Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member full well knows that he cannot accuse another member, or a party, for that matter, of intentionally misleading the House. He knows that he cannot do that. He should withdraw that statement.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I did not hear the member say “the House”.

I will let the member continue and finish his question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could reflect on the automobile theft in the area of York. From what I understand, the percentages are actually down, yet the member has indicated that auto theft is up.

Would the hon. member be able to provide some clarification on that issue?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to import U.S.-style politics. They have a history of that, but now they are importing U.S.-style crime. Property crime rates and violent crime rates are now higher in Canada than they are in the United States. That is because of 10 years of weak Liberal bail laws.

If the Liberals could just admit that they failed, after 10 years of their soft-on-crime approach, they could support the Conservative jail not bail act and scrap Liberal bail.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member on his speech and say to him that I was just wondering if he could perhaps enlighten us a little more on why bail reform is needed in the country. The Liberals keep telling us that they are bringing in bail reform, but they do not tell us why it is needed.

I was wondering if the hon. member could tell us why bail reform is needed.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is in the question. It is because the Liberals broke our justice system with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, making house arrest the new norm and bringing in the revolving door justice system that we have now. They broke our justice system. Their bail reform is what caused this catch-and-release system, which has allowed crime to ravage our communities.

We are asking why the Liberals will not scrap Liberal bail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not provide any further comment on the member's lack of a response to my question, but I think it is a legitimate issue when we take a look at the stats the Conservatives continue to provide the House. I would suggest to anyone who is listening to do a bit of a follow-through on the stats.

I will start off by reflecting on the last federal election. Every member of the House, I am sure, is aware of what was taking place on the streets, homes and communities we all represent. I can say with absolute confidence, as I have said earlier today, and even last week when the Conservatives brought in another motion dealing with the issue of crime, that it is an issue the government is acting on. The Conservative opposition knows that. Canadians know that, because we made a commitment in the election platform to have significant bail reform for this fall. The Prime Minister has made and reinforced that commitment, and we will see bail reform coming to the floor of the House of Commons. Why? It is because it is not only a reflection of what Canadians were talking about in the last election but also a commitment that every Liberal member of Parliament made to their constituents. We are going to see bail reform legislation. That is the motivation.

I say to my Conservative friends across the way that, not only were we given a solid mandate in the last election to bring forward our platform, but also the opposition was given a message. We all have a responsibility to our constituents to advance legislation and ideas for the betterment of our communities. That is why, earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask a number of questions. One of those questions was dealing with Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 is one of the measures to secure and make Canadians safer by doing more at our borders. We have now had over 18 hours of debate on that legislation. There is no indication whatsoever from the Conservatives as to when they are going to allow that bill to pass the House of Commons, let alone get it out of second reading so that it can go to committee, where Canadians and stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide direct input. We even had a minister indicate that he is open to ideas and suggestions that might give additional strength to the legislation. I say all of that because I want the people who are following the debate on the issue of crime and safety in our neighbourhoods to understand what is motivating this, whether it is the Prime Minister, the cabinet or the entire Liberal caucus.

I will contrast that to what I have witnessed from the Conservative Party. What is motivating the Conservative Party as Conservatives continue to ratchet up hard feelings and division? I believe that it is very real and very tangible. I have some quotes that I would like to share. There are three in particular. Here is something that the member for Cariboo—Prince George said in September, “in my riding, 98% of the crime is created by five or six prolific offenders. When they are in jail, the crime rate goes down.” I would question the numbers, but I question the numbers on a lot of things with the Conservatives.

However, here is something that I find truly amazing.

This is what a Conservative member said on the floor of the House. The MP for Oxford said, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” He was referencing the issue of crime and safety. How ridiculous a statement that is. We can think about that, having a member of Parliament standing up and saying we are in a war zone. I think the member needs to get a better understanding of what a war zone actually is. However, I cannot blame him because it comes right from the leadership.

Leadership within the Conservative party has gone so far to the right. Members can listen to the things he says, the extreme comments we get from the leader of the Conservative Party. Today, when I was asking him a question, in part this is what his response was: “The extreme bloodshed and violence that Liberals have unleashed is what is radical.” I expect the member might want to clip that and put it out on his social media because it truly reflects the type of leadership we are seeing from the Conservative Party. Nothing has changed with the leader.

