. It would also reduce emissions, I will add.

Second, the changes would ensure that persons who do not have access to adequate video conferencing technology, or who have limited understanding of the technology itself, would continue to be able to participate in the jury selection process and ultimately form part of the trial jury. These are critical measures to bridge discrepancies in Internet access while we work to shore up connection across Canada, including in my home province of New Brunswick.

In addition to improving the Criminal Code regime governing the use of technology, other reforms in this bill would improve access to justice and efficiencies in our criminal courts. For example, Bill S-4 would expand the power of courts to make case management rules to allow court personnel to deal directly with unrepresented accused persons on administrative matters for out-of-court proceedings. Currently this is only permitted if the accused person is represented by counsel. This may represent a relatively small change to the Criminal Code, but I believe it would go a long way to improving access to justice for unrepresented accused persons.

It is very important to note that these uses of technology are optional and subject to the judge's discretion, as opposed to being mandatory. I want to stress this point. These measures would assist courts in continuing to deliver justice in an effective and efficient way. The proposed reforms would also better equip courts with the tools to keep things moving during challenging times, because of a pandemic, a flood or any other situation that could hinder physical access to the courts in the future. While these reforms may be relied on in a more significant way in managing exceptional and emergency circumstances, they would not be limited to such circumstances. They would apply on a permanent basis to ensure that the options to use technology continue to be available to our courts for years to come.

Another important element of increased efficiency in this bill pertains to digital fingerprinting. Bill S-4 would amend the Criminal Code to allow a court to issue a summons for fingerprinting if an accused was previously required to appear but such identification was not completed for exceptional reasons. In addition, courts would be able to make an order for the fingerprinting of an accused person being released on bail. These reforms would facilitate the efficient collection of fingerprints, which is critical for the smooth functioning of our court system. When courts operate efficiently, more Canadians access justice and our country is better off.

The expanded telewarrant system is also critical. Expanding the possibility of obtaining a greater number of search warrants and other judicial authorizations by means of telecommunication would contribute to efficiency gains in the criminal justice system by reducing the need for in-person attendance and physical delivery of search warrant applications by law enforcement. Indeed courts have found that seeing a complainant or witness face to face is not fundamental to our system of justice, and the Criminal Code has permitted remote attendance by witnesses for more than 20 years.

Subsection 800(2.1) has, since 1997, authorized summary conviction trials by video for accused persons in custody. Sections 714.1 and 714.2 have permitted appearances by witnesses by video conference since 1999.

Bill C-75, which was passed by the House in 2019, modernized and facilitated some appearances by audio or video conferences of all persons involved in criminal cases, including judges, under certain circumstances.

Rather than overhauling criminal procedure, Bill S-4 continues to permit proceedings by remote appearance. This bill picks up where Bill C-75 left off, in light of the experience gained and the questions that arose with the use of technology in the criminal courts during the pandemic.

I would like to personalize this for a bit, if I may. Before I joined the House, my work was centred on supporting youth at risk in the education system. From time to time, students would find themselves interacting with the justice system. I had the opportunity to help them navigate these public institutions, understand their rights, and when the circumstances permitted, to also pursue justice. I remember a particularly frustrating time in which unnecessary delays prolonged the personal suffering of a survivor of sexual assault, adding to their trauma. I remember the anger and frustration this evoked and the feelings of helplessness for all involved.

Canadians deserve a justice system that is accessible, efficient and effective, and that provides true access to justice for all. The pandemic has taught us that technology can be used to help make the justice system work better for all people who come in contact with it. Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that will make court proceedings more flexible while protecting the rights of participants.

The reforms proposed in Bill S-4 flow from the important work of the action committee on court operations in response to COVID–19, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Chief Justice Richard Wagner. They are also informed by important contributions from the provinces and territories, as well as other justice system stakeholders. With Bill S-4, we have the opportunity to improve our justice system by making those good ideas permanent.

Bill S-4 is an example of how we can improve the legal system, but there are other ways we can also discuss pushing things forward. I would like to mention restorative justice, which is an approach that seeks to repair harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for the harm to communicate about it and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.

It will invest in programs for first nations and indigenous courts as well, creating more pathways for healing by including indigenous knowledge and traditions, restorative justice practices and elders in the court process.

It will reform how sexual assault cases are prosecuted in Canada through a feminist equality lens.

It will ensure that everyone, regardless of income level, should be able to use the remedies that Canadian laws and the Canadian legal system provide.

It focuses on a system truly built on preventing youth crime by addressing its underlying causes, responding to the needs of young persons, and providing guidance and support.

Without continuing our work on multiple fronts, we cannot claim that there will be true justice for anyone who is involved in legal proceedings. Bill S-4 is part of the solution, and we need to continue to build on it to restore confidence in our legal system.

In 2022, the national justice survey revealed that 49% of Canadians are not confident the Canadian criminal justice system is fair to all people, and that 39% think it is not accessible to all. These numbers are incredibly alarming, and Bill S-4 is a step in the right direction.

In conclusion, Bill S-4's measures are both practical and necessary. They would assist the provinces and territories, which are responsible for the criminal administration of justice, by giving criminal courts additional tools to tackle delays. They would also benefit everyday court users. For these reasons, I urge everyone in the House to support Bill S-4.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Outremont.

I am pleased to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Bill S-4 addresses issues that the COVID–19 pandemic has brought to light regarding the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in this country. It also builds on past government initiatives, including Bill C-75, which came into force in 2019 and made significant progress in modernizing our criminal justice system, including by facilitating the appearance of accused persons, lawyers and judges by audioconference or video conference throughout the criminal justice process. Bill C-75 also enacted Criminal Code amendments to improve the jury selection process.

Bill S-4's amendments support the increased use of technology in criminal courts across Canada, including in the following areas: remote appearances for accused persons and offenders, remote participation of prospective jurors and the use of technology in a jury selection process. My remarks today will focus on the amendments relating to the use of technology during the jury selection process.

As many members know, a jury is a group of randomly selected citizens who act as the fact-finders in criminal trials, replacing the judge in this role when accused persons exercise their subsection 11(f) charter right to a jury trial after being charged with certain offences. It is the civic duty of all Canadians over the age of 18 to serve on a jury if selected. Jurors make critical contributions to the criminal justice system in Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a jury reflects the common sense, values and conscience of the community.

Subsection 11(d) of the charter also guarantees an accused person an independent, impartial and representative jury. The Criminal Code sets out the procedural rules regulating jury trials and jury selection and includes safeguards that reflect this charter right.

The jury selection process is a hearing held for the purposes of selecting qualified members to form the jury. Typically, persons referred to as prospective jurors are identified and summoned in accordance with provincial or territorial laws, and directed to attend at a specified courthouse or other location at a specified date and time in order to partake in a jury selection process. Being summoned for jury duty does not necessarily mean that a person will be asked to serve on the jury. However, compliance with the summons is mandatory, and people may only be excused from jury duty for certain reasons, including where it would cause personal hardship for them to serve.

The COVID–19 pandemic and public health requirements for physical distancing posed significant challenges for the jury selection process since it sometimes involves several hundred people being physically present in the same location at the same time. Bill S-4's amendments provide courts with the flexibility to hold jury selection processes with prospective jurors appearing by video conference rather than in person. These amendments aim to not only address the challenges caused by the pandemic, but also optimize the jury selection process beyond the pandemic and moving forward.

Importantly, a key aspect of Bill S-4 will be increased efficiency of the justice system, facilitated by the use of technology. The amendments enable a court to allow or require prospective jurors to participate by video conference so long as the court considers it appropriate and the accused person and Crown prosecutor consent to the jury selection process occurring this way.

Where a court allows a prospective juror to participate by video conference, it would be that individual's choice whether they want to participate in person or remotely. Where the court requires prospective jurors to participate in a jury selection process by video conference, it will need to approve a location that is equipped with the technological infrastructure for them to participate by those means, such as a community centre or a courtroom set up with the requisite equipment.

If the court does not approve such a location, it will only be able to permit prospective jurors to participate by video conference from another location, such their home or office, if they choose to participate that way. However, in this case, the court will also need to provide the option for prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process in person.

These amendments aim to maintain the representativeness of the jury selection process in two ways.

First, they facilitate the participation of persons in the jury selection process by reducing the burdens and barriers of attending in person. Although participating by video conference from home or the office would not eliminate the need to take time off work, it would likely lessen the time commitment required compared to commuting to the courthouse and waiting sometimes several hours for the process to commence. This can facilitate the participation of prospective jurors living in rural or remote areas by minimizing travel time and costs, and help those who need to find child care or who hold precarious employment by reducing the time required for child care or the time they need to take off work. These changes would both reduce the burden for individual jurors and enhance the efficiency of the overall system.

Second, the changes would ensure that persons who do not have access to adequate video conferencing technology or who have a limited understanding of the technology will continue to be able to participate in the jury selection process and ultimately form part of the trial's jury.

Our government recognizes that there is a digital divide in Canada and that many Canadians, particularly those in rural and remote areas, do not have adequate access to a high-speed and stable Internet connection. Although the government is committed to closing the divide, the amendments would ensure that at least a properly equipped location or an option to appear in person will always be available to prospective jurors to ensure participation by as many Canadians as possible.

The bill's amendments to the jury selection process also include important safeguards. As mentioned previously, prior to permitting or acquiring prospective jurors to participate by video conference, both the accused person and the prosecutor will need to consent to such an order being made. Also, the court will need to determine that making such an order is appropriate by considering listed factors, including the challenges related to the in-person participation of prospective jurors, their privacy and security, and the accused person's right to a fair and public hearing.

I would also like to take a moment to touch on the related proposals that would permit the use of electronic or automated means to randomly select prospective jurors during the jury selection process. The current process is both time- and resource-intensive, as it requires a large number of physical cards with juror identification information on them to be manually created for each prospective juror and then manually drawn as well. This amendment would provide courts with the option of a more efficient and less resource-draining process. Along with the amendments previously discussed, it also aims to optimize the jury selection process beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

I believe this bill helps transform and modernize our criminal justice system while ensuring respect for all persons involved in the criminal court process, including accused persons and prospective jurors. A more efficient justice system will benefit all Canadians, and I ask that all members of the House support the passage of this bill as quickly as possible.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in this place to represent the constituents of Avalon. I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide an overview of some of the key areas of reform proposed in Bill S-4, an act that would amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and make related amendments to other acts.

