Bill C-75 (Historical)

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

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

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

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

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime that has threatened the safety and well-being of families across our region. A recent report by the Manitoba RCMP West District found that, over an 18-month period, just one offender in Swan River was responsible for 107 offences. This is in a community of 4,000 people.

The petitioners are continuing to suffer the consequences of soft-on-crime Liberal policies such as Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory jail time for serious crimes, and Bill C-75, which forces judges to release repeat violent offenders right back onto the streets.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to rise in this chamber not long ago and ask the Minister of Public Safety about the scourge of crime on streets in my own community back home and across the country. So much of this problem of rampant criminality is a direct consequence of Liberal government catch-and-release bail policies. These policies put repeat, often violent, offenders back on the streets, sometimes hours after they were arrested and charged and then released.

Police officers have been incredibly frustrated by this. We have been calling for action, as have provinces, municipalities, police agencies, victims' rights groups and businesses. Everyone has been calling for the government to act. The government has continued to allude to some sort of bail reform the members say is coming, but they have been shockingly scant on any of the details of what that bail reform will entail and, more importantly, whether it will involve repealing the principle of restraint. That is the section of the Criminal Code the Liberal bail law, Bill C-75, put in place compelling judges to release offenders under the least onerous conditions and at the earliest possible opportunity.

For all the systematic issues that we have been flagging as a party, that Canadians have been flagging, such as violent offenders being released and people being arrested for serious offences while out on bail, the case has been made. We can draw a direct line between this and the principle of restraint in Bill C-75. This is important because I asked the Minister of Public Safety about it, using an example from St. Thomas, Ontario, of a repeat offender, a homeless man, who was released on bail with the condition that he be home by 10 p.m., despite not having a home. This is an impossible bail condition that the police have no ability to enforce.

That matters because the public safety minister's representative, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, had the audacity to say that the government is “tough on crime”. She said that with a straight face, that the government is tough on crime, the government that has been the only stakeholder in the country not to acknowledge the bail crisis. When we have NDP leaders, Conservative leaders, provincial Liberal leaders who have broken ranks with their feckless, easy-on-crime and easy-on-criminals, hug-a-thug federal counterparts across the aisle here, they have all been in agreement that this is not a tough-on-crime government. This is instead a government that is tough on victims, a government that puts the rights of offenders above the rights of victims.

We get a strong sense of what the government has prioritized, despite claiming some bail legislation is coming at some point, maybe after the budget. Who knows? This is a government that has found it high enough on its agenda to propose a ban on large cash transactions. It has decided that banning people from buying a used car worth more than $10,000 is more important than bail reform. It has decided that confiscating firearms from law-abiding gun owners is more important than bail. It has announced it is going full steam ahead on that despite the public safety minister, not knowing he was being recorded, actually defending our arguments about this program's uselessness.

My question for the government is, how dare it claim to be tough on crime when it has been ignoring the pleas from virtually everyone else in the country to get serious about bail reform, to do it urgently, to do it imminently and, once and for all, to put the rights of victims first?

Combatting Hate Crime

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in a country where everyone can speak freely, worship freely and live without fear. I believe that all hon. members of the House agree that no one should face threats because of their race, their faith or who they love, yet today, Canadians are confronting an alarming reality. The police tell us that hate crimes have risen sharply since the Liberals came to power, up 258% nationwide since 2015. Within that increase, anti-Semitic hate crimes have jumped 416%, and hate crimes against South Asians are up 377%. Last year alone, police reported a staggering 4,882 hate crimes across Canada, and the number of police-reported hate crimes have increased for six years in a row.

These numbers are real and are deeply troubling. I agree with the minister that the government must act, but we must separate the goal from the method. Legislating against hate is welcome if it minimally impairs free speech and actually makes our communities safer. However, legislation without enforcement is like a lock without a key. It has potential to be useful, but it is far from effective.

I share the minister's concern for the deterioration of civil discourse in our society and for the victims of hate-motivated crime. The Criminal Code already makes it illegal to utter threats, incite violence or harass someone because of who they are. It contains offences related to mischief, to blocking infrastructure and to property damage. These provisions are clear, court-tested and strong. The problem is that police are too often instructed to just keep the peace instead of enforcing the law. When hate crimes are poorly enforced, victims and witnesses often feel like reporting these incidents is futile.

If authorities fail to investigate thoroughly, prosecute offenders or take clear action, people lose faith in the system. This lack of accountability leaves victims feeling isolated, unsafe and skeptical that their experiences will be taken seriously. Over time, communities become less willing to come forward, allowing bias-motivated behaviour to persist unchecked. Weak enforcement therefore not only undermines justice for individual victims but erodes public confidence in the rule of law.