I remember a quote that I said last year, that the leader of the Conservative Party said to his caucus. The entire Conservative caucus got together, and what did the leader of the Conservative Party have to say? The headline was “...'nuclear winter,' [leader of the Conservative Party] tells his MPs”. I quote from the article:

“There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high…our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter,” [the leader] said.

“Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.”

This is the type of leadership we see coming out of the Conservative leadership office: extreme positions. Then we wonder why we get members making the statement that we are in a war zone when it comes to crime. It is ridiculous.

What motivates the Conservatives on crime? I will contrast what motivates the government, which is, as I pointed out, an electoral mandate and listening to our constituents. The legislation that is ultimately brought forward on bail reform will be a true reflection of their expectations and needs and what Canadians want to see. It is something that is being well taken care of.

The Conservatives say he has been Prime Minister for five months and ask where the legislation is. If we are going to have significant bail reform legislation, there is a responsibility to do some consultation. There is a responsibility as a government, and as a minister, to work with the many different stakeholders, whether the police, non-profits, territories or provincial governments, and the list goes on. It is not something where they lock themselves in a room and then come up with a substantial piece of legislation and put it on the table of the House of Commons. There is actually a lot of work involved in bringing forward the type of bail reform we are going to be seeing this fall. That gives us a sense of what motivates the Liberal caucus.

I have argued and I have seen over the years that the Conservatives love to talk tough about crime. They really do. It is as if there were no horrific crimes when Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada. That is sarcasm. There were a lot of horrific crimes. I can assure members there were. At the end of the day, whether home invasions, murders or whatever type of crime, I can assure members that it took place even under Stephen Harper, even when their leader sat around the cabinet table.

The motivation for the Conservative Party is not Canadians. It is not that Conservatives want reform because of Canadians. They utilize the issue of crime and safety, I would suggest, to generate funds, money, and ultimately, to promote hate. That is what I believe. They may not like it, but let me give tangible examples of that. For some reason, I actually receive emails, and let me quote, these are email—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have a point of order from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member just accused the Conservative Party of promoting hate. That is reprehensible. We should be able to debate in here. We should be able to debate the issues, even if we disagree, without resorting to that. He should withdraw that and apologize.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word “hate”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for withdrawing that word, and I will allow him to continue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “hate”, but let us realize that fundraising plays a critical role in why the Conservative Party takes the position it takes. It is all about raising money. Let me give a good example.

Here are four emails. These are all emails that the Conservative Party has sent out to literally thousands and thousands of people. Every one of these emails actually has a link to donate to the Conservative Party. One says, “More criminals loose on the streets to terrorize our people.” Another one says, “Criminals are WREAKING HAVOC across our country.” The third one says, “The cause of this VIOLENT uptick in crime? The Liberals' radical catch-and-release policies.” The fourth email says, “Crime is out of control — and it's only going to get worse”.

These Conservative fundraising emails are circulating for one purpose, to raise money. Is it any wonder I make the statement that the Conservative Party uses the issue of crime and safety as a mechanism to fill its political coffers? That is the reality.

At the end of the day, if we want to look at how to serve Canadians on the crime file, it is first and foremost to reflect, as we have as a new government, as the Prime Minister has in the commitment to bail reform, on what it is Canadians are telling us. We are prepared to accept judgment when the time is right, when we have the bail reform legislation before us.

However, let me warn my Conservative friends across the way that there is other legislation before the House that would make our communities safer, that would provide more support for our law enforcement officers and our border control officers. The Conservatives have yet to pass that legislation. I am referring to Bill C-2. Bill C-2 is substantial legislation. With the very limited amount of time that the House has for debate, the Conservatives continue to talk that legislation out. Bill C-2 would make a difference. It would make our communities safer. If the Conservatives really and truly are genuine in wanting to make our streets safer, why are they holding up the bill at second reading?

In fact, the motion we are talking about today is about how we could speed up a private member's bill. It is not the first time. The member who stood up on the point of order spoke about his private member's bill, Bill C-225, an act to amend the Criminal Code. He said, “This bill is a monumental change.” He continued, “I ask that the House streamline the passing of this bill as quickly as possible.” That is a programmed bill. It gets two hours of debate at second reading. Bill C-2 has already had 18 hours of debate. After two hours, his bill gets to go to committee, yet he is asking us to speed it up even more, just as we saw here today on another private member's bill.

