Debates of Sept. 18th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is not a word of that I can fundamentally disagree with, although I would like to see the legislation. It is not good enough to just say the Liberals are going to bring in bail reform.

Fundamentally, I am not just talking about bail reform. I am talking about people who are being released after violent sexual assaults and beating children within an inch of their lives. That is the problem, letting these vile human beings out before they have served their sentence, a sentence that is not nearly long enough. This individual should never have seen the light of day. It is his second conviction for violently assaulting a child.

What more do we need in this country to show that a person like that does not deserve bail, but deserves jail?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get my colleague's opinion. The Bloc Québécois has a proposal.

Today, we are talking about law and order, and public safety too, but we know the Bloc Québécois moved a motion to repeal the religious exemption for hate speech. It is a very slippery slope that can lead to unfortunate situations.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees with that proposal. If the underlying intent, which we glean from the motion before us, is truly to ensure law and order, I think he should agree with me on this.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am not well informed enough to actually talk intelligently about that. Hopefully, the hon. member will be able to spend some time with me to give me his views on that.

However, my comments today are on the intention of the motion that is before the House, which is to talk about serious crimes and the need for serious reforms in the Criminal Code. I look forward to being engaged, whether in the House or in committee, on the legislation that must come forward, because it is desperately and sorely needed in this country.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my hon. colleague actually builds on the question from the member for Winnipeg North, who keeps bringing up this promised bail reform. I just want to set the record straight, so my learned colleague, who is relatively new to the House, understands that these are the same promises we have been hearing here for years from the Liberal government. This is something we have been calling for.

I would just give the member an opportunity to expand on what he is hearing in his local riding from law enforcement, because I am hearing, day in and day out, from my law enforcement officers about their frustrations in re-arresting the same violent repeat offenders.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, I have spoken to many first responders, from the fire services and the police in the community to people in the medical community. People who are involved in health care have to deal with a lot of the issues of people who are being brought to hospital who have been victims of violence. It is widespread and pervasive, and it has to stop.

In my community we used to be able to leave the doors open. We felt safe. The street that I have talked about with this individual is the street I grew up on, and it is not safe today. It is not safe in my community.

My colleague is absolutely right. The first responders are fed up, and they want to see change. I hope to God that we can see it very soon.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion that we put forward today is a motion that I am quite ashamed has to exist in this country. We are calling for the House and the Liberal government to acknowledge the gravity of repeat and rampant criminality in Canada, in communities of all sizes across the country, and to replace the Liberal approach to bail with a “three strikes and you're out” law, one that will stop criminals convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, parole, probation or house arrest. It would keep violent criminals behind bars for at least 10 years.

If we were to talk to Canadians, a lot of them would be shocked that this is not already law, but Canadians know that the system is broken. Canadians know that they used to be able to walk down streets at any hour of the day or night and feel safe and secure, but they can no longer do that. Business owners, not just in large cities but also in small communities like those across my riding, are replacing windows over and over again that are getting broken into. We have a government that has, through its policy, through legislation that it has continued to defend, told victims of crime that they do not matter, that they have no rights, that the rights of offenders matter more.

A small number of offenders, relatively speaking, are being arrested and released over and over again. It is not uncommon to hear a police department say that it has a list of 100 or 150 people who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of their calls. This is not just vandalism or property crime, although I will firmly say that property crime is real crime because we know that it is a precursor to crimes that target individuals and that are often violent. It is all sorts of criminality that is causing injury, that is causing the degradation of communities, that is causing a serious and real public safety threat.

I have talked to experts on this, police chiefs in my riding, like the chiefs of the police services in London, St. Thomas, and Aylmer, Ontario. When we look at the messaging that has been put out by police associations and frontline officers, they all draw a direct line to Bill C-75, which introduced a suite of changes, among them the introduction of something called the principle of restraint.

The Minister of Justice got up in the House a few days ago and accused Conservatives of not having read the law. I have read it many times, as have the police officers I speak to on a regular basis and the provincial governments that have been calling for this to be repealed. It says very clearly that judges must release offenders under the least onerous conditions at the earliest opportunity. It is very rare that we can draw a direct line from a social problem on Canadian streets to a policy, but everyone involved in this space, everyone except the Liberal government, by the way, has done exactly that, because they have seen a night and day difference between before Bill C-75 and after Bill C-75.