When offenders avoid meaningful consequences, they are emboldened to push boundaries, disrupt the peace and exploit loopholes, and that is what I fear will happen with this legislation. For example, this legislation refers to places of worship but makes no mention of the predominantly ethnic neighbourhoods, hospitals and other settings that have also been settings for protests. They hold significant risk of leading to violence with hateful things being said. There is a significant risk that with this bill, protesting mobs would simply move back into residential neighbourhoods, where they invite escalation and confrontation and instill real fear in families, seniors and children.

Our justice system remains a revolving door thanks to Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Charges are dropped or pleaded down, trials are delayed and sentences are inconsistent. This bill would do nothing to change that. While the government keeps promising that reform to bail and sentencing is coming, we have yet to see it in this House. People deserve to feel safe in their homes, and they will not without enforcement of the laws currently on the books. New offences are only meaningful if they are clear, enforceable and consistently applied. This bill needs work to pass that test.

While the government claims that the definition of hatred in this legislation simply codifies the language from case law, in fact the definition as articulated sets a materially lower standard. Hatred is defined in the bill as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. That is a confusing mouthful.

The minister himself has admitted that the application of this law will be fact-dependent. That means that both law enforcement and ordinary Canadians will have to do some guessing in the moment as to what might be interpreted as a crime. Detestation and vilification are crimes, but disdain and dislike are a part of free speech. One thing I think all of us in the House know is that one person's disdain is another person's detestation, and one person's dislike certainly feels like vilification to others.

In the case law, the standard was higher, requiring the emotion of hatred to be intense and extreme in nature, the extreme manifestation of the sentiment of hate, and far beyond dislike, disdain and simple offensiveness. I fear that the bill, as drafted, will become more fodder for accusations on social media, vexatious complaints to police and aggression between groups.

History warns us about where lowering the standard for hate speech can lead. Laws meant to stop hatred have been turned against political dissenters and minority voices. We should not give the state broader powers to police thought or symbolism without first trying to make our existing tools against hatred more effective.

Like all hon. members in the House, I reject hate in all its forms. Every Canadian deserves to feel safe at home, in their place of worship and on the street, but safety will not come solely from criminalizing symbols or speech. Safety comes from making sure that when someone assaults another person, threatens a synagogue or vandalizes a mosque, the police investigate and make arrests and the court holds a fair trial and enforces the sentence.

The bill removes the Attorney General's oversight before a hate propaganda charge proceeds. That step has provided an important safeguard against politicization and misuse, especially in the case of private prosecutions. Eliminating it without providing another way to prevent vexatious prosecutions leaves the door wide open to the weaponization of this bill.

Right now, our biggest problem is that enforcement is not consistent. Bail is virtually automatic, and charges are often dropped. Serious charges are plead down. That is where Parliament's attention should be: on stronger enforcement, on swifter prosecutions and on support for victims. Unamended, this bill risks punishing the unpopular while the truly dangerous slip through. While I agree wholeheartedly that rising hate crimes demand action, this bill feels more like a Liberal press release than it does like real protection.

Conservatives believe in limited government, in the rule of law and in freedom of expression, even for speech we find offensive. We believe that what is illegal must be clear and tied to real harm, not to subjective feelings of detestation or vilification, however painful they may be to hear. The right response to hateful ideas is not more censorship. It is more debate, more truth and more courage from citizens willing to challenge hate in the open.

If the government wants to protect Canadians, it should start by enforcing the strong laws we already have. Make sure threats, assaults and property crimes motivated by hate are investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the Criminal Code. Give police the resources they need. Support victims, but do not lightly hand the state new powers to decide which ideas may be expressed.

Public Safety

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Vaughan—Woodbridge to present a petition brought forward by @notonjoeswatch and other members of our community with regard to crime. Like many places in this country, Vaughan has experienced heightened levels of crime. In the York Region, violent crime is up 58%, home invasions are up 82% and carjackings are up 300%.

The petitioners are calling for the Liberal government to immediately repeal Bill C-5, which revoked mandatory minimum penalties for some serious offences, and Bill C-75, which forces judges to apply the principle of restraint for early release on serious offences. Petitioners also call for the introduction of mandatory minimum penalties and a serious offence category.

I support the petitioners. It is time that we get serious on crime. We must do something about the chaos in our streets.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

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

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime that has threatened the safety and well-being of families across our region. A recent report by the Manitoba RCMP West District found that, in an 18-month period, just four offenders in Swan River were responsible for 239 offences. Petitioners continue to suffer the consequences of the soft-on-crime Liberal policies, such as Bill C-5, which repealed the mandatory jail time for serious crimes; and Bill C-75, which forces judges to release repeat violent offenders right back onto the streets.

