House of Commons Hansard #24 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was victims.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law) First reading of Bill C-222. The bill amends EI and Canada Labour Code to allow parents on parental leave to continue receiving benefits after a child's death, easing administrative burden and red tape for grieving families. 300 words.

Keeping Children Safe Act First reading of Bill C-223. The bill amends the Divorce Act to give children a voice, consider coercive control and family violence, and prevent practices like forced reunification therapy, ensuring children's safety and preferences in divorce proceedings. 200 words.

Food and Drugs Act First reading of Bill C-224. The bill amends the Food and Drugs Act to reverse changes made by Bill C-47, aiming to restore the traditional definition of natural health products and separate them from therapeutic products. 300 words.

Criminal Code First reading of Bill C-225. The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to address intimate partner violence, creating unique offences, presuming first-degree murder in partner homicides, allowing judicial risk assessment custody, and streamlining evidence procedures. 300 words.

National Framework for Food Price Transparency Act First reading of Bill C-226. The bill establishes a national framework for food price transparency by implementing unit pricing across Canada. This aims to empower consumers to compare prices, make informed choices, and save money on groceries. 100 words.

National Strategy on Housing for Young Canadians Act First reading of Bill C-227. The bill establishes a national strategy on housing for young Canadians. It calls for the federal government and partners to understand unique barriers and develop lasting solutions for young people facing the housing crisis. 300 words.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act First reading of Bill C-228. The bill requires Parliament to review and vote on trade agreements before ratification, and mandates the government to table and publish agreement texts for greater transparency and public input. 200 words.

National Framework on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Act First reading of Bill C-229. The bill establishes a national framework for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It aims to provide tools for doctors and teachers to diagnose, treat, and support people with ADHD, improving outcomes. 300 words.

Petitions

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders Members debate rising crime rates and the Liberal government's justice reforms. Conservatives move for a "Three-Strikes-And-You're-Out" law, alleging a 50% increase in violent crime due to Liberal policies that facilitate repeat offenders. Liberals promise bail reform legislation this fall, emphasizing evidence-based solutions and shared provincial responsibility. Bloc Québécois and NDP members critique the Conservative proposal as ineffective and unconstitutional, advocating for rehabilitation, judicial discretion, and addressing the root causes of crime. 52000 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Members' Access to Federal Penitentiary Kevin Lamoureux responds to a question of privilege concerning an MP's alleged obstruction and intimidation accessing a federal penitentiary, arguing the MP was granted access and it's not a breach of privilege. 300 words.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives heavily criticize the Liberal government's poor economic performance, citing high unemployment, rising food inflation, and increasing deficits. They condemn the catch-and-release justice system for causing a surge in violent crime, advocating for a "three strikes" law. They also question government transparency regarding Canadian jobs and trade deals.
The Liberals emphasize their economic strategy to diversify trade partners, noting the Bank of Canada's rate reduction and significant investments in infrastructure. They are committed to strengthening public safety with bail reform and the Strong Borders Act, while rejecting "three strikes" laws. The party highlights social programs like the Canada Child Benefit and affordable housing, and improving CRA services. They also reiterate their commitment to fighting climate change.
The Bloc condemns Ottawa's attack on Quebec's autonomy and the notwithstanding clause, and criticizes the partisan judicial appointment of Robert Leckey. They also accuse the Liberals of abandoning climate change targets and promoting oil and gas.

Adjournment Debates

Cost of living and inflation Cathay Wagantall criticizes the Liberal government's spending and its impact on the cost of living. Carlos Leitão defends the government's actions, citing measures to reduce taxes and increase competition in the grocery sector. Sandra Cobena focuses on the struggles of families facing rising costs, and Leitão blames external pressures.
Affordable housing initiatives Marilyn Gladu questions the Liberal's housing plan, citing high costs per unit and a lack of progress. She proposes investing in shovel-ready projects in her riding. Jennifer McKelvie defends the government's initiatives, including tax cuts and the "build Canada homes" agency, emphasizing affordability and modern construction methods.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, when I classify victims, I highlight that women across this country have long felt that there is absolutely no justice to our system. They view it as a legal system, because for 10-plus years, they have been abandoned in the process. The sentencing guidelines do not reflect the true gravity of intimate partner violence.

