Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the news is flooded with truly disturbing cases of women being attacked, of femicides. I said it in the House: Women are not safe. We live in a constant state of hypervigilance. We know this, and it is becoming increasingly well documented. The Quebec government is even calling for this.

Does my colleague agree with me on the problems caused by Bills C-5 and C-75, which were introduced and passed by this Liberal government?

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do not agree with my colleague. I do not believe that Bills C‑5 and C‑75 are responsible for femicides, homicides or all the crimes committed in Canada. I believe there are a number of things we need to work on and focus on. Prevention measures must be taken and the presumption of innocence must be upheld, but we must also make the judicial process more accountable and ensure that individuals who commit crimes or who are likely to commit crimes are more closely monitored.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

I have to ask myself what we are even doing here, talking, talking, talking, when the measures that need to be taken are quite clear. Unfortunately, because of the dithering and the government that has been in power for the past 10 years, we now have laws that make our communities a lot less safe. Just ask the family of Gabie Renaud, who was brutally murdered in Saint-Jérôme a few weeks ago and whose body was just found. Just ask the family of Marylène Levesque, who was murdered in Quebec City five years ago by Eustachio Gallese while he was on unsupervised release. We are talking about numerous situations that could have been avoided, numerous deaths that could have been avoided.

The harsh reality is that right now, in Canada, streets that were once peaceful and quiet have become danger zones for too many families. Violent crime is up 55% under this Liberal government, and that figure is not a statistical abstraction, it is the horrendous reality of forgotten victims and broken communities. Homicides have increased by 29%, gun-related crime has more than doubled in many areas, and extortion is up 357%. We need only look at what is happening at restaurants in Montreal and Laval. They are being set on fire, and gangs are going in and extorting the owners, forcing them to pay protection money, known as pizzo. Nothing is being done to help these restaurant owners get out of this situation.

What is happening at the moment is no accident. It is the direct result of the laws put in place by the Liberal government. We have spoken at great length about Bill C-5, which allows dangerous criminals to serve their prison sentence at home, and Bill C-75, the bill that brings us here again today and that makes it far too easy to get bail. It is spelled out in the law. Judges do not even have a choice. Dangerous criminals are automatically released.

I am not even talking about what has been done in terms of managing parole. Members may recall that after the murder of Marylène Levesque in Quebec City, I got a motion passed asking the Standing Committee on Public Safety to investigate what happened at the Parole Board. The board had undergone a complete purge, particularly the members from Quebec, who were a bit too conservative for the government. They were replaced by new members who had very little experience, if any, and who were primarily chosen for their very left-leaning, very woke ideology. As a result, decisions were made, in particular the decision to release Eustachio Gallese on parole, as is the case currently with Jonathan Blanchet, the man who killed Gabie Renaud. This guy was arrested 30 times and released 16 times under certain conditions. However, he violated those conditions, yet there were no consequences. How can a person violate the conditions of his release 16 times and still be free? It makes no sense.

Once again, we are seeing an increase in crime. In Montreal, for example, assaults and domestic violence are on the rise. Across Quebec, sex crimes have increased by 20% in just two years. Child pornography cases have doubled. Organized crime is even spreading to the regions, recruiting young people into a brutal cycle that no one in this Liberal government seems interested in ending.

Today, we are debating a motion calling for Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, introduced by my colleague from Oxford, to be fast-tracked. We are asking that the bill be passed immediately and sent to committee in order to speed up the necessary legislative changes.

We should keep in mind that the new Prime Minister has been in office for six months. During the election campaign, before he came to power, the Prime Minister said that his government would bring in changes quickly to get crime in Canada back under control.

What has happened over the last six months when it comes to crime and crime bills? Nothing, zip, nada.

I am sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, and I hope she will elaborate on that. We have some astonishing examples of problematic Liberal measures and promises made by a supposedly new government that was going to make a difference, but that is currently doing absolutely nothing.

We are not asking it to promise us the moon. We just want the government to stop. There are enough bills. We want the government to let us pass them quickly to bring about change. Bill C-242 can be dealt with if the House accepts it today. We can get that done and move forward.