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

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join this debate on the opposition motion put forward today. However, before I do that, as it is one of the first times I have been on my feet after the last election, I would like to thank a few people for once again allowing me to be here as the voice of the good people of Regina—Lewvan.

It is my third term, so 2019, 2021 and 2025. It has been an honour to be here for almost six years. Obviously, none of us get to this place without a lot of help, and I had a great campaign manager, Shelley, who did an awesome job. We had a team out every day knocking on doors: Khrishno, Brian and Anshumaan. We had a great group of people who helped, such as Ron. I could go on and on, but if I miss someone I will feel bad. There was a core group that came out a lot and helped us knock on 43,000 doors throughout the campaign to earn the vote of people from across Regina—Lewvan.

That being said, there is a core group of people I would not be here without, and they are my wife Larissa and our three kids, Jameson, Claire and Nickson, who started school last week. Dad got to be there for their first day of school, and it was fantastic. They are having a great time in school. I hope they are almost out of school by now. If I am not mistaken, they are heading to the hockey rink right away. From the bottom of my heart, I thank Larissa very much for being the glue that holds our family together.

The motion before us today was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I think we have gone back and forth on a few things, so I will read it to make sure we know what we are debating on the floor of the House today. It says:

That, given that the Liberal government has changed the law to allow for house arrest for serious offenders and lets repeat criminals go free within hours of their arrest, which has resulted in a 50% increase in violent crime, the House call on the Liberal government to replace these changes with a "Three-Strikes-And-You're-Out" law that will stop criminals convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest and keep violent criminals in jail for at least 10 years.

How did we get here? Why is a law like this being brought forward by the opposition? We have a solution, and I will go through three or four things that this motion and our proposed law would change. However, we have to know what the problem is. Over the last 10 years, the problem has been a couple of bills that have been put forward, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, and we can see the results.

This is not a new government. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years, as everyone knows, and I think they should be judged by the lack of progress they are making on certain files.

These numbers are from StatsCan; I am not making them up. Since 2015, gun crime has skyrocketed 130%. Instead of targeting the criminals responsible, the government doubled down on law-abiding firearm owners. The number of homicides has increased by 29%, and sexual assault has increased by almost 76% in this country. Despite the rapid rise, we have seen a refusal of the government to commit to making it tougher for people to get out on bail. We hear this from police associations across the country. There are people who get arrested hundreds of times. We have heard the numbers. People may say that our proposed law may not be the solution for everything, but it is going to help. If the people who continuously commit crimes are in jail, there is going to be less crime.

For example, in Kelowna, 15 people committed 1,300 crimes. If those people were in jail, there would be 1,300 fewer crimes committed in that city. In Vancouver, as we have heard time and again, 40 people committed 6,000 crimes. I think everyone in this room could agree that if those 40 people were in jail, there would be less crime in Vancouver. I do not think it is a big leap to think that if criminals are in jail, they are not able to commit crimes.

Here are some of the solutions that we have brought forward and some of the things that this proposed law would do. The Conservative bill would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint with a directive for primary considerations to be the protection and safety of the public. It would introduce a new major offence category with reverse onus bail conditions for charges relating to firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. It would strengthen bail laws by mandating judges to consider the full criminal history of an accused, would prevent anyone convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years while also on bail and charged with a major offence from getting bail, and would toughen the risk assessment standards from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonably foreseeable”. It would also prohibit anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as the guarantor who ensures bail conditions are followed, would require judges to enforce bail conditions on guarantors and would require non-residents to surrender their passports upon request.

Before I go on, I want to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time.

These are four things that the “three strikes and you're out” law would help with, which I would think most people would see as reasonable improvements to the bail system.

I do want to talk about a few of the comments that some of my colleagues made in the House today. If people across Canada have been watching, they would see a distinct difference between what Conservatives have been talking about and what the Liberals, and especially the New Democrats, have been talking about. We have been talking about the victims and the rights that victims should have, and ensuring that victims are taken care of. A lot of focus, especially from the NDP member, was on criminals. Forgive me, but I will always make sure victims' rights are ahead of criminals' rights.

Can members imagine someone getting out on bail again and again and committing crimes? Especially when these people is out on bail, can the Liberals not feel for the victims, who have to see them in their neighbourhoods, in their community? This is from experience. When someone we love has been hurt, and the offender is within our community, every time we see a car like theirs, the hair on the back of our neck stands up. Every time we see them in a grocery store, our pulse quickens and our palms get sweaty. We just feel at a loss because this person is walking free, and the person we love who was hurt will never again feel the same.

