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.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combatting Hate Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jail Not Bail Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opioids

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Fairhaven, Meadowgreen, Parkridge and Confederation in Saskatoon, who are all concerned about the significant challenges they are facing because of crime, chaos and disorder in their neighbourhoods. They are concerned about the drug use and homelessness that have overrun their neighbourhoods, making public area schools and even private backyards unsafe. Of course, safe supply and harm reduction programs paid for by the federal government have prolonged and encouraged drug use instead of offering treatment.

The petitioners are asking for the government to bring back mandatory minimums for the trafficking, importing and production of illegal narcotics, which were removed in Bill C-5. They want to end the dangerous safe supply experiments that have lowered the cost and increased the supply of narcotics on the street and, most importantly, they want to invest in real treatment for drug users, such as rehabilitation beds, that encourage people to get off drugs.

Criminal Code

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need supporting legislation and comparable resources....

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

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

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

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

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

The mayor of Thorold also wrote and expressed this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Fairhaven, Meadow Green, Parkridge and Confederation Park in Saskatoon about the challenges they are facing because of the crime, chaos and disorder that has taken over their neighbourhoods. The petition speaks to how neighbourhoods have been overrun with drug use and homelessness, making public areas unsafe. It also talks about how the safe supply and harm reduction programs paid for by the federal government have prolonged and encouraged drug use instead of offering treatment for addictions.

The petitioners are calling on the government to bring back the mandatory minimum sentences for the trafficking and importing of illegal narcotics, which were removed in Bill C-5. They want to end the dangerous safe supply experiment, which has lowered the cost and increased the supply of narcotics on the street. Finally, they want the government to invest in real treatment for drug users, such as rehabilitation beds, that encourage people to get off drugs.

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

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

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

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

Motions in Amendment

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

I rise today to speak to this excellent Conservative motion, which we brought forward after countless meetings across the country with small business owners, families and community leaders, where Canadians have expressed deep concern and genuine fear about the rising extortion issue now facing Canada. The House has been warned by police, premiers and victims of the consequences of inaction on extortion. Those warnings were followed by amendments, private members' bills and motions from our party that would have addressed the problem directly. Each time, the government chose not to act.

Somewhere in Canada today, a small business owner is checking their phone, before they unlock their front door, to see whether there is another message, another demand, another threat. This is what Canada looks like in 2026. It begins with fear, and that fear has spread because the Liberal government has allowed criminals to learn, adapt and exploit the system faster than Parliament has been willing to fix it.

Since these Liberals took office, extortion has risen by 330% across Canada. That figure alone would have triggered emergency action. Instead, what we have seen is the Liberals voting down common-sense Conservative proposals, weakening sentencing laws, preserving loopholes in the asylum system and maintaining a revolving-door justice system that only emboldens criminals and abandons victims.

One reason extortion has exploded is that the government deliberately removed consequences. Bill C-5 repealed mandatory jail sentences for serious crimes, including extortion with a firearm. This was not a technical adjustment; it was a policy choice that lowered the cost of committing violent organized crime.

Every law the House passes sends a signal. Sometimes it is a signal that help is coming for victims. Other times, more often, it is a signal to criminals that the system can be bent, delayed or avoided altogether.

In response, my Conservative colleague, the member for Edmonton Gateway, introduced Bill C-381 to restore mandatory jail time for extortion, strengthen penalties when firearms or organized crime are involved and recognize arson as an aggravating feature. That bill offered a direct targeted response to the crisis we are debating today. Again, the government voted it down.

On extortion, the signal from the Liberals has been clear. Organized criminals have learned that Canada's justice and asylum systems are slow, fragmented and forgiving. Extortion in Canada today is organized, violent and increasingly tied to transnational gangs. It is being fuelled by a system that criminals have learned how to exploit.

Nowhere is this more evident than in British Columbia. In Surrey alone, police tracked 36 extortion attacks in one single month. Shots were fired into businesses. Homes were targeted. Even media outlets were attacked.

The NDP Premier of British Columbia called this situation “ludicrous”. He called for changes to federal law. In response from the government, we had crickets. When Conservatives proposed the very changes the Premier is now calling for, the Liberals voted it down. That contradiction sits at the heart of today's debate.

One of the most alarming features of the extortion crisis is how Canada's asylum system is being abused to block legal consequences. In December, for example, Surrey police arrested 15 foreign nationals suspected of extortion-related crimes. Surprisingly, all 15 claimed refugee status, not one, not two, but all 15. Those claims, regardless of their eventual outcome, halted removal proceedings and delayed consequences. That message only sends one clear signal that they can commit a serious crime, claim asylum and evade the law. That is not a failure of frontline officers; it is a failure of federal law, and these Liberals know it.

This is why the Conservatives proposed amendments to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims and to bar those with active judicial proceedings for serious crimes from doing so as well. These were narrow, targeted and reasonable amendments. Again, the Liberals voted against them. Canadians are right to ask why the government continues to preserve a loophole that allows criminals to weaponize our asylum system against public safety.

