House Publications

     moved that Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), be read the first time.

     He said: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce Bill S-228, seconded by the member for Lethbridge. This legislation is identical to amended Bill S-250, which the Senate unanimously endorsed and sent to the House of Commons in October 2024.

    Bill S-228 directly confronts the abhorrent and ongoing reality of the forced and coerced sterilization of women, indigenous women and other marginalized individuals in Canada. By making it explicit in the Criminal Code that performing sterilization without consent constitutes aggravated assault under subsection 268(1), we would send a clear message that such acts will not be tolerated in our society.

    I want to express my deepest gratitude to Senator Boyer, whose vision and leadership have been instrumental in shaping the bill, along with Senator Wells. Most importantly, I honour the survivors. Some of them are with us in Ottawa today, specifically from the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice. Combined, their courage, resilience and unwavering advocacy have brought this issue to the forefront.

    Without their voices and determination, this legislation would not be before us today. Let us allow this opportunity to get the bill passed. Now is the time to act to protect the vulnerable, uphold justice and ensure that such violations never happen again in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House that comes from firearms owners who are concerned about past legislation and new orders in council in which the government targets law-abiding firearms owners.

    The petitioners say that Bill C-21 does nothing to tackle firearms violence, but rather adds red tape to law-abiding Canadians. They also describe how the bill does little to tackle the true source of firearms violence: gangs and organized crime.

    The petitioners are calling on the government to repeal Bill C-21 and devote greater resources to police so they can combat the sources of illegal firearms.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about human rights protections in India.

    The petition calls upon the House of Commons to formally ensure that all trade deals with India, including the early progress trade agreement, the comprehensive economic partnership agreement and the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, initiate targeted sanctions against extremists guilty of inciting violence against religious minorities in India, and, lastly, promote mutually respectful and mutually beneficial human rights dialogue in Canada and India.

    Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 282, originally tabled on September 15, 2025, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled in an electronic format.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    [For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

    Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    I wish to inform the House that I have received notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. Leader of the Opposition to rise and make a brief intervention.

    Mr. Speaker, let us say someone mortgaged their house and took risks. They stayed up late wondering how they would pay the bills. Finally, after all that, they have success: a wonderful business with 30 to 50 people that is growing every day. Then suddenly the phone rings, and on the other end of the line, someone is threatening that if they do not pay millions of dollars to a gang, their house will be burned down, their children's bedroom will be shot up in the middle of the night or their employees may be killed. That sounds like an extreme case, but it has now become the norm.

    Radical open door and open border policies by the Liberals have allowed gangsters to visit this country and gain visitor visas, which are granted to them without any criminal background checks. Catch-and-release laws passed by the Liberal government under Bill C-5, which lowered the jail sentence for extortion with a gun, have caused an extortion crisis across this country. To put it in perspective, since the Liberal government took office, extortion is up 330%. In British Columbia, it is up 400%. In the Lower Mainland, it is up 500%. Countless families have received threatening phone calls.

    Just the other day, I met with the sons of a lifelong successful businessman who was mercilessly killed by gangsters without any provocation. People are living in terror in places like Surrey, northeast Calgary, parts of Edmonton, Brampton, Windsor and elsewhere. Over the weekend, I attended events at numerous businesses where literally dozens of people told me they have personally received threatening phone calls. They lie awake at night wondering if a bullet will fly through their children's front window or if they will be gunned down when they walk out the door.

    This crisis was entirely avoidable, but Liberal policies have provoked it. The Liberals have released extortionists onto the streets with lower prison sentences. They have brought foreign gangsters and criminals to our shores by granting visitor visas and opening up our country to terror. After much pressure from Conservatives, they finally agreed to ban the Bishnoi group, but it was too late. They let the Bishnoi gangsters into this country in the first place because they do not protect our borders, and their radical policies on immigration have endangered many of the very people who came here lawfully and legitimately.

    If we look at these facts and look at the numbers, we have no choice but to conclude that we have a Liberal extortion emergency in this country. People are living in terror, and it is a shame that the Liberals have allowed this crisis to form and grow. It is a shame that the very communities that have vested support in the Liberal Party are now the ones paying the biggest price for the violence and carnage that Liberal policies have unleashed.

    We as Conservatives will state clearly that extortion is a crisis after 10 years of the Liberals. We need an emergency debate to address this extortion crisis, and we must enact a serious plan to end extortion so Canadian small business owners can go back to living their lives, creating jobs, serving customers and making life affordable again for this country.

    Our plan is very clear. We need mandatory jail time to lock extortionists up and throw away the key; stronger borders to keep and kick extortionists out of our country; and a clear self-defence law so that people can protect themselves in their homes when invaded by extortionists or other burglars.

    This is an emergency. We have the answer. Let us restore safety, tranquility and peace to our streets.

     I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his intervention. However, I am not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-14, which is quite a substantial bill with a relatively broad scope. It is clear that this is something that the House has been very interested in. Several private members' bills have been introduced that deal directly or indirectly with the same subject as Bill C‑14. I expect that this will open the door to some very interesting debate, if not in the House, then at least in committee.

    According to the minister, Bill C‑14 seeks to tighten bail rules. It also affects other aspects of the Criminal Code and even the Youth Criminal Justice Act, or YCJA. I will not get into all of the details because there is a lot of material in there, but I do want to go over a few aspects of the bill. Before I do that, however, I just want to give a little background on the situation.

    Contrary to popular belief, we know that the number of inmates awaiting trial has never been higher. Considering how many bail reform bills that have been tabled, a lot of people seem to believe that accused persons are normally released pending trial. However, inmates awaiting trial accounted for 64% of the prison population in 2019-20. By 2022-23, the percentage had gone up to 72%, which is extremely high. This is not a great look for Canada. I believe the only country with a higher percentage is the United States, which is not exactly a good role model, generally speaking. The idea that accused persons are systematically being released is therefore a misperception.

    The other factor to consider is that there is no such thing as zero risk of recidivism. We may want to eliminate the possibility of a crime being committed by a person awaiting trial, but the only way to achieve that would be to systematically imprison everyone who is accused of any offence, however minor. This would very likely create other problems, not least of which would be prison overcrowding. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that prisons are often referred to as schools for crime, so increasing the prison population could potentially create more problems than it would solve. All of this must be kept in mind.

    It is also important not to give in to the temptation to think that the judges analyzing an accused person's risk of recidivism do not take a whole host of criteria, particularly the person's criminal history, into account when they determine whether the person should be released. The judge analyzes the accused person's record and also looks at the nature of the offences. A great deal of data is taken into consideration by the judges. They have some discretion, and it is not a given that a person will be released so easily. People must not think that judges have no tools for keeping accused persons in custody while awaiting trial. An in-depth analysis of the bill is in order.

    I would like to go over some general clauses and provide a few examples of what is in the bill. As a reminder, judicial discretion is generally a central consideration when analyzing the justice system. Members may be tempted to systematically tell judges what they should do and to tie their hands, but that could lead to situations that would simply not make sense, situations where judges would be forced to do things they do not want to do, just because parliamentarians tried to be more cautious than those on the ground were suggesting.

    There is a possibility that some things might conflict with certain provisions in the bill. For example, section 718 of the Criminal Code already sets out how a sentence is determined. It would conflict with one element in the bill, namely consecutive sentencing. For repeat offenders, the bill would require consecutive sentences for offences arising out of the same initial event. That would conflict with the principle set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides that sentencing should have certain objectives, including “to denounce unlawful conduct” but also “to deter the offender” and “to separate offenders from society, where necessary”. Sentencing also seeks “to assist in rehabilitating offenders” and “to provide reparations for harm done”. Lastly, sentencing should “promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or the community”. There are already provisions for analyzing how a sentence should be imposed. Would this bill not override these provisions by systematically imposing consecutive sentences?

     There are also clauses dealing with freedom of expression that should be studied in committee, including the one that would make interfering with access to essential infrastructure an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes. In a way, would this not curtail freedom of expression, for example in the event of protests that may be deemed illegal? Certain protests that took place not too far from here come to mind. That could potentially be considered an aggravating circumstance. Do we want to go down that path? That raises some questions.

     That being said, we should not throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. Some of the amendments proposed in the bill are interesting, particularly with regard to the YCJA, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. For example, one of the clauses seeks to fill a sort of legal vacuum in the YCJA regarding the length of time a record is kept when a young offender is the subject of an investigation and the investigation is dropped. The courts have attempted to fix this legal vacuum by suggesting record retention periods. A retention period is codified in the bill, but the proposed period may need to be reviewed, because the bill suggests that records should be retained for two years for a young person who is the subject of an investigation that is discontinued, whereas when a young person is convicted of an offence but given an absolute discharge, their record is kept for one year. The bill says that the active record for someone who has been the subject of an investigation that was subsequently dropped should be retained longer than for a young person who has been convicted. There are some minor contradictions like this that will need to be addressed.

    One interesting amendment to the YCJA is the codification of the definition of “violent offence”. The bill codifies what was determined by the Supreme Court in 2005. It expands the application of the definition of “violent offence” found in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Act. The emphasis is on the repercussions of the offence on the victim, rather than the legal characterization of the offence. The amendment establishes that the definition of a violent offence is based on whether it caused harm, including psychological harm, rather than on whether the offence involved the use of force, in line with the Supreme Court's rulings in this area. This could be a good amendment. Still, it remains to be seen whether it is actually useful, given that the court has already codified this.

    However, the bill has a blind spot with regard to offences involving a firearm. There is a definition of what constitutes a violent offence, which was not defined in the YCJA, but offences involving a firearm are left out altogether. As we know, firearm use is a serious problem among young offenders nowadays. It is extremely difficult for Crown attorneys to get someone committed to custody for an offence involving a firearm. It might be worthwhile to look into this aspect at committee, as it seems to be one of the bill's blind spots.

    In light of the section on the YCJA, which adds some valuable elements to the bill, we suggest that the bill be passed at second reading and referred to the committee so that it can be studied in greater depth with a view to making good recommendations while still preserving certain essential criteria, such as judicial discretion. That work will be particularly meaningful.

    I would like to take the few seconds that I have left to thank two of my colleagues—they know who they are—for the groundwork they did on Bill C-14. They have already given us some good ideas about what we should be looking at in committee. I want to acknowledge them here, and I will certainly be calling upon them again for additional matters.

     Mr. Speaker, I was surprised today by the Conservatives' attempt to bring forward an emergency debate when talking about the issue of extortion. Extortion is actually in Bill C-14, so there is time in which we can see tangible actions being taken in order to deal with important issues like extortion. I appreciate the Bloc's position in seeming to support the bill's at least going to committee.

     Does the member believe that it is in the best interest of people who are concerned about extortion to see the legislation go to committee at the very least, so we can hear more about these types of important issues?

    Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's question. However, he may be conflating different issues.

    The issue of extortion, as addressed in Bill C-14, is important. However, from what I read, the Conservatives' request for an emergency debate does not specifically target extortion itself; rather, it focuses on the fact that the government is letting people with a known criminal past into the country and that those people are then committing crimes here.

    Members may or may not agree with the substance of the Conservatives' request, but I think these are two different issues that need to be looked at separately. We do need specific sanctions for extortion crimes, but we also have to consider the fact that people who may be more likely to commit such crimes are being let into the country.

    Mr. Speaker, I think we can both agree that there are at least two key reasons for our Criminal Code and our corrections system. One is the protection of the public, and the other is the hope that these offenders will somehow be rehabilitated in prison. We know, after 10 years of the Liberal government, that the Liberals have failed to protect the public in policies such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, but what is less talked about is their failure to rehabilitate offenders.

    I want the member to talk about whether she is aware of the early resignation of the Office of the Correctional Investigator and his concerns that the government has failed to fund programs on mental health in prisons, which are essential to rehabilitating prisoners.

    Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in this question, but I would like to repeat a statistic I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. There are more accused persons awaiting trial in prison today than there were, say, five years ago. During the Liberals' time in office, more accused persons have been kept in prison than in the past, yet the Conservatives are complaining that it is not enough.

    However, it is important to remember that keeping offenders in prison comes at a cost and that this is money that is potentially not being invested in rehabilitation programs. Is there a lack of funding for rehabilitation and for mental health programs in halfway homes? Yes, there is. However, several factors are linked to this.

    If I had to draw one conclusion, I would say that systematically keeping more people in prison while awaiting trial is not a solution and will not automatically lead to safer streets. We need to be able to work in those gray areas. However, yes, rehabilitation is a key aspect and it is certainly associated with additional funding.

    Uqaqtittiji, it is quite problematic that the Liberals tabled the bill with very little data regarding bail, and a huge focus at committee needs to be on making sure that we are moving toward an evidence-based decision-making model regarding bail. I wonder if the member agrees that the federal government must show its leadership by creating a framework for data collection regarding bail.

    Mr. Speaker, indeed, we should base our decisions much more on data and science than on media hype, which can sometimes be politically slanted, but can also lead to decisions that do not achieve the desired outcome.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to releasing accused persons, if we had more data, we could make better decisions. I still think that it is worth sending the bill to committee because it contains some interesting provisions.

    Often, when there is complete disagreement on the principle of a bill, it is rejected at the second reading stage. However, since there are elements in this bill that may be of interest, it is worth sending it to committee, but the work done there will have to be based on statistics and science.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise before the House and speak to Bill C-14, an act that seeks to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

    Before I get started with my speech, it is really important to talk about the request for emergency debate that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition, brought forward. Extortion is an extremely real issue for people across this country. It is rising, and it is unacceptable. In fact, I just received a message from a constituent that I would like to read into the record. It reads, “Hi.... Not sure if you know what we're living through right now in Spring Meadows Estates.” That is a community just west of Edmonton in my riding. The message continues, “Our neighbour is a victim of this targeted extortion. His house has been shot up twice now in the last three weeks. We live in fear, don't go out after dark, and if we are out and it's turned dark, we are nervous to come home. I can't believe we're living this way.”

     I shouldn't have to talk about such things happening in a country like Canada, but this is what my constituents, in what was once a peaceful rural community just outside Edmonton, are telling me is happening to them.

    I know that the Leader of the Opposition has been going across the country speaking to business owners about the extortion attacks they are facing in their communities. It is clear that, after 10 years of the Liberal government, the Liberals have failed to tackle the issue of extortion; they have failed to put in the tough penalties needed to protect Canadians.

    In 2019, the Liberal government passed Bill C-75, which amended the Criminal Code to codify the so-called principle of restraint. The new legislation directed courts to release accused persons at the earliest opportunity, with the least onerous conditions. The Liberals even doubled down on this failed legislative approach in 2022 by passing Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory minimum sentences and even allowed house arrest for the most serious of sentences. Minimum sentences were repealed for using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with intent to harm and extortion involving a firearm, among other things.

    Folks in my area have been reaching out; they are concerned. As I said, a home was shot up twice. I had to read the news article twice because I thought it was the same article, but, in fact, the same property was shot up twice.

    However, house arrest is now a consideration for offences including sexual assault, kidnapping, abduction of a person under 14, theft over $5,000 and arson, among other things.

    In 2023, Conservatives stood in the House hearing the cries of victims and tried to reverse these nonsensical parts of Bill C-5 through the introduction of legislation from my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, through his private member's bill, Bill C-325. The Liberal government voted it down.

     In 2023, the Liberals started to recognize their failure. They were feeling a lot of heat from Conservatives and from Canadians, but they tried to get away with making only the most minor changes to bail rules, the bare minimum changes, with Bill C-48. I must say that this bill was clearly far from sufficient to deal with the problems we are facing in this country. Although the legislation created reverse onus provisions, the scope of those reverse onus provisions were so narrow that they did not apply to the growing number of violent actions that criminals are committing in Canada.

    Earlier in this parliamentary session, my Conservative colleague, the member for Oxford, presented Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which was voted against by the same Liberal government.

    For years, police have been calling for bail reform. Police and correctional officers have pointed out that there are very important amendments that should be made and very important provisions that should be brought forward in the bill, and they are concerned that they have not been brought forward in the Liberal legislation. However, after 10 years of the government's soft-on-crime legislation, they are desperate to see any action from the government. While Conservatives can support many elements of Bill C-14, we believe there is room for significant improvements with amendments.

     I want to talk a bit about the human costs behind some of the numbers we are talking about. We are talking about legislative policies and legalisms that can feel abstract, but there are real victims who are dealing with the consequences of these actions.

    In July of this year, a young woman, Bailey McCourt of Kelowna, B.C., was brutally murdered in broad daylight by her estranged partner. She leaves behind two young children and grieving friends and family. For the people who do not know about this case, I will say that it is absolutely shocking. Her estranged partner was abusive. He was charged with assault but was let out on bail. He was then convicted of his violent act, but instead of being sentenced and put behind bars for his violent actions, he was released the very same day to await a hearing.

    People who know the story will know that it ends tragically. Mere hours later and only a short distance from the very courthouse where the decision was made, the man proceeded to murder Bailey McCourt and seriously injure a bystander who tried to help. That is unacceptable.

     In my riding, a criminal who was on house arrest went to the beach and took a young, five-year-old, girl. Now this person is responsible for the death of that young girl when they should have been on house arrest for breaking and entering with a weapon.

    Should these people be allowed to roam freely in our communities? They should not, but that is the state of the law today in Canada, and it is unacceptable. Liberals have really failed when it comes to criminal justice, instead of being tough on the people who are terrorizing our communities.

     After the government has finally been gotten through to, after years of failure, Bill C-14 starts to do the important work of scrapping failed Liberal bail policy. However, Conservatives want to emphasize that unless we take strong action on the so-called principle of restraint by putting forward an equally strong if not stronger principle of public and community safety, unless we presume detention when dealing with major and violent offences, we would not be seriously taking action that is going to result in people's being safer in our communities.

     While the government is aiming to expand reverse onus for offences such as violent or organized crime, auto theft and human smuggling, among others, we are calling on the Liberals to repeal the principle of restraint and restore strong mandatory minimum sentences. When people talk about minimum sentences, they may think that 10 years, 15 years or 20 years is a bit harsh, yet the Supreme Court of Canada recently made a decision that a one-year mandatory minimum sentence was too much for people who knowingly possessed the most disgusting, most evil images of acts of torture against children, some as young as three years old: child sexual abuse material, formerly known as child pornography.

    I think Canadians would look at that and think one year is far too little, yet the party in government is beholden to the opinions of the judicial elite, which is so out of touch with what everyday Canadians see as right and just. We live in a democracy, and it is the people who need to decide.

     The people elect us to the House to stand up and put in good laws that protect our communities from people who would traffic in the images of children, people who would shoot up houses in extortion schemes, people who would murder, and people who would traffic firearms illegally. The bill would create uncertain outcomes in the charging of offences. We advocate, as Conservatives, restoring strong sentences for people who commit these serious crimes. We also call for the expansion of the reverse onus for a wider suite of serious crimes.

     In summary, after 10 years of the Liberal government and repeated failed legislation, while there may be a glimmer of hope that the government is starting to recognize the errors of its way, we need stronger action today to protect our communities.

    

     Mr. Speaker, if the member was sincere in his comments about stronger action, the Conservative Party could stop the filibuster on bail reform legislation.

    A commitment was made by the Prime Minister to bring in bail reform legislation. This type of legislation deals with the issue of extortion, yet the leader of the Conservative Party stands up today and says he wants an emergency debate on extortion. Does he really? He has the opportunity to instruct his caucus to pass the legislation to committee; then we could actually see some action on extortion.

