Debates of Sept. 18th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, when it comes to Conservative Party policy and the leader's approach to crime and safety in the community, the first priority is not Canadians. It is raising cash for the Conservative Party. We see numerous emails that go out saying slogans on crime and what the Conservatives are going to do, all in an attempt to raise money. That is what it is, a cash cow for the Conservatives.

We have a newly elected Prime Minister who is looking at what Canadians are saying and who has made a solemn commitment to Canadians to bring in bail reform before the end of the year.

Will the leader of the Conservative Party put aside his cash ambitions and fundraising and make a commitment to Canadians, as the Prime Minister has, that he will, at the very least, allow bail reform legislation to go to committee if it is introduced before the end of this year? Will he make that commitment to Canadians today?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin by thanking the member for his kind words at the very beginning. He stated half a sentence that was right, which proves that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

For the rest of the day, he gets it wrong. He asked me if I would be prepared to fast-track the passage of bail reform. Where is it? He wants me to fast-track the passage of a law his government has not even introduced. Has he totally lost his marbles? Did he mean to say that he would fast-track the law that Conservatives are bringing forward, which is “three strikes and you're out”?

Let us put partisanship aside. Let us pass that law now so we can lock up the worst criminals and throw away the key.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this morning and to have the opportunity to engage with respect to today's opposition day motion.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by reminding both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Winnipeg North that I have the floor. I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Pickering—Brooklin.

I want to pick up on the exchange that I just had with the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. It was interesting to ask the question on agriculture, because he now represents a riding that has more agricultural industry than Carleton.

The hon. member for Peterborough represents an agricultural riding in Ontario and comes from a farming background. We were talking outside about how the Conservative Party of Canada has generally taken farmers for granted. I went through the platform of the Conservative Party. There were three mentions of the word “farmers”, but there was no substantive policy about what the Conservative Party, if it had been elected government, would have actually done for farmers. With the Leader of the Opposition now representing a more rural, agriculture-heavy riding, it will be interesting to see if we will see more agricultural policy from him and his party.

I will get to the opposition day motion, but given that the canola industry was raised in the debate, right now, that industry is under duress. There are challenges around market access in China. I was just with Premier Moe for a three-day opportunity to engage on that question. I thought the conversations were constructive. There was an opportunity, I believe, for a pathway forward.

The exchange was interesting, and I apologize to my hon. Bloc colleague, as we had a little bit of banter back and forth. The member for Regina—Lewvan was actually involved in that conversation as well. It is going to be important for western members of Parliament, when they want to talk about supporting a $43-billion industry with approximately 35,000 farmers, to recognize that those farmers rely on demand signals for canola products, whether meal, oil or seed. The clean fuel standards and biofuel policy in this country are extremely important. When we go to the farm gate and talk about those demand signals, they matter.

At a time when we need to be supporting our canola industry, when we are going to be looking for new markets and continuing to engage with the Chinese, we have an opportunity on domestic policy. However, the Conservatives just want to throw it away. That is not what the industry is asking for. That is not what farmers are looking for. They are looking for certainty and a pathway forward.

I would encourage the western Canadian members of Parliament from the Conservative Party who have farmers, who have the opportunity, to actually say, what is your domestic policy driver? The Conservatives are trying to take away something that actually matters. It is interesting. We know when we are actually able to land a little bit of a punch, because it gets them irritated. That is fine. We have a fun back-and-forth. However, it is something for the Conservatives to reflect on. It will be an important message when we are in Western Canada, and I hope local farmers will be reminding their Conservative members of Parliament that it is an important policy that actually matters for farm gate prices.

We are here today to talk about criminal law reform. The opposition day motion raises the idea of a “three strikes and you're out” policy. We see this from certain quarters of the United States. I want to start by saying that the issue of public safety is an extremely fundamental one in Canada. All parliamentarians, regardless of where we sit in the House, take this question seriously. I have to assume that, and I know it. We want to make sure that our neighbours, friends and people in our communities feel safe. Frankly, I think we can agree that there has to be reform.

