Debates of Sept. 18th, 2025

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this morning on behalf of my constituents from Rivière‑du‑Nord, who once again placed their trust in me last spring.

Today, we are talking about the Conservative Party's motion, which raises an important issue, the 50% increase in violent crime. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about this issue and has raised it in the House many times in recent years.

However, the motion calls on the Liberal government to replace a certain number of laws with what is referred to as the “three strikes and you're out” law. The first problem is that we are not familiar with that law. We have an idea of what it entails from what we have been told, but I cannot see myself asking the House today to suggest that the government pass a law when we do not know the content of that law.

Since 2014, there has been a worrying increase in crime in Canada. The overall crime severity index for Canada rose from 66.9 in 2014 to 77.9 in 2024. For Quebec, the same index rose from 57.66 in 2014 to 63.01 in 2024. These are obviously significant and worrying increases. If we look at the statistics on violent crime in absolute terms, it is a bit tricky, because the population has varied greatly over the last 10 years.

We can therefore look at the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. In Canada, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was 1,076.2. In 2024, it was 1,433. This represents a 33% increase in violent crime in Canada in just under 10 years. In Quebec, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was 966 in 2015, and rose to 1,424 in 2024, an increase of 47%. There has therefore been a real increase in the proportion of violent crimes in Quebec and Canada over the past 10 years.

In Canada, the number of sexual assaults per 100,000 inhabitants rose from 57.3 to 87. In Quebec, it rose from 45 to 98 over the same period, an increase of 119%. That is a significant increase. The number of firearms offences in Canada rose from 6.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 13.1 in 2024, an increase of 100% in 10 years. In Quebec, for the same offences, the number rose from 3.5 to 8.9 offences per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 157%.

I also want to talk about cases of extortion, which are an ongoing concern and have been on the rise in recent years. This is increasingly worrying, especially with what is happening on the Internet. Across Canada, the number of offences rose from 8.5 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 31.8 per 100,000 inhabitants. This is an increase of 272%. In Quebec, for the same period, from 2015 to 2024, the number of offences rose from 14.8 to 38.09 per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 158%.

As we can see, all of those crime rates have increased significantly over the past 10 years. In that regard, we fully share the concerns the Conservatives are raising about how the justice system is being managed. Changes are definitely needed. This needs to be fixed. However, as I said, at this point, we do not know the exact details of our Conservative colleagues' bill, since it has not been introduced in the House. The Conservative leader simply announced that his bill would be sponsored by a member of his party, who is 10th in line in the draw for private members' business.

Therefore, all we know about this motion is what the Conservative leader said in his media scrum and what was reported in the press a few weeks ago. First, he announced that he would make sure that “three-time serious criminals get a minimum prison term of 10 years and up to a life sentence.”

Second, he said that these criminals “will also be designated as dangerous offenders, meaning they cannot be released until they prove they are no longer a danger.”

Third, the only way for them to “obtain their freedom will be through spotless behaviour and clean drug tests” during their prison sentence, among other things.

Fourth, for them to be granted parole, he said earned release will depend on “improving themselves and their life opportunities, such as by learning a trade or upgrading their education.”

Finally, the bill would also repeal Bill C‑75 from the 42nd Parliament. One thing that bill did was amend the provisions on interim release.

There are some good and not-so-good things in this Conservative Party proposal. The parts that talk about offenders learning a trade or upgrading their education are very commendable, in my opinion. In any case, these options already exist in all our prisons. Encouraging inmates to register for these programs, in our view, is a good thing.

However, there are other aspects of the Conservative proposal that make us feel a bit uneasy. It aims to toughen sentences by imposing life sentences for certain crimes, such as those relating to human trafficking, firearms trafficking and fentanyl production. As I have said, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservative motion.