Bill S-4 would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of criminal proceedings by giving courts more flexibility and clarity in response to the particular challenges that arose in the pandemic. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, the remote appearance provisions in the Criminal Code had just been reformed through a former bill, Bill C-75, in 2019. Those amendments had been informed by the 2013 report of the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System, entitled “Report on the Use of Technology in the Criminal Justice System”, as well as consultations with provincial and territorial governments.

Bill S-4 continues to build on those reforms, taking into account new calls for reform by those working in the criminal justice system during the pandemic and courts' experiences with the increased use of technology that occurred as a result.

My remarks today will focus on the necessity of the proposed amendments relating to remote proceedings, which represent a continuation of existing legal practices here in Canada.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, criminal court proceedings were presumptively held in person. Remote appearances were permitted under the Criminal Code but were very much the exception. There were provisions in the Criminal Code to allow people to attend some proceedings by way of audio or visual connection, but since they were not routinely used, legal clarification or guidance was needed.

The pandemic had an abrupt and immediate effect on the operation of courts, as courts across Canada shut down for periods of time and had to figure out how to operate without in-person attendance or with very limited in-person attendance. To cope with the pandemic and maintain the administration of justice, including maintaining access to the courts, courts around the country pivoted away from in-person appearances and held numerous hearings and matters in a virtual space.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced changes to how courts operate. Unrestricted in-person appearances were no longer permitted, and initially courts were forced to adjourn the majority of appearances, ranging from pleas to trials. This created a backlog of cases in the court system that still needed to be heard, regardless of the circumstances of the pandemic. In many cases, having participants appear by video conference when possible allowed court operations to resume.

However, even with courts adapting and modernizing to address the challenges they faced during the pandemic, many remain unable to operate at their prepandemic capacity. Indeed, the median length of time for an adult case to resolve in criminal court increased when compared with prepandemic levels. Further complicating matters was the fact that the number of adult criminal court cases that exceeded the presumptive time limits set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan had increased significantly since the onset of the pandemic.

Bill S-4 targets changes to the Criminal Code that would give courts increased flexibility in how they hold criminal proceedings and how they issue orders such as search warrants and production orders in the context of an investigation. These changes are needed to address the ongoing pressures on the criminal court system brought to light by the COVID-19 pandemic and enhance access to justice for all Canadians, now and in the future. A key impact of these provisions would be a more efficient justice system that is equipped to serve Canadians and address the backlog of cases caused by the pandemic.

Allowing and continuing remote appearances is not just about responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote appearances would provide greater flexibility for courts to continue proceedings when it is not possible to do so in person for other reasons, such as natural disasters. During its study of the bill, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard witness testimony about the closure of the Calgary courthouse during the floods of 2013. Due to the natural disaster, the court was forced to close proceedings for a period of time. Matters could not be heard and were adjourned.

The changes proposed in Bill S-4 make clear that certain proceedings can move ahead by audio or visual conference, even when in-person attendance is not possible or safe, allowing courts to operate as efficiently as possible in the interest of all participants in the criminal justice system.

While there has been acceptance of proceedings occurring by way of audio or video conference, the reforms included in Bill S-4 do not seek to make this the norm or default. Indeed, as before, the principle set out in the Criminal Code will continue to be: “Except as otherwise provided... a person who appears at, participates in or presides at a proceeding shall do so in person.” This principle would not change. Rather than upending the legal system, the bill would continue to allow the flexibility of proceedings in a manner that makes sense in the circumstances, with appropriate safeguards built in.

When considering whether to authorize remote proceedings, courts will be obligated to consider the impact on the safety of the participants, while supporting greater access to justice moving forward, including for those living in remote communities. Courts would also be required to ensure that decisions to authorize remote appearances are exercised in accordance with the charter, including the right of an accused person to make full answer and defence, and to have a fair and public hearing.

While Bill S-4 would clarify and expand when remote appearances are possible, it would not be the first to introduce these concepts into the Criminal Code. At committee, there were some concerns expressed over a judge's ability to assess the credibility of witnesses and accused persons during remote proceedings, as well as the importance of protecting an accused person's ability to face their accuser.

While these are important considerations the court must turn its mind to in each case, they are not unique to the provisions Bill S-4 would amend. Indeed, courts have found that seeing a complainant or witness face to face is not fundamental to our system of justice, and the Criminal Code has permitted remote attendance by witnesses for more than 20 years.

Subsection 800(2.1) has authorized summary conviction trials by video for in-custody accused since 1997. Sections 714.1 and 714.2 have permitted appearances by witnesses by video conference since 1999. Bill C-75, which was passed by this House in 2019, modernized and facilitated some appearances by audio and video conference of all persons involved in criminal cases, including judges, under certain circumstances.

Rather than overhauling criminal procedure, Bill S-4 would continue to permit proceedings by remote appearance. The bill would pick up where Bill C-75 left off, in light of the experience that was gained and the questions that arose with use of technology in the criminal courts during the pandemic. Bill S-4 would make practical and necessary amendments to the Criminal Code. These amendments would facilitate efficient operation of the criminal courts and have a direct impact on people who need or want to access the criminal justice system. The bill is not intended to make remote trials and hearings the norm, but rather would give the courts the flexibility to proceed in this manner when it is appropriate under the circumstances and where the technology exists.

These are limited but necessary reforms that have been developed in consultation with the provinces and territories and take into consideration the views of stakeholders. I am confident the bill and the proposed reforms would improve efficiencies in our criminal justice system while still providing careful oversight by the courts to ensure that the rights of accused persons and offenders are protected with the use of technology.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill S-4.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat a question that seemed important to the Quebec bar association, which made a few recommendations concerning Bill S-4. Some of them were accepted, which is good.

In the House, we studied Bill C-75 to amend the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We also studied Bill C-5 to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Now we are studying Bill S-4, and the Quebec bar association made what we think is a very wise recommendation about this bill. Rather than make changes piecemeal, would it not be time for an overall reform that includes all of these changes? It is a question of consistency.

Does my colleague agree?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, COVID-19 response and other measures.

I will begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional, unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the criminal justice system, like many institutions in our country, faced significant and unprecedented challenges in continuing its operations while respecting the necessary public health and safety requirements imposed by all jurisdictions. The criminal courts and court users adopted quickly and admirably to the realities of the pandemic, finding innovative ways to provide essential justice services to the public safely and effectively.

Bill S-4 would reform the Criminal Code and other related legislation to respond to some of the practical challenges identified during or exacerbated by the pandemic. These reforms would modernize and enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the criminal justice system moving forward.

Members might be wondering whether the changes proposed in Bill S-4 are still needed, given we are now well into living with COVID-19, and the fact that the courts have adapted their practices during this period. These changes remain critically important and will help address the ongoing pressures on the criminal courts brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the backlog of cases.

I would note that this bill is the product of significant consultations with the provinces and is supported by provincial premiers of all stripes. I understand that last month, at the federal, provincial, territorial meeting of ministers of justice and public safety, all justice ministers reiterated their support for seeing this legislation advance to help improve court operations in their provinces and territories.

The pandemic seriously affected court operations, and we have heard from lawyers and judges alike that changes are needed so that the court system does not fall further behind. Canadians need to have confidence in our justice system, and a court system that does not keep up with the times will not provide that confidence. For instance, virtual hearings and remote services have been an important aspect of ensuring access to justice for court users while coping with pandemic-related issues. This bill would enhance and clarify rules on the use of technological means in the criminal justice system.

Before I delve into the details of Bill S-4, I would like to thank hon. Senator Pierre Dalphond for his sponsorship of the bill and leadership in working with all senators in the other place to get this bill to us.

I would also like to acknowledge the diligent work of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in studying Bill S-4 and thank those witnesses who shared their views on the bill. The committee's study and consideration of witness testimony resulted in two amendments to this bill, new clauses 78.1 and 78.2, which would mandate reviews of the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters.

I will now turn to the changes in the bill and explain how they would address issues identified during the pandemic and seek to ensure greater efficiencies and access to justice for accused persons, victims and other criminal justice system participants.

The bill would, one, enhance and clarify the rules for remote appearances in criminal proceedings; two, revise the telewarrant process so that a wider variety of search warrants and other investigative orders may be obtained by means of telecommunication; three, allow fingerprinting of accused persons or offenders to occur at a later time than what is currently permitted and; four, improve judicial case management rules.

On remote appearances, Bill S-4 builds upon a former bill, Bill C-75, which introduced a new general part on remote appearances in the Criminal Code, which is part XXII.01, and expanded the availability of remote appearances for accused persons, participants and judges. Notably, those amendments were developed in a prepandemic era and did not anticipate the exponential reliance on technological solutions that followed.

This bill would expand and clarify the process allowing accused persons to appear by video conference during preliminary inquiries and trials, for both summary and indictable offences, even when witness evidence is being heard, except in circumstances where evidence is before a jury. The bill would also expressly enable an accused person to appear remotely when making a plea, either by video or audio conference, depending on the circumstances. Further, the bill would clearly permit an offender to appear remotely for sentencing purposes.

The new measures addressing remote appearances include a consent requirement, so an accused person or offender and the Crown prosecutor would need to give their consent to appear in this way. In addition, all decisions to proceed virtually would be at the discretion of the court based on a number of factors the court would be required to consider. For example, courts would need to consider the right of accused persons or offenders to a fair and public hearing and the suitability of the location from which they would be appearing before allowing it.

I would also emphasize that the bill does not make virtual court hearings mandatory or change the general principle that all those who participate in criminal proceedings must physically be present in court unless otherwise authorized. Bill S-4 does not seek to replace in-person proceedings, which remain important, but instead offers alternative ways of proceeding where the technological means exist and when considered appropriate.

Bill S-4 would also enact clear safeguards to virtual appearances, some of which I have mentioned, such as ensuring judicial approval and consent of all the parties. In addition, the bill would require that accused persons or offenders who are represented by counsel and appearing remotely are given the opportunity to consult privately with their counsel. Moreover, courts need to be satisfied that an accused person or offender who does not have access to legal advice would be able to understand the proceedings and that any decisions made by them during the proceedings will be voluntary.

Given that the jury selection process can involve hundreds of people summoned to appear at the same location, many jury selections for criminal trials were postponed or delayed during the pandemic. Some jurisdictions are concerned about the delays in conducting jury trials. Bill S-4 would give courts the option to hold a jury selection process by video when both parties consent and appropriate safeguards are in place, such as ensuring the courts approve the use of a location where the technological infrastructure would be available for prospective jurists to participate in the process.