    Why is the Conservative Party refusing to at least send this important legislation to committee?

     Mr. Speaker, I will not be lectured by the member or by any members of the Liberal Party who, for 10 years, due to their actions, have failed to protect our communities, because of legislation that has released onto our streets violent criminals who are using firearms to extort our community and who are assaulting women and then murdering them when they are released on bail. I will not take any lessons from the Liberal government, which wasted months and months to bring forward the weak piece of legislation that is before us.

    Mr. Speaker, I recently visited a penitentiary in my riding where there is chronic underfunding and overcrowding. I know it is going to be difficult to know what the Liberals are thinking, but maybe the member can comment on whether it is possible that the Liberals' solution is soft-on-crime bail rather than building extensions or new penitentiaries to keep more criminals in jail.

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is my neighbour in Yellowhead.

    People think that if we put in strong sentences, more and more people will go to jail, but the facts show otherwise. Strong sentences deter people from going to jail, and the police have to deal less with people committing offence after offence. In fact when I was in my riding, in Drayton Valley, I talked to an RCMP officer who said he had arrested a drug trafficker who was released mere hours after they were arrested. The fact is that our police are overwhelmed by the failed Liberal bail system; we have a revolving door justice system.

    I spoke earlier in a question about the Office of the Correctional Investigator. The correctional investigator talked about the government's chronic underfunding of mental health and programs in prisons. Conservatives want to put people behind bars, but we want people who come out of prison to at least have skills, training and better mental health so they do not commit more crimes. The correctional investigator is resigning two years early because the government—

    I need to interrupt the member to allow for questions and comments.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

    Mr. Speaker, the response the member gave to my first question is unfortunate. Let me ask him a very simple question. Bail reform legislation is before us today. Will the member and the Conservative Party agree to have the legislation pass before the end of the year? Will the Conservative Party give Canadians a Christmas present by allowing them to have bail reform before the end of the year, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well the legislative process of the House, and that legislation needs to go through debate and to committee. He knows that the public safety committee and the justice committee have a lot of serious pieces of legislation before them. He also knows we have a chamber of sober second thought, the other place; we do not call it the Senate. He knows that the legislation is not going to pass before Christmas.

    However, Conservatives will support any legislation that seeks to make our bail system stronger, but we have pointed out that the legislation is extremely weak and could benefit from serious amendments.

    Mr. Speaker, a number of critics have spoken out with regard to the bill, saying that it goes a certain distance but certainly not far enough to protect Canadians. A big part of that is the fact that Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 are still intact and very much need to be scrapped. I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on that.

    Mr. Speaker, people who live in rural Alberta and close to rural Alberta know that Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have helped unleash a crime wave in our communities and in communities across Canada. I actually witnessed a brazen attempted vehicle theft of a Ford F-350 at a neighbour's house at seven o'clock in the morning, when people are going—

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be here speaking for Markham—Unionville.

    The Liberals claim they want to “balance firmness with fairness” in Bill C-14 and that they want "a justice system that works for everyone." This is a false equivalence. There is no “everyone” when it comes to our justice system; there is a value hierarchy, and there is only one spot at the top. Whom do we choose to serve? Whom do we build our justice system around?

    Day in and day out, the Liberals have shown us whom they truly value. They cater to the common criminals, with fairness for the thief, the murderer and the drug dealer, and firmness for the honest citizen and the compliant taxpayer. They do not value the everyday hard-working Canadian upon whose back this nation was built. We are treated like a tax farm to be extracted from and then fed to the bandits like in some sick joke. The world the Liberals have legislated into being through Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 is madness incarnate.

    Human narratives are post hoc rationalizations. We commit to a position dictated by our incentive structures, and then we invent reasons why we took the given position. A metaphor I have encountered that captures this dynamic equates our gut instinct to an elephant, and our rational mind to an elephant rider: The elephant moves around any which way it wants, and the rider invents the reasons why the movement occurred. The Liberal elephant is committed to sitting with criminals, and the Liberal elephant rider creates narratives to justify soft-on-crime policies.

    The principle of restraint is embedded in the very core of the Liberal doctrine on justice, so much so that even though the Liberals were forced to make numerous concessions to Conservative advocacy around the errors of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, they have still left the principle unchanged in Bill C-14. Let me remind the House what Bill C-14 really is: a direct Liberal admission of failure regarding their soft-on crime policies, without altering the underlying pro-criminal commitments that undergird their doctrine of justice.

    There is a good parallel to this in the world of science. Scientific paradigms are world views that are ways of looking at and interpreting bodies of facts. We can look at the facts of physics through the paradigm of Newton and the paradigm of Einstein, but we can never hold two competing paradigms at the same time, because each is a totalizing way of looking at the world.

    In what we might call a justice paradigm, the Liberals are committed to catering to criminals. When they speak of restraint, they speak only of their favourite little lawbreakers. There is no room to look at the world from the world view of the everyday Canadian when the Liberals have chosen to take up a pro-criminal paradigm of justice.

    This has been a prolonged build-up for what is a very simple solution. The Liberals must know in their heart of hearts that they need to go all the way and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 in full. They keep saying that they are a new Liberal government and are different from the old Liberal government. Well, I ask that my colleagues show us.

    Bill C-14 succeeds, from a pro-order lens, where it would move in the direction of undoing the damages of C-5 and Bill C-75. The bill fails where it would retain the principle of restraint.

    There can be no balance in our system of justice between competing world views. The Liberals need to take one path and go all the way. What Bill C-14 represents is a patchwork of compromises. The Liberals have found such a big tent that competing factions sit uncomfortably together under a single roof.

     The ideological incoherence in Bill C-14 maps the incoherence of the Liberals' factional support structure and the basis of power. To use a metaphor from earlier, the Liberals have more than one elephant, but only a single elephant rider to rationalize policy commitments post hoc to the entire world. What a mess. The Liberals will be perpetually locked into half measures to keep a tenuous coalition together.

    With my remaining time, I want to outline some potential positive directions for Bill C-14 if the Liberals accept my commentary on the justice paradigms. First of all, the Liberals need to put law-abiding Canadians first by choosing to commit to the maintainers of order. It is already impossible to hold the principle of restraint as a core value. When we put something together at the centre of our value hierarchy, we will necessarily build a new system around it.

    Second, once the public safety of law-abiding Canadians is set as the true north of our justice paradigm, it becomes impossible to uphold the errors of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Restoring mandatory minimums, ending the catch-and-release system and removing the house arrest option for serious offenders are the logical consequences of accepting a new set of priorities.

    Finally, Liberals will have to come to terms with their big tent and prune the factions that are clearly against the well-being of law-abiding Canadians and the productive society they enable. The principle of restraint for criminals is a principle of constraint on our productive economy.

    In conclusion, I want to remind the Liberal colleagues that the situation with our justice system has deteriorated to such an extent this is no longer a question of partisan politics. If they continue with this patchwork of compromises, what will the spillover effects be? How many more Canadians need to be shot dead in their own homes by repeat offenders for this systemic madness to bleed into genuine societal chaos? We are not talking about riots in the streets, though that is always possible. We are talking about the everyday chaos of a low-trust society, a slow and steady descent into balkanization and tribalization when citizens see they cannot trust their justice system to serve their interests.

    If the Liberals continue to wine and dine on the luxury belief of restraint for criminals, the least of their concerns will be the fractioning of their own coalition. They are to fear the fracturing of our society and of the tax base that funds their capacity to engage in those ludicrous luxury beliefs.

    Mr. Speaker, I think we found out from one of the member's colleagues a little bit earlier that the Conservative Party has no intentions of passing Bill C-14. Bill C-14 is a reflection of what Canadians want to see as a part of the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus' campaign commitment. Overwhelmingly, never before have as many Canadians voted for a political party as they did for the current Prime Minister in the last election. This was an election platform commitment.

    Will the member agree that this legislation should be able to pass before Christmas?

     Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is serious about delivering his promise, he should attack the fundamental root cause of this problem and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. As I said in my speech, let us not fool around with more compromises. Let us get at the root cause of this problem.

    We hear this from our Canadian citizens. We hear this from our police force. Let us fix this once and for all, and stop fooling around with all these compromises.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that Canadians want this legislation. It is true that Canadians certainly want change. They want to make sure their communities are safe. They want to make sure people can walk in the evening without fear. They want to make sure businesses can operate without being shot up. Certainly, Canadians want that. They want to know the safety and security, the well-being of their communities, is protected. However, this bill, Bill C-14, does not go far enough.

    I wonder if the hon. member, my colleague, would care to comment further on that.

    Mr. Speaker, we are hearing from Canadians and from law enforcement that the current bill, and the existence of Bills C-5 and C-75, are not working. In fact, over the weekend, we had a seminar on crime and heard a very emotional testimony from an elderly couple who lost their 25-year-old daughter. That is the reason we need to fix the fundamentals of what is going on. Let us not give bail to all of the repeat offenders.

    Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member, he did not answer the question the parliamentary secretary asked about letting this bill go to committee.

     The member for Lethbridge then asked him a question about what is wrong and why the bill does not go far enough.

    The whole point of letting the bill pass at this stage is so it can go to committee to fix what apparently the member for Lethbridge, this member and all Conservatives do not think goes far enough. Why will Conservatives not let this bill pass so it can go to committee, where their concerns can be raised?

    Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at with the Liberal government is that, even when bills are sent to committee and recommendations are approved, it still ignores them, so I am not sure we would be addressing this issue.

    We are appealing for a fundamental fix. Let us repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Conservative Party of Canada is listening to what Canadians are saying. They want bail reform. The Prime Minister, and every Liberal member of Parliament, wants to see bail reform. The roadblock to achieving it is the Conservative Party. On the one hand, its members say they want it, but on the other hand, they are denying every Canadian bail reform—

    I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary to give a chance to the member for Markham—Unionville to respond.

    Mr. Speaker, the point is that this does not fundamentally address the issues laid out in Bills C-5 and C-75. Let us get to it. Let us repeal Bills C-5 and C-75, fix the problem fundamentally and address—

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been clear, painfully clear, that we need a justice system that is respected by those who break the law and trusted by the people who live with the consequences. We need laws that actually protect families, not laws that look good on paper while leaving our communities vulnerable. Trust cannot exist without real accountability. When offenders face symbolic consequences, not real ones, the system loses credibility and communities lose confidence.

     Just a week ago, Parliament had a chance to change that. Conservatives introduced the jail not bail act, a common-sense bill that the Liberals voted against. It would have put public safety first, replacing the current principle of restraint with a principle rooted in the reality that the safety of Canadians must come before the convenience of offenders. It would have created stricter bail rules for major offences, the kinds of rules that shatter lives, including firearm violence, sexual assault, kidnapping and home invasions. It would have strengthened risk assessment so that bail could be denied when reoffending is reasonably foreseeable, not only when it meets the far higher bar of a substantial likelihood. How did the Liberal government respond? It voted against it. It voted against protections, against safer streets and against the frontline officers and first responders who run towards danger while others run away.

     Now, the same government that weakened the guardrails of our justice system claims that Bill C-14 will fix everything. Bill C-14 is not a solution, not a complete solution. It is a hollow echo of the Conservative proposal, a half measure drafted by a government that still refuses to acknowledge the crime crisis unfolding across the country.

     The Liberals unleashed a very dangerous experiment in Canada with weak bail laws, weakened penalties and a justice system that prioritizes release over responsibility, and Canadians have paid the price. Violent crime is up 41% since 2014, and homicide, sexual assault and extortion are all higher. Neighbourhoods are traumatized and lives are shattered.

    Still, Bill C-14 refuses to fix the root of the problem. First, it would keep the principle of restraint, the very rule that instructs the courts to release offenders as early and as easily as possible. Second, it refuses to restore mandatory minimum penalties for violent firearms and weapons offences, penalties the government eliminated under Bill C-5. Third, it would still permit house arrest for serious crimes, including some trafficking-related and violent offences. Finally, it fails to introduce a presumption of pretrial detention for repeat violent offenders, the people who repeatedly terrorize communities because the system lets them.

     The government weakened the guardrails. Now it offers a band-aid solution: a band-aid for violent crime, a band-aid for intimate partner violence and a band-aid for human trafficking. Band-aid solutions are not enough.

     Since entering public life, one of the hardest truths I have had to confront is how deeply human trafficking affects our communities, including my community in Newmarket—Aurora. We do not see it often on the front page of the newspaper. We see only hints of it, such as a help poster in a bathroom stall or a number taped beside a sink. Behind all those small signs lie devastating stories.

    Slavery may have been abolished centuries ago, but today, in our own neighbourhoods, there are young girls and boys being treated as a commodity. They children who have been reduced to property. Human trafficking is the fastest-growing crime in Canada. Profits have skyrocketed. Online recruitment has exploded, and victims are younger, more vulnerable and more isolated.

    What makes this crime so sinister is what traffickers call breaking the spirit. It is a deliberate, violent, psychological assault on a human being until they no longer recognize their own worth or their own voice. This is happening in Canada, on Canadian soil, in communities like ours.

     Bill C-14 scratches the surface. It may make it slightly harder for traffickers to get bail, but it would do almost nothing to strengthen sentencing, victim protections or enforcement. Human trafficking of minors once carried strong mandatory minimums that deterred predators. The Liberals weakened or repealed many of them, and Bill C-14 would not restore them. Cases collapse into reduced charges through plea deals, and Bill C-14 would do nothing to stop that. Victims are often left in the dark when their traffickers are released, and Bill C-14 would not fix that either. When a crime is this vile and this morally repugnant, half measures are not enough.

     Just a few weeks ago, a jewellery store in the Upper Canada Mall in Newmarket, which is in my community, was ambushed by a group of masked robbers. They smashed the display cases, terrified shoppers and shattered the sense of safety that families rely on. Last weekend, it happened again in the same mall, but to another store. This time, a police officer and security guards were pepper-sprayed. The message this sends is unmistakable: They can do this because nothing will happen to them.

    This is what weak bail laws create: a culture of impunity and a revolving door where offenders are back on the streets before the paperwork is done. Who carries the burden? It is the families, the business owners, our brothers and sisters, our neighbours, our employees, the seniors who walk in the mall for exercise and the parents who are deciding whether it is still safe to bring their children.

     While Bill C-14 would adjust some bail considerations, it would still allow for release on the least restrictive conditions, even for crimes that target the very sense of safety in a community. For gang-related robberies, auto theft rings, home invasions, extortion and coordinated retail attacks, public safety must be the first and central consideration.

    I remember a Canada where we could walk at night without fear and where parents did not think twice about letting their children go to the mall or ride their bike. Safety was not a luxury; it was a quiet part of our daily life that was taken for granted. That freedom is being fractured. We need strong laws that confront the crime wave being unleashed by weak bail policies and weakened penalties. Canadians deserve to feel safe.

     Mr. Speaker, the member talked about violent crime, as well as the retail crime that happened at a jeweller's. Bill C-14 would address these exact issues so that these types of criminals who are committing organized retail crime do not get back out on the streets. It would also address home invasions, auto theft and violent crime. It would do many things. There are 80 different changes to the Criminal Code in Bill C-14.

    I would like to know what is holding up the Conservative Party. Why can we not get this bill to committee and get it passed as soon as possible?

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 would not repeal Bill C-75, which brought in the principle of restraint.

     I am even more concerned that it took the Liberals six years to learn that there is a crime wave happening in Canada. The principle of restraint is not working, yet Bill C-14 still directs that if a release is ordered, it must be on the “least onerous conditions” necessary. This is what breeds violence and crime in our communities.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for another intelligent speech. We are studying violence against women and girls at the status of women committee, and we heard testimony yesterday that the reverse onus provision in Bill C-14 would not work. As long as people come with a plan, the judges tend to send them back out on bail.

    Could the member comment on a stronger measure that she would like to see in this bill?

     Mr. Speaker, in 2022, the Liberals brought in Bill C-5, which took away the mandatory minimum sentences brought in under the Harper government. Bill C-14 fails to do two main things. There is only a partial reversal for house arrest eligibility, and it would not reinstate mandatory minimums. This bill fails to make real sentencing reform and would put our communities at risk.

    Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the one-year mandatory minimum for cases involving child pornography, and the Liberals did nothing about it. As a mother, I am disgusted that the Liberal government does not take crimes against innocent children seriously.

     Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. We are taking these crimes very seriously. In fact, that is why the second bill we presented in this House was Bill C-2, which would give law enforcement lawful access tools to be able to catch pedophiles, catch child predators online and catch extortionists. The Conservative Party of Canada had those tools removed and put into another bill.

    Why is the Conservative Party of Canada failing to be the partner it ought to be in Parliament when it comes to public safety?

    Mr. Speaker, I will repeat myself. Bill C-14 fails to do two main things. There is only a partial reversal of house arrest eligibility, and it would not reinstate mandatory minimums.

    As the member of Parliament for Newmarket—Aurora, I send monthly surveys to my constituents, and crime is one of their top concerns. It is not only because we now watch it on the news; it is because we hear it from our neighbours, we live it and we see it in malls.

     Crime has been increasing. If we take a step back, we know this is the result of the Liberals' bail reform. They are not repealing Bill C-5 or Bill C-75.

    Mr. Speaker, we are discussing bail reform. One thing from the Liberals' side of the aisle that I find amazing is that they think there is an act of God and they need to reform these laws. They do not finish the answer and say we need bail reform because they have bungled this file over the last 10 years. Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 are the reasons we need bail reform.

     They messed it up. Why should we think they are the ones who can fix it?

    Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. This is a direct result of 10 years of the Liberal government's weak bail laws. These are the consequences our communities are living through.

     It is a bit hypocritical that the Liberals appear to feel so strongly about it, when we, the Conservatives, put the jail not bail act forward for a vote and they voted against it.

    Mr. Speaker, we are here today to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing.

    Canadians have waited a long time for the Liberal government to take serious measures to end violence in communities across the country. Since 2015, this government has chosen to let violent offenders walk free rather than protect innocent Canadians. The reality is that there are now more dangerous criminals on our streets and in our communities, which are becoming less and less safe.

    Unfortunately, there are countless victims. Savannah Rose Kulla-Davies, a mother of four, was killed by a criminal released on bail in Brampton. Bailey McCourt was killed just three hours after a criminal was released on bail in Kelowna. Hung Trang and Ban Phuc Hoang were killed by a criminal released on bail in Edmonton. In Manitoba, a criminal killed his sister while out on bail. Out of respect for those victims and their families, Bill C‑14 needs to go further. We must do it for them, in their memory, to prevent further victimization.

    In his comments on violent repeat offenders in Winnipeg, Winnipeg mayor Scott Gillingham said that these figures confirm what frontline officers see every day, namely that it is always the same people who go through the justice system, committing violent crimes over and over again. After numerous warnings to this government, I am still a little perplexed. Conservatives on this side of the House have been asking Liberals to abandon their bail plan for years. Why did they wait so long?

     A number of years ago, the Liberals passed bills C‑5 and C‑75. These two bills caused crime to skyrocket and made our communities less safe. Bill C‑5, which repealed certain mandatory minimum penalties, eliminated mandatory prison sentences for serious firearm- and drug-related offences. Bill C‑75, the Liberal catch-and-release bill, granted bail to repeat violent offenders. These bills form the foundation of the Liberals' soft-on-crime plan. It is hard to believe that a government would deliberately pass legislation that reduces prison terms for the most dangerous members of our society. The result is that Canada is less safe today than it was when the Liberals came into office.

