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.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have all gone on ride-alongs. When someone goes on a police ride-along, the police officer might say, “There's Jerry. I picked him up on Monday. This is Wednesday and we're going to pick him up again.” The Liberal government has caused this through obstruction, with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

We have had two horrific incidents in Saskatchewan. A fatal shooting of a 44-year-old woman on a highway near Weyburn left people in that area scared. She was just driving along on the weekend and was shot and killed in her car. Two men have also been charged after a targeted shooting in Regina, with 23 bullets shot in the Eastview community. An 11-year-old girl was injured.

I want the hon. member to comment on those incidents.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Oxford.

One aspect of the Liberal crime disaster is out-of-control extortion in this country. Many towns and suburbs, once safe, are now being terrorized by gangs who threaten neighbours with violence and arson, as well as criminals who shoot into homes and even burn down homes and businesses. We have even heard of reported murders as well.

In the Vancouver area alone, extortion has jumped over 400%. I received a text message from a resident in that area, and this is one of many that I have received over this time. It says, “I am reaching out with a very humble request regarding the alarming situation in Surrey. Right now, families are living in fear. There were approximately 39 reported extortion cases and about 28 shootings just recently. Every day, things are getting worse. If this situation is not handled properly and quickly, it will encourage copycat cases and give more criminals the confidence to act. The crime rate in Surrey is very high and at an alarming point. I respectfully ask you to raise this concern in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity. Our community needs stronger laws and real actions.”

Mr. Speaker, this is a text message I got from a resident in Surrey just the other day. This is how bad it is. Canadians are lost; they do not know what to do. Many have said that this is not the same Canada they remember.

The fact is, when talking to Liberals and others, even in the House, we find that they are trying to blame provincial governments; they blame it on someone else. It is the same thing they have done with the economy; they blame it on somebody else. That is what they have done with this issue as well. They try to blame it on the provinces, but this is not a provincial problem.

The Criminal Code is federal. The RCMP is federal. The laws the Liberals brought in, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, made it easier for criminals to get out on the streets as soon as they are arrested. Even violent offenders are given bail the same day, sometimes the next day. Those are all federal and within the Liberals' power to scrap. It is no wonder that Canadians have lost faith in the justice system to deliver justice for victims.

Conservatives are calling on the government to act, because Canadians need that action. We need the Liberals to strengthen mandatory jail time to a minimum of three years for all extortion, four years if it involves a firearm and five years if tied to organized crime. This is the least we could do. Arson must be treated as an aggravating factor in extortion. Also, we need to repeal the Liberals' catch-and-release laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. We need laws to keep serious offenders behind bars. These laws make it much easier for criminals to get bail and be released into the communities.

I brought forward a private member's bill that did this. Unfortunately and quite shockingly, the Liberals voted it down. It is hard to explain why. The Liberals and the NDP at the time did this, actually.

Enough is enough. That is why we are calling for a “three strikes and you're out” law today. If a criminal is convicted of three serious offences, they would no longer qualify for bail, probation, parole or house arrest. They would face at least 10 years in prison and up to a lifetime as a dangerous offender. The only path back to freedom will be spotless behaviour, clean drug tests and rehabilitation efforts, such as learning a trade or upgrading education. In other words, there would be no more revolving door. The Liberal revolving door has to end. Serious offenders would stay behind bars until they are no longer a threat.

We have to keep Canadians safe. Right now, we have the opposite under the Liberal government. Bill C-5 allows violent offenders to serve sentences from their living rooms. Bill C-75 ensures many of those same offenders are back out on the streets within hours. After the police have done the hard work of trying to arrest somebody, they are given bail right away.

The consequences of the Liberal soft-on-crime policies are devastating.

Myles Sanderson, with 59 prior convictions, was released and went on to murder 11 people and injure 17 in Saskatchewan.

In the Peel Region, 18 criminals were arrested for home invasions and carjackings. Half of them were out on bail.

In Vancouver, police arrested the same 40 offenders 6,000 times.

Then there are the tragedies that will haunt Canadian families forever. Bailey McCourt, a young mother, was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail for assault and threats. Bailey deserved better. Her family deserved better. Canadians deserve better.

These are not just statistics. These are people whose lives were stolen because the government puts criminals first and victims last. Conservatives will change that. Our “three strikes and you're out” law would lock up dangerous criminals, stop the Liberal revolving door and bring home safe streets for Canadians. It would give victims and families peace of mind, knowing that offenders who harmed them will not harm anyone else, because the offenders will be behind bars. Conservatives will always fight to protect law-abiding Canadians and prioritize the safety of our communities over the comfort of repeat violent offenders.

Enough is enough. Canadians are counting on us to act. They need us to act to keep them and their families safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member read from a September 9 Winnipeg editorial citing the need for more provincial prosecutors. Does the hon. member understand that it is the Liberal government's revolving door that is keeping prosecutors busy and that scrapping Bill C-75 would free those prosecutors up to focus on other cases?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was an MLA as well. Seven years ago we started to hear about the crime in our communities, and that is when I first started to hear the blame game: B.C. and the provinces blaming Ottawa. Now I come here and the Liberals are blaming the Conservatives. The Liberals have been in government for ten years. I also hear the idea that somehow they need a consultation to relax their soft-on-crime legislation. The stories we have heard in Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the last seven years are horrendous. They are horrible.

Why did the Liberals need so much time to consult, when all the records, victims and families are there? Why did they spend seven years consulting, when really all they had to do was repeal Bill C-75, for example? When is the blame game going to stop?

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion that we put forward today is a motion that I am quite ashamed has to exist in this country. We are calling for the House and the Liberal government to acknowledge the gravity of repeat and rampant criminality in Canada, in communities of all sizes across the country, and to replace the Liberal approach to bail with a “three strikes and you're out” law, one that will stop criminals convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, parole, probation or house arrest. It would keep violent criminals behind bars for at least 10 years.

If we were to talk to Canadians, a lot of them would be shocked that this is not already law, but Canadians know that the system is broken. Canadians know that they used to be able to walk down streets at any hour of the day or night and feel safe and secure, but they can no longer do that. Business owners, not just in large cities but also in small communities like those across my riding, are replacing windows over and over again that are getting broken into. We have a government that has, through its policy, through legislation that it has continued to defend, told victims of crime that they do not matter, that they have no rights, that the rights of offenders matter more.

