Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a humbling privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Portage—Lisgar, particularly on such an important issue.

Before I get into the substance of today's matter, I would like to give a little shout-out of pride to my beautiful wife Cailey. We welcomed our second daughter into the world last month. She has been an absolute rock star. Today is the 22-month birthday of our first daughter, Maeve. I just want to say how much mommy and daddy love both Morgan and Maeve.

Before I was even elected to Parliament, the need to reverse the dangerous changes the Liberals made to our bail system was front-page news for years. This issue has been raised time and time again, almost every day in the House, for years. During that time, Canadians have listened to various Liberal MPs and commentators defend the disastrous legislative changes that have directly contributed to the crime crisis that is currently plaguing our communities.

When the Liberals weakened the previous bail system, the Liberals told Canadians that they were simply following a court decision. They claimed that by passing Bill C-75, they were only honouring legal precedent, but the truth is that no court demanded the automatic principle of release to be codified into law. That was a political choice, one the Liberals engineered and that Canadians have paid the price for.

Then came Bill C-5 back in 2022. That legislation removed mandatory minimums for serious gun offences and allowed conditional sentences for many other very serious crimes. The results were entirely predictable. Repeat violent offenders cycled through the system again and again. There was little to no deterrence. Victims were left behind and ignored. Later, the Liberals introduced Bill C-48, and while it added a few reverse onus provisions, it still failed to give clear direction on detaining repeat violent criminals.

Now, once again, we find ourselves trying to fix the mess the Liberals have created over the past 10 years. The consequences of their inaction have been devastating. Countless innocent Canadians have been harmed or have even lost their lives because the government failed to act when it mattered most.

We are often told that the justice system must balance the presumption of innocence with public safety, and of course it must, but that balance has been broken. Under the Liberals' watch, the bail system in Canada has become a revolving door. Dangerous individuals are released back on our streets where they continue to victimize innocent Canadians. That is not justice. That is negligence, and it is literally costing lives.

Laws are only as effective as the consequences they produce, yet over the past many years, the Liberal government has prioritized procedure over protection. We were told that reform would come from court interpretations or social programs rather than through tougher laws. Meanwhile, habitual offenders with long criminal records were repeatedly released, breached their conditions and returned to the same cycle of violence and victimization. The results were entirely predicable and preventable.

In 2023, rural police-reported crime in Manitoba reached 14,846 incidents per 100,000 people, almost 1.6 times the rate of urban areas. When bail decisions fail to account for repeat violent offenders, it is small towns and rural communities that pay the highest price. Municipal policing reports across the country tell the same story time and time again: Repeat violent offenders with long histories of arrests and breaches are being released, only to commit murder or some other serious assault or crime while out on bail. This is not a theoretical debate; it is a tragedy that has been unfolding in real time across our country over the past number of years, and it must come to an end.

The Association of Manitoba Municipalities has repeatedly called for bail reform. In its public safety agenda, the AMM outlined the urgent need for federal action and greater support for local policing across the province. Municipal leaders, from those in Winnipeg to those in small rural and northern communities, have been crystal clear that public safety is their top priority. A recent AMM survey found that nearly nine in 10 Manitobans want immediate federal action on bail reform and amendments to the Criminal Code to hold repeat offenders accountable. Those voices can no longer be ignored.

Statistics confirm what Canadians already feel. The national data shows that the violent crime severity index has been climbing for years, frankly, ever since the Liberals took power back in 2015, when they began their process of breaking the bail system and the entirety of the justice system. Offences involving weapons are up. Studies on reconviction and recidivism show that offenders with multiple prior convictions are far more likely to reoffend within months of release than those with fewer convictions.

When someone has a documented history of violence, multiple arrests, convictions and breaches of court orders, releasing them on minimal conditions is not fairness; it is gambling with the safety of the public. Police chiefs, prosecutors and frontline officers all warned that this would happen. Many of us have talked to those frontline officers and heard directly from them. They knew this consequence was coming. For years, they asked Ottawa to provide the tools to keep the most dangerous individuals off our streets. Instead, the Liberals delayed. They deflected that there was ever a problem and left provinces and municipalities to deal with the consequences.

I want to highlight one heartbreaking example from my riding, in my home province of Manitoba. Meechelle and Ron Best recently appeared before the justice committee. They lost their daughter, Kellie, a young woman of 28 from Portage who had her entire life ahead of her. She was engaged to Travis and was expecting to walk down the aisle this year. She worked in tourism in the community. She had started her own small business. Everybody simply loved her. The man accused of killing her had multiple outstanding warrants and a long record of breaches, yet he was repeatedly released. It was when he was out on bail that he caused the crash that killed Kellie.

