Bill C-14

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) provide direction to peace officers, justices and judges when they apply the principle of restraint;
(b) require a justice, before making a release order or a detention order in respect of an accused, to consider whether the accused is charged with an offence in the commission of which random and unprovoked violence was used or attempted;
(c) require a justice to impose a condition prohibiting the possession of a firearm or other weapon, and to consider imposing other conditions, when making a release order in respect of an accused charged with the offence of extortion or any offence involving a criminal organization;
(d) require a justice to consider imposing certain conditions when making a release order in respect of an accused charged with an offence of motor vehicle theft or with the offence of breaking and entering a dwelling-house;
(e) create a reverse onus provision for any accused charged with the offence of motor vehicle theft involving violence, motor vehicle theft for a criminal organization, extortion involving violence, breaking and entering a dwelling-house, certain offences related to trafficking in persons or human smuggling or certain offences in which an accused is alleged to have choked, suffocated or strangled a complainant;
(f) expand the reverse onus provision to any person charged with a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon who has been previously convicted, within 10 years, of a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon;
(g) add the number or gravity of any outstanding charges against an accused as circumstances that a justice is to consider in assessing whether the detention of the accused is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice;
(h) expand the circumstances in which the release documents that an accused is subject to may be canceled;
(i) create a reverse onus provision for any person who has been found guilty of certain offences if the prosecutor applies to vacate that person’s interim release order;
(j) create new aggravating factors to address repeat violent offending, offences against first responders, retail theft and theft and mischief to property offences;
(k) add new consecutive sentence provisions for repeat violent offences, motor vehicle theft offences and breaking and entering offences, and extortion and arson offences;
(l) require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence of repeat motor vehicle theft offences, repeat breaking and entering offences and organized crime offences;
(m) restrict the possibility of imposing conditional sentence orders for sexual assault, and offences of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose that involves a victim under 18 years of age;
(n) restore the availability of driving prohibitions for the offences of manslaughter and criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death; and
(o) improve the administration of justice as it relates to sentencing by increasing the penalty for contempt, enhancing the fine enforcement regime and expanding the availability of remote appearances in the mental disorder regime.
It also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to, among other things,
(a) clarify the definition of “violent offence” to mean, among other things, an offence in the commission of which a young person causes bodily harm;
(b) provide that the time a young person is unlawfully at large does not count towards time served for a youth custody and supervision order;
(c) enable police officers to publish identifying information about a young person in urgent situations where there is an imminent danger to public safety;
(d) clarify the process for the detention and release of young persons who are remanded for an alleged breach of a condition of their youth custody sentence while awaiting a review by the youth justice court;
(e) set out a period of access for records of extrajudicial measures, other than extrajudicial sanctions, and clarify the rules for records of investigations kept by police that did not result in a charge or extrajudicial measures; and
(f) make several technical sentencing amendments.
It also amends the National Defence Act to, among other things,
(a) improve the administration of military justice as it relates to sentencing by increasing the penalty for contempt;
(b) require courts martial to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence of offences involving criminal organizations; and
(c) create new aggravating circumstances to address repeat violent offending, offences against first responders, stealing for commercial purposes and certain property offences.
Finally, the enactment also includes transitional provisions and coordinating amendments.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, last Tuesday I was finishing up a meeting in my office when the all-too-familiar ring of an Amber Alert went through on my phone. I picked my phone up and promptly looked at it, only to find out that a one-year-old baby girl had been abducted. Members can imagine how this grasped my heart, and I continued to follow the story through its progression.

The next day, I learned the details. I learned that the mother of that child, Savannah Kulla-Davies, had been shot and killed by her ex-partner, Anthony. It was later revealed that Anthony had a record of violence and threats against Savannah, the young woman and mom whose life was taken.

The man had faced firearm-related charges in 2023 for an attack against Savannah. A court document stated that he “did discharge a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of Savannah Rose Kulla Davies”. He even evaded police for a month before finally being arrested by the Waterloo police. A short time later, however, he was out on bail. Sadly, while he was out on bail, he was free to continue his pattern of violence, and this time it ended in the death of Savannah.

Savannah knew that Anthony was dangerous. She had once told her mom, “If I stay with him, he’s going to end up killing me.” As a result, she had left, but unfortunately the justice system failed to protect her. Despite his record and Savannah's repeated pleas, she was failed by the people who were supposed to ensure her safety. Warnings were ignored, and ultimately death was her end. Far too often, this is the case.

This past summer, another woman, Bailey McCourt, was also failed by our justice system and its weak laws. The proud mother of two young girls was bludgeoned to death with a hammer. Her ex was the culprit. That same afternoon, just hours before her life was taken, James had been convicted of four counts of assault by choking and of uttering threats in a domestic violence case. Despite this, however, he was allowed walk. He went and immediately killed Bailey.