A small number of offenders, relatively speaking, are being arrested and released over and over again. It is not uncommon to hear a police department say that it has a list of 100 or 150 people who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of their calls. This is not just vandalism or property crime, although I will firmly say that property crime is real crime because we know that it is a precursor to crimes that target individuals and that are often violent. It is all sorts of criminality that is causing injury, that is causing the degradation of communities, that is causing a serious and real public safety threat.

I have talked to experts on this, police chiefs in my riding, like the chiefs of the police services in London, St. Thomas, and Aylmer, Ontario. When we look at the messaging that has been put out by police associations and frontline officers, they all draw a direct line to Bill C-75, which introduced a suite of changes, among them the introduction of something called the principle of restraint.

The Minister of Justice got up in the House a few days ago and accused Conservatives of not having read the law. I have read it many times, as have the police officers I speak to on a regular basis and the provincial governments that have been calling for this to be repealed. It says very clearly that judges must release offenders under the least onerous conditions at the earliest opportunity. It is very rare that we can draw a direct line from a social problem on Canadian streets to a policy, but everyone involved in this space, everyone except the Liberal government, by the way, has done exactly that, because they have seen a night and day difference between before Bill C-75 and after Bill C-75.

I have shared, in a few interviews and online, a story that happened in my riding this summer in St. Thomas, where a historic building, 140-plus years old, was burned down by a repeat offender who was out on bail and had been previously convicted of arson. This is not the way the country is supposed to be. This is not the way things used to be, and it is certainly not the way things would be if the Liberal government would agree to provide real bail reform.

This is beyond parody now, these heart-breaking stories from across the country of repeat, rampant criminality and prolific offenders, as police will call them. However, evidently, since the Liberal government has dug in its heels on this, I need to give a few stories.

There is one from Langley, where a man was charged with violently beating a woman on June 1, a complete stranger in downtown Langley, British Columbia. It was his 37th court appearance in three years. This is what the system is doing on a regular basis.

In another case, a 12-year-old boy was charged with attempted murder in a shooting in Toronto. The fact that we are talking about 12-year-olds being involved in this level of criminality is bad enough, but it is even worse when we consider that the 12-year-old was out on bail. This is what the system is.

In Edmonton, on August 30, Priscilla McGreer was shot to death outside her home by her cousin, who had been charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and breach of probation. He had an extensive history with the courts, including a homicide charge from 2018.

There are more of these cases than I could read in the time this chamber has. My question is, what would it take for the government to acknowledge that there is a problem, first off, and then acknowledge that it caused the problem? Remember that when the Liberal government continues to tell us that it is championing bail reform, its members leave out the part that the so-called reforms that have caused this problem were also pitched to us by the Liberal government as bail reform. These are their changes that have led to the problem we are now trying to seek a real resolution for.

My colleague, the hon. member for Oxford, has put forward a significant bail reform bill that would go forward with actual action. However, instead, we have the Liberal government obstructing the efforts we have been making to advance this issue and push forward real solutions. That is why the motion we are putting forward, as I said at the beginning, is one that I wish was not necessary in Canada. However, it is necessary, and it is tremendously important.

I will provide a couple of other examples here, because I like to lean on what the experts are saying. I like to lean on victims' rights groups, attorneys general in the various provinces of the country, police chiefs and frontline police officers. I will read one line that I think is incredibly relevant to the discussion at hand: “Recidivism, or repeat offending, impacts public safety and the victims affected by those new crimes”. The quote continues with this later on: “reducing recidivism can generate additional substantial benefits to society by reducing criminal justice costs and preventing new victimization.” This comes from Public Safety Canada.

The government's own messaging recognizes the significant harms that recidivism causes, yet the government has not provided real action. Its members keep alluding to this future bail reform bill that may or may not exist and that we do not know the contents of, but they expect us to get behind it. Well, we are providing, through today's motion, a very real, very tangible solution that hits directly at the concerns that have been raised by concerned citizens across this country. We also have the bill from the hon. member for Oxford, which is forthcoming and would provide real, tangible solutions.

Whenever this issue comes up, we hear from the government “blame the provinces”. It blames everyone else, and we see everything other than the introspection to look at what everyone else in the country sees, which is that Bill C-75, among the many things it did that we do not contest as a party, through the principle of restraint, has made bail easier to get for serious offenders and has made the conditions of bail that repeat offenders are getting less onerous. This has resulted in police officers not even being able to enforce bail conditions, because the sheer volume of offenders out on bail at any given moment is so large that scarce resources have to be deployed to clean up after the failures of the Liberal government.

Since the government is claiming that it cares about bail reform, I am asking it to commit to real bail reform and to put the rights of victims and the rights of people who do not feel safe in their own communities ahead of the rights of offenders. This is not a radical or partisan proposal. It is the bare minimum for a country to keep its citizens safe, to keep its communities safe.

I sent a letter to my constituents a few weeks ago on this issue, and my office has been overwhelmed by the response, including from people who say they have always been a Liberal. They cannot abide by what the Liberal government has done in abandoning and abdicating its duty to preserve and protect public safety.

I am asking the Liberal government to commit to supporting our motion and providing real bail reform rather than obstruction.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are issues in every city in this country. I will give a few statistics from the police in my city of Saskatoon: Violent crime this year is up 12.5%, assaults are up 20% and criminal harassment is up 150%. This is why we feel, on this side of the House, that the Liberals have been obstructing every police force in the country with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

I do not have to tell members about the gruesome killings in my province a couple of years ago at James Smith reserve. Myles Sanderson killed 11 people and hurt 16 others. He had 59 convictions, yet he was out on bail. This is why we are bringing forward the motion today.

I want the hon. member to comment on Myles Sanderson's killing 11—

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the important issue of bail and the role of the criminal justice system in keeping our communities safe. This is an important opportunity to reaffirm the government's commitment to public safety and to highlight the critical role provinces and territories play in the administration of Canada's bail system.

Canada's criminal justice system is a shared responsibility. While the federal government is responsible for enacting criminal law and procedure, including the laws that govern bail, the provinces and territories are responsible for the daily administration and management of the bail system. This includes conducting most bail hearings, enforcing and monitoring bail conditions, operating remand facilities and collecting and reporting bail data.

In short, it is an important partnership with the provinces and territories on the front lines of bail administration. Their role is central to ensuring that the bail system functions effectively and fairly. Their central role also means they are uniquely positioned to identify and work with us to address all the systemic challenges within the bail system, whether delays in hearings, access to legal aid or the availability of community-based supports.