The work involved in getting legislation before the House needs to be respected. Oh, how the Conservatives cry if the government applies a bit of pressure or attempts to shame them into doing the right thing, to be there for Canadians by passing legislation. When it comes to their legislation, democracy goes out the door. That is what I witness. If members challenge what I am saying, I invite them to have me go to a public meeting at a university.

Let us see if we can bring in some independent individuals who would take a look at the arguments the Conservatives have. I would take no issue at all. Ideally it would be in Winnipeg North, but I can be flexible; it could be in Ottawa. Including with the member opposite, I would welcome the opportunity to have a good, healthy debate in Ottawa, although we cannot be sitting in session, in terms of the hours. Outside of the hours, I am sure we can arrange something. The bottom line is that the Conservatives apply a double standard.

Here is the reason I raise this: We know that Canadians are genuinely concerned about crime and safety in their communities. We know that for a fact. We understand that there needs to be bail reform. There needs to be tougher penalties for repeat violent offenders. Canadians elected the Prime Minister and the Liberal government on a platform of reforming the bail system. We are, in fact, committed to working together to ensure that we can make stronger laws and have safer communities.

In these five to six months, we have put into place legislative measures and budgetary measures from a commitment to increase RCMP officers by hundreds and do the same thing in terms of border control. There has been extensive consultation, and I think there is a responsibility for all members of Parliament, no matter what side of the House they are on, to recognize the agenda before us and to come down and talk about how we can achieve what all of us say we want to see: safer communities and individuals who are committing these crimes, especially repeat offenders, being held to account.

These are all important things, but it is also important for us to recognize that the federal government plays a significant role that we are living up to. When I think of our judicial system, it is not just Ottawa. There are provincial governments and, arguably, municipal governments that also have a significant role to play. We know that. The last time I was speaking on a very similar issue, I referred to the need for more Crown prosecutors. I cited a story in the Winnipeg Free Press from September 9, an editorial. It amplified and tried to say that the province was at fault because of the issue of Crown attorneys.

Members can go ahead and look up the story to read it for themselves. I will read one line from it. The bottom line is this:

The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials, emboldened criminals and disillusioned victims. It means communities losing confidence in the courts’ ability to protect them.

This is something that reflects on provincial governments. Municipal governments provide law enforcement officers. To not recognize that law enforcement officers play a role or that provinces play a role is irresponsible. At the end of the day, it is a shared responsibility. Ottawa needs to do its job, and the Prime Minister and the new government that were elected just last April are doing the job that Canadians want us to do on this critically important issue. That is why we see bills like Bill C-2 for our borders, Bill C-9 for hate or the bail reform legislation, which is going to be coming down very shortly.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just listened for 20 minutes to the member across creating a bunch of slander against the Conservative Party and a wonderful smokescreen. The Liberals are not taking any accountability for what their bills have done with repeat offenders in our communities. I ask the member how he is going to respond to the family in my community whose six-year-old child was assaulted. The accused was released, out on conditions, living in the same community as the child who was assaulted.

What does the member say to them about how the Liberals are going to fix what they have created with their bill, Bill C-75?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to them the same thing I said to any victims during the Harper era. Victims of crime need to be listened to, and where we can support them, we need to support them.

To try to give a false impression that terrible crimes are occurring only during a Liberal administration is misleading at best. I would suggest that it is a lot worse, in terms of what the Conservatives are doing. The member accused me of using slander. I supported everything I said with information that I am prepared to share. If she wants to come sit with me, I would be happy to share it with her.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has several proposals for cracking down on criminal organizations.

I would like my hon. colleague to talk about the idea of prohibiting criminal organizations from openly displaying their emblems or patches. We are currently seeing criminal organizations wearing them with impunity and promoting their criminal activities completely legally. To us, that is a problem. It emboldens this type of organization.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, during the nineties and still now, to some degree, the whole issue of gangs and their patches was a hot topic in the province of Manitoba, my home province. I would be very careful in what we say a person can and cannot actually put on a jacket. I hope the member will have the opportunity to raise the issue at the standing committee. One has to be very careful with that, because what might be perceived as a gang patch in the eyes of some might not necessarily be that in the eyes of others. A gang can easily adopt a patch that is universally utilized. It is a note of caution, but I encourage the member to raise the issue at committee.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's highlighting the Conservatives' hyperbole in the House. As someone who comes from the private sector and as a former municipal councillor, I would say that the statements made here when protected by parliamentary privilege are absolutely astounding.