To answer my colleague's question, absolutely we will prioritize victims, particularly women of intimate partner violence, to ensure that their offenders are sanctioned appropriately and meaningfully so that there is not only a denunciation impact, but a deterrent impact.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, we cannot open up social media, turn on the TV or radio or open a newspaper without seeing another violent repeat offender being released and wreaking havoc in our communities.

In my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, I think of Mr. Bob Hubbard, a senior who returned home last fall to find his house being robbed. When he tried to stop the robbers, they ran him over with his own vehicle, dragging him and leaving him for dead. Within hours they were caught, and within hours they were turned loose.

Why is it that the Liberal government continues its obstructionist ways and continues to put the rights of violent offenders before those of everyday Canadian citizens?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, that is a fantastic question. It is very simple: The entire philosophy of the Liberal government for the last 50 years has been to put the needs of criminals before the needs of victims and community safety. It is an ideology that is wack.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong conviction that Canada's complacency toward dangerous repeat offenders must end. Canadians are tired of seeing the same criminals back in court. They are tired of seeing repeat offenders ruin lives over and over again. They are tired of living in fear. When we say enough is enough, I think it is clear. Bill C-5, which allows house arrest, and Bill C-75, which makes it too easy to obtain bail, have triggered a public backlash. People no longer have confidence in the criminal justice system.

The motion presented by our shadow minister for justice provides a simple and fair response. Once a person has been convicted of three serious offences, society, represented by Parliament, has the right and the duty to take firm action. It would be a simple “three strikes and you're out” rule. Three chances are enough. The fourth should rightly go to the victims, not the criminals. The law that we are urging the Liberals to adopt will prevent criminals who have been convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest.

All too often, the victims are forgotten. In Quebec and elsewhere in the country, recidivism rates are on the rise. For example, in Trois‑Rivières, a man named Jean-François Gagnon was convicted of fraud. Within a month of leaving prison, he was back to scamming seniors. Over 50 seniors were duped, ripped off and humiliated. That is the price of our complacency. In Quebec City, a convicted pedophile named Pierre Gaudreault was released on mandatory supervision. What did he do? He downloaded hundreds of nude pictures of kids. He did not even wait until his conditions were up to start again. In Saguenay, Bruno Hudon, a man described by police as one of the most violent repeat offenders in the region, was placed in a halfway house despite a long history of violence. Police officers themselves voiced concerns about that. Then there was Miroslav Dragicevic, who received a lengthy sentence after committing aggravated assault on a woman, who was left with severe injuries. This was not the first time he had become violent. It was just the next chapter in a long history of threats and assaults. Unfortunately, I have plenty more examples I could give.

In June alone, the Sûreté du Québec arrested 22 high-risk sex offenders as part of a special operation. These individuals were already known to the authorities and had already been deemed dangerous, yet they were still living in our communities. That is the reality. That is the price of inaction. We often hear about rehabilitation. Yes, it is right to give people a second chance. Yes, it is necessary to offer help. How long do we have to keep offering it, though? Giving the same individuals too many chances means that the victims pay the price. If someone with two serious convictions chooses to reoffend a third time, they are sending a clear message. They have no intention of changing. Justice is not only about giving chances to the guilty; it is primarily about protecting the innocent. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that justice is served.

