Bill C-5 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Judges Act to restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to persons who undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. It also amends the Judges Act to require that the Canadian Judicial Council report on seminars offered for the continuing education of judges on matters related to sexual assault law. Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to require that judges provide reasons for decisions in sexual assault proceedings.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, I stood up in this place and went through a bill that the then Liberal government had passed. It got rid of a number of mandatory minimum sentences. I think it was Bill C-5, if I remember correctly. It got rid of the mandatory minimums for extortion with a firearm. I said at the time, “Hey, that must be a lot of fun, having somebody shoot at your house or hold a gun to your head and extort money out of you.”

What has happened with extortion in Canada since then?

Justice

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

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

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

Lawful Access Act, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Richmond East—Steveston, who spoke earlier, I would just like to clarify some comments on Bill C-16 that I heard in the House. Bill C-16 would not change the offence of extortion itself and would not create any new mandatory minimum sentences for extortion. It would add extortion as an explicit aggravating factor. It would not redefine extortion. It would not increase the maximum penalty for extortion. It would not add a new mandatory minimum for extortion, and it would not create any new stand-alone offences for extortion either. I just wanted to clarify those points for the House of Commons before I began.

The reason we are here today with another opposition day motion is that the Liberals told us we needed to have one today. They allotted one of our supply days early on because they would rather push forward their new agenda, to say we are delaying things in the House of Commons, before the Prime Minister likely calls a spring election. That is what is taking place today. The government controls the House calendar. We heard the rhetoric from the member for St. Catharines, with his anger and confusion, but we are only here today because the Liberals did not want to talk about their own bills, full stop.

I rise in support of what we are talking about today. The safety of our communities is the first duty of a free and just society. Unfortunately, the Liberals forgot that for 10 years. The foremost responsibility of any government is to protect law-abiding citizens. Across British Columbia, and across Canada, that responsibility is being tested with increasing urgency. Recent data and public warnings point to a troubling rise in organized extortion and related criminal activity, while the response required to confront this threat has too often been delayed. For too long, policies that weaken consequences for serious crime and blur the integrity of our immigration system have eroded public confidence in safety and justice.

After nearly a decade, Canadians are asking a fundamental question: Why do criminals feel more confident, while communities feel more vulnerable? From small business owners and construction workers to truck drivers and young families, ordinary Canadians are facing intimidation that disrupts their livelihoods and undermines stability. In places like Abbotsford, threatening extortion letters have unsettled entire neighbourhoods and placed growing strain on local police. These are the lived realities of Canadians who seek nothing more than to work, raise their families and live in peace.

Since the Liberals took office nearly 10 years ago, violent crime has increased by 54% and extortion is up 330%. This is not a marginal increase. This is a systemic failure. Again, the member for St. Catharines talked about decreasing crime. Well, guess what. The cities of Surrey and Abbotsford in British Columbia, just in the last year, have had to create many special task forces to deal with the problem at hand here today. The reason is that the Liberal government failed to act, full stop.

Less than a month ago, police investigated an extortion-related shooting that damaged a local business and nearby vehicles. This was part of a series that included 34 reported threats, 21 victims and seven shots-fired calls in just 19 days. Law-abiding Canadians must be able to trust that crime will be met with firm and proportionate consequences. Instead, serious crime is too often met with delay, leniency and the absence of real consequences.

More than a year ago, I sponsored legislation in the House through Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act. This legislation would have delivered real jail time for serious offences, stronger penalties for organized crime involvement and a clear denunciation of extortion as a violent and coercive crime. The government, the Liberals, voted against it.

Today, police in British Columbia report that they are overwhelmed, arresting the same offenders again and again. Communities are left to deal with the fallout. Business owners are left to fend for themselves. Victims are left asking whether the justice system in fact works for them. This is the direct result of Liberal catch-and-release laws, weak sentencing and revolving-door bail policies that are enabling repeat offenders to return to the streets, placing families, workers and businesses at risk.

Our motion today also addresses the government's refusal to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, laws that have weakened consequences for serious and repeat offenders. We mention those laws again because their consequences will even touch on the legislation in this chamber and the impact of what the Liberals say it is going to do.

Bill C-5 removed mandatory prison sentences for serious firearm-related crimes, including extortion involving a weapon. Bill C-75 entrenched a principle of restraint in bail decisions that too often results in repeat violent offenders being released back into the community while awaiting trial. It is not every day that every single premier in the country stands against an action by a standing government. They did on that law. They did it because what the government did was so egregious that every premier, New Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, agreed that the government had failed badly and eroded any sense of justice in this nation.

In British Columbia, police have raised new concerns about transnational crime networks, some involving individuals with no legal right to remain in Canada. Allowing extortionists to hide behind asylum claims undermines public confidence and endangers communities, including immigrant communities, who are often targeted first.

Conservatives believe deeply in protecting genuine refugees, those fleeing persecution and violence, but when violent criminals can claim refugee status to delay deportation, something has to change. That is why last November, Conservatives proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 that would have updated the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to bar asylum claims from being made by those who had been convicted of serious crimes in Canada. The Liberals rejected it, and nothing has changed.

This motion reflects exactly what Conservatives have promised Canadians: to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims, bar non-citizens facing serious criminal proceedings from making refugee claims, end leniency that allows criminals to avoid deportation, and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so repeat extortionists stay in jail. These measures are fair, lawful and absolutely necessary. They would protect victims, newcomers and communities alike, and they would restore a sense of justice in our country.

The issue before us is not complicated. It comes down to a simple question: Will Parliament stand with victims or with the loopholes that protect criminals? The choice before the House is clear.

Protecting Victims Act

[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.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-16, and in doing so, we need to first set out some of the context for why we are having this debate, how we got here and where we are right now as a society in Canada.

One of the unfortunate outcomes of this past 10 years of Liberal government has been a measurable, significant rise in the incidence of crime in Canada. This is not an opinion. This is measured by Statistics Canada and many other observers. In every category of crime, the rate is up after 10 years of the Liberal government. Some of the crimes for which the rates are up spectacularly, in such a negative way, are violent crime on transit systems in our cities, extortion and violent crime. We have seen an increased incidence in the murder of police officers. These are really serious and troubling crimes that Canadians are very concerned about.

How did we get here? Well, the government undertook very specific legislative changes that have affected the incidence of crime in our cities and towns and in all places across Canada. In the 42nd Parliament, the Liberals brought in Bill C-75, which was the catch-and-release bail law change. That is not just a clever political phrase. It is literally what that bill did to our system. The government brought in and legislated the principle of minimum restraint and compelled by law the principle that judges must always apply minimum restraint. Therefore, this plays itself out in our courts, where people are arrested and released and rearrested and released and rearrested and released and so forth.

Police forces across Canada all know who the small number of criminals who commit a disproportionate number of offences are, and they can do nothing about it other than rearrest and rearrest. Officials at the City of Vancouver say there are 40 individuals who are responsible for 6,000 annual police interactions. These are people who are arrested over and over again, literally an average of more than three times a week for this small group of criminals. This is the principle of minimum restraint working itself out in the streets of our cities, and every other city police department has a similar story. I have talked to many police officers in my city who affirm this is the case in our community as well.

During the summer before last, I spoke to people at the city police chief's office in Calgary and heard about a series of home invasions where police arrested the same person, the leader of a group of people who were breaking into homes at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. When someone breaks into a house at four o'clock in the morning, that is a home invasion. They are expecting the homeowner to be in their bed at that hour. The police figured out who was doing it, they arrested the suspects, and they were released and were able to do the same offence the same week, were rearrested for the same offence, and on it goes.

The other concrete step the government took that has had the result of increasing, or failing to address, crime in Canada was Bill C-5 in the 44th Parliament. In that Parliament, the Liberals passed a bill that stripped away mandatory minimum penalties for a host of offences, including serious drug and firearms offences.

