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—Serious crimes and refugee claims

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about a very serious issue that is spreading fear in our communities and that the government has failed to stop. That issue is extortion.

For 10 years now under the Liberal government, crime has gone up. Violent crime is up. Gun crimes are up. Extortion has exploded across Canada. Since the Liberals took power, extortion is up 330% nationwide. In British Columbia, it is up over 480%. In Vancouver alone, extortion cases have risen by more than 330%. These are not just numbers; they are real people, families and small business owners who live in fear every single day.

Extortion is not a victimless crime. It is not just a phone call or a threat. It is a crime that terrorizes families, shatters lives and forces people to choose between their safety and their savings. Across Canada, small businesses owners are getting threats. They are told to pay money or face violence. They are told their stores will be burned. They are told their homes will be shot at. They are told their children will be harmed. This is happening in Brampton, Surrey, Vancouver, Calgary and Winnipeg. It is happening throughout Canada. In Surrey alone, there have already been over 100 reported cases this year, and police tell us that many more go unreported.

People are too scared to come forward. When people are afraid to call the police, when families are afraid to open their doors and when business owners are afraid to go to work, it is a crisis, yet the government continues to do nothing. Instead of taking action, the Liberals have chosen a soft-on-crime approach and catch-and-release laws. They have chosen to side with criminals over communities.

Their bills, including Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, weakened the justice system. They removed mandatory jail time for serious crimes, made it easier for violent offenders to get bail and forced judges to release repeat offenders back onto our streets. The result was more crime, more violence and more fear. Extortionists know that the system is weak, risk is low and punishment is light, so they keep offending again and again.

The government talks a lot about being tough, but talk does not stop extortion. Action does. Conservatives have brought forward real solutions, clear common-sense solutions. We have proposed restoring mandatory jail time for extortion to three years for a conviction, four years if a gun is involved and five years if it is linked with organized crime. We believe arson should count as an aggravating factor. Burning down a business is not a small crime; it is an act of terror. These measures send a simple message that if someone extorts Canadians, they will go to jail for a long time.

Instead, Liberal policies allowed for a recent sentencing decision that undermined public confidence in the justice system. In a troubling case of extortion in Calgary, the offenders received an 18-month conditional sentence of which six months was to be served under house arrest. It was a very light outcome, given the gravity of the crime. The Canadian victim was pressured to repay more than $200,000 tied to third party illegal gambling and was shown images of chopped-up body parts in an attempt to intimidate them. This is what the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies allow.

The Liberals had a chance to protect Canadians, but what did they do? They went against us again and again. They killed Conservative bill after Conservative bill. They blocked the protection against extortion act. They made excuses, delayed and did nothing. They even opposed stronger self-defence laws, like the “castle law”, as our leader mentioned weeks ago. They opposed fixing bail. Last week the Liberals opposed deporting non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like extortion. At every step, they have chosen criminals over communities.

The Liberals say they support police, but the facts are the other way around. The Minister of Public Safety has not hired a single new RCMP officer. He even said it is not his job. Police forces across the country are stretched thin. They are overworked, they are under-resourced and the government has left them to deal with a crime wave of its own making.

The government has also failed at the borders. Under Liberal policies, 18,000 known criminals were allowed into Canada with no proper background checks and no serious screenings, reckless decisions that put Canadians at risk. Now we see the results: organized crime networks growing stronger, extortion rings spreading fear, and gangs operating with confidence.

After building pressure from the Conservatives, the government recently labelled the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist entity. That was the right step, but it is only one step. We have to see what is behind it. Our own agencies, like CSIS and the RCMP, are saying that it is foreign interference. Why are the Liberals ignoring this? Labelling a gang means nothing if criminals are still being released on bail. It means nothing if sentences are weak. It means nothing if police lack resources. Canadians do not want words; they want safety, and they want action.

When the Prime Minister visited the Lower Mainland, he had a chance to listen, a chance to meet victims, a chance to meet business owners and a chance to meet police officers. Instead he took a walk on a pier. He did not show up. He did not listen. He did not lead. That is not leadership; that is abandonment.

Communities are crying for help. Parents are worried about their children. Families are scared to speak up. Business owners are wondering if tomorrow will be the day their store is attacked. This is not the Canada we know. This is not the Canada we want.

Conservatives believe in safe streets. We believe in strong laws. We believe in real consequences for serious crimes. Our plan is clear: Stop extortion with real jail time, end catch-and-release bail, keep violent offenders behind bars, support police with real resources, and protect families, workers and small business owners. We are ready to work with anyone who wants to fix this crisis. We will not stay silent while Canadians live in fear.

After 10 years of failures, Canadians have had enough: enough excuses, enough delays and enough crime. It is time to stop the extortion crisis. It is time to change the law. It is time to put communities first.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the safety of our communities is of utmost importance. For 10 years, we have seen the soft-on-crime Liberal government prioritize the interests of criminals over the safety of law-abiding Canadians.

Just a few months ago in my riding, Amir Shafei, an innocent man, a quiet man, walked outside in front of his house and was accosted by a repeat violent offender who was out on bail. Amir would be alive today if this heinous killer had been in jail.

Since the Liberals took power in 2015, extortion has skyrocketed by a staggering 330%. This, along with many other types of crime, is the direct, predictable result of the government's soft-on-crime agenda. Its record on crime, defined by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, has replaced a culture of accountability with a catch-and-release revolving door. Criminal organizations have seen the signals coming from the government, and they have concluded that the risk of consequence justifies their actions.

Families in Surrey, Brampton and right across the GTA, including in my riding, are waking up to threats, firebombings and bullets through their windows. Small business owners, many of whom came to Canada to build a better life for their families, are being told to pay protection money or face the consequences. This is the Canada the Liberals have created, one where thugs feel emboldened and citizens feel abandoned.

When we gut our judicial system and then tell the judges to use the principle of restraint for repeat violent offenders, we are not just being lenient; we are fanning the flames of the crime wave that follows. This failure is compounded by a loophole within our judicial and immigration systems. We are witnessing a pattern whereby judges are granting reduced sentences specifically to ensure that a non-citizen's immigration status remains unaffected.