Sadly, now two little girls are growing up without a mom, and a family is left with a big hole in their heart. Bailey had lost her faith in the judicial system and in the court's ability to protect her. Her uncle even commented on this, saying that she was “frustrated, scared and felt [altogether] unsupported”.

Both Savannah's and Bailey's stories lay bare the devastating truth: Our justice system all too often sides with the perpetrator and not with the victim. To say that our justice system is broken would be an understatement.

How did we get here? For 10 years, the Liberals have proudly stood behind two soft-on-crime policies: Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. With Bill C-5, the Liberals weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and re-permitting conditional sentences like house arrest for serious offences, extending all the way up to sexual assault. Under Bill C-75, the Liberals forced judges to release offenders “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

The decisions of legislators have real consequences, and these soft-on-crime laws have now resulted in devastation after devastation. After a decade of negligence, the Liberals are finally realizing, it seems, that crime does take place when lax laws are present, but Bill C-14 unfortunately does not go to the extent that it needs to. It is like putting a a band-aid on a gaping wound.

I would like to discuss a few Conservative proposals that would help bring about a right justice system. If the Liberals really do seek to address crime with real solutions, my Conservative colleagues and I have put forward a number of bills, over a dozen. They are common-sense proposals to end catch-and-release bail, restore accountability in sentencing and put the rights of victims and communities ahead of the rights of repeat violent offenders.

I will take my time to outline just three of those common-sense proposals.

One proposal is to end sentence discounts. For a decade, the Liberals have favoured criminals over victims, with light sentencing in the form of concurrent sentences. Sexual assault charges should never be served concurrently, but this is the current practice in Canada. Predators get a two-, three- or four-for-one deal when they commit a crime. It is disgusting. It allows offenders to serve a single sentence for multiple crimes, often reducing their time behind bars significantly.

In Toronto, a family doctor was convicted of nine charges of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation involving three of his patients. He was handed a concurrent sentence of only three and a half years. Again, the penalties for his crimes were combined into one, thereby robbing justice from many of those victims. These patients were supposed to be able to see their family doctor and feel safe and cared for; instead, they were exploited. They were taken advantage of. Instead of their being able to walk a life of freedom, they will bear these scars for a lifetime while the man, the culprit, the perpetrator, will go free very soon.

Each offence is a distinct harm; each victim is a whole person, and each act must carry its own consequence. My private member's bill, Bill C-246, would require consecutive sentences for those who commit sexual assault rather than their being able to serve the sentences concurrently. The Liberals' Bill C-14 fails to address this practice. It fails to address the practice of giving discount sentences for the most heinous crimes. Therefore, it is lacking.

A second proposal that my Conservative colleagues have brought forward that I believe the government should consider has to do with intimate partner violence. We know that, across Canada, women are being failed by a system unable to protect them from their known abusers. In both Savannah's and Bailey's cases, as outlined, their abusers were their ex-partners, something that is all too familiar. About a quarter of all victims of violent crime are victimized by an intimate partner. My colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, introduced Bill C-225, a bill designed to strengthen the legal response to intimate partner violence. If the Liberals truly wished to address this, they would adopt the principles of that bill, and it would serve Canadians incredibly well.

The third bill that I would like to draw attention to has to do with bail. I recently heard from a grieving mother in my riding. She reached out to me from Lethbridge. Her daughter Christina Webber was brutally murdered on December 26 of last year, the day after Christmas. Three individuals were charged in this first-degree murder. One of Christina's killers had been serving an intermittent sentence, meaning that he served time in prison on the weekends, but then he was allowed out during the week, supposedly to work, although he did not have a job. It was during the time he was out of prison that he committed this murder.

Another one of Christina's killers, who was charged with first-degree murder, requested bail and received it. She now lives peacefully in her home while she awaits trial. Meanwhile, Christina's family, her two young boys and her parents, grieve the loss of this mom. It did not need to be that way.

Conservatives have pushed for a long time for changes to our bail system. Recently, my colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which would ensure that individuals charged with serious or violent offences could not easily return to the community while they are waiting for trial. It prioritizes public safety. It puts the victim and the family first. Sadly, the Liberals voted against the bill.

Conservatives welcome the Liberals' sudden recognition that bail reform is needed, but Canadians deserve so much more. They must have much more because their lives matter, their safety matters and our communities matter. Canadians deserve better. They deserve safety; they deserve accountability, and they deserve laws that protect the innocent, not the violent. Therefore, Conservatives will continue to fight for these changes to strengthen sentencing, to reform bail and to put victims first. Ultimately, people like Savannah, Bailey and Christina deserve nothing less. For crying out loud, I hope, for the sake of their families, that we would want to do better.

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

Madam Speaker, I think every member of the House would clearly state that they care passionately about the victims of crime and those who are affected by it.