    Numbers do not lie. Here are some statistics on how the situation has evolved since 2015. Violent crime is up 55%. Gun-related crime is up 130%. Extortion has exploded, increasing by 330% all across Canada. Sexual assaults are up 76%. Homicides are up 29%. I think most Canadians would agree with me that this has been one of the greatest failures, if the not single greatest failure, of this Liberal government.

     In early October, our Conservative team moved a motion asking the House of Commons to immediately pass the bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Oxford, Bill C‑242, or the jail not bail act. Unsurprisingly, the Liberals voted against the motion. That is another clear sign that they do not take this matter seriously. For more than seven months now, the Prime Minister has been promising to reform the bail system in Canada. By not voting in favour of our motion, he continues to delay the implementation of measures that would make our streets safer. Canadians have waited long enough.

     While I am pleased that we are talking about these matters, Bill C‑14 still does not go far enough to protect our communities.

     Firstly, the principle of restraint remains intact, which preserves the existing bail culture. We must strengthen our criminal justice system to ensure that the most violent offenders in Canada cannot be released. Secondly, the mandatory minimum sentences that were repealed by Bill C‑5 have not been reinstated. We must repeal Bill C‑5 in order to guarantee that criminals who commit firearm-related offences, sexual assaults or kidnappings, or who engage in human trafficking, are given prison terms instead of house arrest.

    The Liberals have weakened our bail system, putting criminals back on our streets. They have made our communities less safe, unfortunately. Their solution is to introduce a bill that begins to address the problem, but ultimately does not go far enough. It does not truly solve the crisis facing Canadians. It does not fix the broken bail system.

    The same goes for Bill C‑4, making life more affordable for Canadians act. Starting in 2015, the Liberal government created a cost of living crisis. That is what happens when a government runs one inflationary deficit after another.

     I hope that Bill C‑14 will be different and that the Liberals will agree to our amendments. Unfortunately, I doubt they will.

    The Conservatives fought to undo the Liberals' decision on bail. I am proud of my colleagues who do battle daily to make our communities safer. There is still a lot to do to fix everything this Liberal government messed up, and Bill C‑14 is just the beginning. Unfortunately, it does not go far enough.

    My priority will always be to build safer communities. I appreciate the work being done to reduce violence, but we need to do more for the victims I named earlier today.

    The Conservative call to strengthen our bail system is part of our plan to stop crime and make our communities safer. Our plan includes a number of priorities that we would like to see the government implement.

    We would like to see a “three strikes and you're out” law to keep the most dangerous criminals behind bars. Everyone agrees that the most dangerous criminals should be kept off our streets.

    We would also like to see mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders. After three strikes, we propose that repeat offenders receive a minimum sentence of 10 years. That is part of our plan to incarcerate the most dangerous people in our society longer and give them time to rehabilitate.

    We would like to see repeat offenders designated as dangerous offenders. That means they could only be released after demonstrating good behaviour and abstaining from all drug use. That should also include training to upgrade their skills to allow them to contribute as proud members of society and get their lives in our great country back on track.

    Repeat offenders are dangerous. That is why they should only be released when they no longer pose a threat to our society. For the safety of all Canadians and for the future of our children, we need to go further than what Bill C‑14 proposes.

     Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments my colleague made on the condition of this bill and on the recommendations. I am sure, as he has been listening, that he has heard a member across the way constantly ask if we are ready to do this because we are in a crisis.

    Having been here for a decade now, I can tell members that what the government does is delay and deny, until finally Canadians have had enough and it starts to act. We are now finally acting, to some degree, on these terrible bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

    What does he think the government has done in lieu of doing the work it should have been doing to get this bill in front of the House over five years ago?

    Mr. Speaker, of course the government should have introduced a bill and dealt with this issue a long time ago.

    In my speech today, I named some of the people who became victims all because the Liberals have allowed this problem related to the Criminal Code to drag on. Unfortunately, some innocent victims lost their lives. Now, let us do what we must to move forward and work to improve Bill C‑14.

    The government definitely needs to go further than what it has presented us with.

     Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party of Canada have demonstrated inside the House that they have absolutely no shame. They do not understand, nor do they appreciate, that this was an election platform issue. We have provinces, municipalities and many stakeholders, including law enforcement officers, that want to see Bill C-14 passed.

    The Conservatives have come up with lame excuses to try to to justify the inappropriate, disrespectful speeches they have provided to date and to try to justify that they do not want to see this legislation passed before Christmas. I find that sad and unfortunate. Canadians will pass judgment at some point in time on their behaviour and their rejection of bail reform legislation.

    Can the member justify to his constituents why they will not pass this legislation before the end of the year?

    Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I find that rather amusing. The Liberals have been in power for 10 years and have done nothing for the past five years. They have suddenly seen the light at the end of the tunnel and want to get this done in three months. They did nothing for 10 years, and now they want us to rush this bill through because they suddenly woke up.

    I have to insist that Canadians be shown a little respect. We have to get this right.

     Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can reflect on the fact that we have stakeholders, as I have indicated, like law enforcement, the provinces and municipalities, and Canadians in general, that want bail reform legislation. The Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament want to see this legislation pass before the end of the year.

    Does the member not recognize that instead of Conservatives putting the political best interests of the Conservative Party first, they should put the interests of Canadians first, allow this bill to go to committee and allow it to pass before the end of the year?

    Mr. Speaker, I will give the same answer. This government has been doing nothing for 10 years. We have been calling on the government to get the job done for five years. Now the Liberals have suddenly seen the light and they hope to get this bill passed in three months.

    We will take no lessons from the Liberal government. On this side of the House, we take our jobs seriously. We are working for Canadians. That is what we will continue to do.

    Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech. The real problem with Bill C-14 is that it does not remove the principle of the least restrictive punishment at the earliest possible opportunity. That is the problem, and it is the reason this bill is not going to fix crime. Would the member agree?

    Mr. Speaker, that is precisely one of the reasons why we need to improve this bill. We cannot pass it as it now stands, like the Liberals want us to do. They have done nothing for five years. We will work to improve this bill to keep Canadians safe.

    Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today realizing the gravity of this debate for millions of Canadians.

    For those who are new to the country, which at some point most of us were or our ancestors were, Canada was once a safe harbour with a reasonable guarantee that someone could live out life free from harassment, harm or extortion. That meant peaceful communities where front doors were often left unlocked, and people had little fear of having their car stolen while they slept. It meant they could enjoy Canada's vibrant city life knowing that streets were safe and that stopping illegal drugs and firearms was a priority. It meant the most dangerous criminals were kept behind bars, where they belonged, not continually passing through a revolving door, going from our courts to back out on the streets. It meant we had a federal government that protected families from these harms through the strictest possible laws while ensuring they were enforced in our courts.

    After 10 years of the Liberal government, the reality is much different. Terrible legislation, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, demonstrates that the consequences of reckless ideological Liberal policies are real.

    Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearms crime is up 130%, extortion has exploded 330%, sexual assaults have risen 76% and homicides are up 29%. In fact, a new report just released by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute analyzed crime data from 20 metropolitan areas representing nearly two-thirds of Canada's population. It found that Canada's violent crime rate has climbed steadily since the middle of the last decade. It has been an era defined by lenient bail, soft-on-crime persecution and police resources stretched way too thin. As stated in the report:

    What logical government would stand by the policies that have resulted in a prolonged nationwide crime wave? Sadly, obstruction and inaction have been the Liberal approach for the better part of a decade. However, bills like Bill C-14 prove that determined and principled opposition can be effective in spurring change. This bill is a rare Liberal admission that the Liberals' criminal justice reforms have failed. While it is a step in the right direction of the Conservative approach to bail and sentencing, it does not repeal the principle of restraint or restore mandatory minimum sentences.

    What drove the government to finally introduce Bill C-14? Bill C-75, in 2019, codified the principle of restraint, requiring law enforcement and courts to release accused individuals at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. This effectively created a catch-and-release system, subjecting communities to dangerous offenders while they awaited trial. Bill C-5, in 2022, went further, scrapping several mandatory minimum sentences and liberalizing the use of house arrest for serious offences such as sexual assault.

     Bill C-14, the bill we are debating today, makes a start at addressing the serious implications of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. It clarifies that the principle of restraint would not require an offender's outright release. It also directs courts to take into account the number and gravity of charges facing the accused when determining bail. With Bill C-14, there is an incentive for those who have abused our justice system and grown accustomed to getting away with multiple serious crimes with little or no repercussions to think twice. There are other encouraging elements of the bill, such as requiring consecutive sentences for repeat auto theft, breaking and entering, extortion and arson offences.

    The purpose of sentencing has been refocused on the protection of the Canadian public, at least to some degree, rather than solely on the rehabilitation of the offender. When sentencing, a judge must consider a new aggravating factor involving repeat violent behaviour over the last five years. The bill would also partially reverse Bill C-5's expansion of house arrest eligibility.

     Yes, there are many beams of light in the bill that attempt to break through the stormy skies of the last six years of a soft-on-crime agenda. However, it comes up short. The fact is that dangerous elements of the Liberal ideology on crime and punishment remain. Bill C-14 is not an outright repeal of the principle of restraint, and it would not restore mandatory minimums. It is truly a missed opportunity to toughen up penalties for serious violent offences. While consecutive sentences and aggravating factors are useful, they are still left to judicial discretion when applying them.

     Why does it matter that we get the bill right? All major urban centres have seen an increase in violent crime, but so have our smaller cities and rural communities across Manitoba, Alberta and my home province of Saskatchewan.

    There is simply no more time to waste. Canadians no longer feel safe in their communities. Every day that passes without a return to a common-sense approach to crime puts more innocent Canadians at risk. A Postmedia-Leger poll shows growing concern among Canadians about personal safety and the effectiveness of their justice system: 51% say they worry about safety in their neighbourhoods, including the risk of a home invasion. Concern is highest among young people aged 35 to 54, a group that is most likely to have families and own homes.

     A striking 87% of Canadians believe they have the right to use reasonable force against an intruder, a number that climbs to 92% in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and among those 55 years and older. Leger executive vice-president Andrew Enns notes that this sentiment is long-standing but significant, warning that widespread distrust in the justice system can erode respect for the law. Certainly, criminals do not respect or fear these laws, whereas innocent Canadians are living in fear and facing consequences.

     Overall, 54% believe that the justice system works against law-abiding citizens, while only 29% think it protects Canadians. That is a sad and regrettable reflection on the ability of the Liberal government to inspire confidence in its system of justice, but it is well deserved. The Liberals have consistently ignored police, municipalities, business owners and, above all, law-abiding Canadians in standing by policies that fail to keep us safe. Members should note that I said they “consistently ignored”, not that they failed to see or grasp the increased breadth of violent crime erupting across Canada over the last decade of their Liberal rule.

    Unfortunately for residents of the James Smith Cree Nation in my home province, this reality is beyond real. On September 4, 2022, a mass stabbing spree unfolded across 13 locations in the Cree Nation and the nearby village of Weldon.

     Myles Sanderson killed 11 people and wounded 17. He had 59 previous criminal convictions, including for assault with a weapon, robbery and threats. He had been granted statutory release in August 2021 after serving a sentence, but by May 2022 he was unlawfully at large after failing to keep in touch with his parole officer. In the wake of this tragedy, many questions surrounded the decisions of the court, the parole board and Corrections Canada. What rationale validates repeatedly releasing this violent criminal from custody despite his dozens of convictions?

     Another tragedy unfolded this September at the Hollow Water First Nation, where 26-year-old Tyrone Simard, known to police and our courts, went on a horrifying rampage. He stabbed eight people across two homes in Hollow Water, killing his own 18-year-old sister, Marina, and injuring seven others.

     Why was he out on bail? Three months earlier, he had been charged with assault with a weapon and mischief. A Winnipeg court released him just four days later with these conditions: a curfew, no alcohol or drugs, no weapons and, heartbreakingly, no contact with his sister. He violated every one of those conditions. He returned to Marina's home and took her life.

     The law did not adequately protect Marina or the people of Hollow Water First Nation, James Smith Cree Nation or the village of Weldon. The Liberal system designed for restraint and lighter sentences has not served public safety. The government needs to remove Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 and strengthen Bill C-14, to repair the damage, in memory of those who have lost their lives and those left behind with horrific memories.

    This House must replace restraint with a public safety primacy clause. Ensuring public and community safety is the governing principle of courts across our lands. We must restore mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences, sexual offences, repeat violent offences and drug offences. Conditional sentence eligibility must exclude robbery, firearms trafficking and offences by chronic offenders.

     It is not too late for the government to adopt the full Conservative plan to stop their decade of turning a blind eye to the rampant chaos, crime and disorder that Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have encouraged. Bill C-14 must be the beginning of a full restoration of this country's promise of safety and prosperity for Canadians, wherever they live.

     Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, whether among provinces, municipalities, different stakeholders or law enforcement officers, people understand and they want to see Bill C-14 move forward. Canadians want bail reform legislation. The Conservatives are being motivated by another factor.

     We have the leader of the Conservative Party, who has referred to “extreme bloodshed and violence”. We have the MP for Oxford, who said, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” They are using these radical statements in order to generate funds. They are putting the raising of funds and their own political interests ahead of Canadian interests.

    Will the member opposite not recognize that it is about time the Conservative Party starts focusing more on Canadians, as opposed to their own leadership and the Conservative Party of Canada, and allows the legislation to pass before the end of the year? Will she support that?

    Mr. Speaker, there is a tiny bit of truth in some words in there. Canadians are desperate to have the government do the right thing. The bill has some good in it, but it is not responding to those very people he is saying are calling on the government to do the right thing, which is to shut down the legislation in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. This is what they want. They want an outright repeal of the principle of restraint, and they want restoration of mandatory minimums.

    Mr. Speaker, what I just heard from the member for Winnipeg North is laughable. There is not a more partisan politician in this chamber. He would do anything for the Liberal Party of Canada. This includes absolutely ensuring that everything looks good from their point of view. The only reason we need bail reform is that this member and the rest of the Liberals passed terrible legislation for the last 10 years, making our streets unsafe. It is unconscionable for him to stand there and say we need to reform, we need to reform, when they were the ones who messed up the justice system in the first place. A Supreme Court ruling that allowed people who had child abuse pictures and videos to get a one-year sentence is unconscionable, and any member of Parliament who does not think that is not right should not be here.

    Mr. Speaker, I concur with the member and all the things he just said. This individual seems to want to convince Canadians that the Liberals are on the right track, when they have been in the House hearing this side of the floor, over and over and over, talk about the issues with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which have caused the rampant, high levels of crime across our nation. People in Canada are calling on the government to do the right thing, not just to do a little bit of something rather than remove all the things that are causing the greatest angst in this country that I have seen in the 10 years I have been here.

     Mr. Speaker, the member avoided answering the question, which was very straightforward. Canadians expect to see bail reform legislation. The only reason we will not see bail reform legislation is that the Conservative Party is more focused on its own personal fundraising and its own political interest. This is the only reason, the only reason Canadians will not be able to see bail reform legislation.

    Does she not see, in reflecting on her constituents, that the Conservatives need to reverse their policy?

    Mr. Speaker, I represent Saskatchewan. I think the member knows how absolutely ridiculous that last statement was. There is no question, across this country, that what the people of Canada want is for the government to finally step up and do the right thing. If the member can assure me they will include amendments that remove Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 from legislation, I will gladly support their bill.

    They are not representing Canadians. They are not supporting Canadians. They are not answering the call of Canadians for protection and lowered crime in this country, which they basically caused the impetus for with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

    Mr. Speaker, just quickly, I have been here this morning for a couple of hours, and I have heard the members opposite from the Liberal government talking about bail reform. Maybe the member on our side, the Conservative side, could answer this since she has been here for over 10 years.

    Who has been in power for the last two years? What do the words “bail reform” mean, and why are we sitting here talking about bail reform after someone has been in charge for 10 years?

    Mr. Speaker, well, 20 seconds to say this is easy. The reason we are talking about bail reform is because these people did a terrible job of bringing in legislation, which has caused incredible angst across this country and increased crime. That is unconscionable.

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. I want to acknowledge the good work being done by the local Moose Jaw Police Service. Moose Jaw saw its crime severity index drop nearly 12% in 2024. Crimes against property are down 23%, and our clearance rates are up significantly. This shows what effective policing can achieve.

    However, when I look beyond my hometown to the broader riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, the picture changes dramatically. The Saskatchewan RCMP jurisdiction has seen violent crime increase 45% over the past decade. How long has the Liberal government been in power? Coincidence or not, it is a decade. In 2024 alone, there were nearly 22,000 victims of violent crime, 6,700 more than 10 years ago. We had 41 homicides, the highest on record in the RCMP jurisdiction. This contrast tells us something critical: Local solutions matter, but municipal police cannot overcome failed federal policies or the Liberal soft-on-crime bail laws, which are forcing Canadians to defend themselves and live in fear.

     The Liberal government has finally admitted what Conservatives have been trying to say for years: Its criminal justice reforms have failed. In the Liberals' own press release for Bill C-14, they acknowledged a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index since 2014. Saskatchewan RCMP reports that violent crime is up 45% in 10 years; homicides were up 46% in 2024, the highest on record; firearms offences are up 271%, the highest rate in Canada; assaults on police officers are up 87%; half of all violent crime is attributed to intimate partner and family violence; and 336 prolific offenders were arrested by specialized teams in 2024 alone.

    I served with the Royal Canadian Air Force. I studied war studies at King's College at the University of London in the U.K. I understand threat assessment, and I can tell members without hesitation that the Liberal government's bail policies represent a clear and present danger to Canadian communities. In 2019, the Liberals passed Bill C-75, which imposed the so-called principle of restraint, requiring judges to release offenders at the earliest reasonable opportunity. Was that at the beginning of the sentencing, or at the end? I am not sure, but under the least onerous conditions, it has caused problems.

    Then, in 2022, the Liberals doubled down with Bill C-5, eliminating mandatory jail times for serious gun crimes, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking. The result is a catch-and-release system in which repeat violent offenders walk free within hours, if not minutes.

     As someone who served as the mayor of Moose Jaw, I can say that municipal leaders cannot police their way out of a crisis created by federal legislation. These are not just statistics; these are real people. Bailey McCourt in Kelowna was murdered, allegedly by her ex-husband James Plover just hours after he was released on bail following an assault conviction. Savannah Kulla, a 29-year-old mother of four, was shot and killed at a Brampton strip mall. Her killer had just been released on bail.

     In Saskatchewan, where half of violent crimes involve intimate partner or family violence, women and children are living in terror because the current government prioritizes criminals over victims. Saskatchewan RCMP officers are exhausted. They arrested 336 prolific offenders in 2024, but how many walked free within hours because of the Liberals' bail laws? How many are back on the streets right now, reoffending?

    In rural Saskatchewan, when a home invasion happens on a farm 30 kilometres from the nearest town, families are on their own and response times are measured in hours, not in minutes. When someone breaks into their grain bin, steals their equipment and threatens their family, they need to know that the person will not be released to do it again.

    Saskatchewan farmers and ranchers deserve better. Women fleeing violent partners deserve better. Police officers deserve better. They all deserve a government that puts public safety first.

