Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join this debate on the opposition motion put forward today. However, before I do that, as it is one of the first times I have been on my feet after the last election, I would like to thank a few people for once again allowing me to be here as the voice of the good people of Regina—Lewvan.
It is my third term, so 2019, 2021 and 2025. It has been an honour to be here for almost six years. Obviously, none of us get to this place without a lot of help, and I had a great campaign manager, Shelley, who did an awesome job. We had a team out every day knocking on doors: Khrishno, Brian and Anshumaan. We had a great group of people who helped, such as Ron. I could go on and on, but if I miss someone I will feel bad. There was a core group that came out a lot and helped us knock on 43,000 doors throughout the campaign to earn the vote of people from across Regina—Lewvan.
That being said, there is a core group of people I would not be here without, and they are my wife Larissa and our three kids, Jameson, Claire and Nickson, who started school last week. Dad got to be there for their first day of school, and it was fantastic. They are having a great time in school. I hope they are almost out of school by now. If I am not mistaken, they are heading to the hockey rink right away. From the bottom of my heart, I thank Larissa very much for being the glue that holds our family together.
The motion before us today was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I think we have gone back and forth on a few things, so I will read it to make sure we know what we are debating on the floor of the House today. It says:
That, given that the Liberal government has changed the law to allow for house arrest for serious offenders and lets repeat criminals go free within hours of their arrest, which has resulted in a 50% increase in violent crime, the House call on the Liberal government to replace these changes with a "Three-Strikes-And-You're-Out" law that will stop criminals convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest and keep violent criminals in jail for at least 10 years.
How did we get here? Why is a law like this being brought forward by the opposition? We have a solution, and I will go through three or four things that this motion and our proposed law would change. However, we have to know what the problem is. Over the last 10 years, the problem has been a couple of bills that have been put forward, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, and we can see the results.
This is not a new government. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years, as everyone knows, and I think they should be judged by the lack of progress they are making on certain files.
These numbers are from StatsCan; I am not making them up. Since 2015, gun crime has skyrocketed 130%. Instead of targeting the criminals responsible, the government doubled down on law-abiding firearm owners. The number of homicides has increased by 29%, and sexual assault has increased by almost 76% in this country. Despite the rapid rise, we have seen a refusal of the government to commit to making it tougher for people to get out on bail. We hear this from police associations across the country. There are people who get arrested hundreds of times. We have heard the numbers. People may say that our proposed law may not be the solution for everything, but it is going to help. If the people who continuously commit crimes are in jail, there is going to be less crime.
For example, in Kelowna, 15 people committed 1,300 crimes. If those people were in jail, there would be 1,300 fewer crimes committed in that city. In Vancouver, as we have heard time and again, 40 people committed 6,000 crimes. I think everyone in this room could agree that if those 40 people were in jail, there would be less crime in Vancouver. I do not think it is a big leap to think that if criminals are in jail, they are not able to commit crimes.
Here are some of the solutions that we have brought forward and some of the things that this proposed law would do. The Conservative bill would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint with a directive for primary considerations to be the protection and safety of the public. It would introduce a new major offence category with reverse onus bail conditions for charges relating to firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. It would strengthen bail laws by mandating judges to consider the full criminal history of an accused, would prevent anyone convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years while also on bail and charged with a major offence from getting bail, and would toughen the risk assessment standards from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonably foreseeable”. It would also prohibit anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as the guarantor who ensures bail conditions are followed, would require judges to enforce bail conditions on guarantors and would require non-residents to surrender their passports upon request.
Before I go on, I want to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time.
These are four things that the “three strikes and you're out” law would help with, which I would think most people would see as reasonable improvements to the bail system.
I do want to talk about a few of the comments that some of my colleagues made in the House today. If people across Canada have been watching, they would see a distinct difference between what Conservatives have been talking about and what the Liberals, and especially the New Democrats, have been talking about. We have been talking about the victims and the rights that victims should have, and ensuring that victims are taken care of. A lot of focus, especially from the NDP member, was on criminals. Forgive me, but I will always make sure victims' rights are ahead of criminals' rights.
Can members imagine someone getting out on bail again and again and committing crimes? Especially when these people is out on bail, can the Liberals not feel for the victims, who have to see them in their neighbourhoods, in their community? This is from experience. When someone we love has been hurt, and the offender is within our community, every time we see a car like theirs, the hair on the back of our neck stands up. Every time we see them in a grocery store, our pulse quickens and our palms get sweaty. We just feel at a loss because this person is walking free, and the person we love who was hurt will never again feel the same.
This is what we are doing to Canadians across the country with the soft-on-bail policy brought in by the Liberal government. The fact that they will not vote for a motion and will be obstructing our ideas to ensure Canadians are safer, quite frankly, confuses me. We are trying to work together. Everyone is talking about Parliament now coming together and working. I heard one of my Liberal colleagues say, “It increased crime by 11% in the States. It did not work in the States, so it will not work here.” An increase in crime in Canada by 11% is a lot better than the 130% increase over the last 10 years under the government.
It really is the definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over again, as the Liberal government does, and expect different results. Members of the police force even get tired of arresting the same person. They do not even know why they charge them because they get out the very next day or that night. I could not even imagine being on the front lines as a police officer and seeing the same person go into jail, get out of jail, go into jail and get out of jail. It must be tough for the police officers to go to work, knowing that the person from whom they are trying to protect the community will laugh at them when they arrest them because they know they are going to get out because bail is so easy to get in this country. It is time to make the right decisions.
I will just end with another story from the small town I am from. This summer, there was a bust and a sting, and a person was found having a lot of child pornography in our small community. He went to court, and he was out that afternoon. This person lives two blocks from my kids' school. They picked the rental house because it has a little library full of kids' books, just to make sure the kids would stop by and take books out. He was released that day from court. He had child pornography, and my kids had to walk past that guy's house to go to school. It was unbelievable for the town. Parents were outraged, as they should be. How can that happen in Canada, that someone like that is allowed to be released the same day and be within two blocks of our kids' school?
That is something that needs to be fixed in our country. I hope some of my colleagues listen to the words I am saying, look at this motion, look at the “three strikes and you're out” bill to try to protect Canadians and put victims first by putting criminals in jail.