That is where we are today. We have a measurable, demonstrative increase in crime after decades of falling incidence of crime. We had for the first time in many decades a rise in crime over a 10-year period, and the response of the government during that time was to make it easier for criminals to get out of jail and harder for judges to send repeat violent offenders into custodial sentences.

Here we are today debating Bill C-16, and it contains measures that Canadians and Conservatives have indeed been demanding for years and that we have asked for through private members' legislation from the Conservative benches. The member for Calgary Nose Hill had a bill in the last Parliament to ban artificial deepfakes of intimate images and the circulation thereof, to include that in the Criminal Code and to compel Internet service providers to report incidents of child sex abuse material. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola proposed, through a private member's bill, the automatic first-degree charge for murder of an intimate partner.

These are things we have proactively suggested to the government, and we are pleased that it has adopted these measures. We are pleased that the government is at least talking about the bottlenecks in the system and that it is introducing legislation about coercive control and about restoring or preserving mandatory minimum penalties. Is it, though?

This bill contains a carve-out that many observers, including prosecutors, suggest would in fact do nothing to protect mandatory minimum penalties, including ones that have been upheld by the Supreme Court for decades and that have been introduced by successive Liberal and Conservative governments exercising their democratic responsibility to determine, as elected officials, what power the state would have to incarcerate somebody for serious crime.

The carve-out contained in this bill may well undo mandatory minimum penalties that currently exist and that have been upheld, while failing to reinstate them in many other cases that the public is demanding, so this bill has problems. This bill is not a panacea to deal with this problem. It really is worth reminding Canadians why we are here.

It has come to my attention that I forgot at the outset to state that I will share my time with the member for Richmond Hill South. I am thankful for the reminder of that, because I am looking forward to his remarks as well.

The carve-out in this bill would potentially take the power of the people of Canada who elect their representatives to come to this place and to determine what the penalties should be for heinous, terrible offences, and turn them into mere guidelines. There are these hypotheticals they always come up with. I was here for the debate on Bill C-5 when David Lametti came up with an outrageous, and actually quite arrogant and offensive, scenario that he imagined for why there should not be a mandatory minimum sentence for the dangerous use of a firearm with intent.

We see this from the Liberals, their trying to imagine a circumstance rather than dealing with the concrete. It goes to an approach, and we do not agree with that approach. That approach is what has gotten us here. I hope Bill C-16 will be examined thoroughly. Probably it will need to be amended, but at the end, we will get to where we need to be and restore the power of Parliament to determine mandatory minimum penalties for serious crime.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, last Tuesday I was finishing up a meeting in my office when the all-too-familiar ring of an Amber Alert went through on my phone. I picked my phone up and promptly looked at it, only to find out that a one-year-old baby girl had been abducted. Members can imagine how this grasped my heart, and I continued to follow the story through its progression.

The next day, I learned the details. I learned that the mother of that child, Savannah Kulla-Davies, had been shot and killed by her ex-partner, Anthony. It was later revealed that Anthony had a record of violence and threats against Savannah, the young woman and mom whose life was taken.

The man had faced firearm-related charges in 2023 for an attack against Savannah. A court document stated that he “did discharge a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of Savannah Rose Kulla Davies”. He even evaded police for a month before finally being arrested by the Waterloo police. A short time later, however, he was out on bail. Sadly, while he was out on bail, he was free to continue his pattern of violence, and this time it ended in the death of Savannah.

Savannah knew that Anthony was dangerous. She had once told her mom, “If I stay with him, he’s going to end up killing me.” As a result, she had left, but unfortunately the justice system failed to protect her. Despite his record and Savannah's repeated pleas, she was failed by the people who were supposed to ensure her safety. Warnings were ignored, and ultimately death was her end. Far too often, this is the case.

This past summer, another woman, Bailey McCourt, was also failed by our justice system and its weak laws. The proud mother of two young girls was bludgeoned to death with a hammer. Her ex was the culprit. That same afternoon, just hours before her life was taken, James had been convicted of four counts of assault by choking and of uttering threats in a domestic violence case. Despite this, however, he was allowed walk. He went and immediately killed Bailey.

Sadly, now two little girls are growing up without a mom, and a family is left with a big hole in their heart. Bailey had lost her faith in the judicial system and in the court's ability to protect her. Her uncle even commented on this, saying that she was “frustrated, scared and felt [altogether] unsupported”.

Both Savannah's and Bailey's stories lay bare the devastating truth: Our justice system all too often sides with the perpetrator and not with the victim. To say that our justice system is broken would be an understatement.

How did we get here? For 10 years, the Liberals have proudly stood behind two soft-on-crime policies: Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. With Bill C-5, the Liberals weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and re-permitting conditional sentences like house arrest for serious offences, extending all the way up to sexual assault. Under Bill C-75, the Liberals forced judges to release offenders “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

The decisions of legislators have real consequences, and these soft-on-crime laws have now resulted in devastation after devastation. After a decade of negligence, the Liberals are finally realizing, it seems, that crime does take place when lax laws are present, but Bill C-14 unfortunately does not go to the extent that it needs to. It is like putting a a band-aid on a gaping wound.

I would like to discuss a few Conservative proposals that would help bring about a right justice system. If the Liberals really do seek to address crime with real solutions, my Conservative colleagues and I have put forward a number of bills, over a dozen. They are common-sense proposals to end catch-and-release bail, restore accountability in sentencing and put the rights of victims and communities ahead of the rights of repeat violent offenders.

I will take my time to outline just three of those common-sense proposals.

One proposal is to end sentence discounts. For a decade, the Liberals have favoured criminals over victims, with light sentencing in the form of concurrent sentences. Sexual assault charges should never be served concurrently, but this is the current practice in Canada. Predators get a two-, three- or four-for-one deal when they commit a crime. It is disgusting. It allows offenders to serve a single sentence for multiple crimes, often reducing their time behind bars significantly.

In Toronto, a family doctor was convicted of nine charges of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation involving three of his patients. He was handed a concurrent sentence of only three and a half years. Again, the penalties for his crimes were combined into one, thereby robbing justice from many of those victims. These patients were supposed to be able to see their family doctor and feel safe and cared for; instead, they were exploited. They were taken advantage of. Instead of their being able to walk a life of freedom, they will bear these scars for a lifetime while the man, the culprit, the perpetrator, will go free very soon.

Each offence is a distinct harm; each victim is a whole person, and each act must carry its own consequence. My private member's bill, Bill C-246, would require consecutive sentences for those who commit sexual assault rather than their being able to serve the sentences concurrently. The Liberals' Bill C-14 fails to address this practice. It fails to address the practice of giving discount sentences for the most heinous crimes. Therefore, it is lacking.

A second proposal that my Conservative colleagues have brought forward that I believe the government should consider has to do with intimate partner violence. We know that, across Canada, women are being failed by a system unable to protect them from their known abusers. In both Savannah's and Bailey's cases, as outlined, their abusers were their ex-partners, something that is all too familiar. About a quarter of all victims of violent crime are victimized by an intimate partner. My colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, introduced Bill C-225, a bill designed to strengthen the legal response to intimate partner violence. If the Liberals truly wished to address this, they would adopt the principles of that bill, and it would serve Canadians incredibly well.

The third bill that I would like to draw attention to has to do with bail. I recently heard from a grieving mother in my riding. She reached out to me from Lethbridge. Her daughter Christina Webber was brutally murdered on December 26 of last year, the day after Christmas. Three individuals were charged in this first-degree murder. One of Christina's killers had been serving an intermittent sentence, meaning that he served time in prison on the weekends, but then he was allowed out during the week, supposedly to work, although he did not have a job. It was during the time he was out of prison that he committed this murder.

Another one of Christina's killers, who was charged with first-degree murder, requested bail and received it. She now lives peacefully in her home while she awaits trial. Meanwhile, Christina's family, her two young boys and her parents, grieve the loss of this mom. It did not need to be that way.