    The Liberals are finally accepting reality by copying our four-year campaign to scrap Liberal bail law, but they failed to take responsibility for their own failures. Bill C-14 is a clear vindication of Conservative criticisms. The government has admitted that its policies failed. However, after finally getting through, or partially getting through, to the government, we must ensure that Bill C-14 would actually scrap Liberal bail by being as strong as possible.

    Where Bill C-14 falls dangerously short is that the principle of restraint would remain intact. The government claims it is clarifying it. It has added language saying, “does not require” release, but the principle itself would still exist. It would still direct least onerous conditions and still create a culture of release.

    Second, reverse onus is not detention. Bill C-14 would expand reverse onus, meaning that the accused must prove why they should be released, but this is just a procedural burden shift; it is not a presumption of detention. Dangerous offenders could still talk their way out.

    Third, no mandatory minimum would be restored. Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes. Bill C-14 would do nothing to restore them. Sentencing would remain highly discretionary. Judges could still give house arrest for robbery or for trafficking offences.

    Fourth, the proposed bill is advisory, not mandatory. Too much of Bill C-14 would be guidance, not requirement. It would direct courts and encourage consideration but would not mandate action. In Saskatchewan, where there has been a 271% increase in firearms offences. We need mandatory protection, not suggestion.

    Canadians deserve better. They deserve the full Conservative plan embodied in Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. Bill C-242 does not just clarify; it would eliminate the principle of restraint entirely and replace it with a public safety primacy clause. Public and community safety, not the earliest opportunity for release nor the least onerous conditions, would become the governing principle in bail decisions. It would be public safety, period.

    Bill C-242 would create a major offences category to trigger a detention-first posture, not just reverse onus, for firearms offences, sexual offences, kidnapping and human trafficking, home invasion, robbery and extortion with a firearm, arson and violent assault. If someone is charged with a major offence and has been convicted of one in the last 10 years, bail would be barred. This is the 10-year look-back rule, a real consequence for repeat offenders.

    Bill C-14 would encourage consideration. Bill C-242 would mandate it. Judges would need to consider prior convictions and breaches, outstanding charges, the number and gravity of offences, and patterns of offending while on release.

    Saskatchewan RCMP did not arrest 336 prolific offenders just to have judges ignore their records. New violent charges while on bail would mean automatic detention; it would not be discretionary.

    All major law enforcement organizations in Canada, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Toronto Police Association, the Canadian Police Association, the National Police Federation and the Ontario Provincial Police Association, as well as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and all provincial governments, whether Conservative, NDP or Liberal, support this, as do 79% of Canadians, who say that getting bail is too easy.

    In rural Saskatchewan we understand that when someone makes a mess, they clean it up completely and do not just tidy around the edges. Bill C-242 would clean up the mess. Bill C-14 would tidy around the edges.

    Mr. Speaker, the member said it well at the very end, when he talked about the different stakeholders. He made reference specifically to the many different law enforcement agencies. We could add to that the premiers of all different political stripes, whom he made reference to, as well as mayors and municipalities, including big and small communities. If we were to ask them what they felt about Bill C-14, we would find almost unanimous support for this type of bail reform legislation.

    Why will the Conservative Party not allow the legislation to pass? We have now heard others say that they will not even pass it this year. Does the member agree that the Conservative Party is going to prevent it from—

    The hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan has the floor.

    Mr. Speaker, let us be candid. The Liberals have made such a mess that when other levels of government or police forces hear that the Liberals may be thinking about trying to fix what they have broken, sure, they are going to get on board, but they want it completely fixed. Therefore if they were given a choice between the Liberals' bill or what the Conservatives offered, they would definitely go with what the Conservatives offered.

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 would still allow judges to release offenders and would still direct courts to apply the least onerous conditions if release is granted. It is the same loophole the member mentioned that let Bailey McCourt's killer walk free in Kelowna just hours after he was convicted of choking her.

    Why would the Liberals preserve a culture of automatic release when public safety should be paramount?

     Mr. Speaker, I could never defend what the Liberals are standing for. I am appalled that they actually think this would be a good law.

    I am asked questions about what the Liberals thinks. I do not get into their heads, but what I hear from my local police force is that police are tired of bringing in front of a judge someone who committed a crime, and then having them released within hours. It is appalling. In addition, people are afraid to come forward, because they know that criminals who were just arrested will come back and come after them.

    Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe the type of comments we are getting from the Conservative Party. Even though there are all forms of support for the legislation, the Conservative Party is determined to prevent the legislation from moving forward.

    Let us be very clear to people who have been following the debate that the Conservatives, even though they talk about bail reform, are taking no action to support bail reform, because they want to use it as a political, partisan issue.

    Will the Conservatives put party politics to the side, do what is in the best interest of Canadians, and allow the legislation to pass through?

     Mr. Speaker, victims do not care about partisan politics; they care about their public safety.

    Why do you not put your partisan politics away and allow for changes so the victims can be protected instead of the criminals?

    The member used “you”. The Deputy Speaker did put his partisan affiliations aside.

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

    Mr. Speaker, the question is for my great colleague from the beautiful town of Moose Jaw, which I had the pleasure of visiting this past summer, and I met with some of the police, the law enforcement officers there. The member was unavailable to meet me as he was out of town when I got there.

    There has been a huge rise in crime in Barrie, my city. In fact, one police officer in our town was stabbed by a gentleman who had been arrested and released on bail 17 times in two years. Are you hearing the same things in your area?

    I will just remind the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte that he cannot use “you” referring to the Speaker. I was not there, so I actually do not know.

    I invite the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan to respond.

    Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I was not in Moose Jaw at the time. I was stuck in traffic jam on Highway 400 just south of Barrie.

    I am hearing the same things in my community, about people repeatedly being caught and released. What happens is that the people who are caught and released start ramping up their crimes; the severity gets worse.

     Mr. Speaker, nine years of the Liberal government has turned Canada into a country where mothers kiss their children goodbye in the morning and pray they come home at night. Last month, Savannah Kulla, a 29-year-old mother of four, was shot dead in broad daylight in a Brampton strip mall. Her killer was a man who had already been charged with firearms offences and intimate partner violence, a man the Liberal justice system let walk free on bail.

    This summer, Bailey McCourt stood in a courtroom and begged a judge to keep her violent ex-husband behind bars. He had already choked her unconscious. The judge released him anyway on $500 bail. Hours later, James Plover hunted her down and murdered her. Bailey's last words to the court had been that he would kill her. The Liberal system said that it would take a chance.

    These were two women, and there were two killers who never should have been on our streets. That is the human cost of Liberal catch-and-release.

     Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, gun crime is up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assault is up 76% and homicide is up 29%. This is not random; it is the direct, predictable and preventable result of the Liberals' Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Bill C-75 codified the toxic principle of restraint, a directive that forces police and judges to release accused persons at the earliest possible moment and under the least onerous conditions, no matter how dangerous they are. Bill C-5 gutted mandatory minimums and handed out house arrest for serious sexual assault, robbery, firearms trafficking and kidnapping.

    For four long years, Conservatives have stood in the House and demanded one thing: jail not bail, repealing the principle of restraint and restoring mandatory minimums and presumed detention for repeat violent offenders. All the while, the members opposite blocked us, voted against us and mocked us.

    Now, after heartbreaking murders, with families having paid the ultimate price, the Liberals finally copy us with Bill C-14 and call it sweeping reform. This is surgical PR, a patchwork of press releases and photo ops that nibble at the edges while the revolving door keeps spinning.

    Let us be crystal clear about what Bill C-14 would not do. It would not repeal the principle of restraint. It keeps the very words that created catch-and-release; it merely adds a redundant sentence saying that restraint would not require release. That sentence is already in the Criminal Code twice, in sections 498 and 501. The bill is not reform but press release footnotes. It would expand reverse onus for some offences: violent car theft, home invasion, choking assaults and extortion. That is good, but reverse onus would still be just a procedural speed bump. The accused could still talk their way out.

    What Canadians need is a brick wall. They need presumptive detention for every serious violent offence and every repeat offender.

    The bill would add aggravating factors and a few consecutive sentences, but only in narrow combinations. Break and enter would count only if it is paired with gang-related auto theft, and only on the sentence offence. Extortion would run consecutive to arson only from the exact same event. Meanwhile, mass murderers like Alexandre Bissonnette would still get to stack parole eligibility because the government will not touch the Supreme Court's rulings.

    The bill would ban house arrest for major sexual assault under two years. That sounds tough, until we remember that the Liberals were the ones who made house arrest possible, in Bill C-5. They fixed one hole that they punched in the boat, while robbery, firearms trafficking, kidnapping and chronic violent offenders would still get to serve their time in their living room.

    The bill would do nothing to restore the mandatory minimums the Liberals repealed. Sentencing would remain a judicial lottery: uneven, uncertain and unsafe. It would add no new judges, no new courtrooms and no funding to clear the backlogs.

     We see 50% of charges in the Waterloo region dropped because the system is clogged. Waterloo Regional Police told us personally that one in five people on Liberal release orders is caught breaching conditions. More than half of those breachers are repeat violent offenders caught multiple times on the same toothless conditions, and because of the Liberal backlog, half of the charges those officers lay never see a courtroom. In one in five breaches, half the charges are dropped. This is not justice. This is a subscription service for crime.

     Just last month in Richmond Hill, a 53-year-old predator allegedly groomed a child online, arranged a meeting at Lake Wilcox and sexually assaulted them. Bill C-14 would do nothing for that child. There would be no reverse onus, and house arrest would still be on the table if the sentence is under two years. That is playing Russian roulette with our children's lives.

    Bill C-14 is a half measure dressed up as a victory. Canadians deserve the full Conservative plan, the real jail not bail plan we have been fighting for since day one.

     Here is what real reform looks like. We should repeal the Liberal principle of restraint and replace it with a public safety clause. Public and community safety should be the governing principle in every bail decision. We should presume detention, not just reverse the onus, for every major violent offence, such as the use of firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion with a firearm and arson, and for every repeat violent offender. We should restore mandatory minimums for those exact crimes, the ones the Liberals repealed with Bill C-5. We should end house arrest for robbery, firearms offences, trafficking and chronic violent offenders, with no more living room sentences. We should mandate judges to consider the full criminal record, every conviction, every breach and every outstanding charge, and lower the risk threshold from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonably foreseeable”. We should bar anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a surety, with no more criminals vouching for criminals, and require non-residents to surrender their passports. We should also fund courts, hire judges and clear backlogs so officers' work is not wasted and victims see justice.

     This is what police chiefs from coast to coast are begging for. This is what victims' families are pleading for. This is what Savannah Kulla and Bailey McCourt deserved but never got.

     We will move amendments to make Bill C-14 live up to its promises. We will fight to turn Liberal redundancy into Conservative reality. However, if the government refuses, if it clings to its failed ideology, then Bill C-14 will fail the only test that matters: keeping Canadians safe tonight, tomorrow night and every night after.

     Canadians have had enough of Liberal clarifications and half measures. They want Conservative convictions. It is past time to jail, not give bail, and keep our streets safe.

    Mr. Speaker, I noticed the member indicated that the Conservatives are going to move amendments. They have changes they want to make to the legislation.

     Surely to goodness members realize that that is what we do at the committee stage. Members have to allow the legislation to get through second reading. The Conservatives say they want to make changes, so they should allow it to go to committee.

     Why will the Conservatives not allow, at the very least, the legislation to go to committee today so they can see if they have majority support for their amendments? After all, the Liberals are in the minority, even at committee. Why will the Conservatives not allow the legislation to go to committee today?

     Mr. Speaker, we are continually being told that we are attacking, that we are not being non-partisan with these issues and that we are not working with the government to pass bills on these issues, but the truth is that it is the other way around. We believe in democracy, and we believe the public needs to know what is in this legislation and what the Conservatives are doing to protect them and to make sure these criminals end up in jail.

    Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to my Conservative colleagues' speeches today, and what I am hearing is actually quite surprising. I get the feeling that, rather than wanting to move this legislation forward, the Conservatives are trying to stir up discontent among the public by giving examples that, although deserving of discussion, should not be overblown. I do not know what their objective is here.

    This morning, the Leader of the Opposition was calling for an emergency debate on a somewhat far-fetched issue by saying that the Liberals are now responsible for certain crimes in society. This is, of course, political, but I am not convinced that it is helping to advance the current debate. Perhaps my Conservative colleagues should reframe their comments if they want them to be relevant.

    Mr. Speaker, it really unfortunate for the member opposite to say that these are exaggerated things happening in this country. These are real things. These are real lives being lost. These are the real consequences of what the Liberals have done to our justice system.

    We are not trying to block anything. We are trying to show Canadians how we are working to protect them and make sure these criminals go to jail.

    Mr. Speaker, it was an excellent speech. The hon. member mentioned human trafficking. Yesterday, York Region, along with Hamilton police, arrested a man for the human trafficking of children under the age of 18.

    Could the hon. member please tell the people watching today that our children are our future? Canada has no future without them. Would she agree?

    Mr. Speaker, first off, these things are absolutely devastating. Our children are our next generation and our children are not safe.

    I have no words to say other than that these offenders should not be on our streets. They should not be victimizing our children. Our children are our legacy. We need to, as a country, keep them safe.

     Mr. Speaker, I have news for members of the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, there are murders. Even children are murdered. There have been all sorts of violent crimes, even when Harper was the prime minister of Canada. This is not something new. What is new is we have a Prime Minister who has made an election commitment to Canadians to have bail reform.

    Will the Conservatives agree to allow bail reform to take place this year?

     Mr. Speaker, yes, there was crime before the government came in, but since then, violent crime is up 55%, gun crime is up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assault is up 76% and homicide is up 29%. We need to keep these criminals in jail.

    Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to this debate all day on Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

    For the last 10 years in this country, crime has been going one way, and that is straight up. In fact, even in my home province of Saskatchewan and my city of Saskatoon, in the last decade under the Liberals, there have been pathetic soft-on-crime policies, and serious crime has gone up everywhere.

    I just looked at the Saskatoon Police Service website, and the crime stats are amazing. I am going to share some of them with members here today.

    If we compare today's crime stats to those of 10 years ago, assaults in my city are up 35%, kidnapping and hostage-taking are up 33%, sexual violations are up a massive 66%, and stalking and break and enters with firearms are both up 300%. That is over the last 10 years.

    My riding has the highest concentration of seniors in this country. In reading these numbers, I was reminded of an incident that took place in my riding of Saskatoon South this summer. I have to share it with everyone.

    A 75-year-old senior woman was taking her dog for a walk, as she normally does every day in the morning. They were walking by one of the beautiful community gardens we have in the riding, and as she was walking by, she noticed someone in the garden moving around from plot to plot. The senior then asked this lady if she actually had a plot in this garden and what she was doing. She said that if the person did not have a plot, she should leave, as some had spent hours with their garden.

    That was all it took for this 27-year-old to attack the 75-year-old senior walking her dog. The victim was grabbed by the hair, thrown to the ground and then attacked, believe it or not, with a gardening tool. We are grateful that this did not end as badly as it could have, but the victim lost a chunk of hair. There were no broken bones, but just think of the trauma this 75-year-old had while walking her dog and then getting into an incident with a 27-year-old.

    The attacker was apprehended thanks to the Saskatoon city police a short time after. The police found her hiding in a nearby bush and took her into custody. Guess what. She was charged with aggravated assault, assaulting a peace officer, breach of undertaking and breach of probation. Police say the woman punched a female special constable in the face while she was being booked into custody. No one is surprised that she was wanted elsewhere in the province. She ended up in Saskatoon South, and because of this gardening incident, she was finally caught.

    After hearing about this attack, I sent a sympathy card to this senior, and after receiving it, she showed up at my constituency office. She laid out the whole story in front of us about what happened that day: leaving her place with her dog, going through this community garden and finding this 27-year-old rummaging row by row. Then, of course, she talked about the crime that is happening in our city. Crime is, in fact, out of control after a decade of Liberal soft-on-crime policies.

    These are real stories. A 75-year-old woman, who normally feels safe in my city and my constituency, was attacked for no reason whatsoever. I will give a few more examples, if I can.

    Earlier this month, there was a big drug bust in my riding; it was in Stonebridge. According to the Saskatoon Police Service, on November 6, police seized over $22,000 in cash, 750 grams of fentanyl, over half a kilogram of meth, 362 grams of cocaine, multiple mobile phones and assorted paraphernalia consistent with the illegal drug industry.

     During the election, I specifically remember door knocking on that block. It is unnerving to think that I most likely knocked on that door in Stonebridge, completely unaware of what was happening on the other side. I wonder how many of us in the House have been in similar circumstances in their communities, when there have been incidents reported and later convictions. Members may have kind of wondered and said, “Oh yeah, I did door knock that area.”

     I wish I could tell members that was an isolated incident in my city, but the truth is I cannot. Just last year, police concluded a nine-month investigation that saw the arrests of five high-level drug dealers, three of whom were operating in my riding. The total amount of everything seized was as follows: 4.2 kilograms of cocaine, almost three kilograms of meth, $16,000 in cash, a nine-millimetre carbine rifle, a prohibited handgun, ammunition, cell phones, various other equipment, and multiple vehicles.

     In May, police arrested two men in Saskatoon for more drug trafficking. They conducted search warrants in a few locations in and around the city. They again seized a number of drugs, drug paraphernalia and over $400,000 in cash.

    During the summer, my colleague, the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, and I met with the Saskatoon chief of police, Cam McBride. In fact, we met for over an hour. We discussed how soft-on-crime bail laws have allowed our cities to be taken over by violent repeat offenders. It was a fascinating conversation in my office.

    During this meeting, Cam McBride, the city police chief, said that officers who are on the streets arrest the same people so often that the officers know them by name, saying they catch them on Monday, they are released, back on the street, and then they catch them again on Tuesday night. This is a result of disastrous catch-and-release policies and lax liberal laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

     Earlier this year, I sent out a questionnaire to constituents asking what their views are on crime in our city. Overwhelmingly, the response was that the justice system needs to change in this country. The Liberals need to scrap their useless justice policies and adopt Conservative policies that actually are tough on crime.

     I have gone to many ride-alongs in my city with paramedics and police. The first thing I noticed is that they know people by name. Repeat offenders are picked up early in the day and, unfortunately, released in the afternoon or night.

    Last week in our city, the city police held a news conference to talk about a couple of issues. There are two hurdles that need to be navigated in my city for a full complement of officers to be realized: number one is recruitment and number two is the backlog. The provincial government is trying to help out. It has offered $8 million to pay for dozens of officers, but the public will unfortunately not see the impact any time soon.

    The city police in my city have asked for an increase of $158 million in the city budget. That will be debated next week in Saskatoon. Every community is under pressure for new hires. It is a growing challenge, with fewer people today interested in a career of policing. That is disappointing.

    I look at the RCMP in our province. We have had some major incidents, unfortunately, in our province over the last number of years. Hundreds more RCMP, if not thousands, are needed in our municipalities and cities to have the full complement of RCMP officers, which the government has promised. We are well short of that. In Saskatchewan right now, where we have the home of the RCMP Depot Division in Regina, we are short more than 100 RCMP officers in our communities.

     I just wanted to say, in wrapping up, that this is an important bill. We know that there are lots of shortfalls. We look forward to further debate on Bill C-14.