The government is not doing anything even though we are ready to move more quickly to prevent more deaths. Right now, criminals on bail or parole are laughing their heads off and doing as they please. Who pays the price? It is victims of domestic violence, women who are scared to leave their homes. Even if they stay at home, criminals have no qualms about coming back to assault them or worse, kill them. That is not acceptable in 2025 in a country like Canada.

We went through problems a few years ago because of Bill C-5, which introduced house arrest. The bill was intended to empty the prisons, and it was introduced by David Lametti, a former minister of justice who is going to become an ambassador, though I do not know to what country. Bill C‑5 was brought forward on the grounds that there were too many Black, racialized and indigenous people in prison. The intent was to narrow the scope of the Criminal Code so that fewer of these people would go to jail.

The first person to take advantage of Bill C‑5 after it came into force was a white man from Montreal who had committed aggravated sexual assault against his ex. Instead of going to prison, he got to sit at home watching Netflix. That is how things started, and the number of similar cases only grew. With Bill C‑5, Montreal's street gangs could rest easy. They knew that they would not go to prison if they were arrested but would instead get to stay at home doing whatever they wanted. We spoke out against this from the very beginning. We voted against the bill even before it was passed, and we said that it was not going to work. A few years have passed, and sure enough, we are now seeing the result.

Two and a half years ago, I tabled Bill C‑325, which aimed to reverse Bill C‑5. There were also provisions in Bill C‑325 requiring that criminal charges be brought against a person who fails to comply with their release conditions. Unfortunately, this was defeated by our Liberal colleagues, with support from the NDP.

I must compliment the Bloc Québécois, which initially supported Bill C‑5 but then realized its mistake. The Bloc Québécois voted with me in support of Bill C‑325. Ultimately, Bill C‑325 was defeated by the Liberals and the NDP. As a result, Bill C‑5 is still in effect.

There was Bill C‑5 and Bill C-75. Today we are talking about the content of Bill C‑75. We are talking about the bill brought forward by my colleague from Oxford, Bill C‑242. It can be confusing when all these numbers are flying around, but what members need to understand is this. No one can understand how a person can be arrested and then be released three hours later to start committing crimes again. No one can understand why that law was enacted. That is the reason for Bill C‑242. We want to undo all of that and restore a justice system that is acceptable to and accepted by the population, who is asking for no more than that.

When we see women like Gabie Renaud murdered by a man who was charged 30 times and who violated his release conditions 16 times, it is impossible to understand how he was able to go and kill Gabie. It is unacceptable.

We are basically lending a helping hand to this government, which does not seem to have the time to change course quickly. In six months, nothing has happened. We are putting bills forward. My colleague from Oxford has tabled a bill. Today's motion asks that we expedite the process and send this to committee in order to protect Canadians.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone here is saddened by what happened again this week, namely, the murder of Gabie Renaud. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord spoke about it. It happened in his riding. Everyone is saddened by that.

It is because everyone is saddened that only one question comes to mind regarding today's Conservative motion. When dealing with issues of such magnitude, why is it absolutely necessary to quickly bring in a measure without studying it in depth? After all, this affects fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom and the presumption of innocence. Obviously, we want to work toward the same goal and we do not want things like this to keep happening. That is unacceptable in a society like ours.

Why can we not take the time to do the job right once and for all? That is all we are asking.

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

Mr. Speaker, we must indeed do things right. That is important. The problem is that we have a government that has been causing problems for 10 years. Since the election of the new Prime Minister, who promised to get things done quickly, nothing has happened, so that is why we think this is urgent.

For several years now, we have been seeing an increase in crime, including crimes like the murder of Gabie Renaud and that of Marylène Levesque a few years ago. Unfortunately, there is far too much crime and murder in Canada. Swift action must be taken, which is why we want to expedite the process. Even if the bill is fast-tracked, it will still be examined in committee.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have told the House many times, we women are often hypervigilant when out in public, unfortunately. I would also like to remind the House that the Conservative Party has been very consistent. We have always sided with victims.

This tragic event, Quebec's 14th alleged femicide, has captured our attention. No one on the Conservative side wants to put an innocent person in prison or see an outrageous sentence handed down for a youthful mistake. That is not what we are talking about, and I would like my colleague to make that clear so as to reassure our Bloc Québécois colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question and her work on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Women do indeed bear the brunt of the crimes we are seeing these days: murder, intimate partner violence, serious violent offences. That is why we need to fix the situation as quickly as possible. Everyone expects to live their life in safety. That is what we want; that is what we are asking for. Previously, the other three parties, the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, joined forces to pass Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75.