Conservatives have pushed for a long time for changes to our bail system. Recently, my colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which would ensure that individuals charged with serious or violent offences could not easily return to the community while they are waiting for trial. It prioritizes public safety. It puts the victim and the family first. Sadly, the Liberals voted against the bill.

Conservatives welcome the Liberals' sudden recognition that bail reform is needed, but Canadians deserve so much more. They must have much more because their lives matter, their safety matters and our communities matter. Canadians deserve better. They deserve safety; they deserve accountability, and they deserve laws that protect the innocent, not the violent. Therefore, Conservatives will continue to fight for these changes to strengthen sentencing, to reform bail and to put victims first. Ultimately, people like Savannah, Bailey and Christina deserve nothing less. For crying out loud, I hope, for the sake of their families, that we would want to do better.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege and an honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York Centre.

When I was first elected, I was shocked at how quickly crime became the issue I had to contend with as a member of Parliament, because it was the significant issue that galvanized the community of St. Thomas this summer, in many respects. A rather historic building, which happened to be my campaign office in the last election, that was 140-some odd years old was burned down by a serial arsonist out on bail. This was a symbol of a problem that Canadians have seen in communities large and small across the country, which is rampant repeat offenders unleashing what police have called chronic criminality and prolific offending onto the streets.

If we talk to any police service across the country, as I have with the police chiefs in my riding and others through my work on the justice committee, we will hear that a small number of offenders, sometimes 100 people or maybe even fewer, are responsible for 80% to 90% of the calls the police must respond to. A small group of prolific offenders is taxing communities, taxing and straining police resources, and terrifying and terrorizing communities.

They are making it so people do not feel safe walking streets they once could comfortably, safely and freely walk down at any hour of the day or night. People do not feel comfortable letting their children go out to a mall. People are forced to take other forms of transportation because they do not feel safe on public transit.

Just this morning, I saw that London, Ontario, is promoting police officers being on public transit. I am grateful to the brave men and women in the London Police Service, the St. Thomas Police Service, the Aylmer Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police who are forced to deal with this, but they have had to deal with a problem that has by and large been a consequence of federal government policy.

We have heard testimony for several weeks now from police associations, police chiefs and victims' rights groups, and almost all of them have pointed directly to Bill C-75. This was legislation from the Liberal government that, among other changes, codified something called the principle of restraint, a provision of the Criminal Code that makes it easier for repeat offenders to get out on bail under conditions that are very lax.

I bring this up because for months, when we have raised these issues in this House, the government has said not to worry and that bail reform legislation is coming, but this was not a significant priority to the extent that other bills were. We saw Bill C-9, which was the first priority, as far as justice legislation goes, of the government. That came out and was tabled in this House weeks before the bail legislation was. Now we see Bill C-14.

I will say first and foremost that I am grateful the Liberal government recognizes there is a crisis unfolding in our criminal justice system. I am grateful that the Liberal government has finally responded to the calls from law enforcement, municipal governments, victims' rights groups, ordinary citizens and Conservative members of Parliament that action is needed.

What the Liberals have delivered falls short in some very key areas, and I think this is important because they said they needed time because they wanted to get it right. They needed time because they wanted to cover all the bases. We had before the justice committee on Tuesday the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, Thomas Carrique, a very decorated officer. He is also the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and commissioner Carrique said that he was disappointed the legislation did not tackle sentencing in a meaningful way.

The bill was supposed to tackle bail and sentencing, and with the exception of beefing up the penalty for contempt of court, it has not really touched sentencing head-on when we are talking about sentences for violent offences. That is a key shortcoming of this bill.

On the principle of restraint, we have another key issue, which is that the bill offers, and I will read it precisely, the following language on the principle of restraint:

For greater certainty, section 493.‍1 does not require the accused to be released.

The Liberals are basically giving a little asterisk for judges and police officers to tell them not to worry and that the principle in the Criminal Code that says we must release people at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions does not mean they have to release them at all.

Everyone knows that. No matter how critical someone is of the justice system, they know that 100% of people do not get bail, although the Liberals have certainly tried to get as close to that figure as possible it seems. This is a clarifying note; it is not a meaningful change. The Liberals are just saying that it does not mean what we think it does, that this section does not mean what police officers have been saying it has done to them and what attorneys are saying it has done to the justice system.

To be fair, the Liberals made some acknowledgement that there is a problem when they expanded the reverse onus. This is something I welcome, but when this bill goes before committee, it is incumbent on the Liberal government to accept the very significant measures Conservatives have already proposed in this House that would be genuinely and seriously tough on crime, measures that would provide real solutions, real resolutions and concrete reforms to fix the Liberal bail system.

For example, the principle of restraint needs to first and foremost be a principle that makes public safety its primary obligation, not the rights of the accused but the right of the public to feel safe and secure in their own communities. This is very important, and it is a direct response to months and months of consultation by Conservative members with law enforcement officials, who have said they feel ignored by the government and that morale has taken a massive hit. Officers feel it is not even worth arresting people, knowing that under the law on the books right now, they are just going to be released.

For years, Liberal government members, when we have sounded the alarm about this, have said that it is not really an issue. They have attempted to gaslight Canadians into thinking the problem is not as a bad as it, which makes me ask the question about Bill C-14 of why now. Are the Liberals finally acknowledging that they got it wrong with Bill C-75, Bill C-48 and Bill C-5?

With each of these bills, there has been a trend. Some members of law enforcement have looked at them and said they looked like they had some good things in them, but years later, when they see the application of them, they realize they did not actually deliver on the promises made and what the government said it would do. That is, of course, a concern I have with Bill C-14, as with any legislation. We need to make sure these are not just things that exist on paper that do not translate in the real world.

We have given the government the answers. We have provided three pieces of legislation in this House already. While the Liberals were still trying to figure out where they wanted to go with Bill C-14, my colleague from Oxford introduced the jail not bail act, Bill C-242. It would put front and centre the role of public safety when talking about bail. It would also prohibit someone from serving as a surety to help other accused offenders get out on bail if they themselves have been convicted of a serious criminal offence within the last 10 years. Reform of the surety system does not appear at all in Bill C-14, which is another shortcoming that has already been identified by witnesses testifying before the justice committee in its bail study.

We also have, from my colleague from Lethbridge, Bill C-246, which would put consecutive sentences in place for sexual offenders. Heinous criminals who have been convicted should be serving their sentences consecutively, which is a proposal we offered to the government. I ask the Liberals to please take our idea and put it in law if they are serious about these measures.

My colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola introduced Bill C-225, which would create new offences pertaining to intimate partner violence, provisions that Jennifer Dunn of the London Abused Women's Centre told the justice committee yesterday should be passed by the House of Commons to protect women. Victims are being failed by the justice system as it is now, and Ms. Dunn said in her testimony that many of the women she sees do not even refer to the justice system as the justice system anymore.

I am committed to working with government members if they are serious about wanting to reform and genuinely fix these problems, but they need to acknowledge their role in creating them. They need to acknowledge what law enforcement has been saying, which is that so much of what we are dealing with on the streets now, which has led to Bill C-14, is a consequence of Liberal laws, notably Bill C-75.

I am committing to the people of Canada, the people in my riding and the members of this House that I will work in the justice committee to beef this bill up to what it should be, but Canadians deserve more.

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

Madam Speaker, from my review of Bill C-14, I believe that there is a partial admission by the government that it failed and that it dropped the ball when it introduced Bill C-5. It actually rolled back some of the conditional sentences, so I want to spend a bit of time talking about that.

Given that sex assault is on the rise across this country, why did the member's government see fit to claw back the eligibility of conditional sentences only where the Crown proceeds by indictment versus summary conviction, when the vast majority of sex assault prosecutions in this country are done by summary conviction? Why has the member failed victims?