This is what we are doing to Canadians across the country with the soft-on-bail policy brought in by the Liberal government. The fact that they will not vote for a motion and will be obstructing our ideas to ensure Canadians are safer, quite frankly, confuses me. We are trying to work together. Everyone is talking about Parliament now coming together and working. I heard one of my Liberal colleagues say, “It increased crime by 11% in the States. It did not work in the States, so it will not work here.” An increase in crime in Canada by 11% is a lot better than the 130% increase over the last 10 years under the government.

It really is the definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over again, as the Liberal government does, and expect different results. Members of the police force even get tired of arresting the same person. They do not even know why they charge them because they get out the very next day or that night. I could not even imagine being on the front lines as a police officer and seeing the same person go into jail, get out of jail, go into jail and get out of jail. It must be tough for the police officers to go to work, knowing that the person from whom they are trying to protect the community will laugh at them when they arrest them because they know they are going to get out because bail is so easy to get in this country. It is time to make the right decisions.

I will just end with another story from the small town I am from. This summer, there was a bust and a sting, and a person was found having a lot of child pornography in our small community. He went to court, and he was out that afternoon. This person lives two blocks from my kids' school. They picked the rental house because it has a little library full of kids' books, just to make sure the kids would stop by and take books out. He was released that day from court. He had child pornography, and my kids had to walk past that guy's house to go to school. It was unbelievable for the town. Parents were outraged, as they should be. How can that happen in Canada, that someone like that is allowed to be released the same day and be within two blocks of our kids' school?

That is something that needs to be fixed in our country. I hope some of my colleagues listen to the words I am saying, look at this motion, look at the “three strikes and you're out” bill to try to protect Canadians and put victims first by putting criminals in jail.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating that I am will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville

I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the motion moved by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot about bail. This is an important opportunity to reaffirm our government's commitment to public safety and the integrity of our criminal justice system while ensuring that our bail laws strike the right balance between protecting our communities and respecting the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bail is the legal mechanism by which individuals charged with a criminal offence can be released pending trial. It is a fundamental part of our justice system that reflects the importance of the presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied reasonable bail without valid grounds, as provided for in section 11(e) of the Charter.

Canadian bail laws aim to ensure that accused persons appear in court when required, that public safety is protected, and that confidence in the administration of justice is upheld. These principles, known as primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, guide judicial decisions relating to the detention or release of an accused person.

Bail is therefore not just a legal concept. It reflects our democratic values here in Canada. It ensures that people are not unnecessarily detained before their trial, while providing courts with the tools they need to manage any risks to the public. When there are concerns that an accused person may reoffend or pose a threat to victims or the public, courts can impose strict conditions or deny bail.

At the same time, our bail system must take into account the reality of marginalized communities, such as indigenous peoples and vulnerable and under-represented populations, in pre-trial detention. That is why our laws require police and the courts to consider the unique circumstances of these individuals when making bail decisions.

The government has taken practical measures to modernize and improve the bail system. In 2019, Parliament passed former Bill C‑75, which introduced the most significant bail reforms in decades. Thanks to these reforms, the circumstances of indigenous accused and accused from vulnerable populations are taken into account by the courts when assessing risk. These reforms also strengthened protection for victims of domestic violence by adding additional reverse onus provisions in such situations.

Recent reforms introduced by former Bill C‑48, which received royal assent in December 2023, strengthened Canada's bail system by expanding the use of reverse onus provisions and requiring the accused to demonstrate why they should be free. These changes mainly target violent repeat offenders, particularly those who have been charged with offences involving firearms, knives, bear spray or other weapons.

Bill C‑48 also expanded the reverse onus provisions to cases of domestic violence and required the courts to specifically consider the accused's history of violence and the safety of the community when making decisions regarding bail.

Our government developed these reforms in close collaboration with the provinces, territories and law enforcement agencies. More recently, in response to concerns regarding violent recidivism, the government worked closely with the provinces and territories to look at other possible improvements. Our government is committed to ensuring that our bail laws work as intended across Canada and that they effectively respond to new challenges. Public safety remains our government's top priority.

We have just spent a couple of days talking about safety. This fall, we will be introducing a bill that will continue to address these issues. The Criminal Code already contains robust provisions for certain serious offences, including those involving firearms or organized crime. Reverse onus provisions apply, requiring each accused to show why they should be free.

Courts can also impose conditions to protect victims and the public. The government also recognizes that detention cannot guarantee public safety. That is why our government is investing in community justice centres, drug treatment courts and other initiatives that tackle the root causes of crime, such as mental health and substance use. These integrated approaches promote rehabilitation, reduce recidivism and improve community well-being.