The justice minister has talked about reforms that are coming. As parliamentarians, we do not have all the details on that. The minister has talked about some of the principles of what the government is going to be pursuing in the next few weeks. I really hope that all parliamentarians can focus on a quick expedition. Our job is to critique, review and scrutinize legislation, but we do not want any unreasonable delay. We want to be able to move on this reform to toughen up bail provisions and make sure that we have stronger sentencing and an ability to integrate with and do important work alongside public safety to tackle crime in our communities.

I want to highlight a few things. From my time in this place, members know that when I come here, I really try to hone in on the text of the opposition day motion. It is fine. Sometimes we as parliamentarians can talk in generalities, but our job is to litigate specific pieces of the text that are put forward. The Conservatives are talking about a 50% increase in violent crime. It is not actually quoted, in the text, where this comes from. As the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said, we have heard about broad references to Statistics Canada.

It is important to put another perspective on the table. For Toronto, and obviously for a lot of the members from the GTA, this is something that is not about what colour jersey we wear. When we come to this House, we are bringing the issues of our communities. We know that, in the GTA in particular, there is a desire to tackle and have more action on crime, but the Toronto Police Service did release a report, just on September 9, that actually said there is a downward trend in violent crime in the city. In fact, there has been a 40% reduction year over year, and numbers are getting back to where they were in 2020.

I do not stand here and suggest that any government would be satisfied with that. There is a whole host of work to be done, but I think it is very incumbent on any party or member of Parliament, when they introduce the text of a motion, to know that further context is important.

We see in the largest metropolitan area in this country that we are having success in the integrated work that the government has been doing and that the new government, under our new Prime Minister, is going to be deeply focused on in the days ahead. I want to make sure that is on the record.

As a member of Parliament, I think we need to have more databases that can actually share some of that important information. Even in the lead-up to today's debate, I found that some of those key statistics that inform parliamentarians and that can inform our authorities in response could be tightened up so that we could have more information and know better how to tackle these elements.

Of course, this is a nationwide dynamic, and we want to make sure that, regardless of where they live, Canadians are safe in their communities. However, there are more acute areas where we have to have a more targeted approach. The text also says, and we heard this from the leader of the official opposition, “allow for house arrest for serious offenders”. We have to tackle the premise of that element of the text.

Again, the message we are sending today on behalf of the government is that we take this issue seriously, but we have to be careful not to have a message of things that maybe stretch the truth a bit or that maybe do not give the entire context. The provision that the leader of the official opposition talked about around the principle of restraint is actually from two Supreme Court decisions. Beyond Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which were referenced, this is in the common law, so these decisions that are made by the highest courts in the land take precedence unless we legislate over the courts.

This gets into an important factor that I think all parliamentarians have to contemplate. We stand here in this House, and we can have ideas and thoughts about what we want in our community. There is a role for Parliament in that, and there is also a role for individuals who are tasked with hearing the salient facts of a particular case and making those decisions around sentencing and around what the provisions on bail could be. Sometimes, it is fair to say, those individuals are in a better position, but it is the legitimate role of Parliament to scrutinize decisions from the courts and determine whether a decision has perhaps gone too far.

Therefore, it is important to recognize that in all the decisions around anything on bail, public safety and repeat risk are paramount in that decision-making. We could criticize something and perhaps say a judge may have gotten it wrong, but that is when Parliament will have to make its decision about whether we are going to put stricter provisions in place that actually dictate to the courts. There is a balance between Parliamentary supremacy and the independence of the judiciary, which is also important.

What is also missing from this text is context on provincial resourcing. In the administration of justice, we actually need to have a complement of judges, and we need to have the court access time. Certainly, for provincial jails and federal correction facilities, we also need to have the capacity, if we feel it necessary, to actually contain individuals whom we do not want to release into our communities.

Missing from this conversation on the opposition day motion today is the role of the provinces in partnering with federal changes that are forthcoming from the government. This is extremely important, because part of the reason around some of the Supreme Court decisions is there have not been adequate resources in the justice service.

The last piece I am going to say is how there is no mention of the social determinants of crime. Yes, we need to make sure we have adequate deterrents. That comes down to criminal sentencing. That comes down to bail reform. However, there is no conversation about how we are actually tackling housing, mental health services and the integration of services at the provincial level to try to make sure that the individuals in question who commit crimes are not even in those circumstances in the first place to be able to do them.