The Bloc Québécois realized that Bill C‑5 was not working. I thank its members for that, and I hope they will continue to help us work on behalf of women. Yes, we need to be careful about how we do this, but above all, we have to think about the victims and future victims we must protect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in my years as a parliamentarian, what I have witnessed is that the Conservatives tend to use the issue of crime and safety more as a fundraising tool or bumper-sticker issue to try to create fear in the minds of Canadians. We are genuinely concerned about the issue, but what has surprised me about this particular motion and Bill C-242 is that there is no reference to their American-style three strikes law. I am wondering why that is. Have they abandoned that particular policy?

We just debated a motion on that brought forward by the Conservatives. It was defeated by a majority of the members of the House. Have they abandoned that particular policy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is criticizing us for wanting to make our streets safer and for wanting to protect the lives of women and also of men, who can obviously be victims too.

How can anyone fault us for wanting a safer society? There is no slogan here, just facts. Women are being killed. This is not a theoretical debate. This is one of life's harsh realities. There is one place where we can make a difference, and that is right here in Parliament, with the help of a government that should be making a difference but is currently doing nothing. That is all we are asking for.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the number one responsibility of government is to keep its citizens safe: safe in their homes, safe in their businesses and safe in their communities. It is not partisan and not optional; it is fundamental, but right now that promise has been broken.

Under the Liberals' Bill C-75, our bail system was rewritten. Judges were ordered to apply a so-called principle of restraint. That means repeat violent offenders, people who are known to police and who have a record of crime after crime, are put right back on our streets. It has left my community of Cloverdale—Langley City living in fear. Today, I want to share three stories, not from some faraway place and not from a textbook or report. These are stories from my own backyard of businesses, families and seniors who have paid the price for Ottawa's dangerous experiment with catch-and-release justice.

First, picture a wedding banquet. Families are gathered. Music is playing. Parents are dancing with their children. That is what a banquet hall is supposed to be: a place of joy and community. However, in Surrey, at the Reflections Banquet Hall, that joy was shattered. Instead of wedding bells, there were gunshots. Instead of safety, there was fear. The hall became a target of an extortion network that has been terrorizing South Asian businesses across the Fraser Valley.

In early June, the owner, Satish Kumar, received a voice mail demanding $2 million and threatening his family. Within days, shots were fired at three businesses connected to him. This is what organized extortion looks like: anonymous calls, threats against children or warning shots at the door if they do not pay. It is not just one victim. It chills a whole corridor of small businesses. Weddings get cancelled, bookings dry up and an entire community starts looking over its shoulder.

Here is the core failure: a legal environment that emboldens criminals. When the consequence for violent intimidation is a quick release, the message that sends is to keep going. Liberal Bill C-75's principle of restraint and Bill C-5's repeal of mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes, including extortion with a firearm, have combined to lower the cost of terror for gangs and raised the cost of living for everybody else. The banquet hall was not just a building; it was supposed to be a safe place for families while the law did not protect it.

Then there is the tragic story of Tori Dunn. Tori is not just a name in the newspaper. She is a daughter, a friend. She is one of us, and she was attacked brutally by a man who never should have been free, a man with a record, a man known to police, a man who, under any system that valued the safety of women and the safety of families, would have been behind bars, but because of Liberal Bill C-75, he was not. He was out on bail, and Tori paid the price.

When I talk to people in my riding about Tori's story, they do not just shake their heads; they clench their fists and ask how this could happen and how our justice system could look at his record and set him free. She was 30, an entrepreneur, a daughter and a friend, and she was brutally killed in her own home in Port Kells in 2024. Her murderer, Adam Mann, was already facing eight other charges, including aggravated assault, from just a week earlier.

We do not need a law degree to see the pattern. The Liberals told the courts to restrain themselves, the courts complied, a dangerous man was back in the community, a young woman is dead and her family is left asking how a system could see the risk and choose release.