To be clear, we see rising crime as a major concern. Over the past few years, we have proposed a series of tough measures to address criminal violence, and we will continue to do so. For example, I myself have introduced a bill to create an organized crime registry three times in the past 10 years. We all know that criminal organizations are a growing scourge. Not only do they undermine our society and violate the rules of coexistence, but they also corrupt the morality of many of our young teens to a great or at least significant degree. Criminal organizations have been known to direct minors to commit offences, theft and even murder and acts of violence because those minors are prosecuted under a different judicial system than adults charged with crimes and they face less severe consequences. We feel this is despicable. Theft is illegal; it is a crime. Assault is a crime. Murder is a crime. However, when a 40- or 50-year-old adult gets a 14-year-old to commit those crimes, it is not just illegal, it is despicable. We vigorously oppose such crimes.

How, then, do we address that? Clearly, we need to introduce legislation. We are committed to working on this over the coming weeks. However, the idea of creating a registry of criminal organizations, which has already been debated in the House on several occasions, is one that we will revisit. I have no doubt about that. I therefore want to ask our colleagues in the House of Commons for their support on such a bill.

During the last Parliament, in parallel with the creation of the registry of criminal organizations, we proposed a series of measures, including going after the proceeds of crime. Currently, if police officers search a criminal organization's property, they have to prove that the property was acquired illegally. During the last Parliament, we proposed the opposite, namely that once someone is a member of a criminal organization and their property is searched as part of an investigation into criminal offences, it should be up to that individual to prove to us that the property was acquired legally, and not the other way around.

This reverse onus seems useful, even essential, for fighting organized crime effectively. We will come back with some suggestions as we move forward.

We also proposed clarifying the application of the provisions imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan for serious crimes. Let me be clear about this: As far as I am concerned, the Supreme Court is right. When someone is charged with a crime they should be judged within a reasonable time frame. That is already set out in the Charter. These time frames were rightly defined by the Supreme Court. The problem is that the current system is unable to handle these cases within a reasonable time frame. In my opinion, the fault lies largely with the lack of necessary resources made available to the courts by our governments. I have also repeatedly asked that greater diligence be shown in filling judicial vacancies. There have been delays that I consider completely unreasonable. That is the first thing that needs to be done to prevent stays of proceedings, especially when it comes to violent crimes that are rebuked by society as a whole. That is one thing.

Obviously, the justice system needs to be provided with courtrooms, clerks, bailiffs, court officers, and so on. On the federal government side, the appointment of judges within a reasonable time frame is essential. These judges must be impartial, having no political allegiance and showing no bias toward any of the political parties in power. That, too, is a blight that truly tarnishes our justice system.

Limiting the use of the Jordan decision by appointing judges is one thing, but we proposed going further in the last Parliament. We said that when there are unreasonable delays, which we deplore, a court should be allowed to extend the time frame imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada for certain serious or category 1 crimes. Obviously, this exemption must be limited and used sparingly. It should not be a free-for-all. However, sex crimes, murder, kidnapping, gun crime and terrorism are crimes that must be tried. We cannot tell the public that someone charged with murder, rape or kidnapping will be let go because we dragged our feet for two years and ran out of time to try him. That does not work. In a self-respecting, properly-run society, that is not the way to go.

First, we proposed creating an organized crime registry. Second, we proposed allowing the courts to waive the time frame imposed by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision for serious crimes, and in limited circumstances.

The third measure we proposed to combat rising crime was to remove the religious exemption. Here too, we have seen situations that are completely preposterous. On October 28, 2023, in Montreal, preacher Adil Charkaoui said, in Arabic, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them!” That seems pretty clear to me. In my mind, there is no room for interpretation. Unfortunately, the director of public prosecutions, who is responsible for prosecuting such cases, decided not to prosecute the imam for lack of evidence, even though the speech was filmed, recorded, and broadcast on virtually all media outlets. We know that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code criminalize hate speech. There are two religious exemptions: one that allows for a reasonable defence against a charge of hate speech if the speech is based on a religious text in which one believes, and the same applies to anti-Semitism. As far as we are concerned, these are exemptions that have no place in our society and must be removed from the Criminal Code.

We introduced a bill on this subject in the previous Parliament. We will come back to that. This is another way of fighting the increase in crime effectively.

Then, there is the matter of mandatory minium sentences. When the Conservative Party took office over 15 years ago, it brought in mandatory minimum sentences. The Supreme Court ruled that they were illegal, that these sentences violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that they had to be done away with. Under Justin Trudeau, the previous Liberal government eliminated these mandatory minimum sentences. Now, the Conservatives want to bring them back.