Even when non-citizens are convicted of serious crimes, judges are increasingly encouraged by Liberal legislation to impose lighter sentences in order to explicitly avoid immigration consequences. Let me give the House just a few examples. In 2023, a foreign national attempted to purchase sex from an underage girl. He arrived at the location and was arrested by an undercover officer. At sentencing, the court imposed a reduced sentence specifically to avoid affecting his immigration status. That is disgusting.

In Whitby, Ontario, Manpreet Gill caused a deadly wrong-way crash on Highway 401. A family died. He was also guilty of breaching a probation order, yet the court imposed a five-and-a-half-month sentence citing potential immigration consequences. That is a travesty. In Calgary, a 25-year-old non-citizen assaulted an 18-year-old in a nightclub. He was found guilty but, again, he received a lighter sentence to avoid deportation.

What a dangerous signal our courts are telegraphing to the public. These are not isolated incidents. They are the predictable result we warned the government about, numerous times, of the passage of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which instruct judges to prioritize restraint, minimize incarceration and consider collateral consequences for offenders.

The results are devastating. Victims see offenders walk free. Communities lose faith and trust in the justice system. Criminals learn that Canada is a place where consequences are negotiable and extortionists take note. The government may point to Bill C-14 and claim it fixed the bail problem; however, it did not. They had an opportunity to create a reverse onus provision for extortion as a serious offence in its own right, and they failed to do so. That means individuals charged with extortion, even repeat offenders tied to organized intimidation campaigns, can still be released while awaiting trial unless another qualifying charge happens to apply.

At a time when extortion is one of the fastest-growing violent crimes in the country, the government chose not to treat it with the seriousness it demands. Even subsequent Liberal criminal justice bills failed to correct this mistake. Bill C-16 does not restore mandatory minimum sentences for extortion or reverse the damage done by Bill C-5. While the government speaks about balance and modernization, extortionists continue to face weaker penalties today than they did before 2015, despite the crime being more prevalent, more organized and more violent than ever. This is not coincidence. This is a policy choice by the Liberals.

The motion before us today is clear and reasonable. It calls on the government to bar non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims, to bar those with active proceedings for serious crimes from doing the same, to end leniency in sentencing designed to avoid deportation and to repeal Liberal laws that create a catch-and-release system. None of this undermines genuine refugees. None of this targets law-abiding newcomers. In fact, it protects them because immigrant communities are often the first victims of extortion. Ask the small business owners in Surrey. Ask the families in Brampton. Ask the shopkeepers who are paying protection money, not because they want to but because they are afraid. They are begging and urging the government to act.

Canada is a compassionate country, but compassion without accountability is negligence. We can welcome newcomers, protect refugees and still enforce the law. Today, the House has a choice. We can continue with excuses, half measures and delayed action, or we can send a clear message: Canada will not be a safe haven for extortionists, violent offenders or those who abuse our asylum system.

I urge all members to support the motion, stand for once with victims and restore confidence in Canada's justice and immigration systems. Canadians are watching. Are Liberals listening?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on a motion addressing an issue that is deeply affecting communities across the country, which is extortion.

We are debating extortion today in the House for one simple reason: It is a crisis. In just a decade, extortion has increased by 330% nationwide, and in British Columbia alone, it is up more than 500%. These are not abstract statistics; they represent families, small businesses and entire communities living under the threat of a system that has failed to protect them.

Let me set the scene for one second. Surrey, B.C., is the eleventh-largest city in Canada. Let us call it a mid-sized city. In January alone, 31 days, there were 36 reported cases of extortion. That is more than one act of criminal extortion every single day in a mid-sized Canadian city. This is why it is a crisis.

Let us be clear about what extortion looks like. It is bullets through windows of small businesses, gunfire outside family homes in the middle of the night, bystanders caught in the crosshairs and families living in fear, wondering if they are next.

In Brampton, gunshots were fired outside a family's home while they slept. A video was sent to them along with the act, demanding $500,000. This is not petty crime, and it is not first-time offenders; it is organized crime, transnational gangs and hardened repeat violent offenders turning quiet neighbourhoods, cul-de-sacs and suburbs into what feels like a war zone for the families that live there. The Mayor of Surrey has called it a national emergency. The Premier of British Columbia, who I will remind members is not a Conservative, has called it ludicrous. It is hard to disagree, because our laws no longer protect the people they are supposed to protect.

Where is the federal government? The answer is nowhere. The Liberals have watched this unfold and pretended the crisis did not exist until they blamed everyone else for the chaos that they themselves created. They oversaw the chaos, responded with slow, cosmetic half measures, and in their own words, obstructed their own legislation in this place, not just in this session of Parliament but for the 10 years leading up to it.

For nearly 10 years, the Liberals have weakened our justice system with bills such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. I just heard my hon. colleague before this mislead the House on what is in Bill C-5. In it are laws that let repeat violent offenders walk free on bail and terrorize communities. However, from the other side of the aisle, all we hear is laughing, flailing arms and trying to defend what is indefensible. They know that when they go back to the communities, they hear about this first-hand. In fact, it is the reason so many of their colleagues from the York region did not return to the House. At almost every door one goes to there, as they can ask their former colleagues, crime is brought up as the number one issue, and it is not just extortion. It is violent home invasion and gun crime in suburbs where gun crime did not exist before.