Under current law, a sentence of six months or more triggers a serious criminality designation, making a non-citizen inadmissible and eligible for deportation. Instead of applying the law, we see sentences of five months and 29 days handed out to bypass this threshold. Even NDP Premier David Eby has called for these laws to be changed, describing these loopholes as “corrosive” to public confidence.

Here are some real criminal cases in which judges have considered immigration status in sentencing: A man, Aswin V Sajeevan, spied on a woman in a bathroom, where he made video recordings; another man raped a 13-year-old girl; Rajbir Singh sexually assaulted a young woman in Calgary.

My question to the Liberals is this: Is it really the position of the government that we should give rapists, peepers and those who sexually assault women in Canada a second chance to stay here? If it is not, they should vote with the Conservatives to end the practice of leniency to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes to avoid deportation.

It makes sense: When a judge considers a criminal's immigration status as a mitigating factor in sentencing, they are essentially saying that a non-citizen deserves lighter punishment for the same crime than if it had been committed by a Canadian citizen. This is the definition of a two-tier justice system.

We cannot have a safe society if the right to stay in Canada is placed over the right to be safe for those already here.

Conservatives have repeatedly raised concerns about how our immigration system is being gamed. We have seen cases where individuals accused of violent crimes use our asylum system as a shield to protect themselves. NDP Premier David Eby called this out as “ludicrous”. I do not agree much with David Eby, but I agree with him on this. It is crazy that individuals who come to our country and proceed to terrorize our citizens would be allowed to stay here.

Canada is a country built on immigrants, my own family included, who came here to work hard, play by the rules and contribute to the peace and prosperity of this great nation. When we allow violent extortionists to claim refugee status to avoid being sent back to their home countries, we are making a mockery of the genuine refugees who are fleeing actual persecution. It is a slap in the face to every law-abiding immigrant who waited years, followed every rule and respected all of our laws.

Conservatives proposed an amendment that would have updated the immigration protection act to bar asylum claims from being made by those who have been convicted of serious crimes in Canada. The Liberals rejected it. In fact, they rejected removing the ability of migrants with failed asylum claims to claim any federal social benefits beyond emergency health care. The Liberals rejected disallowing asylum claims to be made by nationals of, or by those arriving in Canada having transited through, a G7 or an EU country. They rejected modernizing screening requirements. They rejected requiring educational institutions who accept foreign students to share the cost of any bogus asylum claims made by the foreign students they welcomed to Canada.

The Liberals rejected requiring that claims made by migrants who return to their home country while their claim is pending be abandoned. They rejected rejecting claims made after a claimant is found to have lied to an officer. They rejected placing the onus on a claimant to prove they made their claim in a timely manner, not the government. They rejected requiring asylum claimants arriving in Canada to immediately provide, on the record, their full grounds for seeking protection, preventing the later use of unscrupulous lawyers to game the system.

They rejected modernizing the appeals and judicial review processes associated with the asylum system. In fact, they also rejected creating a new transparent and clear reporting requirement for the government to disclose the amount of federal benefits received by asylum claimants. They rejected modernizing the content of the annual report to Parliament. They also rejected modernizing the IRB appointment process to better consider the provinces and include more merit-based candidates, particularly those with law enforcement experience.

Our opposition motion today would make our streets safer. It would restore order and increase fairness in our judicial system. By barring non-citizens with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims, we would send a clear message that our asylum system is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for organized crime and for those who want to unscrupulously use it. This closes the loophole through which a criminal can delay their deportation by filing a claim the moment they are caught. They are here, they get caught and, all of a sudden, they are claiming asylum.

By barring non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims, we are actually protecting Canadians. That is our job. The primary responsibility of any government, of any Parliament, is to protect citizens, our citizens.

We must end the practice of leniency, in order to avoid deportation, for non-citizens convicted of serious crimes. A crime is a crime. It does not matter who commits it. We cannot look at one group of people differently than another group of people when they are, in fact, executing the exact same crime. That is not what a judicial system is. Our judicial system is one based on democracy. It should be one based on fairness. The government has allowed the opposite to happen.

The punishment should fit the offence, not the immigration status of the offender. It does not make sense to Canadians, it does not make sense to anybody, that the immigration status of somebody should be considered when making a determination as to whether they should be sentenced as fairly and as equally as everybody else committing the same crime. Ending this practice ensures that our judges focus on justice and public safety.

These measures make sense because they protect the integrity of the immigration system that so many of us value. I invite my Liberal colleagues to stand with Conservatives and send a clear message. Canada is a land of opportunity for those who follow the law, but there is no place here for those who seek to destroy our peace. In closing, let us put the safety of Canadians first, restore the rule of law and end this era of Liberal leniency once and for all.

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

Madam Speaker, I think anyone who says that the motion takes the human factor into account clearly did not read it.

With all due respect to my colleague, I understand her point of view, but the motion calls for the government to bar people “convicted of serious crimes” and people “with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims” and to “end the practice of leniency” and “repeal bills C‑5 and C‑75”. That is a step backwards. We have moved forward since 2015.

I know that, before 2015, we had a Conservative government whose bills were probably more in line with our Conservative colleagues' values, but we have done some work over the last decade. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some good work has been done, and refusing to consider refugee claims from people who have been charged or convicted of crimes means taking away the courts' power to consider the human factor in specific cases.

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

Madam Speaker, I was saying that it is entirely valid and honourable to want to combat extortion. It has caused many problems in our society and, unfortunately, I suspect that we have not seen the end of it. However, we need to be clear-headed and make certain distinctions in order to be effective in our fight against extortion.

The fight against crime is currently the subject of much debate at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We studied Bill C-14 in a panic. We rushed it through in three meetings, which I thought was a shame because it gave us little time to seriously consider the different provisions. We did manage, I think, to come up with something that will be useful and I commend my Conservative colleagues and my Liberal colleagues on their collaboration on this bill.