Since May 2020, the Minister of Justice has been co-chairing the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID‑19 with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Richard Wagner.

The minister shared with me that, in this capacity, he has continued to learn how the pandemic has affected court operations, as well as exacerbated pre-existing issues, such as the growing backlog of cases and access to justice challenges. We are confident that Bill S-4 would contribute to efforts to address these issues by facilitating an increased use of technology in the criminal justice system.

I am aware that, during the Senate committee study of Bill S-4, some witnesses expressed concern about the lack of technological capabilities in courthouses and correctional facilities and the inability of persons who may be vulnerable or disadvantaged to access technology, either entirely or in a private manner. I acknowledge these concerns, and the government is committed to addressing them.

Indeed, the government has made a commitment to bring our court system into the 21st century and to work with the provinces and territories in doing so. In the 2020-21 economic statement, the government announced approximately $40 million in technology investments for courts across Canada. The government has also committed to connect 98% of Canadians by 2026, and 100% by 2030.

I am equally aware that many witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee on Bill S-4 voiced their support for the reforms and considered the increased use of technology by courts and participants as beneficial and a tremendous opportunity for access to justice.

In sum, Bill S-4 strikes an appropriate balance by not making remote appearances mandatory, but rather by enabling courts to hold proceedings in a flexible way, and provide for the consent of both parties and judicial discretion. It would also ensure the consideration of the technological resources available to the courts and users. Bill S-4 would also help ensure that virtual court proceedings are held in a manner that respects the charter rights of accused persons and offenders.

I would now like to turn to the amendments to the telewarrant process provided in the Criminal Code, which currently allows a peace officer to apply for certain specific warrants by technological means when certain prerequisites are met.

Bill S-4 streamlines the telewarrant process and expands its application, including by making it available to a wider range of investigative warrants and orders, such as warrants to seize weapons, tracking warrants, and production orders for documents and financial records.

Under this more streamlined process, it will be possible for a police officer to submit a search warrant application by means of a telecommunication in writing, such as by email, without meeting the current prerequisite that requires a peace officer to show that it is impracticable to appear in person to present an application.

Police may continue to apply for a warrant by means of telecommunication that does not produce a writing, for example, by telephone. However, in this situation, the judge or justice to whom the search warrant application is presented would have to be satisfied that it is impracticable for the applicant to present the application by means of telecommunication that produces a writing, such as an email.

The revised telewarrant process would also be expanded to apply more broadly in two ways.

First, the process would now apply to the investigation of all offences, rather than indictable offences.

Second, the process would be accessible to law enforcement officials other than peace officers, notably public officers.

This would include, for example, Canada Revenue Agency officials responsible for investigating tax-related offences, who may currently apply for search warrants, and other judicial orders by personal attendants.

Similarly, the process would now be available to any justice or judge who issues a warrant, order or authorization, thereby removing the current requirement that only specifically designated justices may issue telewarrants.

Bill S‑4 also harmonizes the rules regarding the execution of telewarrants and warrants obtained in person and the report required following the seizure of assets.

In particular, Bill S-4 adds an obligation for the police executing a search warrant to provide the occupant of the place searched with a copy of the warrant, as well as a new notice. This notice would contain essential information about where to obtain a copy of the report of the person's seized property and the location where such property is detained.

I note, however, that these requirements would not apply in relation to warrants authorizing a search of a property that has already been seized and is in the lawful possession of the police. This would make it clear that the officer is not required to provide the notice and a copy of the warrant to the person in charge of a police evidence locker.

The bill also makes changes to the fingerprinting process. The pandemic disrupted the ability of police to obtain the fingerprints of accused persons and offenders because of physical distancing requirements, which led to significant operational challenges for the criminal courts.

Currently, individuals charged with an offence can be ordered by police or a judge to attend at a specific time and place for the purpose of identification.

However, in most cases, if something prevents a police officer from taking fingerprints at the specified time, there is no mechanism that allows a police officer to require an individual to come back at another time. The bill addresses this and allows fingerprints to be taken at other times, where earlier attempts to do so were not possible due to exceptional circumstances like those posed by COVID-19.

The bill would not change the rules in terms of who may be subject to fingerprinting.

Further, Bill S-4 addresses judicial case management by allowing courts to make rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters related to proceedings out of court, including for unrepresented accused persons.

The Criminal Code currently allows courts to make rules only for situations in which accused persons are represented by counsel. Judicial case management improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. By expanding the court's ability to make such rules for unrepresented accused, Bill S-4 will assist in reducing unnecessary court appearances of those who are self-represented.

I know that the Minister of Justice is committed to modernizing the criminal justice system and supporting the courts' technological achievements during the pandemic. I support those objectives, and we should continue to adopt technological solutions when available and appropriate.

Many of our partners and stakeholders and, in particular, our provincial partners, continue to stress urgently that these amendments are needed. I am eager to see the bill enacted in the future, and I look forward to working with our friends in all parties to get this important bill through.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, it is very important that we have strong mechanisms to hold those in law enforcement roles accountable. I think that everyone would agree on that. These are the individuals who we empower to enforce law and order, so we need to have an equally powerful oversight body to ensure that there are no abuses of that power.

Before I go into the rest of this, I do want to very sincerely thank all of the men and women in the country who wear a uniform to keep Canadians safe.

It is very important that, as parliamentarians, when we talk about oversight, we also talk about the incredible sacrifices that RCMP and CBSA officers make. RCMP officers, with their families, are carted around the country to various small towns, often in rural and northern Canada. We need those officers to keep those communities safe, and they make a lot of sacrifices for their families. We know that CBSA officers, as well, are often in border towns or border communities that are far away from where a CBSA officer would normally live. There is a lot of movement around and a lot of weeks away from home.

As we know, CBSA officers and our RCMP officers are consistently putting themselves in danger, again, to keep us safe, so I thank all of the officers out there who don a uniform and do that for our country.

Certainly, as I was saying, the oversight body is very important. Particularly, we have been talking a lot about CBSA in recent years and their role in preventing things such as gun violence, for example.

It has been discussed with many policing bodies the great threat of having, frankly, the largest undefended border in the world with a country that owns more firearms than they have people, which is just part of their culture and their history, and that is not up for debate in the House, but what is up for debate is how it impacts Canada and the important role that CBSA has in ensuring that none of those firearms make their way into Canada illegally.

Unfortunately, in cities such as Toronto and Montreal, we are seeing significant issues, and deaths and murders, from evil criminal elements and gangs that take advantage of our porous border and smuggle into the country firearms that are not just restricted, but prohibited. They are using them illegally, possessing them illegally and really damaging, particularly, our vulnerable communities in Montreal, Toronto and other cities across the country.

It is not just those neighbourhoods that are particularly vulnerable. We are seeing gun violence across the country in rural Canada. We are seeing it leak into suburbs, which normally feel very secure and safe from these types of elements. That is what is happening with the criminal elements in our cities, and they are being fuelled by what seems to be the ability to quite easily smuggle or drone in guns, either at our border and at our ports of entry.

We also know that this is deeply tied to drug smuggling and drug trafficking across our border as well. CBSA has a huge role to prevent that as well. We are depending on our CBSA officers to prevent significant criminal activity that can contribute to death and mayhem in our cities. We are empowering them to do that. We need to make sure that they have the resources, equipment and training to fulfill those important duties for Canadians.

Unfortunately, we do not hear nearly enough about it from the government. It is far too focused on going after law-abiding, trained, tested and vetted Canadian firearms owners than it is on the issue of our border. Perhaps that is a debate for another time. Given that we are talking about oversight of the CBSA today, I think it is worthwhile to bring in the important work that it does and how much we need to prioritize resources to the border to ensure that we are keeping Canadians safe from the impacts of gun smuggling and drug smuggling.

We have also been talking a lot in recent weeks and, frankly, months about the RCMP. We know that the RCMP is facing a significant recruitment and retention issue. I have a lot of RCMP and Winnipeg police officers in my riding. They are incredible men and women, but they are saying morale is quite low. Where is the oversight and the responsibility from the government, and other levels of government, to ensure that RCMP and civic police officers are feeling valued in their role?

That is something that deeply concerns me. We are facing a deficit of police officers when, frankly, there has been a 32% rise in violent crimes since the Liberals formed government seven years ago, since the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister of Canada. Another stat I would like to share is that there were 124,000 more violent crimes last year than there were in 2015 when the Liberals came into power. The need for police to keep our communities safe is greater than ever, yet we are facing serious retention issues.

We are talking about oversight of our RCMP, but we also need to be talking about policies that ensure our RCMP members are adequately supported. What happens when we have overworked police officers and when there are not enough of them, so they are being spread thinner and thinner and their workload is going up higher and higher? We get fatigue. We get depression. We get accelerated impacts of PTSD from the things they see. If we do not have officers who can rest and take care of their mental health, then we have serious impacts on their ability to adequately do their jobs and keep themselves safe, keep their fellow officers safe and ensure they are doing their duty to keep communities safe.

Any time we are talking about RCMP, CBSA or armed forces members, there needs to be an equal conversation about ensuring we are adequately supporting those officers and those members so that they are feeling valued and being supported enough so that they can adequately do their jobs to the best of their mental and physical abilities. Mistakes get made when they are tired. Mistakes get made when they are demoralized, frustrated, irritated and overworked. That is when the biggest mistakes happen. I think if we are going to talk about oversight, we have to talk about better support for our police officers and our officers at the border.

Certainly, when we are talking about the RCMP as well, there have been a lot of discussions of how we can better serve the vulnerable communities that are seeing the most impacts from violent crime. We could talk about the revolving door that also exhausts police officers. About five years ago, the Liberal government brought forward a bill, Bill C-75, that instituted bail reform. This is something I have been looking into in recent weeks and months, and I have been discussing with police officers the impacts they have seen with these bail reform changes.

It would seem that, quite significantly, Bill C-75 has contributed to the revolving door of crime. Those who are looking to break the law and perhaps harm others are in and out of jail over and over again. Police are encountering the same people, week after week, committing the same types of crimes. It is often just petty theft and petty crime, but often it could also be more significant crimes, like stabbings, shootings, rapes or other types of assault.

