Debates of Sept. 18th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

[Zoe Royer, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the constituents in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam. They are concerned about crime, and they are also concerned about when our government will work with members of the opposition to pass important legislation. We know that our Prime Minister cares about Canadians and their concerns. We also know that this fall, we will bring forward important legislation on this very matter of bail reform.

Will the Conservatives work together in co-operation with us to support this important legislation for Canadians?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, an important part of that question is “when”. This is not something that has happened just recently. The problem is that the crime rate has been going up for quite some time, for years now.

When the Liberals took over, they brought in legislation that made it easier to get bail, that reduced sentences and that got rid of mandatory minimums. Since then, we have been asking the government to take crime more seriously and bring in tougher laws to make it harder to get bail. There has been no action from the government at all.

Just before the summer break, we again asked the government to bring in legislation because the crime rate continues to rise. There has been no action. Canadians need action now.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, crime reduction is an important issue that is worth discussing.

I have a question for my colleague. This act seeks to incarcerate more criminals for longer periods of time. Can my colleague provide us with even one statistic showing that this type of legislative measure eventually reduces crime in places where it is implemented?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that sounded as though the member wants me to answer how keeping criminals behind bars longer would stop them from committing crimes. They would be behind bars. That is what we want, to keep them behind bars so that they are not released into the community to reoffend in those same communities. That is what has been happening under the Liberals.

Our plan would keep them 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 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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second bill we put forward in this House was a public safety bill, and I would urge the member opposite to support that bill. It has been informed by law enforcement from across this country. Today, if a father catches a predator preying on their child, has an IP address and takes it to the police, the police cannot lawfully investigate and carry the case forward. This is a real example. Bill C-2 would allow that to happen.

I hope the member will support this bill. I would like to hear if he will, to put an end to child sex offenders.

[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.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier.

Is there any evidence to prove that keeping people behind bars longer reduces crime?

The member for Edmonton Gateway gave a rather simplistic answer to my question. He said that when someone is behind bars, they cannot commit crimes in the community. That is true, but eventually they will be released and re-enter society. In 1999, the U.S. Attorney General compiled 50 studies on 300,000 inmates. They found there is no link between longer periods of incarceration and the crime rate. Instead, when people spend more time in prison, they learn things. When they get out, they run a greater risk of reoffending.

What is my colleague's response to that?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand this is a huge concern for those in Quebec as well. In Kelowna, the same 15 offenders have committed 1,300 crimes. In Vancouver, the same 40 offenders have committed 6,000 crimes in a single year. There is a direct correlation. I know the member was asking about correlation.

If we lock up the repeat violent offenders who are clogging up our justice system and going out in our communities to terrorize Canadians, we will see crime go down. That is what we are going to do. It is common sense. We need common-sense laws to put repeat violent offenders behind bars. I hope the Bloc will support our bill.

[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, the government prides itself on being a feminist government, yet its policies are hurting women the most.

Cait Alexander from End Violence Everywhere, who has supported our Conservative approach to stopping crime, was left to die in her home by her ex-partner. Guess what. He was let out on bail with only a condition of $500. She has had to leave the country. Bailey McCourt was killed by her ex-partner because he got bail.

I could sit here and talk about these stories all day long. The government talks a big game, but when it comes to action, it is missing from it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I always feel privileged to represent Nunavummiut on any matter in this House. Today, I will be splitting my time with the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

I speak as the NDP critic for justice. All Canadians want to live in safe communities protected from dangerous offenders, but three-strikes policies, such as those in the United States and the one in the Conservative motion before us today, fail to address the root causes of crime. They are fearmongering, and like other Conservatives I have heard say, we are not living in war zones in Canada.

Let me be clear. The Conservatives' tough-on-crime policies will not work to decrease crime. They are unconstitutional, they would bind judges' discretion and they would not tackle the real causes of crime.