Tomorrow, the committee will likely finish its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-9. That is another good thing, fighting hatred. Immediately afterwards, we will begin studying Bill C-16. All of these bills will be useful in fighting crime, and I thank my colleagues from all parties for their work.

In this motion, however, the Conservatives are raising the issue of extortion and seem to be attributing it to refugee claimants or immigrants. This is where I disagree. That is going a bit too far. I am not saying that refugees or newcomers are angels or that none of them have ever done anything wrong. That would be a bit naive. There are people of good faith and bad faith among both newcomers and people who have lived in Quebec and Canada for generations. We have to keep things in perspective.

Among other things, a reference was made to the case law and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Pham. However, that decision did not say that the consequences of a court decision on a newcomer's status or application for status should not be considered. It said that the entire situation, all the consequences, must be taken into consideration, and that is how it should be. We cannot, as MPs, mandate how decisions should be taken in the future and what criteria to apply.

What our Conservative colleagues are proposing seems sort of like when someone gets AI to do their work. They can go on a computer, enter some conditions, criteria and reasons, and get AI to spit out the decision that will apply to so-and-so's case. That is one way to do things. I think it is unfortunate, but perhaps that is the way things are going. Personally, I much prefer human justice.

I would rather have a judge, or a few judges, getting to hear all the evidence in each case and make decisions that are humane, that meet the legal criteria and follow the rules we have set for ourselves as a society, but that also show a modicum of human mercy when it comes to tailoring humane decisions to each case. That is more or less what the Supreme Court said in the Pham decision in 2013. It said that, to determine if a sentence is fair, the court must consider all the consequences it would have on the individual, in terms of their employment, their immigration status, their family and so on.

Today's motion says that, going forward, no consideration will be given to all the circumstances of people who apply for refugee status and who have a criminal record or have been charged or convicted in their country of origin. With all due respect, I would say that is a bit lazy. I believe that the court needs to hear the entire case and take all the circumstances into account.

Earlier on, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean very aptly mentioned the case of Raif Badawi, who was recognized here in Parliament not so long ago. I do not recall the exact wording of that particular motion, but it recognized that he had a certain degree of credibility and was eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship. Raif Badawi was charged and convicted in his country of origin and was sentenced to lashes. He was sentenced to all kinds of punishments that he never would have received here in Canada.

Does this mean that, in the case of someone like Raif Badawi, too bad, so sad, the government does not care and would never let them in? Alternatively, is the government willing to consider each case on its merits and make informed decisions? I believe that is how the system works now, and I prefer this humanized system with all its strengths and weaknesses.

As a society, we decided that we would rather let a criminal go free than put an innocent person in prison. Yes, it would be easy to fill our prisons with suspects and say that is the way to reduce crime. That probably would reduce crime, but it would be a major step backward in terms of quality of life and respecting everyone's rights and freedoms. Let us steer clear of that trap, be sensible, trust our courts and avoid being too prescriptive.

In a similar vein, this reminds me of the mandatory minimum sentence issue. We have been talking about Bill C‑5. Our colleagues feel that Parliament should not have passed Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75. I remember voting in favour of Bill C‑5, but that bill had two components. First, it repealed mandatory minimum sentences. Second, it established diversion measures for simple drug possession.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. We believe that a young man or woman caught with a small amount of drugs in their pocket should face consequences. However, mandatory minimum sentences are a bit too much. I think such cases should be left to the courts to decide. Often, a diverted sentence better serves the interests of justice, the victim and society than sending someone to prison for the time prescribed by law. Diversion opens the door to measures other than a trial and conviction, which is a good thing. We supported that.

We had asked the minister to divide Bill C-5 in two, with diversion in one bill and the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences in another, since they are two separate matters. The minister at the time refused to split up Bill C-5. We had to work on the bill as a whole, and we ultimately passed it. I think the bill's benefits outnumbered and outweighed its drawbacks.

We had a problem with the mandatory minimums. We wanted to make some changes to those provisions, but unfortunately, we were unable to do so. I remember making some suggestions in committee, but they were rejected by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. That said, that is how democracy works, and that is what happened. Members will recall that we had no choice but to do away with many of the mandatory minimums because the Supreme Court found them to be unconstitutional. We had to sort of clean up the Criminal Code. The courts will never apply anything that is unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court said, so these sentences had to be removed from the Criminal Code.

I proposed a change at the time. I proposed adopting mandatory minimums for certain crimes, such as those committed with a firearm, but allowing judges to make exceptions to them in extenuating circumstances. That would have required judges to explain in their decisions what made the case in question unique and why the mandatory minimum should not be applied. However, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives agreed with my proposal, so unfortunately, we ended up with Bill C-5 as it now stands.

The new bills, and more specifically Bill C‑16, include a provision similar to the one I proposed. I look forward to its consideration by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I hope we can improve the situation.

Once again, the Conservatives' proposal is rather unfortunate. Fighting organized crime, extortion and fraud is laudable. It is a good thing. However, the proposed approach, which is to lump everyone together and refuse to take into account each newcomer's circumstances, is not acceptable in the fair and democratic society we have created for ourselves.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this motion we put forward in the House.

I have had the privilege of travelling to Rwanda multiple times. It is a beautiful country. When I say I am going to Rwanda or have been to Rwanda, people look at me with shock on their faces, because they have an image of a country that was rocked by genocide 32 years ago, which it was. It was a tragic thing, but the country has been rebuilt. It is a beautiful country, hilly and tropical. The fruit there is amazing, and so are the people. It is now a very safe country that is well developed. There are roads and buildings. They have a beautiful soccer centre and a basketball centre. It is an amazing place. They had the cycling UCI Road World Championships there last year, which was the first time ever in an African country.

