An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This bill is from the 42nd Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2019.

Sponsor

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) re-enact the victim surcharge regime and provide the court with the discretion to waive a victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that the victim surcharge would cause the offender undue hardship or would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.
Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-75s:

C-75 (2024) Law Appropriation Act No. 3, 2024-25
C-75 (2015) Oath of Citizenship Act
C-75 (2005) Public Health Agency of Canada Act

Votes

June 19, 2019 Passed Motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
June 19, 2019 Passed Motion for closure
Dec. 3, 2018 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Nov. 20, 2018 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Nov. 20, 2018 Failed Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (report stage amendment)
Nov. 20, 2018 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
June 11, 2018 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
June 11, 2018 Failed 2nd reading of Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (reasoned amendment)
June 11, 2018 Failed 2nd reading of Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (subamendment)
May 29, 2018 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 11:25 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

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:

...the latest evidence suggests that the problem is broader and more entrenched than many realize. Policymakers can no longer rely on temporary explanations or regional anomalies. The challenge now is to restore public confidence and measurable accountability in how we protect our cities.

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 11:20 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

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?

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 11:10 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Éric Lefebvre Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 11:05 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK

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?

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 11:05 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 11:05 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 10:55 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Michael Ma Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

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—

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 10:50 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Michael Ma Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 10:50 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Michael Ma Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 10:50 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Michael Ma Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 10:40 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Michael Ma Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

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.

Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

November 18th, 2025 / 10:40 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB

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—