Some will say that a longer prison sentence will not deter criminals. We could debate that endlessly. However, when it comes to the victims, we on this side of the House are much more concerned about justice being served. Victims live in fear every day. How many Quebeckers no longer dare to walk at night? How many seniors hesitate to answer the phone out of fear of being scammed again? How many parents worry about whether a convicted pedophile is living in their neighbourhood? Our constituents are not asking for much. They just want to be able to live without fear. Some will say there is a high cost to that. What is the real cost? Some say the prisons will fill up, that it will be expensive. Yes, it is true, an inmate costs $150,000 a year. However, the cost of rape is that the victim's dignity is stolen forever. The cost of fraud is that victims lose their life savings and are left feeling ashamed. The cost of murder is that a family is destroyed forever. Taking action is not too costly. What is too costly is inaction.

Together, we must all send a strong message to criminals. We are asking the Liberals to send a message that Canada will no longer be a haven for repeat offenders. After three serious crimes, three convictions, three chances, there should be no more excuses, no more half-measures and no more victims. This is a moral choice.

At the end of the day, the question is simple: Who are we choosing to protect? Are we choosing to protect repeat offenders who laugh at the system and keep offending, or are we choosing to protect families, seniors, children and law-abiding women and men who want to live in peace? For me, the choice is clear. I choose victims, families and safety.

Over the past several years, we have seen a steady decline in public safety and an increase in violence and crime, resulting in a pervasive and pernicious state of fear. My riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles used to be peaceful and crime-free, but we are starting to see a rise in petty crime and other violations. People are starting to feel unsafe in a riding where we never used to see that kind of violence.

It is starting slowly. There have been gang-related murders, which is obviously very serious. Crime is ramping up, and people are asking questions. They turn to us. They call my office to ask what we are doing about it and to tell us they need to be protected. In many cases, we have to tell them that, unfortunately, because our Liberal friends changed the laws, the police have fewer tools to make arrests that stick.

We need to get back to the basics of public safety. We need to get back to a sense of security that people understand, that they accept. People will be able to say that we finally have laws that protect them, laws that let police officers do their job and let judges ensure that criminals go to jail where they belong.

All too often, we see the same faces. We have repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are people who commit crimes over and over again. Why are we letting them continue to commit these crimes? We have a duty to strengthen our laws so that these individuals end up in prison where they belong.

Here is what we are proposing and humbly asking of the new government, as it likes to call itself. We look forward to seeing some proof that it really is a new government, because the government we had for the last 10 years was a disaster. We hope there will be a major change. I personally introduced Bill C‑325 in the last Parliament to undo the provisions of the act arising from Bill C‑5. The Liberals and the NDP voted against it. I thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues, because they understood that there was cause for concern and supported me and my bill at the time.

I would like to believe that this is a new government, but its actions will show whether there has been a real change. We are reaching out to the government and suggesting ways to improve public safety and protect victims. I hope that our friends on the other side of the House will accept our offer and pick up the pace. We will be there to vote in favour of stronger laws for our country.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the Prime Minister, through the campaign and post-campaign, made a very significant commitment to bring in bail reform. That has been a high priority for the government, to the extent that the Prime Minister indicated that he would do the necessary consultation and bring forward the legislation. I believe that consultation will result in a bail reform package that Canadians and parliamentarians can actually take on in a very positive way.

Is the member prepared today to say, upon that legislation's being brought forward, that the Conservatives will show co-operation and in fact at least look at passing it into the committee stage in a reasonable time frame, let us say before the end of the year?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, we have 10 years of experience here questioning this government's actual intentions. Nothing we have seen adds up. Today, we are hearing proposals that run completely counter to what has been done over the past 10 years. Will the Prime Minister have the support of his Liberal caucus?

It seems to me that over three-quarters of the members on the Liberal side were very proud to call us every name in the book when we were attacking Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5. I was even called racist in the House for speaking out against Bill C‑5.

I will need to see a big ideological change on the other side of the House in order for me to trust them. Yes, if there is a clear and specific bill that repeals Bill C‑75 and brings justice back to this country, of course we will support it.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, we know that in the communities 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. When they are out of jail, the crime rate goes up. Municipalities are crying for reform, police associations are crying for it and the provinces are crying for it, yet the government continues to refuse to act. It is being obstructionist on it. Why is that?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, at the end of my speech, I mentioned Bill C‑325, which I introduced. It received support from every police association and from victims' groups, including several groups in Quebec. For some incomprehensible ideological reason, however, the Liberals and the NDP voted against the bill.

