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.

Justice

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, Canadians are seeing more crime and chaos on our streets. Since 2015, violent crimes have risen by 55% nationally, while extortion has surged by 330%. In Surrey alone, extortion is up 2,400%. Liberal catch-and-release policies like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have led to Canadians' being more vulnerable and less safe.

When will the government repeal its failed soft-on-crime laws, restore mandatory minimums and make sure that criminals serve the time that they deserve?

Lawful Access Act, 2026

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise as the elected representative for the new riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and the associate shadow minister for fisheries for His Majesty's loyal opposition. Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies is a new riding that was created as of the last election, and I believe it is one of the most majestic ridings across this country, if not the most majestic one. It starts at the Great Divide at the Alberta border, where the last stretches of the CP Rail mainline were completed to connect this country from coast to coast back in 1885. I was a proud employee of CP Rail for a short time in the 1980s and got to see some of those important sections of track.

I want to recognize the importance of all the people who still live in the area and are descendants of employees who built that nation-building railway, which linked us from coast to coast to coast. It is an incredible piece of our history. I am so proud and honoured to represent an area that was so important in being able to complete that link.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-22. This is the third iteration of legislation introduced by the government in this 45th Parliament dealing with this issue. I raise this because it is an obvious indication of the failures of this government and former Liberal governments to recognize what is needed to bring law and order to this country. It is also an obvious indication of the inability of the Liberal government to draft legislation that is effective and properly worded in order to pass the scrutiny of this House. That is the purpose of this House: to scrutinize legislation that is being proposed by the government to make sure that it is the best we can do for Canadians. That is an honourable job we are all elected to do, and we on the Conservative side, as members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, will continue to do everything within our power to make sure legislation introduced by the government is truly the best it can be for Canadians.

The Liberal government first introduced Bill C-2. It has basically been shelved because it was so problematic. Last fall, it introduced Bill C-2, which fell short of protecting Canadians, while overreaching in other areas. Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down on Bill C-2, successfully blocking the Liberals' infringement on individuals' freedom and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash, opening mail without oversight and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Those are important pieces that have been removed from this bill because we heard from Canadians how important it is that their privacy be respected and, which I would say is the most important piece, that government overreach not be extended to the Liberal government.

Now the Liberals have taken parts out of Bill C-2 and reintroduced them in Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is void of the provisions that Conservatives opposed in parts of Bill C-2. Law enforcement requires the tools they need to combat crime and keep our communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will carefully review this legislation to ensure that the Liberals do not repeat the past failures. We will also ensure that we hear from experts to further evaluate and improve this legislation. There are experts in the field who know best how a bill will be interpreted, how it may be implemented and what unintended consequences may lie ahead if a poorly drafted bill is allowed to pass. We have seen incidents like that in the past.

I want to take a bit of a sidestep right now to talk about some of the crime stats that have been the result of previous poorly legislated bills passed by a former Liberal government. I will talk about highlights and percentages that are increases since 2015, when the Liberal government came to power, through 2023. Total violent crime is up 49.84%. Total homicides are up 27.75%. Gang-related homicides are up 78.35%. All three levels of sexual assaults are up 74.83%, and for sexual assaults, 90% of the victims are women.

This is concerning. The increase in crime is all in the realm of the past 10-plus years of Liberal governments. I am quoting stats from 2015 to 2023. Those increases resulted from bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, from the first Liberal Parliament, when I was first elected to this place.

I will talk about some of the stats in British Columbia. The total number of violent crime violations was 26,062. That is up to 33,926, an increase of 30%. Extortions went from 359 to 1,592, a 343.45% increase in extortion. Just in British Columbia, we have seen how the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies have led to these problems and increasing problems that continue under the Liberal government's realm. Using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence was affected by Bill C-5. Bill C-75 rolled back the issues around bail reform.

I want to step back a bit to earlier in the interventions today when my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola referred to the echo chamber that seems to be in this place today. Even though this bill is a government bill, the government members are not rising to speak to it, not even to ask questions of Conservative members during the questions and comments phases of today's interventions. I raise this because I fear that it is what law enforcement authorities may be perceiving while waiting for legislation so they can do their jobs. Empty echo chambers, from a government that has had over 10 years to address the crime, fraud and corruption, are increasing the impact on Canadians after 10 years of inaction, while criminals are treated more leniently than victims are supported by their own government.

I revert back to how our debate today echoes with what witnesses repeatedly tell us at committees. The citizens of this country often provide input and good direction for the government, but the government continues to be an echo chamber.

It is high time the government took what it is being told by Canadians and addressed the crime, fraud and corruption that have become a plague in our communities.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his input to improve the legislation that we are discussing today.

We all know that the Liberals' catch-and-release policies, whether Bill C-5 or Bill C-75, have created chaos in cities, neighbourhoods and streets.

Could the member explain why it is important to have a justice system that works for Canadians, and at the same time, how Bill C-22 lacks safeguards and accountability? Why does the member believe Canadians deserve stronger protection for their personal information?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, our role as elected members is to stand in this place, debate legislation and study how it is going to impact our constituents. I listed a couple of previous Liberal bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which have had a tremendous impact on all of our constituents. There is not a Canadian who has not been impacted by that legislation. Every Canadian who feels less safe than they did 10 years ago has been impacted by the legislation of this government.

We are not going to take lessons from the Liberals on criminal justice, on studying legislation or on doing our job as the official opposition to make sure that we give this legislation the scrutiny that Canadians deserve for it to have.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

A big part of the conversation around this legislation, coming from the government, seems to be about why the Conservatives are doing their job. Why are we studying this bill? Why are we fulfilling our role as the official opposition? Why do we not just trust the government with criminal justice legislation? That is something on which one could write volumes. Suffice it to say that when all of us, as members of Parliament, were in our ridings over the last couple of weeks, what we heard was that there is a crisis when it comes to our criminal justice system. I know I heard this loud and clear in my riding of Fundy Royal, which stretches from suburban areas to rural areas outside of cities.

Having sat on the justice committee at one time, I was impacted by the testimony of one witness who said to our committee members that in Canada, we do not have a justice system anymore. We have a legal system, but not a justice system. Why is that? It is because this is a system that has failed victims over and over again.

Why would we not just trust the Liberals when it comes to criminal justice legislation? Well, over the last 11 years that they have been in government, there are some things they have been very good at. When it comes to making a grandiose promise or coming up with an expensive and wasteful program, they can knock those out of the park. However, when it comes to things like staying on budget, controlling costs, criminal justice legislation and keeping us safe, one of the most fundamental values we should have as an institution, the government has demonstrably failed Canadians.