When I talk to Rwandans about what it is like in Canada, they do not believe me. The conversations are quite interesting. I talk about things like homelessness and how we can see homeless people in any major city, tent cities, people cooking on fires in our cities in Canada. When I tell that to people in Rwanda, they do not believe me. I talk about the drug use we see in our cities, the fentanyl use, people literally dying on our streets and the way our government actually supports that by providing tools and facilitating the use of drugs and in some cases giving hard drugs to people. They cannot believe that. One certainly does not see that on the streets of Kigali in Rwanda.

The obvious consequence of these things is that crime has increased since 2015 in Canada. Violent crime is up 55%, firearms crime is up 130%, extortion has skyrocketed and is up 330% across the country, sexual assaults are up 76%, and homicides are up 29%. This is the result of some of the changes that the Liberal government has made. It is hard to imagine that when one is sitting in a country like Rwanda. We have a perception that it should be a problem in Rwanda, but it is actually a problem here, not there.

Then I tell Rwandans that police are increasingly powerless. Any of us who have talked to police officers will hear every time that they got into policing to catch the bad guy and put him in jail. They are increasingly frustrated that they cannot do that because courts are releasing the bad guy. It is frustrating police officers to the point that they do not even bother to arrest some people for crimes now because it just does not matter.

Why is this happening? It is partly because of Bill C-5, which took away mandatory minimums. It allowed judges the freedom to give lesser sentences, which has happened across the board, and not for little things; it is for serious things such as gun trafficking, robbery with a firearm and drug trafficking. These kinds of offences are now not subject to mandatory minimums, and judges are free to give whatever lenient sentence they may choose.

Bill C-75 was a big expansion of bail. It was the bill that not allowed but actually required judges to consider the least possible thing they could do to a criminal. There is a thing called “the principle of restraint” that was introduced in the bill, for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. It forces our criminal justice system to release criminals at the earliest possible opportunity. This is how we arrived at the revolving-door bail situation, where people are arrested and end up back out on the streets.

These are the things that have been done by the government that have caused crime to increase in our country and light sentences to prevail. The consequences of crime are gone. We have completely lost control of crime in our country. When I say these things to a person from Rwanda, they are shocked. This is not the view of Canada that they have, but it is the true Canada that we do have.

On the immigration side, we have to remember that somebody who is not a citizen of Canada showing up at our borders does not have the right to become Canadian. Canadians are the ones who decide who can become Canadian. Canadians are the ones who decide that we should allow certain people to come into our country and in certain quantities. Those are our decisions to make. They are no one else's.

For many years, Canada had a consensus on immigration. If someone is not an indigenous person, then they quite likely have an immigrant in their background somewhere. My grandparents came here 100 years ago, so I am the product of immigration to this country, as are most of us here who are not indigenous people. Canadians were happy and comfortable with that. We had a system that picked the brightest and the best people because that is what benefited Canada the most. If one talks to an economist, they will say that we should be selecting people who have the potential to earn higher-than-average incomes in our country to bring all of us up as a country.

This worked well, but we also left room to help those in need. We all recognize that there are refugees who come to our country, and we need to help those people too. This system worked, and immigrants would be the first to say that.

Then the Liberals completely lost control. They allowed in way too many people, and we have seen the impacts of that on our housing, our jobs and our health care. Trying to buy a house is expensive. Trying to pay rent is expensive. Jobs are hard to find. Our unemployment rate for youth is very high.

It has overwhelmed our system. Sometimes people forget about this, but we have a system in our country that was designed to process tens of thousands of people a year. It has now been dealing with millions of people a year, and it cannot keep up with that volume. Something like security screening, for example, is woefully inadequate and behind. As a result, someone can sneak into our country as a criminal and we probably will not catch it. This is a sad thing to say, but it is the reality. We see it every day.

We also have low-wage people coming into the country, which suppresses wages. It gives employers an opportunity to have a temporary foreign worker they can pay a low amount of money to, so Canadians do not have jobs. This is why we have such high unemployment among the youth in our country. Those same youth are faced with high rents while not having a job. They cannot find a place to live.

At the same time as that, we are letting in criminals, as I said, because we cannot really screen properly. We have, for example, IRGC members from Iran here in Canada, who have been able to come here, launder their money and have a pretty good life, and they should not be able to do that. We have scam artists who are taking advantage of the immigration system.

Let us remember that immigrants are not the criminals here. Immigrants are not the problem. There is a very small fraction of people who are the problem, but when we have a system we can take advantage of, bad things happen.

This leads me to the unholy marriage of an out-of-control crime system with an out-of-control immigration system. This is where we find ourselves. We talk a lot about immigration, and some of my constituents do not necessarily have experience with this, so I want to read this because it is shocking. This is an example of an extortion letter. It says:

WARNING...we are...gang members, we want our share from your busineses like protection money. as you seen on news on November...two shotting on houses...were targeted because we asked them [little] money they...denied.... We want...peacefully from you this amount if you...do...business here in abbotsford—

This is in Abbotsford.

—you have no other way...please make sure do not contact...POLICE....

We asking only 2 million...in cash...here or we might get...INDIA we have links all over do not ignore us, it will efect you realy bad. we will contact you next month we gave you 1 month to decide....

This an example of an extortion letter that people are getting, and it is not just one. There were 36 incidents like that in Surrey in the month of January alone. There was a situation on January 19 where a business received a message like that, and their place was shot up overnight. People do not necessarily even report these things. Also in Surrey, there were 15 suspects of this type of crime who were arrested by the police, and they immediately claimed asylum.

This a problem in our system. The asylum system is broken. There are 300,000 people in our asylum queue right now waiting for a hearing. That is the size of Saskatoon. The equivalent of the entire city of Saskatoon is currently waiting for nearly four years, which is how long it is going to take to process them. Because our system cannot process them, 100,000 of those people are simply waiting for security clearance.

This why NDP Premier David Eby from British Columbia called the situation “ludicrous”. He said that something had to change, that something has to be different. We proposed these changes. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill proposed a change like this to Bill C-12 that would have barred asylum claims from people who are convicted of a crime. Premier Eby actually wants to go further by barring people from claiming asylum if they are in a judicial process for a serious crime. We think that is a good idea. We want to partner with the House to make that kind of thing happen.