We agree there is work to be done. The Minister of Justice is going to present that in the days ahead. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, through you to my hon. colleague, there is a disconnect. Canadians are not buying it. Tonight, unfortunately, someone is going to tuck in their loved ones for the last time, because of what is going on in our streets. If we believe what the member is saying, that crime is down for the people in his province, for those who are watching the evening news, it is hoped that something horrific has not happened out there, but more times than not it does. That is because of repeat violent offenders getting bail, not jail. I would like those members to say if they honestly feel that crime is down in their province, because the constituents that you represent in your province are not feeling that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I allow the parliamentary secretary to respond, the use of the word “you” is when referring to the Speaker. It is through the Speaker to the member. I will not be responding to the member's comments, but I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to respond.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that, yes, we bring the emotion of our constituents to this place. We have to be able to tell stories about the experiences on the ground, but we also have to stay rooted in statistics and facts. If we get beyond that, where do we go? Where does the debate go? It becomes tribalism.

In our province, and my position is very clear, our government is going to be introducing stricter bail conditions. We are going to be introducing stronger sentencing provisions for repeat violent offenders. We think this is extremely important.

Again, the nuance of the conversation is that we need the provinces on board. Those are conversations that are being had with Premier Houston in our community. The statistics I had available and provided today are directly from the authorities of the policing agency in Toronto. I think we all need to look at the relevant statistics. This is a nuance. We want to make sure there are policies across the country that matter. However, there are more acute challenges with crime in certain areas of this country, particularly in the GTA, that we need to tackle.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the parliamentary secretary for his speech. As we said a few times this week, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord did incredible work on the issue of judicial appointments. Judicial appointments are supposed to be impartial. However, we know that nothing could be further from the truth.

The shortage of judges in the system is one of the problems we are speaking out against today and one of the problems that today's Conservative motion seeks to remedy. The shortage of judges means that cases are dragging on. Offenders are not being tried quickly enough. They are being released because their cases are not being heard quickly enough. However, recently, the federal government quietly appointed as a judge a Liberal donor who does not even meet the basic criteria for being appointed as a superior court judge in Quebec or the provinces. Now, his appointment is being challenged and we are once again talking about the issue of judicial appointments.

Will my colleague commit to persuading his government to review these procedures and to ensure that judges are appointed in a responsible, fair and independent manner?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will say a few things.

First, I would push back on the idea that there is no judicial independence in this country. Yes, prime ministers and, ultimately, ministers of justice make appointment decisions, and it is a political representative who makes those decisions. However, this is not a politicized process in Canada. This is something we should take deeply personally. It is something we should make sure we continue to protect. The government and I both believe it is transparent. Individuals are able to identify themselves as wanting to go forward. I do not think there is a problem.

There is a problem around resourcing. I would agree with the member insofar as governments, especially at the federal level, have to ensure that appointments happen quickly. As well, provincial governments need to make sure that, at the provincial level, their judiciary is properly resourced and that we have access to trials so that we are able to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts and reflections on the last federal election, when we had Liberal members of Parliament, and in fact, Liberal candidates from coast to coast to coast, talking about the issue of crime and safety in the community. Now we have a Prime Minister who is committed to bringing in significant bail reform changes. That is, in essence, a part of our platform.

Could he provide his thoughts on how important it is to our Prime Minister to materialize on that issue?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this is a new government under the leadership of a new Prime Minister. This was a strong platform commitment that the Liberal Party committed to tackling.

Our Prime Minister has said before that he is a pragmatic leader. If he identifies issues in society in Canada, we are going to be able to go out and tackle them. This has clearly become an issue that I think all partisan sides of the House are going to agree on. We are going to introduce that legislation. We hope it can be moved quickly, because it matters across the country, again, regardless of ideology and party.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the important issue of bail and the role of the criminal justice system in keeping our communities safe. This is an important opportunity to reaffirm the government's commitment to public safety and to highlight the critical role provinces and territories play in the administration of Canada's bail system.