People in Canada want a fair, effective and reliable justice system. They want to know that dangerous individuals will be properly dealt with and that our laws reflect the crime happening in our communities. Canadians also want a system that respects the Charter. That is exactly what the government is doing by strengthening legal tools, supporting law enforcement and investing in prevention as well as bail system reforms that will protect everyone in Canada while upholding our democratic values.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, but I heard her say several times that, sadly, gun violence and the rise in crime are really a result of Bill C‑75.

Is her assessment based on any studies, or is it as simplistic as what we heard from her colleague earlier? Is she aware of any analyses that might show that these types of issues could also be related to other social or health-related determinants, mental health or access to housing?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair again; welcome back.

Communities across York Region are facing a surge in violent crime, leaving my constituents terrified for their safety. The crime statistics in York Region are staggering and are an example of the trend that has occurred throughout all of Canada. Here are the stats from a York Region police report. From 2020 to 2024, failures to appear in court were up 182%. Bail violations and breaches were up 30%. Home invasions increased 82%. Residential break-and-enters were up 50%. Carjackings soared a staggering 305%. Theft of motor vehicles rose 127%. Overall, crime in York Region is up 58%.

These numbers are more than statistics. I rise on today's “three strikes and you're out” law after my community has recently been devastated by the Liberals' soft-on-crime policy. In the past three weeks, the residents of Vaughan have experienced seven shootings. I met with my constituents in King—Vaughan who presented a letter signed by hundreds of their neighbours concerned by the devastating increase in violence happening within the riding.

They expressed their outrage after the senseless murder of Abdul Aleem Farooqi. He was a husband and a father of four, described by his family as a hero after he was murdered in front of his children during a violent home invasion. No family should ever endure this kind of tragedy, yet in Canada today, these stories have become far too common.

I will share with the House the words of my constituents directly, as their pleading deserves to be heard in the chamber. The note states, “We write to you not only as your constituents, but as terrified families, parents and neighbours. Our community is reeling from the tragic and senseless murder of a father of four, an unthinkable loss that has left a family destroyed and a neighbourhood traumatized. But this was not a one-off event. It is the devastating peak of a violent wave overtaking everyone in King—Vaughan. Our homes are being broken into repeatedly, shamelessly, without fear of consequence. Our seniors are being robbed in broad daylight. Our streets are no longer safe for our children. This is not a blip. This is a crisis. And this is not the Canada we knew.”

They go on to outline what they need. Number one was real protection, to start at home. Number two was to support law enforcement and coordinate, fund and prioritize Canadian safety. What Conservatives are putting forward today would address exactly what my constituents stated as the greatest need.

Number three was that there needs to be no more second chances for criminals. A person who invades someone's home should never walk the streets again. There is no such thing as a non-violent break-in, and the very act of entering someone's sanctuary uninvited is an act of psychological and physical warfare. We require victim-first policies; the rights of criminals must never come before the rights of law-abiding Canadians. We need real laws with real consequences.

We need to stop putting Canadians last in our country and start protecting the people who live here, work here and pay taxes here.

This is not about politics; this is about the basic human right to safety in our own homes, on our streets and in our daily lives. We are grieving. We are angry. We are done waiting. On behalf of my community, I rise on this motion to demand action from the government because if we are not safe in our own homes, then nothing else matters.

The violence spans across the many communities in my riding. Yesterday, police arrested two of three men charged in two armed home invasions who were already out on bail. I met with Chief Jim MacSween of York Regional Police just last week, when he reported that over 1,300 individuals in our region are out on bail. I will repeat that. York region has a population of 1.2 million individuals, and 1,300 are out on bail. As he stated plainly in our meeting, “Bail needs to be reformed”.

These repeat offenders are free on our streets while families in our communities continue to live in fear, and this is not unique to King—Vaughan. Across Canada, various other communities are seeing the same patterns of violence while being told that their safety is secondary to the so-called rights of these ruthless criminals. We hear about stabbings, shootings and extortion on a daily basis in the House and in our communities.

If the government took meaningful action on bail reform, as the Prime Minister has promised, and if repeat violent offenders faced real consequences like the ones we are suggesting with this “three strikes and you're out” law instead of the Liberal revolving-door system on bail, Abdul Aleem Farooqi might still be alive today. Kleinburg families might not have to endure these home invasions. This motion is not only one of necessity but one of urgency.

After 10 years of the Liberal government, Canadians have never been so at risk. The government had the chance to act. The Prime Minister himself promised bail reform, but instead of delivering reform that Canadians so desperately needed, he walked away for the summer and returned to the House with nothing. Canadians were promised safety; instead, they received another Liberal Prime Minister who is more concerned with criminals than the victims they terrorize, empty words with no actions and a justice system that continues to let violent offenders run rampant on our streets.