Let us remember that Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimums for extortion with a handgun. There are also sentencing discounts, which allow judges to reduce sentences. There are multiple examples of this. It happens all the time. We need to fix this by undoing Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so that there are true consequences. The member for Oxford brought in Bill C-242, which is the jail not bail act.

We need to fix Bill C-12, as I just described, but we also need to implement Bill C-220, which is from the member for Calgary Nose Hill. It would forbid judges from giving sentencing discounts where it impacts deportation. Criminals who are convicted of a crime greater than six months are subject to deportation, so judges are giving them sentences of less than six months so they are not subject to deportation.

We need to fix this. Something is wrong in Canada. We have to get crime and immigration back under control. The motion today would do that. For the benefit of Canadians, all Canadians, especially young ones, we need to do this today.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Madam Speaker, as always, my colleague gave a very interesting speech.

The last part, part (d) of the motion, calls for the repeal of Bill C-75, which would essentially put the criminal law back to the state it was in before Bill C-75. Bill C-75 did a number of important things, one of which was to repeal the bawdy house laws and vagrancy laws that led to the mass jailing of gay men in Toronto and Montreal.

Would the member explain to us why the entire Bill C-75 should be repealed, as opposed to only the part on extortion?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member just commented that the secretary of state does not even understand or know some of the contents of bills. It makes me think of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, two bills that made house arrest possible and took away mandatory minimums.

I wonder if the member has some comments on those two bills and how they are affecting this situation.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

moved:

That, given that,

(i) extortion has risen by 330% in Canada since the Liberals were elected,

(ii) Liberals voted against Conservative motions to end loopholes for false refugee claimants seeking asylum,

(iii) Liberals voted against tougher sentencing for extortionists proposed by Conservative Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (extortion),

(iv) Liberals have failed to repeal bills C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and end the revolving door justice system,

the House call on the government to:

(a) bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims;

(b) bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims;

(c) end the practice of leniency to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes to avoid deportation; and

(d) repeal bills C-5 and C-75 to ensure repeat extortionists stay in jail.

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

The value of Canadian citizenship is predicated on maintaining a high trust society where everyone within our borders upholds the institutions that create our peaceful pluralism, particularly and at a minimum, upholding the rule of law. If someone is not a citizen of Canada and is a guest here, our laws state that if they commit serious crimes, they need to leave. However, in many cases that is not what is happening today. While millions of non-citizens of Canada come to our nation and are here playing by the rules, there is now a legion of cases of those who do not, and that number is rapidly rising.

This incredibly destructive trend is the direct result of a decade of Liberal government policies that have created loopholes and allowed serious criminals to be immediately released on bail, receive lenient sentences and even claim refugee status in order to avoid deportation. In short, thanks to the Liberal government, there are now far fewer deterrents for non-citizens' getting involved in gang activity, trafficking drugs and committing violent crimes.

I know that statement will make people in some quarters clutch their pearls because we cannot say that, but the reality is that if we are going to protect Canada's pluralism, this truth must be spoken and addressed. Every statistic and every lived experience imaginable for law-abiding families in Surrey, Brampton, Edmonton and beyond proves that what I have just said is desperately and disgustingly true.

Violent extortion schemes that have turned peaceful neighbourhoods into zones of fear are but one prime example. Since the Liberals assumed power in 2015, extortion incidents have surged by 330%. In British Columbia alone, extortion incidents have skyrocketed by nearly 500% since 2015. Across Canada, the number of people charged with extortion rose from 680 in 2015 to 1,258 in 2024, an 85% jump, while the rate per 100,000 ballooned from 8.56 to 31.82, a 272% increase.

That is a lot of statistics. It is a lot of numbers, but those numbers represent real people, real human beings who have had their lives and their communities shattered; small business owners who are receiving crude threats demanding protection money, only to have their shops shot up; homes riddled with bullets; and arson that destroys people's livelihoods and sanctity.

We would think that the Liberal government by now, after seeing all these cases and the fear that is exploding in many communities across Canada, would do something about it, right? Wrong. What has a decade of soft-on-crime policies and the rote partisan rejection of constructive Conservative proposals to end the tidal wave of violence has done? It has emboldened gangs, many with transnational ties, to prey on the most vulnerable communities in our country, many of which are made up of newcomers and immigrants.

The following comes from a very recent Global News story, which reported something worse:

Canada’s plan to expel those behind B.C.’s extortion epidemic has hit a roadblock after more than a dozen suspects facing deportation claimed refugee status.

The foreign nationals were identified by B.C.’s Extortion Task Force, but once the [CBSA] began investigating them, they claimed to be refugees.

As a result, deportations of the 14 suspects have been put on hold until the Immigration and Refugee Board decides whether they have legitimate [claims] for asylum.

Here we are today. The word used by David Eby, the leader of the British Columbia New Democratic Party, not a Conservative but a New Democratic leader, to describe this egregious abuse of Canada's asylum was “ludicrous”, and he is right. He asked Parliament to do something to change the laws. I say to Premier Eby that Conservatives have listened to his call.

We are here today to call on the Liberal government and all members of the House to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims, which seems like a no-brainer; bar non-citizens who have active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims, also a no-brainer; end the practice of giving leniency to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes so they can avoid deportation and avoid the spirit of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and repeal Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 to ensure that repeat serious criminals stay in jail and do not get released back onto the streets immediately with impunity and the motivation to serially reoffend.

I would also note that Conservatives have already attempted to get the Liberals to ban non-citizens convicted of serious crime from making asylum claims in an amendment to Bill C-12, which is currently before the other place, but the Liberals in this place rejected the amendment, and that is crazy. I know the Liberals today will likely rise to debate and say everything is fine and that laws already cover these issues, but they do not. Here are the facts.