Canada's criminal justice system is a shared responsibility. While the federal government is responsible for enacting criminal law and procedure, including the laws that govern bail, the provinces and territories are responsible for the daily administration and management of the bail system. This includes conducting most bail hearings, enforcing and monitoring bail conditions, operating remand facilities and collecting and reporting bail data.

In short, it is an important partnership with the provinces and territories on the front lines of bail administration. Their role is central to ensuring that the bail system functions effectively and fairly. Their central role also means they are uniquely positioned to identify and work with us to address all the systemic challenges within the bail system, whether delays in hearings, access to legal aid or the availability of community-based supports.

Strengthening bail administration requires not only legal expertise but also investments in infrastructure, data systems and frontline services. When provinces and territories are empowered and resourced to lead, the entire justice system benefits from greater efficiency, fairness and public confidence.

I want to emphasize that while law reform is important, law reform on its own is not enough. Over the past several years, the federal government has taken meaningful steps to modernize bail laws. Bill C-75 also made it more onerous for people accused of intimate partner violence to obtain bail.

Specifically, the amendments created a reverse onus at bail for an accused charged with a violent offence involving an intimate partner if they had a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner. Amendments also required courts to consider prior intimate partner violence convictions when determining whether to release the accused or impose bail conditions. These amendments reflect Parliament's recognition that intimate partner violence is a serious issue and that the bail system had to be reformed to better respond to this violence and to better protect the victims.

In 2023, Bill C-48 expanded reverse onus provisions for repeat violent offenders and required courts to explicitly consider public safety when making a bail decision. Specifically, the amendments created a new reverse onus to target serious repeat violent offending involving weapons, expanded the list of firearm offences that trigger a reverse onus and broadened the reverse onus targeting repeat offenders of intimate partner violence, among others.

These reforms were developed in close collaboration with provinces and territories. They responded directly to concerns raised by premiers across the country. The amendments were also informed by engagement with law enforcement, community organizations and other key partners and stakeholders. However, legislation is only one part of the solution.

As a start, we need better data. There is a critical lack of national bail data, and this is preventing a full understanding of how the bail system is operating across Canada. The federal government does not collect bail data; provinces and territories do. That means they hold the key to unlocking the evidence we need to assess the effectiveness of bail laws, identify gaps and make informed decisions. We are working with provincial and territorial partners to increase the efforts to collect and report bail data. This is essential for evaluating the impact of bail reforms, understanding regional differences in bail outcomes, supporting evidence-based policy developments and enhancing public confidence in the justice system.

Public safety depends on collaboration. We know that people in Canada are concerned about repeat violent offending and threats to community safety. The government shares those concerns, but effective bail administration requires more than just legal tools; it also requires resources, infrastructure and coordination. We are working with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that they are investing in bail supervision programs, community supports for accused persons, enforcement mechanisms for bail conditions and improvements to remand facilities.

We also need to work together to address the root causes of crime, including poverty, mental health, substance use and housing insecurity. These are areas where provincial and territorial governments have jurisdiction and expertise. Their leadership is essential to achieving long-term reductions in crime and to improving public safety.

At the same time, we must recognize that meaningful progress requires sustained collaboration across all orders of government. The federal government has a role to play in supporting innovation, funding evidence-based programs and ensuring national coordination, but it cannot act alone. By working in partnership with provinces and territories, we all can invest in upstream solutions that prevent crime before it happens, strengthen communities and promote equity. Public safety is not just about enforcement; it is also about creating the conditions where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

People in Canada deserve a bail system that is fair and effective. They also deserve to see all orders of government working together to ensure the proper functioning of the system, not just through legislation but also through monitoring and prevention. This is why the federal government is working closely with provincial and territorial partners to enhance bail data collection, figure out what is driving crime in different jurisdictions and develop actual solutions that will reduce reoffending at the bail stage and beyond.

The federal government stands ready to continue this work. It is committed to continuing to reform the bail system and to support its partners. The federal government continues to work closely with the provinces and territories, including representatives from law enforcement, and is committed to addressing concerns with the bail system and developing meaningful solutions. This commitment was articulated in the government's election platform, which called for stricter bail laws for individuals charged with violent and organized crimes related to auto theft, home invasion and human trafficking and smuggling.