I have shared, in a few interviews and online, a story that happened in my riding this summer in St. Thomas, where a historic building, 140-plus years old, was burned down by a repeat offender who was out on bail and had been previously convicted of arson. This is not the way the country is supposed to be. This is not the way things used to be, and it is certainly not the way things would be if the Liberal government would agree to provide real bail reform.

This is beyond parody now, these heart-breaking stories from across the country of repeat, rampant criminality and prolific offenders, as police will call them. However, evidently, since the Liberal government has dug in its heels on this, I need to give a few stories.

There is one from Langley, where a man was charged with violently beating a woman on June 1, a complete stranger in downtown Langley, British Columbia. It was his 37th court appearance in three years. This is what the system is doing on a regular basis.

In another case, a 12-year-old boy was charged with attempted murder in a shooting in Toronto. The fact that we are talking about 12-year-olds being involved in this level of criminality is bad enough, but it is even worse when we consider that the 12-year-old was out on bail. This is what the system is.

In Edmonton, on August 30, Priscilla McGreer was shot to death outside her home by her cousin, who had been charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and breach of probation. He had an extensive history with the courts, including a homicide charge from 2018.

There are more of these cases than I could read in the time this chamber has. My question is, what would it take for the government to acknowledge that there is a problem, first off, and then acknowledge that it caused the problem? Remember that when the Liberal government continues to tell us that it is championing bail reform, its members leave out the part that the so-called reforms that have caused this problem were also pitched to us by the Liberal government as bail reform. These are their changes that have led to the problem we are now trying to seek a real resolution for.

My colleague, the hon. member for Oxford, has put forward a significant bail reform bill that would go forward with actual action. However, instead, we have the Liberal government obstructing the efforts we have been making to advance this issue and push forward real solutions. That is why the motion we are putting forward, as I said at the beginning, is one that I wish was not necessary in Canada. However, it is necessary, and it is tremendously important.

I will provide a couple of other examples here, because I like to lean on what the experts are saying. I like to lean on victims' rights groups, attorneys general in the various provinces of the country, police chiefs and frontline police officers. I will read one line that I think is incredibly relevant to the discussion at hand: “Recidivism, or repeat offending, impacts public safety and the victims affected by those new crimes”. The quote continues with this later on: “reducing recidivism can generate additional substantial benefits to society by reducing criminal justice costs and preventing new victimization.” This comes from Public Safety Canada.

The government's own messaging recognizes the significant harms that recidivism causes, yet the government has not provided real action. Its members keep alluding to this future bail reform bill that may or may not exist and that we do not know the contents of, but they expect us to get behind it. Well, we are providing, through today's motion, a very real, very tangible solution that hits directly at the concerns that have been raised by concerned citizens across this country. We also have the bill from the hon. member for Oxford, which is forthcoming and would provide real, tangible solutions.

Whenever this issue comes up, we hear from the government “blame the provinces”. It blames everyone else, and we see everything other than the introspection to look at what everyone else in the country sees, which is that Bill C-75, among the many things it did that we do not contest as a party, through the principle of restraint, has made bail easier to get for serious offenders and has made the conditions of bail that repeat offenders are getting less onerous. This has resulted in police officers not even being able to enforce bail conditions, because the sheer volume of offenders out on bail at any given moment is so large that scarce resources have to be deployed to clean up after the failures of the Liberal government.

Since the government is claiming that it cares about bail reform, I am asking it to commit to real bail reform and to put the rights of victims and the rights of people who do not feel safe in their own communities ahead of the rights of offenders. This is not a radical or partisan proposal. It is the bare minimum for a country to keep its citizens safe, to keep its communities safe.

I sent a letter to my constituents a few weeks ago on this issue, and my office has been overwhelmed by the response, including from people who say they have always been a Liberal. They cannot abide by what the Liberal government has done in abandoning and abdicating its duty to preserve and protect public safety.