The New Democrats believe the best way for the federal government to ensure safety for Canadians is to invest in housing, schools, health care, and addictions and mental health supports to help prevent crime in the first place. Offenders must receive adequate rehabilitation to prevent recidivism. The New Democrats believe that rehabilitation is the only appropriate avenue for ensuring healthy reintegration into society. Eliminating such opportunities ignores or prevents opportunities for addressing the root causes that most likely resulted in criminal behaviour.

The Conservatives' choice to ignore the rehabilitation of incarcerated people divides people. It isolates people. They pretend rehabilitation is not possible and advocating punishment is not justified. Rehabilitation is not part of the Conservatives' values. Their position is one of grandstanding, with maximum punishment and with no mind toward what happens when offenders begin their re-entry into our communities.

Studies have shown that rehabilitation is the most effective way to prevent crimes from being recommitted. Norway is a great example. Their recidivism rate decreased from as high as 70% in 1992 to the lowest in the world, at 20%, after it started community-based correctional facilities and focused on rehabilitation programs. The United States has one of the highest rates of recidivism: 76% of prisoners are rearrested within five years. In Canada, our recidivism rate was 23% in 2020 and 2021.

The Conservatives, with this motion, are ultimately targeting indigenous and BIPOC communities. It is well reported that the prison population in Canada is mainly made up of indigenous people. They make up more than a quarter of designated “dangerous offenders” but account for only 4% of the population in Canada. According to data, since 2010, the indigenous population in prisons has grown by nearly 44%.

Indigenous people are more likely than non-indigenous people to be labelled as dangerous or maximum-security offenders. Indigenous people are more likely to be involved in use-of-force incidents with prison staff and are more likely to be placed in solitary confinement. Systemic racism in Canada's criminal justice system requires urgent attention, particularly with respect to indigenous people.

The Correctional Investigator of Canada, Dr. Ivan Zinger, described the disproportionate representation of indigenous people in prisons as “nothing short of a national travesty”. Systemic racism in our criminal justice system will only be exacerbated by a three-strikes policy. Policies like the one in the Conservatives' three-strike motion target BIPOC committees and worsen opportunities for reconciliation with indigenous people.

To address justice for indigenous people, the Liberal government must implement the TRC calls for action on justice and the MMIWG calls for justice, as well as the Assembly of First Nations' and the Métis National Council's justice strategies.

Canada's correctional system is based on the principle that the rule of law follows sentenced persons into prison. Imprisonment does not mean total deprivation or absolute forfeiture of rights. The system is fundamentally based on the rehabilitation of offenders, even if some remain incarcerated for the rest of their lives. Again, Canadians want their communities to be safe and to do so, the federal government must adequately fund rehabilitation programs. These programs are key to reducing rates of recidivism. When public policy diminishes transition to release, it increases the likelihood of reoffending.

New Democrats know that building community safety starts with having laws and policies that put the safety and security of Canadians first. This includes proper federal funding to community-based crime prevention programs. It includes investing in indigenous programs that keep indigenous cultures and indigenous languages alive.

New Democrats believe in giving correctional officers the tools they need to do their job safely and effectively. This includes proper support while on the job and the resources to manage the physical and mental stress that comes from it. After years of chronic underfunding by both Liberals and Conservatives, it is no surprise that our correctional officers have to do more with less.

This Conservative motion only serves to fan the flames of fear rather than suggesting effective measures that would contribute to public safety. New Democrats know that real solutions to the challenge of prolific and repeat non-violent offenders are to be found in better mental health and addiction services and in action to reduce poverty and inequality.

New Democrats want to see the Liberals deliver on their promises to provide increased funding for mental health and addiction programming and to enact measures to lift Canadians out of poverty. The NDP will not be supporting this Conservative motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to a quote. I want to go right to that quote.

I have heard a couple of what I would classify as weird comments from Conservatives today. The first one I heard was when the MP for Cariboo—Prince George made this statement: “in my riding, 98% of the crime is created by five or six prolific offenders. When they are in jail, the crime rate goes down.” Then, as the member made reference, there was a quote by the member for Oxford that we are “now living in a war zone in Canada.” How ridiculous a comment that is to make.