The Prime Minister also committed to strengthening bail and sentencing laws following the June 2 first ministers' meeting. More recently, the Prime Minister, as well as the Minister of Justice, publicly expressed an intention to table a bill this fall, introducing stricter bail and sentencing laws, particularly in relation to organized crime, human trafficking, home invasion and auto theft, but the federal government cannot do it alone. We are working with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that they continue to play their critical role in administrating bail and providing the data and support systems needed to make the system work.

Together we can build a justice system that protects communities, respects rights and earns the confidence of people across Canada.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are issues in every city in this country. I will give a few statistics from the police in my city of Saskatoon: Violent crime this year is up 12.5%, assaults are up 20% and criminal harassment is up 150%. This is why we feel, on this side of the House, that the Liberals have been obstructing every police force in the country with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

I do not have to tell members about the gruesome killings in my province a couple of years ago at James Smith reserve. Myles Sanderson killed 11 people and hurt 16 others. He had 59 convictions, yet he was out on bail. This is why we are bringing forward the motion today.

I want the hon. member to comment on Myles Sanderson's killing 11—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give a chance to the hon. member to respond.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, heinous crimes need to be punished, and we recognize that. This fall, our government will introduce legislation to strengthen Canada's bail system so things like that will not repeat themselves and to make it harder for repeat violent offenders to be released on bail. It would also increase sentences for the most serious repeat violent crimes, particularly those linked to organized crime, home invasion, auto theft and human trafficking, and address court delays so that serious cases will proceed quickly and victims will not be retraumatized by procedural backlogs.

We call on all parties to put partisanship aside and work with us to deliver the evidence-based solutions Canadians expect from us and deserve.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing the bill that the government will be introducing this fall. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women briefly discussed the fact that this bill would be introduced. It looks like we will have another opportunity to talk about it. In the meantime, I would like to address another issue.

In her speech, my colleague spoke at length about the justice system, and one of the federal government's roles is to appoint judges. Right now, it is taking unreasonably long to do it, but that should not be the case. The problem is that the federal government has not fulfilled its role of appointing judges in a timely manner to ensure that the justice system can function properly. This creates delays and undermines victims' confidence in the justice system.

This week, thanks to my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, we once again raised the issue of the process for appointing judges, which should be challenged from time to time.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary said, we will take this under advisement.

We will always make sure that people's voices are heard. The justice system will always prioritize community safety, respect victims and ensure that dangerous repeat violent offenders are kept off the streets, without sacrificing fairness, charter protections or the effective administration of justice.

While the federal government is responsible for setting the rules around bail and sentencing, it is the provinces that administer the system and appoint the judges.

I want to assure the hon. member that we will take her comments under advisement.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments speak to a very important issue. Like my colleague, we all canvass our constituencies, not only during elections but also between elections. I know she is reflecting many of the thoughts her constituents have.

Could my colleague provide some additional thoughts from her perspective, in terms of reflecting on the last election and how important the issue of crime and safety is to her?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, everyone deserves to be safe in Canada. That was definitely reflected when I was at people's doors in April. Community safety is not a talking point; it is a responsibility, and we understand that. Everyone needs to feel safe in their home.

This summer, I met with police chiefs as well as provincial and municipal leaders across Canada to ensure that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member's time is up.

Resuming debate, the member for Niagara South.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say I am happy to participate in this debate today, so I will rephrase it. I am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this debate today because there have been a lot of incredibly horrendous things happening in my community over the last couple of weeks.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Justice when legislation would be brought in to stop repeat sex offenders from being released into the community. I made reference to the case of Daniel Senecal, who currently lives in the city I live in. He sexually assaulted a three-year-old toddler in the most vile way. He had recently been released after being sentenced to prison for the assault on a 12-year-old boy.

I would ask members to forgive me if I get a little emotional because it is tearing my community apart. The street on which this crime happened is the street I practically grew up on. My grandparents lived on that street.

