Debates of Sept. 18th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard quite a few speeches today. Many people have spoken on the subject. I would like to reiterate that we all agree on the fact that Canadians always have the right and obviously deserve to feel safe and secure when they are out and about regardless of their gender. That is very important.

We obviously agree with the opposition members that serious action must urgently be taken to address violent crime, whether or not it involves firearms. However, unfortunately, they are proposing a very rigid American-, cowboy-style “three strikes" law. That is not a solution, and I will explain why.

I will explain why because, when our colleague moved the motion, he did not provide any sort of explanation involving facts or evidence. There is nothing in his proposal about prevention. Mainly, what we are seeing are coercive measures. Where are the preventive measures that the Conservatives talked about in their platform? They are nowhere to be seen.

This type of law has been used by our neighbours to the south and found to be ineffective, obsolete. What are the Conservatives doing now? They are importing legislation that unfortunately did not work for our neighbours to the south. They are copying and pasting that legislation as is, without taking into consideration the data and the socio-economic context of our country, without taking into consideration any input that may come from stakeholders, including our police chiefs, organizations, lawyers, court services and so on.

Also, I hear my colleagues talking about rules that would take away judges' discretion, rules that have also proven ineffective. These measures are legally tenuous and more likely to produce unjust results. Rather than import these failed American policies that would increase the prison population without achieving the stated objective of making communities safer, we should instead opt for evidence-based reforms that target violent repeat offenders while respecting the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ensuring swift access to justice.

Instead of adopting overly simplistic ideas, what has our government done? There is a difference between common sense and oversimplification. The ideas we have heard today from the other side of the House have been very oversimplified. Instead, what we did as a government was to get all stakeholders involved in our decision-making and analysis in order to better understand the context.

We met with provincial and territorial officials, police chiefs, police associations, lawyers, defence attorneys and Crown prosecutors. All these stakeholders have their own experience, which is not necessarily consistent across Canada. On the contrary, the contexts vary from one place to another, from one province to another and from one region to another.

For this reason, our government will introduce legislation this fall to strengthen Canada's bail system by making it harder for repeat offenders to get bail, to increase sentences for the most serious and violent repeat offences, and to reduce court delays, which will be very helpful at ensuring that serious cases, including femicide cases, are dealt with more quickly and victims are not retraumatized by court delays and procedural delays.

These commitments are part of the Liberal public safety platform, which promised to combat gun violence and organized crime by strengthening the fight against smuggling at the border by equipping the police with investigative tools. We hope that the members opposite will agree with us on the more thoroughly analyzed and studied aspects. We need to make bail laws stricter to keep violent repeat offenders off the streets while upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We need to support victims of crime by improving services and ensuring that their voices are heard in the justice system. Finally, we need to invest in prevention and community safety while protecting Canadians from emerging threats, including human trafficking, cybercrime and criminal networks, which may or may not be organized, but which are growing increasingly sophisticated.

It should be noted that, although the federal government sets the rules for bail and sentencing, it is the provinces that oversee the prison system and pre-trial detention. That is why real solutions require close collaboration between the two levels of government. The provinces and territories also have tools at their disposal to toughen and enforce bail laws, and we encourage them to use them. Canadians deserve to be safe, not to be fed slogans. Today, we heard a whole slew of very simplistic slogans from the other side of the House. Community safety is not about slogans. It cannot be addressed with simplistic statements like the ones we unfortunately heard today. We must provide the sense of peace and security on the streets that Canadians deserve. Women deserve to walk safely at night. Our young people have the right to play safely in the streets. We are working closely with the provinces and territories on bail reform, and that is very important.

I also want to talk about community safety. We all deserve to feel safe in Canada. Unlike the members on the other side of the House, we are not playing this political game. We do not want to scare Canadians. Our country is not the wild west, so let us stop scaring Canadians. We need to work closely together. Yes, there is a problem, but trampling on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not the way to solve this kind of problem.