I have to look at some of the stats to back up what I am saying. Since 2015, violent crime in Canada is up 50%, homicides are up 30%, and sexual assaults are up 75%. This is a party that loves to talk about firearms, so one would think that maybe the Liberals have done some good things, but no, violent firearms offences are up 116% since the Liberals took government. Extortion is up 357%. It does not matter which part of the country or which province one is in, whether in urban or rural areas; every one of us who owns a vehicle and pays insurance is impacted by auto theft, which is up 50% in Canada since the Liberals took government.

We might ask why, over the last 11 years, we have seen this. How has this possibly happened? Why have we seen such a spike? It is a spike that, if we are honest, in talking to our constituents, every one of us is hearing of.

If we were to ask Canadians if they feel as safe as they did 10 years ago sending their child to run an errand in the community on their bike or walking, or walking through one of their community parks, or going out to dinner uptown, they would say they do not. It is not just a feeling. It is the reality. Canadians are not as safe as they were 10 years ago. Why? It is because we have a government that created this crisis through the deliberate actions it was warned would result in the kind of chaos we are experiencing right now.

Here are just a couple of examples, but I could go on.

Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for violent gun crimes like robbery or extortion with a firearm. It eliminated mandatory jail time for criminals charged with importing, exporting or producing dangerous drugs like meth and fentanyl.

Bill C-75, which created the revolving-door justice system, introduced a principle of restraint that all judges are forced to abide by. That essentially means that someone who is arrested and brought before a judge is going to be let back out on the street on bail. We heard testimony at the justice committee of individuals who were caught and brought before a judge for a gun crime. They were out on bail for when they were caught for a previous gun crime, and they were allowed out on bail again.

No matter what legislation the government brings forward, if we are going to allow repeat and violent offenders, property crime offenders and drug dealers to continue to be back out on the street, then all the legislation in the world is not going to help, and we are going to continue to see the rise in crime that I just listed.

What have Conservatives been doing? We have been listening to our communities and law enforcement. We introduced the protection against extortion act to restore mandatory jail time for the offence of extortion with a firearm. The Liberals voted against it. We introduced the combatting motor vehicle theft act so that convicted car thieves could no longer serve their time from the comfort of their own home. The Liberals voted against it.

In the last Parliament, I introduced the stronger sentences for safer streets act. It would have reversed what was introduced in Bill C-5 when it comes to sentences for those who produce, import and export dangerous schedule I drugs such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine and meth. Of course, the Liberals were against that. When Conservatives have stood up for our constituents and brought forward common-sense legislation, the government failed, again, to take appropriate action.

We have all read, and I heard the reference of one of the previous speakers, a decision out of New Brunswick in which an individual from Nigeria had their sentence reduced so that they would not be deported back to Nigeria. An offender had a judge reduce their sentence so it would not impact their claim to stay here in Canada.

We, on this side of the House, are not going to take lessons when it comes to criminal justice. We are listening to our constituents and the experts, and we are going to take the time to study legislation. Time and time again, the government has brought in legislation that, rather than helping Canadians be safer, has put Canadians directly in the crosshairs of those criminals.

When it comes to gun crime, rather than focusing on the border, law enforcement, cracking down on repeat violent gun offenders and putting them behind bars where they belong, the government is currently spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to buy back guns from law-abiding Canadians. These individuals are licensed, legally bought their firearms and are legal owners of their firearms. They are not the problem. We are focusing hundreds of millions of dollars of Canadians' resources to go after individuals who are not the problem, all the while turning a deliberate blind eye to repeat offenders, reducing sentences for offenders, or not having them sentenced at all, and releasing people on bail who have no business being out on bail.

We are going to study this legislation, listen to law enforcement and our communities and continue to stand up for laws that actually restore the word “justice” to our justice system. It is on that basis that we will continue to do our job as the official opposition, with our priority always being to keep Canadians safe.

Combatting Hate Act

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what kind of society and what kind of country do we want to be?

Is it one where the government has the power to decide what we can or cannot say, to decide what religious texts we can or cannot read and which opinions we can or cannot hear, or do we want to be a country where citizens are allowed to express themselves freely without fear of persecution or intimidation from the state, where citizens are allowed to voice their opinions, speak their truths and engage in robust political debate, and where we recognize that the price of free speech includes having to occasionally hear things that we disagree with, that are distasteful, that are repugnant and that at times may even contain hate?

That is the price of free speech, is it not? That is the price of denying government the power to regulate the words we speak and, I should say, that is the price of free speech in Canada today.

In years and generations past, the price paid to protect this fundamental freedom was much greater, measured not in courtrooms, in parliamentary committees or even on the floor of this House but measured on battlefields around the world by the blood spilled and lives lost to defend it. The question of whether to sacrifice some of our freedom to feel more secure and more comfortable is a question as old at least as western civilization itself, but it represents a false choice. Our security, our unity and our strength of spirit as a nation exist not in spite of our freedom but because of it, and attempts by some to erode that for the benefit and glee of others who would regulate, intimidate and control are misguided and wrong.

Over the last 10 years, Liberal governments have consistently introduced legislation that is part of a trend in our country, a trend of increasing the influence of those who would wield the wand of censorship and empowering those who seek to control what we think by controlling what we can see and discuss online. It is a trend of consistently undermining the free expression of individual Canadians and attempting to stifle and socially engineer public debate, whether it was with the former Liberal Bill C-11, which decided the government, in its infinite wisdom, should have the power to manipulate the algorithms and the search results of YouTube, Facebook and other social media companies and thereby influence the information that we see and consume, or the former Bill C-63, which attempted to further criminalize and regulate speech.

Now we have before the House Liberal Bill C-9, a bill that, as originally presented, would have watered down the definition of hate speech and removed important guardrails to reckless and politically motivated prosecutions. It is a bill that, at its very core, would make it easier for the government and any future government to prosecute and jail Canadians based not on their actions but on their words, and make it easier for individuals in positions of authority to wield that power as a tool of intimidation to scare those with minority or unpopular views to seek the safety of self-censorship or else risk the wrath of the almighty state.