This is a type of behaviour that we often see from the Conservative Party. They take these extreme positions. I would argue that they are using the issue of crime and safety in our communities—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I do have to give time for the member to respond.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I think that showcases why it is important to have more parties in the House than just two.

As an NDP member, I miss many of my colleagues. We have lost opportunities for more intellectual conversations and for more conversations about what great solutions we need to see. Due to the election, we are seeing more of these extremist conversations in the House, even though it was still like that in the last Parliament. We need to start making sure that we give facts back to Canada. I had the wonderful opportunity this summer to travel all over Canada, and I did not see war zones in Canada.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as an aboriginal, I face the same issues that the member is talking about in my own community and in a lot of different first nations communities all across Canada. Really, what we are talking about is a long-term commitment to doing something better. I presume the hon. member is talking about a stopgap measure in the meantime.

“In the meantime” means toddlers getting raped in their beds during a home invasion. We have a criminal in Winnipeg who is suing store owners for loss of income because he got beaten up. We have a homeowner being charged with assault because he tried to defend his home and family.

If this is a stopgap measure, then what does the member recommend we do in the short term to stop the violence and the rape and the assault?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, first of all, we need to stop over-dramatizing what is going on in Canada and creating more fear among Canadians.

I think that when there are crimes being committed, as I said in my speech, disproportionately, members are indigenous peoples. I highlight that because of what has happened in the past, such as the Conservatives making cuts to important programs like the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Those cuts prevented people from having their healing completed. These are important ways to make sure that we do have a better society. Let us focus on trauma-informed services. Let us focus on healing and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech, which was eloquent. I heard what she said about environmental factors that can partly explain crime, such as overcrowded housing and problems related to poverty.

My question for my colleague is this: Why does she think rehabilitation is a better way to reduce the crime rate than lengthy prison sentences?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, rehabilitation can help because it helps people to learn new coping skills. It helps people to learn ways to deal with stress, and it helps to reconnect them with people who might be important in their communities. This includes having action plans to make sure that they have the skills they need to be reintegrated into society.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, crime is up. Statistics show this to be true, in both Quebec and Canada. Between 2015 and 2024, there was a 47% increase in violent crimes in Quebec and a 63% increase in Canada. Between 2015 and 2024, there was a 138% increase in sexual assaults in Quebec.

If we look at the figures per 100,000 inhabitants, they are slightly lower, but still, we see that crime is on the rise and that we have reason to be concerned. We have good reason to discuss the best ways to reduce crime. Therefore, the question is this: How do we respond to the rise in crime?

We have to ask ourselves what causes crime. This is a complex question, one that has no definitive or final answer. Based on what I observed as a legal aid lawyer in the Gaspé region and from my interactions with people accused of crimes, I tend to think that environmental factors partly explain criminality. We cannot ignore people's individual responsibility, of course, but environmental factors do play a role in criminality.

Perhaps an even more pertinent question is what enables people to leave crime behind. How can we ensure that someone who commits a crime or is a repeat offender can leave crime behind and get back on the path to a life without crime, a life that is more conducive to public safety and to that individual's personal development?

Should we impose harsher penalties? That is what the Conservatives are proposing. Criminals should be incarcerated for longer periods of time, and, in their opinion, this would reduce the crime rate. Personally, I believe we need to focus on rehabilitation. What I learned during my 10 years working in legal aid, dealing with all kinds of people in very difficult situations, is that we need to give people hope. We need to give them a way out.

Yes, we must give second chances and believe people have the ability to improve themselves and overcome their demons to lead a more acceptable life in society. With their motion, the Conservatives are telling us we should instead adopt a “three strikes” law. The question I asked earlier remains the same. Does the “three strikes” approach work?

The studies I have read say that this has no impact. I will cite these studies again. The U.S. Attorney General compiled 50 studies involving 300,000 prisoners. Comparisons were made between different parts of the U.S. Some jurisdictions had legislation whereby, after three offences, criminals ends up in prison for much longer, whereas others had no such legislation. This law was found not to have any impact. No study could prove that longer or shorter prison sentences reduce recidivism.