Can members imagine being police officers and risking their lives to arrest the same person over and over? What does that do to those police officers? What does it do to their morale and their ability to consistently keep their spirits up and do their jobs, when it is the same people over and over again? If we want to talk about oversight, we have to talk about adequately equipping our police officers with the resources they need, and that goes back to our criminal justice system and how it ensures the people they arrest in the first place stay in jail if they are a threat to society.

Then we have things like Bill C-5, which our party has really talked about a lot in terms of our belief in the threat it is going to pose, particularly to vulnerable communities. To refresh the memories of those watching, Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory prison time for serious firearm offences, like assaulting a police officer with a weapon or drive-by shootings, so firing a gun with the intent to injure someone with a bullet would no longer mean mandatory prison time under the current Liberal government.

It would also allow that, for serious offences, rather than having a mandatory minimum sentence, there would be the option to serve house arrest. Therefore, in a vulnerable community, for example, if there are people who are criminals or part of a gang doing very bad things to those in that community, rather than going to prison, they could be serving house arrest in the community they have terrorized. I do not think that is fair to those communities. I do not think they want those criminal elements in their communities. It also would not provide any opportunity for rehabilitation, which is provided in our penitentiary system. In my opinion we should have far more rehabilitation opportunities in our penitentiaries, but that is a conversation for another time.

We also have a lot of concerns with leadership in the RCMP. I asked the minister today if this bill would provide any oversight to the RCMP commissioner, given the recent scandal and accusations, with corroborating evidence, that the RCMP commissioner politically interfered with the worst mass killing in Canadian history, notably the Nova Scotia 2020 mass killing. This is a very serious matter the Conservatives, together with the Bloc and the NDP, have been investigating for five months. Although the bill would improve the oversight of the RCMP, I do not think that would translate to the top leadership of the RCMP, unfortunately, though it is desperately needed.

In committee just the other day we were talking to the commissioner of the RCMP, and this was the second time she came to committee about the same interference scandal. She also went to the Mass Casualty Commission to discuss this as well, and it was quite a challenging experience. I was hoping for some sentiment that she was remorseful she had handled the situation the way she had or any sort of legitimate explanation that we could understand that would provide us some relief that she did not do this. Unfortunately, we did not get any of that.

Our only ability to hold her accountable is through the public safety committee, at least as the opposition. The government could fire the commissioner, but it has not taken those steps. We believe it should. Bill C-20 is talking about oversight; however, there is no oversight mechanism in it, that I am aware, for the RCMP commissioner in this circumstance.

Just to recap, a few years ago during the heat of the fallout, about 10 days into the tragedy that took 22 lives, including the life of a pregnant woman, we found out through the evidence we built through the MCC, that the RCMP commissioner, first and foremost, warned the government that sharing the weapons information about the evil killer in that situation, who, again, killed 22 people plus a pregnant women, would jeopardize the criminal investigation. She made it very clear that it should not be shared beyond the minister and the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, a few days later she turned around. We now had an audio recording where she was reprimanding her Nova Scotia deputies on the ground for not sharing the information that she warned her bosses not to share. We asked her and the MCC asked her what changed her mind. She has not provided a single coherent answer about what changed her mind. We have theories, but she has not provided a single coherent response.

What we found out from the audio recording, and what was certainly corroborated before we got that audio recording by the Nova Scotia deputies and their meticulous notes, was that the commissioner was connecting the Liberals' forthcoming gun control policies. She did this because she wanted to help usher along the Liberal government's gun control policies.

When we have the commissioner of the RCMP, with 22 murdered Canadians and the largest criminal investigation in Canadian history in that regard, looking at this as an opportunity to further her political boss's gun control policy, we obviously have a lot of questions and concerns about that. We believe that is political interference. What really tied it back to the Liberal government were her own words saying that they requested that she do this.

The Liberal government has repeatedly denied this. We have her words in an audio recording. We have that corroborated with the Nova Scotia deputies who were in that meeting where she stated those things. They have written notes. They have testified at committee without a doubt in their minds, and given the audio we can see where they are coming from, that the commissioner of the RCMP sought to take advantage of the deaths of 22 people to further the Liberal political agenda. She also said that it was requested by the then-minister of public safety's office.

We have gone through this for five months. The evidence has trickled out and built the case. To us, it seems irrefutable that this happened, yet she still has her position. We find that disgusting and appalling. We do not understand how someone, the head of our law enforcement, could come to committee and worm her way around the facts on the ground, the audio recording that we have, that she directly connects these things. However, she said things like that was just a conversation, that was taken out of context, this is all a misunderstanding or it was just a miscommunication. That is what we were hearing. However, we have the audio recording and we have the testimony from the people who were in the room.

It is quite frustrating that we were not able to fully hold the most powerful RCMP officer in the country accountable. Perhaps that is a shortcoming of my own. Perhaps I could have done a better job. However, if we are going to talk about Bill C-20, the government also needs to talk about holding the RCMP commissioner accountable, which it has so far failed to do.

It would be one thing if it was just in this scenario that she was using that kind of slippery language to make excuses for her behaviour, which was, as we believe, on the order of the Liberal government and its ministers. She also mentioned the PMO in the audio, so perhaps it goes as far as the Prime Minister's Office. However, we were unable to get any further evidence to convince media and others that it is the case. Should any more evidence come up, rest assured, we will be revisiting that issue.

What I would say is that I think the reporters are finally experiencing a bit of what we experienced with the commissioner over the past five months.

Again talking about the oversight of the RCMP, recently a Globe and Mail story came out, which I think was yesterday or the day before, and now it seems that the commissioner is pulling the same sort of behaviour with the Emergencies Act. She apparently was texting with her counterpart at the OPP, the OPP commissioner, back in the height of the convoy when the government invoked the Emergencies Act. As a refresher, the Emergencies Act allows the government to supersede charter rights, which is a very big deal. That is why there is a built-in inquiry to hold the government accountable for doing it, to ensure the very high threshold of the Emergencies Act was met. We are going through that process right now and it is quite riveting.

The commissioner is sort of pulling the same stuff with the media. There are text messages between her and the OPP. The title of the article is, “Top Mountie can’t explain text messages in which she suggested federal government wanted retroactive support for Emergencies Act”. Where is the oversight on this?

She said the following to the OPP commissioner, which is unbelievable, “Has Minister Blair hit you up for a letter to support the EA?” My understanding from the article is that this is after the Emergencies Act was invoked by the Liberals. We have the commissioner of the RCMP asking for a retroactive support letter for the invocation of the Emergencies Act from the OPP commissioner. Two very powerful people are talking about backdating a letter retroactively to show that they are supporting this. That is pretty peculiar. Their integrity is pretty suspect and perhaps shows how desperate, which is speculation, the political bosses in that scenario were to build their case. We know that the Minister of Public Safety said mistruths in this House when he said that the police asked for the emergency powers, when in fact they did not. This is just building on that narrative a little more.

Further, she told reporters she never requested such a letter, yet we have texts that say that she did. How can there be texts that say she requested this letter, when she tells reporters that she did not? This is what we have been going through for five months with the commissioner. We say she said something and she says that is not what that meant, over and over again. We are talking about RCMP oversight. Where is the oversight for the RCMP commissioner?

I will conclude with this, because this is the part that shocked me the most. The head of the RCMP, the commissioner, texted the head of the OPP. Commissioner Lucki's texts show that she twice asked Commissioner Carrique about using a different messaging app that does not store deleted messages. In the context of talking about the emergency powers, is it not peculiar to anyone that the head of the RCMP is texting the head of the OPP saying they need use to an app where their messages can be permanently deleted? Is no one concerned about that?

The heads of law and order are talking about using an app to permanently delete records. That is insane to me and it is unbelievable that the commissioner is still the head of law and order in this country. It is appalling. She should absolutely resign or, better yet, be fired by the public safety minister.

Criminal Code

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country for her work on this important legislation.

At its core, Bill C-283 is about ensuring those with addictions are provided the help they need. It is also about providing their loved ones with peace of mind. Those addicted to drugs are someone's mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter or friend.

I will be reading this speech not only as a parliamentarian but also as a dad. Heather and I are proud parents to five adult children. There is nothing we would not do to ensure their well-being, peace of mind and security. I am so proud of each of them.

My family has struggled with opioid addiction for 20 years. We empathize with all Canadian families who have suffered at the hands of addiction. Heather and I are not alone. Canadian families are not alone. Those listening right now who are struggling with addiction are not alone. In fact, I do not believe there is a single individual in this chamber who has not been touched, in some way, by cocaine, crystal meth, heroin, fentanyl or other opioids.

It has been said that having a child is like having one's heart walk around outside one's body. There are mothers and fathers across this country who are startled awake in the middle of the night by the sound of a jacket zipper, a floor creaking or a door opening. They are all sounds familiar to parents of a son or daughter who is leaving to use drugs.

These moments give way to sleepless nights wondering if that child will make it home safely. These fears last a lifetime. My heart goes out to those who suffer from addictions and their families who bear the weight of the stress and worry that comes with caring for loved ones suffering from addiction. The road to recovery, of which I have both professional and personal experience, is a very difficult and long commitment.

Before I go any further, I would like to make an important distinction for all colleagues in the House.

Those who suffer from drug addiction deserve our compassion and care. Those who repeatedly break the law or have no regard for the safety of those around them deserve to be arrested and dealt with through our court system. Those found guilty of crimes should go to prison where they can seek out and be provided the help they need. This is precisely where our system is not working, and it is where the bill can make an enormous difference in the lives of Canadians.

Sending an addicted individual to prison without providing them with dedicated access to the programs and services they need to recover is futile. Addressing the core cause of their crime, addiction, in meaningful ways is what will put an end to recidivism and allow many Canadian families to heal. Addressing addiction when an individual is convicted of a crime or when the addiction is the cause is precisely where this legislation can make an extraordinary difference.

Canada's approach to addressing drug use, addiction and associated crime has not been successful, and my constituents are concerned the government is out of touch with what is happening on the ground in communities across Canada. Canadians are concerned about legislative decisions being made on matters pertaining to prostitution, guns and drug-related crime. My colleagues on the justice committee know this all too well.

We do not need to look very far in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia to see this in real time. The city of Cranbrook was once a quiet, mountain town. Today, it is the home of a tent city, with an exploding homeless population and rising crime. Criminals are wreaking havoc on other homeless individuals, our youth, families and businesses. Stories of paying it forward have been replaced in the news by stories of intimidation, theft, vandalism, physical assaults and shootings. Young people are afraid to go to work for fear of physical harm and children are no longer free to explore their sense of adventure in certain areas of the city.