While at committee, thanks to the determination and perseverance of a handful of Conservative MPs, we were able to remove many of the most dangerous and shameful elements from the legislation. Another new alarming amendment was added. In a deal struck between the Liberals and separatist Bloc Québécois, it was agreed to remove a provision from the existing Criminal Code that prevented the prosecution of Canadians for expressing in good faith the beliefs or words of ancient religious texts, opening the door to politically motivated prosecutions on the basis of religious expression and belief, and in so doing compromising not one but two of Canadians' fundamental charter rights.

To think that in a country where free speech and freedom of religion serve as two of the foundational principles and values, the bedrock on which this nation is built, a government would seek to criminalize the expression of sincerely held religious beliefs and to criminalize the reading of certain religious texts just seems so outrageous, so absurd and so fundamentally un-Canadian.

This is not an exaggeration. The Liberal chair of the justice committee at the time literally singled out specific passages from both the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah, declaring them hateful in the context of further criminalizing religious speech. Beyond the obvious issues with infringing on the charter rights of Canadians, there is another issue. It is that this bill ignores, deflects and distracts from the very real and the very same challenges in Canada today that it purports to address.

There is an issue in this country with some trying to hide behind the charter right of free expression to genuinely incite violence, but that is already illegal. There is an issue in our country with some attempting to intimidate and obstruct those seeking to practice and exercise their faith, but that too is already illegal. There is an issue in this country of repeat violent offenders assaulting or otherwise harming those for little or no apparent reason, some of which is undoubtedly motivated by hate.

The government's response has been to repeatedly weaken Canada's justice system over the past 10 years and to refuse to aggressively pursue those guilty of breaking Canada's existing laws today, focusing not on those causing immeasurable physical harm in our cities and our streets, but on redirecting finite police resources to chase down ill-defined crimes of speech and on redeploying officers from our communities and towns to Internet message boards, Facebook posts and tweets.

In the last 10 years, under the Liberal government, violent crime in Canada has increased by 50%. Homicides are up by 27%, and more than a third of these murders have been committed by known offenders on some sort of judicial release. This is the direct result of Liberal bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which have made our communities increasingly less safe by prioritizing the release of violent offenders and by weakening sentences for serious crimes.

If the Liberal government actually cares about the safety and security of Canadians, it should start by fixing the problem it helped create, not by targeting the fundamental charter rights of Canadians, not by making it easier to prosecute speech and not by going after those for expressing sincerely held religious beliefs.

Jail Not Bail Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, at second reading. It was put forward by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Oxford, and I am proud to have seconded the legislation.

I just listened to the Liberal government's narrative of our perspective on crime, and it is an alternative universe. This bill, the jail not bail act, was announced in Woodbridge last September, in my riding, where the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member from Oxford and I, along with other colleagues, were joined by the families of victims. The members of these families were crying in our arms. They had felt the pain of a failed Liberal bail system and the constant consequences of inaction.

The location of this announcement was not a coincidence. Woodbridge was chosen because the people who live there know this problem first-hand. They do not live in the abstract where politicians debate theories of justice. They live in the real world, the here and now, and they live with the consequences of the broken bail system and constant Liberal inaction.

I want to start in Vaughan because I feel similar to what the member for Kelowna is feeling. Vaughan feels like ground zero to many in our community for the issue of crime in this country. Now, according to York Regional Police, in the latest full-year report on crime statistics for 2024, my community recorded 16,407 criminal offences, the highest of any municipality in York region. We recorded 749 break and enters, 1,996 assaults, 274 reported sexual violations and 167 robberies. All of this was in a single year.

The stats highlight the numbers; however, there is a reality that members of the House need to realize. The reality is that, just last week, in the early hours of March 17, armed suspects forced their way into a home on Carrville Woods Circle in Vaughan. The homeowner, to protect his family, discharged a legally owned firearm. Two suspects are still at large. The family at home did nothing wrong. They had no choice, and they had no warning.

Some weeks before that, a man was shot dead outside a business at Weston Road and Rowntree Dairy Road in the middle of the afternoon. In February, a Thornhill residence was struck by gunfire. On another evening, shots were fired at a home on Allison Ann Way. In the early hours of a cold January morning, a man was shot near Martin Grove Road. A gun was seized after a commercial break-in at a Vaughan business. Another investigation linked one suspect to nine separate break and enters across Vaughan and Markham. This is what daily life has become in my riding.

When I look at the reality and at what our bill system has been doing, that connection is not hard to find. Since the Liberals took office in 2015, violent crime in Canada is up by 55%, firearm offences are up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%. These are Statistics Canada figures. They reflect a decade of policy choices that constantly prioritize the rights of the accused over the safety of the community.

In 2019, Bill C-75, the Liberals inserted what is called the “Principle of restraint” to the Criminal Code. That principle directs judges and justices of the peace to release the accused at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive conditions. My colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, a former Crown attorney, explained precisely what that means in practice, which is that it does not matter how serious the charge, how long the criminal record or how many times the accused has already breached a bail order, the law tells the court that it has to let them go.

Then in 2022, Bill C-5 repealed mandatory minimum sentences for serious firearms and violent crimes, as well as extended the availability of conditional sentences, house arrest, for offences that most Canadians would expect to end in imprisonment. The deterrent effect of the justice system was weakened at both ends, at the point of bail and again at the point of sentencing.

The Liberals have since introduced Bill C-14 and have framed it as bail reform. I want to be fair. It is better than what exists today. Conservatives worked on that committee to strengthen the bill wherever we could. We secured tighter surety rules, provisions for repeat violent offenders who re-offend on release and annual reporting requirements.

However, when we pushed for public safety to become the primary governing principle, moved to eliminate house arrest for major crimes and sought mandatory consecutive sentences for repeat human traffickers, the Liberals voted against every one of those amendments. Of course, the fundamental problem with Liberal bail is that the principle of restraint would still remain. It would be modified at the edges, but it would still there, telling the courts to default towards release. The culture of prioritizing release is perpetual in our justice system, and the Liberal bail bill, Bill C-14, would do nothing to address this.

Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, starts from a different premise entirely. It would remove the principle of restraint and replace it with a clear direction that public and community safety is the primary consideration for the justice system. It would change what judges would be asked to weigh first when someone stands before them: public safety over early release.

The bill would create a major offence category covering some of the most serious crimes we see in communities like Vaughan: firearm offences, sexual offences, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasions, robbery, extortion and arson. For anyone charged with one of these offences, the bill would establish a presumption of detention. For repeat violent offenders, the bill would heighten the risk standards. Today, courts ask whether there is a substantial likelihood that an offender would reoffend. This bill would change that to “reasonable foreseeability”, meaning whether a reasonable person looking at an accused's full criminal history, record of breaching orders and pattern of how they have moved through the system would conclude that their risk of reoffending is real.