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today to Bill C-12, a broad omnibus bill that, in its current form, seeks to make changes on a number of issues related to the border, immigration and crime prevention. I am thankful to my many constituents, and those throughout Canada, who added their voices of disapproval to its predecessor, Bill C-2. They raised their voices against the infringements it sought to place on individual freedoms and privacy. That bill, Bill C-2, wanted to allow Canada Post to open any mail, including letters, without a warrant, ban cash payments Canadians use and ban the donations over $10,000 that our charitable organizations need.

It wanted to allow warrantless access to personal information. It could compel electronic service providers to re-engineer their platforms to help CSIS and the police access information, and it would have allowed the government to supply financial institutions with personal information if the info were to be used for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes.

It it interesting to me why people are against this. It is their lack of trust in the government to ever consider allowing it to do these things. We certainly saw that when the government chose to invoke an illegal use of the Emergencies Act. It instructed banks to freeze everyday Canadians' bank accounts because it did not like that they were supporting people who needed gas for their vehicles, food and, hopefully, to find a hotel if there was one left downtown that the government had not bought out so they could not sleep in a warm place.

The Liberals also called Canadians all kinds of names, which I would like to see them apologize for, calling us misogynist, racist, extremist. These are the reasons Canadians made the choices they made to stand up against this bill. They do not trust the Liberals.

Because of the pressure they and so many stakeholders have applied, we were able to force the Liberals to back down, split the bill and introduce Bill C-12. The Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the Liberals did not even consult him when they were trying to grant themselves sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers, like banks and telecoms, without a warrant, although they kept saying there would be a warrant.

I am the member of Parliament for the wonderful people, who call the beautiful riding of Yorkton—Melville home, and as of October 15 this month, I have been here for a decade and have risen in this place to speak and intervene on their behalf. Over this tumultuous decade, the people of Canada, especially our younger generations, have become wary of the intentions of the Liberal government. It has tried, time after time, to usurp the rights and freedoms of Canadians, bully and divide, water down and destroy the very fabric of Canadian identity and quality of life.

The government continues to show its true colours as it holds fast to its efforts to make Canada the first postnational state. It holds fast to ravaging our economy with roadblocks and walls that continue to deter private investment in everything from mining to manufacturing and agriculture. The Liberal government is responsible for what Canadians see today. There is poor border security because of the Liberals. There is continued unsustainable immigration because of the leader. There is also an unprecedented financial burden of generational proportions it has orchestrated. All of this is impacting next generations.

This was all orchestrated by Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister, who was the instigator as Trudeau’s economic adviser and as the guy ready to finish his art of the deal with values that leave wealth in his hands and nothing for Canada. The exhaustion, attrition, depression and hopelessness felt within our police services, our Canadian Armed Forces, our first responders and our medical professionals are off the charts. The simple reason, the indisputable answer, is that total violent crimes have increased by 50% since 2015 and through to 2023.

I feel like I should have a moment of silence after mentioning each of these violent crimes that are taking place in larger and larger numbers across our nation: homicide, gang-related killings, sexual assaults, firearm offences, extortion, auto theft, horrific violence against children, forced confinement, kidnapping, indecent and harassing communications, human trafficking, and we do not have the numbers yet for 2024-25. This is not the Canada that Canadians have grown up in, and it is not the Canada immigrants who took the proper paths expected to be part of when they came here.

This is in response to the government’s failed bail reforms and the removal of mandatory minimum sentences in Bill C-75, Bill C-5's legalization of the possession of drugs and an open season for drug trafficking and fentanyl production in Canada.

Unfortunately, this bill is weak. It would make no commitments to enforcement, take no action on catch-and-release for those who traffic in fentanyl and firearms, and add no new mandatory prison times for fentanyl traffickers or for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes or who use our porous border to victimize Canadians. Instead of focusing on them, these Liberals are trying to confiscate legal gun owners' firearms, and they are having a bit of trouble accomplishing that, from what I understand.

House arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offences. Safe consumption sites still do not provide addicts with the encouragement and support to move to treatment, and the Liberals continue to put children in danger with no move to shut down fentanyl consumption sites that are near schools and day cares.

I have to say that on this last part, I feel like I am living in that environment. I moved to Ottawa so that I could do my work, and the place I chose was in a good location. Then they introduced the legalization of drugs and put two safe consumption sites in that area, which is close to a school. Every morning now, as I walk to work, what I see on the streets has multiplied extensively, so this is not due to something that was in place before this happened.

There are people on the street who cannot stand up. They are bent over from the use of these drugs. They sleep on the grates to stay warm. They are sleeping in the little crannies between small businesses, and now there is a regular group that comes and picks up the garbage every morning. At 4 a.m., I am hearing the machines that come down the streets and the sidewalks to wash them, because one of the businesses that was there had to finally move, and it was one of the first in the city of Ottawa, because every morning, as I walk to work, they would be out with big pails of disinfectant cleaning the area in front of their business.

I hear more sirens from police and fire trucks every night, and there are nights when the loudness is so unbelievable, because it travels up through the buildings, that people cannot sleep. I am not blaming the people who are struggling. I am blaming the government for creating the environment that we have today that has added the violence that is taking place with firearms and attacks on people to this form of violence, which has basically caused multiple Canadians across this country to die from the use of fentanyl and caused their families to be in deep distress because of the condition of our country.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Riding Mountain.

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime, which has threatened the safety and well-being of families across our region. A recent report by the Manitoba west district RCMP found that over an 18-month period, just two offenders in Swan River were responsible for over 150 offences.

The petitioners continue to suffer the consequences of soft-on-crime Liberal policies like Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory jail time for serious crimes, and Bill C-75, which forces judges to release repeat violent offenders right back onto the streets. The petitioners in the Swan Valley want to see an end to the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies so that criminals can stay behind bars. That is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders.

I support the good people of Swan River.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, I appreciate the opportunity to debate this motion. Public safety and our bail and sentencing laws play a critical role in the criminal justice system. These are some of the most important laws that are supposed to ensure not only that justice is served but also that Canadians are safe in their communities.

Over the past years, Canadians have raised legitimate concerns about violent crime and repeat offending. These concerns are real, and our government is working hard with law enforcement, Crown attorneys and other levels of government across this country to act on them. It is encouraging to see alignment between the Conservative opposition and the newly elected Liberal government when it comes to improving public safety, including through the adoption of stronger laws to build safer communities.

I have good news for my colleagues. The Minister of Justice will be introducing legislation during this parliamentary session to comprehensively change parts of the Criminal Code and other aspects of the criminal justice system. These comprehensive changes would strengthen bail reform in this country, to have harsher, longer sanctions for violent offenders and to make sure we have the support to help keep communities safe with direct investments in law enforcement.

As set out in our 2025 electoral platform, our government is committed to strengthening the Criminal Code bail provisions to make it onerous to obtain bail for those charged with violent or organized crime related to auto theft, home invasion, trafficking in persons, human smuggling and drug trafficking. Our government is also committed to adding a requirement for courts to impose a firearms or weapons prohibition when granting bail to anyone charged with an organized crime-related offence.

Our government has committed to reforming Canada's sentencing regime to better address repeat and violent offending. More specifically, the 2025 electoral platform includes commitments to change the law to direct courts to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when determining a sentence for anyone who has numerous convictions. That means courts would have to primarily consider a sentence that would deter repeat offenders. It includes commitments to broaden sentencing tools by allowing consecutive sentences for violent or organized crime-related auto theft.

The Prime Minister followed up on these electoral commitments when he agreed to strengthen the Criminal Code bail and sentencing laws during the June 2 first ministers meeting. Later that month, the Minister of Justice also announced publicly that bail and sentencing reforms will be forthcoming this fall to address growing concerns of repeat and violent offending at all stages of the criminal justice process. Over the summer, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and I undertook significant engagement with the provinces and territories, law enforcement and legal stakeholders alike to inform and develop these reforms.