This is a problem born out of the current provincial and federal policies, and there is not a single city council in Canada that would be able to solve this problem. Municipal leaders across British Columbia, such as Vancouver, have called on the government to act on addictions and the associated revolving door of crime caused by convicted criminals being released without action, or worse, being released without addressing their addiction during sentencing.

B.C.'s Urban Mayors' Caucus identified mental health and substance treatment as a priority for the federal government to address. Earlier this year, the B.C. attorney general acknowledged there was an increase in the number of no-charge decisions from his office and blamed the federal government for his actions. He referred to Bill C-75, which talks about using the principle of restraint for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. What this equates to on the ground is prioritization of the offender over the victim.

While there are some who are uncomfortable with labelling prolific offenders, let me help clarify. Individuals who are convicted of 50, 75 or 100 or more offences have a prolific record, and they have been through the revolving door of our catch and release justice system too many times. This has to stop.

Our laws are meant to protect law-abiding citizens as well as those who protect and serve. To send an offender back on the streets to cause harm or break the law for the 78th time is not a solution that is working and, to be frank, it is a slap in the face to victims. However, if the offender, instead of being released to cause further harm or sent to prison to become more hardened, was sent to a designated treatment facility, we would have an opportunity to address the root of the crime.

Canadians are asking for help. We are here today offering real solutions to real problems that will make a difference in helping addicted individuals deal with real pain. Mental health and addiction may be the single largest challenge of our time, and I know all members of this House want to do more for those struggling with these issues.

Bill C-283 is an opportunity to do just that. The bill proposes a different program for addiction treatment while incarcerated, and this means the necessity for rehabilitation while serving a sentence. At the core, this is about treating addiction in an effort to stem the crime, or in other words, addressing the root cause of the issue. The approach is a positive solution for rehabilitation, resulting in individuals being able to make a positive contribution within our communities.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to support two-stream sentencing, both of which would have the same sentence time. However, the individual would be called upon, being provided a choice by a judge, to choose between the current system or a designated treatment facility. The bill would not provide criminals with a pass on prison, but rather bridges correction and treatment for those who have entered the system because of drug addiction and are choosing to participate in recovery.

Addiction numbers in B.C. and across the country are growing, with many individuals entering the correctional system who may be better served with the opportunity to address the cause of their criminal activity. The purpose of an addiction treatment facility is to provide the individual access to the program for treatment in relation to the substance use, as well as to other related services that will address specific needs. Individuals may be sentenced to serve in a designated facility if there is evidence establishing a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the individual that indicates problematic substance abuse.

This brings us to the tragic and preventable loss of Constable Shaelyn Yang, who was sadly murdered while courageously helping those who suffer from mental health and addiction. Mayors from cities across B.C., including Burnaby, have complained publicly about the catch and release justice system.

Last week, the leader of the official opposition asked what policy changes the Prime Minister would be willing to make to put this crime wave to an end. I suggest to all members this bill is an important part of that suite of tools needed to address addictions. We cannot turn back time and prevent the senseless loss of Constable Shaelyn Yang, but we can act to prevent future murders. I invite all colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

The bill would validate and begin to repair the legitimate ongoing concerns of families, communities and indigenous communities. Further, it would serve as an important tool to address the general mental health and welfare of those who participate, with an aim to help make a better future for young Canadians struggling with addictions. Those struggling with addiction deserve treatment and recovery.

Successful crime prevention starts with our youth and must continue throughout their lives. Education programs can be successful if delivered at the right times.

As we consider Bill C-283, I would ask each of us to look through the eyes of Constable Shaelyn Yang and do right by the victims, the victims of addictions, the victims of crime and the victims, the family, of those who have lost a loved one. Finally, may we see this through the lens of a mother, father, sister, brother and friend who are desperate for their loved ones to get help before it is too late.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-9, which is an act that would create a complaint mechanism for judges. We have certainly heard from all sides today that everyone thinks this is a great idea. This is not to say judges do not do a good job, because we know we have great judges in this country who work hard, but as with any career discipline, there is always the odd thing going on that is not good.

I remember when I was the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women we talked about some of the things that were happening. In one sexual assault case, a judge actually asked the complainant, “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” In another sexual assault case, another judge said, “she was drunk” in the taxi.

Rona Ambrose brought forward Bill C-337 to try to get at this issue of judges who do not have experience in sexual assault presiding over those cases. Although that bill unfortunately did not make it through under her private member's bill, the government brought it back, and we passed it earlier in the session. This would offer judges training, and in fact, it would offer lawyers who want to be judges training as well. That is the kind of remedy we want to see.

I was very pleased to hear the member for Mount Royal, who just spoke, talk about what this bill would allow. Other than just the extreme option of getting rid of a judge for whatever behaviour was complained about, there is a whole realm of possibilities, including verbal warnings, letter warnings, public apologies, training and multiple other options. This is something very good about this bill.

I do have a concern about the state of judges in our country since the Liberal government was elected. I started in 2015, and at that time we were missing I think 60 judges who needed to be appointed. Because of that, and because the Jordan decision, there were numerous examples of murderers and rapists who went free because there were not enough judges to handle the workload in a timely fashion.

There was an attempt made to put in a process. The government wanted to increase the diversity of the judges being selected, which is great, because one of the things that will make for a healthier democracy and rule of law is to have diverse thought and diverse representation of the population.

Unfortunately, what happened is the government used the Liberal fundraising database to figure out which judges should be picked from the lawyer pool. There were also fundraisers going on with the minister of justice at the time, which caused a big scandal because lawyers were paying $500 to meet her, and they all wanted to become judges. We know that is certainly not in keeping with conflict of interest rules in the House. The scandal went on for quite a while.

It is important to have diversity of thought with judges so they can check one another. If people are all in a group and they think together, it can be a bad thing. We have seen some of the Supreme Court decisions that came out recently that have caused concern across the country, such as the one that says, if a person is intoxicated, it could be a defence for murder, sexual assault, etc. Canadians in general would reject that and say no. The person is the one who chose to keep drinking or doing drugs until they became that intoxicated, and there needs to be an ownership of the behaviour. Those judges all together did not have enough diversity of thought for somebody to say that decision might not be a good thing.

I would suggest, from a Conservative perspective, that when somebody has killed multiple people, consecutive sentencing gave a lot of comfort to victims. The Supreme Court decision on that is another example. Parliament has a duty to review those decisions and have the discussions about whether that is really where we want to go on those topics. The whole purpose of having judges is that they are the executors of the rule of law in our nation.

I am very concerned that, in the last seven years, we are not seeing more rule of law. We are seeing more people committing crimes. The crime rates are increasing, including gun crime and violent crime. However, when I look at the response from the government, it looks like we are seeing a continual erosion of the rule of law.

The member who spoke previously mentioned that I am the first female engineer in the House, and we have an expression in the engineering world about a frog in a pot. Gradually the temperature in the pot increases until eventually we boil the frog, but the frog is not able to sense that the temperature is going up because it is so incremental. I would argue, with respect to the rule of law in Canada, the temperature is going up.

We had Bill C-75, which reduced the sentencing to fines or less than two years of time in jail for crimes such as abduction of a person under the age of 16, abduction of a person under the age of 14, arson for fraudulent purposes, marriage under 16 and participation in the activity of a terrorist group. There are a number of offences there, and I did not see the justification for that. We have heard from police chiefs that, although in some cases they agreed, in many cases there are serious crimes happening that now have only a slap on the wrist, which is not sending the right message about the rule of law and the importance of it.

In this parliamentary session, we now have Bill C-5 coming forward, which would remove mandatory minimums on robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of offences; trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing, exporting, or possession of serious drugs; and production of these serious drugs, which are killing thousands of Canadians. Also, Bill C-5 would allow some of these sentences to be put down to house arrest, including that of sexual assault.

Somebody could victimize someone in their community and then serve the time there. I do not think that is something that we should leave to the discretion of judges, when we have seen in the past a judge ask, “couldn't you just keep your knees together?” There is a naivete if we think we can leave it to chance. Yes, in the majority of cases, judges will judge with wisdom, but it is the every now and again that we want to prevent and what our laws should prevent.

Abduction of a person under 14 could become a house arrest sentence. This is unbelievable. We have a huge human trafficking issue in this country, and this not only sends the wrong message, but it is also not going to fix things because, when people are left with a potential house arrest, those who are committing crimes can commit them out of their house. It is the same thing for someone trafficking drugs who gets house arrest. How convenient is that for people to stop by and pick up drugs?

These things make no sense to me, and so I am very concerned when I look at the erosion of our rule of law. At the same time, there is an erosion of protection for victims. We had Bill C-28 in the previous Parliament on victim surcharge. It used to be that there was some recompense made for victims who had suffered and had to travel distances to go to parole hearings and that kind of thing, but that was taken away.

This is a soft-on-crime government, and while I support Bill C-9 because when judges do not get it right we need to fix that, but I am very concerned that we are having this continual erosion of the rule of law. We have heard many speeches in the House that have said that there is a high rate of reoffending. People are committing crimes, getting out, committing them again and being put back in, and there really is no rehabilitation happening. That is not to say that there should not be, but the situation today is that there is not. If we know that people are going to reoffend and go out on the street, we have to protect the public, and we have a duty to do that.

The mechanism in the bill is to make sure that judges are doing their due diligence. We would have mechanisms, not just an extreme one, but progressions, that would allow us to take corrective action and manage the judicial system to ensure its integrity. This will preserve the rule of law, although the concerns I have expressed do remain.

Criminal Code

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, one man is dead and at least seven people were injured in a rash of bloody attacks on the weekend as tensions reportedly escalate among drug dealers and gang members in a city already troubled by recent violence. At least two people were shot and five stabbed Friday evening to early Monday morning in addition to a slaying Sunday at West Broadway Commons, an apartment building in Winnipeg. Winnipeg police spokesperson Constable Dani McKinnon said on Monday that there have been 60 shootings so far this year. Tragically, a man named Austin Mark Chief, 24, later died in hospital. The death is being investigated as the city's 24th homicide of the year.

Mitch Bourbonniere, a community social worker whom we also had at the public safety and national security committee for our guns and gangs study, gave a comment to the Winnipeg Free Press for the story, where he said of the violence:

“It's intensified...meth and the opiates and fentanyl and the poisonings [have increased]...It's really violent out there right now...I've come to the conclusion that we are undeniably in a violent spike right now in our city.”