Bill C-242 would also close gaps in our system. For example, it would bar anyone convicted of an indictable offence from serving as a guarantor. It is difficult to believe that this needs to be legislated at all, but right now in this country, someone who is an organized crime member can legally vouch for another person in bail proceedings. That would end under our bill. The bill would also require non-resident accused persons to surrender their passports.

The difference between the Liberal bill and the one before us today is that what the Liberals propose and what we are proposing is a matter of effective execution and practicality. Liberal bail reform would keep the principle of restraint. Our Conservative bill would repeal it. The Liberals want to encourage courts to consider an accused person's history. The jail not bail act would make that consideration mandatory. The Liberals do not touch surety eligibility or passport surrender. Our Conservative approach would address both. The differences are clear. The Liberals still default to release, and the Conservatives start from a principle that public safety must be the key consideration of the justice system.

The Liberals have suggested that Bill C-242 would raise constitutional concerns. It would not. In the Crown v. Lloyd decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that mandatory minimum penalties need to be narrow and targeted. The measures introduced in the jail not bail act are targeted and proportionate measures directed at a defined category of repeat violent offenders who are before the courts under serious charges. I am very confident it would be charter-compliant. I would also observe that charter compliance cuts both ways. The charter protects the rights of law-abiding Canadians and victims too, not just those who are charged with harming them. I challenge my Liberal colleagues to remember this position.

The Bloc members have also raised concerns that more detention would strain prison capacity. We agree that we must modernize our justice system, but it is important to understand that the data do not support the worry over prison capacity. As my colleague from Oxford rightly pointed out, this issue is about repeat offenders. In Kelowna, 15 individuals committed 1,500 crimes in a single year. In Vancouver, 40 people, in one year, were arrested 6,000 times. The chronic high-volume offenders this bill targets are not filling prisons and leaving. They are cycling through the system repeatedly, generating arrest after arrest, hearing after hearing and breach after breach.

When this legislation was announced, it was informed by direct consultation with police chiefs, police associations, mayors, victim advocates and families of people killed by repeat offenders who should have never been free in the first place, but under Liberal bail law they were. I urge every member to support this bill at second reading.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in the chamber and to speak on behalf of my constituents, the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. Crime is one of the most serious concerns facing my riding today, with Kelowna also represented by a Liberal member, sadly becoming ground zero for the consequences of failed Liberal bail policies.

Before I speak directly to the jail not bail act, I think it is important to remind the House how we got to this place. In 2018, for purely ideological reasons, the former Trudeau Liberal government passed Bill C-75, amending the Criminal Code and fundamentally reshaping Canada's bail system. Although there were several changes, the guiding principle was very clear: Release should be the default position at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions possible. In that decision lies the heart of what Canadians now recognize as a catch-and-release justice system.

The results have been devastating. Between 2015 and 2022, violent crimes increased dramatically. The number of murders rose, gang-related homicides surged and violent gun crime more than doubled. These are not abstract statistics I speak of. They represent real victims, real families and real communities, our communities, paying the price. It became so serious that every provincial premier, regardless of their political stripe, jointly wrote to the federal government, demanding bail reform. That alone should have been a wake-up call to the seriousness of the problem, yet here we are in 2026 still debating how to clean up a mess that was created eight years ago by the former Liberal majority government.

Last week in Kelowna, a prolific career criminal, someone who had 67 criminal convictions, was once again released on bail. Can any member of the House guess what happened next? We all know the answer: This individual was released back into the very community he has repeatedly victimized, despite an extensive record that clearly demonstrated a pattern of reoffending. The situation became so serious that the RCMP took the unprecedented step of issuing a public warning upon his release. This is not normal. This is not normal policing. This is what happens when law enforcement is forced to manage risk created by bad legislation.

Out of respect for families affected by violent crime, I will not be retelling individual stories in this debate. We all have these stories. We all know the damage that has been done to our communities over and over, and the real damage to families and their lives.

I do want to just take a moment to acknowledge the terrific work of my colleague the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and the families, particularly in Kelowna, whose advocacy has given rise to what we now know as Bailey's law. This brings me to the legislation before us today.

Before I go further, I should say that I thank the member for Oxford for his leadership on this issue and for bringing forward the jail not bail legislation, which squarely puts public safety back at the centre of bail decision. I thank the member for his contributions. I thank him for the time he spends away from his family, educating Canadians on the problems created by the previous government, and for the solutions being proposed by him as a member of Parliament, a Conservative member who believes strongly that this country and our streets can be safe again.

The legislation reflects the concerns being raised in our communities by police and by provincial leaders across the country, and it puts forward a clear, principled alternative to the status quo. Canadians have heard a lot about government attempts to fix bail laws, including Bill C-14. While some amendments are welcome and have been pushed by our caucus as supportable, I want to acknowledge that on this bill, we have tried to work in good faith with the government. Despite Bill C-14's solutions, the fundamental problem remains untouched, and that is the principle of restraint. It still exists.

The principle, enshrined by the Liberal majority in 2017, continues to prioritize release over detention, even for repeat and violent offenders. It is the philosophical core of catch-and-release, and it is precisely why incremental changes since that time, whether they be Bill C-48 in the previous Parliament or Bill C-14 in the current Parliament, will not fix the problem. That is why the jail not bail act is necessary. Unlike Liberal half measures, the jail not bail act would confront the problem head-on.

First, it would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint, making public safety the primary consideration in bail decisions, not an afterthought and not one factor among many but the guiding principle that judges must take into consideration.

Second, it would introduce a new major offences category, applying reverse onus bail to the most serious crimes: firearms offences, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and serious assaults. These are crimes where the burden should rest squarely on the accused to justify their release.

Third, the jail not bail act would strengthen bail decisions by requiring judges to consider the accused's full criminal history, not just the offence that is immediately before the court. It would also prevent individuals convicted of a major offence within the last 10 years who are already out on bail and who are charged again from being released yet again. Importantly, it would toughen the legal standard itself, replacing the vague threshold of substantial likelihood with a more realistic and protective test of what is reasonably foreseeable.

The bill would also close loopholes by prohibiting anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor. Someone who has done a crime should not be able to be a guarantor for another. This would require meaningful enforcement of guarantor responsibilities. The bill would also require non-residents to surrender passports where appropriate.