Strengthening bail administration requires not only legal expertise but also investments in infrastructure, data systems and frontline services. When provinces and territories are empowered and resourced to lead, the entire justice system benefits from greater efficiency, fairness and public confidence.

I want to emphasize that while law reform is important, law reform on its own is not enough. Over the past several years, the federal government has taken meaningful steps to modernize bail laws. Bill C-75 also made it more onerous for people accused of intimate partner violence to obtain bail.

Specifically, the amendments created a reverse onus at bail for an accused charged with a violent offence involving an intimate partner if they had a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner. Amendments also required courts to consider prior intimate partner violence convictions when determining whether to release the accused or impose bail conditions. These amendments reflect Parliament's recognition that intimate partner violence is a serious issue and that the bail system had to be reformed to better respond to this violence and to better protect the victims.

In 2023, Bill C-48 expanded reverse onus provisions for repeat violent offenders and required courts to explicitly consider public safety when making a bail decision. Specifically, the amendments created a new reverse onus to target serious repeat violent offending involving weapons, expanded the list of firearm offences that trigger a reverse onus and broadened the reverse onus targeting repeat offenders of intimate partner violence, among others.

These reforms were developed in close collaboration with provinces and territories. They responded directly to concerns raised by premiers across the country. The amendments were also informed by engagement with law enforcement, community organizations and other key partners and stakeholders. However, legislation is only one part of the solution.

As a start, we need better data. There is a critical lack of national bail data, and this is preventing a full understanding of how the bail system is operating across Canada. The federal government does not collect bail data; provinces and territories do. That means they hold the key to unlocking the evidence we need to assess the effectiveness of bail laws, identify gaps and make informed decisions. We are working with provincial and territorial partners to increase the efforts to collect and report bail data. This is essential for evaluating the impact of bail reforms, understanding regional differences in bail outcomes, supporting evidence-based policy developments and enhancing public confidence in the justice system.

Public safety depends on collaboration. We know that people in Canada are concerned about repeat violent offending and threats to community safety. The government shares those concerns, but effective bail administration requires more than just legal tools; it also requires resources, infrastructure and coordination. We are working with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that they are investing in bail supervision programs, community supports for accused persons, enforcement mechanisms for bail conditions and improvements to remand facilities.

We also need to work together to address the root causes of crime, including poverty, mental health, substance use and housing insecurity. These are areas where provincial and territorial governments have jurisdiction and expertise. Their leadership is essential to achieving long-term reductions in crime and to improving public safety.

At the same time, we must recognize that meaningful progress requires sustained collaboration across all orders of government. The federal government has a role to play in supporting innovation, funding evidence-based programs and ensuring national coordination, but it cannot act alone. By working in partnership with provinces and territories, we all can invest in upstream solutions that prevent crime before it happens, strengthen communities and promote equity. Public safety is not just about enforcement; it is also about creating the conditions where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

People in Canada deserve a bail system that is fair and effective. They also deserve to see all orders of government working together to ensure the proper functioning of the system, not just through legislation but also through monitoring and prevention. This is why the federal government is working closely with provincial and territorial partners to enhance bail data collection, figure out what is driving crime in different jurisdictions and develop actual solutions that will reduce reoffending at the bail stage and beyond.

The federal government stands ready to continue this work. It is committed to continuing to reform the bail system and to support its partners. The federal government continues to work closely with the provinces and territories, including representatives from law enforcement, and is committed to addressing concerns with the bail system and developing meaningful solutions. This commitment was articulated in the government's election platform, which called for stricter bail laws for individuals charged with violent and organized crimes related to auto theft, home invasion and human trafficking and smuggling.

The Prime Minister also committed to strengthening bail and sentencing laws following the June 2 first ministers' meeting. More recently, the Prime Minister, as well as the Minister of Justice, publicly expressed an intention to table a bill this fall, introducing stricter bail and sentencing laws, particularly in relation to organized crime, human trafficking, home invasion and auto theft, but the federal government cannot do it alone. We are working with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that they continue to play their critical role in administrating bail and providing the data and support systems needed to make the system work.

Together we can build a justice system that protects communities, respects rights and earns the confidence of people across Canada.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by reminding both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Winnipeg North that I have the floor. I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Pickering—Brooklin.

I want to pick up on the exchange that I just had with the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. It was interesting to ask the question on agriculture, because he now represents a riding that has more agricultural industry than Carleton.

The hon. member for Peterborough represents an agricultural riding in Ontario and comes from a farming background. We were talking outside about how the Conservative Party of Canada has generally taken farmers for granted. I went through the platform of the Conservative Party. There were three mentions of the word “farmers”, but there was no substantive policy about what the Conservative Party, if it had been elected government, would have actually done for farmers. With the Leader of the Opposition now representing a more rural, agriculture-heavy riding, it will be interesting to see if we will see more agricultural policy from him and his party.

I will get to the opposition day motion, but given that the canola industry was raised in the debate, right now, that industry is under duress. There are challenges around market access in China. I was just with Premier Moe for a three-day opportunity to engage on that question. I thought the conversations were constructive. There was an opportunity, I believe, for a pathway forward.

The exchange was interesting, and I apologize to my hon. Bloc colleague, as we had a little bit of banter back and forth. The member for Regina—Lewvan was actually involved in that conversation as well. It is going to be important for western members of Parliament, when they want to talk about supporting a $43-billion industry with approximately 35,000 farmers, to recognize that those farmers rely on demand signals for canola products, whether meal, oil or seed. The clean fuel standards and biofuel policy in this country are extremely important. When we go to the farm gate and talk about those demand signals, they matter.

At a time when we need to be supporting our canola industry, when we are going to be looking for new markets and continuing to engage with the Chinese, we have an opportunity on domestic policy. However, the Conservatives just want to throw it away. That is not what the industry is asking for. That is not what farmers are looking for. They are looking for certainty and a pathway forward.

I would encourage the western Canadian members of Parliament from the Conservative Party who have farmers, who have the opportunity, to actually say, what is your domestic policy driver? The Conservatives are trying to take away something that actually matters. It is interesting. We know when we are actually able to land a little bit of a punch, because it gets them irritated. That is fine. We have a fun back-and-forth. However, it is something for the Conservatives to reflect on. It will be an important message when we are in Western Canada, and I hope local farmers will be reminding their Conservative members of Parliament that it is an important policy that actually matters for farm gate prices.