Now, although looking to future solutions is important, it is equally important to look to the past and to properly understand our criminal justice system and the current state of the law. For example, despite a persistent narrative that former Bill C-75 was soft on crime, I want to highlight that it explicitly strengthened the Criminal Code bail provisions as they relate to intimate partner violence. Former Bill C-75 made it more onerous for individuals previously convicted of intimate partner violence to obtain bail. This change was based on research suggesting that victims of intimate partner violence face a higher risk of violence from their intimate partners after charges are laid. This was a critical step in recognizing the unique risks posed by repeat offenders in intimate partner violence cases and in ensuring that survivors are protected.

More recently, in 2023, Parliament unanimously enacted former Bill C-48 in response to a new and pressing challenge: growing concerns about repeat violent offending involving firearms and other weapons at the bail stage. The former Bill C-48 amendments were not developed in isolation. They too were the result of extensive collaboration with the provinces and territories. They also responded directly to calls for reform from premiers across the country.

Among other changes, former Bill C-75 created a reverse onus at bail to better address the heightened public safety risks posed by those accused of repeat violent offending with firearms and other weapons. That meant that violent offenders with firearms now had to prove they deserve bail, as opposed to the previous process through which the Crown was having to prove why someone should not receive bail.

This presented a significant change that reflected the seriousness of this type of offending and the need to ensure that the courts would turn their minds to the unique public safety risks that those charged with this type of offending might present. Former Bill C-48 also strengthened the intimate partner violence reverse onus. The bill expanded the reverse onus to also apply to anyone who had been previously discharged, and not just those convicted, of an offence involving intimate partner violence.

Before moving on to what the government has committed to doing, I want to address another area of criminal law that generates significant commentary: conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. A CSO is a sentence that allows an offender to serve a term of imprisonment in the community under certain conditions. They are only available when the sentence is less than two years and when the court determines that it does not pose a risk to public safety or conflict with sentencing principles. CSOs cannot be imposed for offences that involve mandatory minimums, terrorism, criminal organization offences with indictable minimums of 10 years or more, advocating genocide, torture or attempted murder.

The current CSO rules stem from former Bill C-5, which was presented in 2022. This bill strictly made mention that courts may only impose CSOs when consistent with community safety and sentencing principles. CSOs must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's responsibility, and provide adequate denunciation and deterrent. The government has heard concerns that CSOs have been increasingly used for sexual offences in some lower courts. Even though appellate courts hold that they rarely represent proportionate sentences, our government continues to monitor the impacts of former Bill C-5 and will consider further refinements to ensure community safety and public confidence.

As crime evolves, so must our laws. This is why the Minister of Justice will be advancing additional bail and sentencing reforms this fall.

I would now like to turn to an aspect of our bail system that often gets overlooked, and that is the matter of shared responsibility between federal and provincial and territorial governments. While federal legislation sets the laws governing bail, the effectiveness of our bail system depends largely on how it is administered. Provinces are responsible for appointing provincial judges and judges who conduct most bail hearings, who are in some provinces are called justices of the peace; overseeing the operation of police services, which are responsible for supervising individuals who are released on bail; and enforcing any conditions of release.

Provincial investments in community-based supports and supervision programs to reduce the risk of reoffending at the bail stage are also critical to ensuring that our bail system works as intended. Provinces and territories also hold the key to improving our understanding of bail outcomes. Right now, the provinces do not keep the bail data needed to ascertain whether our bail system is failing. Provincial leadership in improving data collection, and reporting is necessary to ensure effective evidence-based law reform at the federal level. It is an issue that I have brought up with every provincial representative I have met. Bail data will be crucial in understanding the fight against the cracks in our bail system.

In my speech so far, I have addressed several areas where reverse onuses have been imposed, such as cases involving firearm-related offences. We have yet to know whether that has had a positive impact or not. I fear, as we continue to make other reforms, that perhaps we may not understand fully whether they are having the impact Parliament intends.

Further to that, the provinces administer the bail courts. Earlier this year, Brampton mayor Patrick Brown, on behalf of Ontario's Big City Mayors, wrote a letter to the Province of Ontario sounding the alarm on cases being withdrawn, discharged or dismissed. It was almost over 50% of cases. This is shocking.

Highlighting the need for more Crown attorneys to try these cases more quickly, more judges to hear them and more spaces in jails to put criminals away is crucial. Comprehensive criminal justice reform must include all levels of government coming to the table and doing their part. We are ready to do our part and to work with the provinces and territories that are ready to do theirs.

The changes I mentioned will help with our immediate issues, but if we are serious about reducing crime and seeing improvements of public safety, we must look beyond our criminal law system as well. Public safety begins with prevention. It requires supporting our youth, investing in communities and addressing the social conditions, including poverty, addiction, mental health and housing. Bail reform is but one piece of the complex puzzle. Lasting change requires a broader commitment to equity, opportunity and support.

All orders of government must work together to build an effective justice system that distinguishes between those who pose a genuine risk and those who can be safely managed in the community. People in Canada deserve a justice system that protects them all. They deserve laws that are clear, consistent and effective. They also deserve a justice system that works and that is firm but fair. They also deserve a government that listens, responds and acts, and we will do exactly that.

I also want to make mention of the opposition finally showing a shred of common sense, though it is long overdue. In Bill C-242, which is mentioned in today's motion, the Conservatives quietly removed the reckless American-style, far right, three-strike scheme they ran on in the last election. Empty slogans based on sporting rules will not foster a robust criminal system and keep Canadians safe. Canadians deserve real solutions that are guided by working collaboratively with law enforcement, attorneys and other levels of government. That is exactly what our comprehensive bill would do.

I pause here to comment on the way this motion is drafted. It claims that the Liberal government promised to pass criminal justice reform six months ago but has failed to do so. That is strange. Just last week, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which includes targeted Criminal Code provisions to address hate crimes, which are on the rise. The bill passed second reading yesterday evening on a deferred division and is now heading to committee for further study.

Over the summer, the Minister of Justice has been hard at work studying ways to improve our laws by consulting closely with his provincial counterparts, law enforcement, police chiefs and police associations. Meanwhile, the Conservative leader was busy fighting for his own job and then parachuted into Alberta, after being catastrophically rejected by Canadians across the country and in his own former riding of Carleton. However, it seems he has not learned any lessons from that rejection. He continues to act recklessly, prioritizing political posturing over meaningful, evidence-based criminal justice reform.

Let us reject slogans and oversimplifications. Slogans such as “jail not bail” may sound tough, but they do not get us any closer to solving the problem. Real solutions require real work. They involve strengthening laws, improving enforcement, investing in data, devoting resources to addressing the root cause of crime and ultimately building a justice system that works for everyone.

Let us embrace real solutions that are evidence-based, collaborative and grounded in the values of fairness and accountability. That is the path forward. That is the commitment of the government. That is what Canadians deserve and expect.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, now that Their Majesties have left the national capital region, we can really pick apart the throne speech the government wrote yesterday.

Yesterday Canadians heard a throne speech that was not bad on slogans and rhetoric but terrible on any kind of detail and a plan. A lot of times, government members will defend that by saying that the details come out in the legislation. While there may be some truth to that, in a throne speech, we usually at least get a clear indication of what that legislation would do. In other words, we get an indication of the way the government is going to accomplish the goals it has set out for itself. We received precisely none of that yesterday.

We were told that the government wants to build more homes, yet all the government did was talk about increasing the number of bureaucrats who run programs in Ottawa. There was nothing about incentivizing municipalities to speed up development processes and lower development charges. The government copied and pasted many aspects of the Conservative platform; one specific aspect was eliminating the GST on new home construction. Some might call it plagiarism, which is something the Prime Minister has some familiarity with.