We oppose this motion because it is based on a false premise, a misrepresentation of Liberal reforms, and because it proposes a failed U.S.-style solution. The “three strikes and you're out” law is a rigid law that would undermine judicial independence, potentially result in unconstitutional outcomes and lead to costly over-incarceration without deterring people from committing crimes. Rather than adopting failed American policies, let us work together with all stakeholders, with the provinces, with the territories, with people who have experience, with evidence. That is what we need to do.

Our government was elected by Canadians on a platform aimed at improving public safety, building trust in the justice system and ensuring that violent offenders face real consequences. As I said earlier, we are working in partnership with the territories, provinces, law enforcement and communities across the country to achieve that. The Conservative motion may make a good bumper sticker, but Canadians deserve policies that make their streets safer.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Bourassa on his speech and on his election. I am not going to congratulate him again on the quality of his French, because we know that he is francophone. I also want to acknowledge his predecessor.

The riding of Bourassa is one of the most vulnerable areas in Canada when it comes to safety, particularly in Quebec and in Montreal. The member is well aware of that. I am very disappointed to hear him say that the Conservatives are just spouting slogans, that we are fearmongering, that our premise is wrong and that we are cutting corners. What I am about to say is not a false premise, nor is it meant to scare people. It is not a slogan. It is a fact. Over the past 10 years, under the Liberal Party's watch, violent crime in Canada has increased by 55%. Gun crime is up 130% and extortion has skyrocketed by 330%.

Is the member proud of Canada's record after 10 years of Liberal governance?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not a record to be proud of. Once again, and this is very important, let us not focus on lagging indicators. We agree on these points.

However, when it comes to contributing factors, at no point did I hear anyone on the other side of the House talk about determinants of health, determinants of housing or social determinants. These are the determinants that create vulnerability. We cannot forget that, over the past 10 years, we have faced challenges related to COVID-19. We have faced challenges that really weakened our social fabric and led to rising crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned several times that our justice system wantonly releases people who commit crime. I just want to come back to subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

A person accused of murder is held in custody, naturally. The Criminal Code states that a person can continue to be detained “where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public” and if there is any “substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence”. That is when the defendant has not yet been found guilty.

However, people have also criticized conditional sentences, namely house arrest, that are handed down after someone has been found guilty. Again, a conditional sentence is only possible when the court is convinced that the measure does not jeopardize community safety.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on these sections of the Criminal Code.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, I disagree with the Conservatives' comments and their proposal, which would remove judicial discretion. I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague on this point because it is very important.

He expressed it quite well earlier today. Removing this discretionary power from judges really infringes on their power. When the Crown and Crown attorneys look at the history of the criminal or the person who committed the assault, they are obviously going to share that information so that the judge has real insight into the situation.

I fully agree with having this discretionary power in our judicial system.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from my colleague about the measures he would take to address the factors that lead to situations of violence.

What does he suggest the government do about that?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really like that question.

We really need to do more work on prevention. There are more indicators and warning signs that we need to work on as a government and as a society. Here are two examples.

Consider youth crime. Young people need more sports infrastructure, more community centres and more access to arts and culture, which is not the case across the country. That is very important.

Another very important thing to consider is femicide. I heard someone mention that earlier and I really want to talk about that today. It is very important to give the victim of violence in a couple or intimate relationship the opportunity to leave the home quickly, to have taxi chits, to have access to a storage facility for their belongings and to have access to a shelter. These are very important things that we need to work on to improve prevention. When two people are in a intimate relationship where there is violence, unfortunately, it can only end in femicide. On that point, I completely agree that we need to do much more in terms of prevention—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member's time is up.

Resuming debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Today, I am here to rise in the House and speak to the motion introduced by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

We all know that protecting the safety and security of Canadians in our communities and upholding the rights of victims remain top priorities for our government. The Correctional Service of Canada works to keep Canadians safe and support and assist federal offenders in their journey to becoming law-abiding citizens by promoting rehabilitation and safe reintegration. Research has found that their programs and services work to reduce the rates of recidivism. I want to acknowledge the tremendous work of correctional staff, who assist offenders by identifying problematic behaviours and attitudes and by targeting risk factors related to their criminal behaviour.