This is a worthwhile debate. In my opinion, there is no position that is indefensible. However, there is a middle ground that we could consider. In Quebec, we believe in rehabilitating inmates, particularly young inmates. Mandatory minimum sentences tie the hands of the judge hearing the case and prevent him or her from handing down a sentence that is often better suited to the circumstances, to the situation of the individual being heard by the court. We think that the courts must be allowed to waive mandatory minimum sentences.

Let us restore certain minimum sentences as long as we comply with the provisions or criteria set out by the Supreme Court. Obviously, we will not be going back to the Supreme Court every 10 years, or at least I hope not. Let us comply with these criteria. Let us bring back some mandatory minimum sentences. However, we could make it possible for a trial judge to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. This would require the judge to justify the exceptional circumstances, where applicable, and then depart from the minimum sentence if they really have to. We think that is an interesting proposal.

The Bloc Québécois is generous. We are letting our Conservative colleagues pick and choose from among our proposals, adapt them if they wish and make them their own. They can also simply support our bills when we introduce them. However, we must always keep in mind that the goal is not to fill up prisons. The goal is to live in a safe society where people can thrive, where young offenders can be rehabilitated. We want to invest in rehabilitation. We want to live in a free democratic society that respects everyone's rights.

The idea of punishing repeat offenders more harshly based on past offences is not new. A number of U.S. states already do this. It was introduced in the 1990s. Since then, American prisons have been filled with people who could perhaps have been rehabilitated. I will not comment on that, as I am not an expert on the American legal system. However, we have our own justice system, our own society and our own values, and I think we have to be careful when it comes to importing measures in effect elsewhere into Quebec and Canada.

I want to reiterate the idea of the organized crime registry. It was in Bill C‑420, which we introduced during the 44th Parliament. We also introduced Bill C‑392, concerning the Supreme Court's Jordan decision deadlines, and Bill C‑373, concerning the abolition of religious exemptions, during that same Parliament. Together with the minimum sentence proposal I was just talking about, all of these ideas can help fight crime.

We generously invite our Conservative colleagues to draw inspiration from these ideas. The current government should do likewise, to help us live in a society where everything works and where offenders can be rehabilitated and successfully rejoin society.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity during the nineties to be the justice critic in the province of Manitoba. I say that because I am very familiar with provincial responsibilities. When we think of the issue of crime and safety, it is not only Ottawa that plays a role. The Prime Minister has recognized on this issue the important role the federal government plays, and he has made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail legislation this fall. We will see significant changes to the bail legislation, based on the feedback that Liberal members of Parliament heard from their constituents, whether during the election or post-election.

However, it needs to be recognized that local law enforcement officers and provincial jurisdictions also have a role to play and can have an impact. I know that for a fact because I was a justice critic.

I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts on the fact that, yes, it is important that we do our job here in Ottawa, but that the provinces and municipalities also have to work together to deal with this serious issue that Canadians want us to face.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is correct in saying that the responsibility for fighting crime and managing the justice system does not fall solely to the federal government. It is shared with the provincial governments.

However, I want members to understand that if we set an example by doing what needs to be done here, it may help the provinces follow suit. If the government fills all the judicial vacancies, the provinces will follow suit. However, it is important to note that the provinces lack funds. The money is here in Ottawa, but the needs are in the provinces. Building courthouses, opening courtrooms, paying clerks and bailiffs: that all costs money. I think it is important to take that into account during the federal-provincial negotiations around transfers.

As I have often said, we are neglecting our judicial system, yet it is the backbone of society. The day our citizens lose confidence in that system, we will regret it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is also important that we brought forward Bill C-2. Within the bill, there are in fact measures that would deal with issues such as Canada Post and the possibility of fentanyl being put into envelopes, the sharing of information to deal with issues like extortion, and so forth.

I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts on this: We can bring legislation forward, and it is good to have a healthy debate in the House on it, but we must also recognize that debates can continue in the standing committees, where, along with consultations with Canadians, they can potentially lead to positive amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not have to speak to Bill C-2 right now, so I will not bother. I will reserve the right to speak to it when the time comes.