Will the Liberals stop being obstructionist now and accept our ideas? If they act promptly, the bill could be implemented quickly. They were quick to implement bills for the economy back in the spring. When it comes to crime, they should move just as quickly.

I hope that the Minister of Justice will pick up the pace and that a bill will be tabled in the House as soon as possible.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his speech and for his passion on this particular topic. I know he is a strong advocate for cracking down a little more on repeat offenders.

There are a number of ways to achieve this. We in the Bloc Québécois generally agree on the substance, but we may disagree or have other ideas about the form. We have proposed various measures in the past. I would like to discuss some of them with my colleague. We proposed creating an organized crime registry. We also proposed guidelines for using the Jordan decision for serious crimes. I think these are worthwhile measures.

Another issue is the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. It is just wrong that comments inciting violence are tolerated because religious speech is protected under the Criminal Code.

I would like to know whether the Conservatives will support us when we come back with this proposal.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, there are three parts to my colleague's question. The last part of his question might bring to mind Adil Charkaoui, who incited violence in the streets of Montreal as he called on Allah to attack and kill Jews.

I understand that one part is about the religious speech exemption, but the Criminal Code already contains provisions allowing police to arrest people who say such things. Therefore, I think it is possible to have the police intervene under existing legislation, but I agree that these issues do need to be taken into consideration.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Madam Speaker. I rise in the chamber to address today's opposition day motion, which was brought forward by the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot. The motion proposes a “three strikes and you're out” law aimed at keeping repeat serious offenders, particularly those who commit violent crimes, behind bars longer; limiting their access to bail, probation, parole and house arrest; and establishing a mandatory minimum sentence.

The government is deeply troubled by violent crime and is committed to keeping Canadians safe, strengthening confidence in the justice system and ensuring that the bail system promotes public safety first. It is committed to doing so in a smart, evidence-informed way, drawing on empirical research and real-world experience to address repeat and dangerous offenders effectively while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The member for Battle River—Crowfoot has raised the issue of violent offending. I want to speak to two areas of particular concern for Canadians: extortion and auto theft. These are not abstract or distant problems. They involve violence, or the very real threat of violence, and they leave lasting impacts on victims and families, particularly many in my community. Auto theft and carjacking put Canadians in immediate physical danger and threaten their sense of safety in our neighbourhoods. Extortion preys on fear and vulnerability, targets individuals and small businesses, and can destabilize entire communities.

Take, for instance, a recent and deeply troubling incident in Brampton. On April 30, 2025, a local business situated near Queen Street and Kennedy Road South was targeted with gunfire. While no one was inside at the time, the owner began receiving threatening messages demanding money. This act of extortion not only endangered the victim but also instilled fear within the broader community.

In response, Peel Regional Police swiftly initiated an investigation leading to the arrest of three individuals on charges of extortion: Harpal Singh, Rajnoor Singh and Eknoor Singh, all from Brampton. These arrests underscore the severity of the crime and the commitment of law enforcement to uphold public safety. Such incidents highlight the urgent need for comprehensive measures to combat extortion and ensure the protection of our communities.

That is why the RCMP has created a national task force to coordinate investigations and share intelligence across the country, focusing in particular on cases that have affected the South Asian communities in Brampton, Surrey, Edmonton and Abbotsford. It is expanding to other regions as well. This task force is working not only with domestic law enforcement but also with international partners to track and disrupt organized crime networks.

Addressing these challenges requires more than words. It demands concrete action. The government has taken, and continues to take, meaningful steps to strengthen the tools available to law enforcement and the justice system, ensuring that repeat and dangerous offenders are held accountable and that Canadians can feel safe in their homes, on their streets and in their businesses.