These are not radical ideas. They are common-sense protections that put victims and our communities ahead of repeat offenders.

Recently I met with the City of Kelowna, along with the member for Oxford and the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, to discuss this issue. Representatives presented documents in which their executive summary stated very clearly that federal bail reforms have prioritized release over detention, even for chronic offenders. Their conclusion was clear: Kelowna supports presumptive detention and stricter bail conditions for chronic offenders.

I want to say that I stand with the City of Kelowna on these points, and I believe that most Canadians do. In fact, we held a town hall to discuss how we can stop crime in our neighbourhoods. We visited community leaders like those from the Uptown Rutland Business Association. We walked the streets with them to hear their concerns about criminality and public disorder. It became abundantly clear at our town hall that citizens in places like Kelowna and throughout the Central Okanagan are fed up. They want to know that when police charge and when people are prosecuted, people are held accountable and not simply released, only to harm families and communities again and again.

The jail not bail act would answer that question by doing what the government has refused to do: put public safety first, clearly, consistently and without apology backing up our RCMP officers, who work so hard to stop the crime, only to have those individuals released, while they are stuck with the paperwork and are arguing for more resources to deal with them.

I want to conclude by acknowledging the many members on all sides of the House who care about justice and public safety. I respect the work that the member for Oxford has done on the legislation, and I ask that all hon. members support the jail not bail act.

Criminal Code

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to a great private member's bill from my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. This is a good bill. What I like about it is its simplicity. It is very simple and common sense. I want to commend the member for her hard work on this and her understanding of where Canadians are. This bill resides at the intersection of two key areas. One is crime, which people have lots of things to say about, and immigration is the other. When we look at polling and talk to people in, say, my riding, and I know that all of us talk to people in ridings every day, we hear about crime and immigration.

People are very concerned about the system we have today, so this bill really comes at the intersection of that. In crime, we have things like revolving doors and low or no penalties. In the immigration system, we have problems with asylum, temporary foreign workers, international students and wait-lists. The intersection is when judges in the criminal system consider sentencing and take immigration status into account when they sentence individuals. That is what this bill aims to address.

Many bills in the House, I would say, are quite complicated. Members often have to look at them multiple times to understand what they say. Others are very simple, and this bill happens to be a very simple one. I am going to read part of it. It says, “A court that imposes a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender’s immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family.” Simply put, a judge considering a sentence for somebody found guilty of a crime would not be able to consider the impact it would have on their immigration status. In other words, there would not be a two-tiered system of sentencing in Canada. Today, we have a two-tiered system where judges take into account immigration status, where one criminal gets a lesser sentence than another simply because of immigration status. I am going to give some examples of that and show why that is a problem.

First of all, I want to make it clear that we are talking about non-citizens, people who are not yet Canadians. In our current law, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it is very clear that, when certain thresholds are met for crimes, such as the length of time that has been imposed for a sentence, there are consequences. The one that most people are aware of is, if a person gets a sentence of more than six months, it means that they have to be deported. That is often a major consideration when judges are looking at sentences.

I want to give some examples because I think the help everybody to understand. We would like to think that our system is clean, that everybody is looking at it in a fair, common-sense and logical way, and it just does not work that way. I will give an example of this later, but, unfortunately, some judges are activists who want to impose their own thinking and take advantage of the the laws to do things that are not really fair and that create this two-tiered sentencing system.

In the first example, a non-citizen was facing charges of drug trafficking and possession of a weapon. This person was facing a three-year sentence and deportation because of that. This person wanted to plead guilty and the judge did not want to accept that because the judge was concerned that the accused did not understand the implications to his immigration status. The judge stopped the trial and tried to get the person to understand the implications of pleading guilty. This person somewhat understood, but still wanted to plead guilty, yet, even then, the judge stopped the trial and essentially forced this guy to talk to an immigration lawyer, almost as if to say, wink, wink, he needed to talk to somebody because he could get a better deal if he just waited. The judge was essentially acting as the lawyer for the person he was sentencing. By the way, this same person was facing a manslaughter charge, so this was not a one-off thing. This person was facing some serious time.

A second example is another non-citizen who stabbed a victim with a knife. The victim required 18 stitches and 50 staples to heal their body. This was a serious crime. The Crown asked for four years, and the defence asked for a conditional sentence. Why did it ask for a conditional sentence? It was because it would avoid the deportation angle and also allow the accused the ability to appeal their immigration status, should they need to do so. What did the judge do?

The judge said, “Oh, you are right. We need to be careful about this because of the immigration status, so we are going to go with the conditional sentence”, which is not what would have happened to any other Canadian citizen had they been in this situation. Here, again, we have a case where the judge was lenient to an extreme degree, so much so that the Crown appealed this to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The higher court found that the judge had used the collateral immigration consequences at issue here to reduce the respondent's sentence to the point where it became disproportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Thankfully, in this case, the B.C. Court of Appeal was able to catch this and fix it, but there have been many other cases where it has not been caught.

Another example is a non-citizen who was out on bail for trafficking cocaine. The judge cut his sentence in half, citing the tough life the criminal had, injuries and immigration status. Another example was a man who was trying to procure sex from a 15-year-old girl. The judge said the conviction would not only delay his citizenship by four years but could prevent him from sponsoring his wife and obtaining his engineering licence, and that those immigration and professional consequences were far more severe than jail. Again, here was a judge who was using immigration status to determine a sentence.

All of these cases and many more show why this private member's bill is so important. They show why this bill is critical to closing a loophole that exists in our system and that judges are abusing to give people lesser sentences, thus giving us this two-tiered system.

How did we get here? A big part of this is because of the Liberal justice reforms that happened. I want to focus on Bill C-75, which is a bill that fundamentally shifted the power balance to criminals. We talk about bail, not jail. Everyone has heard that comment many times. We have talked about it a lot. It really comes from Bill C-75, which was passed by the Liberal government.

The principle of restraint was the new thing introduced in this bill, and it essentially means this: It instructs judges to give sentences that are no more restrictive than necessary. They are to release the accused at the earliest opportunity. They are to release them on the least onerous conditions, and imprisonment should only be used when absolutely necessary and for the shortest duration possible.