I am asking the Liberal government to commit to supporting our motion and providing real bail reform rather than obstruction.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the member for Oxford will be introducing Conservative legislation with respect to criminal law reform. The motion today references the “three strikes and you're out” policy of the Conservative Party, which is being put forward by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. Why is it that this provision does not exist in the legislation from the member for Oxford? There seems to be some non-alignment in Conservative policy. I am wondering if the member could explore that and help us know why.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bizarre question. I think the Liberals have broken so many things that it will take several different stages to undo this damage. I would ask a more important question: Where is the Liberal legislation that they keep promising, the contents of which they have never provided even an iota of detail on? That is the real question the government should be answering, not wondering why we should be doing more. We would be happy to take over this entire file if the Liberal government would let us.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the intention to strengthen law and order and I understand how noble the goal is. However, we must always be careful not to replace the courts. As legislators, we can propose measures, but we must always allow for flexibility. Perhaps we could allow for discretion on mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois would be willing to increase them for serious crimes, particularly gun crimes. We think that is a mistake.

Here is my question for the member. We suggested creating a registry of criminal organizations. People are walking around publicly displaying their affiliations with criminal organizations that we know are dangerous and problematic. Such a registry could enable law enforcement to respond more effectively and could make it easier to charge criminals. What does my colleague think of that suggestion?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that people in Quebec are just as affected by these crime and justice issues as people across the country. We need people who are going to champion solutions, and I admire and respect my colleague for actually coming forward with a tangible solution, which the Liberal government has not done, except to say there is a mythical bail bill that we will eventually see, while obstructing the real, tangible proposals that we are putting forward. I look forward to working with my hon. colleague on resolutions that are real and will make our streets and communities safer.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has spoken eloquently about the impact of these Liberal policies on his riding. One thing I have heard about repeatedly in my riding is the trauma that victims of crime experience and the retraumatization that happens when repeat offenders are present in the community and walk by them on the street or show up in their neighbourhood. I am wondering if my colleague might speak to his experiences in his riding.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question. I have a lot of small communities in my riding where these are very real issues. Very known people continue to retraumatize communities and victims. By the way, the probation and parole process also continues to retraumatize people, as they are forced to see even serious multiple murderers, who continue to bring victims and the families of victims back to retraumatize them over and over again. We are the only party that is providing real solutions to this.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to mythical bail legislation, but we have a Prime Minister who has made a very strong commitment to bringing it in this fall. The concern I have is that the Conservatives like to talk tough on crime, but when it comes to passing legislation, they have to be shamed into getting it through second reading so it can go to a standing committee, where the public and stakeholders can provide thoughts and feedback on it.

I wonder if the member would be prepared, if the legislation materializes, to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to allow the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, in 20 seconds or less, to respond.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just said “if the legislation materializes”, so even he does not know if it is real. I would encourage him to leave this chamber for even an hour or two from time to time, look at what is happening on the streets and realize that Canadians are calling for real action. We are prepared to deliver it, even though the Liberal government is not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was an interesting question in the sense that I have had the opportunity to ask numerous Conservatives over the last couple of days about the whole process of passing legislation. Time and time again, depending on the member, they will stand up and talk about how they want to serve their constituents and see legislation passed that would make our communities safer.

At the end of the day, that is all they do: talk. They are not prepared to allow things to go to the next step. A good example of that is Bill C-2. We have now had many hours of debate on Bill C-2. It was introduced back in June, we have had more hours of debate, and now we are having 10-minute speeches. We still cannot get a Conservative to commit to at least allowing it go to the committee stage, yet it deals with issues that are important in terms of making our communities safer.

Conservatives come up with excuses, that they want every member to be able to speak to it and so forth. Interestingly enough, one of the critics introduced his private member's bill today and said it is transformative and would really change the justice system in a very big way. On second reading, it will get two hours of debate and then go to committee. There is an absolute double standard there, I would suggest, coming from the critic who stood in this place saying that we need to talk more about Bill C-2. Why? What we have witnessed in the past is that the Conservative Party talks tough on crime, but when it comes time to deliver, Conservatives just want to talk, and that is it.