We are here today to talk about criminal law reform. The opposition day motion raises the idea of a “three strikes and you're out” policy. We see this from certain quarters of the United States. I want to start by saying that the issue of public safety is an extremely fundamental one in Canada. All parliamentarians, regardless of where we sit in the House, take this question seriously. I have to assume that, and I know it. We want to make sure that our neighbours, friends and people in our communities feel safe. Frankly, I think we can agree that there has to be reform.

The justice minister has talked about reforms that are coming. As parliamentarians, we do not have all the details on that. The minister has talked about some of the principles of what the government is going to be pursuing in the next few weeks. I really hope that all parliamentarians can focus on a quick expedition. Our job is to critique, review and scrutinize legislation, but we do not want any unreasonable delay. We want to be able to move on this reform to toughen up bail provisions and make sure that we have stronger sentencing and an ability to integrate with and do important work alongside public safety to tackle crime in our communities.

I want to highlight a few things. From my time in this place, members know that when I come here, I really try to hone in on the text of the opposition day motion. It is fine. Sometimes we as parliamentarians can talk in generalities, but our job is to litigate specific pieces of the text that are put forward. The Conservatives are talking about a 50% increase in violent crime. It is not actually quoted, in the text, where this comes from. As the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said, we have heard about broad references to Statistics Canada.

It is important to put another perspective on the table. For Toronto, and obviously for a lot of the members from the GTA, this is something that is not about what colour jersey we wear. When we come to this House, we are bringing the issues of our communities. We know that, in the GTA in particular, there is a desire to tackle and have more action on crime, but the Toronto Police Service did release a report, just on September 9, that actually said there is a downward trend in violent crime in the city. In fact, there has been a 40% reduction year over year, and numbers are getting back to where they were in 2020.

I do not stand here and suggest that any government would be satisfied with that. There is a whole host of work to be done, but I think it is very incumbent on any party or member of Parliament, when they introduce the text of a motion, to know that further context is important.

We see in the largest metropolitan area in this country that we are having success in the integrated work that the government has been doing and that the new government, under our new Prime Minister, is going to be deeply focused on in the days ahead. I want to make sure that is on the record.

As a member of Parliament, I think we need to have more databases that can actually share some of that important information. Even in the lead-up to today's debate, I found that some of those key statistics that inform parliamentarians and that can inform our authorities in response could be tightened up so that we could have more information and know better how to tackle these elements.

Of course, this is a nationwide dynamic, and we want to make sure that, regardless of where they live, Canadians are safe in their communities. However, there are more acute areas where we have to have a more targeted approach. The text also says, and we heard this from the leader of the official opposition, “allow for house arrest for serious offenders”. We have to tackle the premise of that element of the text.

Again, the message we are sending today on behalf of the government is that we take this issue seriously, but we have to be careful not to have a message of things that maybe stretch the truth a bit or that maybe do not give the entire context. The provision that the leader of the official opposition talked about around the principle of restraint is actually from two Supreme Court decisions. Beyond Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which were referenced, this is in the common law, so these decisions that are made by the highest courts in the land take precedence unless we legislate over the courts.

This gets into an important factor that I think all parliamentarians have to contemplate. We stand here in this House, and we can have ideas and thoughts about what we want in our community. There is a role for Parliament in that, and there is also a role for individuals who are tasked with hearing the salient facts of a particular case and making those decisions around sentencing and around what the provisions on bail could be. Sometimes, it is fair to say, those individuals are in a better position, but it is the legitimate role of Parliament to scrutinize decisions from the courts and determine whether a decision has perhaps gone too far.

Therefore, it is important to recognize that in all the decisions around anything on bail, public safety and repeat risk are paramount in that decision-making. We could criticize something and perhaps say a judge may have gotten it wrong, but that is when Parliament will have to make its decision about whether we are going to put stricter provisions in place that actually dictate to the courts. There is a balance between Parliamentary supremacy and the independence of the judiciary, which is also important.

What is also missing from this text is context on provincial resourcing. In the administration of justice, we actually need to have a complement of judges, and we need to have the court access time. Certainly, for provincial jails and federal correction facilities, we also need to have the capacity, if we feel it necessary, to actually contain individuals whom we do not want to release into our communities.

Missing from this conversation on the opposition day motion today is the role of the provinces in partnering with federal changes that are forthcoming from the government. This is extremely important, because part of the reason around some of the Supreme Court decisions is there have not been adequate resources in the justice service.

The last piece I am going to say is how there is no mention of the social determinants of crime. Yes, we need to make sure we have adequate deterrents. That comes down to criminal sentencing. That comes down to bail reform. However, there is no conversation about how we are actually tackling housing, mental health services and the integration of services at the provincial level to try to make sure that the individuals in question who commit crimes are not even in those circumstances in the first place to be able to do them.

We agree there is work to be done. The Minister of Justice is going to present that in the days ahead. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank that member for his incredible and distinguished service to the Canadian Armed Forces. He is a very distinguished member.

The other heroes who also wear a uniform are police officers. They tell me they are exhausted from arresting the same offenders over and over again. They say that the criminals laugh at them. They say that, often, criminals now confess to their crimes in the back seat of the car because they do not care if they get convicted, knowing that there will be no penalty whatsoever. This is the direct result of a Liberal law, Bill C-75, requiring the immediate release of the offender at the earliest opportunity and under “the least onerous conditions”, and of Bill C-5, the house arrest law.

What I say to those police officers is that we want them to have fewer return customers. We will bring in “three strikes and you're out” to keep these dangerous offenders in the slammer. We will lock them up and throw away the key.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

No, they have not done nothing; they have done worse than nothing.

Mr. Speaker, they have obstructed action. There is obstructionism by the Liberal Party to keep in place the failed laws that are unleashing chaos on our streets.

Conservatives said in the spring, right after the election, let us immediately reverse catch-and-release Liberal laws and lock up the criminals that the government was turning free. Instead, the Prime Minister said we would go on vacation. What has been the consequence of that decision? It is real a human cost. In Kelowna, 15 people were arrested 1,300 times in one year, which is almost 100 arrests per offender per year. In Penticton, there is one guy named Levi who does so much crime that police told me that when he is out of prison, he raises the crime rate for the entire city. That is one guy. In Vancouver, 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times, which is 150 arrests per offender per year. How is this possible? Well, they are automatically released under a Liberal law, Bill C-75, which requires judges to release the offender at the earliest opportunity under “the least onerous conditions”.