Bill C‑2 has both good and bad aspects. One of its proposals is an invasion of people's privacy, and this type of intervention strikes us as deplorable and dangerous. We will have to look at this bill and clarify some things. However, it does have some positive aspects.

Regarding Bill C‑2, I have to say yes and no. We will see. We said we would vote in favour of the bill to send it to committee. I am not sure we will still support the bill after it comes back from committee. We will have to decide at that time.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the speech he gave just now, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord quoted comments made by Adil Charkaoui, a very controversial religious leader, during a demonstration literally calling for Jews to be hunted down and exterminated. These extremely violent and hateful comments were made under the guise of religion. As my colleague quite rightly pointed out, the authorities did not even bother to arrest him and bring him to justice, because such statements are protected under the Criminal Code. Whenever we raise this issue with our fellow MPs, particularly the Conservatives, they say that the police already have the power to arrest people who make such statements, but that is false.

Here is my question for my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord. Does he see this as another example of the divide between what Quebec society values and what the rest of Canada seems to value when it comes to freedom of expression in a religious context?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. There is indeed a great divide between Quebeckers' values on this religion issue and those of the rest of Canada.

I am not saying that Quebeckers are better than anyone else. That is not the point. There is a difference, though. We believe that religion should remain in the home, in each individual's heart and mind. In our view, when it comes to religion, public practice and public statements lead to crisis and discord.

When it comes to hate speech, it goes even further. People are allowed to tell other people not only how to think, but also how to think about destroying, killing and eliminating religious adversaries. I do not even think “religious adversaries” is the right term. It goes even further. When someone's religion tells them to kill a person, I think their religion should be cast aside. We are against that. We will almost certainly come back with a bill on this subject.

These exemptions have no place in the Criminal Code. Many of my colleagues on both the Liberal and Conservative sides tell me that I am right on this issue. However, when they come to the House to vote, they vote no. Now I am calling on them once again. These two religious exemptions that allow hate speech based on religious texts must be banished from the Criminal Code.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I consider my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord an ally. As the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women, I have had discussions with him on the issues of violence against women.

My colleague talked about the possibility of occasional exceptions, and bringing back certain mandatory minimum sentences. We talked about that during debate on Bill C‑5. We will come back to it because in committee our next study is on clause 810 and whether it is appropriate in cases of violence against women. In any case, the issue of Bill C‑5 will be brought up.

I would like my colleague to talk about the fact the Bloc Québécois really wanted to act on the issue of sexual offences and violent crimes against women, propose this exception and restore some minimum sentences.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. Crimes involving violence against women, but also against any individual, are unacceptable in our society, and we are proposing to fight this type of crime. As for mandatory minimum sentences, yes, we should consider using them in such cases.

That being said, I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois is generally against mandatory minimum sentences. We trust our courts and want judges, those human beings who hear cases, to be able to decide the appropriate sentence without being tied to a concept established in a law or a code that is often, but not always, appropriate.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate my colleague's comments. He made some very good points. Could he provide more information with regard to judicial independence?

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard about Justice Leckey this week. This judge has donated money to the Liberal Party and criticized Quebec's laws on secularism and the French language, and we feel it is inappropriate for him to become a Quebec Superior Court justice. That is but one example. There are many others. I would be delighted to talk about them with my colleague.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of the common people. This will be my first speech in the current Parliament, so let me begin with thank yous.

I thank my brilliant and beautiful wife, Anaida, a fierce fighter and a problem-solver. She is our very own MacGyver; she can solve any problem. She is an entrepreneur, the love of my life, the greatest adviser I have ever had, someone who inspires me to keep on going through all hardship, and most of all, a courageous and strong mother who is always there for our kids, Cruz and Valentina, fighting every day and in every way to make sure our little Valentina has all of the opportunities every other child enjoys.

I also want to thank tío Pablo and tía Maria, who are there to help us and take care of our children so that we can do this work. We are very grateful to them.