Still, from the other side, all day long we have heard mistruths, misinformation, flailing arms and claims of obstruction when they are in the way of their own legislation. They have also broken an immigration system that used to be the very envy of the world with weak screening on the way in and no accountability once the system is abused. What is worse, they have actively blocked reforms that Canadians are demanding.

We brought forward motions for catch-and-release on Liberal bail, and the Liberals voted them down. My colleague from Edmonton Gateway, the co-deputy leader of this party, introduced legislation that would introduce mandatory sentences for extortion, and the Liberals killed it. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill proposed amendments to Bill C-12 to close extortion loopholes, and they rejected that too.

No matter how many times the Liberals stand up in the House and say that those things are not true, the record is clear: They are true. If anybody were to look back on it, they would know that the reason we have had a rise in crime in this country is the Liberals' weak-on-justice crime policy.

All of that comes after years of pleas from victims, from grieving families, from frontline police officers and from Canadians begging for real criminal justice reform. The question is unavoidable: Is this government on the side of law-abiding Canadians, or is it on the side of extortionists? I ask because nobody can explain why the Liberals keep defending a system that protects criminals and continually fails the public.

In a crisis like this, there are two responsibilities, and the government knows this well. One is to sound the alarm bells, and the second is to act decisively. We have been sounding those alarm bells for years in the House, on doorsteps and in packed rooms at stop-the-crime town halls that have been happening right across the country. Ordinary Canadians come to those crime town halls demanding change that they just have not gotten from the Liberals.

What has been missing is action, and while the Liberals delay and deflect, Conservatives are not going to do that. That is why we are going to use our opposition day motion to raise the alarm bells and to finally put forward reforms that need to be placed on the floor of the House of Commons in this motion and in the lives of everyday Canadians.

This motion today would first repeal the catch-and-release laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, so repeat offenders would stay in jail and transnational gangs would stop before they even get started here. Second, the motion would end the abuse of the refugee and immigration systems, whereby criminal gangs file for bogus refugee claims to stay in Canada longer and keep committing crimes. A veteran frontline police officer put it very plainly, saying that criminals know that they can come to Canada, commit crimes, get bail and claim refugee status. It is not even up for contention, he says. Conservatives believe that the refugee system should protect people fleeing violence, but it should not import it.

Finally, the motion would confront one of the most corrosive failures of all: a two-tier justice system. Today, two people can commit the same crime and receive different sentences, simply because one is a citizen and one is not. In one real case, a 30-year-old groomed a 15-year-old online and intended to sexually exploit her. He received no jail time and no permanent criminal record, because the real sentence might interfere with his path to citizenship. In another case, a man on a visitor's permit sexually assaulted an 18-year-old in Calgary. He received a discharge because the conviction would have “devastating immigration consequences”.

Let us be clear that one does not earn the right to be in Canada by breaking the law. Being here as a visitor, as a permanent resident or as a citizen is a privilege, and everybody in this place knows that. If someone commits a serious crime, they forfeit that privilege, period. There is nobody out there who is going to contend with that, and we are not going to take lessons from the Liberals on fearmongering on immigration, when it is about criminals committing crimes in this country they are visiting. There would be no refugee status, no extension and no special treatment; this motion would end deliberate leniency.

At its core, this debate is about fairness for law-abiding Canadians, who deserve to feel safe; fairness for real refugees, who follow the rules; fairness for immigrants, who work hard and respect the law; and most of all, fairness, for once, for the victims of these crimes. Nobody ever talks about that in this place. It is time to end the extortion crisis. It is time to end this mess that the government has created. We have had the same ministers in the same chairs voting for the same policies over the last 10 years, and the end starts right here, right now, by supporting this motion.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the same talking points from the Conservatives on Bill C-5, saying we somehow removed mandatory jail time for extortion. Let me set the record straight, because Canadians deserve to hear this clearly and not just hear slogans.

I have a news flash: Bill C-5 did not eliminate mandatory jail time for serious extortion offences. In fact we deliberately maintained mandatory minimum penalties for extortion involving restricted or prohibited firearms, and for extortion connected to criminal organizations. Those are precisely the types of violent, organized crimes and extortion cases that are causing the greatest harm in our communities today.

Since the member opposite seems unfamiliar with the law they are criticizing, I would encourage them—

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

Mr. Speaker, leaving aside the very controversial decision my friend referred to in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Pham, which still does not provide any sort of framework by which judges are to apply a discount, if any, I want to focus on the Bill C-5 implications for extortion. I believe I heard my colleague indicate that Bill C-5 did not take away a mandatory minimum penalty for extortion. I remind her to review that again because quite clearly the Liberals removed the four-year to five-year mandatory minimum penalty for extortion with a firearm.

My question is very simple. Given that the mandatory minimum was taken away, which sent a very clear message to extortionists that there are not significant consequences for committing the crime, why did the government not use the opportunity in Bill C-14 to bring back a reverse onus or even bring back the mandatory minimum penalty in Bill C-16, given the substantial increase in extortion in this country?