The Liberal government has weakened our justice system at every turn. With Bill C-5, it repealed mandatory jail time for serious gun crime. With Bill C-75, it let repeat violent offenders right back onto our streets with devastating consequences for families. Families in King—Vaughan and across the country have already paid the ultimate price for the government's inaction. Canadians are living in fear while repeat violent offenders roam free. This is a question of basic safety, justice and common sense.

Canadians deserve a government that keeps its promise and protects its citizens. They deserve laws, like this, that will hold repeat violent offenders accountable, not a revolving-door system that allows them back on our streets. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their own homes, and constituents in King—Vaughan and countless Canadians across this country are demanding action. We have all been elected to represent Canadians and provide them with the safety they deserve. The time for action is now. No more empty promises from the same Liberal government.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it sort of makes me ponder why we are where we are now. We are in the position where we have to have motions like the one before us because repeat violent offenders keep hurting folks in our community. The truth is that we have had six months of the current government, and it could have ended thousands of deaths, rapes and abuses of children if it had repealed Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. That would instantly have made a difference.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for King—Vaughan.

It is a privilege to rise, as always, on behalf of the resilient residents of Oshawa.

I am not exaggerating, despite what the members across the way think, when I say that residents in my community are scared. They are worried about walking down their own streets, sending their children to school or living in their own homes. They tell me every day that they feel less safe in our community than they did just a few years ago.

Unfortunately, the data backs them up. Since this fourth-term Liberal government was elected to office in 2015, violent crime has skyrocketed in this country. Total violent crime is up nearly 50%. Homicides are up 28%, and gang-related homicides alone are up a staggering 78%. Sexual assaults, one of the most devastating crimes for victims, are up 75%, and we know that 90% of those victims are women. Violent firearms offences, the crimes involving the use, pointing or discharge of a gun, are up 116%, and they have increased nine years in a row. Extortion is up a whopping 357%, and theft has surged by almost 46%. Trafficking in persons is up by more than 83% and sexual violations against children, perhaps the most heartbreaking statistic of all, have more than doubled, up 119%. Even crimes like kidnapping, harassment and forcible confinement are up.

This does not sound like exaggeration. Canadians are seeing the evidence with their own eyes, and it is no wonder they feel unsafe. Behind every single one of these numbers is a victim, a family and often an entire community that has been shattered. The statistics confirm what Canadians already know.

Since 2015, female victimization by intimate partner violence has risen nearly 19%. Since 2019, when the Liberals passed Bill C-75, the number of female victims of intimate partner violence has risen by another 13.5%. That means there are tens of thousands more women who have suffered abuse, even as the government claims its legislation was supposed to protect them.

Advocates are sounding the alarm as well. Last week, I met Cait Alexander, who was left to die by her ex-partner. He was out on $500 bail, by the way. Out he went, but he then left someone for dead. Cait Alexander, the founder of End Violence Everywhere, put it powerfully when she said that Canada has become a graveyard of preventable deaths, with innocent women and children paying the price while begging for reform, begging for safety. She said that we point fingers at the U.S. while our own citizens bleed or are forced to leave simply to stay alive. Cait has even asked the Minister of Justice to call her personally and tell her to her face that Canada is not the Wild West.

The crisis is not just out there somewhere in Canada, it is here. It is in my community, in Oshawa and in the Durham region. Krista MacNeil, the executive director of Victim Services of Durham Region, recently shared devastating numbers with me. In 2024, her team provided direct support for nearly 3,000 victims of intimate partner violence in Durham region, a 33% increase from the year prior. This year, they are already on track to reach 3,700 cases, another 26% increase.

Due to how cases are recorded, the true number of incidents last year would have been closer to 4,029, 80% of those survivors are women and girls. Still, femicide is not even recognized as a distinct crime in our criminal code. The Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability reminds us that two out of every three women in Canada will experience violence in their lifetime, and that a woman is killed every 48 hours in this country, usually by a man close to her.

Krista told me that the violence is getting worse, not better. She reports a rise in intimate partner violence and femicides, an increase in the brutality and the severity of attacks, and more cases involving younger individuals, including teens in dating relationships.

She also warns that our justice system is failing survivors, that femicide is ignored in the Criminal Code, that survivors are left in the dark about offender release and that bail notifications, when they do happen, are not always trauma-informed; in fact they rarely are, which leaves women and families in even greater danger.

These are not just statistics; they are my neighbours. They are families in Oshawa. They are real people falling through the cracks of a broken system, a system that has been broken by the Liberal government, which claims we now can trust it to fix it someday, maybe, when it gets around to it.

How did we get here? We got here because of deliberate choices made by the Liberal government. We all know that in 2019, the Liberals passed Bill C-75, which introduced what they call the “principle of restraint” for bail, requiring judges to give primary consideration to releasing offenders at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. In other words, regardless of their criminal record and regardless of their history, the starting point is to let someone out and to let them out quickly.