Before her death, he had been released on bail three times in the two weeks leading up to the Christmas prior to Kellie's early January killing. Despite his record, he remained free time and time again. After killing her, he was transferred to a behavioural facility, from which he quickly escaped. Meechelle told the justice committee that her heart sank when she heard that news. She feared for someone else’s life and that some other family was about to be destroyed, because his pattern of behaviour was so crystal clear to anybody who paid it any attention. She asked a simple but powerful question of that committee: What good are assurances when someone who shows no respect for the law, police or judges keeps getting another chance?

This is the question that every single one of us must answer. This is not about isolated failures, but about a system that has simply lost its way. If an offender has repeat violent convictions, uses weapons, has breached bail conditions and ignored warrants, we must ask ourselves what responsible jail system would still default to release. It is under the Liberal government that our system has done exactly that, and the consequences have been tragic. That is why I have been unwavering in calling for laws that protect victims, defend our public safety and restore confidence in our justice system.

Judges must begin every bail consideration with the highest safety threshold in mind, and repeat violent offenders must not be given a free runway to strike again. Governments at every level must act to support the municipalities, including those represented by the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, that are on the front lines of community safety.

To the families who have lost loved ones because of this system’s failure, we hear them. To the communities of rural Manitoba, the urban core of Winnipeg and Canadians across this country, we stand with them as Conservatives. They deserve a justice system that protects them, not one that endangers them. The Liberals have had years to get this right. They promised balance, but instead delivered policies that emboldened repeat offenders and eroded the public trust.

Too many Canadians have paid the price through trauma, fear and loss, and that simply cannot continue. It is time to fix the bail system. It is time for laws that put families, victims and communities first. Meechelle and Ron Best’s story reminds us why delay is not an option. Their grief is a call to action. I am so proud of them for coming to deliver their story. The lives of countless Canadians hang in the balance, and no one should have to endure what they have endured.

When this legislation reaches committee, I expect members of Parliament to strengthen it and fix the mess the Liberals have created once and for all. I will note, as the Conservative shadow minister for justice has pointed out, that this bill is entitled the “bail and sentencing reform act”, yet out of the 80 paragraphs spanning 35 pages, only a single provision touches on sentencing reform, and it concerns contempt of court, not violent crimes.

In the face of rising crime across Canada, why did the government fail to use this opportunity to strengthen penalties for other serious offences? It could have used this bill to send a clear message to every would-be criminal out there that their days of terrorizing our streets without consequences are over.

Parliament has a moral duty to do more than just tinker around the edges. We owe it to the family of Meechelle and Ron Best and the families of countless others who have faced serious loss, because no parent should ever have to endure the death of a child thanks to a broken bail system.

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

Madam Speaker, back in April, Canada elected a new Prime Minister, who made a commitment to Canadians that we would bring forward substantial bail legislation. Bill C-14 has 80 targeted clauses to make substantial changes. The consultation included law enforcement agencies, provinces, municipalities and victims of crime. There were extensive consultations.

Our new Prime Minister has brought forward substantial bail legislation. If the Conservatives are prepared to see the legislation move forward, we could have this in law before the end of the year.

Does the member agree with me and the constituents I represent that passing bail reform legislation is of critical importance and that we should achieve to get it done before the end of the year?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, the easy question to ask is what took so long. The system has been broken for years.

Yes, there is a so-called new Prime Minister. The member was part of the old government that broke the system. I can assure him, having talked to victims and frontline police officers, that there have not been consultations for the last 10 years. They have been ignored.

This has been an academic exercise in trying to figure out the best way to stop crime, and it has failed. The soft-on-crime, revolving-door Liberal justice system is an admonishment of the approach the Liberals have taken. It is a complete failure. It is time that we listen to victims and frontline police officers and put criminals behind bars, where they belong.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us more about the impact that a bill like this one would have on the Oval Office, on Donald Trump.

Some things are taking a long time, but we have come under pressure from the Americans to take swift action. Do we feel as though we are taking too long? Should we bend even further to the will of the United States?

That is exactly what the Liberals told us that they would do. They said that they were going to sort everything out really quickly and that they would appease the U.S. In the end, that is not what is happening.