“It's ongoing, but it's escalated. People are more desperate, more violent, there's more competition, it's more serious street drugs, there's more guns—there's just more of everything,” he said. “Drugs, gangs and guns—those three words.”

That was the top story in the Winnipeg Free Press just this morning.

Just last week, there was yet another story. This is almost weekly now in Montreal. The police are investigating three shootings in various areas of Montreal. Drive-by shootings have also increased in Montreal and cities like Toronto. Another story from just last week, June 6, 2022, in Winnipeg was told about an adult female with her infant child being robbed at gunpoint and having her car stolen in front of her. She was robbed at gunpoint with her infant child.

These stories are becoming a weekly occurrence in Winnipeg and cities like Toronto, Montreal, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver, so much so that I think the public is starting to become desensitized to the rising violent crime in our cities under the Liberal government's watch. It is fact that violent crime has increased steadily in the seven years the Liberals have been in power. It is fact that our streets are less safe under the so-called leadership of the Liberal government and the Minister of Justice.

Today, we are debating third reading of Bill C-5, which would remove mandatory minimum sentences for a number of serious crimes. I am going to go through them for the House.

The bill would remove mandatory prison time for firearm offences. From my recent discourse, I cannot wrap my head around how the government can claim it is getting tough on guns while Bill C-5 would remove mandatory prison time for dangerous gun crimes, for example, robbery with a firearm. In the story I just told, where a woman with her infant child in Winnipeg was robbed at gunpoint and her car was stolen from her, no longer would that individual who terrorized that woman with her baby face mandatory prison time under Bill C-5.

Other crimes are extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized and discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, which is firing a gun at someone with the intention to hit the person with the bullet. These would no longer have mandatory prison time in Canada if Bill C-5 comes into place.

Other such crimes are using a firearm in the commission of an offence and possession of firearms knowing their possession is unauthorized. Someone who is not allowed to have a firearm but has one would no longer have to face mandatory prison time. Meanwhile, we well know the stats show that firearm violence in Canada is by those who are not legally allowed to possess a firearm. Under Bill C-5, no longer would those individuals who would terrorize our communities be absolutely going to prison.

Other charges include possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, and discharging a firearm recklessly. These are very serious gun violence crimes that would not longer face mandatory prison time because of Bill C-5.

I consistently hear from Liberal members that they are repealing these bad Conservative policies, but the fact is that many of these mandatory minimums were instituted by Liberal governments. In fact, one of them in particular, the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, was instituted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government back in 1976. The Liberals are actually keeping a number of mandatory minimum sentences that the Conservatives did bring in, so their argument does not stand.

To be clear, the Liberals would be eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings. They make the argument that it is soft on crime and say, “Let us go easy on criminals.” They seem to be more interested in defending criminals than the victims being terrorized with guns.

For example, the Liberals would expand conditional sentencing and would allow house arrest for crimes such as sexual assault. If a person sexually assaults someone, they could be serving house arrest in the neighbourhood of the individual they sexually assaulted. Conditional sentencing, house arrest and others would become more commonplace and more easily accessed by the courts because of Bill C-5.

Then there is kidnapping and abduction of a person under the age of 14. Abducting a child could mean house arrest. Arson for fraudulent purposes, so setting fire to things, could mean house arrest too, as could assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon, assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon and trafficking in or exporting/importing schedule III drugs.

Let us talk a bit more about the drug offences, because this is really interesting. The bill would also eliminate mandatory prison time for drug dealers. Last year, over 7,000 Canadians died as a result of opioid overdoses from things like fentanyl and carfentanil. Addiction to drugs should be treated as a health care issue. The Conservatives believe that someone addicted to drugs needs to be treated. We need to have more access. It is why in the last election we proposed building more treatment beds. That is very clear.

However, the individuals responsible for pushing deadly drugs on Canadians, killing 7,000 people last year, deserve to go to prison, full stop. This bill would eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking drugs. That is drug pushers and drug dealers. It also includes importing or exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting. People who smuggle drugs into Canada that kill thousands of Canadians would no longer have mandatory prison time.

Consider the production of substances in schedule I or schedule II, which are drugs such as heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. The people who create these drugs, who kill thousands of Canadians, particularly young people in B.C. and Ontario, would no longer face mandatory prison time as a result of Bill C-5.

This comes in light of the controversial decision in B.C. to decriminalize 2.5 grams of opioids and other hard drugs. For carfentanil, for example, 2.5 grams is capable of killing 1,250 people. What message does it send that we are decriminalizing at the same time as Bill C-5 is coming out? On one side, we are decriminalizing deadly drugs that killed 7,000 Canadians last year, and on the other side, we are saying there is no more mandatory prison time for the people who are responsible for making those drugs, smuggling those drugs or trafficking those drugs and preying upon vulnerable Canadians. What kind of message is that sending? Drug dealers are rubbing their hands at how much money they are going to make because of these actions.

It is devastating for families. I know there are different approaches for how to deal with the drug epidemic in Canada, but I firmly believe, as do other Conservatives, that anyone responsible for dealing these dangerous drugs that kill thousands of Canadians deserves to go to prison. It is over 7,000 people. Opioids are more deadly to Canadian young people than COVID was. That is how serious the drug epidemic is.

The Liberals are letting those responsible for taking advantage of vulnerable Canadians off the hook. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the 7,000 families that lost young people last year to opioid deaths.

This is all coming in light of violent crime stats going up significantly in Canada in the last seven years. For example, across the country, police reported 743 homicides in 2020, which is the highest number of homicides recorded in Canada since 1991. There were also 56 more homicides in 2020 than in 2019, a hike that pushed Canada's rate up 7% to almost two homicides per every 100,000 people in Canada in 2020. That is up from the year prior. Violent crime is increasing and the Liberal government is bringing in Bill C-5, which would let individuals who use firearms in very dangerous crimes off the hook.

There was also a recent Statistics Canada report released just a few weeks ago that said, per The Globe and Mail, “since 2009, the per capita rate of firearms being pointed at someone in the commission of a crime has nearly tripled, and the rate at which guns are fired with intent to kill or wound is up fivefold.” Again, as I said, these crimes, such as firing a gun with the intent to injure someone, are up fivefold, but no longer would those individuals face mandatory prison time.

The Toronto Police Service has proposed a number of solutions. It said that the federal government should look at requiring bail hearings for people charged with the most serious firearm offences to be heard by judges instead of by a justice of the peace. It is a move the police said would “clearly convey Parliament's view of the seriousness of these offences.”

Again, the things we do in this place have important symbolism as well. The message we send to criminals and victims alike is very important. I think I have outlined quite clearly the message the Liberal government is sending to criminals who endanger the lives of individuals, especially in our vulnerable communities.

The police are also proposing bail reform, and I recently spoke to a number of police in southern Ontario and got their thoughts on bail reform. Members may remember that a few years ago, in June 2019, Bill C-75, a Liberal bill, updated the bail provisions in Canada's Criminal Code for the first time since 1972. There are varying opinions on this. Police will say that some aspects were good and that some aspects were very bad.

In a story from last year, Victoria Police Chief Del Manak was asked, “Why are violent, prolific and repeat offenders being released from custody with little or nothing to prevent them from reoffending?” We hear this from police all the time. It is the revolving door. Police put themselves in danger to catch criminals who are terrorizing neighbourhoods and put them in jail, but they are out the next week. It is a revolving door of essentially 100 to 200 offenders in cities, particularly in vulnerable neighbourhoods. They are the cause of the vast majority of the violence. The police catch and released them every week, putting police lives in danger to secure the safety of vulnerable communities.

The police are catching these guys over and over again, so I have asked them about this. Last year, the Victoria police chief was asked about this too. Of course, we know that in Victoria and Vancouver, it is unbelievable to walk the streets and see the crime that is going on, but as the Victoria police chief said, per the Victoria Times Colonist:

The answer to that...lies in recent extensive changes to the country's bail system that were intended to address clogged courts and the over-representation of vulnerable populations....

The law makes it clear, said Manak, that police are to give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions.

I asked police about this. Now, this was a couple of years ago, in 2019, and bail reforms had a bit of time to come into place. However, many in the police forces, the ones who see this more than anyone in the House, believe those bail reforms have further quickened the catch-and-release policies that we have seen. I bring this up to outline that we are seeing a rise in gun violence and violent crime in our cities, and many believe it is tied to the bail reforms from a few years ago, which are coming home to roost now.

We now have Bill C-5. Do members think it is going to get any better when we do not put violent criminals in jail for firing guns at people with the intent to injure them with a bullet, for robbing them at gunpoint or for pushing drugs on vulnerable Canadians and killing 7,000 people last year? What do we think is going to happen to the crime statistics when the bill comes in? Do we really think they are going to go down? I do not think so. Based on the recent policies on bail reform and the feedback I am getting from frontline police officers, I would guess that in a couple of years, we are going to be seeing increased violence in our streets and less safe streets than we have now because of Bill C-5.

House arrest is very interesting. If someone fires a gun at someone, they would not be serving mandatory prison time but would maybe get house arrest. What does that mean? I was not even sure what “house arrest” meant. I kind of thought it meant that a police officer would be stationed outside the house of a dangerous offender who shot a gun at someone, robbed someone at gunpoint or extorted them with a firearm, as they must be watched. It does not mean that exactly. This individual is put in their home in the community, often the one they terrorized, and is in essence left to their own devices.

Can members imagine what is going happen when a vulnerable community has been terrorized by a criminal with a gun, and rather than being removed from the situation and put in prison to serve time for the crime they did to their community, they would be serving a sentence surrounded by the gang influences that led them to a life of crime? How do we think that is going to work?

There were some comments from the members opposite, and I would ask them to consider sexual assault. I went through this already. A person can sexually assault someone and then serve house arrest in the community of the individual they sexually assaulted. It is in the bill. It really does not make a lot of sense to me.

We heard the speech before me by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I am sure he was very sincere in his speech, and I have a lot of respect for the member. However, whenever he and the Liberals are pushed on this and asked why they go easy on criminals who use guns in dangerous crimes, they say they are also increasing mandatory sentences for them. The argument does not follow. We ask why they are going easy on criminals with guns and they say they are increasing sentencing. It does not make sense. They say they are increasing sentencing, but they are also letting them off the hook to serve house arrest in the communities they have terrorized.