Here are the stories of the catch-and-release system.

Myles Sanderson stabbed 11 people to death and injured another 18 on the James Smith Cree Nation reserve and in nearby Weldon, Saskatchewan. This is an offender who had already been arrested for 46 prior offences, including things like armed robbery and assault. He also had a pattern of domestic abuse before he was released.

Matthew McQuarrie was sentenced to life in prison for stabbing Emerson Sprung to death and burying him in a shallow grave in a park in Meaford, Ontario, in May 2020. McQuarrie, who had an extensive criminal history dating back to 2001, was in jail in the months leading up to Sprung's murder on separate charges but was released at the height of COVID.

Tyrone Simard killed his sister and attacked several others in Hollow Water First Nation in Manitoba on September 4, 2025. He had been charged with violent offences, including assault with a weapon, sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, which are all offences that happened before his release and alleged instances going back over eight years. He was out on bail when he carried out his attack.

In March, a suspect in a trio of unprovoked stabbings was found to have been previously released on bail.

On August 31, 25-year-old Daniel Senecal was arrested and charged by Niagara police after a violent sexual assault on a three-year-old child who was in her own bed, the place where she should have been safest. He was out on release even though he had already assaulted a 12-year-old.

All of these scumbags should have been in jail, and if Conservative laws had been in place, they would have been in jail. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister thought his summer vacation was more important. Even since he has returned, he and his justice minister have been obstructing our efforts to lock up these criminals and change the law. Once again, if the Liberals are not prepared to reverse their own mistakes, then get out of the way and let Conservatives make Canadians safer. We do this not out of hatred for the criminal but out of love for the victims, and out of determination to make our communities safe again. We as Conservatives want to restore a country where hard work pays off with beautiful homes, nutritious food and safe streets where people are united under a proud flag. We set four main priorities for our return to Parliament: stronger take-home pay, safer streets, secure borders and a self-reliant nation.

We are here to oppose the bad the government does and expose its corrupt behaviour, and also to propose solutions that will improve the lives of the Canadian people. We call on the government to stop the obstruction, put aside the partisanship, work with us on the solutions that all Canadians have asked for and bring about the real change that Canadians are demanding. We will put our country ahead of party, as always, because we are Canadians first. We love our country and we want to restore its promise.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this morning on behalf of my constituents from Rivière‑du‑Nord, who once again placed their trust in me last spring.

Today, we are talking about the Conservative Party's motion, which raises an important issue, the 50% increase in violent crime. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about this issue and has raised it in the House many times in recent years.

However, the motion calls on the Liberal government to replace a certain number of laws with what is referred to as the “three strikes and you're out” law. The first problem is that we are not familiar with that law. We have an idea of what it entails from what we have been told, but I cannot see myself asking the House today to suggest that the government pass a law when we do not know the content of that law.

Since 2014, there has been a worrying increase in crime in Canada. The overall crime severity index for Canada rose from 66.9 in 2014 to 77.9 in 2024. For Quebec, the same index rose from 57.66 in 2014 to 63.01 in 2024. These are obviously significant and worrying increases. If we look at the statistics on violent crime in absolute terms, it is a bit tricky, because the population has varied greatly over the last 10 years.

We can therefore look at the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. In Canada, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was 1,076.2. In 2024, it was 1,433. This represents a 33% increase in violent crime in Canada in just under 10 years. In Quebec, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was 966 in 2015, and rose to 1,424 in 2024, an increase of 47%. There has therefore been a real increase in the proportion of violent crimes in Quebec and Canada over the past 10 years.

In Canada, the number of sexual assaults per 100,000 inhabitants rose from 57.3 to 87. In Quebec, it rose from 45 to 98 over the same period, an increase of 119%. That is a significant increase. The number of firearms offences in Canada rose from 6.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 13.1 in 2024, an increase of 100% in 10 years. In Quebec, for the same offences, the number rose from 3.5 to 8.9 offences per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 157%.

I also want to talk about cases of extortion, which are an ongoing concern and have been on the rise in recent years. This is increasingly worrying, especially with what is happening on the Internet. Across Canada, the number of offences rose from 8.5 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 31.8 per 100,000 inhabitants. This is an increase of 272%. In Quebec, for the same period, from 2015 to 2024, the number of offences rose from 14.8 to 38.09 per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 158%.

As we can see, all of those crime rates have increased significantly over the past 10 years. In that regard, we fully share the concerns the Conservatives are raising about how the justice system is being managed. Changes are definitely needed. This needs to be fixed. However, as I said, at this point, we do not know the exact details of our Conservative colleagues' bill, since it has not been introduced in the House. The Conservative leader simply announced that his bill would be sponsored by a member of his party, who is 10th in line in the draw for private members' business.

Therefore, all we know about this motion is what the Conservative leader said in his media scrum and what was reported in the press a few weeks ago. First, he announced that he would make sure that “three-time serious criminals get a minimum prison term of 10 years and up to a life sentence.”

Second, he said that these criminals “will also be designated as dangerous offenders, meaning they cannot be released until they prove they are no longer a danger.”

Third, the only way for them to “obtain their freedom will be through spotless behaviour and clean drug tests” during their prison sentence, among other things.

Fourth, for them to be granted parole, he said earned release will depend on “improving themselves and their life opportunities, such as by learning a trade or upgrading their education.”

Finally, the bill would also repeal Bill C‑75 from the 42nd Parliament. One thing that bill did was amend the provisions on interim release.

There are some good and not-so-good things in this Conservative Party proposal. The parts that talk about offenders learning a trade or upgrading their education are very commendable, in my opinion. In any case, these options already exist in all our prisons. Encouraging inmates to register for these programs, in our view, is a good thing.

However, there are other aspects of the Conservative proposal that make us feel a bit uneasy. It aims to toughen sentences by imposing life sentences for certain crimes, such as those relating to human trafficking, firearms trafficking and fentanyl production. As I have said, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservative motion.