A massive backlog of asylum claims, nearly 300,000, or about the entire population of Burnaby, which has been amassed under the Liberal government, means that non-citizens can make asylum claims that take years to process. This includes non-citizens who have active legal proceedings for committing serious crimes, and Bill C-12, which is currently in the other place, would only, in theory, prevent non-citizens who have been in Canada for over a year from making asylum claims. It would do nothing to stop a non-citizen from entering Canada, committing a serious crime within a year and then making a refugee claim, especially a non-citizen with ties to transnational gangs, and we know there are major problems with screening right now. This is why Conservatives proposed the amendment that we did, and it is why the Liberals should have accepted that amendment, but they did not. That is, arguably, insane. That is what is fuelling this crisis.

There is also the massive problem of judges routinely giving lenient sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in order to avoid deportation, which is already set out as a consequence in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have a simple one-line bill to amend the Criminal Code that the Liberals could pass today and that would stop this practice, and yet when I brought forward my bill in the House, the Liberals were so tone-deaf that during the debate, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader made the false claim that judges do not grant special lenience in cases of, for example, sexual assault and questioned whether anyone seriously believed a rapist would receive preferential treatment because of potential deportation risks.

He implied, and Liberals have implied, that these scenarios are far-fetched. The very next day I rose in the House, and I could have given multiple examples but gave one in Barrie, where a non-citizen pleaded guilty of raping a 13-year-old girl and impregnating her twice but was given an adjournment specifically to evaluate how his guilty plea and sentence would affect his immigration status. That is absolutely disgusting. That is an abrogation of our democratic system, upholding the rule of law and our immigration laws. It is disgusting. There has been silence from the Liberals over and over again. Premier Eby is right that it has to change.

Not only have the Liberals made this situation worse, and empowered it, but they are silent today on this and are not doing anything. This is why immigration attitudes have hardened in Canada. It is the why. It is the silent thing that nobody wants to talk about, but it is true. It is destroying our pluralism and making the lives of everybody harder, Canadians and newcomers alike, and it has to stop. That is why we have this motion in front of the House of Commons today. These things have to change. They are real. They are destroying communities.

My colleagues later today will talk about the impacts of the fact that the Liberals have not repealed Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. These are bills that have enabled the catch-and-release justice system, that lowered sentences for serious crimes and provide every incentive possible for people to commit serious crimes in Canada and get away with it. Eliminating these deterrents signalled to criminals that repercussions are minimal, and it contributed to massive spikes across the country in violent crime, firearms offences and sexual assaults.

I thought we would get serious about sexual assault in this place, but no, that bill still stands. There is no deterrent for it, and the Liberals will not move. Every time I hear somebody talk about sexual assault, there is no action. Somewhere today, I bet right now, in Surrey, in Brampton, in Edmonton, in Calgary, somebody is receiving an extortion threat. Somebody has been defrauded of their life savings. Still, somebody is going to receive catch-and-release bail or might be able to make a refugee claim—

Public Safety

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Edmonton residents are paying the price of inaction in the Liberal extortion crisis.

Every day I hear about extortionists and gangsters who are threatening families and businesses in Edmonton and across the country. Meanwhile, the government has done nothing but weakened sentencing and pushed catch-and-release bail. Liberal Bill C-5 scrapped mandatory jail time, and Liberal Bill C-75 forces judges to release repeat violent offenders back into our communities.

Criminals should fear the law; law-abiding Canadians should not. Under the Liberal government, extortion is up 330%. A Conservative government will bring back mandatory minimum sentences for extortion. These criminals deserve to be in jail, not on bail. It is time to stop crime, end the chaos and bring home safe streets to Edmonton.

Criminal Code

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand and speak in the House on behalf of my constituents.

I want to start off by thanking the member for Cariboo—Prince George for his efforts in trying to get this bill at least back to where it was in the previous Parliament, as Bill C-321. We want to recognize the good work that he has done so far, and also that it was unanimously approved by all parties at that time.

What is disappointing to me is that it was very clear from the comments made by the member for Winnipeg North that the Liberals are using this piece of legislation as a weapon to get what they want passed as their legislation. It is very unfortunate that it has become partisan like that.

A serious country protects those who serve it. The rule of law must be clear and fair, especially when violence is directed at people who show up every day to keep Canadians safe, healthy and alive. Nurses, paramedics and first responders do not choose their moments of risk; they accept them as part of their responsibility to the public. When the law fails to clearly recognize that reality, it sends the wrong message to offenders, victims and the professionals who hold our essential services together.

Bill S-233 reflects a Conservative commitment to restoring common sense, accountability and respect for those who stand on the front lines in our communities. It is deliberately narrow: It deals only with assault offences that already exist in the Criminal Code, applies only at the sentencing stage after a person has been found guilty, and applies only to clearly defined victims: people providing health services, including personal care workers and first responders doing their jobs.

Bill S-233 directly continues the work of Bill C-321 from the previous Parliament, as I mentioned before. It is back before us because of the prorogation of Parliament, not because Parliament rejected it. That matters, because this bill passed the House of Commons unanimously.

The problem that this bill addresses exists across the country and looks the same everywhere. Violence against health care workers and first responders is not limited to one province, one riding or one hospital. Nurses and paramedics report high levels of assaults in emergency rooms, long-term care facilities, community clinics and pre-hospital settings. These are not rare events; they are predictable, recurring parts of frontline work.

What is the cause of the crisis faced by our frontline workers? It is a direct result of over a decade of Liberal policies that have weakened bail, normalized repeat violent offending and flooded communities with hard drugs. Liberal catch-and-release bail policies, particularly under Bill C-75, have returned repeat violent offenders to the streets under the least onerous conditions, often within hours or days. These are frequently the same individuals whom police officers, paramedics and emergency room staff encounter again and again, not as one-time offenders but as chronic sources of violence and instability.

Through decriminalization experiments and taxpayer-funded hard drug distribution, the Liberal government has enabled an environment in which first responders are routinely dispatched into volatile, unpredictable and violent situations that are driven by severe addiction. First responders now carry naloxone as a daily operational necessity and administer it repeatedly to revive individuals overdosing from fentanyl, often in the same locations and involving the same people.