I just went over a situation where a woman with her child was robbed at gunpoint. Robbery with a firearm will no longer get mandatory prison time. That may be something members opposite are uncomfortable with, but that is in their bill. The individual who robbed that woman at gunpoint with her baby deserves to go to prison, no excuses. There is no other way to see it. It is unbelievable. That individual, who the police did catch, was charged with robbery with a firearm and violating his prohibition order for possessing a firearm. He had already been caught before, charged with something and then released. Now he has terrorized the community again and robbed a woman with a baby at gunpoint and will likely be out again.

Recently, I was in Grand Bend, a lovely community on Lake Huron, with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. I was speaking to police on the ground there and they told me what has happened as a result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policy on bail reform. An individual was stabbed to death outside a bar at 2 a.m. in this beautiful little tourist town. It is a very rare occurrence in this otherwise very safe, wonderful community. Two weeks later, when that individual was released on bail, he went into a gas station and threatened the lives of two teenage girls at the cash. This man murdered someone with a knife, an innocent man who was outside of the bar at the wrong time. He murdered him and was out on the streets two weeks later threatening the lives of two teenage girls. That is a result of bail reform and what the Liberals have done with their soft-on-crime policies.

If the Liberals would just take time to talk to the police in their communities, they would hear the same things I am hearing. It is unbelievable. It is as if parts of our communities are becoming lawless.

When we think of police, what do members think it feels like for police officers to endanger their lives and run after the guy I just talked about who robbed a woman at gunpoint? What do members think it is like for them? They are putting their lives on the line and he is back on the street three days later. What kind of incentive do they have to rush to the scene of a crime when they see the same guy they have been apprehending week over week? It is unbelievable.

I would like to move an amendment with my remaining time. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 12 with a view to remove the provisions in the Bill that would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences for very serious crimes, namely robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and discharging a firearm with intent, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence and possession for purpose of weapons trafficking.

The purpose of this amendment is to take out the most insane parts of Bill C-5 so that individuals—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-5, which seeks to make changes to the Criminal Code that would make life easier for criminals charged with violent firearms offences and criminals who are fuelling the opioid crisis here in Canada. Most of the offences we are discussing today, for which the Liberals want to get rid of mandatory jail time, are crimes that involve firearms.

To be clear, the charges for which the government is seeking to remove mandatory jail time are not for otherwise innocent individuals who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. This bill would specifically allow repeat offenders to avoid mandatory jail sentences. These are hardened criminals who have already made the choice to live outside the law and have not made an effort to change their behaviour. These are the people the Liberals would be helping with Bill C-5.

Before I get too far in my speech, and with some leniency from the House as this might be my last chance to speak before we rise for the summer, I would like to draw the attention of the House and those watching at home to something I find quite unique that is happening in my riding leading up the municipal elections on October 24 here in Ontario.

In Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, there are seven lower tier municipalities. Come election day, at least six of those will have a new face as head of council. So far, six of the seven mayors, with the exception of David Burton of Highlands East, have announced they will not be seeking re-election.

That is a major changeover, and I would be remiss if I did not take this time to acknowledge the immense contribution these remarkable individuals have made in their communities. I will quickly name them and then get back to Bill C-5.

In Algonquin Highlands, Carol Moffatt, after 16 years of public service, will not be on the ballot. Mayor Moffatt was first elected as councillor in 2006. She was elected mayor in 2010 and then acclaimed as mayor in 2014 and again 2018, where she led one of two all-female municipal councils in Ontario.

In Brock Township, after the sudden passing of the township's first female mayor, Debbie Bath-Hadden in 2021, John Grant, a former councillor and Durham regional councillor and mayor, stepped into the role and pledged to guide the municipality with a steady hand into the next election.

Scott McFadden will not seek re-election in Cavan-Monaghan after being first elected as deputy mayor in 2010, then elected mayor in 2014 and re-elected in 2018.

After 16 years in public service, Andrea Roberts will not re-offer as mayor of Dysart. In addition to leading council, Mayor Roberts previously served as councillor and deputy mayor. Joining her is Patrick Kennedy, deputy mayor of Dysart, who informed the community recently he would not be seeking re-election after just one term.

In Kawartha Lakes, Andy Letham will not seek a third term as mayor. He was first elected to lead the municipality in 2014 and re-elected in 2018. He also spent a term as a councillor in 2003.

Brent Devolin, first elected in 2014 and re-elected in 2018, will not seek re-election and a third term as mayor of Minden Hills.

Over the years, in my previous role with my predecessor, I got to know each one of these municipal leaders very well. I consider them friends and not just colleagues. Each council and staff faced many challenges during their time. They dealt with natural disasters and the COVID pandemic while at the same time claiming many accomplishments, such as new community centres, Internet connectivity, improved roads and bridges, new parks, and increased water and sewer capacity to prepare for future growth. The list, of course, goes on.

It is no secret that municipal representatives are often the closest to the issues being felt at home. Most, especially in small and rural communities, are accessible to the public and many openly publish their personal telephone numbers. All of the mayors and deputy mayors I just mentioned, along with the councillors and staff, have placed their marks on the people they serve. I am confident to say that those not seeking re-election depart leaving their respective municipalities in strong shape and well prepared for the future.

Now, I move on to today's debate on Bill C-5. As I mentioned off the top, it is a bill that would remove mandatory jail time in some circumstances for a lot of crimes that involve firearms. Again, the charges for which the government would be removing the mandatory jail time would specifically allow repeat offenders to avoid mandatory jail sentences.

For example, the bill proposes to eliminate mandatory jail time for criminals charged with robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking. These are just a few of the types of offences for which mandatory jail time would be removed under Bill C-5.

If people do not think it can get much worse after the list I just mentioned, it really does. In this bill, the Liberals are making more criminal charges eligible to receive conditional sentences, also known as house arrest.

There may be cases where house arrest is acceptable, but house arrest should never be made available to dangerous offenders and criminals whose actions have victimized an innocent person or family. Should a criminal who abducted a child under the age of 14 be eligible for house arrest? Should a criminal who benefits financially from the scourge of human trafficking be eligible for house arrest? Should someone convicted of kidnapping get house arrest? Should criminals charged with sexual assault be able to serve their time back in that same community, potentially near their victims?

The Liberals say yes to all of the above. There is an even better one still to come. The Liberals are trying to expand house arrest for those charged with prison breach. In what world does that make any sense? We would be rewarding people for breaking out of prison with house arrest, so they do not have to bother spending time behind bars if they can just break out.

As many members have said in this debate, one really cannot make this stuff up. The government is trying to make a complete mockery of the Canadian justice system, demoralize law enforcement and frighten victims, all at the same time.

A few months ago, the community I live in, Lindsay, held a public forum. The specific topic was to talk about the increase of petty crimes in the neighbourhood. Citizens did not feel safe. They had concerns that criminals were getting arrested, and a few moments later they were out and back on the streets, what is called a “revolving door”. They did not seem to feel that the justice system was working for them. We had a community meeting to discuss this. What was talked about a lot at the time, a few months ago, was Bill C-75, another bill that decreased sentences and made them more lenient so criminals could get out of jail more easily. The Crown prosecutor made that very clear. The Crown's hands were tied. This was a piece of legislation, and obviously the law has to be enforced through the judicial system, so these were the cards they were dealt. The community felt it.

As my friend from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon just mentioned, people need to have faith in the criminal justice system. When they pay their taxes and do everything right, they expect a safe community and they expect their government to work for them and to provide laws that allow law enforcement to do its job and keep the community safe. They just were not feeling it.

These people are just becoming victims, scared in their own community. People are scared to go out at night. This is a community of 20,000 people. It was unheard of, just a few years ago, for people to feel they could not leave their house at night. It is unbelievable. It really is. We have just heard story after story from colleagues in this place about how communities are becoming less safe because of poor legislation brought in by the government.

If we want to talk about ways to help people, this party had a massive plan to fund mental health and treat it as health, to talk about getting people treatment for their addictions and expanding economic opportunities across the board to Canadians in general. There was a robust plan to deal with that. At the same time, those who are committing the most heinous of crimes, the ones I just mentioned, should be behind bars, not walking our streets. I know police have said we cannot arrest our way out of this, and I totally agree. That is why we had those robust options, as well as putting those who are violent, repeat offenders behind bars, where they deserve to be, not out on our streets.

To conclude, I will be strongly voting against Bill C-5, and I encourage each and every member of this House to do so as well.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code on disclosure of information by jurors.

Bill S-206 proposes an amendment that seeks to help jurors who face mental health challenges flowing from fulfilling their civic duty and after completion of a jury trial. It proposes to do so by adding an exception to the offence of disclosure of jury proceedings under section 649 of the Criminal Code.

The substance of this legislation is short and straightforward and I believe is targeting an important issue deserving of our attention. Indeed, when we situate the bill in the present context of the ongoing COVID‑19 pandemic, we can all understand the importance of supporting the well-being and mental health of Canadians, and particularly those who participate in the justice system.

We know the pandemic has affected the mental health of Canadians. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, almost half of all Canadians have reported that their mental health has worsened since the beginning of the pandemic. A Statistics Canada survey on COVID‑19 and mental health in September 2021 indicated that one in four Canadians, or 25%, age 18 and older screened positive for symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder in the spring of 2021, up from one in five, or 21%, in the fall of 2020.

A more recent study in January 2022, from the Angus Reid Institute, found that the population is largely fatigued, frustrated and anxious, with one in three Canadians, or 36%, stating they are struggling with their mental health. According to this study, this represents an increase from the one-quarter who responded in November 2021, prior to omicron becoming the dominant COVID‑19 variant in Canada.

Canadians across the country who are experiencing mental health difficulties are the very same population called upon for jury duty by way of provincial and territorial legislative processes governing the criteria with respect to who may serve and be summoned as a juror. I am very pleased that the government is committed to supporting Canadians and their mental health through the COVID‑19 pandemic and beyond, such as through its record of investing millions into mental health and distress centres.

Thanks to the previous work undertaken by the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study counselling and mental health supports for jurors, we have a better understanding of the experience of Canadians who serve on juries and the potentially long-lasting impacts of such service. The committee's May 2018 report entitled “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada” documented that many former jurors described their jury duty experience as positive. However, the report also includes testimony from jurors who served on difficult and unfortunately disturbing criminal cases ended up encountering much mental health distress and suffering, and in some instances even reported post-traumatic stress disorder following their service. It is conceivable that jury duty during any pandemic could give rise to additional stresses and strains on an individual, for example, concerns over their safety and physical-distancing requirements being respected at all times.