What does my colleague think would be the impact on the Oval Office?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to highlight the insane number of promises the so-called new Prime Minister of the lengthy, 10-year Liberal administration has made, how few he has kept and how few he possibly could keep.

The member mentioned my community. When Kellie died, it shook our community. My hometown has 13,000 people. Within hours, everybody knew, and then they heard what had actually happened. They were sad. They were heartbroken when Kellie died because she was such an important pillar of our community, but that sadness turned into sheer disgust knowing that her death was entirely preventable. If the Liberals had taken the bail system seriously over the last nine months or, more importantly, over the last 10 years, as we have seen a steady increase in crime rates across this country, she might still be with us. Her death did not need to happen.

It is so disappointing to have so many Liberal MPs stand up and forget that they defended the status quo that has caused so many tragedies to families like Kellie's and others right across this country.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are trying to pass their so-called bail and sentencing reform act today. However, as Canadians may recall, Conservatives tabled our jail not bail act just weeks ago. It is a piece of legislation that we thoughtfully and carefully drafted in consultation with police departments, victims groups and police associations to close all the Liberal loopholes. We worked all summer and did the homework for the Liberals, and they swiftly voted it down. The Liberals chose to keep repeat offenders on our streets and give house arrest to fentanyl traffickers, offenders of gun crime and sexual offenders. The Liberals are now tabling Bill C-14, which does not even meet us halfway.

Why do you think the Liberals are pretending to fix a problem that they caused?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I remind the hon. member that I do not think anything while I am in the chair.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar has 10 seconds.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suppose it is par for the course. The Liberals break it, promise they can fix it and fail. It is a vicious cycle.

Bill C-242 is a solution. The Liberals stole enough Conservative ideas in the last election. They should take this one, run with it and make this country a safer place.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is my honour to rise in the House on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island.

I would like to take a minute to recognize Peyton Hammond, a 17-year-old who just won the World Darts Federation World Cup youth championship. Congratulations and well done. He certainly is a rising star.

Today, I would like to speak specifically about violent repeat offenders. Let us be clear. The Liberals' soft-on-crime Bill C-75 has allowed our towns and cities to become havens for violent repeat offenders. Frankly, Bill C-14 is not much better.

Let me take members to Duncan on Vancouver Island. It is a small town with a population of around 7,000. Lewis Street is the epicentre of violent repeat offenders, drug crimes and drug overdoses. There is an overdose prevention site, people are camping everywhere and there is struggling and suffering on the streets. It is one block from two schools. An elementary school and a middle school are one block away. I have been there many times. I have witnessed drug dealing and people overdosing, fighting and camping on the street. It is out of control. The park is a public toilet. There are no toilets; it is just a park. People are living on balconies. Residents there witness this every day.

“Stick Man” takes sticks every day and goes down the street, smashing cars. He gets arrested, is released the next day and does it again. I have seen him. The residents there have told me they have seen him doing it again and again. They witness it from their balconies and their front yards, or from behind their windows. They know the criminals. They see them again and again. They see public sexual acts and public indecency.

I am, and we are all, sympathetic to those suffering from homelessness and drug addiction. They, too, are victims of violent repeat offenders. These people are somebody's son, daughter, brother or sister. They have a family. They, too, suffer.

Seniors there are afraid to go out at night. They know who the violent repeat offenders are. They know who is going to attack them, day and night. Some of them are 90 years old. They are struggling to get property insurance because of where they live, because of the crime and because of the violent repeat offenders.

I would like to speak about Hank's Handimart, which is nearby. James Kim is a senior and a store owner. He was working in his store and was beaten nearly to death. He was put in hospital for several weeks, yet the next day, as his sons were covering shifts to keep the family business, which is helping the community, open and alive, they watched the accused walk past the store. The next day, he was out on bail.

The overall crime severity index there is 339 and the violent crime severity index is at 324. It is among the worst in British Columbia. The violent crime rate is 153% above the national average. That is not just in Duncan; it is in small and big towns and communities across Canada. People are suffering from Bill C-75 and the culture of violent repeat offenders and catch and release. Bill C-75 has failed Canada and it has failed Duncan. Is Bill C-14 any better?

Johnny was my daughter's boyfriend. He was murdered in downtown Victoria not three years ago. He was brutally stabbed to death. He was gutted with a hunting knife by a violent repeat offender who was out on bail. He had been charged multiple times. In fact, some of the charges were laid not two weeks earlier. They were violent crimes: attempted murder and attacking a police service dog. He should not have been out on bail, but he was. That is Bill C-75's failure. Will Bill C-14 solve it?