Across Canada, nearly 50,000 people have died from opiate overdoses since 2016, and there has been a 200% increase in yearly deaths. In British Columbia alone, 1,700 people died from toxic drugs in the first nine months of 2024. Police have reported that roughly half of all hydromorphone seizures were diverted from so-called safe supply programs.

This is the environment to which nurses, paramedics and police officers are sent. They are required by duty to enter spaces shaped by failed Liberal policies, weakened bail, normalized repeat offending and a drug epidemic that has made frontline service more dangerous than at any point in our recent memory. Bill S-233 responds to this reality by ensuring that the law properly recognizes the heightened risk and vulnerability faced by those who must confront the consequences of these decisions on the ground.

Assaults against health care workers and first responders while they are doing their jobs are especially serious, because they occur at the very moment that help is being delivered. When a nurse approaches a patient, or when a paramedic answers a call, they are there to help, not to fight or defend themselves. People who serve in these roles are the ones who run toward danger while others are running away.

In my early twenties, I served as a volunteer first responder, as a driver and an attendant for an ambulance, providing patient care on the way to the hospital with training and exposure to emergency and hospital settings. That experience made it clear to me how vulnerable first responders are on duty. In an ambulance or at an emergency scene, first responders cannot control the environment or walk away when violence erupts. They stay because that is what the job requires.

What has changed since that time is the level of danger. Liberal bail and drug policies have made frontline work far more volatile. Repeat violent offenders, drug-induced psychosis and fentanyl-driven crime are now routine encounters. Bill S-233 recognizes that change and would ensure that the law reflects the situation today.

We see that same reality in health care settings. Recently in Winnipeg, at the St. Boniface Hospital, a nurse was assaulted in a hospital parkade. She was not in a remote location. She was not acting recklessly. She was at her place of work in the course of her employment. The response from nurses' representatives was not surprise but frustration. They said violence and abuse have become commonplace in hospitals and that workers are being pushed out of workplaces that cannot guarantee basic public safety. That is exactly what this bill would address at sentencing. When someone assaults a person who is required by duty to stay in a dangerous situation, the law should recognize their increased vulnerability and the wider harm that follows from it.

The harm also does not end with the individual victim. Violence in hospitals, ambulances and emergency scenes disrupts critical services from frontline workers. That is why this bill is about protecting essential public functions. Health care is not a private transaction. It is a public good that every community relies on.

Emergency services face the same pressure. First responders who expect violence operate under constant personal risk. If they become overcautious, they are even further at risk. Response times may be slower. In emergencies, those delays can have serious consequences. As a result, the standards of patient care plummet and Canadians are left waiting for the help they need. Over time, this does more harm than good. People begin to question whether those who serve the public are able to provide them with the help they need.

Support for Bill S-233 comes from the people who know the problem best. Nurses' organizations have publicly backed this bill because it reflects what their members deal with every day on the job. Paramedic leaders have said the same. Paramedics often work alone or in small teams in unpredictable and uncontrolled situations under intense time pressure. They are unsafely exposed, and they know it.

The people doing the work have identified a real failure in how violence against them is treated and deterred. Most importantly, this bill is not about being tougher for the sake of it. It is about role-based vulnerability. Health care workers and first responders face danger because of a service they provide. In a crisis, they cannot walk away. Their job requires them to stay, even when the situation turns violent.

Bill S-233 would fully protect individualized sentencing. Every case is still judged on its own facts and merits. Judges continue to look at the details of the offence and the offender. Mitigating and aggregating factors are still weighed together. Proportionality remains the standard, and judicial discretion is not weakened.

Across professions, frontline workers agree on one thing: Violence has become normalized, and the legal response has fallen behind. Bill S-233 would respond to that reality carefully and responsibly. At this point, there is no uncertainty left. Parliament has already studied this bill. Parliament has already agreed to it. The only question that remains is whether we are prepared to finish that work. Every delay sends a signal not just to offenders but to the nurses, paramedics, firefighters and first responders who show up every day and are told, in practice, that their safety can wait. That is not a neutral choice. It is a decision, and it has consequences.

Passing Bill S-233 now is how Parliament would affirm that violence against those who serve the public, who serve us, would be treated with the seriousness that it deserves. It is how we restore clarity, consistency and confidence in the law for our frontline workers.

Public Safety

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, Charlottetown police responded to a violent home invasion involving assault, an imitation firearm and a chemical irritant. Two individuals known to the victims were arrested. One of the accused is facing multiple charges, including, with no surprise, failure to comply with conditions of release and probation. The Liberal soft-on-crime principle of restraint continues to put dangerous offenders back on the street.

Will the government repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so that Canadians can once again feel safe in their homes?

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This time, in Guelph, police warned the community that a high-risk offender with a history of violence and breaching court orders was released after pleading guilty to breaching probation. Police said he posed a danger, especially to women, and less than two hours later, he was arrested again.

This is weak Liberal bail law in action. Once again, the Liberals' principle of restraint put a dangerous offender back on the street.

Will the Prime Minister finally take public safety seriously and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?

Protecting Victims Act

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to drop it. I would love to drop the bill, because it is thick, but it would make a thud, and I do not want to hurt the interpreters' ears.

It is an expansive bill. The Liberals say we are filibustering. Should we not be talking about a bill of this substance? It is a bill that would do a lot of things, yet forgets a lot of things, like addressing parts of Bill C-75 with respect to bail and parts of Bill C-5 that say people who do drive-by shootings or commit extortion with a firearm or robbery with a firearm can serve their sentences on house arrest.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak here today to this important subject matter.

To understand where we are today, it is important to understand where we have come from, particularly over the last decade. Over this past decade, we have seen lax Liberal laws deliberately reshape the balance of our justice system. They are deliberately going much easier on criminals and much harder on law-abiding citizens, such as the law-abiding citizens in my riding of Fundy Royal.