In 2022, the government doubled down and passed Bill C-5. This law repealed mandatory prison sentences for a long list of serious offences: using firearms in commission of an offence, possessing a prohibited weapon with ammunition, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting guns illegally, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, and even discharging a firearm with intent. The Liberals reduced mandatory prison sentences for these.

The Liberals claim to care about gun crime, but their actions expose the truth. Instead of going after violent criminals, they come after people like me, a proud RPAL holder, and other law-abiding firearm owners who follow every rule and every regulation. Meanwhile, the thugs pulling the triggers on our streets are being handed free passes. The government ripped out mandatory prison sentences for the worst gun offenders, the ones who use weapons to threaten, to maim or to kill. They sided with criminals over victims again. The Liberal government has put politics ahead of public safety.

The Liberals also opened the door to house arrest for criminals convicted of crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, arson and motor vehicle theft. Yes, under the Liberal government, someone convicted of a sexual assault can serve their sentence at home, perhaps even next door to their victim. The consequences are clear: Violent crime has surged 50%, women and children are more at risk than ever, police officers are stretched beyond capacity and repeat offenders are emboldened because they know there are no real consequences.

Canadians are asking themselves a very simple question: Whom does the government really stand with, the victims of crime or the criminals who repeatedly terrorize them? That is why Conservatives have put forth the common-sense motion today. It is based on a simple principle: three strikes and they are out. If someone is convicted of three serious offences, they would no longer be eligible for bail, probation, parole or house arrest. They would need to go to jail, and they would stay there for 10 years. There would be no bail, no probation, no parole and no house arrest. It would be three strikes and they are out.

The motion has three major benefits. First, it would keep violent repeat offenders off the streets, protecting law-abiding families and communities, women and children. Second, it would deter crime. Criminals will know that if they commit serious crimes again and again, they would face real consequences. Third, it would restore confidence in our justice system, confidence that has been badly shaken under the current government. I have heard some police officers in my community in my hometown of Oshawa call it the “injustice system”.

Canadians across the country deserve better than the system that puts repeat offenders back on the street within hours of their arrest. They deserve a government that prioritizes the safety of women, seniors, children and families over the rights of violent criminals. They deserve a government that takes crime seriously. The motion is a chance to correct course. It is a chance to put victims before criminals, to put public safety before politics and to put common sense back into our justice system.

I urge every member of the House to stand with victims, to stand with families and to stand with the residents of Oshawa and communities right across this country. Three strikes and they are out; that is what Canadians are asking for, and that is what Conservatives will deliver.

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

Mr. Speaker, every day in Canada, a woman dies from a violent crime. Sexual assault is up 75% in this country, and 60% of the violence against women is intimate partner violence. I am so proud of the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for bringing forward a private member's bill to address that crime.

The government has had six months. A woman dies every day. Where is the sense of urgency on the other side of the aisle? The Liberals know they have the support of the Conservatives to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. They could instantly do that with a programming motion, but they have done nothing.

Does the member agree that there is no sense of urgency with the Liberal government?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we stand with victims and their families every step of the way. Unfortunately, the mess the Liberals have created with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 has caused the chaos we see in our communities today.

The catch-and-release policies and revolving door are things the Liberals created. If we look at the numbers, the previous Conservative government's numbers were at an all-time low. As soon as the Liberals were elected in 2015, what happened? Crime went up, and it continues to go up because they are not going after the root causes of these problems. They cannot be firefighters when they are the arsonists themselves.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and to follow the deputy leader, whom I thank for a great intervention.

I would also like to start by thanking the farmers in Oxford and across our country who are now busy harvesting. I want to wish them a very successful and bountiful harvest and to remind all those who share the road to watch out for farm equipment. When someone sees a farmer, they should thank them, because our food comes from their fields to our fork, and they feed our families. It is an honour to represent such a strong rural community in Oxford.

We see a wave of crime being unleashed right across our country. Whether it is a rural town like mine out in Oxford County or a big city out in B.C., we are seeing a record number of crimes happening. Violent crime is up over 55% under the Liberals' watch. Extortion is up over 300%. Homicides are up and shootings are up. What the Liberals do not understand is that their policies are driving these numbers up.

There is the out-of-touch justice minister, who literally thinks that it is not the Wild West. He was commenting on social media; it must have been one of his late-night texts. However, it is worse than the Wild West. It is a lot worse. We are now living in a war zone in Canada. Canadians are waking up scared. More than half of Canadians are not even safe in their own neighbourhoods. There is anxiety. There is real fear. There is an anxiousness that is palpable. We hear out-of-touch comments from the Liberals, such as the public safety minister saying that it is not them and that the Conservatives are deflecting, denying, delaying and obstructing.

