Bill C-5 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister's number one job is to keep Canadians safe, but he has failed at that job.

In a secret recording, he said, “Don't ask me” about “the logic”, and I agree. I do not see the logic either. Gun crimes are up 130%, bail across the country is perceived as a joke and the Liberals, in Bill C-5, voted to lower sentences for gun crimes. Everything in this file is a mess.

Why does the Prime Minister not fire his public safety minister?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

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

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

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

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

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

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

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I consider my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord an ally. As the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women, I have had discussions with him on the issues of violence against women.

My colleague talked about the possibility of occasional exceptions, and bringing back certain mandatory minimum sentences. We talked about that during debate on Bill C‑5. We will come back to it because in committee our next study is on clause 810 and whether it is appropriate in cases of violence against women. In any case, the issue of Bill C‑5 will be brought up.

I would like my colleague to talk about the fact the Bloc Québécois really wanted to act on the issue of sexual offences and violent crimes against women, propose this exception and restore some minimum sentences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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