One way CSC works to reduce recidivism is through the provision of correctional programs for offenders under its care. CSC's correctional programs are empirically based interventions grounded in structured behavioural, social learning and cognitive approaches. Offenders are referred to correctional programs at an intensity matched to their level of risk. Research demonstrates that this enhances program effectiveness.

CSC offers a broad range of correctional programs to offenders in institutions and in the community, addressing multiple types of criminal offending in a comprehensive and integrated manner. All correctional programs are delivered by qualified, trained and certified correctional program officers and indigenous correctional program officers, and the service applies ongoing measures of quality control to ensure that correctional programs are delivered as designed.

To be fully effective, CSC provides correctional follow-up services to offenders who complete institutional correctional programs as part of a consistent continuum of care throughout the correctional process. This aftercare often includes participation in institutional and/or community maintenance programs. When looking at all correctional program streams combined, men who completed the programming had lower rates of any revocation during their first release than eligible non-participants, at 23% versus 41%.

Further to correctional programs, I would also like to discuss another one of CSC's notable programs that effectively supports offender reintegration, which is CORCAN. This program works to successfully contribute to a safe environment, both in our federal institutions and in the community. One way that our government is working to enhance public safety is by providing offenders with employment and employability interventions and services, including on-the-job and vocational training. This allows them to gain experience and the skills they need to become productive, law-abiding citizens and skilled workers when they return to community.

We have seen several research documents, dating back to 2014, that have noted a connection between employment and positive reintegration results. Offenders who are employed in the community were almost three times less likely to have their release revoked for a new offence than those who were not employed. To further these successes, vocational certifications, essential skills training and employability-related training are all available at all federal institutions, in addition to CORCAN-operated on-the-job training sites, which are at 36 federal correctional institutions across the country and seven community-based operations.

Furthermore, the service provides apprenticeship opportunities to offenders through on-the-job training assignments in all institutions, as well as during transitional employment in community industries. Such training results in both technical and transferable skills that are needed in the Canadian labour market; the goal of training is to provide offenders with knowledge and skills that are transferable to many community workplaces.

It is really important to remember that when it comes to criminal justice policies, we will continue to be guided by evidence. Research shows that our communities are best protected when, rather than being released at the end of their sentence with no controls or supports, an offender is gradually reintegrated into society through supervised release. I will highlight some statistics to demonstrate this success.

In terms of parole, since 2015 and 2016, 99% of day parole supervision periods for violent offenders have not ended in a return to custody for new offending. The rate for violent offenders returning to federal custody for new violent offending has not surpassed 0.5% over this time frame.

To promote safer communities, CSC strives to gradually release and safely reintegrate federal offenders through structured community supervision, and it works with criminal justice partners to ensure that this goal is met. CSC has improved safety and security by enhancing its intelligence capabilities and capacity through dedicated officers who participate in release planning and consult with staff on supervision strategies for offenders in relation to risk assessments.

To ensure better protection of the public, parole officers work with and share information with police agencies to assist in enhancing each offender's ability to reintegrate into the community as a law-abiding citizen, while ensuring public safety. If the risk an offender poses is assessed to be too high, necessary actions will be taken in a timely manner to address problems that could lead to potential harm to community members. This approach includes intervening and supervising offenders effectively so they are less likely to violently reoffend, as well as exploring options to enhance supervision and community partnerships.

One last area of the criminal justice system I would like to reflect on is victims and the government's commitment to upholding their rights to information, protection, participation and restitution. CSC, as well as the Parole Board of Canada, is committed to ensuring that victims of federal offenders have an effective voice in Canada's criminal justice system. CSC has a national victim services program to provide services to victims and survivors of crime, which centres on an exchange of information intended to assist victims in two important ways.