Having said that, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians in the last federal election, not that long ago. It was just a few months back. He said we would bring forward bail reform legislation. This is substantial legislation that stakeholders from every region of the country support. There is an opportunity for us to deliver, for Canadians, genuine and substantial bail legislation with a wide spectrum of support. We have an opportunity to pass it into law before the end of the year. The Conservatives are playing politics and putting partisan politics ahead of the interests of Canadians.

Will the member give a clear indication of whether the Conservative Party will allow for bail reform legislation to pass before the end of the year?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say I am surprised to hear these comments from the hon. member; unfortunately, he makes these comments quite often. In this instance, he is saying cases like Christina's, Savannah's and Bailey's cases are politics. In fact, they are lives. They are women who had children, who lived in their communities, who gave back to their communities and who had a vibrant future ahead of them. Unfortunately, their lives were taken. Their lives were taken by a violent offender, an ex-partner in two of those cases.

The hon. member wants to call it “politics” when I stand in this place, share their stories and advocate on behalf of them and their families. I find that shameful. The government could have gone a lot further with Bill C-14. Unfortunately, it did not. As a result, we are going to continue to see crime skyrocket in this country and more people become victims. That is sad.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives want tougher measures to fight crime. I would like to know whether they agree that we also need to crack down on criminal organizations by, for example, creating a registry of such organizations, making it easier to seize their assets and prohibiting them from displaying their insignia and symbols.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, with regard to organized crime in this country, we have seen it skyrocket. A great deal of attention needs to be given to that to assess what is going on and how we can better combat that. I would invite the hon. member to bring forward a proposal to the House for us to consider in terms of creating greater laws around that. Ultimately, our goal would be to see greater protection of the public and to ensure their safety.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my colleague a similar question to that I asked a colleague previously. It has to do with the statistics from 2019 to 2023, which state that 1,074 murders were committed by criminals who were out on bail. We do not have the numbers for 2024 and 2025 yet. The member opposite continues to ask if the Conservatives will pass the bill quickly, and he says we should pass the bill quickly because all the organizations and police associations are saying we should do it.

To my colleague, why did members opposite vote against the Conservative motion to pass Bill C-242 quickly when the same associations asked the House to do so?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will highlight again that I feel Bill C-14 should have gone much further. It is one thing to have buy-in on a bill, but those same people who are buying into the bill and supporting the bill would have advocated for it to go much further.

Bill C-5, a Liberal bill, weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and repermitting conditional sentences such as house arrest for crimes like sexual assault. That is disgusting.

With Bill C-75, the Liberals forced judges to release offenders at the earliest possible time with the least onerous conditions. This is why we have individuals out on our streets able to commit murder within hours of being arrested. That is disgusting.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the chamber today to address Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

I will begin by saying what I have been hearing loud and clear from the people of Brampton and across Canada. Canadians are tired of living in fear in their own homes and neighbourhoods. After 10 years of the Liberal government, one thing is painfully clear: Canada has become less safe.

Brampton is a city of hard-working families, new Canadians and entrepreneurs. These are people who came to Canada for better opportunities and safety, but today, many tell me they no longer feel safe walking to their cars, taking public transit or letting their teenagers go out at night. Our streets are less secure, and our communities are living in fear; repeat violent offenders are being released again and again because of Liberal soft-on-crime laws.

Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearms offences are up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%. These are not just numbers. They represent shattered families. They represent lost lives. They represent Canadians who did nothing wrong except trust their government to keep them safe. Let us remember the names behind these numbers: Bailey McCourt, murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail for assault; Savannah Kulla-Davies, a 29-year-old mother of four, shot and killed in Brampton by a man who was out on bail. Bailey and Savannah were both killed by a system that prioritized the rights of repeat offenders over the safety of innocent people.

These tragedies were not inevitable. They were preventable. They happened because Liberal laws made it easier for violent offenders to walk free.

It all started with Bill C-75. That bill rewrote Canada's bail system and told judges to start from a principle of restraint. In plain English, that means release first, ask questions later. The Liberals told judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. The result is a revolving door, a catch-and-release system that sends criminals right back into our communities.

Then came Bill C-5. That law repealed mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes, drug trafficking and repeat violent offences. Together, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 created chaos. The people paying the price are law-abiding Canadians: seniors assaulted in their homes, store owners robbed at gunpoint, women forced to live in fear of violent partners and first responders attacked by offenders who should have been behind bars.

The National Post reported that more than half of Canadians no longer feel safe in their neighbourhoods. That is the legacy of the Liberal government: fear, violence and disorder. Now, after four years of Conservative pressure, the Liberals are finally admitting what Canadians already knew: Their bail system is broken. What did they do? They brought forward Bill C-14. Let us call it what it is: damage control.