I find it very ironic and rich when I hear members opposite saying that bail reform is coming. Liberals did bail reform and they made it worse. In 2019, they brought in Bill C-75. They codified, under section 493.1, the principle of restraint. I hope the justice minister reads his own documents.

The principle of restraint very clearly states that a judge, a justice or a peace officer must release on the least restrictive conditions at the earliest opportunity. This is codified in law. Liberals have now handcuffed judges from using discretion when it comes to repeat violent offenders. The problem is that their failure on bail reform is now costing lives. It is now hurting Canadians.

We hear insane stories. In Oxford County, there was a violent bank robbery right downtown, on Dundas Street. A TD Bank was robbed by a repeat offender, who had firearms. The police arrested him; they did the great work they always do. Woodstock police arrested him, and he was a repeat offender. I received a message from one of the officer's daughters, who asked me, “Why is my father putting his life at risk over and over and over again to catch the same people?”

Law enforcement members across our country are now demoralized. They catch a person in the morning, with all the evidence they need for a strong case, only to find out hours later that the person is being released on bail. I could be here all day sharing stories like this. We heard the story of Bailey McCourt, which is a story the deputy leader talked about as well. What did Bailey do wrong? What did she do wrong? The person who was uttering threats and was a risk to her life was arrested, charged and convicted. A court found him guilty of those charges. He was then released on bail pending sentencing. Just three hours later, he found Bailey and a friend in a parking lot, took a hammer and brutally smashed her. Bailey is now dead.

I have met and spoken to the family. They are sick and tired of hearing the message from the government that its thoughts and prayers are with them and that it is going to keep fighting for them. Quite frankly, that is nonsense. They want action, not more platitudes, not more photo ops and not more promises that there will one day be some sort of bill or law that will fix this crisis. They want action now.

Just yesterday, Halton Region passed a unanimous motion asking the government to act on this crisis. The Liberal member of Parliament from that riding wrote them a letter, and I encourage all members to read it. That letter said that it was not the government, that it brought in laws and changes. Halton Region unanimously passed a motion for action, and they want it now, not a year from now, because they are seeing a massive spike in violent carjackings and home invasions. Canadians are scared. The Liberals can delay this as much as they want, but they will be judged for their record and their failures.

Bill C-75, their so-called bail reform law, is one of the root causes of why we have this problem. Quite frankly, Canadians do not believe that the Liberals can fix what they themselves have broken. It is like an arsonist who burns down a house, and when the house is gone, all of a sudden he puts on his firefighter equipment and says he is there to save the day. The Liberals cannot fix the problems that they created. What is surprising is that they are not even willing to listen to the heartbreaking stories from law enforcement, victim advocacy groups, survivors and families.

I know in my colleague's riding of King—Vaughan, there have been seven shootings in a matter of three weeks. One family member stood beside our leader, the member Battle River—Crowfoot, and I when we made the announcement for our jail not bail act. Abdul Aleem Farooqi, a father, was killed when violent home invaders showed up at his house and put a gun to his child's head. He did absolutely everything right. He did what any father would do. He defended his family but sadly lost his life.

The Liberals are telling us that bail reform is coming at some point in the future. Every single day that goes by, 1,600 violent crimes happen in our country. That is an insane amount. Because of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, police chiefs are now telling Canadians to comply, to leave the keys to their vehicles at the front door. That is not an environment for deterring criminals. The Liberals are literally making it easy for criminals to do what they do best, and the criminals know it. They understand the law that the Liberals do not understand. Criminals know that if they get caught in the morning, they will be released at lunch, maybe to commit another offence in the evening and be released by breakfast the next morning, over and over again.

The Conservative Party and Conservative caucus have been putting legislation forward to stop the crime. We want to make sure that repeat violent offenders with long rap sheets are put behind bars. Guess how many justice bills the government has put forward in the last 600 days. It is zero. Now the Liberals are showing up and saying they are going to fight crime. That is absolute nonsense. There is only one party in this House that will fight for the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians, and that is the Conservative Party.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to hear about those incidents, and the fact is that we are hearing about more and more cases like that right across the country. Serious crime is at a point that we have never seen before in this country. If we look at why this is happening, it is because people do not have respect for the law anymore.

We hear from police officers, who tell us they have gone through the hard work of arresting somebody, even a serious violent offender, who then gets bail the same day or the next day. Getting bail and then going back to doing crime is just part of the business now. It is just the cost of their business.

The fact of the matter is that the laws need to change. The Liberal laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, need to be scrapped. New laws need to be brought in that would keep serious violent offenders behind bars and keep Canadians safe.