These were the instructions given by the Liberal government to judges. Go easy on people is essentially what this means. The judge has the ability to go easy on the person. Guess what. Judges took this principle of restraint, married it up with the immigration issues that we have been talking about to this point and started applying this to immigration cases. That is how we ended up with sentences that were disproportionate to the crime, and how we ended up with this two-tiered sentencing system that we have.

This is something that is a big problem and that is why I am happy to stand to speak to this bill today, because this bill that was submitted by my great colleague fixes this in a very simple way. It creates a single system of sentencing for all people in Canada.

There are other problems that we have in our sentencing system. I also wanted to mention, and I talked about it earlier, activist judges. I just want to highlight this one example that really describes the problem. I am reading from an article from the National Post. I just want to read a couple of things from of it. It says:

In 2013, Toronto lawyer Avvy Yao-Yao Go described herself as a “loudmouth activist for politicians to contend with.”

This person was very aggressive in providing leniency to people who were not citizens of Canada. The government, in its wisdom, decided to make her a federal court judge in 2021. She has done incredible things to halt revocation proceedings against people. There have been all kinds of things that she has done to provide leniency through her court. At the very end, it says:

...decisions in the last year alone show a pattern of leniency for rule-breakers, country-shoppers.... Each instance takes state capacity away from cases that truly matter.

There are many examples we can think of. I just want to conclude by saying this bill, Bill C-220, is a good bill. It fixes a major gap that we have in our system. It is a wonderful, simple bill that I support wholeheartedly. I would implore all members to pass this bill when it comes time to vote.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and grateful to support and second Bill C-246, the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act, brought forth by my very strong, principled Conservative colleague, mom of a sweet baby girl and a fellow Albertan, the MP for Lethbridge. I want to thank her for her advocacy on so many issues and for her leadership on this serious one.

Sexual violence shatters lives. These cruel, pervasive crimes strip victims of dignity, security and trust with physical, psychological and spiritual harm, devastating consequences that for many survivors last a lifetime. Predatorial violence like rape, sexual exploitation and sexual assault leaves deep scars. Frankly, these crimes often impose life sentences of trauma on victims, yet today, the system that is supposed to prosecute criminals and protect victims hinges on a glaring, dangerous flaw. It is yet another reason so many people in Lakeland say it is not a justice system in Canada.

Right now, sexual predators who commit multiple sexual offences can serve all of the sentences at the same time. That is concurrent sentencing. What that means in practice is simple. Sexual predators who commit multiple sexual offences can get discounts on their punishments. No matter how many lives they destroy or how many victims they traumatize, the time those criminals serve can remain almost the same. It seems to me this is a basic principle of justice. Multiple crimes with multiple victims should mean multiple punishments.

Let me share a case that shows systemic injustice clearly. In Ontario, someone posed as a talent agent to lure young people into modelling. Two young women accepted the offer, but instead of offering opportunity, he inflicted repeated sexual assaults. He pleaded guilty and got one sentence of 18 months and another of 24 months, a total of 42 months, but due to concurrent sentencing, those two separate punishments were merged into one sentence of 24 months. That is two crimes, two victims, one sentence. That is wrong. Sexual predators who destroy lives must be held accountable to the full extent of the law. Their sentences should reflect the seriousness of every crime they commit and the sanctity and value of every victim they harm, yet today, too many offenders walk free far too soon.

This is why people in Lakeland call it a catch-and-release or revolving-door criminal system, not a justice one. Too many victims struggle in a system that does not protect them. Too many families watch predators return to the streets or into their own homes while the trauma of the crime lasts a lifetime. The worst part is that it has not just happened this way. People elected to stand and pass laws in this very place, the Liberals, made it that way. Over the past decade, they have weakened penalties for serious crimes; let criminals, gangsters and terrorists run free; put law-abiding, innocent Canadians at risk; and retraumatized victims.

The same Liberals passed Bill C-75, which introduced the concept of the principle of restraint, which outright directed judges to make it easier for repeat offenders to walk free on bail “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”. Let us be straight here. This so-called principle says Canadians should trust criminals to follow the rules, like the law, and their bail conditions. Yeah, that works well. The Liberals also passed Bill C-5, which allowed house arrest for serious crimes, like illegal drug trafficking and illegal drug importing, and major gun crimes, like drive-by shootings and illegal gun trafficking, while they target law-abiding firearms owners.

Parliament deliberately put mandatory minimum sentences in place to deter such severe crimes, but the truth is that time and again, the Liberals directly legislated favour for criminals and punishment for victims and innocent Canadians. That has to change, so that is exactly what our Conservative Lethbridge MP's Bill C-246 aims to do. If passed, her bill would require courts to impose consecutive sentences for individuals convicted of multiple sexual offences, so each crime would carry its own penalty, each victim would be honoured and each predator would serve the full weight and time for their crimes.

This law is needed now more than ever because while the Liberals like to talk about standing with victims, the reality is different. Since 2015, sexual assaults reported in Canada are up nearly 75%. Sexual offences against children, and this is almost unimaginable, are up by nearly 120%. Between 2015 and 2019, there were more than 27,000 sexual assault charges and over 33,000 sexual offence charges.

These numbers are shocking alone, but all MPs must recognize the truth and never forget that each of those numbers is a victim, a person, a human being, violated. Each number is a young adult who no longer feels or is safe in their own home, a woman who checks her locks at night and still cannot sleep, a man who suffers in silence because stigma still stops many male victims from speaking out, and a survivor who carries invisible and, at times, literal physical trauma into every part of their life.

The numbers do not lie, but they are not just statistics. They are Canadians whose dignity, security and sense of self-worth were stolen on top of horrific physical violation and the damage and harm of long-lasting fear. That is why they are called survivors, and that is why we here owe them our greatest duty.

Criminals can serve sentences that do not reflect the severity of their crimes. When that happens, victims are erased, unseen, unheard and devalued, which is reprehensible. If we are all to stand here with straight faces and say that there is a justice system in Canada, then it should punish those who prey on the vulnerable and ensure effective corrections to prevent recidivism. However, today, the max penalty for sexual assault against an adult is 10 years. If we compare that to property crimes like robbery or breaking and entering, which are also out of control under the Liberals, the max penalty can be life in prison. If this was sexual violence, it would be like robbing three banks but only being jailed for one, or breaking into six homes and only being punished for two. How does that make any sense at all?

No Canadian should accept that. The people of Lakeland certainly do not, but it is exactly what happens today with sexual offences. It sends a clear message to sexual violence victims that their sanctity and suffering does not count. It tells predators that their crimes may carry fewer consequences. How the heck are the ones who committed the crimes getting the better end of the deal around here?