I believe that if serving on a jury creates a need for mental health supports, then there should not be barriers for those who must access them. Bill S-206 proposes to amend section 649 of the Criminal Code by adding a narrow exception to the offence prohibiting jurors from disclosing information otherwise disclosed in open court to enable them to share this information in the course of receiving mental health treatment from a health care professional.

While the purpose of section 649 of the Criminal Code is to protect the integrity of the jury deliberation process, the offence has been identified as posing a barrier for jurors in accessing mental health supports by former jurors and in the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendment proposed in Bill S-206 would address recommendation 4 of the report of the standing committee, which proposes that there may be a more lenient secrecy rule for jury deliberations. The committee's recommendations were unanimously supported.

I certainly support the recommendation and I support this bill. For instance, former Bill C-417 in 2019 unanimously passed in the House of Commons following the adoption of amendments by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I call on all members to support Bill S-206 because it would allow former jurors to be freer in expressing their thoughts and feelings to a health care professional on matters that may have deeply disturbed or upset them or caused significant stress during their service as a juror.

It is a remarkable aspect of our justice system that jurors across the country and in countless courtrooms meet the challenges of jury duty, and so it only makes sense that they would be able to receive the support they need to return to their lives afterward. I am pleased that the government expressed its support for former Bill C-417 and is now in support of Bill S-206. The government has introduced, and Parliament has enacted, a number of changes to improve the jury regime in the Criminal Code.

For example, the Government of Canada introduced legislation that was passed by Parliament in 2019, former Bill C-75, which included several Criminal Code amendments to improve the in court jury selection process. These amendments abolished peremptory challenges, which have been linked to discriminatory application to exclude potential jurors from jury duty; simplified and strengthened the challenge for cause process; modernized the grounds for such challenges; and clarified the power of judges to stand aside jurors to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

More recently, on February 8, 2022, the government introduced Senate legislation to help address the challenges faced by criminal courts caused or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts relating to the COVID-19 response and other measures, includes proposed amendments that would, among other things, increase the use of technology in the jury selection process, including allowing prospective jurors to participate by video conference where the court considers it appropriate and with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused.

The pandemic and the resulting public health guidelines for physical distancing have made it especially challenging for courts to conduct jury selection proceedings, as these proceedings can sometimes involve several hundreds of people being physically present in the same location at the same time.

The amendments proposed in Bill S-4 would help provide courts with greater flexibility in how jury selection processes are held, and it may serve to be a useful tool in accommodating prospective jurors who have been summoned to participate in the selection process.

Our government is proud to support this bill, as it recognizes the vital role and dedicated service of jurors in the Canadian justice system. As we bring the justice system into the 21st century, we will work to ensure jurors can be better supported in their roles in addition to facilitating the sharing of best practices between jurisdictions.

I want to take a moment to commend my colleagues on the justice and human rights committee for working collaboratively to study and pass this important bill. It is an example of the progress we can achieve when we work together, across party lines, to support all Canadians.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to the estimates. Several important steps are being taken by the government to support the effective and efficient functioning of the justice system, in particular regarding access to justice for youth, indigenous and Black persons and those who are economically disadvantaged.

As the House is well aware, our justice system has been faced with mounting challenges in recent years. Some of these challenges, such as the increasing length and complexity of trials, preceded the COVID pandemic. Other challenges, such as the need to conduct trials virtually, were generated by the pandemic. Some of the justice system's challenges were felt most acutely by our provincial partners, as they bear the responsibility for the administration of justice, including the increased costs of technology and other public health measures.

Of course, many of these challenges affect not only governments, but also individuals. These include the many individuals who struggle to afford legal assistance when they need it. Many of them also experience systemic disadvantages and discrimination. In some cases, these individuals come into contact with the justice system.

Through the budget, our government made multiple investments to support the justice system to ensure that it treats those who come before it in a fair, equitable and effective manner. Budget 2021 announced an ongoing annual $43.3-million increase in funding for the youth justice services funding program. New six-year funding agreements for the April 21, 2021, to March 31, 2027, time frame were successfully negotiated and are now being put into place with the provinces and territories to implement this funding.

This funding will enable the expansion and sustainability of critical youth justice services and programs delivered by the provinces and territories. Priority funding areas under the youth justice services funding program include diversion and alternatives to custody programming, which will allow more youth to stay out of the formal youth criminal justice system and/or custody. This new funding will allow jurisdictions to further develop and expand the range of culturally safe and responsive programming available to better support indigenous youth and other racialized youth populations overrepresented in the youth criminal justice system. This is particularly true for diversion programming, for which an increased demand is anticipated resulting from the implementation of former Bill C-75.

While we are all pleased that there has been a downward trend in youth crime rates over time, this new funding is needed, as there has not been an increase in funding since 2006, when the Harper government came into power and implemented its failed criminal justice policy that did not focus on rehabilitation or diversion. We are fixing that through many measures, including budgetary measures such as this one and Bill C-5.

The general youth population is increasing, which is expected to affect the demand for youth justice programming and apply additional pressures on the provinces and territories. There is a need to respond more effectively to the diversity of risks and needs of today's youth population. The new funding will therefore enable the sustainability and expansion of critical and more responsive youth justice services and programs.

Our government also re-profiled $40 million in funding for criminal legal aid, provided through the 2020 fall economic statement to 2021 and 2022-23. The COVID pandemic generated significant multi-faceted and long-term impacts on legal aid in Canada. It also produced socio-economic conditions that foster high demand for legal aid, while simultaneously complicating the delivery of legal aid services and limiting non-governmental income sources such as law foundations. This additional investment of $40 million in criminal legal aid funding provided over two years is allowing legal aid plans to better align themselves with the reopening of the courts and provide services to accused people whose cases are backlogged. The additional funding also addresses deficits resulting from decreased law foundation funding and supports legal aid plans in fully implementing technological innovations and ensuring interoperability with the courts.

Vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals and women, have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In view of their mandate to help the disadvantaged, some legal aid plans relaxed eligibility guidelines early in the pandemic to support individuals facing job loss.

As the courts reopen, they are dealing with backlogs of cases accumulated during the pandemic. The additional funding for criminal legal aid will enable jurisdictions to meet increased demand, thereby reducing the number of individuals who self-represent. Self-represented accused people cost the system both money and time because of adjournments, multiple court appearances, a lack of information and confusion about proceedings. We are continuing to provide additional needed support to the legal aid system to address these systemic pressures so the justice system remains accessible to all Canadians.

The past decades have seen a criminal justice system characterized by the increasingly disproportionate representation of indigenous and Black persons and vulnerable persons such as those experiencing a mental health and/or substance use disorder. The 2020 fall economic statement announced $6.6 million over five years, followed by $1.6 million annually, to support the implementation of impact of race and culture assessments, or IRCAs, nationally. From this, $1.3 million is available for 2022-23. IRCAs are better pre-sentencing reports that help sentencing judges better understand the effects of poverty, marginalization, racism and social exclusion on the offender and their experience with the criminal justice system.

Federal funding will support the development of training curricula for IRCA writers, professional development programs for criminal defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors, and education programs for judges on IRCAs and on the preparation of IRCA reports for eligible racialized accused. The Government of Canada is committed to providing fair and equal access to justice for Black individuals and other racialized people by addressing systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system and overturning a decade of failed Conservative criminal justice policy.

Building on previous investments, budget 2021 also announced an investment of $26.8 million for 2021-22 to support the delivery of immigration and refugee legal aid services. This funding supports access to justice for economically disadvantaged asylum seekers by ensuring that provinces delivering immigration and refugee legal aid have the capacity to maintain service delivery levels. This includes the processing of many asylum claims from individuals who arrived in Canada prior to the pandemic-related border closures, those who made asylum claims from within Canada during the pandemic and those who are now arriving at Canada's borders.

Additionally, the 2020 fall economic statement provided $49.3 million over five years, starting in 2021, and $9.7 million in ongoing funding to increase the application of Gladue principles in the criminal justice system to help address the overrepresentation of indigenous people and address systemic discrimination. As the House is aware, Gladue principles seek to ensure the systemic or background factors that may have played a part in bringing an indigenous person in contact with the law are considered in criminal justice decision-making, and that community-based, culturally appropriate restorative and traditional indigenous justice supports are available to help individuals meet the conditions of their sentences and implement healing plans.

This investment includes funding to support the development and expanded use of Gladue reports, including the training of Gladue report writers, and will support community-based and indigenous-led post-sentence Gladue aftercare. This funding will also support projects focused on addressing systemic barriers and bias in the criminal justice system. The implementation of Gladue principles in the criminal justice system is also a key federal initiative in the Government of Canada's federal pathway to address missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

Finally, building on the success of our existing work to address overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, and to improve indigenous people's access to justice in all areas of the justice system, budget 2021 provided $27.1 million over three years for indigenous community-based justice programs to address long-standing program integrity needs and to provide trauma-informed training on working with victims of crime. Funding will also help indigenous families navigate the family justice system and access community-based family mediation services.

Among other objectives, these efforts seek to prevent crime and protect victims by addressing matters before they escalate. They also aim to help decrease the disproportionate number of indigenous children in care across the country and allow these children to remain with their families where appropriate and connect to their communities and culture where possible. In tandem with support for the implementation of Gladue principles, this work will further support the Government of Canada's efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada, eliminate systemic discrimination from the justice system and respond to the MMIWG final report's calls for justice and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Through the main estimates, we are seeking to access the funding to support these initiatives this year. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the critical steps we have taken to support the justice system, and I hope that all members of the House will support these estimates to advance this important work in criminal justice reform.

Bill C-5

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Cranbrook is family friendly, but that reputation is under threat because of Bill C-75's existing offender release legislation. Bill C-5, now being studied at the justice committee, would remove mandatory minimum penalties and introduce new catch-and-release conditional sentencing orders. This would make the existing situation worse. In fact, the Attorney General of B.C. has acknowledged the problem and pointed a finger right at the federal government's legislation.

As we work to address the opioid crisis, Canadians should not be left to accept criminal behaviour, vandalism or violence in our communities. Residents have had enough. Individuals are being threatened with machetes. Businesses are being broken into, and students are being intimidated at work. How many other small communities across Canada have the same situation?

As we consider Bill C-5, we must pursue legislation that serves to make our communities safer. This will only be realized when the government stops aiding offenders and begins to prioritize victims.