This is not complicated. When Parliament says to err on the side of release, people like Tori carry the risk. This is not just about Tori, though. It is about every woman who wonders if she is safe walking home at night. It is about every parent who wonders if their daughter will make it home. It is about whether the justice system values the safety of our families or the comfort of repeat offenders.

Let me tell members about something else that happened just down the road from my place in the heart of Langley. It was early morning, June 1, on the Fraser Highway. The sun had barely risen. A woman was standing by the curb, when out of nowhere she was shoved into the street. She fell really hard, and before she could even get her bearings, she was kicked and punched again and again. All of it was captured on video. This was not a scuffle. This was not a misunderstanding. It was a brutal, unprovoked attack. The man responsible, Hugh Mason, is no stranger to police. He is already known for violence and already known for breaching the law, yet he was there on our streets free to lash out at an innocent woman.

Here is what makes this hit home even worse for me. This was not just any street corner. This was steps away from the seniors home built by my own church community, the home where my grandparents lived. It is filled with seniors who worked a lifetime, who built this country and who should be able to walk outside without fear.

Imagine the conversations after that crime, with seniors asking their grandchildren to walk them to the pharmacy because they do not feel safe alone. That is not the Canada they helped build. That is not the promise they earned, yet here we are because a bail system tilted in favour of the offender gave another chance to a man who had already burned through all his chances, and because Bill C-75, by the Liberals, told judges to restrain themselves, even when restraint meant danger for everybody else.

This is what catch-and-release looks like in real life. It is not just a line in a bill, but fear in the eyes of our grandmothers and grandfathers, our opas and omas. That fear, my friends, is something we have the power and the responsibility to end.

At the end of the day, this is not about politics. It is not about left and right. It is about whether a mom can walk her child to school without fear, whether a small business owner can open his doors without an extortionist calling at midnight and whether a senior, like our omas and opas, can sit on a porch without looking over their shoulder.

The Conservatives have put forward the jail not bail act, not because it sounds good on paper but because it puts people first. It says that public safety is the priority. It says that if a person commits a major crime, like pulling a gun, breaking into a home or assaulting their neighbour, they do not just stroll back onto the streets the next day. This bill would tip the scales back to where they belong. It restores balance. It protects victims. It puts common sense back at the heart of justice.

I say to the Prime Minister that if he is serious about restoring peace to our communities, he will back the bill. He will correct his justice minister, and he will reverse his party's failed bail laws, because Canadians deserve better than ideology. They deserve safety.

Let us do the right thing. Let us stand together. Let us pass the jail not bail act, and let us give our communities back their peace.

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

Mr. Speaker, many things the member referenced are going to be in the comprehensive bail reform legislation the government will be putting out. It will be much more comprehensive and in depth than the private member's bill the motion mentions today.

Beyond that, in order for someone to reach a bail hearing or sentencing hearing, they have to be caught and charged. Bill C-2 has provisions that would allow police to apprehend and charge extortionists by allowing police to receive subscriber information such as telephone numbers and IP addresses. This is essential to protecting our children from cybercrime and threats, and protecting our seniors, who are facing this issue, from extortionists.

I hope the member will support that bill. Will she or will she not?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is the catch-and-release law the Liberals put in place that keeps putting dangerous people back on the street. The tragedy of our current system is that it only takes one case to devastate a family or a community. When extortionists target businesses or when someone like Adam Mann, already facing multiple charges, is still free to kill a young woman like Tori Dunn, no empty thoughts and prayers will bring comfort.

We need to scrap the Liberal bail. This is a direct result of the Liberals' catch-and-release approach. Bill C-75 instructed judges to prioritize restraint, which has meant giving repeat violent offenders more chances than the victims ever receive. The jail not bail act would correct that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, crime is a complex issue. It is also a matter of intervention. We need to look at this from a perspective that is as broad as possible.

That is what the Bloc Québécois is trying to do by making various suggestions, such as cracking down on criminal organizations. That is important. We are also proposing to create a registry of criminal organizations, to facilitate the seizure of assets and to prohibit criminal organizations from displaying their insignia. We also want to create a specific offence for the criminalization and recruitment of young people who commit offences. We want to limit the use of the Jordan decision, and we also want to abolish the religious exemption for hate speech. How is it that Canada's Criminal Code allows hate speech if it is uttered in the name of religion?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the various proposals the Bloc Québécois has made.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, I want to come back to the real issue, and that is the Liberal catch-and-release system. That is the problem. Right now, judges are told to start from the principle of restraint, which tilts the balance away from public safety. That is not the fault of the judiciary. It is the framework the House handed it with Bill C-75.