The Liberals must have dropped something when they were cutting and pasting that from the Conservative platform, because they accidentally restricted it. I say “accidentally” sarcastically. They made this policy much narrower in its application. Our plan would have reduced the GST on new homes, period, but the Liberals have restricted that to only some new home purchases. They did not talk at all about the way they were going to reduce that red tape and lower those taxes.

We have a Prime Minister who wrote a book called Value(s), in which he defined himself as a human being. In that book, not only did he profess his love for the carbon tax, but he also bragged about the experience he has imposing higher costs, not just on Canadians but on the people of the world.

That is where the Prime Minister comes from: a global investment scheme in which fancy bankers and powerful elites put together a grift. The Prime Minister actually explained how he benefited from this. He gave an interview when he was on a panel and described how this grift unfolds. First, he and people like him have access to important decision-makers and policy-makers around the world. He actually said this. He uses that access to lobby for regulatory changes.

In other words, the Prime Minister gets to have a glass of wine or a canapé with a government official in a country. In those conversations or meetings, he convinces them to make regulatory changes, and then he invests in the companies that benefit from those changes.

In the example the Prime Minister used, he spoke about lobbying the government of the United Kingdom to bring in a new requirement for jet fuel. There was no market for the new requirement. If there was a natural market for it, then aviation companies would make those changes to jet fuel. The Prime Minister specifically required that a certain percentage of that aviation fuel had to be sourced from nonconventional energy. If there was a market for that, if that nonconventional product was more efficient or cheaper, then the companies would do it themselves. They would not need a regulatory agency to tell them to do it. There was no market for it. Why is that? It would increase costs. Those costs would get passed on to consumers, and fewer people would be able to afford to fly.

Therefore, the Prime Minister convinces the policy-maker to bring in a rule that cannot be ignored. In the absence of a market demanding it or necessitating it, the awesome power of the government comes in and forces aviation companies to blend in a certain percentage of nonconventional energy to use in their fuel. Those extra costs get passed on to passengers, and fewer people are able to afford those tickets.

The Prime Minister convinces the policy-maker that every plane flying in and out of a U.K. airport must have a certain percentage of fuel. Then he looks around and sees a company producing a nonconventional energy product. It was not making any money before the regulatory change; now it has a huge market for what it produces, that nonconventional energy product. All of a sudden, with a massive market, that company will be able to sell what it makes to all kinds of airlines flying in and out of the United Kingdom. What does the Prime Minister do? He invests in that company.

Not only does the Prime Minister lobby for the regulatory change, but he then also invests in the company and makes millions. Members do not have to take my word for it. The Prime Minister himself admitted this before he ran to be the leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker, imagine doing that with any other aspect of government. Imagine having a buddy who owns an asphalt company, and for one reason or another, it was not making much money. Maybe the company was selling an additive for the asphalt, but there was not really a market for it; cities and rural municipalities did not think they needed to buy it, and the company did not produce anything of value for motorists or taxpayers in that area.

Mr. Speaker, imagine using special access to get time with ministers or government officials and, not because there was a market for it, convincing them to pass a rule that the company's product had to be included in all the asphalt being laid down in an area and then going out and investing in that company. If someone were an elected official and they did that, they would likely be up on criminal charges. They would likely be investigated for corruption. That is exactly what the Prime Minister did in his private sector career: He used his access with government officials to lobby for changes to allow him to make investments and make millions. That is who the Prime Minister is.

In the throne speech, there was no mention of how to get big projects built. We can remember it was the Liberal government that cancelled big energy projects like northern gateway and energy east. Northern gateway would have opened up Asian markets; it is the shortest route between where the oil and gas is found in the ground and where there is a deep water port to be able to ship it to countries like India, China and Japan, with booming populations and an ever-increasing middle class. Right now, many of those countries are buying their energy from countries that do not share our values. These are countries with dictators and regimes that abuse the rights of women and religious minorities and that engage in fomenting wars and terrorist activities not just throughout the region but throughout the world. Canadians are no longer able to fill those markets, because the Liberals cancelled those pipelines. There was nothing in the throne speech about repealing those terrible pieces of legislation or supporting those projects.

The Prime Minister says that he is the man with the plan. Slogans are not as efficient as plans, yet there is no plan. Then he goes around and tells Canadians that there will not even be a budget for six months. We can look at all the economic calamities that Canadians have had to suffer through: an inflation crisis, a cost of living crisis, a housing crisis, massive debt and deficits racked up by Liberal governments. The Liberal government is spending more on servicing the debt than it is on health care. In other words, it is paying more in interest payments to bankers and bondholders.

After all of this, with the Prime Minister himself saying that speed was of the essence and that, as a country, we have to start addressing this as quickly as possible, he is telling Canadians they are going to have to wait for six months before we get this plan. I do not know of a single boardroom around the country that would keep a CEO in his position if, in the middle of a crisis, the CEO came in and said, “I know we are in a crisis. Do not worry; I have a plan. I will come back to you in six months.” I do not think any board of directors would keep a CEO who asked for a six-month grace period to start to address a problem.

The Prime Minister says he wants to build, but he refuses to repeal the very laws that stop us from building. He will not commit to repealing Bill C-69, the anti-pipeline bill. He refuses to repeal Bill C-48, the shipping ban that blocks western Canadian oil from reaching global markets. He is keeping in the energy and production caps and the industrial carbon tax. Here we have a situation in which our steelworkers, aluminum workers and manufacturers in Canada have to worry about their companies competing against American manufacturers when there is no carbon tax on the U.S. side of the border. My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore made a great point yesterday when she pointed out that saying we are going to fight with the Americans while keeping an industrial carbon tax on Canadian workers is like tying one elbow behind our back. It is not going to put Canada in a position of strength if the government keeps the industrial carbon tax.

The Prime Minister flippantly said, “When was the last time you bought a whole bunch of steel?” Does he not realize that there is steel in a lot of things that Canadians buy on a pretty regular basis?

Last time I opened my fridge, the fridge had steel; the car I drive has steel; lots of household components have steel; and lots of framing materials for new homes require steel. There are many things that Canadians have to buy on a regular basis that contain steel. That steel could be made in Canada, and we could export some of that steel to the U.S. and around the world if Canadian manufacturers had an advantage and did not have to pay that carbon tax. The irrational devotion to the carbon tax that the Prime Minister has in keeping the industrial side of it is a direct repudiation of anything he has said on helping Canada fight back from a position of strength. He is going to saddle us with higher taxes and higher regulatory regimes.

There is no mention of repealing the soft-on-crime laws, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which unleashed a wave of crime across the country. Those two bills drastically lowered penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders, which caused the crime wave. Crime is not like the weather; it is not like one day there might be a bit of humidity and the next day there might be a few extra car thefts. Crime is a direct result of justice policies. When the Liberal Party came in and started repealing mandatory minimum sentences and forcing judges to grant bail instead of jail for some of the country's most notorious and dangerous offenders, we saw a direct correlation in the rise in crime.

The same thing happened with the drug crisis. We had a government that decided to take taxpayers' money. We can think of the taxpayer working so hard, picking up extra shifts, working long hours, missing out on time with their children and their families, because they were hustling and striving to eke out a better quality of life, knowing that when those tax dollars came straight off their paycheque, a portion of those tax dollars was going to buy dangerous opioids to give out to people to use in communities and those drugs ended up in the hands of drug dealers. Imagine the insult to injury for those Canadians who are barely getting by, to find out that their tax dollars went to subsidize drug distribution in our communities.

These are simply the same old talking points dressed up in new packaging. The Liberals are trying to pull off a massive trick on Canadians. They are pretending that, if they just change their rhetoric a little bit and change the leader and the name, but keep the same ministers and keep the same policies, somehow Canadians will believe that things are actually different. However, changing superficial things is easy. The Liberals can swap out the talking points, and they can suddenly mimic some of the language they hear from other political parties, as they did when they lifted Conservative ideas. It is easy to wear black shoes and normal socks and pretend everything is going to be different. However, the things that actually affect Canadians' lives are not the superficial things. They are not words on pieces of paper. They are not the grand prose that comes from a monarch on a visit to the Senate to read a throne speech. Canadians' lives are changed by the laws, the tax rates and the regulations that governments set. So far, we have absolutely zero indication that there will be anything meaningfully changed under this Prime Minister.