The member is absolutely right that this serious issue of crime and safety is being utilized to mobilize the Conservative Party's radical base and divide Canadians, which is exactly why the party lost a 20-point lead going into the last election.

How is our government's approach different?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my preference is to amplify something, because of the Conservative member's question, and answer this member's question indirectly. I cited emails that were actually sent out by the Conservative Party and that emphasized the issue of crime. The party ratchets up the issue in order to generate money to fill its coffers. Otherwise, we can look at some of the statements that have been made. The most outrageous one I heard was from the member of Parliament for Oxford, who said, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” That says a lot in itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Just yesterday, I had a phone call from a constituent who talked about crime. This is somebody I have known for a long time. He said that after a worker was assaulted, he literally cannot find workers.

The member talks about speaking to students about my bill, which he referenced, on intimate partner violence and says that it should be passed quickly. I agree that it should be passed quickly.

I want a yes or no answer to this. I will pay for the member to come to my riding. We will go to a law school and discuss it; we will walk in the streets of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola to look at crime, and he can tell us whether it is out of control. It is my time, my dime: Will he take me up on it, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, time is the greatest resource one has, and I want to be very careful in how I spend my time. I would welcome the opportunity to have a debate with the member opposite. Having said that, I would suggest that maybe we could meet at the University of Winnipeg or the University of Manitoba, which has a law department. I am more than happy to assist the member in setting something up. I welcome that debate, and I hope he actually follows through and connects with me. I look forward to seeing him at the University of Manitoba or the University of Winnipeg.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has not been discussed much in today's debate is the fiscal imbalance. My colleagues may be wondering what the fiscal imbalance has to do with today's debate and whether I am out to lunch. Let me explain.

What we are debating today is a federal matter, but let us not forget that every decision made here regarding the Criminal Code inevitably has repercussions on the finances of Quebec and the provinces, since the administration of justice is largely their responsibility. Let us not forget that the fiscal imbalance persists, whether in terms of health transfers or in the area of justice. We can make decisions here, but then the burden falls on Quebec and the provinces.

Does the federal government recognize that, at some point, it will have to admit that the decisions made here regarding the Criminal Code and justice have repercussions on Quebec's finances?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member highlights the fact that our judicial system requires multiple levels of government to be involved in one way or another. Ultimately, even if a province makes a decision, it has an impact in terms of federal responsibilities and vice versa. We need to see more coordination.

I think most Canadians would be very surprised to hear that we do not even have the bail data to make the types of decisions that would be good to see. Provinces need to accumulate more data on the issue of bail and who is getting released. That would be very beneficial.

More coordination is something we are interested in. This is why the minister and parliamentary secretary are meeting with all the different stakeholders, in particular, our provinces and territories.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our new Liberal government was elected on a promise to reform the bail system. We have ambitious measures to protect public safety. On this side of the House, we understand that if we propose a measure, we need to ensure that it is constitutional.

Could my colleague explain why, when we propose amendments to the Criminal Code, it is important to ensure that they comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the thing that comes to mind with that particular question is this: If we take a look at Bill C-242, the bill being proposed in this motion, I suspect that no legal opinion would give any sense of comfort that it is compliant with our Constitution or the Charter of Rights. In fact, I would argue that it would not be found compliant if allowed to proceed.

It also raises a question. We can remember the Conservative policy of “three strikes and you're out,” the American-style policy we debated a little over a week ago. Why did they not include that policy in Bill C-242? Have they changed their attitudes toward it? Do they see it as another form of legislation they can generate more funds on?

Who knows? We will continue to remain focused on my colleague's constituents and Canadians as a whole to ensure we get the bail reform that Canadians want and deserve.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

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

I rise today not to debate ideology but to defend a principle that every Canadian holds dear: the right to feel safe in their own community.

From Richmond to Vancouver and from Kelowna to Surrey, Canadians are witnessing a justice system that no longer protects them. Violent offenders are arrested, brought before a judge and, despite long criminal histories and active bail conditions, are released again, sometimes within hours and sometimes with fatal consequences.