We need to scrap the Liberal bail. The jail not bail act would not undermine judges. It would empower them to protect the public. It would direct them to weigh community safety first. It would ensure that they see the full record of the accused. It would give them tools to deny bail when serious risk is reasonably foreseeable. Judges need a law that lets them keep dangerous people behind bars, which is what our bill would deliver. It is a framework built on common sense, not catch and release.

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

Mr. Speaker, the whole premise of this does not relate to other bills that may come forward. It is the need to scrap this bail non-reform bill. It is not just us speaking about this. The premiers and attorneys general for Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the member's province of B.C. have called for the removal of this particular bill. It is from across the country.

What does the member think about that perspective in light of the support to scrap Bill C-75?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, most important right now is understanding that, across Canada, when extortionists target banquet halls, when young women like Tori Dunn are murdered by someone already facing multiple charges and when seniors in Langley are afraid to walk outside after a brutal attack, those are all costs. They show up in policing, in health care, in lost economic activity and in the trauma families carry.

We need to scrap the Liberal bail.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

I am pleased to speak today on issues that continue to impact the safety of our communities and the fairness of our criminal justice system, namely the operation and reform of Canada's bail system.

In recent months, communities across the country have voiced deep concerns about the ability of the criminal justice system to respond effectively to repeat and violent offenders. Let me be clear: These concerns are valid and they demand a serious, coordinated response.

That is why I welcome the opportunity to speak today not only about the federal government's past and ongoing efforts to strengthen bail laws but also about the collaborative work under way with provinces and territories, and the government's intention to table new legislation this fall.

I will begin by speaking about Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which was introduced by the member for Oxford. Bill C‑242 includes provisions to expand the reverse onus provisions for serious offences.

I am pleased to see that there is common ground between the Conservative opposition and our new Liberal government, which was elected on a promise to crack down on repeat and violent offenders. Our election promise responds to a concern shared by many Canadians that individuals who pose a serious risk to public safety should not be released without rigorous judicial oversight. It also reflects the desire to ensure that the bail system takes into account concerns about reoffending and violent offences that communities across the country have raised.

However, while Bill C‑242 aims to overcome fears that individuals who pose a risk to public safety will be released without judicial oversight, the way it is drafted raises serious concerns about whether these measures could actually be effective and whether they comply with the fundamental principles of justice and proportionality.

There seems to be one crucial element that is clearly missing from this bill. Frankly, I am, at the very least, relieved. It seems the Conservatives have finally opened their eyes because they have flip-flopped on the controversial “three strikes” proposal. This kind of rhetoric may score political points, but, in reality, it solves absolutely nothing. Everywhere it has been applied, particularly in the United States, it has failed and has been ineffective at protecting citizens or reducing crime. It seems the Conservatives have finally realized this, as they chose not to include it in their own bill, Bill C-242.

However, this flip-flop raises fundamental questions. The Conservatives owe Canadians an explanation. They need to tell Canadians why they have changed their minds and publicly acknowledge that this proposal was not only misguided but also dangerous. Canadians deserve a clear answer. They deserve to know why an idea inspired by the far right in the United States, entirely incompatible with Canadian realities and our justice system, was ever even considered acceptable by the same people who claim to prioritize public safety and the public interest.

Therefore, I hope, following my remarks, a member of the opposition will rise and offer an explanation and perhaps even an apology to Canadians. Yes, they could offer an apology for even considering such legislation inspired by foreign, far right, extreme models rather than laws designed for Canada and made in Canada, laws that reflect our communities, our values and our justice system.

Let us now take a sombre look at the Conservative record when it comes to criminal justice.

In 2008, the Harper government passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, imposing a mandatary minimum sentence for firearm offences. The Supreme Court struck this down in R v. Nur, calling it “cruel and unusual”.

In 2012, they doubled down with the Safe Streets and Communities Act, extending mandatory minimums for drug offences. In R v. Lloyd, again, the Supreme Court struck this down.