It was also noted that when someone is put in prison, they are surrounded by criminals. There are things that are discussed between criminals. It is often said that prison is crime school. Studies seem to indicate that the longer the sentence, the greater the risk of reoffending because people who spend 10 years in prison are not fit to return to society. They spent far too long surrounded by criminals.

We are a long way from knowing whether this idea will reduce crime. However, I appreciate that we are told that this is common sense, that it is basic common sense, that if we put somebody in prison they will not commit a crime. Still, I believe that a more informed approach is needed because simply putting somebody in prison does not make them disappear forever. This person will come back to society. The question is, what state will they come back in?

The idea behind rehabilitation is to give people a purpose. It means telling them that they have committed a crime for reasons that are their own and that they are responsible for their actions but that they will receive support. They are offered therapies and given a purpose in life, because life outside crime is ultimately much more comfortable and allows a person to truly set themselves free. In my view, this is what we need to do.

We can still look at what the Conservatives are proposing to change. They are saying that when a person has committed three serious offences, they will be imprisoned for a minimum of 10 years. As a former legal aid lawyer, I can say that what I really appreciated in a court of law was that no shortcuts were taken and that every case was analyzed individually because every case is different. When the government imposes minimum sentences, it takes away the justice system's ability to impose a sentence that truly fits the crime. Minimum sentences may appeal to a certain electorate who may legitimately feel unsafe, but by taking such shortcuts, we risk committing injustices in the fight again crime. It is far from certain that the Conservatives' proposal will have any impact whatsoever.

I would still like to explain that there are many provisions in the Criminal Code. What the Conservatives are proposing is to tinker with a Criminal Code that already sets out many principles that are perfectly adequate. The Conservatives are calling for 10-year minimum sentences for three serious offences. Let us look at the main principles for determining sentencing in section 718 of the Criminal Code. We will see that the Criminal Code already has everything a judge needs to impose harsher sentences when needed.

Section 718 of the Criminal Code states the following:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender

This objective is already well established in the Criminal Code.

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

That is entirely possible.

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

I do not think this goal should be overlooked, given that the offender will eventually regain their freedom.

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders

Another fundamental principle that is already in our body of legislation, specifically in Criminal Code section 718.1, states:

A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

The judge already has the flexibility needed to impose a more serious sentence when the crime is more serious.

Paragraph 718.2(a) sets out the sentencing principles. It says that “a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances”, so criminal history is already taken into account. During sentencing, after an offender has been found guilty, the judge looks at their record. If they have already committed serious offences, the Crown prosecutor will certainly argue that, and the judge will take it into account. I think that mandating a given sentence whenever someone commits a third offence is not the way to go. I do not think this kind of automatic sentencing serves the justice system.

A number of factors can already be considered to be aggravating circumstances, for example:

evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion [or] sex

All of this is already taken into consideration by our justice system. There are also the following circumstances:

evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused [among others] the offender's intimate partner

There was already a question on that earlier.

evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,

Then there is the following situation:

evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim

There is also the circumstance where the offender is already a member of a criminal organization.

We can see that the Criminal Code already sets limits and allows judges to make informed decisions. The Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservatives' motion. Not only are we far from certain it will achieve anything, we believe it undermines a system that, all things considered, is well balanced.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. It seems like we wrote our comments at the same time, at the same place, in the same way.

I agree with my colleague on several points, including oversimplification, which is what this motion does. The term “common sense” is being used, but people have to be very careful. There is common sense, and there is oversimplification. It was very oversimplified. Let us look at some more specific examples.

In studying the motion, I came to the same conclusion as my colleague on the rules that they want to remove. They want to take away judges' discretion with respect to repeat offenders.

My question is as follows. Is this not something that we really should not be taking away from our judges? I think someone else already said it, but do we—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give the member enough time to respond.

The member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.