To be clear, we see rising crime as a major concern. Over the past few years, we have proposed a series of tough measures to address criminal violence, and we will continue to do so. For example, I myself have introduced a bill to create an organized crime registry three times in the past 10 years. We all know that criminal organizations are a growing scourge. Not only do they undermine our society and violate the rules of coexistence, but they also corrupt the morality of many of our young teens to a great or at least significant degree. Criminal organizations have been known to direct minors to commit offences, theft and even murder and acts of violence because those minors are prosecuted under a different judicial system than adults charged with crimes and they face less severe consequences. We feel this is despicable. Theft is illegal; it is a crime. Assault is a crime. Murder is a crime. However, when a 40- or 50-year-old adult gets a 14-year-old to commit those crimes, it is not just illegal, it is despicable. We vigorously oppose such crimes.

How, then, do we address that? Clearly, we need to introduce legislation. We are committed to working on this over the coming weeks. However, the idea of creating a registry of criminal organizations, which has already been debated in the House on several occasions, is one that we will revisit. I have no doubt about that. I therefore want to ask our colleagues in the House of Commons for their support on such a bill.

During the last Parliament, in parallel with the creation of the registry of criminal organizations, we proposed a series of measures, including going after the proceeds of crime. Currently, if police officers search a criminal organization's property, they have to prove that the property was acquired illegally. During the last Parliament, we proposed the opposite, namely that once someone is a member of a criminal organization and their property is searched as part of an investigation into criminal offences, it should be up to that individual to prove to us that the property was acquired legally, and not the other way around.

This reverse onus seems useful, even essential, for fighting organized crime effectively. We will come back with some suggestions as we move forward.

We also proposed clarifying the application of the provisions imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan for serious crimes. Let me be clear about this: As far as I am concerned, the Supreme Court is right. When someone is charged with a crime they should be judged within a reasonable time frame. That is already set out in the Charter. These time frames were rightly defined by the Supreme Court. The problem is that the current system is unable to handle these cases within a reasonable time frame. In my opinion, the fault lies largely with the lack of necessary resources made available to the courts by our governments. I have also repeatedly asked that greater diligence be shown in filling judicial vacancies. There have been delays that I consider completely unreasonable. That is the first thing that needs to be done to prevent stays of proceedings, especially when it comes to violent crimes that are rebuked by society as a whole. That is one thing.

Obviously, the justice system needs to be provided with courtrooms, clerks, bailiffs, court officers, and so on. On the federal government side, the appointment of judges within a reasonable time frame is essential. These judges must be impartial, having no political allegiance and showing no bias toward any of the political parties in power. That, too, is a blight that truly tarnishes our justice system.

Limiting the use of the Jordan decision by appointing judges is one thing, but we proposed going further in the last Parliament. We said that when there are unreasonable delays, which we deplore, a court should be allowed to extend the time frame imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada for certain serious or category 1 crimes. Obviously, this exemption must be limited and used sparingly. It should not be a free-for-all. However, sex crimes, murder, kidnapping, gun crime and terrorism are crimes that must be tried. We cannot tell the public that someone charged with murder, rape or kidnapping will be let go because we dragged our feet for two years and ran out of time to try him. That does not work. In a self-respecting, properly-run society, that is not the way to go.

First, we proposed creating an organized crime registry. Second, we proposed allowing the courts to waive the time frame imposed by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision for serious crimes, and in limited circumstances.

The third measure we proposed to combat rising crime was to remove the religious exemption. Here too, we have seen situations that are completely preposterous. On October 28, 2023, in Montreal, preacher Adil Charkaoui said, in Arabic, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them!” That seems pretty clear to me. In my mind, there is no room for interpretation. Unfortunately, the director of public prosecutions, who is responsible for prosecuting such cases, decided not to prosecute the imam for lack of evidence, even though the speech was filmed, recorded, and broadcast on virtually all media outlets. We know that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code criminalize hate speech. There are two religious exemptions: one that allows for a reasonable defence against a charge of hate speech if the speech is based on a religious text in which one believes, and the same applies to anti-Semitism. As far as we are concerned, these are exemptions that have no place in our society and must be removed from the Criminal Code.

We introduced a bill on this subject in the previous Parliament. We will come back to that. This is another way of fighting the increase in crime effectively.

Then, there is the matter of mandatory minium sentences. When the Conservative Party took office over 15 years ago, it brought in mandatory minimum sentences. The Supreme Court ruled that they were illegal, that these sentences violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that they had to be done away with. Under Justin Trudeau, the previous Liberal government eliminated these mandatory minimum sentences. Now, the Conservatives want to bring them back.

This is a worthwhile debate. In my opinion, there is no position that is indefensible. However, there is a middle ground that we could consider. In Quebec, we believe in rehabilitating inmates, particularly young inmates. Mandatory minimum sentences tie the hands of the judge hearing the case and prevent him or her from handing down a sentence that is often better suited to the circumstances, to the situation of the individual being heard by the court. We think that the courts must be allowed to waive mandatory minimum sentences.

Let us restore certain minimum sentences as long as we comply with the provisions or criteria set out by the Supreme Court. Obviously, we will not be going back to the Supreme Court every 10 years, or at least I hope not. Let us comply with these criteria. Let us bring back some mandatory minimum sentences. However, we could make it possible for a trial judge to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. This would require the judge to justify the exceptional circumstances, where applicable, and then depart from the minimum sentence if they really have to. We think that is an interesting proposal.

The Bloc Québécois is generous. We are letting our Conservative colleagues pick and choose from among our proposals, adapt them if they wish and make them their own. They can also simply support our bills when we introduce them. However, we must always keep in mind that the goal is not to fill up prisons. The goal is to live in a safe society where people can thrive, where young offenders can be rehabilitated. We want to invest in rehabilitation. We want to live in a free democratic society that respects everyone's rights.

The idea of punishing repeat offenders more harshly based on past offences is not new. A number of U.S. states already do this. It was introduced in the 1990s. Since then, American prisons have been filled with people who could perhaps have been rehabilitated. I will not comment on that, as I am not an expert on the American legal system. However, we have our own justice system, our own society and our own values, and I think we have to be careful when it comes to importing measures in effect elsewhere into Quebec and Canada.

I want to reiterate the idea of the organized crime registry. It was in Bill C‑420, which we introduced during the 44th Parliament. We also introduced Bill C‑392, concerning the Supreme Court's Jordan decision deadlines, and Bill C‑373, concerning the abolition of religious exemptions, during that same Parliament. Together with the minimum sentence proposal I was just talking about, all of these ideas can help fight crime.