The last time we had bail reform come to the House of Commons, the Conservatives had to be shamed into allowing it to get to committee stage and ultimately to third reading. I know that because I was one of the MPs who had to remind them at the time of the importance of bail reform, which they, in part, said they supported.

If we look at the Hansard record, we will see that they actually voted in favour of the legislation, not only at second reading and third reading, but they wanted to see it receive royal assent. It did receive royal assent. There was a consultation process done for that.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but when I hear Conservatives talk tough on crime, their real priority is raising money for the Conservative Party, and that is what it is all about. That is the reason I specifically asked the leader of the Conservative Party earlier today about his commitment to see substantial legislation pass, at least through second reading. It is not that much to ask for. He virtually ignored the question and would not give a commitment. If history has anything to do with the future, with regard to this particular leader and the Conservative caucus, they will talk about it, but when it comes to taking action, unless they are shamed, they are very slow on it.

Let us reflect on the last federal election. Every Liberal candidate from all regions of our country knocked on doors and listened to what Canadians had to say. Crime and safety in our communities was an important issue. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The Prime Minister, Canada's newly elected Prime Minister, made a solemn commitment to Canadians that we would in fact bring forward bail legislation and we would see significant changes to bail reform.

If we listen to the Conservatives, they are asking why it has not been brought forward and saying they want to see the legislation. Then, if we had brought it forward at this point, they would ask if we had done any consulting.

The Prime Minister made the commitment not only to deliver on bail reform but also to do the consultation necessary so we could encompass within the legislation a true reflection of Canadians' expectations. In essence, this is what we are going to see when the minister tables the legislation. We will see substantial changes to the system that reflect what we have been hearing at the doors, which is what Liberal members of Parliament have been advocating for, and what the many different stakeholders have been talking about.

Whether it is municipalities, the provinces or the federal government, we need to recognize it is not the federal government alone that is responsible for ensuring safe communities and streets. It is a shared responsibility. We all have a responsibility, but at the very least, we need to recognize it is not just Ottawa that is responsible for this.

As our newly elected Prime Minister has indicated, Ottawa will step up. We will act where we can, where our responsibilities lie. We will see that legislation tabled this fall. This is a guarantee from the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament. We need to recognize it is not just Ottawa's responsibility.

Some might say I am somewhat biased in my opinions at times, so I thought it would be advantageous to quote a few things from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. This editorial was published on September 9, with the headline “More Crown prosecutors needed—now”.

The editorial reads, “The Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys has filed a formal grievance, saying the office requires at least 20 per cent more prosecutors”. Those are prosecutors that the province is responsible for hiring. Further down it reads, “But blame only goes so far.” This refers to the current government blaming the previous government. I quote:

But blame only goes so far. After two years in power, the government of the day owns the problem and the responsibility for fixing it.

Further:

The NDP has spoken frequently about its commitment to safer communities. It has announced more funding for police and has supported federal efforts to tighten bail laws.

That means consulting with the new Prime Minister, which is a little off topic, so I will go back to the quote.

But those measures mean little if there are not enough prosecutors to move cases through the courts in a timely manner.

Without an adequately staffed Crown’s office, government promises to crack down on violent repeat offenders are little more than political slogans.

Again, this is an editorial about provincial responsibilities. I will repeat the last part: “Without an adequately staffed Crown’s office, government promises to crack down on violent repeat offenders are little more than political slogans.” It continues:

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

In fairness, it is not just the responsibility of the Province of Manitoba and the federal government. All levels of government have a responsibility.

Let us look at that responsibility and the expectations of the different levels of government. The Prime Minister, who was elected just a few months ago, had to deal with the important issues of building one stronger Canada and bringing forward legislation of that nature. He brought forward legislation to deal with affordability so that 22 million Canadians get a tax break. He had numerous meetings and consultations on a wide spectrum of issues, including crime and safety. He has a responsibility to ensure that the minister responsible for the legislation is getting us into a position to fulfill the commitment he made to Canadians, which was to deliver substantial legislation on bail reform. That is the federal responsibility, and we have a Prime Minister who is committed to doing just that.

