House of Commons Hansard #24 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was victims.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law) First reading of Bill C-222. The bill amends EI and Canada Labour Code to allow parents on parental leave to continue receiving benefits after a child's death, easing administrative burden and red tape for grieving families. 300 words.

Keeping Children Safe Act First reading of Bill C-223. The bill amends the Divorce Act to give children a voice, consider coercive control and family violence, and prevent practices like forced reunification therapy, ensuring children's safety and preferences in divorce proceedings. 200 words.

Food and Drugs Act First reading of Bill C-224. The bill amends the Food and Drugs Act to reverse changes made by Bill C-47, aiming to restore the traditional definition of natural health products and separate them from therapeutic products. 300 words.

Criminal Code First reading of Bill C-225. The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to address intimate partner violence, creating unique offences, presuming first-degree murder in partner homicides, allowing judicial risk assessment custody, and streamlining evidence procedures. 300 words.

National Framework for Food Price Transparency Act First reading of Bill C-226. The bill establishes a national framework for food price transparency by implementing unit pricing across Canada. This aims to empower consumers to compare prices, make informed choices, and save money on groceries. 100 words.

National Strategy on Housing for Young Canadians Act First reading of Bill C-227. The bill establishes a national strategy on housing for young Canadians. It calls for the federal government and partners to understand unique barriers and develop lasting solutions for young people facing the housing crisis. 300 words.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act First reading of Bill C-228. The bill requires Parliament to review and vote on trade agreements before ratification, and mandates the government to table and publish agreement texts for greater transparency and public input. 200 words.

National Framework on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Act First reading of Bill C-229. The bill establishes a national framework for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It aims to provide tools for doctors and teachers to diagnose, treat, and support people with ADHD, improving outcomes. 300 words.

Petitions

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders Members debate rising crime rates and the Liberal government's justice reforms. Conservatives move for a "Three-Strikes-And-You're-Out" law, alleging a 50% increase in violent crime due to Liberal policies that facilitate repeat offenders. Liberals promise bail reform legislation this fall, emphasizing evidence-based solutions and shared provincial responsibility. Bloc Québécois and NDP members critique the Conservative proposal as ineffective and unconstitutional, advocating for rehabilitation, judicial discretion, and addressing the root causes of crime. 52000 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Members' Access to Federal Penitentiary Kevin Lamoureux responds to a question of privilege concerning an MP's alleged obstruction and intimidation accessing a federal penitentiary, arguing the MP was granted access and it's not a breach of privilege. 300 words.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives heavily criticize the Liberal government's poor economic performance, citing high unemployment, rising food inflation, and increasing deficits. They condemn the catch-and-release justice system for causing a surge in violent crime, advocating for a "three strikes" law. They also question government transparency regarding Canadian jobs and trade deals.
The Liberals emphasize their economic strategy to diversify trade partners, noting the Bank of Canada's rate reduction and significant investments in infrastructure. They are committed to strengthening public safety with bail reform and the Strong Borders Act, while rejecting "three strikes" laws. The party highlights social programs like the Canada Child Benefit and affordable housing, and improving CRA services. They also reiterate their commitment to fighting climate change.
The Bloc condemns Ottawa's attack on Quebec's autonomy and the notwithstanding clause, and criticizes the partisan judicial appointment of Robert Leckey. They also accuse the Liberals of abandoning climate change targets and promoting oil and gas.

Adjournment Debates

Cost of living and inflation Cathay Wagantall criticizes the Liberal government's spending and its impact on the cost of living. Carlos Leitão defends the government's actions, citing measures to reduce taxes and increase competition in the grocery sector. Sandra Cobena focuses on the struggles of families facing rising costs, and Leitão blames external pressures.
Affordable housing initiatives Marilyn Gladu questions the Liberal's housing plan, citing high costs per unit and a lack of progress. She proposes investing in shovel-ready projects in her riding. Jennifer McKelvie defends the government's initiatives, including tax cuts and the "build Canada homes" agency, emphasizing affordability and modern construction methods.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that giving judges some discretion and allowing the justice system to identify the most appropriate solution on a case-by-case basis, according to the criteria set out in the Criminal Code and therefore based on the legislator's intent, is the right way to ensure that our justice system works properly. I will give an example. I once represented a woman who had a child to raise and who was charged with fraud for a significant amount of money. We were able to negotiate a stay. Instead of going to jail, my client was able to continue working while complying with a curfew. She could contribute to society while being there for her son. I think that is the way to get her back on the right track.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

William Stevenson Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but I am the member for Yellowhead, and I do have a jail in my riding. I have met with the guards a couple of times, and I have been told a lot of the problems they have. Specifically, because my area is relatively remote, they have a problem getting the people to help the prisoners improve in their lifestyles and that sort of thing. The prison does not have the resources to get the people back into society.

Now, one of the things the member said is that automatic penalties are bad. What about automatically being released after one-third of their sentence? Part of the problem is their getting back into society too quickly.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, once a person has served part of their sentence, a decision is made by the Parole Board of Canada. As far as I know, it is not automatic. It depends on how the person behaves.

We could potentially discuss improvements we could make, because it is true that we see articles in the media and do not understand why the person was released.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

The Conservative motion copies a model imported from the United States, which has proven that it does not work. My colleague started explaining the findings of a major study by the U.S. attorney general, but he did not have time to tell us exactly what those findings were.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, that study, which was conducted by the U.S. attorney general in 1999, came to two conclusions. First, after looking into the history of 300,000 prisoners, some of whom came from places where there was a “three strikes and you go to jail for a long time” rule, and others from places where there was no such rule, they realized that there was no effect on the recidivism rate.