First, it gives victims a voice at a time when their well-being and dignity may have been undermined. This can help them regain a sense of control over their life and restore their confidence in the justice system and in society as a whole.

Second, the information victims receive may assist them in pursuing their life in the aftermath of the tragic circumstances they have experienced. The program has adopted a victim-centred, trauma-informed approach as the basis for its interactions with victims and survivors of crime. This demonstrates CSC's commitment to acknowledging the harm done to victims of crime, validating their concerns and providing them with the information they need to uphold their right to protection.

CSC encourages victims to provide a victim statement related to the continued impact the crime, incarceration and release of the offender have had on their life. These statements can include relevant information about the offender, along with any safety concerns the victim may have, requests for conditions and the location of the offender. This is the principal way victims exercise their right to participation within the corrections and conditional release process. It is important that we support them.

CSC presently has over 9,000 victims who are registered to receive information about the offender who harmed them, as well as tens of thousands of contacts with victims. To ensure that all victims have access to the information they are entitled to receive, CSC continues to raise awareness about its program.

To further reach additional victims who may want to receive information from CSC, Bill S-12, which was passed into law, will require courts to inquire whether a victim wishes to receive information about an offender and their progression throughout the course of the sentence. Courts will also forward the name and contact information to CSC for any victim who wishes to receive such information. Once the provision comes into force, CSC will begin proactively contacting these additional victims to explain their rights and offer services that may be helpful to them. To prepare for this change, CSC is currently working with all provinces and territories to establish information-sharing arrangements.

I am thankful for the opportunity to share the great work of CSC with everyone here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing about the corrections programs.

Actually, our colleague from New Brunswick brought forward the Reduction of Recidivism Framework Act, Bill C-228, which was passed in the House. This is an important concept, and we of course value these individuals and the opportunities they need to change their life.

However, what we are dealing with and hearing about in the House, something that has been going on and on and growing and growing, are the issues around individuals who are being released back into society and who do not have those things. It is on an almost daily or weekly basis that they are returning, so there does need to be some form of ability to keep them off the streets.

Does the member know and understand that minimum sentences were actually legislated in the House by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and complemented by Stephen Harper, and the number of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give the parliamentary secretary a chance to respond.

The parliamentary secretary for housing and infrastructure.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for caring about community safety. I think everyone in this House stands united in caring about safety and ensuring the communities we serve are safe.

Our government does take this issue very seriously. I signed up to run because it was a commitment of this government to address bail reform and strengthen our borders. Right now before us, we have Bill C-2, which is giving law enforcement the tools it has been asking for.

Our government has already made an initial investment of 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional border services agents. In addition, we will be bringing forward comprehensive legislation on bail reform that I am very much looking forward to and that I am sure Canadians are very much looking forward to. Importantly, it has been—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to go back to questions and comments.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about changing conditional sentences or house arrest. Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code states:

If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community...if

(a) the court is satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent [with the principles of sentencing];

(b) [there is no] minimum term of imprisonment;

(c) the offence is not an offence under any of the following provisions: [for example, attempt to commit murder, torture, advocating genocide or a terrorism offence].

What does my colleague want to change in this clause?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the hon. member and give the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure a chance to answer the question.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, importantly, our public safety minister has been consulting from coast to coast to coast over the summer, talking to police chiefs, talking to victims, talking to everybody who is involved in the justice system. He will be bringing forward comprehensive legislation this fall to strengthen Canada's bail system, increase sentences for the most serious repeat violent crimes and address court delays so that serious cases can proceed quickly and victims will not be retraumatized by procedural backlogs. We will be introducing this bill based on evidence, consultation and important reforms that will keep our community safe. Additionally, there is an option for people in the House to support public safety right now. That is Bill C-2, which is before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member for Oxford stated, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” That sort of rhetoric, which we hear from members of the Conservative Party, is, I believe, very damaging. We have a Prime Minister who has recognized the need for bail reform and has made a commitment to delivering bail reform this fall. I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts on the importance of that commitment.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very dangerous to use words like that. This is a country to which we want to attract people as tourists. We want our communities to know that they have amazing correctional service officers and amazing police officers who are out there keeping them safe.