    Mr. Speaker, everybody agrees that the government has a responsibility to continue to reduce crime in this country. We have heard from several Conservative colleagues just this morning about the high rates of crime, in particular in the province of Saskatchewan. Indeed, unfortunately Saskatchewan does have the highest crime rate of any province in Canada, according to data released by Statistics Canada earlier this year. To that end, I wonder whether the member has spoken with his colleagues in the Government of Saskatchewan, who have been in power for nearly 20 years, about what they are doing to address crime in their province.

    More to the point, Conservatives are keen to talk down this country at every available opportunity. In doing so, they miss the good news. Crime is down in Saskatchewan by 5% over the previous year and nationwide by 4%. Will Conservatives help maintain that trend by supporting the government's bail and sentencing reforms?

    Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the member is from the city of Victoria, as there have been many encampments and lots of crime over the last number of years in Victoria. As we have noticed, many people from Saskatchewan are not travelling to the United States of America these days, for one reason or another. We would like to be hosted in B.C., but the crime in his city of Victoria is as bad as anywhere else in the country.

     We are saying what the public wants to see right now, and we have been talking about this for three or four years. The Liberals have had 10 years to fix this, and now they are coming in with a band-aid approach to Bill C-75.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saskatchewan gave a great speech. I think all Canadians are asking this about this particular government: Are we confident that the same Liberals who broke our current justice system, the reason we are dealing with all this crime across Canada, are going to fix the problem? Are you confident in this government?

    The Speaker is not going to answer that question, but the member for Saskatoon South will.

     Mr. Speaker, no, of course we are not confident. I mean, over the last 10 years, this has been a disaster. The Liberals have finally woken up and realized that Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 were a joke. We on this side of the House have been talking about it for years.

     We need tougher action on bail and release. We need to get criminals behind bars. In downtown Calgary, 75 people were charged for most of the assaults and what is going on in the city. A small number of people in Calgary are causing the biggest headache for the police service in that city.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to issue the same warning that I gave my colleague earlier. This is a very serious matter. We must be careful not to undermine public confidence in our institutions. It seems to me that, since this morning, the Conservatives have been trying to stir up discontent among the public by saying that everything is broken, criminals are being set free and the system is not working.

    It is surprising, nonetheless, that this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that we need an emergency debate on Liberal extortion, that the Liberal Party is responsible for extortion.

    I am asking my Conservative colleagues to bring the discussion back—

    I must give the member for Saskatoon South time to answer the question.

    Mr. Speaker, the problem right now is being soft on crime. It is just wicked in this country.

    I give credit to my leader, who went coast to coast hearing from individuals across the country about extortion, which is why we wanted the emergency debate. The incidents are happening in Calgary, in Edmonton, in Vernon, in Surrey and in Ontario. There is a 330% increase in extortion, and nobody in the House, other than our leader and our Conservative Party of Canada members, are talking about it.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the time to talk about Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing bill the government has proposed to fix all the Liberal problems from over the last 10 years, supposedly.

    I am going to ask Canadians a question: Are they confident that the same Liberals who broke our justice system are actually going to fix our justice system? As Conservatives, we are asking that exact question. Here is a government that has been in power for 10 years, despite it calling itself new. Now, the members are pretending they want to fix the problem. Maybe some of them actually want to fix the problem, but again, this is a problem they created.

    Problems of rampant crime, drug use and overdoses due to their soft-on-crime and safe supply ideology are not just figments of our imagination, as many Canadians are realizing the hard way. These statistics are from “British Columbia Crime Trends, 2014 - 2023”: In 2014, the total of violent offences was 53,209. In 2023, that number went to 86,205 offences. It is not just us talking about it. These effects are real.

    This is partly due to the Liberals' Bill C-75 and the principle of restraint in the bill, which ensures release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. It requires reasonable bail conditions. This has really gone across the justice system across the nation. Whether it is prosecutors or the judiciary, they are following the direction of the government, and it has actually been ruinous for our country.

    Across British Columbia, violent crime has increased almost 50%, while the total number of sexual assaults has gone up over 95%. These are incredible numbers. Extortion has shot up a staggering 481% across the province of B.C. The consequences of Liberal policies are real, and people are feeling that, as my colleague from Saskatchewan just alluded to. Since 2015 in Canada, violent crime is up 55%; firearms crime is up 130%; extortion has skyrocketed by 330% across Canada; sexual assaults are up 76%; and homicides are up 29%. These are stats, and sometimes numbers do not really deal with the real story behind those numbers.

    I am going to start with some communities in my riding, and I will start with my birthplace, Dawson Creek. Recently, The Fifth Estate did a story about my birthplace, where I was born and lived until the age of five. My mom homesteaded in Dawson Creek. They were in Dawson Creek for a long time. The headline from CBC reads, “Behind the fear: The unsolved killings in Dawson Creek, B.C.” Anybody who thinks of the name Dawson Creek thinks of a very peaceful town, a farmer town, and I would like to think it still is.

    This quote is from the story:

    The Liberals formed government in 2016, and this is what we have after 10 years of Liberal rule.

    I will go to the next community we will talk about today, which is Fort Nelson. Fort Nelson is about four hours north of my hometown of Fort St. John. I spoke with a frustrated local police officer just last year. He said that 15 people are responsible for 90% of the calls, and that really speaks to the recidivism of criminals who are being brought in and released without being incarcerated.

     This is an article titled “Fort Nelson ‘tow truck war’ continues with another arson investigation”, from September 29. It states:

    In case members did not know, Ben Wall is the owner of that particular towing company. I actually did a video with him this summer highlighting his plight because police officers basically know who it is, but they cannot keep the ones who are doing it behind bars.

     I texted him this morning to ask about the total damage caused by these repeat criminals. Ben said, this morning, “I don't have an accurate calculation, but it's somewhere between $1.5 million and $2 million; 10 separate arsons and two vandalisms where equipment or property was damaged. Amazingly, no real theft that we are aware of in all of this. That dollar value would be based on insurance payouts. We have lost somewhere between $200,000 and $400,000 in procurement costs.” That is the disparity between what the insurance is paying him and what the value of the piece of equipment is. He also referred to new equipment, set-up costs, lost revenue, administrative costs and so on. Members should listen to this last line, which is very important: “nothing to say of how life-destroying this has been.”

     I know that Mr. Wall has felt threatened, and his family has felt threatened in that community. Seemingly, criminals are getting away with what they are doing, with no end in sight.

     This is from Fort St. John, my hometown, where I live today. This is an article from March 19, titled “Wanted man with long criminal history arrested by Fort St. John RCMP”. It states:

    It is another really sad example of recidivism in my riding alone.

     I will finish with these two stories. I do not have an article to quote, but I heard it from the person directly. Cori Ramsay was recently in Ottawa, just two weeks ago, and she is a Prince George city councillor. She said she was on a ride-along with the local RCMP, and they watched somebody trying to break into the local Value Village. The person was arrested and brought to jail. That person was released within one and a half hours, and on the same ride-along that very night, within four hours, the police had rearrested the person for another crime. It is bad enough for Canadians to hear the statistics, but they are hearing it from real-life stories. That is one story of thousands in our communities that are just being allowed to happen because of such bills as Bill C-75 and the Liberal government's poor past policies.

    I have another story from Prince George. The firefighters were just here in Ottawa, as members know. The Prince George firefighters have told me many stories of some of the challenges of downtown Prince George. I asked them, “How much time is actually spent fighting fires?” They said, “Well, 90% of our time is spent dealing with overdoses and fires started by those same people addicted to drugs.” Again, this is because of Liberal soft-on-crime policies and safe supply. Those are the real effects that these policies are having in our communities, and they have built up over 10 years. Now the Liberals are pretending, “Hey, folks, we are new”, even though they are not, and we know they are not.

     As I started off with when I first began to speak, I ask Canadians if they are confident that these same Liberals who broke our justice system are actually going to fix our justice system. We have just laid out the case that they are not.

    Mr. Speaker, a report from this summer says that Prince George saw a significant drop in crime severity, down 13.87%, the lowest point since 2020. I will note that Prince George, as well as Saskatchewan, is actually policed by the RCMP. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the RCMP as “despicable”.

     Will the member opposite disavow those comments from his leader and stand up for the men and women who are keeping his community safe?

    Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that people, after having so many crimes committed on their private properties, are just not calling anymore. They realize that criminals are not getting incarcerated for what they are doing and there is a revolving door.

    Our local RCMP have been awesome. We have worked with them. Whether it is Prince George, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John or Dawson Creek, they have been excellent. They are doing their best to bring justice back to our streets despite the Liberal government's legislation.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. I have been here for 10 years, and the Liberals have been saying they are going to address criminal justice from the beginning. First, they had Bill C-75, and the police said that it was awful and allows repeat offenders out on the streets. Then they had Bill C-5, which took away mandatory minimums and put house arrest in place. That made things even worse. They saw crime skyrocketing, and under Arif Virani, when he was the minister of justice, they tried again at bail reform.

    I would ask the member the same question he is asking Canadians: Is he confident that Bill C-14 is going to fix the problem the Liberals have been talking about fixing for 10 years?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said when we started, whether Bill C-75, Bill C-5 or anything we can name, all these pieces of legislation are still on the books, and all of a sudden, we are supposed to believe that Bill C-14 is going to fix all the problems. That is what the Liberals are telling Canadians.

    We know it is not true and it is not going to happen. That is the premise of the question I asked in my speech today. I just hope Canadians are seeing through what the Liberals are trying to do in trying to erase history. I think Canadians are living with the effects of crime on their streets, and that is not going to be erased any time soon.

     Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, who is also from B.C., omitted the good news that the crime severity index in our province has decreased by 11% year over year, according to Stats Canada.

    At the heart of the Conservatives' complaints about this matter is the fact that Canadians fundamentally chose our party to form government. Are Canadians confident that the government will reduce crime? That is the member's question. Evidently, based on the election seven months ago, the answer to that question is yes.

    If Conservatives were serious about the question of confidence, then they would not be playing games in this chamber on confidence motions; their House leader would not be hiding behind those curtains, pretending his voting app is not working; and Conservative MPs would not be making flimsy excuses for why they do not show up to vote non-confidence in the government.

    At the end of the day, Conservative members are asking whether Canadians have confidence in the government. The real question is whether Conservatives are prepared to accept the confidence Canadians have expressed in the government, our vision for the future and our efforts to resolve these challenges.

    Mr. Speaker, that ought to be the record for the longest question in the history of this place.

    Liberals are great at talking. I think you are perfect evidence that Liberals can talk a lot. We heard about that last election, that there was a lot of talk. You were not given a mandate necessarily. You have a minority government; you did not get a majority, so there is something there. Canadians are not willing to trust you as a majority government.

    I will go back to the simple stats from British Columbia, since you quoted them. For total offences in 2014, there were 53,209. In 2023, there were 86,205. The stats speak for themselves.

     Before I return to questions and comments, I would just remind the member not to use “you”. The Speaker is not participating in debate.

    Questions and comments, the member for Regina—Lewvan.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the random Liberal on the far left over there about the RCMP and the “despicable” comment. Does he know the budget that he just voted for cut $98 million from the RCMP budget?

    I represent Depot, and I talked to the commanding officer. The Liberal government cut $98 million from the RCMP budget, and it asked the RCMP to hire 1,000 new recruits with $0 in the budget. The RCMP is now short $220 million from the Liberal government. That is despicable.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saskatchewan points to the fact that Liberals say one thing during elections and do another when they are actually in government. This is just further proof of that.

    The Liberals are cutting Veterans Affairs and many other things Canadians rely on. I hope Canadians look at this debate and see who is telling the truth about who is really going to cut crime. The Liberals have had a chance for 10 years, and they simply have not gotten it done.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the previous exchange, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan referred to a member in the House as a “random Liberal” from the back. I do not think it is appropriate to be referring to any member in any kind of way. It was clearly meant to be done in a demeaning way. Perhaps the member has had an opportunity to reflect on that and would like to stand up and apologize for referring to any member in the House in any way other than the honourable manner in which we are all treated.

     I thank the chief government whip. It is a good reminder to members to be careful with the words they use. There are a lot of new members in the House, and the rules are clear not to impugn the intent or motive of any members. I thank the chief government whip for the reminder.

    The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is rising on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, I know we need to keep going with the debate but, with regard to the member who just brought up that previous point of order, we have been talking about pretty serious issues, about crime and victims and all the rest. Their group has been giggling and laughing the whole way through. I find it a little rich that he is going to somehow challenge our member for not doing something properly when he has been completely disrespecting this place and the debate that is occurring today.

    Mr. Speaker, for the record, I was sitting in the lobby and I witnessed this on the TV screen. I came in here in order to bring it to your attention. To say that I have been sitting here giggling about this is absolutely incorrect and false. If I could use another word to describe that, I would, but I cannot in this place.

    Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I was here witnessing the debate, so I can actually testify that the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime was one of the ones talking and giggling while the members were in debate. I just wanted to add that information.

    I am going to take all of what the members have said, and I am going to draw the members' attention to the Standing Orders. Standing Order 16, on decorum, is a great standing order that all members should remember. They are all useful rules that members should remember when speaking to each other and about each other in the House as well.

    I am going to draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 18 specifically. A couple of lines into it, it says, “nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.”

    The heading is “Disrespectful or offensive language. Reflection on a vote.”

    I know that there was a constituency week last week, so many members have now returned. Sometimes we forget riding names. We also forget some of the Standing Orders.

    As a good reminder, do not make comments about other members that are insulting or are meant to be insulting. Also, do not try to educe the motive behind what a member is saying. Those are all rules that we should be reminded of.

    I also want to remind members of Standing Order 16(2), not to cross between the Speaker and the member who is speaking.

    With that said, I consider the matter closed.

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Oxford.

    Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to be in the chamber to rise on an issue that is affecting Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I have spoken about this issue many times. I brought forward the jail not bail bill to help crack down on repeat violent offenders.

     We held town halls right across our beautiful country, in Surrey, Winnipeg, St. Thomas, Vaughan and Peel. Canadians are very concerned. They are very scared of what is going on in their communities. The town halls were packed with hundreds of concerned residents who showed up without any political affiliation. For many of them, it was the first time they had gone to a town hall meeting. They expressed deep concern about public safety.

     I was in Vaughan recently with my hon. friend, the member for King—Vaughan. We met with victims, business owners, young students and other Canadians. They said they do not recognize the country they knew and still love today. They are concerned about the level of crime that is happening in their community, as well as the severity of the crime. The shift that is happening in our system now, whether it is in a big city or a rural community like Oxford, is not just about an increase in crime but about the type of crime. There are shootings in broad daylight, violent home invasions and carjackings. This is stuff we have never seen before at this level in our country.

    The government often talks about charter rights, but we are seeing it protecting the charter rights of criminals. I talk to Canadians every day, and they are saying that criminals are getting a free pass and a free ride. Liberal policies on crime are easy on criminals and tough on Canadians. In my riding of Oxford, a victim in Beachville wrote to me and said it feels like she is the one on house arrest, while her attacker is walking free around the community. She has to change her behaviour to avoid seeing him at a public library, a museum or a grocery store. The criminals are not worried about anything. That is the type of system the Liberals have created.

     Conservatives have always asked, “What about the charter rights of law-abiding Canadians who follow the rules and are not criminals?” What about the charter rights of that 71-year-old grandma who went to buy groceries? All she wanted to do was go to the store, pick up some food, come home, make a nice meal and enjoy time with her family. She was brutally stabbed to death in a parking lot. She had done absolutely nothing wrong. What about the charter rights of Bailey McCourt or Cait Alexander, or any of the other victims going through these troubling times?

     Liberal policies have caused a massive shift. Instead of them being about public safety and keeping Canadians safe, they have shifted toward empowering the criminals. There is no deterrence in our system right now. Criminals know how to game the system, and they are gaming it every single day. There is no fear of consequences. The law is supposed to deter people from committing crime, but when soft-on-crime, catch-and-release legislation like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 is brought in, these are the problems that come from it.

     This did not happen overnight. This is a direct result of the policies the Liberals brought forward, and now we are living with this nightmare. The headlines we are seeing are like something from a Hollywood movie. Just last night, in Abbotsford, there was another extortion call. We never had an extortion problem in our country. When I was in Surrey, doing my jail not bail town hall, I met with residents who shared stories of their homes being shot at. This one gentleman said a bullet flew over his daughter's bed. If she had been standing up or walking around, she could have been hit.

    The Prime Minister was in B.C. a few days ago. He was taking a nice stroll on the beach, looking at the water and admiring what was going on. Not too far away, there was a town hall on extortion. Families and victims were coming together to share their concerns. In all of the press conferences the Prime Minister did while he was in B.C. and at all of the tour stops he did, buying ice cream and living the good life, not once did he speak about extortion. I would think that a prime minister who cared about public safety would talk about one of the biggest crises happening in that community, but he did not. These people's words meant absolutely nothing to him.

     This is about action. For seven months, the Liberals delayed, denied and obstructed. For years, we talked about bringing forward legislation and pushed them to raise these issues, and we were ignored. They simply ignored our calls to take action. I have said this before and I will say it again: I am glad they have finally admitted that we have a problem. That was step number one. With any problem, if we do not accept that there is a problem, which they did for four years, the problem continues. I am happy that they are finally acknowledging, through political pressure, that we have a problem.

    The piece of legislation the Liberals have brought forward, as I have said before and will say again, is trying to treat a gunshot wound with a band-aid. This is a band-aid solution that would stop some of the bleeding, but it would not heal the wounds or the problems we see in today's society. It is a step in the right direction for sure, but it does not go far enough. It would not stop the crime wave we are seeing in our communities.

     I brought forward the jail not bail act, which would go a lot further than Bill C-14. It would repeal the Liberals' principle of restraint that allows repeat violent offenders to be released at the earliest opportunity and on the least restrictive conditions, which justices of the peace are constantly quoting as they release these criminals. The Liberals said that, yes, there is a problem with the principle of restraint, and they were going to tinker around with it and make some changes, but it still exists.

     The Conservatives believe in making sure that public safety is a primary consideration. The Liberals talk about law enforcement. They make these big announcements, like hiring 1,000 new RCMP personnel. They have been saying that for years. They are not hiring anybody. The Minister of Public Safety just said it is not his job to hire.

     The Liberals are ignoring the will of Canadians. They are ignoring that their actions are causing the problems we are facing today. That is why we brought forward legislation in the House to stop extortion. They voted against it. We brought forward legislation to stop these violent carjackings and auto thefts happening in the community. They voted against it. We brought forward a motion to fast-track the jail not bail act, which has support right across our country. They blocked it. They have been standing in the way of keeping our communities safe.

    Conservatives are united. We will continue to raise these issues. We will come back to a Canada where anyone from anywhere can live on a safe street, raise their families, enjoy a stroll in the park and have coffee with their friends without the café being shot at. We will have a life where everyone feels safe, secure and protected. The Liberals cannot do it. We will.

    Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to recognize the loss of Olga Crombie in my community. She was a devoted wife, mother and pillar of her family, known for her fierce love, strength and selflessness. Her legacy will live on through her family. I want to give a special mention to her son, Steve.

     I appreciate the member's remarks. Public safety can be complex, especially around pretrial detention. When it comes to repeat violent offenders, I think there is agreement in this House. We should know, though, that of those who are in pretrial detention, over 70% across this country are waiting for trial, and they are innocent until proven guilty. The evidence is that those who are subject to pretrial detention in the aggregate are more likely to recidivate when the case is closed.

     Could the member speak to the complexities of pretrial detention and recidivism?