We generously invite our Conservative colleagues to draw inspiration from these ideas. The current government should do likewise, to help us live in a society where everything works and where offenders can be rehabilitated and successfully rejoin society.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have 10 years of experience here questioning this government's actual intentions. Nothing we have seen adds up. Today, we are hearing proposals that run completely counter to what has been done over the past 10 years. Will the Prime Minister have the support of his Liberal caucus?

It seems to me that over three-quarters of the members on the Liberal side were very proud to call us every name in the book when we were attacking Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5. I was even called racist in the House for speaking out against Bill C‑5.

I will need to see a big ideological change on the other side of the House in order for me to trust them. Yes, if there is a clear and specific bill that repeals Bill C‑75 and brings justice back to this country, of course we will support it.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong conviction that Canada's complacency toward dangerous repeat offenders must end. Canadians are tired of seeing the same criminals back in court. They are tired of seeing repeat offenders ruin lives over and over again. They are tired of living in fear. When we say enough is enough, I think it is clear. Bill C-5, which allows house arrest, and Bill C-75, which makes it too easy to obtain bail, have triggered a public backlash. People no longer have confidence in the criminal justice system.

The motion presented by our shadow minister for justice provides a simple and fair response. Once a person has been convicted of three serious offences, society, represented by Parliament, has the right and the duty to take firm action. It would be a simple “three strikes and you're out” rule. Three chances are enough. The fourth should rightly go to the victims, not the criminals. The law that we are urging the Liberals to adopt will prevent criminals who have been convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest.

All too often, the victims are forgotten. In Quebec and elsewhere in the country, recidivism rates are on the rise. For example, in Trois‑Rivières, a man named Jean-François Gagnon was convicted of fraud. Within a month of leaving prison, he was back to scamming seniors. Over 50 seniors were duped, ripped off and humiliated. That is the price of our complacency. In Quebec City, a convicted pedophile named Pierre Gaudreault was released on mandatory supervision. What did he do? He downloaded hundreds of nude pictures of kids. He did not even wait until his conditions were up to start again. In Saguenay, Bruno Hudon, a man described by police as one of the most violent repeat offenders in the region, was placed in a halfway house despite a long history of violence. Police officers themselves voiced concerns about that. Then there was Miroslav Dragicevic, who received a lengthy sentence after committing aggravated assault on a woman, who was left with severe injuries. This was not the first time he had become violent. It was just the next chapter in a long history of threats and assaults. Unfortunately, I have plenty more examples I could give.

In June alone, the Sûreté du Québec arrested 22 high-risk sex offenders as part of a special operation. These individuals were already known to the authorities and had already been deemed dangerous, yet they were still living in our communities. That is the reality. That is the price of inaction. We often hear about rehabilitation. Yes, it is right to give people a second chance. Yes, it is necessary to offer help. How long do we have to keep offering it, though? Giving the same individuals too many chances means that the victims pay the price. If someone with two serious convictions chooses to reoffend a third time, they are sending a clear message. They have no intention of changing. Justice is not only about giving chances to the guilty; it is primarily about protecting the innocent. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that justice is served.

Some will say that a longer prison sentence will not deter criminals. We could debate that endlessly. However, when it comes to the victims, we on this side of the House are much more concerned about justice being served. Victims live in fear every day. How many Quebeckers no longer dare to walk at night? How many seniors hesitate to answer the phone out of fear of being scammed again? How many parents worry about whether a convicted pedophile is living in their neighbourhood? Our constituents are not asking for much. They just want to be able to live without fear. Some will say there is a high cost to that. What is the real cost? Some say the prisons will fill up, that it will be expensive. Yes, it is true, an inmate costs $150,000 a year. However, the cost of rape is that the victim's dignity is stolen forever. The cost of fraud is that victims lose their life savings and are left feeling ashamed. The cost of murder is that a family is destroyed forever. Taking action is not too costly. What is too costly is inaction.

Together, we must all send a strong message to criminals. We are asking the Liberals to send a message that Canada will no longer be a haven for repeat offenders. After three serious crimes, three convictions, three chances, there should be no more excuses, no more half-measures and no more victims. This is a moral choice.

At the end of the day, the question is simple: Who are we choosing to protect? Are we choosing to protect repeat offenders who laugh at the system and keep offending, or are we choosing to protect families, seniors, children and law-abiding women and men who want to live in peace? For me, the choice is clear. I choose victims, families and safety.

Over the past several years, we have seen a steady decline in public safety and an increase in violence and crime, resulting in a pervasive and pernicious state of fear. My riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles used to be peaceful and crime-free, but we are starting to see a rise in petty crime and other violations. People are starting to feel unsafe in a riding where we never used to see that kind of violence.

It is starting slowly. There have been gang-related murders, which is obviously very serious. Crime is ramping up, and people are asking questions. They turn to us. They call my office to ask what we are doing about it and to tell us they need to be protected. In many cases, we have to tell them that, unfortunately, because our Liberal friends changed the laws, the police have fewer tools to make arrests that stick.

We need to get back to the basics of public safety. We need to get back to a sense of security that people understand, that they accept. People will be able to say that we finally have laws that protect them, laws that let police officers do their job and let judges ensure that criminals go to jail where they belong.

All too often, we see the same faces. We have repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are people who commit crimes over and over again. Why are we letting them continue to commit these crimes? We have a duty to strengthen our laws so that these individuals end up in prison where they belong.

Here is what we are proposing and humbly asking of the new government, as it likes to call itself. We look forward to seeing some proof that it really is a new government, because the government we had for the last 10 years was a disaster. We hope there will be a major change. I personally introduced Bill C‑325 in the last Parliament to undo the provisions of the act arising from Bill C‑5. The Liberals and the NDP voted against it. I thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues, because they understood that there was cause for concern and supported me and my bill at the time.

I would like to believe that this is a new government, but its actions will show whether there has been a real change. We are reaching out to the government and suggesting ways to improve public safety and protect victims. I hope that our friends on the other side of the House will accept our offer and pick up the pace. We will be there to vote in favour of stronger laws for our country.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my question in a non-partisan spirit. The issue of rising crime is worries the Bloc Québécois. On a more personal level, as the status of women critic, I have seen the numbers showing the rise in crime and particularly crimes against women.