These are people who get up every morning, work hard, provide for their families, take their kids to hockey and volunteer in the community. Those people have the right to feel protected and safe in their communities, and for a long time, they did. I know in my hometown of Quispamsis, like many of the towns throughout Fundy Royal, up until recently, people did not even lock their homes at night. I know it is a cliché, but they also did not lock their cars. They felt safe and secure.

Now, after 10 years of Liberal governments, people in those communities no longer feel safe. They no longer feel secure, whether it is from violent crime, drug-related crime or property crime. I cannot find a person in my riding of Fundy Royal who does not know someone who has had their home, garage, car or shed broken into.

Is this because there are so many more criminals than there were 10 years ago? No, it is not. It is because there are no more consequences for the commission of these crimes. We have a failed justice system because of the steps the government has taken over the last 10 years.

This is not just my anecdotal observation. I want to share some of the facts in Canada. They are absolutely alarming, and it is no wonder Canadians have lost confidence in the justice system. In fact, when I served on the justice committee, we once heard powerful testimony from the sister of a victim of crime. She said that she does not feel like we have a justice system anymore. She said that we have a legal system, but we do not have a justice system, particularly for victims. I have to echo those concerns.

Canadians do not feel a sense of justice. They do not feel safe in their communities. Why is that? Let us look at some of the facts. Under the government, since 2015, so over the last 10-plus years, violent crime is up 54%, homicides are up 29%, sexual assaults are up 76% and gun crime is up 130%. This one is unbelievable: Extortion has skyrocketed 330% over its 2015 level. Fraud, and we all know individuals who have been touched by this, has increased by 94% over the last 10 years.

These are absolutely horrific numbers, but this is not about the numbers. Behind every one of these statistics are real people and real victims from our communities. They are our friends and our family. They are feeling the very real consequences of the soft-on-crime policies that have been undertaken by the Liberal government.

All too often we learn that the criminals committing these crimes have a lengthy criminal record, and after the commission of many of these crimes, they are out on bail. Why are they out on bail? It is so frustrating for Canadians to hear that someone who has committed a serious sexual offence or another offence is out on bail.

Why are they out on bail? How does this happen? How is it just? How is it safe? They are out on bail because the government, with Bill C-75 , changed the law. It introduced a principle of restraint, and that ties the hands of judges. It says that the will of Parliament is that individuals are to be released at the earliest possible opportunity and held under the least onerous provisions. They are held as loosely as possible, which means that rather than being in custody, they are out on the street.

This frustrates not only the victims and our communities but also the police. We can imagine arresting someone for a gun crime or auto theft, doing the work as a police officer. The individual is then brought before a judge, and before the officer has finished their shift, that person is back out on the street. That is not right, and the Liberals continue to defend the indefensible when it comes to soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 .

I just spoke about Bill C-75. Bill C-5 shockingly eliminated mandatory jail time for violent gun crimes such as robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. The government, under its so-called criminal justice legislation, eliminated mandatory jail time for those serious gun crimes.

Let us refer back to what I said a few minutes ago. Let us see how that is working. How is that approach of letting people who have committed serious crimes out on bail, under Bill C-75, working? As well, if someone is sentenced, they are not going to have mandatory jail time, under Bill C-5. What is the combined effect of that?

Maybe gun crime is down. Let us take a look. Unfortunately, gun crime is up a mere 130% under these policies. This is a serious indictment now. The facts are in. This is a serious indictment of this government's agenda.

Conservatives have put forward common-sense legislation to undo some of the damage done by Bill C-5. We introduced the protection against extortion act to restore mandatory jail time for the offence of extortion with a firearm. We introduced the combatting motor vehicle theft act so that convicted car thieves would no longer serve their time from the comfort of their home, from where they can simply walk out the door to steal another vehicle. Of course, the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-5 weakened sentences for the producers, importers and exporters of dangerous drugs. These are the drugs that are affecting people throughout all of our communities, and there have been skyrocketing deaths due to drugs.

In the last Parliament, I introduced the stronger sentences for safer streets act, which would have reinstated mandatory jail time for criminals who import, produce and export dangerous schedule 1 drugs, such as meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl, but the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies have not made anyone safer. In fact, the numbers say that it is just the opposite; they have done much worse.

That is why, in speaking to this legislation today, we have to be aware of what the Liberals have done. Embedded in this legislation is a further deterioration of the will of Parliament when it comes to serious offences. The will of Parliament has been, if there has been a serious offence, say a serious gun crime, there must be mandatory jail time associated with it. With this legislation, the Liberals would allow an override valve with which a judge would be able to not impose the mandatory minimum sentence set out by Parliament.

There is a myth out there that mandatory minimum sentences are somehow unconstitutional. I was looking at an old backgrounder on Bill C-5 that the government produced. These are not my words, but the Government of Canada's own words from its backgrounder on mandatory minimum penalties for, for example, gun crimes, serious gun crimes. It says that, when those were challenged before a court of law, 52% of them, over half, were upheld as being in line with Canadian law, the Constitution and charter values.

While there are some positive steps in the legislation, mostly things that were copied from my hard-working Conservative colleagues, with this legislation, the Liberals have said that, even for the mandatory penalties for serious gun crimes that have been upheld as being in line with the charter, a judge could give an offender less than two years for a serious gun crime, less than two years for a serious sexual offence or less than the mandatory penalty for any other serious crimes that involve a mandatory sentence.

There is some good in this bill, but we always have to be aware that the Liberals' track record is awful. Conservatives will continue to hold them to account and restore once again a justice system for Canadians.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to recap how things work around here, and I will ask my colleague to comment on it.

Conservatives are always way out ahead of Liberals when it comes to things dealing with justice and public safety. As a matter of fact, we warned them about the consequences of their changes in Bill C-75, Bill C-5 and a number of other changes they made. We told them crime would go up. We told them our communities would become less safe. They ignored us and did it anyway.

We then propose private members' bills, which the Liberals across the way systematically vote against every single time until public pressure gets so great that they actually then take our ideas, bundle them up in a bill, put them before the House and then claim that we are blocking them. Is that true?