Last week, I asked the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, from the party opposite, if Bill C-14 would solve the issue of violent repeat offenders and if it would have saved Johnny. He said the problem was the judges. He questioned their training, how busy they were that day and their experience. He wanted to know their qualifications. He was pointing fingers and blaming our legal system for Bill C-75's failures. I think that was shameful. He then went on to challenge members who disagreed with him to take it outside.

Most importantly, the member was unable to answer, and did not answer, whether Bill C-14 would have saved the life of somebody like Johnny or the lives of so many other people across Canada who have been affected and whose lives have been shattered by violent repeat offenders. Violent repeat offences have spiked in the last 10 years.

Bill C-14 fails to impose automatic detention for those already on bail. This would have prevented Johnny's murder and so many other crimes. It leaves the principle of restraint in place, the very policy that forced the judges to release Johnny's murderer at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions.

These are some of the examples specific to violent repeat offenders, which Bill C-14 fails to address. It fails to keep violent repeat offenders behind bars. It falls short. The principle of restraint remains. The “least onerous” language persists. It keeps the culture of release there.

House arrest limits do not go far enough for robbery, gun crimes and trafficking. The solution is clearly to bring the bill to committee and put in some hard work to fix Bill C-14. Sure, it copies some Conservative ideas, but not all of them. It certainly does not go far enough, as I outlined, specifically on the violent repeat offender problem. We need to keep these people where they belong, which is behind bars. What we have now is not working. Duncan knows it. Vancouver Island knows it. Towns across Canada know it. Victims know it. Law enforcement knows it.

Sure, Bill C-14 is a start. It also acknowledges that Bill C-75 was a failure. There is a lot of work needed to make some serious improvements to Bill C-14. We support getting it to committee in order to get it fixed and deliver good laws for Canadians with key elements like, for example, the principle of restraint, house arrest limits and restoring mandatory minimums. It needs to be responsive to the needs, requirements and advice of law enforcement officials and, indeed, all Canadians. The solution is, clearly, to work together, as a minority government should. It is not about saying, “We need to vote for their bill as it is, or we are the bad guy.” We need to be collaborative and work together for the betterment of Canadians, in order to keep people safe.

Bill C-14 needs lots of work. It needs fixing. It needs improvement. Conservatives are ready to work together to keep Canadians safe. I am wondering if the Liberals are ready to work together.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member mentioned mandatory minimums. This has been brought up several times this morning. I am sure the member is aware that the Supreme Court struck down several cases based on mandatory minimums and their unconstitutionality. Our new bail and sentencing reform legislation would allow courts to use discretion in individual cases to ensure that criminals are properly punished without the risk of violating the charter.

Does the member understand the problem with mandatory minimums and their compliance with the charter, and will he support the reformative crime legislation the government has brought forward?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said very clearly, we need to work together so we can solve the challenges, failures and shortcomings of Bill C-14. With collaborative work to fix it, we will work to support it.

As for mandatory minimums, judges need to be working on the particulars of the cases. They have their discretion, but they need to maintain those mandatory minimums.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives want tougher measures to fight crime. I would like to know their thoughts on the following ideas for cracking down on organized crime: creating a registry of criminal organizations and making it illegal to display symbols or insignia used by criminal organizations.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, while I spoke specifically to violent repeat offenders and how Bill C-14 applies to them, I certainly agree that organized crime also needs to be addressed. That falls under my description of how the bill needs more work. Cracking down on organized crime would certainly be part of it.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, as members know, I have stood in this place many times over the last couple of months to talk about the brutal sexual assault and rape of a little girl in my riding of Niagara South, “Little E”. Everyone is keenly aware of this case. She was assaulted by a repeat offender, somebody who had just been released and who served one year of a year-and-a-half sentence. He attacked this little girl within weeks of his release.

I am wondering if my colleague can comment on how this legislation might have dealt with the release of this offender. Would it have happened under this legislation, and what improvements does he believe need to happen so that people like Daniel Senecal have a sentence that is commensurate with the crime?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, while I do not really know how to answer that question, it is an absolutely heartbreaking story. We need Bill C-14 to be worked on so cases like that simply cannot happen. It happens too often. That one example is too much, yet we know there are so many examples.