I also want to thank our children, Valentina and Cruz. I am sorry that their father is often away. He is often in a hotel, a plane or an important meeting far from home. I know that my son Cruz says that he is mad at daddy, because daddy works too much. I want Valentina and Cruz to know we are working for an important cause: the country in which they will live for the rest of their lives. Our country is worth the sacrifices and effort we make each day.

I want to thank the great people of Battle River—Crowfoot. Some people said it must have been a burden to go straight into a by-election campaign right after a national election. I say it was a blessing to spend time with such amazing, extraordinary people. These are the people who feed, power and protect our country. They welcomed me with open arms, even though they knew I was a city boy from Calgary and that Calgary is a long way from consort, coronation or even Camrose. They brought this city boy in and gave him some good rural education. They schooled me in much wisdom, whether it was at the bronc matches, the rodeos, the farmers markets or the other gatherings. They taught me and reinstilled in me the great values of hard work, of family, of community, of self-reliance, of strength and of patriotism. To them, I will always be grateful.

Most of all, I will be grateful to the great Damien Kurek, a wonderful patriot who put his country before himself. He is a father and, of course most of all, a farm boy. He brought me to the farm and taught me a few lessons. He even brought me into his new seeder at the beginning of the season. I got inside and asked question after question. Eventually, I could see he was getting impatient with me. He told me, “You know, this machine depreciates at a rate of $400 an hour, so in the time you've been asking these questions, it has cost me 100 bucks.” I am not a farmer, but Damien told me that if I were, I would be outstanding in my field. Oh, come on. I get at least one dad joke, maybe a laugh. It is a tough crowd around here.

These are the people who feed, power and protect our country. Farmers and the ranchers feed our nation. These are not just any farmers. Many of them are century farmers, meaning their families have been there for over 100 years. They survived through boom and bust, through depression and drought, on some of the toughest farmland in the entire world. In fact, when many of the early pioneers arrived in the special areas of eastern Alberta, they were told not to bother, as there was not enough rain or soil to farm there. They said they would do it anyway.

Five or six generations later, those same family names are engraved on signs that we can see up and down the highways and byways of this incredible community. Through all the hardship, it has been because of their dedication to their families, by passing on to the next generation what they inherited from the previous, that these incredible families continue to make the dry, thin soils of the region blossom and bloom, and take food from their farms to feed families across the country. The great ranchers who put their herds onto the great grasslands of eastern Alberta are second to none in the world, and I pledge to forever be their most loyal customer.

It is not just that. These are the people who power our country. There are oil workers of all different trades. I will give just one example. The 600 people of Hardisty, Alberta, live in a town where there is a tank farm that moves over $90 billion of petroleum products. This $90 billion is more than the GDP of about 50 of the world's countries, if anyone can imagine. It is 600 people who move this oil through roughly a half-dozen pipelines, an amount that grows every single day.

Finally, we have those who protect our country. They are the soldiers at CFB Wainwright, who are willing to lay their lives down for their country, and the prison guards in Drumheller, who keep the most dangerous people away from our children and communities, taking risks every day with their lives that none of us would be prepared to take. It is because of these soldiers and prison guards that we can live in a safe country, and it is a privilege to represent them.

It is for them and all Canadians that Conservatives are here fighting today. Our purpose is to restore the Canadian promise, to make this a country where hard work is rewarded, where food and homes are affordable, where streets are safe, where borders are solid and where we are all united under a single Canadian flag, Canadians first, regardless of our origins.

The people of Battle River—Crowfoot are a microcosm of the suffering that has unfolded over the last 10 years of Liberal government. Let us start with their paycheques and take-home pay. In Battle River—Crowfoot, energy workers are under attack. They have seen Canada's biggest industry under a direct assault by a federal government that sought to “keep it in the ground”, an objective imposed by previous prime minister Justin Trudeau on the advice of the current Prime Minister. He wrote that 50% of Canada's oil would have to stay in the ground and testified against building a pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, to the Pacific to allow us to go around the Americans and reach 2.5 billion customers overseas.