When we say things like that, it really negates the great work being done by all those great people, the public servants who keep us safe.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I often rise in this House to speak about crime in my community: street disorder, property theft and the ever-present threat of fires from discarded drug pipes. However, today I rise to address something very different: the crimes of repeat violent offenders. These are not the petty offences of someone down on their luck or struggling with addiction. These are acts of violence committed again and again by people with no moral compass, the predators who prey on the vulnerable, who exploit women and girls and who torment and kill to satisfy their own dark impulses.

We know some of the more famous names and the more famous crimes. These are people like Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton and Clifford Olson, predators who sexually assault children, who traffic and exploit women and who murder indigenous girls simply because they believe they can. These are the offenders who revel in cruelty. They exploit every stage of the justice system to amplify their notoriety.

Perhaps most disturbingly, they exploit the parole process itself. Every few years, when their eligibility comes up, the families of victims are forced to relive the worst moments in their lives. They prepare impact statements. They gather letters of support. They steel themselves to face the person who shattered their world. They travel long distances at their own expense, often missing work or school. They sit in rooms where the memories are almost unbearable, listening to gruesome details that reopen wounds they have struggled for years to heal.

These families describe the weeks leading up to a parole hearing as a living nightmare. They do not sleep. They worry constantly about what the offender might say. They brace themselves for the possibility of release, however remote, or for the performance of false remorse that so many violent offenders are skilled at delivering. When the hearing is over, they know the clock immediately starts up again for the next application. The cycle of trauma and retraumatization is relentless and cruel.

Let us consider Daniel Senecal. He sexually assaulted a 12-year-old boy, was sentenced to just two and a half years in jail and was released after 18 months. He is now alleged to have broken into a home and sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl named Eve while her parents slept. She was asleep in her own bed, where she should have been safe. Cases like this demand action because they show the devastating consequences of a system that gives chance after chance to people who have already demonstrated violent intent.

That is why I speak today in support of our Conservative motion calling on the Liberal government to institute a “three strikes and you're out” law for serious violent crimes. The proposal is clear and direct. If someone commits three serious violent crimes, crimes like murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery or sexual assault, they should forfeit the privilege of bail, probation, parole and house arrest and serve a minimum sentence of 10 years.

Why three strikes? It is because Canadians believe in redemption. Everyone deserves a chance to turn their life around, and that is why rehabilitation and diversion programs exist. Some people want to change, and our justice system rightly tries to leave space for that no matter how difficult it can be, but when someone repeatedly chooses violence despite every opportunity to change, the calculation should shift.

After a first, second and third conviction for serious violent offences, the government's primary duty should no longer be to offer another chance. It should be to protect the public. This is not about vengeance or filling prisons. It is about balance and the gravity of these crimes. Our democratic principles rightly demand restraint before we take away liberty, but when a pattern of serious violence is established, when the record shows a person is unwilling to stop, society must act.

A balanced Conservative approach rests on three truths. First, compassion matters. We must continue to invest in rehabilitation and social services that address the roots of crime. No one is suggesting that prevention and rehabilitation be abandoned with this motion. However, we must also have compassion for victims and their families. We cannot eliminate the trauma of having to provide victim impact statements and prepare for parole hearings entirely, but we can space them out in circumstances like these, to take steps to mitigate it.

Second, consequences matter. When individuals repeatedly choose violence, society has a right to extrapolate and take action to protect our society. The victims of violent crimes and their families have rights too, rights to safety, dignity and freedom from repeated trauma.

Third, community matters. Public safety is the foundation on which opportunity and prosperity are built. When people are afraid to walk to work, when parents are anxious every time their children leave the house and when seniors feel unsafe in their own homes, the very fabric of our community starts to unravel.