As Conservatives, our goal is to work together in committee to fix this bill so that Canadians like the ones in the story the member gave us are protected, and so that violent repeat offenders stay behind bars. We made suggestions already on how to fix it with our jail not bail act. Now is the time to work together and come up with a positive solution.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, an article in last week's Winnipeg Free Press described how Manitoba has been underfunding its Crown attorneys. This has been happening in other provinces as well. We all know that, in order to be denied bail, someone needs a bail hearing, and there are not enough Crown attorneys for timely bail hearings. Under law, then, they have to be released.

Would you not agree that there is some responsibility among the provincial governments to make sure this is properly administered?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I give the hon. member a reminder that I cannot agree or disagree with anything.

I ask the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to answer the question.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not asking you to agree or disagree with anything, but I appreciate the guidance for the House, in general.

I am not familiar with the article in the Winnipeg Free Press mentioned by the member for Winnipeg West. Yes, there are challenges at the provincial level, but we need to set the guidance in Bill C-14 to make the conditions correct so that provinces can deal with it. The Liberals have had 10 years to work on and fix this. They have not done that. At all levels, we need to make Canadians able to feel safe on the streets so they can enjoy a safe life.

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

Madam Speaker, Ponoka—Didsbury is a great riding in rural central Alberta. It is almost as close to the north end of Calgary as it is to the south end of Edmonton, with some of the finest, hardest-working and noblest people we could ever find, and honest, law-abiding citizens. There are lots of farmers, businesses and all-around good people. It is a pleasure for me to rise on their behalf today to give a speech that I am going to entitle “We told them so”.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-14, a bill introduced by the Liberal government to fix a problem that it, essentially, created. When the Conservative government left power in 2015, Canada had the lowest total crime rate since 1969, and that was not simply a coincidence. Conservatives understand that the justice system is not a toy for the use of social engineering. It is, in fact, an important tool for restraining the liberties of those who threaten public safety, especially when they are likely to reoffend. In other words, Conservatives believe public safety to be the paramount consideration in whether somebody's civil liberties should be restrained.

Victims of crime deserve a voice, and the actions of criminals should have real-world consequences. Unfortunately, the last 10 years of Liberal rule have seen all the progress made under the Harper administration completely erased. During these years, the current Liberal government and the ones before it waged an ideological crusade against those who uphold Canada's laws. Of the Liberals' soft-on-crime bills, none are more egregious than Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Bill C-75 eased bail provisions and legislated the principle of restraint for police and courts, ensuring that criminals would be released at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. This is, essentially, the open door to the catch-and-release system we see today. I am a conservationist at heart and an angler. I know that catch and release can sometimes be a good thing. When it comes to justice, though, catch and release is poor public policy and comes at enormous costs for certain Canadians.

Bill C-5, for its part, removed the mandatory minimum sentences on 14 different Criminal Code offences, even some minimum sentences that were put in place by none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau. These were common-sense penalties for dangerous offences and included using a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence. It also included possession of a firearm or weapon while knowing that the possession is unauthorized. We all know criminals do not get gun licences and do not register their guns. Why on earth would we take away minimum penalties for people who knowingly do that?

Regarding possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, I do not know why people would not go to jail for that. Every law-abiding gun owner knows they would not have to suffer those consequences because they follow the rules, but criminals do not follow the rules. Regarding possession of a weapon obtained in the commission of an offence, if someone steals somebody's guns, they do not get to go to jail. As a matter of fact, someone would probably get in more trouble for having their guns stolen from them than the person who actually stole the guns in the first place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Could we see to the noise in the corridors, please? It is very disturbing.

Thank you.

The hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, what I was saying is very important. If the Liberals had listened over these 10 years, we would not have the problems we have right now, but it is clear they do not like to listen.

When it comes to weapons trafficking, excluding firearms and some ammunition, one does not have to go to jail if one trafficks in weapons. Possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, that is, when a person carries them across the border or sells them; and importing or exporting firearms or ammunition without a permit, all related to organized crime and the smuggling trade, are things for which the Liberals erased minimum sentences.

Discharging a firearm with intent or recklessly is a problem. If someone discharges a firearm recklessly or with the intent to hurt somebody, they should go to jail. All hunters and farmers know this, and we are very careful. Gun control means muzzle control to a law-abiding gun owner but not to a criminal. However, if someone is a Liberal, why would they let common sense get in the way of ideological agendas? Of course they would remove that provision.