There was absolutely nothing in the throne speech to talk about unleashing our businesses and our resources, but that is what Conservatives will do. The best way to fight back against a threat to our country is to fight back from a position of strength.

It is easy to use pretty words and make big speeches, but the reality is that Canadians' quality of life is changed only by the government's policies, not by speeches in either chamber. It is the bills and the decisions made by ministers that will truly change Canadians' quality of life. For now, there is no sign that the government is going to offer Canadians real change.

Our plan, which the Conservatives put forward to the Canadian people during the last election, will be what we fight for in this Parliament. We will build on the success our leader Pierre Poilievre had in achieving 42% of the vote, with millions of new Canadians voting for the Conservative Party.

I know my Conservative colleagues will agree with me on this. I guarantee that every single one of us, when we were knocking on doors in the last election, met people who told us that they had never voted Conservative before, any many of them said that they had never even voted before. They saw in our leader Pierre Poilievre's vision for this country something that they had not seen for a generation from the Liberals: hope that the promise of Canada could be restored, where hard work pays off, where we can earn a powerful paycheque that affords not just the basic necessities of life, but some of the nice extras as well, and the belief that every generation that comes after will be better off than the previous because our country continues to grow and improve upon itself.

That hope has been lost over the past 10 years because of Liberal government policies. While we have more work to do, as the Conservative Party, to win the next election, I can assure members that our leader Pierre Poilievre will continue to espouse that vision of hope and that promise to Canadians that life will get better.

In the meantime, we will hold the government to rigorous account. It is our job to go through, line by line, every dollar spent, every tax dollar taken out of the pockets of Canadians and every infringement on their liberty. With regard to any decision that comes from the government, we will do our job, not for ourselves, not because we are the blue team and they are the red team, but for Canadians who have to go to work every day and shoulder that government spending, pay off that government debt and put up with the terrible outcomes of disastrous policies that have hurt our country for so long.

More and more Canadians want a government that puts Canadian workers, Canadian energy and Canadian families first. That is what the Conservative opposition will be fighting for every single day, for as long as this Parliament lasts.

I will close with this thought. It was very disappointing, not just for parliamentarians but for Canadians themselves. There are a lot of economic headwinds that are not just on the horizon but are absolutely blowing through communities all across the country. TD Bank is predicting a recession just around the corner, with thousands of jobs lost. We heard from our housing shadow minister today about a phenomenon that only the Liberal Party of Canada could possibly create, where prices are so high that new buyers cannot afford to buy houses, but they are now lower than the inflated prices that the existing owners bought them at. We have a situation where sellers cannot afford to sell, because if they drop their prices any more, they will not be able to cover the mortgage that they owe, but prices are still far too high for buyers. Buyers cannot buy, and sellers cannot sell. Only a Liberal government could achieve such monumental failure.

We have a situation where the debt required to finance what the government has campaigned on will put enormous pressure on bond markets. We do not know where that will lead, but it has never, ever led to a good place when governments start borrowing so much money that lenders start to doubt whether the government will ever be able to fully pay it off and start demanding a higher premium for that.

We think of the man with the plan, the guy we hire in a crisis, the guy who claims that he can walk into a boardroom and solve these issues, but who still has not gotten results from his visit to the United States. Other countries have gotten deals. The Prime Minister has not gotten one.

There is still no plan to get new energy projects built. Worst of all, there is no budget to show Canadians just how bad the situation is and what they might be facing in the future. That lack of a budget is probably the most concerning thing that we have had heard from the government over the last few weeks. This is the number one job. The reason why the House of Commons exists is to approve taxation and spending. That is the origin story of our parliamentary system.

It is not just a matter of disrespect; it is a matter of hiding from Canadians the true consequences of government policies. The fact that the government will not commit to tabling a budget before it goes on vacation for the summer is telling. What it is telling me is that the Liberals are really afraid to share the bad news. They are afraid of coming clean with Canadians because the numbers are so bad.

The best thing we can do with tough medicine is to take it early, and then all of us can get together to try to fix the problem. We urge the government to table the budget.

In that light, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and we urge Your Majesty's advisors to include a firm commitment to present to Parliament an economic update or budget this spring before the House adjourns for the summer that incorporates measures aimed at unleashing Canada's economic potential including full accountability of Canada's finances.”

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the hell is going on? The country is without a finance minister and I am without a minister to be a critic of. The Prime Minister has not only lost control of his colleagues but has also lost control of his colleagues and has lost the confidence of Canadians. The only person he has not lost confidence from is the leader of the NDP, who is just waiting for his $2.2-million pension, and then maybe he as well might lose confidence in the Prime Minister.

Do members know who else has lost confidence in the weak, fake feminist Prime Minister? It is the two million Canadians visiting a food bank in a single month; the one in four Canadians skipping meals; and the parents, the moms, who are putting water in their kids' milk to extend how much they can give to their kids. They have all lost confidence. They lost confidence nine years ago.

After the weak Prime Minister doubled housing costs, doubled crime and doubled the debt, he basically doubled all the pain and suffering in this country. Then he blamed Canadians for it, and then he lectured them. Then on top of that, to pour salt in the wounds, he is slamming Canadians with another carbon tax scam hike, one that he wants to quadruple if by some chance he becomes prime minister again.

Now the former finance minister has joined a long list of women who were in the Prime Minister's caucus and cabinet who have exposed how big of a fake feminist he is. She joins women like Jane Philpott, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Celina Caesar-Chavannes. It is a slap in the face to women, not just parliamentarians but all women.

Let me quote what the former finance minister said in her letter today that exposed the fake feminist Prime Minister: “On Friday, you told me you no longer want me to serve as your Finance Minister and offered me another position in the Cabinet.” What a slap in the face that was. He was done using her.

On Friday he let her know, “Hey, I'm going to make you break through this fiscal guardrail that you promised Canadians, which was $40 billion. I'm going to make you crash through that guardrail and take Canada's finances off the cliff, but why don't you go and deliver that bad news, and then I'll switch you into a different post?” What kind of fake so-called feminist does that?

What kind of a leader and what kind of a boss does that? It is pathetic to the highest degree what the fake feminist Prime Minister has done. He proves it once again, and he just recently gave a big speech last week about being a proud feminist. Some feminist he is. He is a fake.

Let me go on to read what else the former finance minister said: “you made clear that I no longer credibly enjoy that confidence and possess the authority that comes with it.” I would argue that she never had it in the first place, because the fake feminist Prime Minister and carbon tax Carney are in the background.

Carbon tax Carney made his Canadian comeback just to fire the furious finance minister. That was his role. They used her, and they wanted to blame her for the finances of the country going over the cliff, only to disregard her afterward. This is all being done by the backroom boys of the fake feminist Prime Minister and carbon tax Carney.

The former finance minister goes on to say, “you and I have found ourselves at odds about the best path forward for Canada." She also says, “keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war. That means eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford and which make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment.”

I could not agree more. These are political gimmicks. The Liberals just introduced a two-month temporary GST tax trick, which was a vote-buying scheme that businesses all across hated, that was going to be costly to them and that is not really going to bring in much more revenue. The Liberals brought it in at the busiest time of the year, just so the Liberal-NDP government could buy votes from Canadians.

However, Canadians are experiencing much more pain than that. While Liberals want to take pennies off peanuts or nickels off Nutty Bars, common-sense Conservatives want to axe the tax on everything, for everyone, for good. Enough of these cheap political gimmicks.