The Prime Minister promised that he would be different after his protege, whom he advised, drove hundreds of billions of dollars out of our country, but in fact he has been worse on matters of energy. There have been many photo ops and meetings, papers have been shuffled and new offices have been created, but all of that has created a show that has amounted to nothing. In reality, he is blocking 38 projects that are currently sitting before federal regulators. He has kept in place the industrial carbon tax, the energy cap, the new carbon tax under a different name and the fuel standard, and he has created a new bureaucracy that will further slow down progress on these projects.

In the six months the Prime Minister has been in power, a net $50 billion of investment has fled our country due to his high taxes and increased regulation and red tape. In fact, just this week, 96 energy CEOs wrote that nothing he has done will reverse the damage the Liberals have exacted on our energy industry. The only way forward is to remove these terrible laws.

The irony of his approach is this. He admits that his laws block energy production, but instead of getting rid of those laws, he passes another law to go around the bad law. He admits his bureaucracies block energy production, but instead of getting rid of those bureaucracies, he creates a new bureaucracy to get around the old bureaucracies. It seems that he confuses the problem with the solution. Why not just accept that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? If there is an obstacle, get rid of the obstacle. Put simply, he should get out of the way.

That is one example of how he blocks people from earning paycheques, and if they should be lucky enough to earn any paycheque at all, he takes a big bite out of it. Liberal taxes now represent a higher cost than food, clothing and shelter combined for Canadians, meaning that government is the single-biggest cost in their lives, a cost that has risen dramatically in the 10 years of Liberal government. What is left of people's take-home pay gets eaten up by Liberal inflation, which occurs when governments create cash faster than the economy creates the goods that cash buys.

The Prime Minister is a notorious inflationist. He has a terrible record on the subject. Of course, when he was the governor of the Bank of England, he had the second-highest inflation rate in all of the G7, and only worse than what the Liberal government provided here in Canada. He caused the housing crisis there by printing cash, and of course, the British media said that he was the unreliable boyfriend of central banking, constantly changing his mind and engaging in decisions that drove up costs and drove down growth. Here he is repeating the same mistakes in Canada that he made over there, the same mistakes he advised Justin Trudeau to make. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

We as Conservatives want to slash the bureaucracy, the consultants, the foreign aid, the corporate welfare and the handouts to phony refugees to bring down costs so that government will no longer print money and we can preserve the purchasing power of our dollar. Our purpose is to have stronger take-home pay, which means we have to unlock paycheques by repealing Liberal antidevelopment laws to make this the fastest place on earth to get a building permit and by unlocking the free enterprise system with an open-for-business policy.

We ask the government to accept our positive solutions. We ask it to adopt the Canadian sovereignty act, which would make our economy strong, self-reliant and stand on its own two feet. Let us cut income taxes so that hard work once again pays off and people bring home more of each dollar they earn. Let us preserve purchasing power by ending the money-printing and allowing our dollar to go further. These are among the positive solutions that we ask the Liberal government to get out of the way of and support.

Increasingly, people feel endangered in their own communities. I saw this in rural Alberta, where people did not even lock their doors 10 years ago. Now they worry about burglars breaking in and about thieves siphoning fuel and stealing copper wire on their properties. In big cities, people are terrorized by story after story of increasing crime. The Liberals love to say that it is just sensationalism and that all the brainy experts will tell us crime is down. I am sorry, but that does not work either. Violent crime is up 55%, gun crime is up 130%, extortion is up 330%, homicides are up 29%, hate crimes are up 258%, sexual assault is up 76%, auto theft is up 25% and overdoses are up 152% under the catch-and-release Liberal justice system. All of this happened as a direct result of Liberal laws that turn criminals loose on our streets so they can reoffend with no consequences.

We warned of this when these bills were first passed, but the Liberals went ahead anyway. Every single member of the current Liberal caucus who was here before the last election voted for all of these laws and voted to keep them in place, including the new Liberal justice minister, whose very appointment is a signal that the Prime Minister is not serious about reversing the damage his party has done. The fact that he would name Justin Trudeau's worst minister to be in charge of crime shows that he is happy to continue with the disastrous criminal justice policies that got us into this mess.