Within hours, the community stepped up. There was a vigil in downtown Welland and hundreds and hundreds of people showed up within hours of this person being arrested. Victims told me their stories about how they had been abused during childhood, or how relatives had been abducted, and about the pain, anguish and scars they have carried with them all their lives. They pleaded with me to come to this place, stand on this floor and talk about this issue. Municipal leaders also stepped up by asking the federal government to change the Criminal Code for violent offenders.

A few days later, the annual firefighter memorial was held in Ottawa. The chief, deputy chief and a number of people from the Welland Fire and Emergency Services came to Ottawa for that ceremony. Among them was my son, who is a firefighter in Welland, and the two first firefighters to be on scene of that horrific crime. I brought all of them to the floor of the House of Commons, and we stood in front of the mace for at least an hour. They all told me about their experiences, including the two who were first on scene of this horrific crime. It is hard to describe the emotions they felt, but after coming to this place, they talked about the need to change the Criminal Code to keep repeat violent sex offenders in jail.

I should mention that I am splitting my time with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

The firefighters who came to Ottawa really appreciated the opportunity to stand on the floor of the House of Commons, where we pass laws. All of them asked that I urge the government to introduce changes immediately. The Minister of Justice said the government is going to be introducing changes some time in the fall. Why do we have to wait until the fall? It is not like we do not know what needs to happen right now.

Someone came to my constituency office a couple of weeks ago. One of the responding officers from the Niagara Regional Police Service, whom I had known as a customer of one of my businesses, came to my office. He is a relatively new constable with the NRP. I asked him what he is finding on the streets, if there are a lot of repeat offenders and if he is arresting the same person over and over again, as we have been hearing across the country. He said that I have no idea how many times he has arrested the same person over and over again.

The officer said within a two-month period, one person who had been arrested and released on a promise to appear was arrested 30 times for car theft, break and enter, and assault. This guy had been charged with everything. On a promise to appear, he was released back into the public. The officer also said that oftentimes, they do not even bother arresting people anymore because they know it is simply catch-and-release. That has got to stop in this country. We are better than that.

The violent criminals play the system. There is no reason this individual, Daniel Senecal, should have been released six months early on a year-and-a-half sentence after violently sexually assaulting a young boy and then, within months, violently beating a little girl in Welland within an inch of her life.

Our communities are under siege, and I am not exaggerating about this. My leader pointed out the changes in our country, the statistics and how things have changed in Canada over the last number of years. It is not a slogan to say that the government has been soft on crime. Much of the changes that we have seen and many of the criminals being released have been released through changes over the last 10 years.

The Conservatives are advocating for serious changes to the Criminal Code so we do not have catch and release. These violent criminals need to stay in jail and, as my leader said, we should throw away the key. That is what the public is asking us to do. We have a responsibility in the House to represent the interests of our constituents. I would urge the government to not wait until the fall, but to introduce this legislation.

I agree with the Minister of Justice. We do not have to make this a partisan issue. We need to put these criminals behind bars, not let them on the street and not let them reoffend for the sake of little E., the three-year-old toddler in the city of Welland. Give her some hope. Give her family some hope. Give my community some hope. Give our country some hope that vile, abhorrent, despicable human beings like Daniel Senecal will never see the light of day again.

That is my message today, and I am grateful to my community members for sending me here. I will be presenting a petition on their behalf. They are going door to door now. That is how many people have stepped up. This is not a partisan thing. People have shown up at my constituency office for this petition asking the federal government to change the Criminal Code.

Right now, my guess is that we are going to hit about 100,000 signatures. That is an amazing demonstration of democracy in action. People in my community want to see change, and I am hoping to present that petition to the floor of the House of Commons in the next week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by a number of the words the member has stated, in particular those about putting aside some of the partisan politics. When I think of the commitment that has been made, whether it is from the member opposite to his constituents, or from the Prime Minister to Canadians, I see that bail reform is critically important.

The Prime Minister has made a substantial commitment that we will see bail reform legislation brought in. The issue is going to be, in part, after all the consultations, that we are going to need to get that bail legislation passed more quickly as opposed to more slowly. I am not necessarily saying it has to pass everything.

Would the member not agree that seeing it, at the very least, get to that committee stage, where we can get those outside experts coming to committee, would be a positive thing? Would he support that?