    Mr. Speaker, there is a presumption of innocence in our country. That is a fundamental principle that we will defend all the way. The people we are targeting are the repeat violent offenders who have made this a business, who are part of organized crime and who are constantly terrorizing our communities.

    The statistics do not lie. In Kelowna, the RCMP and the mayor said the same 15 people were responsible for almost 1,500 crimes. They are not innocent people. They were found guilty of committing those crimes. The same 40 people in Vancouver committed 6,000 crimes.

     We are targeting the small number of people who repeatedly and constantly attack our communities. That is who we are going after with this bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for drafting the jail not bail act.

    Can the member please describe the substantial difference between the approaches in the jail not bail act and Bill C-14 when it comes to repeat violent criminals, and how we create a presumption of detention in his bill?

    Mr. Speaker, I could spend all day discussing the differences between our bills. The Liberals have kept the principle of restraint intact in their legislation. We would repeal it and add the principle of public safety as a primary consideration. We would make changes to the conditions for those being released. We would make changes to the legal test to make it tougher for repeat violent offenders to get bail. We would make it mandatory for judges to look at a person's criminal history.

     We would make all of these changes to toughen our system so that repeat violent offenders stay behind bars, where they belong.

    Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member focused some attention on extortion. I understand the importance of that particular issue. I have had many discussions on it. The Prime Minister has raised the issue. Many members of the Liberal caucus have discussed the issue.

     One of the issues that Bill C-14 deals with is extortion. We hear the Conservatives talk a lot about extortion. They have a chance to do something about it that will make a difference by allowing this bill to pass. Will he commit to allowing this bill on bail reform to pass before the end of this year?

    Mr. Speaker, all the member said was that they talk and talk. The Prime Minister has talked about it. He has talked about it. They have had discussions about this and discussions about that. Talking is all they have been doing for the last 10 years.

     Our deputy leader brought Bill C-381 to the floor of Parliament last year. What did the Liberals do? They voted against it. They had an opportunity to stand up for their residents, but they did not.

     Winnipeg has one of the highest crime rates in the country, yet the member is constantly defending the failed Liberal policies that put his community at risk every single day. When we had the town hall in his community, we had folks from all walks of life. Even Liberals showed up. Liberal members said they were not sure what was going on with their own party, they needed change now and they supported the jail not bail act.

     Mr. Speaker, the member does not understand the issues relating to Winnipeg. If he understood them, he would know that the City of Winnipeg has taken action, and so has the province in passing legislation.

     Will he recognize that it takes more than just the federal government, and that he should likewise be encouraging the provinces and cities to take action?

     Mr. Speaker, I understand that all levels of government have to work together. The problem with the Liberal members is they do not want to take responsibility for fixing in the chamber what they have control over. The Criminal Code is a federal responsibility. The RCMP is a federal responsibility. The CBSA is a federal responsibility.

     Instead of pointing fingers at everybody else, maybe they should look at themselves in the mirror and take some responsibility for their own actions.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to an issue that is fundamental to what Canadians want from their government: security, safety and the conviction that the law will protect innocent people rather than reward violent criminals.

     Canadians nationwide are dealing with the fallout from a justice system that puts violent repeat offenders ahead of the security of families and small business owners after 10 arduous years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies. The government has now acknowledged with the introduction of this bill that the catch-and-release strategy has failed. However, it is not enough to ensure that Canadians are safe in their country and that those who commit crimes are jailed and not out on bail.

     It is good to see that the government has finally responded to the pleas of the Conservative Party. We have been advocating over the last four years for the scrapping of Liberal bail. One of the things we want to see in this bill changed, enhanced or improved is the adoption of the principle of public and community safety. At its base level, that means eliminating the principle of restraint, presuming detention for major offences and turning Liberal redundancy into mandatory actions from judges.

    Let me tell members why. I made a promise to a group of people in my riding several months ago after the brutal assault of a three-year-old toddler on a street on which I grew up, at my grandparents' house in Welland. I made the promise that I would stand in this House until bail reform and the justice system were changed for people like Daniel Senecal. This repeat offender was recently released after serving just one year after sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy. He served one year for that sexual assault and then was released into the community. Within weeks, he brutally sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl in Welland. While she was in her bed at night, this three-year-old toddler was brutally assaulted and left for dead.

     I know everybody in this House is familiar with that case, and as I continue to talk over and over again about it, I am grateful to the many people in my community who have supported the petition that I launched and that was tabled in the House about a week ago. Tens of thousands of people have called on the government to change bail laws and initiate bail reform.

    It is becoming almost a habit in my riding on Saturday mornings to meet with people who are survivors of sexual assault or who have children who are survivors of sexual assault. We sit and have coffee on Saturday mornings in my office, and they give me the strength to carry on in this quest. This last Saturday, more people arrived. It seems they know that the only voice they have is their representative on the floor of the House of Commons. They have spoken to municipal councils around southern Ontario to ask municipal governments to help support this effort to get bail reform on the floor of the House of Commons.

    In a vacuum, people will do anything they can to raise awareness, from the delegations around southern Ontario to municipal councils to the protests that have popped up across Niagara. There were several protests in front of courthouses and municipal buildings. These are people who are frustrated with the lack of action after 10 years of catch-and-release.

    A police officer came to my office a couple of weeks ago, and I asked him, “What is the pattern of catch-and-release, because I hear a lot about it and the Conservatives have been talking about it?” He looked at me and said that I would not believe it, but over the span of about 60 days, he arrested the same guy 30 times. In some cases, it is now a situation where they sit in the back of a cruiser, they do a promise to appear and then they let someone out, only to rearrest them a few hours later.

    That brings me to the question of release after the shortest possible time under the least onerous conditions.

    Daniel Senecal, the guy who raped and beat a three-year-old toddler, was out early, reoffended and is now in jail awaiting trial. Under this legislation, he would get out again in probably about seven years, if he is convicted. We are waiting for that trial.

    The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asks over and over again why we do not just let this bill go to committee, where we can do the work and make amendments. Well, we did that with Bill C-3 at the immigration committee. We did a lot of work, as my colleague will attest to. We did months of work and made lots of positive amendments to the legislation, but once we brought it back to the House, the government wiped it out in a single vote.

    I understand the government would rather us not talk about that here on the floor of the House of Commons, because it raises too many of the issues that are inherent in this bill, too many of the shortcomings, but we will take it to committee eventually and we will propose amendments. I guarantee that when those amendments come back to this House, the government will reverse everything we would like to do to improve this legislation. That is a travesty.

    When we talk about co-operation, the government likes to say that this is a minority Parliament and that we should co-operate. I say to prove it, because we have tried and members have voted us down. We will try again with this legislation. I request that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader commit today to taking our amendments seriously and not just throwing them out when it comes to report stage. I hope he will accommodate that request today.

    I want to move on to a couple of things in this proposed act about the CBSA. I am going to refer to it as the CBSA facade. We heard the minister say that he wants to hire 1,000 new recruits at the RCMP and 1,000 new recruits at the CBSA. That sounds interesting and sounds like a lot, but once we take into account retirements, attrition and people who leave the profession, it amounts to a drop in the bucket of what the CBSA actually needs to protect Canadians today.

    There is not enough training capacity to train 1,000 new officers for the CBSA right now. This is the first problem. Second, we have a serious problem of morale at the CBSA and a very high level of suicide. The morale level is bad, and the government needs to dig into that to make improvements at the CBSA so it becomes a profession that people would like to join.

    Interestingly, the CBSA recently reduced its detention capacity across Canada. We are talking about jail and not bail, and the CBSA has actually reduced by over 40% the detention capacity across Canada. How is this reality reflected in the legislation we are talking about today?

    There is lots more I could speak about. I would like to take some time to talk about the extortion problem in this country and the crime issues. In my community, I have several businesses that I still manage, and I see that the level of crime in our streets has gone up substantially over the last number of years. It saddens me that in my small town of Port Colborne, crime is at a fearful level for the business community. We have never seen the number of security cameras we see today at our homes, at businesses, at commercial buildings and on our streets in our communities and municipalities. We rely on them now for policing and to help police catch criminals roaming our streets.

    In conclusion, I really hope the government will take up our suggestions at committee when the bill goes to committee and will help us improve it. Let me be clear. I will continue to rise in this House day after day on this issue until criminals like Daniel Senecal spend the rest of their lives in jail and until he never gets another chance to assault a little toddler, as he did in Welland such a short time ago.

    Mr. Speaker, in some ways, I am encouraged by the member's words. I will give him my word. At the end of the day, hopefully we will see this bill go to committee. The Conservatives will make that determination. If it goes to committee, all amendments will be taken seriously and considered.

    Having said that, my word is that a majority of the House will ultimately determine the fate of the legislation. We do not have a majority. We require others to provide a majority.

    Would the member not agree that bail reform is important, not only for parliamentarians but for Canadians? That is who this is all about, the constituents we serve. Will the member give his commitment that he will do whatever he can to see this bail—

    I have to give a chance to the member for Niagara South to respond.

    Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I am fully committed to ensuring that bail reform is strengthened in this country, but this bill does not do it. We will take it to committee. We will refine it. We will introduce amendments.

    I would caution the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that the reason all of the amendments were reversed on the immigration bill was that the Liberals relied on a few members of the NDP who did not sit in committee and did not have the benefit of the debate we had. When this bill goes to committee, I would encourage all members of the House to take our amendments seriously and accept them.

    Mr. Speaker, today, when we are discussing Bill C-14, the Liberal government seems to be rushing us through its consideration and wants to send it to committee. Members have talked about the ineffectiveness of committees.

    We are rushing through a bill that does not address the fundamental issues in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. I would like to ask the member to comment further on that. Why is the Liberal government rushing us through Bill C-14, an incomplete bill with shortfalls?

    Mr. Speaker, this legislation is urgently needed to fix the problems of the individual I spoke about being released early. The urgency is to ensure that repeat offenders do not get the opportunity to reoffend and that violent offenders, particularly with offences against children, do not see the light of day.

    Under the current legislation, my guess is that Daniel Senecal will be released in about seven years, if he is convicted. There is urgency to fix the problem, but we need time to debate the bill adequately in the House so Canadians can hear our perspective, see our point of view and understand why there are issues with this bill. If we debate it reasonably in this House, we will come to a good solution for all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, this may seem slightly off topic from the current bill, but it was important for me to rise as a member of a party that has never been a recognized party in the House so that Canadians know that those of us who are not permanent members of committees are aware of what happens in committee.

    This is prompted by the member's comment that NDP members were not sitting on the committee. I am not putting myself in their shoes, but having been in their shoes many times, I want to assure Canadians that when we bring forward amendments as members of parties in this place but not recognized parties, we have access to what happens in committee. In the case of the colleague who sits right in front of me, the hon. member for Vancouver East, no one knows more about that piece of legislation than she does, having worked on it through many iterations and through many committees.

    The hon. member may disagree with the way colleagues voted, including me, but it was not because we did not have access to the information. We had more than enough access to the information. We wanted to see Bill C-3 pass.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment. I agree that without permanent membership on committees, there is limited access, at least for me as a member of the committee, to hear the perspectives of people who are in a non-party situation. However, we worked through so many amendments, which took a long time and a lot of work, only to come back here and have them all wiped out with one vote. Not one single amendment—

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary McKnight.

     Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Calgary McKnight. I want to speak specifically to this bill today because the safety of Canadians is something I am very passionate about, as I am sure many of my colleagues, members of the House, are as well.

    I believe that along with the cost of living crisis, the increasing crime level across Canada is the most important issue needing to be tackled by the current Parliament. This rising wave of crime is not just something I have observed; recent reports by Stats Canada tell the same story. Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, violent crime is up 55%, gun crime is up 130%, sexual assaults are up 76%, homicides are up 29% and extortion is up 330%.

     In Calgary, roughly 75 repeat offenders are responsible for a large chunk of the crime calls all around the city. A Calgary police superintendent said that the same 75 criminals commit hundreds of disturbances, from assault with a weapon to store robbery and illegal drug use. We have heard stories like this from all across the country. In Vancouver, the same 40 offenders have been linked to over 6,000 negative police contacts. Calgary police inspectors say that these criminals just cycle through the system and continue to recommit offences upon release.

    In my riding in northeast Calgary, there were five attacks on transit workers over the course of this summer. In one incident, a bus driver was pepper-sprayed and then beaten so badly that they were sent to the hospital in critical condition. In another case, a bus driver was stabbed and beaten, and, again, was taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries.

    This summer in Kelowna, a woman was murdered by her ex-husband just three hours after his assault conviction. He was supposed to have been released for a 10-week period while waiting on delivery of a psychiatric report, but only four kilometres away from the courthouse and only three hours later, he attacked his ex-wife and another woman with a hammer, ultimately killing his ex-wife.

    Just last month, a mother of four was gunned down by her ex-boyfriend outside a Brampton strip mall while he was out on bail. Another man who was out on bail committed a mass stabbing in Manitoba this September and even killed his 18-year-old sister. The stories go on and on.

    I commend the effort and bravery of our police and other first responders in fighting the rise in crime, but I am disappointed by the Liberal government's agenda to limit the ability of our justice system to keep dangerous offenders behind bars. The rise in crime has come in large part due to Liberal Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

    Passed in 2019, Bill C-75 forced judges to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. To make matters worse, in 2022, Bill C-5 further weakened deterrence by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences like sexual assault. It also repealed mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes like extortion with a firearm.

    Extortion has turned into one of the fastest-growing crimes in Canada. Police across the country have reported waves of threats against small business owners in communities like Brampton, Surrey, Vancouver and Calgary. Families in their homes are regularly shot at, firebombed and threatened. Just last week while I was in my riding, four separate constituents approached my office for help after receiving extortion calls. South Asian communities have faced the brunt of extortion cases in Canada, and authorities in B.C. even had to establish a special task force dedicated to these incidents.

    Extortion has gotten so bad that over half of Canadians no longer feel safe in their homes. That is why, last year, my Conservative colleague, the member for Edmonton Gateway, introduced Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act. The bill would have delivered stricter mandatory minimums for extortion and treated arson as an aggravating factor. Shamefully, the Liberals watered it down and left Canadians stranded without the protection they desperately need.

     More recently my colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. Bill C-242 would prioritize public safety and the rights of survivors rather than the freedom of criminals. It would introduce tougher bail rules for major crimes like gun offences, sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping and human trafficking, and it would require judges to take an offender's full criminal record into account. Most importantly, Bill C-242 would stop the revolving door of bail by blocking repeat violent offenders from being released over and over again.

    Now it seems that the Liberals are finally starting to listen to mayors, premiers and police associations from coast to coast calling for an end to the failed catch-and-release bail experiment. After Conservatives campaigned for four years to scrap Liberal bail, the Liberals have finally accepted the reality that the rights of survivors are more important than those of criminals.

     Bill C-14 would expand reverse onus bail rules for certain violent and weapons-related offences and would ask judges to more intently consider community safety and an offender's history, but it would still keep the existing principles of restraint and the foundation of the bail system.

    Considering the state of fear that Canadians currently live in and the fact that Canada's violent crime severity index has gone up by 41% in the last 10 years, I do not believe that Bill C-14 as it currently stands would go far enough to address the issues of bail reform or to restore the trust in our justice system to keep the public safe.

     A Conservative plan for bail would prioritize public safety over the principle of restraint. We would restore mandatory minimums for firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, robbery, extortion with a firearm, arson and other serious violent crimes. We would exclude people who have committed robbery, gun violence and trafficking, as well as property offenders, from being eligible for conditional sentencing. We would also mandate the consideration of criminal history instead of just encouraging judges to keep it in mind.

     I believe that unless these changes are made, serious and dangerous offenders will continue to be released onto our streets to pose a threat to our communities.

     Mr. Speaker, I have made reference to the issue of extortion, which is indeed a very serious issue.

     The Prime Minister, who was elected in April, made a commitment to Canadians, as all Liberal MPs have done. We are going to deliver on bail reform. The only thing that is standing in the way of getting bail reform before the end of the year is the Conservative Party of Canada.

     The issue I have is that, as members talk about extortion, they could put the talking aside, pass the legislation and actually take tangible action against extortion. Do I have a commitment from the member that he will do his best to pass the legislation before the end of the year?

     Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been calling for bail reform for years now, and we have proposed numerous bills to keep repeat violent offenders behind bars.

     If the Liberals were really serious about keeping Canadians safe, they would support the Conservative jail not bail act. The Liberals are now trying to cover up a problem they have created. If they were really serious about fighting crime, they would support our jail not bail act.

     I hope we can work together to deliver a positive result for Canadians.

     Mr. Speaker, I asked a very specific question. To the member's credit, he did not skip a beat. He went right back to his speech and completely ignored the question.

     If the member is serious about extortion, and if the leader of the Conservative Party is serious about extortion, as opposed to giving their political drivel in regard to how they want to filibuster the legislation, will the member commit to having Bill C-14, an election platform commitment from the Liberal Party, pass before the end of the year, yes or no?

     Mr. Speaker, there was a rally in B.C., and a member from the Liberal Party attended that rally, which was about defunding police organizations. How can crime be stopped if Liberal members are attending those kinds of rallies in B.C.?

    Mr. Speaker, how ridiculous is that? The Liberal Party does not support defunding police services. The member knows that, yet he continues to refuse to answer a very specific question.

    Will the member agree that it is in Canada's best interest that we have bail reform legislation? It is before us today. The Conservatives can attempt to amend it. Will the member commit to allowing the legislation to pass before the end of the year? Again, is it yes or no?

     Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to trust someone to fix a problem they created. Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have proven to be disasters and have caused harm to Canadians. I hope the Liberals can right their wrong and provide effective relief to Canadian communities and families.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a friend who owns a shop in Rexdale, Ontario. His shop was shot up twice in the span of the last 15 days. Again it was an extortion-related issue. We have had 10 years during which extortion-related issues have gone up 330% in Canada and over 360% in all of Ontario. Based on these trajectories, we have not had any sensible solutions proposed by the Liberals over the last 10 years.

    The question for my colleague is this: What are we going to do as a Conservative Party?

     Mr. Speaker, Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 are the root causes of the issues we are trying to tackle here today. The Conservatives have led the debate on key issues like the cost of living and the carbon tax, forcing Liberals to take action. I hope the Liberals take note of my constituents' concerns that I have shared here today.

     Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to speak to Bill C-14, an act that proposes a long-awaited reform to Canada's bail and sentencing framework. For too long, the system has focused more on the rights of offenders than on the safety of our communities. Together with police associations, provincial governments, victims and survivors, we have listened to our communities and advocated for stronger bail and sentencing regulations.

    However, it is important to remember that these reforms come after years of Liberal policy failures. It took Liberals years to even acknowledge the problems they caused with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Even now, under Bill C-14, they have not removed the principle of restraint, the rule that tells police and judges to focus on releasing accused people as quickly as possible under the least restrictive condition. The principle remains the heart of Canada's catch-and-release crisis.

    The numbers tell the story of rising crime in our communities. In my riding of King—Vaughan, between 2020 and 2024, assaults increased by 73%, robberies increased by 119% and homicides increased by 100%. In case we missed it, twice the number of people were murdered between 2020 and 2024. Breaking and entering increased by 69%; sexual violations increased by a staggering 194%, and thefts of a motor vehicle increased by 122%. Between 2019 and 2025, York Regional Police charged 19,522 individuals with criminal offences. Of those, 32.6% were charged again for breaching bail or other release conditions. These numbers show a system that too often fails to protect the public from repeat offenders.