This minister was in charge of immigration when population growth went up 300%. He single-handedly destroyed our immigration system, overcrowding housing, our job market and our health care system. The Liberals then moved him over to housing, where he delivered the most expensive housing costs in Canada's history and in all of the G7. As a punishment for all of this failure, the new Prime Minister has now appointed him to be in charge of crime. We can imagine the results we will get.

What have they done together ever since?

[An hon. member]

Nothing.

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

No, they have not done nothing; they have done worse than nothing.

Mr. Speaker, they have obstructed action. There is obstructionism by the Liberal Party to keep in place the failed laws that are unleashing chaos on our streets.

Conservatives said in the spring, right after the election, let us immediately reverse catch-and-release Liberal laws and lock up the criminals that the government was turning free. Instead, the Prime Minister said we would go on vacation. What has been the consequence of that decision? It is real a human cost. In Kelowna, 15 people were arrested 1,300 times in one year, which is almost 100 arrests per offender per year. In Penticton, there is one guy named Levi who does so much crime that police told me that when he is out of prison, he raises the crime rate for the entire city. That is one guy. In Vancouver, 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times, which is 150 arrests per offender per year. How is this possible? Well, they are automatically released under a Liberal law, Bill C-75, which requires judges to release the offender at the earliest opportunity under “the least onerous conditions”.

Here are the stories of the catch-and-release system.

Myles Sanderson stabbed 11 people to death and injured another 18 on the James Smith Cree Nation reserve and in nearby Weldon, Saskatchewan. This is an offender who had already been arrested for 46 prior offences, including things like armed robbery and assault. He also had a pattern of domestic abuse before he was released.

Matthew McQuarrie was sentenced to life in prison for stabbing Emerson Sprung to death and burying him in a shallow grave in a park in Meaford, Ontario, in May 2020. McQuarrie, who had an extensive criminal history dating back to 2001, was in jail in the months leading up to Sprung's murder on separate charges but was released at the height of COVID.

Tyrone Simard killed his sister and attacked several others in Hollow Water First Nation in Manitoba on September 4, 2025. He had been charged with violent offences, including assault with a weapon, sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, which are all offences that happened before his release and alleged instances going back over eight years. He was out on bail when he carried out his attack.

In March, a suspect in a trio of unprovoked stabbings was found to have been previously released on bail.

On August 31, 25-year-old Daniel Senecal was arrested and charged by Niagara police after a violent sexual assault on a three-year-old child who was in her own bed, the place where she should have been safest. He was out on release even though he had already assaulted a 12-year-old.

All of these scumbags should have been in jail, and if Conservative laws had been in place, they would have been in jail. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister thought his summer vacation was more important. Even since he has returned, he and his justice minister have been obstructing our efforts to lock up these criminals and change the law. Once again, if the Liberals are not prepared to reverse their own mistakes, then get out of the way and let Conservatives make Canadians safer. We do this not out of hatred for the criminal but out of love for the victims, and out of determination to make our communities safe again. We as Conservatives want to restore a country where hard work pays off with beautiful homes, nutritious food and safe streets where people are united under a proud flag. We set four main priorities for our return to Parliament: stronger take-home pay, safer streets, secure borders and a self-reliant nation.

We are here to oppose the bad the government does and expose its corrupt behaviour, and also to propose solutions that will improve the lives of the Canadian people. We call on the government to stop the obstruction, put aside the partisanship, work with us on the solutions that all Canadians have asked for and bring about the real change that Canadians are demanding. We will put our country ahead of party, as always, because we are Canadians first. We love our country and we want to restore its promise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot back to this place.

The member started his speech by talking about the importance of agriculture and the ranching community in Alberta and across the Prairies. To him, I say that he has an ally here in me and this government in supporting agriculture. I am glad to hear that he will be a champion for agriculture in the House.

However, I had the opportunity to look through the Conservative platform from back in April 2025, and there is next to no mention of farmers or ranchers whatsoever. I was in a debate with the hon. member for Foothills during the election, and it was sad to see that there was next to nothing in the platform around agriculture despite the fact that we hear a lot about that from the Conservative Party.

Moving forward, will the member for Battle River—Crowfoot make sure that he will have more to say about farmers to make sure they are not taken for granted?