In 2009, they pushed through the so-called Truth in Sentencing Act, limiting judicial discretion on credit for pre-trial custody. In R v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, it was struck down again for being overbroad.

In 2011, they introduced the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. The Supreme Court invalidated it in R v. Bissonnette, ruling that stacked parole ineligibility violated human dignity.

In 2013, they passed legislation making the victim surcharge mandatory and non-waivable. In R v. Boudreault, the court ruled it “unconstitutional” and “cruel and unusual” for the poorest and most marginalized offenders.

Most recently, the mandatory minimum for reckless discharge of a firearm, another Harper-era invention, was struck down in R v. Hills in 2023.

The list goes on, but allow me to focus on the real action that the new Liberal government is taking. Most recently, Canadians sent the federal government a clear message. They are concerned about repeat and violent offenders and want to see urgent action. This is why the new Liberal government is firmly committed to introducing a bill this fall that will build on previous legislative reforms to strengthen Canada's bail and sentencing laws.

This forthcoming legislation will once again be shaped by strong intergovernmental co-operation. This renewed collaboration among the federal, provincial and territorial governments reflects a shared commitment to public safety and a recognition that meaningful change depends on coordinated action across jurisdictions. By working together, our governments can ensure that our bail laws are not only stronger on paper but effective in practice.

The provinces and territories also play a vital role in collecting and sharing bail data. Leadership in these areas is essential to improving the system as a whole. Bail data collection does not occur at the national level. This responsibility falls to provincial and territorial governments. Without consistent and comprehensive data from all jurisdictions, it is difficult to assess how bail laws are working, what gaps exist, and what changes are needed.

Canadians deserve a bail system that protects communities while respecting rights. They deserve a sentencing regime that holds offenders accountable while promoting rehabilitation. They deserve to see all orders of government working together not just to pass laws but to implement them in ways that make a real difference in the lives of all Canadians. The government intends to do just that.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. That is why we are introducing a bill that will make bail and sentencing rules stricter and make the courts more efficient.

I would like my colleague to speak to the importance of dialogue and of consulting with those who are on the front lines of implementing the laws we vote on here in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say to my colleague that, over the summer, the minister and I toured the province of Quebec. The minister also went to other provinces. We held consultations with partners, law enforcement, Crown prosecutors and victims to learn more about the challenges that the new bill will need to bring forward and address, so that Canadians feel safe after this new bill is passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member claim that the government is committed to strict measures against violent offenders, yet it continues to fuel violent crime in Canada by forcing judges to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity and under the least onerous conditions.

Canadians are owed an apology from the government for its failure to keep them safe by releasing repeat violent offenders.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's question, I would invite her to read Bill C-75 at length. She would realize that the reality is this: Because of Canada's response by defining “intimate partner violence” in the Criminal Code and creating a reverse onus for repeat intimate partner violence offenders, judges must now consider prior intimate partner convictions. Penalties are higher for repeat offenders.

Canadians deserve a debate on the facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a bill that makes it harder for intimate partner violence offenders to get bail, they should do so directly and then face the backlash from Canadians.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not entirely wrong. There are several reasons why we really do need to focus on the justice system, look after it and reform it.

One of the problems that was identified a long time ago has to do with the appointment of judges. The government is behind on that. However, Quebec has long been asking to have its say on the judges Ottawa appoints to sit on higher courts, such as the Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal.

As members know, the Liberals recently appointed lawyer and Liberal supporter Robert Leckey as a judge, even though he is against secularism and had not even been a member of the Barreau du Québec for the 10 years required before being appointed.

When will the Liberals finally realize that the situation could be improved by perhaps allowing Quebec to participate in the judicial appointment process, or at least in the recommendation process?

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

Mr. Speaker, the appointment of superior court judges is the government's responsibility, and Quebec is already involved in the process. We are holding discussions in good faith, but we are not obligated to reach an agreement. Minister Fraser is in contact with his Quebec counterpart—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the parliamentary secretary to remind her that members cannot use a minister's first or last name in the House.

The parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is in contact with his Quebec counterpart. Judicial independence remains a cornerstone of our democracy. We cannot comment on the case of Justice Leckey.