Key changes to the Criminal Code's bail provisions came into effect on January 4, 2024, under the former Bill C-48. Individuals charged with serious repeat violent offences, particularly those involving weapons such as firearms, knives or bear spray, now carry the burden of demonstrating a reverse onus, in particular demonstrating why they should be released on bail, rather than Crown counsel having to fight against the bail. Courts are required to consider an accused person's history of violent convictions and to state on the record how community safety, as well as circumstances of Indigenous peoples and other overrepresented populations, have been taken into account.

These reforms ensure that public safety is at the forefront of bail decisions, while they respect individual circumstances and their rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and provide judges with clear guidance to make informed, evidence-based decisions, but we are going to take this even further. In our new upcoming bail and sentencing legislation, we are going to make sure that the courts are committed to these basic principles. Public safety should be at the forefront for the reason for denying bail. If somebody is a public safety risk, they should not be provided bail.

I hope the courts and Crown counsel are taking this under advisement, or will take it under advisement, and that we see decisions made in accordance to that in the future. It is quite concerning to me as well, and this new government is a tough-on-crime government. It takes public safety very seriously. That is why the Prime Minister has created a new rule, in particular, just to address the issue of crime in our country.

Turning back to extortion, we know that extortion has increasingly moved online. Nearly half of reported cases involve cyber elements. Bill C-2, legislation that we just debated in the House yesterday, has many measures in it that would provide law enforcement with the tools needed.

This summer, I spoke to many extortion victims across the country. I received advice from them and from law enforcement as to the challenges they face in investigating these cases. Some of the challenges are with being able to get information on IP addresses and phone numbers across our borders, and Bill C-2 would help in that regard.

I hope Conservatives will support Bill C-2 and the measures in it, because all of the measures have been guided by recommendations of law enforcement across the country, particularly with examples of cases where they have not been able to put criminals behind bars due to those challenges. This bill would give them those tools. It is our new government's second bill in the House. However, it has been disappointing to hear that a lot of Conservatives take issue with the bill, although the chiefs of police in their areas are all in favour of the elements that are contained within it. I hope they will reconsider and support the entirety of the bill.

Turning back to extortion, the government has also responded by equipping agencies with the resources they need to combat cyber-enabled crimes. For example, Cybertip.ca is supported in its work to intervene directly with platforms, such as Instagram and Snapchat, to help protect young people in Canada in real time. The Department of Justice Canada's victim services directory is expanding access to community supports for victims of sextortion and online child exploitation, which is a rising concern for me and a rising issue for children in Canada. Bill C-2 also addresses this, and would give the capabilities that are needed to put criminals that exploit our young children behind bars.

As well, the government has updated legislation in response to these troubling offences. Recent changes expanded the national sex offender registry to include serious crimes, such as sextortion and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, ensuring that police have access to critical investigative tools when responding to these offences.

Turning our attention back to auto theft, which has rightly been described as a national crisis, last year, we saw the government put together an auto theft summit at which law enforcement and government at all levels came to the same table to work on how we can address this issue. Since then, we have been having a lot of success. Organized crime groups that are stealing cars at an alarming rate are using new technology to do so. In response to this, in particular, the government has invested significantly in prevention, enforcement and international co-operation.

I will list some of the results that came out of that auto theft summit.

Public Safety Canada has committed $15 million over three years to help law enforcement combat serious and organized crime, including auto theft. This includes bilateral agreements with provincial, territorial and municipal police forces to strengthen their ability to seize stolen vehicles from the Canada Border Services Agency.

International collaboration is also key, and that is why Canada has invested in Interpol's transnational vehicle crime project, which is enhancing information sharing and investigative tactics to identify and recover stolen vehicles across borders.

When speaking with those in law enforcement across the country, they mentioned the help Interpol has been able to provide to seize these vehicles and basically freeze criminal organizations from being able to successfully get proceeds from the crimes they are committing. If we are able to stop them from making money on auto theft, as a result, we see a decrease in that type of crime.