I also want to ask a question about the clean fuel standard.

I met with the Canola Council of Canada this week, alongside the Prime Minister. They believe that the clean fuel standard is an important driver for western Canadian agriculture, especially at this moment.

Why is the member against that policy at a time when it really matters for western Canadian farmers?

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

Mr. Speaker, the standard the member talks about is actually a new carbon tax. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who relied on information supplied by the government itself, it will add 17¢ a litre to the cost of fuel at the pump. That 17¢ a litre is exactly the price that Canadians were paying on the previous Liberal carbon tax.

Thankfully, the Conservatives forced the Liberals to reverse themselves after they brought in and increased that tax, and after the current Prime Minister had written about the need to raise that tax. At the time, I said thank goodness we have a short reprieve, but if the Liberals are re-elected, they will bring in another carbon tax. Sadly, I regret to inform the House that I was right about that. The Liberals are bringing in a new carbon tax, which will not only harm consumers but also harm farmers because farmers use fuel in order to produce food. We are against all carbon taxes. We want to get rid of all carbon taxes for everyone, for real and for good.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing on which the Bloc Québécois is in agreement with the Conservative Party. We are partners in that we also view rising crime as a major concern. We will therefore be partners when it comes time to discuss this issue. However, I would like to draw my colleague's attention to another statistic. In 2024 alone, 274 criminal cases were dropped in Quebec because of the Jordan decision.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

People who wish to have conversations during the question and comments period may do so outside the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would like to thank the member for Drummond. Indeed, if there are any parliamentary secretaries who wish to have discussions with members from across the aisle, I would encourage them to do so outside the House.

The member for Shefford may finish her question or comment.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is also very concerned about rising crime. We will therefore be partners when it comes time to discuss this issue. However, I would like to draw my colleague's attention to another very troubling statistic. In 2024 alone, 274 cases were dropped in Quebec because of the Jordan decision.

If we want to restore the confidence of victims and the public, would it not be better to have a law that addresses the issue created by the Jordan decision and that reforms the justice system, rather than a populist law?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, and I share my colleague's concerns about the Jordan principle, which has even enabled some offenders to avoid trial and prison time.

Why is it taking so long for cases to be heard by the courts? It is because there is a small group of criminals who keep coming back into the system again and again. Why do they keep coming back? It is because they are released. If these criminals were kept in prison, then they would not be back out on the streets committing more crimes, getting arrested and standing trial, consuming court resources.

Let us keep repeat offenders in prison with a “three strikes” law. These criminals will stay in prison for at least 10 years without parole, bail or any other form of release. That will unclog our justice system, so that the courts can hold other trials rather than simply trying the same criminals over and over again.

We need a “three strikes and you're out” law so we do not have to recycle the same group of criminals again and again through the system and cause delays. After three strikes, there is no bail, parole, probation or house arrest, and at least 10 years behind bars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for raising the case of Emerson Sprung, somebody from my own riding who was murdered by an individual out on bail.

I have been hearing for years now from the local law enforcement in my riding about the need for this bail reform and the fact that we have these repeat violent offenders. I know the Leader of the Opposition has been around the country over the last few years talking to police associations and police chiefs.

Could the Leader of the Opposition please expand on what he is hearing from the police, the people who are out day after day keeping our Canadian citizens safe, yet facing these criminals and rearresting every single one of them?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank that member for his incredible and distinguished service to the Canadian Armed Forces. He is a very distinguished member.

The other heroes who also wear a uniform are police officers. They tell me they are exhausted from arresting the same offenders over and over again. They say that the criminals laugh at them. They say that, often, criminals now confess to their crimes in the back seat of the car because they do not care if they get convicted, knowing that there will be no penalty whatsoever. This is the direct result of a Liberal law, Bill C-75, requiring the immediate release of the offender at the earliest opportunity and under “the least onerous conditions”, and of Bill C-5, the house arrest law.

What I say to those police officers is that we want them to have fewer return customers. We will bring in “three strikes and you're out” to keep these dangerous offenders in the slammer. We will lock them up and throw away the key.

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

Mr. Speaker, no one does it better than the leader of the Conservative Party. He understands—