    Recently, at a town hall in Vaughan, the community came together to hear the story of Darian Hailey Henderson-Bellman, a beautiful young woman of 25 years who was fatally shot on July 28, 2020. The accused killer, Darnell Reid, had been arrested four previous times for violating the condition of his bail, for contacting her. He was also arrested and charged in May 2020 for being in possession of an illegal firearm.

    The Liberal catch-and-release principles of restraint ensured that he only spent six days in custody before being released again. A mere three months later, he shot and murdered a young, beautiful soul with her whole life in front of her. Darian's parents, Mr. Paul Henderson and Mrs. Flo Bellman, told the community that courts must make public safety a priority and consider the rights of victims and survivors when deciding bail.

    Mr. Henderson said, “Right now, it's on the police officers, Crown attorney and victim to say why the offender should stay in custody, which doesn't make any sense.... What we're suggesting is that [this] needs to be flipped around.”

    He continued, “If he hadn't been released on bail again, Darian would be alive today.... The courts put faith in a surety to justify bail, even though the same surety had failed multiple times before with no consequences. That failure cost our daughter her life.”

    The pain for Mr. Henderson and Mrs. Bellman is unimaginable. They relive the tragedy every single day: the moment their daughter was shot, the grief of losing her and the knowledge that the system failed her.

     The sad story for Mr. Henderson and Mrs. Bellman is their having to relive the tragic death of their daughter and the brutal way in which she was killed. She was shot four times, including once in the eye. Her parents went on to say, “The system seems to prioritize the rights of offenders over the safety and well-being of victims and survivors.... The daily loss of life is unacceptable.... Violent offenders—keep them off the streets to protect those who are most vulnerable in our communities.”

    According to an article, the Durham Regional Police's “Chief Peter Moreira said the number of people out on bail committing serious crimes is a ‘growing epidemic’ across Ontario.”

    He said, “without a strong deterrent, those people who have already demonstrated that they don't deserve to be in the public spaces, living among us, are out there reoffending and victimizing more and more people”.

    York Regional Police chief, Chief Jim MacSween, was clear that the Liberal policy on violent offenders needs to change. Chief MacSween stated, “Once again, we're seeing cases where individuals released on bail are involved in serious crimes within our communities. To ensure public safety and protect our officers, we need a bail system that effectively addresses repeat violent offenders while maintaining public confidence.”

    King—Vaughan has seen this first-hand. Months ago, a father of four, Abdul Aleem Farooqi, was shot and killed in front of his children during a home invasion in Vaughan. Just last week, York Regional Police announced arrests and charges. One of the suspects, Mohammad Abuhmaid, a 26-year-old from Mississauga, was out on bail at the time of the murder. He faces multiple charges, including first-degree murder, breaking and entering with intent, robbery with a firearm, possession of stolen property over $5,000 and breach of probation.

    Police said, “There are four separate forms of release that he was out in the community on.... The offences vary in severity...but it is concerning when this type of event happens.”

    In addition, a 16-year-old remains at large, wanted for multiple offences, including first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. These tragedies are preventable. If bail laws had prioritized public safety instead of the Liberal principle of restraint policy, Mr. Farooqi might be alive today. His children would still have their father, but this family now has to live with unimaginable loss.

    Bill C-14 proposes some improvements, but it does not go far enough. It fails to remove the principle of restraint, the very clause added in Bill C-75 that tells judges and police to prioritize release. Mandatory minimums repealed by Bill C-5 have not been restored, leaving sentencing highly discretionary. The limits imposed on conditional sentences do not go far enough. Those sentenced for robbery, firearms and human trafficking offences can still access home arrest.

    A police detective recently told me a story about an individual he arrested who was in possession of an illegal firearm. When arrested, the individual laughed and said that he would be out before the paperwork was finished. He also told the detective that since the Liberals removed the mandatory minimum for illegal gun possession, he would not have to do a minimum of three years in jail. He would be out in no time. He was smiling from ear to ear.

    The Liberals have spent years ignoring the mess they created with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. They finally admitted that changes were needed, but their so-called reforms still leave dangerous repeat offenders in the systems that prioritize their release over public safety.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the floor. The Conservatives have constantly changed their position on Bill C‑75, first vowing to repeal it entirely, then targeting the principle of restraint and now proposing to amend it. Bill C‑14 now clarifies that restraint does not mean “automatic release”.

    With such constant flip-flopping, why trust a party that is so unclear on the principles of fundamental justice?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to look in the faces of the people in my community and tell them that they have made everything possible. I believe that the Carney Liberal candidate for Victoria—

    I have to interrupt the member.

     The member cannot use the first name, the last name or the full name of the Prime Minister in the House. Members do make mistakes about the rules in this House.

    I will let the member for King— Vaughan finish.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said earlier that the Liberal candidate from Victoria is on the record calling to defend the police, to disarm most police and promote drug decriminalization. If they believe that—

    Kevin Lamoureux: Defending?

    An hon. member: Defunding.

    Anna Roberts: Excuse me, Kevin. Defunding the police—

    I am going to interrupt the member. The member cannot use the first name, the last name or the full name of any member of the House, including a certain parliamentary secretary. I will let the member finish within 10 seconds, and then we will go back to questions and comments.

    The hon. member for Victoria is rising on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, as a newer member of this House, I wonder if the Speaker could speak to whether it is appropriate to use personal adjectives and describe other members as “very annoying” in comments made on the floor.

     I suspect that if I say it is a matter of debate, I will have further points of order raised by members. As long as it is fair as part of debate, I am not going to delve into whether people have hurt feelings or do not like the way certain members are being described.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    The Deputy Speaker: Order.

     We have dealt with this matter before, earlier in the House. I would refer members to the rules of decorum, which are in Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18. That is my ruling, and I am going to invoke Standing Order 10 so that we can proceed with debate before Standing Order 31 statements and question period.

     I will let the member for King—Vaughan finish within 10 seconds.

    Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I am a little under the weather today, but I want to state something clearly. My community of King—Vaughan is very upset because police officers have no jurisdiction when they arrest someone. Police officers put them in jail, and they are out before we know it.

    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave an excellent speech. The member comes from the Vaughan area, essentially exactly where my riding is, and she knows all too well the serious consequences that we have had in our community with respect to crime. At one point we had seven shootings in just three weeks in our community. Something definitely needs to be done.

    I have been listening to this debate, and I keep hearing over and over again how Conservatives are apparently delaying bail reform. However, we have wanted bail reform for the last four years. Now that the bill is on the table, we want the Liberals to go the full way and get rid of the principle of restraint.

     I wonder if the member could elaborate on why the Liberal government needs to take seriously the consideration of our amendments on the principle of restraint and why they do not need to just clarify it but to remove it altogether.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to let the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge know that we need to protect our citizens. We currently have a citizen who came back to Canada today to testify in committee, and she has to leave because the law did not protect her. She has death threats every single day. We need to make sure that these individuals stay behind bars so that women and children can live in this country as we used to live, with the protection of the police.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for highlighting the story of Darian Hailey Henderson-Bellman. Her family lives in my riding, and it is a heartbreakingly tragic story.

    The member mentioned the burden of reverse onus. Currently, the onus is on the Crown prosecutor to prove that an accused should be denied bail. In Bill C-14, as proposed, reverse onus provisions would shift that onus to the accused to prove why they should be permitted bail.

    Is the member aware of the reverse onus provisions contained in Bill C-14? How does she expect those changes to make a positive impact on public safety?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing that question to the forefront. I will tell you that I met with the parents. I will tell you that the problem is—

     Members are to speak through the Chair and not directly to other members using “you”.

    I will let the member for King—Vaughan continue.

    Mr. Speaker, we met with the parents at our town hall. This individual was let out four times, and he went and killed their only child.

    We have to toughen those laws to make sure that someone who continually repeats crimes is kept in jail if we are going to keep people alive.

     Mr. Speaker, after this last Liberal decade, Canadians across the country are living with a level of fear and disorder that none of us should ever accept as normal. Every single day, families wake up to a new story of violence, and repeat offenders are being released on bail only to reoffend, sometimes within hours. Every day, Canadians watch the consequences of a justice system warped by the Prime Minister's reckless catch-and-release ideology, and every day, the government insists that everything is fine, but everything is not fine.

     In my province of Alberta, in the city of Calgary, I have seen first-hand the devastation that Liberal soft-on-crime bail laws have caused, and it is the people in these neighbourhoods who have to actually deal with the crimes of repeat violent offenders. It is the families in these communities who bear the burden when repeat sex offenders breach their conditions and nothing changes. It is everyday Canadians who now, unfortunately, think twice before going out to the park, walking to the grocery store or just stepping outside after dark. This is not a failure of circumstances. It is a direct consequence of the choices made by the Liberal government.

    The devastation is clear. Since 2015, violent crime has gone up 55%, firearm offences are up 130%, extortion has shot up an insane 330%, sexual assaults have gone up 76% and homicides across the nation have risen nearly 30%. These are not just numbers. Each data point represents a Canadian who might not come home again, families that will never be whole again and communities that will never be the same.

    We are also seeing a worrying rise in extortion across the country. Calgary and Surrey have become the clearest examples. Police have launched dozens of new investigations in just the last few months. Business owners are being threatened, intimidated, and in some cases, even shot at. This situation has become so serious that Surrey has created a special police team and has set up a $250,000 reward fund just to help stop the growing crime wave. This rise in extortion shows exactly what happens when repeat offenders know they can go through the revolving door of bail to return to threaten the people in their communities. In Calgary and Surrey, Canadians should not be living in fear of criminals demanding money or threatening their families, yet this is becoming more common under a Liberal failed system.

    Despite all of this, the Liberals continue to defend laws that contribute to this crisis, such as Bill C-75, which is a bill that prioritizes the release of criminals rather than protecting communities, and Bill C-5, which replaced mandatory minimum sentences for violent firearm crimes and other serious offences. These actions have led to the government treating violent criminals as victims and law-abiding Canadians as an afterthought.

    For years, Conservatives have warned the government that its approach to bail and sentencing was unleashing chaos. For years, Liberals have denied, deflected and dismissed, and for years, Canadians have been paying the price. Now, after nearly a decade of failure, the Liberals suddenly claim that they want to fix the bail system, but what they have tabled is too little too late and nowhere near enough.

    Bill C-14 is the latest example of the government scrambling to copy Conservative ideas after spending years blocking them. In fact, the Carney Liberals have been copying Conservative proposals—

    I will interrupt the member and remind him that he cannot use the first, last or full name of the Prime Minister or any member of the House of Commons.

    I will invite the member to continue with that in mind.

     Mr. Speaker, Liberals have been copying Conservative proposals at a fascinating pace. Conservatives proposed extending reverse onus for major violent crimes. The Liberals voted against it, then copied it.

    MP Khanna introduced the jail not bail act—

     The member referenced the last name of the member for Oxford. He can refer to other members by their riding names, but not by their family or first names.

    I invite the member to continue.

     Mr. Speaker, the member for Oxford introduced the jail not bail act, which recognizes attacks on first responders as a major offence. The Liberals opposed it then recycled the idea.

    While the Liberals would have Canadians believe this bill fixes the bail crisis, it does not. The person who commits a violent crime should not be sitting at home watching Netflix. They should be off of the streets. This is not a plan to protect Canadians; it is a press release pretending to be a bill. That is why Conservatives will work tirelessly to ensure that Bill C-14 scraps Liberal bail.

     Thankfully, we have already put forward the real solution, Bill C-242, the Conservative jail not bail act, which was introduced by the member for Oxford. Unlike Bill C-14, which tinkers at the margins, Bill C-242 would reshape the system to protect the public. It would repeal the Liberal principle of restraint and replace it with the public safety primacy clause, thereby ending the culture of automatic release. The bill would create a major offence category that would trigger a true presumption of detention, not just a burden shift for offences such as firearm crimes, sexual offences, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasions, robbery, extortion, arson and violent assault. The bill would tighten the risk standard and would require judges to consider the full criminal history of an accused person.

    Bill C-242 also includes a 10-year look-back provision, so if someone convicted of a major violent offence were to commit another major violent offence while already on bail, they would face, with near certainty, a presumption of detention. It would strengthen surety rules by banning individuals with indictable convictions from acting as a guarantor and would require a passport surrender for non-residents where required. That is what a real plan to protect Canadians looks like, and it is what Conservatives are offering.

     The need for this reform is urgent. A recent National Post poll found that more than half of Canadians no longer feel safe in their own neighbourhoods. In a country like ours, which is thriving, peaceful and proud, that should shock every member of the House. Tragically, that fear is entirely rational. People see what is happening around them. They see the revolving-door justice system, police arresting the same offenders repeatedly, crime scenes where their children play and a government that refuses to take responsibility.

    We have a Minister of Public Safety who says, without embarrassment, “I'm not responsible for hiring of the [RCMP or CBA] officers”. If the minister responsible for public safety is not responsible for ensuring we have enough frontline officers, who is? This is the level of accountability Canadians are being offered.

    In Calgary, especially in the downtown area, but throughout the entire city, residents have witnessed some of the worst increases in violent crime since the Liberal government took office. Transit stations have become unsafe. Small business owners are robbed repeatedly. Families are living in fear of being caught in gang-related shootings, and seniors feel trapped in their own homes. These are serious concerns from real people, and they deserve more than symbolic legislation.

    Conservatives will not stop until we scrap Liberal catch-and-release laws. We will not stop until violent offenders face serious consequences and safe streets are the norm in Canada, not an exception.

    The government has a choice. It can adopt a fully Conservative plan, stop the revolving-door bail system and protect Canadians, or it continue down this reckless path it embarked on a decade ago. Canadians already know which side Conservatives are on. We are on the side of victims, of families and of safe and strong communities. We are on the side of common sense.

    It is time to scrap Liberal bail and restore public safety in this country. Conservatives and Canadians are ready. The only question that remains is whether the Liberals are ready.

     Before I go to questions and comments, I would remind members, as we are approaching the hour for Standing Order 31 statements and question period, that Standing Order 16(2) still applies. Members cannot cross between the Speaker and a member who is speaking, because it makes it quite difficult to see if the member speaking is done or not. Therefore, I invite members to pass on to other members that we are not supposed to be doing that in the chamber.

    With questions and comments, the hon. member for Alfred–Pellan has the floor.

    Mr. Speaker, there is something I do not understand. The Conservatives are really putting politics ahead of the country. Canadians welcome legislation that would ensure that perpetrators of sexual assault would no longer be eligible for house arrest. It is about protecting survivors and keeping our communities safe. Is there a female colleague in the Conservative caucus who will stand up and ask her colleagues why they are opposing a measure that guarantees that perpetrators of sexual assault will no longer be able to serve their sentence at home?

    Is there a female colleague on the other side of the House who could do that?

     Mr. Speaker, we are taking crimes very seriously, even sexual crimes. Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, is entirely constitutional and covers everything.

    On this side of the aisle, we are here to protect our women, our children and everyone, so all Canadians are safe on the streets, so Canadian homes are safe and so Canadians are not being threatened with calls.

    Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I hear from police officers and victims, particularly in my community, is that victims are afraid to come forward to testify because the person who has committed the crime against them has been released on bail within hours, if not minutes, of being detained by the police.

    Does the member agree with that, and should there be tougher punishments for criminals?

    Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very serious.

    We introduced our bill, Bill C-242, from our member for Oxford. That is what we need to act on. We cannot release offenders back onto the streets. We have to be serious with respect to them.

    We have seen what we have gone through in the last failed Liberal decade. The crime rate is skyrocketing. Just in Surrey alone, the extortion cases are up almost 550%. That is a very high number. We cannot have this in Canada.

     Mr. Speaker, there is a member opposite who has called in the past for the police to be defunded. His assertion was that disarming the police would be the best way to solve crime. As a former police officer, I find that extremely offensive, as do Canadians.

    The question for my colleague is this: What is his opinion on this matter of defunding the police?

     Mr. Speaker, it is a shameful that a member from across the aisle was involved in a rally to defund our police.

     On the one hand, I spoke with police officers last week. They are looking to us. They are looking to the Government of Canada to provide them more tools. They need more men. A while ago there was an announcement that 1,000 new police officers would be hired, and none have been hired.

    On the other hand, the Liberals are announcing that they are going to those rallies because they want to defund the RCMP. That is not right.

     Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely silly to try to imply that the government or the Liberal Party does not support the funding of the police.

    I can tell the House what is serious. We have the Conservative Party consistently wanting to filibuster on Bill C-14—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order, please.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is absolutely silly for the Conservative Party to try to give a false impression that the Liberal Party, or the government, does not support funding our police. What is real is that the police, the provinces and the municipalities all support Bill C-14. They all want bail reform. Canadians want bail reform. It is the Conservative Party of Canada that continues to filibuster Bill C-14.

    When will the Conservatives allow Bill C-14 to pass? Canadians want it and we want it. Why will the Conservatives not agree to pass the legislation before the end of the year?

    Mr. Speaker, that is a question he should be asking his own caucus member, who joined that rally. He should not be asking us. It is now up to the Prime Minister. Is he going to fire the member of Parliament sitting right in that aisle, or is he going to keep him?

    When it comes to Bill C-14, the Conservatives will support any bill designed to increase safety for Canadians, but we believe this bill is weak. It is better if—

     Unfortunately, the time is up and we have to go to members' statements.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exceptional teachers receiving the Prime Minister's Awards for Teaching Excellence in my beautiful riding of Oakville West. This award celebrates the achievements of educators who go above and beyond. These are leaders in the classrooms, mentors and coaches who support our children throughout their journey and who take the extra step and exceed the curriculum to help students succeed. To date, this award has honoured over 2,300 teachers and is considered Canada's highest honour for teachers teaching in early, primary and secondary education.

    I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Ms. Phi Tran and Mr. Vittorio Iafarte, recipients of the regional certificate of teaching excellence, and Mr. Kevin Carter, who has been awarded the regional certificate of teaching excellence in STEM. I thank them for their exceptional contributions to help build the foundations children need to make the best start possible in life.

    Mr. Speaker, this week, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada is hosting its annual Tourism Congress in Gatineau. This year's theme is “Tourism Builds Canada”. Tourism definitely powers my communities of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. In fact, Niagara is home to more than 40,000 tourism workers.

    Across Canada, one in 10 Canadian jobs is in tourism, an industry that generates $130 billion in economic activity, but it could be so much more if not for bad Liberal policies. Under the Liberal government, tourism is simply not a priority. According to the TIAC, cuts to the international convention attraction fund, the tourism growth program and Destination Canada's core funding, and the exclusion of tourism from the capital cost allowance, undermine the sector's potential.

    In a country where so much is broken after 10 years of the Liberal government, leave it to the Liberals to cut programs that actually work. Tourism builds Canada. Unfortunately, the Liberal budget fails to unleash its full potential.

    Mr. Speaker, last week, Hamilton welcomed the Minister of Public Safety and the Secretary of State for Sport to announce federal funding for the amazing new Hamilton YWCA. Then the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime joined the mayor's community safety round table to discuss federal action to stop crime. We hosted the Minister of Industry to advance our government's buy Canadian policy, meeting student leaders, workers and innovators supporting Canada's next generation of jobs. The Minister of Housing and Infrastructure also met with Hamilton housing partners to continue work making housing more affordable and to confirm Hamilton's light rail transit system remains a federal budget priority.