In the 1990s, I was an MLA, and for a short period of time, I was the justice critic. I understand how jurisdictional responsibility is not necessarily the most efficient way to deal with problems at times, but that is part of our Canadian system, and I respect that. During the early 1990s, I assisted in forming what we call the youth justice committees. One was the Keewatin youth justice committee, and after a few years, I became the chair. It was interesting to see how things changed over time. A youth justice committee, I should say for members who are not familiar with them, was composed of individuals who live in the community and volunteer to deal with young offenders who commit a crime, typically the first offence.

In the first few years, we dealt with quite a few crimes. They were primarily petty theft, such as shoplifting crimes and things of that nature, but as the years went by, things started to change. Petty thefts were not happening to anywhere near the same degree as in the early 1990s. As the chair, I discussed it with the provincial parole officer responsible for our justice committee. Apparently, there was a decision made between the province and the city that it was better for the city police to deal with young offenders as opposed to a youth justice committee. There were a number of them in the province.

I use that example to highlight that we need to recognize, and I will continue to amplify this, that the issue of crime and safety is a shared responsibility. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives. Looking at their fundraising emails, and I have seen many of them—

[An hon. member]

Are you donating?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, I have not donated, and I do not plan to, either.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about misinformation and slogans. They have turned crime and safety into nothing more than the creation of slogans, propaganda and bumper stickers just to feed a certain element of their party to generate funds. That is what it has come down to. That is why they criticize Liberals constantly on crime.

At the end of the day, we need to look at the actions Conservatives have taken to date on the issue. We will wait to see what happens when the bail reform legislation comes forward. I am somewhat of an optimist at times, even though I have been discouraged in recent years with how the Conservatives have dealt with federal legislation.

However, if they recognize what we have recognized in terms of what Canadians and the many different stakeholders are saying on the issues, I would hope that the leader of the Conservative Party, to whom I asked the question, would be open to, at the very least, allowing bail reform legislation to hit the committee stage before the end of the year. That does not mean they have to pass it; it just means that they are prepared to allow it to get to committee stage. That is a reasonable request.

The Conservatives will say they have not even seen the legislation yet, which is a valid point. It is much like their wanting us to vote on a motion today, when we have not seen any legislation on it yet. We have no sense of what consultation was done on it, but they will expect us to vote.

The Conservative critic introduced for first reading today a bill that talks about massive changes to our justice system and is guaranteed only two hours of debate, not to mention limits in committee plus limits in third reading. With respect to the massive change that he is proposing to the justice system, he would consider that as being done. What kind of consultation did he conduct? What kind of debate did he allow for? I will assure members that we will guarantee more debate than he would have had during the private member's bill debate, if that is all it takes to get Conservatives to get legislation ultimately passed.

They can say they do not have the legislation, and stick to that line, but then I will go back to Bill C-2. What would Bill C-2 actually do? In part, it would enable RCMP to share data. Extortion is a very serious issue in Canada. By enabling the legislation at the very least to get to committee, we would be able to have more debate on it. Stakeholders from across Canada could come to provide opinions and address concerns.

The Conservatives say they have some amendments. They would be able to propose amendments to the bill and continue to debate it. After second reading, if it goes into third reading, they could debate it as long as they like there too. Let them just realize one thing: If they are serious about dealing with crime, they should not just talk about it but also allow things to take place.

With respect to Bill C-2, extortion is just one aspect of it. If we were to do a Hansard search for the word “fentanyl”, we would find that the Conservatives are talking a lot about the issue of fentanyl. So are the Liberals, but the Conservatives are being very critical of the government for not doing enough. Bill C-2 would enable law enforcement agencies to open a letter if they get a warrant from a court because they suspect that there could be fentanyl in the envelope.

The Conservatives do not even support it. We heard that yesterday. Why would the Conservatives not support an RCMP officer, for example, who gets a warrant to be able to search an envelope for something like fentanyl? Fentanyl and other drugs are actually being distributed through Canada Post. We need the legislation to enable our RCMP officers to open those envelopes if they get the warrant.