However, what they observed was that, in some places, the longer the sentence, the higher the risk of reoffending. They found a correlation. Once we accept the fact that people who commit crimes are still people, that we cannot get rid of them and that we have to work on them, rehabilitation becomes the obvious option.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think that every member of the House can agree with the member opposite that we stand with victims, and no member of the House wants the continuation of victimization of women and other people in our country. There was a situation in my riding where a young woman was murdered by her partner. I stand with her family, and I just want to send another shout-out to them right now.

However, the policy that the opposition leader put forward today has been shown, in every single city in which it has been implemented, to be a failed policy. Not only did it increase crimes, but it did not even address the issue of crimes. The Conservatives have been talking for the last two days about crimes. They listed so many members of their communities who have been victims of crimes, yet they are bringing forward a policy that would not bring—

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

I apologize, but I do have to give time for the member to respond.

The hon. member for Oshawa has the floor.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague demonstrated, the Conservative proposal we are debating is literally in direct opposition to what we are promoting, particularly in Quebec, by focusing on rehabilitation. What is being proposed does not involve restorative justice; quite the contrary.

I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks about the importance of rehabilitation and restorative justice, when it comes to youth criminal justice, for example.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am a pretty reasonable person. I believe that folks have an opportunity for redemption. I believe in rehabilitation. I think and believe it can happen, but we are not talking about folks who commit a crime for the first time, who have done something and can get help. We are talking about folks who have repeatedly, which means over and over again, in case the other side is not aware, committed violent crimes. How are they going to learn if they do not understand that there are consequences and that it is cause and effect?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will bring forward a question and a comment.

My comment is that, in 2024, I was part of the status of women committee, and Cait Alexander, a very vibrant and strong woman, came forward to tell her story. Unfortunately the Liberals decided to shut her down. She did not have the opportunity to explain why she felt the law that we want to bring forward would help protect women from violence.

I would like to ask this: What can we do to ensure that the Liberal government does not shut us down again?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, and honestly I do not know whether I have the exactly right answer, because the government has proven, since its beginning, that women will always be shut down. We have seen it over and over again. The Liberals do not care about women. They claim to care about women, but they are not doing the things they need to do to protect women or to listen to them, and Cait Alexander is a good example of that. She was shut down in committee. How horrifying that was for a woman who was left for dead by her ex-partner and wanted to speak about it. What do Liberals do? They say, “No, thank you, we don't want to hear your voice.” It is shameful.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

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?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have proof right here from citizens of my community who are tired of failed Liberal government policy. What is it that the government does not understand? Thirteen hundred people in my community are out on bail and ready to commit another crime.

We need to stop this to protect everyone.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I feel her community's pain. It has gone through very difficult times. However, I cannot help but think that the solution before us today is seen or interpreted as a silver bullet. It is as though agreeing to the “three strikes” law will solve everything. We also have to think about the fact that, after serving their sentence, the individual comes home, comes back to the neighbourhood, comes back to the community. They do not just go away, and that worries us.

I want to talk to my colleague about a very specific issue. I am very concerned about femicide, about women who are murdered by their spouse or a loved one. The Bloc Québécois has proposed that the Jordan ruling not apply in cases involving sex offences, kidnappings or sexually motivated murders. Does my colleague agree that we need better guidelines for the Jordan ruling?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, that was one of Cait Alexander's concerns when she came to committee. She made that exact point about the Jordan law. Her partner, who brutally left her for dead, got off because of the Jordan law, and it was not the first time.

We need to make sure that these cases are swiftly brought to the attention of the judges and that these criminals and these scum-buckets are left to stay and rot in jail.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that a lot of the time we think of these issues as big-city problems. In fact, even in the very small communities that I represent, I often get reports about this. Burnout is one thing I often hear about from the police officers who are dealing with this on a regular basis. Resources are getting eaten up on a regular basis. They are frustrated, they want to make a difference in their communities, and these policies are making them feel like they are on a hamster wheel.

I wonder if my colleague might be also hearing about these frustrations in the areas she represents.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, I recently did a ride-along with a police officer, and these are comments that police officers have shared with me: Criminals are laughing at us. They are not even resisting arrest. Why? It is because they know that weak laws created by a weak Liberal government are going to allow them to get out. Why would they care?

We need to ensure that police officers have the tools and the laws to protect the citizens of this country. That is not going to happen if they do not vote with us on this bail reform.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oxford, this member's seatmate, said, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” That is the kind of extreme statement we are hearing from Conservatives.

Does the member agree with her colleague?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are saying to me that they are going to go to bed with a loaded gun, in case someone comes in to hurt their family, like that criminal who pointed a gun at a four-year-old whose father paid the most courageous price by defending her with his life. I would like the member to look at this family and explain to them why he did not do the right thing.

The people in my community are ready to defend their families, and they will do it at any cost.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the member for London West gave a speech entirely focused on abstracts. On this side of the House, we are concerned with concrete occurrences. My wife and I have been totally under siege with terrible emotions concerning what happened in Welland, with the rape of a toddler. I tear up to think about it. Let us make things concrete.

Would the member agree with me that the fact that the accused in that case got out early and reoffended so swiftly brings the administration of justice in this country under disrepute? I honestly want to know how long she thinks such a person should have spent in jail.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

As I mentioned earlier, I sympathize with all victims across Canada. I would like to finish the thought I started earlier. Anytime a government has implemented a bill like the one proposed by the opposition today, the law was ineffective. Instead, there was a 10% to 12% increase in crime. I do not understand why the Conservatives want to propose legislation that does not benefit our communities. There are victims in every one of our communities, and we are here to represent them.