    This budget delivers billions of dollars in further investment and opportunity for Hamilton and cities across Canada. Leadership is not American-style slogans, conspiracy theories, anger and division. Effective government, real leadership, is being part of a great team that delivers results for Hamilton and all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, with breathtaking colours more vibrant than one can imagine, sounds and smells tantalizing the senses, and the cheering on of world-class athletes, the two- and four-legged variety, as they achieve the unimaginable, this is what it means to experience Spruce Meadows, Canada's premier show-jumping facility, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary.

    As the bold vision of Ron and Margaret Southern, Spruce Meadows is a world-renowned institution recognized for equestrian excellence and cherished for honouring the traditions and values of southern Alberta. The Southerns' hard work, prairie hospitality and deep community roots built something truly remarkable. Their daughters, Linda and Nancy, are carrying on that family legacy, a legacy that is unforgettable as we cheered on Eric Lamaze and Hickstead, Captain Canada Ian Millar and Big Ben, and Erynn Ballard, who became Olympians and Canadian legends.

    To the Southern family and the volunteers, staff, athletes and fans who poured their hearts into this journey, I thank Spruce Meadows for welcoming the world to Foothills for 50 years.

     Mr. Speaker, today is a day to celebrate science. The Office of the Chief Science Advisor and the Canadian Science Policy Centre have brought 45 researchers from across Canada to Ottawa today for Science Meets Parliament. These researchers are among our brightest emerging leaders, representing the full spectrum of disciplines, from natural sciences and engineering to health sciences and social sciences. They are on the Hill to share their insights, connect with parliamentarians and strengthen the vital link between science and policy in tackling Canada's most pressing challenges. Trusting relationships between those who generate evidence and those who apply it is essential.

    Opportunities like today allow both communities to meet, exchange ideas and build mutual understanding. As chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I am proud to be a champion for science. Please join me in welcoming the participants of Science Meets Parliament.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Calgary to express concern over the recent sentencing decision that chips away at the public confidence in the justice system.

    In a case of extortion in our city, the offender received an 18-month sentence, with six months to be served under house arrest. That is an extremely light outcome given the seriousness of the crime.

    This was not a minor offence. The victim was targeted in Calgary and pressured to repay more than $200,000 tied to third party illegal gambling. He was shown images of cut-up body parts in an attempt to scare him. The threat cannot be dismissed as any less than extremely serious.

    This case makes one thing clear: Our laws do not reflect the seriousness of extortion and organized crime. It is time to strengthen the law so that criminals face real consequences and Calgarians receive the protection they deserve.

     Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, human rights defender Jaswant Singh Khalra stood here in Ottawa to urge parliamentarians to pay attention to the disappearances and unlawful killings of thousands of Sikhs in Punjab, India. Just months after that visit, he was abducted, tortured and killed for his courage and conviction.

    Before his tragic death, he shared a powerful message, one that continues to inspire people around the world today. He reminded us that we must never stay silent in the face of injustice.

    As we honour Jaswant Singh Khalra's courage and sacrifice, let us reaffirm our shared commitment to truth, justice and human rights, the values that form the foundation of our democracy.

     Mr. Speaker, Canadians spend more on taxes than anything else. They spend more on taxes than they do on housing. The government is the single most expensive purchase we make, yet the Liberals have the gall to stand here and tell us that making government more expensive is an affordability measure.

    The Liberals had a chance to lower food costs for Canadians by scrapping the industrial carbon tax. Instead, they chose to make food more expensive by increasing the tax. It drives up the cost of fertilizer and farm equipment. The Liberals promised Canadians they could have their cake and eat it too, but the price of baked goods is up nearly 6% over last year.

    Now we know the Liberals' plan. They will ban plastic food packaging, removing thousands of products from store shelves. It is not unaffordable if it is unavailable.

    Canadians should not have to wait a generation for change. They need an affordable Conservative government now.

    Mr. Speaker, philanthropy is the quiet force that lifts society up. It is a living connection between liberty and fraternity, between the individual and the community. It reminds us that the greatness of a people is measured not only by its laws and institutions, but also by the generosity of its members.

    November 15 was a day for remembering a certain truth, that philanthropy is hope in action. Today, as philanthropists are here visiting the Hill, I want to salute them and send them my heartfelt thanks.

    I especially want to pay tribute to Philanthropie Lanaudière, which embodies the quest for justice and solidarity. Through its actions, the team and its partners are challenging indifference and opening doors so that all people can find their place and live with dignity. They are proof that real wealth is about sharing, not accumulating.

    On this day, let us remember that to give is to affirm life and prepare for the future. May philanthropy remain a guiding light and a duty for us all.

    Mr. Speaker, November 16 commemorates the memory of Louis Riel, a visionary leader, the founder of Manitoba and a Father of Confederation.

    On Sunday, I had the honour of joining the Prime Minister in attending the ceremony for the 140th anniversary of the execution of Louis Riel.

    Over a century after one prime minister betrayed Louis Riel, it is particularly significant that another prime minister is now choosing to fully honour him. Louis Riel reminds us that the fight for justice and equality is still relevant today. His legacy lives on in St. Boniface and across Canada and inspires our commitment to respect, partnership and reconciliation with the Métis nation.

    I want to commend the Manitoba Métis Federation and the Union nationale métisse Saint‑Joseph du Manitoba for their hard work in keeping his memory alive.

    On behalf of the House, I pay tribute to Louis Riel and his enduring vision for our country. May this day always remind us of the strength and resilience of the Red River Métis nation.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has presented a red ink budget, a “generational credit card” budget. It is spending money hand over fist, and the taxpayers of today and tomorrow are the ones who will have to pay the price. For the Liberals, one plus one always equals 10.

    Even Fitch Ratings, which assesses Canada's credit rating, is sounding the alarm. It is warning that the Liberals never stick to their own budget limits and that this is worsening the state of our public finances. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer is against this budget. He said that the government has basically dropped its commitment to reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio. There is a reason why they want to get rid of him.

    This Prime Minister is offering us a credit card with no limit, but he is mortgaging our children's future and even our grandchildren's future.

    The Conservatives will continue to stand up for families, workers, businesses and taxpayers. We will stand firm against this irresponsible, spendthrift government.

    Mr. Speaker, “freedom is never given—it is taken.” Those words were made famous by General Jean-Jacques Dessalines.

     The Battle of Vertières took place on November 18, 1803. It was one of the greatest battles in modern history. As a federal member of Parliament and a son of Haiti, I would like to acknowledge the strength, courage and resilience of the Haitian people, who vanquished Napoleon's army to throw off their chains and win their freedom. The Battle of Vertières is a perfect illustration of the courage, dignity and determination of the Haitian people.

    However, since then, the country has faced challenges that persist to this day. In that context, Canada's co-operation is particularly meaningful. As an ally of Haiti, it provides support, but that support does not replace the leadership that must come from Haiti itself.

    By highlighting the Battle of Vertières, I am paying tribute to the heroes of the past.

    Ansanm, tout bagay posib.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians want stronger paycheques, safer streets, secure borders and a self-reliant country. They cannot get that from the Prime Minister, who puts Brookfield, the company he chaired, first.

    When the Prime Minister met Donald Trump, he brought home nothing for Canada, only an $80-billion U.S. nuclear reactor deal for Brookfield, giving Donald Trump the jobs, the investment and a 20% stake in Westinghouse profits. Canadians get nothing. While chair, the Prime Minister directed Brookfield to avoid $6.5 billion in Canadian taxes through shell companies he established in Bermuda and in the Cayman Islands on top of a bicycle shop.

    The Prime Minister's inflation tax and industrial carbon tax make groceries even more expensive, while Brookfield's CEO claims that inflation boosts its profits. When the Prime Minister goes abroad, Brookfield gets the deal. When he comes home, Canadians get the bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I speak for the people of London West when I say that we welcome the passage of the budget. I want to highlight one of the concrete steps that it takes, one that came directly out of a pre-budget consultation held in my riding: the creation of Canada's climate corps. This is a practical, skill-driven program that will train young Canadians for real jobs in resilience, emergency response, retrofits, green construction and community infrastructure.

    When I met with young people in London West, the message could not have been more clear. They want opportunities that are hands-on, well-paid and connected to the real needs of our local economy. The climate corps delivers exactly that. It links youth to in-demand careers and helps employers fill critical labour shortages. This is what building one strong Canadian economy looks like. By focusing on results, we are making sure that federal investments land where people actually live. London West helped shape this initiative.

    I will keep working to ensure that our young people are at the forefront of the line.

     Mr. Speaker, I wish our high-flying Prime Minister coveted results as much as air miles. Since taking office, he has made 28 trips, flying 153,000 kilometres, which is enough to circle the globe four times. He is off again this week, heading to the United Arab Emirates and then South Africa. That is no surprise from the Prime Minister, who collects passports like Pokémon and identifies as European when he is hanging out in Davos with his fellow global elites.

    What do Canadians have to show for this? There are no trade deals and no tariff relief, just photo ops and hollow letters of intent. The Prime Minister blew past his own deadlines with the United States with no deal, and his eight-day junket to Asia made no progress. Chinese tariffs stay, India added new ones, and not a single tariff has been lifted on Canadian goods in eight months. As for accountability, he has appeared in question period just 11 times this fall.

    If the Prime Minister is this bored with Canada, can he please make his next junket a one-way ticket?

    Mr. Speaker, community foundations across Canada are the heart of our neighbourhoods, bringing people together, pooling resources and ensuring that local needs are met with care and with community-led solutions. In my community, the Coquitlam Foundation and the Port Moody Foundation continue to make a tremendous impact through support for the arts, the environment and youth scholarships and grants.

     This week, Matthew Sebastiani and foundation leaders from across Canada are here in Ottawa, reminding us how vital their work is nationwide. I thank all foundation volunteers, donors and community leaders for lifting people up. They strengthen families, neighbourhoods and the foundation of who we are as a country.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians needed an affordable budget for an affordable life. They can no longer pay their bills or buy groceries, yet the Prime Minister's latest budget has saddled them with more inflation.

    According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this is the largest deficit in the country's history other than during the pandemic. It is twice as big as Justin Trudeau's deficit. It is $16 billion more than the Prime Minister promised during the election. He broke his promise to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. The deficit is $78 billion, which is $5,000, plus inflation, for every single family.

    How are families supposed to pay another $5,000 for a costly budget?

    Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition read the executive summary of the budget. One thing is for sure: We are not going to take any lessons from the Conservatives.

    Yesterday, the Conservatives voted against investment in infrastructure. The Conservatives voted against investment in housing. The Conservatives voted against productivity and innovation in this country. The Conservatives voted against investment in defence.

    Those of us on this side of the House will always fight for a strong Canada. We will build a strong Canada together. Today, the Conservatives should be asking themselves why they do not support Canadians.

     Mr. Speaker, what are Canadians getting for the 150,000 kilometres this Prime Minister has travelled? That is the equivalent of circling the globe four times.

    He met with the Americans, and they doubled tariffs on our steel, aluminum and vehicles. He met with Indian officials, and they increased tariffs on our peas. He met with the Chinese, and they also increased tariffs on our farmers and fish harvesters.

    Why is it that whenever the Prime Minister gets on a plane to meet with foreign leaders, Canadians have to pay even higher tariffs?

    Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the question Canadians are asking themselves at home. How could the Conservatives have the nerve to vote against Canada yesterday?

    Our budget is all about strengthening Canada's sovereignty. Our budget invests in our military capacity. Our budget increases military salaries.

    How are the Conservatives going to go back to their ridings and explain to their constituents that they voted against Canada yesterday, when we all need to work together to meet a historic moment in our nation's history?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are cash-strapped and needed a break. Instead, the Prime Minister gave them the costliest budget in Canadian history and put it all on the national credit card.

     The Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the Prime Minister doubled Trudeau's deficits, added $16 billion more to the debt than he promised and is increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio, breaking another promise. The $78 billion of additional debt works out to about five grand for every single cash-strapped family in this country.

     How does the Prime Minister expect single moms, seniors and small business people who cannot pay their bills to pay another five grand for his inflation?

    Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives. What they did yesterday under their leader was to vote against investment in infrastructure. Under their leader, they voted against investment in housing. Under the Conservative leader, they voted against productivity and innovation in our country. Under their leader, they voted against investment in our sovereignty.

     On this side of the House, we will build a strong Canada, we will empower Canadians and we will protect our sovereignty, because we believe in Canada.

     Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody has been able to cram that many slogans into one answer, and this is coming from me.

    Let us take housing. The minister says they are spending billions of dollars more on housing. The results are out today, and housing starts are down 17% year over year. Where we need the most, in Toronto, they are down 42% year over year. In Vancouver they are down 36% year over year. In Ontario they are down 35%, and in B.C. they are down 22%.

     Why is it that the more the Liberals spend, the less we can build?

     Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is ignoring the year-to-date results. He is looking at month to month. He is twisting the facts. He is getting confused with the numbers. Conservatives have a tough time with numbers sometimes; we understand that.

    Year to date, 2025 versus 2024, we are up 5% with housing starts.

    Mr. Speaker, what are Canadians getting for the 28 trips, the 150,000 kilometres, which is enough to circle the world four times, that the Prime Minister has billed back to Canadians? He met with the Americans, and they doubled tariffs on our steel, aluminum and autos, and tripled them on our forestry. He met with the Chinese, who increased tariffs on our farmers and fish harvesters. He met with the Indians, and they increased tariffs on Canadian peas. He met with the Brits, and they are keeping their blockade on our beef.

    Why is it that whenever the Prime Minister gets on a plane, Canadians end up paying more tariffs abroad?

    Mr. Speaker, we have good news for Canadians. Germany just signed a $1-billion deal with Lockheed Martin Canada to support jobs right here in this country. This is what Canadians are getting from the Prime Minister's being on the world stage, selling what Canada has to offer. It is about unlocking new markets and creating good jobs here in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, with the Prime Minister billing millions of dollars for his high-flying trips around the world, 28 trips and 150,000 kilometres, now is the time for a scorecard. The Americans have increased tariffs on Canadian autos, aluminum, steel and lumber. The Indians have increased tariffs on our peas. The Chinese increased them on our farmers and our fish harvesters. Now, allow me to introduce a comprehensive list of all the tariffs the Prime Minister has successfully had reduced on Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader continues to stand against support for Canadian workers and businesses. He has refused to support our government's plan to double non-U.S. exports over the next decade. In fact, he called Canadian exports other than oil “pixie dust”. Does the Conservative leader think our $5 billion in beef exports is pixie dust, or the LNG headed to South Korea from B.C.? What about the 7.6 billion dollars' worth of fish and seafood caught by hard-working Canadians? Whether it is imaginary taxes or pixie dust, the Conservative leader needs to get on board and out of the way.

    Mr. Speaker, Quebecor announced last week that it is laying off 87 employees in its media division. Over the past two years, nearly 800 people have lost their jobs at TVA. That is a tragedy for Quebec culture. It is a tragedy for news diversity in Quebec. Quebec's largest private television network is teetering on the brink, and Ottawa is just watching it die a slow death.

    How many more layoffs will it take before the government wakes up?

    Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are certainly with the families and communities affected by these job losses. However, my Bloc Québécois colleague's question might have been more relevant if the Bloc Québécois had not voted against the most important budget in the history of the country, which includes funding for local journalism. The member opposite is rising in the House to say that what is happening is so unfortunate, while also voting against investments for local journalism in Quebec and across Canada. I cannot understand it.

    Mr. Speaker, try to imagine how the people at TVA feel about the Liberal message. The Liberals are talking about historic investments in culture, but there is not a penny for TVA. The government does not care about them. That is the message that the Liberals are sending to the people at TVA. These same Liberals are the only ones who refused to appear on TVA, which was asking for money because it has run out. TVA broadcasts our music and our stories. It sparks debate. Quebeckers identify with TVA, but Ottawa could care less.

    What do the Liberals have against our television?

    Mr. Speaker, in the budget that the Bloc Québécois voted against, there is $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada, Quebec's largest cultural producer. The Bloc voted against that. There is $26 million for the National Film Board of Canada, which is located in Montreal, and the Bloc voted against that. There is $127 million for the Canada Media Fund and $48 million for the Canada Music Fund. The Bloc voted against all these cultural initiatives in Quebec and across the country. That is outrageous.

    Mr. Speaker, yes, but there is nothing for private broadcasters. In order to please the very powerful American president, the Prime Minister decided to abolish the digital services tax. The revenue from that tax could have been used to create a fund to provide long-term support to the cultural and media sectors. That would have helped TVA, which is in great need. Not only did the Liberals refuse to create a fund, but they also did absolutely nothing to secure the future of private television in Quebec and Canada.

    Why have the Liberals abandoned private broadcasters?

    Mr. Speaker, like my colleague who just listed the budget points that highlight our achievements and commitments to culture, I am baffled to see that Bloc members are demanding landing strips, ports, docks in Saguenay, investments in major projects, support for health care and housing in Quebec and then, oops, they cross the bridge over the Ottawa River and vote against all of that.

    Why did the Bloc Québécois not stand with the Liberals to vote for Quebec and for this budget?

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's costly credit card budget puts today's reckless spending on tomorrow's taxpayers. He is maxing out Canada's credit card. Watchdogs are exposing the Liberals' accounting tricks. Fitch and the budget watchdog say that Canada's credit score is at risk because the Liberals always break their own made-up fiscal targets.

    How many more fiscal watchdog reports is it going to take for the Prime Minister to finally rein in his costly credit card spending?

     Mr. Speaker, I have some advice for the leader opposite. He should go back to his lobby and push reboot on chat CPC, because all it does is rehash the same tired old talking points.

    Last night, the House passed a generational budget. We are going to invest in infrastructure, in defence and in housing. We will transform the country from reliance to resiliency. It is too bad that the members opposite did not support us.

    Mr. Speaker, the CRA is a mess under that guy, and he is trying out to be a comedian in here. The budget watchdog exposed the Liberals' shady accounting tricks. He said that the Liberals have a less than 8% chance of meeting their own fiscal targets, which they made up while trying to hide $100 billion under so-called investments.

    The Prime Minister tried this trick in the U.K. He is trying the same trick on Canadians. Instead of cooking the books to hide his $100-billion ego, why does he not just rein in his out-of-control, costly credit card spending?

     Mr. Speaker, they want to talk about slogans and quoting slogans. They quote the food professor so much, one would think he was the leader's personal chef, serving up the same tired old leftovers time and time again.

    Last night, we passed a generational budget that will transform this country. It is too bad that the party opposite did not support our budget.

    Mr. Speaker, every Canadian should be thanking their lucky stars that we have a Parliamentary Budget Officer whose job it is to be independent and honest about the state of government deficits, debts and spending. The budget watchdog, last week, called out the creative accounting in the Prime Minister's credit card budget, saying that he is using “a definition of capital investment that expands beyond the current treatment in the Public Accounts and international practice”.

    In other words, the Prime Minister is cooking the books, and his out-of-control deficit is pouring more gas on the debt and deficit fires.

    How many more alarms must go off for the Prime Minister to rein in his spending in his credit card budget?

    Mr. Speaker, this budget is a game changer for families across the country, whether it is the school nutrition program, which I know the Conservatives like to talk down, that is feeding hungry mouths in my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North and all across the country, or our early learning and child care program that is reducing fees.