Robbery with a firearm must be a lot of fun for the victim. If a person is robbing somebody at gunpoint, under the previous or current Liberal laws of this country, they do not have to fear going to jail. As a matter of fact, they are probably going to be able to serve their sentence from their couch.

Extortion with a firearm is up by over 350% in Canada. In some communities it is up by over 500%. It was not like that until Bill C-5 was passed. The bill even permitted conditional sentences, allowing house arrest for serious offences such as sexual assault. Imagine a person's sexually assaulting somebody and being able to serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home.

The Liberal government has been one of the most divisive governments in Canada's history over the last 10 years. Somehow the one thing it was able to do was unite all 13 premiers with respect to its approach on crime. The 13 premiers, one for each province and territory, wrote to the previous prime minister in 2023, saying that he had it completely wrong. The most unifying thing the Liberals have actually done is galvanize the whole country in saying that they had it wrong.

Since 2015, there has been a staggering increase of lawlessness across Canada. Violent crime is up 55%, and firearms crimes are up by over 130%. These are crimes committed with illegal guns; they are not committed by hunters like me or by sport shooters but by criminals who get guns illegally. Extortion is up by over 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%. It is no wonder a recent Léger poll shows that over half of Canadians no longer feel safe in their own home.

I would like to know this: Will the government apologize to all the victims of crime for all the abuse and the murders, to the people who are suffering as a result of the decisions the MPs on the other side have made?

Genetic Aortic Disorders

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of my constituent Kerry-Anne Hall, who suffered a tragic loss. Her daughter, Kathryn Ellen Pryla, was just 28 years old, and eight months pregnant, when she died suddenly from an aortic dissection. Her baby boy, Callum James, did not survive.

Only after Kathryn’s passing did genetic testing confirm she had Marfan syndrome, a connective tissue disorder. From the age of three, she was under specialist care for scoliosis, eye complications and other related issues, yet each was treated in isolation. No one recognized the larger pattern that could have pointed to Marfan sooner.

Kathryn’s story reminds us of the importance of seeing the whole picture and of ensuring that our health care systems, professionals and researchers have the awareness and tools they need to identify rare genetic conditions early. Greater collaboration, education and research can save lives.

We owe it to families like Kerry-Anne’s to raise national awareness of genetic aortic disorders and to make sure no one else is lost because the signs were missed.

National Defence

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, residents of Simcoe—Grey are proud to be the home of Canadian Forces Base Borden. They are also proud farmers, so when DND revealed it had secretly bought over 700 acres of prime farm land to build a radar site, residents were shocked. Now they are concerned, after DND started contacting residents directly, asking them to sell their land because it needs thousands more acres. They will not sell; they have been on the land for generations. Will the government expropriate their land?

Affected residents Terri Jackman and Rachel Brooks took the lead and started a petition. Others have rallied behind them. We talk every day in the House about high prices and food security in Canada. The government says it is taking action. That action should not be turning 4,000 acres of Canada's best farm land into a radar site.

Residents support investments in Canada's national security, but they call on the minister to select a radar site that does not sacrifice food security in the process.

U18 Women's National Hockey Championship

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate women’s sport in Canada as we welcome the 2025 U18 women’s national hockey championship to my riding in Avalon. From November 2 to November 8, my hometown of Conception Bay South is proud to host these outstanding young athletes. The event is not only a celebration of athletic excellence but also a source of pride for the community, and it is the first time our province has hosted this prestigious event.

I want to congratulate the athletes on their dedication, skill and commitment. Their commitment is paving the way for future generations of girls who dream of lacing up their skates and representing their province and their country. I ask all my colleagues to join me in cheering on these incredible athletes and celebrating the strength of women’s sport in Canada.

Quebec Municipal Elections

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has been occupied with municipal elections over the past several weeks. Yesterday, voters made a choice. That choice means that many people have offered to give their time to serving the public.

I congratulate all the candidates for having the courage and generosity to embark on this adventure. Many were not elected, but they won something nonetheless: They won the gratitude of our constituents. An important task lies ahead for the successful candidates.

I want to thank the elected municipal officials of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for the remarkable work they have accomplished over the last term. To those whose time in office is drawing to a close, I sincerely thank them for their deep commitment to the community. Their sense of duty has helped to enhance the vitality and prosperity of our municipalities.

I congratulate the newly elected officials and wish them all the best. I want them to know that they can count on my help and that I am always available to work with them in serving the people of Bellechase—Les Etchemins—Lévis. I wish them a very successful term.