This is what drove me to move a motion, which will be the first motion before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women this fall when we get back to work, specifically to determine whether section 810 of the Criminal Code adequately protects women in the justice system. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I even allowed my motion to be amended. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we will be working together to consider issues relating to Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75.

My colleague's bill is all well and good, but are the Conservatives going to take note of the serious study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will be carrying out on this matter?

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

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great citizens of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I rise today in strong support of our Conservative motion calling on the government to end the failed experiment of leniency and to adopt a common-sense “three strikes and you're out” law so that the worst repeat violent offenders serve real time, not living-room sentences, and communities are finally safe again.

For 10 long years, the Liberal government has put the interests of criminals ahead of the safety and dignity of victims. It has prioritized the rights of repeat offenders over the safety of law-abiding Canadians. I say this as someone who served nearly two decades as a Crown attorney. I have looked victims in the eye. I have sat with families shattered by repeat offenders who should never have been back on the street. Over those years, the offenders I saw grew more dangerous and more emboldened because the system kept signalling that the consequences were optional.

This soft-on-crime philosophy did not begin with the current Liberals. Its roots stretch back more than 50 years, when Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government openly declared its intent to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society, even if it involved community risk. Canadians have been paying the price for those risks ever since. The Young Offenders Act dramatically reduced sentences, even for those convicted of murder. Statutory release shortened jail time by a third, and parole policies make a mockery of sentences pronounced in court. Today, full parole can come as early as one-third of a sentence, and unescorted temporary absences as early as one-sixth.

The practical effect of this Liberal philosophy was clear: The faint hope of rehabilitating an offender was elevated over denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring crime or protecting society. The result has been a revolving door of hardened criminals being arrested and released and then reoffending, leaving victims to suffer the consequences.

That is why the Conservative government of Stephen Harper worked to restore balance to our justice system, re-establishing the importance of denunciation, deterrence and the protection of society. However, the Liberals have spent the past decade undoing that progress, scrapping mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes, making bail even easier to obtain and carrying on the soft-on-crime legacy.

This became crystal clear in 2019 when the Liberals passed Bill C-75. Among other things, it legislated a principle of restraint that pushes release at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive terms. That may sound tidy in a briefing note, but in real life it tilted the system away from public safety. The Department of Justice itself describes the bill's goal as timely release with the least onerous conditions.

Then came the notorious Bill C-5 in 2022. This law repealed mandatory minimum penalties for dozens of serious offences that were constitutionally upheld, and brought back conditional sentence orders, what most Canadians now call house arrest. At the time, Liberal justice minister David Lametti said the Liberals were “turning the page on a failed Conservative criminal justice policy”, but what did that really mean? It meant making conditional sentences possible for serious offences like sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, even fentanyl trafficking, and robbery with violence. These are not small crimes; they are violent, scarring, life-altering offences. Imagine telling a victim of kidnapping that their attacker can now serve a sentence from the comfort of their own living room. That is the reality Bill C-5 created.

When the public backlash grew, the Liberals tried to save face with Bill C-48. The then justice minister, Arif Virani, promised it would make Canadians safer, but then he admitted in his own words that he cannot measure what exactly that would look like. That is not a plan; that is simply a press release.

When those reforms failed, Liberal ministers tried to pass the buck. We heard the public safety minister, who was the justice minister at the time, say that the bail system is sound. We saw Liberal ministers and the Prime Minister blaming provinces, telling premiers to “step up” while refusing to fix the failed Criminal Code policies that they themselves broke. Canadians do not want a blame game; they want a justice system that works and is fair.

It is not just Conservatives sounding the alarm. For years, police chiefs, premiers and mayors from across the country have been begging the Liberal government to fix the mess. The Liberals have been obstructionist ever since. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said that changes were “urgently needed” to stop repeat violent offenders from cycling through communities. The Toronto Police Association repeatedly warned of the dangers of letting repeat violent offenders back on the streets. Mayors in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Toronto have all publicly pressed for real reform because their citizens are living with the consequences every single day. All 13 premiers from across party lines signed joint letters for the federal government demanding immediate action, yet the government continued its obstructionist ways. It dug in, defended its failed laws and ignored voices from the very same stakeholders it should have been listening to.

What has been the result? The numbers do not lie. Since 2015, crime has exploded across all categories. Extortion alone has had a 300% increase. These are not just statistics. They represent real Canadians whose lives have been shattered by violence.

Consider the Saskatchewan tragedy in 2022. Myles Sanderson was already out on statutory release after 59 convictions. Let that sink in. He went on a rampage, killing 11 people and injuring 17 more. If he had been kept in jail, as common sense dictates, those families would still have their loved ones today. In Peel Region, police arrested 18 individuals tied to home invasions, armed robberies and carjackings. Shockingly, half of them were out on release at the time. In Vancouver, police reported that just 40 prolific repeat offenders were arrested more than 6,000 times in a single year. That, by definition, is the revolving-door justice system.

That is why, if the Liberal government were truly serious about tackling violent crime, it would adopt the Conservative plan for a “three strikes and you're out” law. Here is what that means in practice. When someone has been convicted of three serious violent offences, they would no longer be able to serve their time at home or walk out with probation. There would be no more conditional sentences and no more house arrests. Instead, they would face a mandatory minimum period of incarceration of 10 years, with the possibility of life in prison depending on the severity of their crimes. They would be designated as dangerous offenders, which means they would not be released until they can prove they are no longer a threat to the public. If they ever wanted to earn back their freedom, they would have to show it. That means spotless behaviour, clean drug tests and real steps toward rehabilitation.

The principle is simple. After three serious violent crimes, someone has shown society they cannot be trusted to walk free. They would serve real time, not living-room sentences. That is how we effectively protect communities, restore faith in the justice system and finally put victims ahead of repeat violent offenders.

Canadians are tired of Liberal governments that coddle criminals and abandon victims. The motion says that enough is enough. It would end the failed approach of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. It responds to the pleas of police, premiers and mayors. It would give Crown attorneys and judges the tools they need to keep dangerous offenders where they belong: behind bars. Most importantly, it would restore the fundamental duty of any federal government, and that is to keep Canadians safe.

Canadians want their children to walk to school without fear. They want seniors to feel safe in their homes. They want women to know that their abusers will not be back on their doorstep the very next day. They want law-abiding citizens put before repeat violent offenders.

The Conservatives are bringing forward this motion because Canadians deserve more than excuses. They deserve more than obstructionist ways. They deserve safety, first and foremost.