People in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith know this instinctively. Whether a young renter in downtown Nanaimo, a parent in Ladysmith or a senior in the south end, we all want a justice system that offers hope to those who can be helped and firm boundaries for those who will not change.

Protecting citizens from repeat violent offenders should not be a partisan issue. It is a core responsibility of the federal government to keep us safe. However, this government has weakened bail conditions, expanded house arrest and ignored warnings from police chiefs, premiers and mayors across the country.

We can respect the charter while protecting the public. We can uphold fairness and mercy while ensuring that repeat violent offenders face real consequences. These goals need not be in conflict. As a Conservative and as a Canadian, I believe in fairness, in the rule of law and in the possibility of rehabilitation, but I also believe in responsibility and in the right of every parent to feel safe with their children sleeping in a room downstairs and letting them walk to school.

Police officers and first responders, people who dedicate their lives to keeping us safe, tell me they are demoralized by our current system. The revolving door of justice does not distinguish adequately between minor offences and the kinds of violent, predatory crimes I speak of today. The current situation is not merely frustrating; it puts the public at risk and erodes faith in the rule of law.

We act not out of contempt for criminals but out of compassion for victims. The measure we propose through this motion is a carefully targeted tool for the most serious cases. It is a balanced proposal that seeks to spare families some of the pain of repeated parole hearings and the constant fear of an offender's next application, by lessening the frequency of those events without eliminating the offender's right to have them. It supports law enforcement and reaffirms the fundamental principle that the safety of Canadians must come first.

This motion calls for those convicted of three serious violent offences to be denied bail, probation, parole and house arrest and to remain in prison for at least 10 years. It will help restore public confidence in our justice system, give families of victims a genuine respite and chance to heal, and deny repeat violent offenders parts of the platform they crave to sensationalize their crimes.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to support this motion. Let us act together to protect Canadians, to stand with victims and their families and to ensure that those who repeatedly choose violence can no longer terrorize our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to the conclusion of the debate, let us be very clear that whether it is the Prime Minister of Canada or the Liberal members of Parliament, Canadians can be assured that we have been listening to what they have said. It comes out of the last federal election.

There has been a solid commitment from our Prime Minister to ensure that we have bail reform legislation well before the end of the year. That is important to Canadians. It is important to the many different stakeholders. We hope only that the Conservative Party of Canada will respond positively by allowing us to take it to the next step. That is going to be critically important for the safety of Canadians.

I wonder if the member can comment on that aspect and condemn her colleague, the member for Oxford, who stated, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” That is absolutely ridiculous, and I am sure she would agree.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the hon. member across is enthusiastic about the legislation that will be coming forward later this fall. I would love to see it, and if the legislation contains the kinds of provisions that we are calling for and would make Canadians safer, then I would be delighted to support it. In the meantime, I would ask him, as a show of good faith, to support our motion so that we can move forward together.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently in Barrie, there was a Barrie police officer, Constable Jim Peters, who was stabbed while on duty. He was stabbed by an accused individual who had been arrested and released 17 times two years prior to that incident and had had over 100 interactions with Barrie Police Service. This type of rampant crime and chaos must end.

What would this motion today do to help officers like this?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always so sad and distressed when I hear of a police officer being harmed while on duty.

What is really important about this motion is that when violent repeat offenders are released on bail and are present in the community, it provides an additional form of retraumatization for our officers and our first responders, who know who these people are, and who end up being retraumatized by their presence in the community. It is a situation that hurts us all, and I hope that the members opposite are listening and will support the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, everyone here is against crime. I have personally known a number of victims of crime and I am well aware of the unfortunate consequences that can arise, which can be tragic, sometimes even fatal.

However, when my colleague mentions that community-based sentences need to be changed, I would like her to tell us what she thinks is wrong with section 742, since community-based sentences are only available to people sentenced to less than two years and when community safety would not be endangered.

What is wrong with section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, as written?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think what is important to remember is that we are talking here about serious, violent, repeat offenders. The motion is not targeted toward people who are serving short sentences in the community.