The government, in addition to that, has also provided $28 million to CBSA for the investigation and examination of stolen vehicles at ports. Supported by new detection technologies and advanced analytics, including artificial intelligence, Transport Canada is working directly with port facilities to address security vulnerabilities and update security plans. At the same time, we are partnering with the automotive industry to ensure that vehicles are harder to steal in the first place.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is working with Canadian companies to develop solutions to prevent theft and assist with vehicle recovery.

We are also pursuing ways to remove devices used by organized criminals to override wireless entry systems from the Canadian marketplace.

The government's decisive actions to combat auto theft are already yielding tangible results. According to the Équité Association's “First Half of 2025: Auto Theft Trend Report”, Canada has experienced a 19.1% national decrease in the theft of private passenger vehicles compared to the same period in 2024. Notably, Ontario and Quebec, previous hot spots for vehicle crime, saw declines of 25.9% and 22.2% respectively. These improvements are attributed to a coordinated effort involving federal and provincial governments, law enforcement agencies and the insurance industry. Initiatives such as the national action plan on combatting auto theft, led by Public Safety Canada, have been instrumental in implementing comprehensive strategies to protect Canadians from the organized crime behind auto theft.

While challenges still remain, these early successes demonstrate that targeted, collaborative efforts can effectively reduce auto theft and enhance public safety as a result. These actions show that the government is not standing still, but providing law enforcement with the resources they need, modernizing technology and regulations, and strengthening partnerships at home and abroad. This is how we address the complex threats posed by serious and organized crime and ensure that Canadians are safe. The government is responding in a coordinated, thoughtful and practical way. Canada's bail system already allows for detention where there are risks to public safety. Courts can impose strict conditions where release is appropriate. Our responsibility is to ensure that these decisions are informed by robust law enforcement capacity and strong tools to manage and prevent crime.

I would like to also say that in some instances courts should be allowed to enforce strict sentences on one strike. Why stop at three? In certain cases, there should be the stiffest penalty given depending on the circumstances of that case and the seriousness of the crime committed.

There are many provisions we are going to put forward that I think the House and all of its members can support. They are going to be informed by law enforcement and experts. We are going to make sure that we act responsibly, not just put forward ideas and implement things the Supreme Court would then overturn, which would end up putting us in the same spot we began in. Oftentimes, I hear the Conservatives talk about these ideas that may sound interesting in theory. They have done this before. They have put in place provisions that the Supreme Court has overturned and that our government then had to deal with. Therefore, it is really important that we act responsibly and come at this with the view of making sure we have comprehensive bail reform.

I am looking forward to sitting down with the provinces and territories, as well, in the upcoming days because there are lots of responsibilities that are within their jurisdiction that they have to implement.

I spent some time in courts in my area this summer, sitting in on bail hearings. I have to say that I was really sad to see the lack of resources, including the inability of Crown council at times to effectively argue a case for bail because they are overworked. They have a lot of files.

We need to make sure our provinces have the appropriate number of Crown council and well-trained judges. This is really important. A lot of Canadians may not be aware, but the administration of justice, when it comes to the majority of criminal cases, happens in our provincial courtrooms, so it is really important that the provinces do their part and efficiently handle the volume of cases coming in. They can use technology. I think there are many ways we can improve our court data sharing to better inform ourselves as to where the issues and blind spots are, how we can address them and how the federal government can also help at the provincial level.

We have heard that many judges are releasing people due to not having space in provincial holding centres. That, too, is an issue that needs to be addressed.

At the end of the day, I know all of us are here for the best interest of Canadians, and we want to make sure people are safe. That is exactly my interest. I am going to work hard to make sure that we collaborate and do everything possible to make sure some of the headlines we are reading in news articles that are very upsetting do not continue to repeat themselves, but we are going to do it in the proper way.

It is also very important, and many constituents of mine also talk about, how we address the root cause. How do we prevent crime from starting in the first place? How do we make sure that we continue to have some of the lowest rates of recidivism around the world? We do.