Let me tell members about Tori Dunn, a 30-year-old woman from Surrey who was murdered in her own home by a man who had been released on bail despite facing robbery charges and having a long history of violence. Her death was not inevitable; it was preventable. There is also Jordan Paul Campbell Mutual, who had 10 outstanding warrants while out on bail. He set two police officers on fire during an arrest attempt. Mohammed Majidpour, who had over 24 prior convictions, assaulted a woman with a metal pole and committed arson on the same day. He had been released on bail multiple times. These are not isolated incidents; they are the result of a justice system that prioritizes procedure over protection and leaves communities to bear the consequences.

The numbers do not lie. Between November 2022 and December 2023, British Columbia held nearly 4,800 bail hearings. In them, crime prosecutors sought detention in only 23% of cases, and judges granted detention just 41% of the time. In violent crime cases, judges ordered detention in only 43% of them, even when the accused was already out on bail for yet another violent offence. In Kelowna, 15 repeat offenders were responsible for over 1,300 police files in one single year. That is one police interaction every four days per person.

This is not a justice system that protects the public; it is one that enables repeat offenders.

At the heart of the crisis is Bill C-75. Passed in 2019, it introduced the principle of restraint, requiring judges to release accused offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the least restrictive conditions. While intended to ensure fairness, it has had the opposite effect on public safety. Judges now feel bound to release individuals who pose a clear risk. Repeat violent offenders exploit the system. Crown prosecutors, constrained by federal policy, seek detention in fewer than one in four cases. Even when they do, judges often decline. This disconnect between the Crown and the judiciary is not just procedural but dangerous. It creates a system where public safety is treated as secondary, and where legal technicalities override lived realities.

Meanwhile, our peace officers are sounding alarms, and it is time to listen. Police officers are arresting the same individuals repeatedly, only to see them walk free. They face burnout, frustration and rising violence. In Vancouver alone last year there were 6,200 violent crimes, including nearly 5,000 assaults. Assaults on public officers rose by 20% in a single year. Vancouver police chief, Adam Palmer, has called for urgent bail reform. Deputy Chief Howard Chow said that reverse-onus bail provisions would, in his words, “dramatically improve” public safety. Even Vancouver mayor, Ken Sim, speaking bluntly, said, “Excuse my language, but that's [BS]”, when he was talking about a man with 60 police interactions who was released yet again, only to commit another violent attack.

This is not just a policing issue; it is also a public safety crisis. While the system fails to contain repeat offenders, victims are being retraumatized. Imagine surviving a violent crime, reporting it and then seeing one's attacker walking free, days after, back in one's neighbourhood, back into one's life.

There is no justice in retraumatization. Victims often face sleepless nights, anxiety and fear, not just from the crime itself but also from the knowledge that the system may not protect them. Families like that of Tori Dunn feel betrayed. Survivors of assault and harassment are forced to relive their trauma every time they see their attacker walk free. This is not just emotional; it is systemic.

When victims see attackers released without consequence, it sends a dangerous message that their pain is secondary, that their safety is negotiable and that justice for them is optional. Across Canada, people are asking why violent offenders are walking free. Why are police arresting the same person over and over again? Why does the system seem more concerned with the rights of repeat offenders than with the safety of law-abiding citizens? The answers are buried in legislation that prioritizes leniency over logic and in a judicial culture that has lost sight of its duty to protect.

A recent survey shows that 68% of Canadians now believe that the bail system is too lenient, a dramatic increase from just 41% three years ago. This is not just a perception problem; it is a reflection of lived experience.

I know what the Liberals and their NDP allies will say. They will argue that tougher bail is too harsh. They will say that criminals deserve a second chance, but how many second chances should a repeat violent offender get before an innocent person loses their life? How many times should a small business owner be robbed before we admit that the system is failing?

The truth is that our opponents are more concerned with ideology than with safety. They lecture Canadians about root causes, while ignoring the root fact, which is that when a violent offender is behind bars, they cannot harm innocent people. That is why we are supporting the jail not bail motion. It is not radical; it is reasonable. It would not target first-time offenders. It would not strip anyone of their rights. It does say that if someone has been convicted of three or more serious offences, they should not be eligible for bail, probation or parole.

It says that if someone is charged with a major offence, like sexual assault, home invasion or a firearms offence, they should face reverse-onus bail. Judges must consider someone's full criminal history, not just the current charge. If someone has recently been convicted of a major offence, they should not be released again while facing new charges.

It is not about punishment; it is about prevention, about protection and about restoring trust.

Let us stand with victims, restore safe streets and act now, because justice delayed is danger delivered, and Canadians cannot wait for more.