It also sends a clear message to the many indigenous people in Lakeland and across Canada, who are disproportionately harmed by sexual violence and other violent crimes. Culturally sensitive approaches are important, but Canadian law should show without a shadow of a doubt that every single victim's life matters and every single criminal will be held to account.

In 2021, the ethics committee investigated the exploitation of victims of non-consensual or child sexual assault material of rape, sexual assault and human trafficking on platforms run by MindGeek. The survivors' words seared me, as did the clarity that the laws already exist to combat this but were not enforced. Just as it was then, it is true today that the laws exist for all of those crimes and predators can be held accountable, but that does not happen. A senior counsel at the justice department said, “I am not sure it's the problem of the law. The problem...is the application of the law”. Therefore, the tools exist, but the problem is that they are not being used. That is a fact, and this is the loophole for convicted sexual predators that can be closed, which is what the MP for Lethbridge wants to do.

I say to all MPs to ask themselves and really reflect on this: What message does not enforcing laws and discounting sentences really send to women and girls and to men and boys across Canada who have been victims of sexual violence? What message does it send to those who are recently recovering, afraid to speak out, because they fear their abusers will be out of jail?

MPs can get up here and make speeches on days like Red Dress Day, International Women's Day and the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, but without action, it is just words on paper and hot air out of our mouths. Liberals have a chance to act by voting for this bill.

Some victims will spend their lives trying to rebuild safety. Some will move. Some will never rebuild it. Some will struggle to trust again. Anxiety for some will be so great that they leave their jobs. Families and friends will watch loved ones change because of their trauma. Some will end their own lives. The truth is that just one person can change entire lives in horrible ways, but it does not have to be this way. Each person here has the power of just one vote, and we can change entire lives for the better.

I urge MPs to protect survivors and support this bill. It is not partisan. It does not matter if a member wears blue, red, green or orange, every MP holds the same duty to defend survivors and real justice. Parliament together can send a message to both survivors and to predators that sexual violence is never okay and that those who perpetrate it will be punished, because every survivor matters and every crime must count.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

moved that Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this chamber to debate this important legislation that would help restore Canadians' trust and confidence in our criminal justice system and in federal institutions like Correctional Service Canada.

Bill C-232, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is being debated today because I was inspired to bring this legislation forward after being approached by the loved ones of victims who were shocked and appalled to receive a phone call from CSC on May 29, 2023, about the transfer of serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security prison at Millhaven Institution in Ontario to a medium-security prison at La Macaza in Quebec.

This terrible decision by CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly not only shocked the country but appalled and revictimized the victims' families, friends and the communities I represent in Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. Bill C-232 is about doing what is right. It is about addressing and resolving a serious flaw in our criminal justice and corrections system that permits criminal monsters like Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta, among others, to benefit and be allowed to transfer from a maximum-security institution to medium security.

This bill proposes to require that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum-security classification and confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary. It would also repeal the Liberals' least restrictive environment standard for assigning inmates to prison. This standard was adopted in 2018 under the Justin Trudeau government in Bill C-83.

In addition to repealing this weak policy, it would strengthen and restore the language of “only the necessary restrictions” that the previous Conservative government put in place when it passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012. In fact, that legislation, known as Bill C-10, was spearheaded by my predecessor, the Hon. Rob Nicholson, who proudly represented Niagara Falls for 24 years prior to his deserved retirement in 2019. Mr. Nicholson was the minister of justice and attorney general of Canada at the time.

Paul Bernardo is serving a life sentence as a dangerous offender for the horrific abduction, sexual assaults and murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. Bernardo was convicted in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years for stealing and ending the lives of two teenage girls who had their whole bright futures ahead of them. When he committed these atrocities, he also ruined the lives of their loved ones and sentenced them to a lifetime of inescapable pain, trauma and suffering.

So far, Bernardo has applied for parole three times, in 2018, 2021 and 2024. He has rightfully been denied each time. In his most recent parole hearing in November of 2024, Bernardo sought day parole at a halfway house or, at a minimum, escorted absences from prison so that he could attend a community program for sex offenders. He was denied both.

According to a CBC article, Tanya Nouwens, one of the members of a two-member parole panel, told Bernardo, “Although you have made progress, we are still placing a lot of weight on the clinical assessments, a lot of weight on the seriousness of your criminal behaviour. And for that reason, the board has determined today your risk would be undue”. While it was the right outcome, this quote is still concerning because it raises the question of progress.

I have to ask: Progress toward what end? Paul Bernardo is the worst of the worst. Let me be frank. He should never be granted parole, but after 10 years under the Liberal government's watch, Canada's justice and corrections system has been eroded and lost its balance. It has become far more one-sided and empathetic toward the offender and the consideration of the offender's care than the impacts on victims and victims' families and how law-abiding Canadians see, perceive and make sense of that system.

In fact, in a CBC article from June 2023, Benjamin Roebuck, the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, said the corrections system strikes the wrong balance between victims' rights and prisoners' privacy rights. In a quote from that article, he says, “The entire system is imbalanced...the victims are the ones who are most directly affected, who continue to suffer from the consequences”.

Mr. Roebuck further reinforced this view when he testified at the public safety committee in November 2023, in a study on the rights of victims of crime, reclassification and transfer of federal offenders. Mr. Roebuck informed committee members that:

We need supporting legislation and comparable resources....

We know that victims are not put first, and I'm not sure that people understand the importance of information to victims of crime.

The fact that these terrible criminals are judged to be progressing through Canada's corrections system while the voices of victims of crime are somehow sidelined and, in a way, silenced is concerning and should be shocking to us all.

This is a non-partisan issue. It is about doing what is right. Keeping dangerous offenders, serial killers and mass murderers like Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta in a maximum-security prison is common sense. Simply put, there should have been no way that any of these criminals were ever downgraded and transferred from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, yet on May 29, 2023, this is exactly what happened to Paul Bernardo.

The CSC decision to transfer Bernardo to a medium-security prison was met with immediate and harsh public outrage on a national scale. Locally, both the cities of St. Catharines and Thorold passed municipal resolutions requesting that Correctional Service Canada and the Liberal government act. In the motion adopted by the City of St. Catharines, it states:

...City Council request[s] that the Government of Canada review and consider legislation changes to ensure transparency in the corrections and parole system and examine the guidelines around moving dangerous offenders and sadistic psychopaths who have not exhibited any remorse, empathy or insight into their crimes into medium security prisons....