If the Conservatives really do care about the issue of bail reform or issues that are encompassed by Bill C-2, they need to recognize that at some point they have to allow legislation to get to the committee stage. That is why, at the beginning, when the leader of the Conservative Party stood in this place and spoke today, I made the accusation that the Conservative Party needs to be less focused on raising money for the Conservative Party, using crime and safety as a mechanism to do that, and more focused on addressing the needs of Canadians, which is what the Prime Minister has actually done.

We are anticipating that there will be substantial bail reform legislation. Hopefully the Conservatives will do the right thing when that happens and will get behind it, at least get it to committee where they could potentially make amendments. I realize that at the end of the day this would make a whole lot of Canadians happy.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit dismayed that the member for Winnipeg North did not talk about the mayor of Winnipeg's comments in the last couple of days, in which he talked about “an urgent need for federal bail and sentencing reform” and said that “the bail and sentencing system is not working.” The mayor of Winnipeg talked about a repeat offender who has committed 24 violent crimes over the last 11 years and has violated his bail and probation conditions 12 times.

My first question for the member is, how many strikes does he think this violent repeat offender in Winnipeg should get before he is in jail? The second question is this: He talks about the mythical bail reform bill that is going to come out this fall; is “this fall” before December 12?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity, not once but on a couple of occasions, to talk to Mayor Gillingham in regard to the issue of crime in the city of Winnipeg, and it is very serious. At the end of the day, as I have explained to the House, it is not just Ottawa. In four or five months, Ottawa, and in particular the Prime Minister, has done the work necessary in terms of the consultations, reaching out, getting the feedback that is so critically important, and then putting together substantial legislation that will be coming out this fall. I think you have to provide the new government the opportunity to do the work necessary in order to table the legislation.

I can assure you that the mayor of Winnipeg and many others—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary to remind him about using “you”. Everything is through the Chair; I am not responding to the debate.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I hear his concerns about keeping our streets safe.

What does he have to say about the Bloc Québécois's proposal to create a registry of criminal organizations and treat them like terrorist organizations? What does he have to say about our proposal to amend the Criminal Code to remove the two religious exemptions that permit hate speech? What does he have to say about the possibility of not meeting the Supreme Court of Canada's Jordan deadline for the most serious cases of violent crime?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Jordan case was addressed in part when the former government brought in legislation. I know the Conservatives oppose certain aspects of that legislation, which means, at least from what I understand, they are going to reintroduce the stuff that was actually struck down by the Supreme Court, but that helps them in terms of their fundraising efforts.

At the end of the day, during the nineties in Manitoba, at the provincial level, we thought it was advantageous to focus on gang activities, identifying them and putting extra resources into dealing with them. It did make a difference.

What the member opposite is proposing, some sort of organized crime registry, I think would be something that would be great to hear more discussion about at the appropriate standing committee.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was an MLA as well. Seven years ago we started to hear about the crime in our communities, and that is when I first started to hear the blame game: B.C. and the provinces blaming Ottawa. Now I come here and the Liberals are blaming the Conservatives. The Liberals have been in government for ten years. I also hear the idea that somehow they need a consultation to relax their soft-on-crime legislation. The stories we have heard in Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the last seven years are horrendous. They are horrible.

Why did the Liberals need so much time to consult, when all the records, victims and families are there? Why did they spend seven years consulting, when really all they had to do was repeal Bill C-75, for example? When is the blame game going to stop?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member was an MLA for seven years; I was an MLA for just under 20 years. I understand the provincial system, no doubt, as well as he understands it. He should also understand and acknowledge that both levels of government have a very important role.

The member talked about what has happened over the last 10 years. The Speaker will not give me enough time to be able to expand on that, but I need to remind the member that the Prime Minister was elected just a few months ago. The member might disagree with me, but it is important that the Prime Minister and the cabinet consult before we bring substantive legislation on the issue of bail reform, for the simple reason that it has been a major issue coming out of the last federal election, and the Prime Minister has made a commitment to Canadians to deal with it by bringing forward bail legislation.

I think the Conservatives have to at least provide a few months to ensure that we get the bail reforms that are going to reflect what Canadians and the different stakeholders want to see, as well as the expectation of the new Prime Minister.