This carbon tax scam is more than a gimmick; it is pain. It is no environmental gain with all financial pain for Canadians, to the point where we see seniors who need to choose whether they heat their homes or buy a little more at the grocery store. They are getting through by putting blankets on. This is the reality of nine years of the corrupt, inept and weak Liberal-NDP government.

Instead of standing with Canadians and standing up for Canadian values, the Prime Minister chose to start a war with the Americans. This is the same former finance minister, obviously with the guidance of the weak Prime Minister, who said, “Why don't you go ahead with your digital services tax? Why don't we join other countries doing it?” Can members believe we are in the same pod as countries like Pakistan, which has introduced this? We are not with our partners on this at all. Liberals knew it would be something that would impact Canadian businesses and could possibly get our tariffs raised by the U.S., but they still moved forward with it. They pissed everyone off. They pissed off the Americans.

This is how incompetent the Liberal-NDP government is. It has no game plan. Once again, these cheap political gimmicks have Canadians footing the bill. At the end of the day, Canadians are having to suffer for these really incompetent political policies that have impacted them.

The former finance minister goes on to say, “our time in government will come to an end.” Yes, it will. We should put the tired, corrupt government out of its misery and call a carbon tax election now. We should give people control back, give Canadians back control of their lives, which is something they have lost. When Canadians see crime on the rise, hate crimes on the rise, and that the cost of everything is out of control, it is because they have a government that has worked against them. They have a leader in the NDP who has propped up the corrupt Liberal government for nine years, and now he is doing it just out of spite, just to get his $2.2-million pension.

Canadians will remember this. Canadians will remember this at the next election. It is time for the government's time to come to an end. We have to give that power back to the people, where it belongs. There is only one leader in the entire House of Commons who will bring the power back to the people. That is the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton.

The former finance minister says something else I agree with, which is, “Canada will win if we are strong, smart, and united.” We need a leader who is strong, smart and will unite, one with a backbone and brains. Again, there is only one leader in the House of Commons with that, and that is the member for Carleton.

Once we have a common-sense Conservative government, we are going to axe the tax for good. We are going to get rid of the carbon tax to bring the cost of gas, groceries and home heating down. We are going to unleash the power of our natural resources, the world-renowned natural resources sector we have in Canada that the Liberal-NDP government has tried to kill with its oil and gas cap and all these other ridiculous policies like the carbon tax scam. We are going to axe the tax for good to bring home our natural resources and give them to the world in order to bring down emissions across the world.

We are going to build the homes. There will be no more photo op funds and no more giving municipalities and mayors millions and billions of dollars just to create more bureaucracy. We are going to build the homes, not more bureaucracy. We are going to bring home a GST tax cut for homes that are a million dollars and under, which will generate up to 30,000 new homes and save up to $50,000 on those homes, which is going to lower the cost of mortgages.

While I am on the topic of mortgages, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, housing costs have doubled. Whether one is renting or a mortgage holder, the costs have doubled. Why have they doubled? The Liberal-NDP government has fed into the bureaucracies at the municipal level, which have only increased their permitting fees. On top of that, it is the population control that they admit themselves is “out of control”. The Liberals did this; their incompetence did this. The Bank of Canada also confirmed that it is their out-of-control population growth that made costs to renters double.

In order to not give Canadians 40-year highs in inflation like the Liberal-NDP government did, we are going to balance the budget, something the Liberal-NDP government has no idea of how to do. This is the same Prime Minister who said that budgets balanced themselves and that he does not think about monetary policy. Then he said to let the bankers worry about the economy. He loves the bankers. Those are his Bay Street buddies, the same ones that Canadians have to send money to, with more in debt-interest charges than what goes to provinces for health care.

After the incompetent Prime Minister doubled the national debt, that is exactly what happened. Interest rates went up. Inflation went up. Of course, for the Prime Minister and his rich buddies, their assets got inflated, while everyday Canadians had to pay for that incompetence.

We are going to balance the budget and bring in a dollar-for-dollar law. We are going to make sure that any dollar spent in any department has to be matched with a dollar of savings. Canadians and businesses have had to do that under this government. The government should do the same and respect the money.

There is no doubt that we are going to cut the Liberal waste. The waste that went to Liberal insiders, such as the friends of the Liberals who got so much money for arrive scam and for the consultants, the McKinsey consultants. Now we just found out from the Auditor General about the CEBA loans that went to fraudulent corporations and companies. This is just another rerun of the last nine years of this government. First it was CERB, and now it is CEBA. This is what incompetence looks like. Who has to pay for it? Canadians always end up having to pay for this incompetence.

It is time for a common-sense Conservative government that will balance the budget, get rid of that Liberal waste and, of course, stop the crime. Canadians do not leave their houses now and sometimes live in their houses in absolute fear, because criminals have never had it so good. Under the Liberal-NDP government that brought in Bill C-5 and C-75, criminals have it way too easy. They commit crimes repeatedly and without any fear. They know they are going to get bail. They commit crimes over and over again.

However, just to virtue signal and to show that it is the most woke government, the Liberals created a bail system that is just too easy for criminals to get. That is why there is no more fear left within criminals. There is no fear in Canada. The only fear is from everyday Canadians who are just working to make it, to get by, to put food on their families' tables.

However, now carjackings are up, violent crime is up and gun crime is up. Every day there are new videos coming out, and it is a result of this incompetent, woke government that lets criminals have zero consequences for what they do. We are going to stop the crime and bring in common-sense Conservative policies once again that will keep repeat offenders in jail and not grant them bail like this woke government has done over the last nine years.

My parents came here because Canada used to have this reputation that one could work hard here and either get by or get ahead. Canada used to be a country where one paycheque could run the household. One paycheque used to be able to get people a house, whether they wanted a mortgage or to rent. One paycheque used to be able to afford groceries for the week. One paycheque used to put people's kids through school. One paycheque used to be able to put people's kids in other activities.

However, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, the Canadian dream that my parents came for and that Canadians had, whether they were born here or immigrated here, is broken. It is broken. Our reputation has been broken because this weak, woke, fake feminist Prime Minister broke Canada.

It is time for a common-sense Conservative government, led by our common-sense Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, to not only unite Canadians but to rebuild that Canadian dream and finally have a country where we can proudly stand and say we are from Canada, one where we see our flag and the rest of the world sees our flag and know we are represented by a competent leader who has the brains and the backbone to stand up for Canadians and do what is best for Canada first.

This is the same Prime Minister who, wherever he goes, is an embarrassment, not just nationally but all over the world. Literally, he is known as a clown now. He has turned the country into a circus. It is time for real leadership.

It is time to bring a serious government back that will put the people first, that will reduce those food bank lineups, that will reduce housing costs, that will reduce the cost of gas, groceries and home heating, and reduce the crime in this country, because that is how it used to be. Before the Prime Minister it was like that. When was the last time members heard of people lining up at food banks in record numbers or of people being afraid in their own homes or outside? We never used to even have to lock our doors in Canada.

In this next carbon tax election, the choice cannot be more clear: People can vote for a Liberal-NDP government that will punish their work, that will tax everything and that will double their housing costs on the Liberal-NDP government's path to quadrupling the carbon tax scam, or Canadians can make a choice to get back control of their lives and get back control of the country that they once knew and still love, under a common-sense Conservative government that will bring back the common sense that used to be common in the country, which we lost after nine years of the incompetent, woke Liberal-NDP government. Let us work together to bring home the Canada we all knew.

I turn to the leader of the NDP to make a request that he put the country and Canadians over his pension. Enough is enough. Canadians have had enough. Canadians cannot suffer anymore from the Liberal-NDP government. It is time. It is time for a carbon tax election. This country is in chaos. The Prime Minister and his entire caucus is in chaos. It is time to give the control back to the people. It is time to give this country a common-sense Conservative government under the leadership of the member for Carleton, the leader of the common-sense Conservatives.

Let us bring home the Canada we all once knew and still love. Let us bring it home.