The mayor of Thorold also wrote and expressed this:

The gravity of Mr. Bernardo's crimes, and the devastating impact they had on the lives of innocent individuals and their families, cannot be understated. Our community, along with the wider Niagara region, continues to bear the scars left by these reprehensible actions. It is of utmost importance that we prioritize public safety and ensure that those who pose a significant risk to society are appropriately confined and monitored.

I could not agree more. Decades since these heinous crimes were committed, the nightmares and scars from the terror still linger in the communities they impacted in St. Catharines, as well as in the Niagara communities that I represent in Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The Liberal government must answer these questions. Why are these prison transfers happening? Why are they benefiting Canada's most evil criminals and to what end? Is it the desire of the Liberal government to continue the progression of these dangerous offenders, serial killers and mass murderers until they are transferred to minimum-security prison or until they are granted parole or lesser conditions?

Surely the Liberal government does not believe that the likes of Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta should continue to be downgraded until they are out of the corrections system, or does it?

The Canadian justice and corrections system must be rebalanced to support law-abiding Canadians and victims of crime. That needs to be the goal, and Bill C-232 will help restore this balance, as well as the confidence of Canadians in their federal institutions. These CSC decisions to transfer dangerous offenders and mass murderers from maximum-security prison to medium-security prison undermines public confidence, erodes public trust and raises serious questions and debate about who the justice system serves and prioritizes: the victims, as it should, or the criminal.

Canadians know something is wrong when even CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly, the person responsible for these transfers, conceded this about Bernardo. She said, “The fact that he is at a medium-security institution does not negate the fact that he is a psychopath, and that he committed horrific and unspeakable crimes”.

There is also the former public safety minister's own reaction to the news about Bernardo's transfer. He was quoted by CBC as saying, “as a former federal prosecutor and as a Canadian...I was profoundly concerned and again shocked by this decision”. This was a quote from the former minister who was in charge. It does not come as a surprise then that shortly after this national debacle, Minister Mendicino was dropped by Justin Trudeau from cabinet.

Canadians are in disbelief about this whole thing. These comments are from the people who hold authority. They are the ones Canadians expect to run and competently manage Canada's corrections system and institutions like CSC to ensure and uphold public safety. Despite their own acknowledgements of how bad Paul Bernardo is, they carried on and moved forward as if nothing had happened and continue to allow these types of transfers to occur.

The new Liberal Minister of Public Safety has failed to take any action, and the same CSC commissioner has failed to reverse her decisions. Last week, the government announced she is leaving her role and will be replaced. Canadians will be watching closely to see what actions the new commissioner takes, or fails to take, in their new role.

The person who first contacted me and asked that I get involved to help on this issue was a close friend of one of Paul Bernardo's victims. Her name is Marcia Penner. In a letter she wrote to CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly, and I think she speaks for all Canadians, she stated:

Please help me understand how someone such as Paul Bernardo can be housed in a facility such as this. One of Canada’s most notorious killers. A psychopathic serial rapist. A designated DANGEROUS OFFENDER. Does any of this mean anything? I can only imagine the prisoners remaining in maximum security penitentiaries must be asking the same question. If someone who commits the worst of the worst crimes doesn’t qualify for the harshest conditions, then who does?

Marcia is right, and Bill C-232 is the solution to fix this major problem and do what is ultimately right. Bill C-232 also complements a larger Conservative effort, through several private members' bills, to combat the out-of-control crime wave Canadians are facing after a decade of bad Liberal policies that weakened our federal institutions like the CSC.

The Liberal government now talks about implementing needed justice reforms. Sadly, these reforms are required to fix the problems the Liberals created when they weakened provisions of previous Conservative legislation through bills such as Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-83. There is hope. Two of my colleagues' bills, Bill C-243 and Bill C-242, resume their second reading debates soon. I am encouraged to see that both Bill C-225 and Bill C-221 have passed second reading and have been referred to committee for further study and consideration by parliamentarians. I am hopeful that Bill C-232 will follow suit and receive the widespread support of my hon. colleagues to reach committee as well.

Enough is enough. It is time we start rebalancing the corrections system to weigh victims' considerations more strongly, restore Canadians' trust and confidence in our federal institutions and return dangerous offenders and mass murderers like Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta to maximum-security prisons where they rightly belong. With the support of colleagues in the House, we can make this happen. We can respond to the calls from our constituents, communities and, more importantly, the families of those victims of crime.

I stand in my place today because I made a promise to see what I could do to help correct a horribly wrong decision made by the government. I ask my colleagues to support this effort. Working together, we can accomplish great things and do so in memory of those so tragically lost.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, that tragic case is a direct result of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75's laws that weaken bail, water down consequences and fuel the revolving door for violent crime.

Conservatives have repeatedly fought to strengthen bail and early release provisions and to keep violent offenders behind bars. We have offered to work with the government, yet the Liberals vote down tougher laws that Conservatives propose, choosing ideology over public safety.

How many more Canadians have to be violently attacked before the government admits its laws are failing?

Motions in Amendment

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague from Nunavut was well thought out, but while I respect a lot of what she had to say, I do disagree with a couple of things. One is that I wish we actually had a Conservative agenda being brought forward by the government. The member also talks about a lack of evidence. Daily in the newspaper we see stories of victims of repeat violent offenders and victims of domestic violence from repeat violent offenders who are put in jail and are immediately brought back out. I think there is evidence of the failure of Bill C-75.

What would be the NPD solution to repeat violent offenders being let back out, abusing women and children and committing crimes against everyday Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker. I thank my hon. friend for his passionate speech. My heart goes out to the members in his community who faced violent criminals while going through a catastrophe. It is endemic. It is an example of how our criminal justice system has failed us. When we look at Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, we see a culture of releasing violent offenders. It is no wonder 60% of Canadians feel that crime is rising in their community and that they are not safe.

How does my friend think this bill is going to solve that problem, if at all, and restore the confidence of the public?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the secretary of state needs to look herself in the mirror and ask why she has failed Canadians, why she has failed victims and why she has allowed such criminality to be so pervasive throughout this country.

She had a choice. She could have said no to the passage of Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory minimum penalties. She voted yes. She had a choice in passing Bill C-75, which opened up the floodgates to catch-and-release. It is really rich for her to claim now that they are taking it seriously when they were the cause of the problem in the first place.