It is very important that we continue to invest in our correctional facilities as well, to make sure proper programming is there so that at the end of someone's appropriate sentence, they reintegrate into society and do not reoffend and also to make sure there is good programming at the youth level so kids have an opportunity to succeed. All of these things are very important when we talk about public safety, and I think sometimes the Conservatives are missing a key component of the puzzle.

It is my commitment here today, and my government's, to make sure we address all of these issues in the coming time and create a safer Canada for everyone.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Madam Speaker, to me it is rich when I hear the secretary of state across the way say it is a “new government”. The Liberals have been in government for the last decade, and under their watch, crime waves have gone across the country.

This is from Dawson Creek, the small town where I was born in northern B.C.: “The City of Dawson Creek recognizes that there has been an increase in shootings in our community over the last few weeks.” This is a rural town where normally shootings are something we never see. We are seeing it in Fort Nelson. We are seeing it in Prince George, as my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George has already said.

I just think it is rich that you would say that you are a “new government”. In 10 years, you had a chance to fix things.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Alexandra Mendès

The hon. member.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Yes, through you, Madam Speaker. It is a little rich for the member to say to the House and to Canadians, “Hey, we are going to do better now.” You have had a chance to fix things over the last 10 years. You have actually made things a lot worse, with the drug crisis you have caused on the city streets that has caused this new rise in crime. I frankly do not believe a word you are saying about how you are actually going to fix—

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member forgot that he speaks through me.

The hon. secretary of state.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON

Madam Speaker, I think that is a severe oversimplification of things. Some of the highest crime rates we saw in our country were in the nineties, and I know we are facing particular challenges today. There are many causes for these issues, but we are going to be addressing all of those issues.

We have put an unprecedented emphasis on our borders to make sure the illegal drugs and guns that come into our country can be intercepted, and we have been seeing success, so we are going to continue to do the work needed to address those issues. Also, a growing issue of mental health in our communities is also causing a lot of disorder and disruption. Everywhere I have travelled, there are different issues. We have seen, since the pandemic, a rise in vulnerability and these types of issues, so I think a comprehensive approach is the best approach.

We will address these issues to the best of our federal capacity, but we need our provincial and municipal partners to join us.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this issue of rising crime is deeply troubling, and women in particular are being targeted. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we will be resuming the studies we started in the previous Parliament that were interrupted by the election. We will be resuming one study on gender-based violence and another on coercive behaviour and the criminalization of such behaviour. These issues are crucial to addressing crimes against women.

During both of these studies, several witnesses raised the issue of the Jordan ruling. According to them, the Jordan ruling does nothing to help restore victims' confidence in the justice system. Among other things, they are asking for guidelines to be issued for the use of Jordan.

I would like to ask my colleague if she would be willing to support the bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois, which seeks to create guidelines for the use of the Jordan ruling for serious crimes, particularly against women.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the important work the member is doing at the status of women committee. I think those studies will be very informative and very helpful.

On the issue the member is speaking of, when it comes to Jordan's principle and gender-based violence cases, sexual assault cases, she is absolutely right. These have resulted in lengthier cases and sometimes in cases being withdrawn in provincial courtrooms.

We will be addressing this issue. I cannot speak to the specifics of legislation, but I can assure the member that those issues are going to be considered and addressed in upcoming legislation. I appreciate the work that she will do. It will further inform the decisions that are made for the legislation.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, the speech on Bill C-2 has been good. There are some good parts to it, but there are some that are very questionable, for our side of the floor, that need to be addressed.

The thing that concerned me, and that I picked up on, was the comment that there are a lot of mental health issues in our country right now and that they have grown. The question has to be, why? When Canadians are struggling with the economy, with their ability to pay their bills, with food banks, with loss of freedoms and all kinds of issues going on in our society over the last 10 years, how can the member not take responsibility for the fact that Canadians are really struggling and that this causes them to get into situations they should not be in?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very interesting point.

Social support groups, not-for-profits across the country, academics, everyone is trying to identify the root causes of a lot of these problems. We have seen a growth in mental health issues in Canada and across the world as well. We have seen other challenges too.

Although the new Liberal government is a tough-on-crime government, we also came in with a very strong and primary mandate to make sure we continue to grow our economy and create the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Our Prime Minister is one of the world's foremost experts on economics. I have full faith that the team he has built around him will be able to ensure that Canadians facing these challenges will have hope for a better economy in the coming days.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the secretary of state for her excellent speech and bring her back to the moment when she discussed how she spent some time this summer watching bail proceedings happen in court. As a former journalist, I have watched a lot of bail proceedings.

I would like to hear more about some of the conclusions she came to and some of the things that informed her during that time, with the process itself and the justices of the peace who preside over those processes.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON

Madam Speaker, one interesting thing I learned is that in Ontario, the provincial detention facilities are holding about 80% pretrial detention prisoners. That is really interesting to learn. Obviously, those people have been denied bail. It is important for the judges to be able to make the decisions that are needed, foremost, to keep Canadians safe.

In the upcoming legislation, it will be very important to, once again, guide the courts and talk about the basic principles, such as if somebody is a public safety threat or a flight risk, they should not be given bail. Also, the confidence in our judicial system is very important. While I was sitting in those courtrooms, I did not have a lot of confidence that those courtrooms were adequately supported and resourced. I know the provinces could do a much better job to make sure the outcomes coming out of those courtrooms are the best outcomes for Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to our hon. colleague from Brampton, which is a hotbed for violent offenders, repeat offenders and a lot of crime, a lot of headlines in recent weeks and days.

Her speech focused on a number of different areas. She said the province was not doing its job, that the municipalities were not doing their job and that everybody else needs to be doing their job. In my mind, the municipalities are doing their job. Policing is the number one cost for municipalities. Provinces are doing whatever they can. The police and first responder organizations are absolutely doing everything they can.

Do we know the one group that continues to say, “Trust us. We're going to do better next time”? For 10 years, it has been the Liberal government. Why should Canadians believe the government now?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat OffendersBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON

Madam Speaker, my comment has been mis-characterized. I am inviting all levels to co-operate, coordinate and maybe evolve. All of us need to evolve to address the current rise in crime, violent crime, that we are seeing in some of our communities. I think that is really important.

That is why we are putting in place changes in upcoming legislation and in current legislation that we are debating, such as Bill C-2, the strong borders act. I hope the member across the way will support us, because it is exactly what law enforcement has been asking for. It is important that we give law enforcement the tools they need because they do have a very difficult job on the ground. That is exactly what we intend to do. We are going to support law enforcement and our officers who work at the forefront of these issues.

Members' Access to Federal PenitentiaryPrivilegeGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, who raised, on September 15, the question of privilege respecting an allegation of obstruction and intimidation when accessing a federal penitentiary.

With respect to the member raising this point of order, there is no clear and necessary connection between his parliamentary work and his visit to the penitentiary. The member was allowed to enter the premise and to tour the facility. I regret to hear that the member alleges he was not treated with the level of respect he expected. That is unfortunate, but the point stands that the member was given access to the penitentiary and was able to tour the facility.

It would be a completely different situation if it had been in the course of a study agreed to by the Standing Committee on Public Safety, to visit certain penitentiaries to inform members in the course of their parliamentary study. If that were the case, if members were refused entrance by an official and were threatened not to return, the members of the committee could raise an argument of intimidation and obstruction. That is not the case here. I would further suggest that there are likely protocols in place in these institutions to escort visitors when touring the facility.

Lastly, the member is correct in citing that “The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the seventeenth century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective [responsibility].”

This visit was not specifically sanctioned by the House. The member was given access to the institution in question and was accompanied on his tour of the facility. I can see no other source of intimidation or obstruction in this matter, so in my opinion, this does not meet the threshold of constituting a question of privilege.