Bill C-14 is an attempt to copy the Conservative plan without the courage to actually fix the problem. Yes, it makes a few changes, but it leaves the principle of restraint completely intact. It simply says that judges should consider public safety. It does not require them to put safety first. It adds a few more reverse onus provisions, but that is just procedure. The offender can still argue their way out. It gives judges more guidance, not direction; it gives more advice, not accountability. Once again, the Liberals talk tough but act very weak. Canadians are tired of that, and they want results.

Conservatives already have the real solution, Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, introduced by my colleague. The entire Conservative Party is supporting it. The bill does not tinker around the edges. It overhauls the system with one clear message: to protect Canadians first.

First, it would repeal the principle of restraint and replace it with a public safety primacy clause. This means that the first question in every bail hearing would be whether we can protect the public. If the answer is no, offenders would stay in jail.

Second, it would create the presumption of detention for major and repeat violent offenders. If someone is charged with a major crime, they would not get the benefit of the doubt. They would stay behind bars until a court decides otherwise.

Third, it would strengthen the risk test. Instead of asking whether there is a substantial likelihood that someone would reoffend, the law would ask if it is reasonably foreseeable. If there is a foreseeable risk, we would need to act before another tragedy happens.

Fourth, it would mandate judges to review an accused person's entire criminal history, because no one should be treated as a first-time offender when they have already proven they are a repeat threat.

Fifth, it would tighten the surety system. There would be no more convicted criminals vouching for other criminals.

This is real accountability, real reform and real public protection.

The difference between Bill C-14 and Bill C-242 is simple. Bill C-14 would tweak and Bill C-242 would fix. Bill C-14 would encourage and Bill C-242 would require. Bill C-14 would charge and Bill C-242 would enforce. The fundamental difference between our two parties is that the Liberals protect the rights of offenders and the Conservatives protect the safety of Canadians.

Let us not forget that the Liberals voted against every one of these ideas. They voted against the jail not bail act and voted against mandatory minimums. Then, when Canadians demanded action, they copied Conservative ideas into Bill C-14 and called them their own.

Canadians see through this. This is the same government whose public safety minister once said, “I'm not responsible for the hiring of the [RCMP or CBSA] officers.” If he is not responsible for protecting Canadians, then who is?

This is not a partisan issue. It is a public safety issue and a public safety crisis. Every week, there is another headline of another shooting, another stabbing or another innocent person hurt or killed by someone who should never have been out on bail.

Bailey McCourt's family will never see her again. Savannah Kulla's children will grow up without their mother. Tell those families that the principle of restraint worked. Tell them that Liberal bail laws kept them safe. We all know the truth: The Liberal system failed.

The Conservatives have a clear, practical plan to restore law and order: scrap the Liberal bail system, restore mandatory minimums for serious violent offenders, prioritize public safety over political safety and ensure police and prosecutors have the tools they need to protect our communities. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes, in their parks, in their neighbourhoods and in their country.

It is time to act. Canadians are tired of fear. They are tired of excuses. The Liberals have had 10 years to fix this system and have failed. The Conservatives have the courage, conviction and plan to restore safety and order. Under a Conservative government, we will end catch and release, stop repeat offenders and restore law and order in this country.

Justice delayed is justice denied, so let us fix this. Let us restore law and order. Let us bring safety back to Brampton and every community across the country. Let us put victims ahead of criminals. We will make Canada safe once again.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Madam Speaker, listening to Conservatives in the House today is like going back in time to the 1990s, when Republicans were talking about “three strikes and you're out”, which does not work. What Conservatives are proposing does not work. That is why we have come up with a piece of legislation that is right for this moment.

It is interesting that the Conservatives say this bill copies Conservatives, yet they criticize the bill. They cannot have it both ways. Either Conservatives support the bill or they do not support the bill.

Is the member opposite going to support this bill when it is brought to the House for third reading, yes or no?

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite, when asking his question, said they copied us. That is true, but they did not copy our bill in its entirety. Otherwise, we would have supported their bill. We are asking them to support our bill, Bill C-242. We would love to bring in safety for Canadians.

Canadians are suffering every single day. Canadians are suffering when they walk down the street. Neighbourhoods are not safe. Kids are not safe. Every day there are shootings. I do not which part of this not being a partisan issue the member opposite does not understand. This is an issue we have to come together on to bring in safety for Canadians.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us talk about public safety. There are ways of making that work.

Bill C-14 covers six major points that the Bloc Québécois thinks are very worthwhile. The Conservatives see everything as black or white.

Quite honestly, we need to take the time to properly evaluate the weight of this bill in committee in order to legislate on public safety and appropriately modernize the law.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to bring up some numbers, for perspective. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearms offences are up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicide is up 29%. These are clear indications that something is not working for the safety of Canadians.

I am talking with every single stakeholder and enforcement agency and the Peel police about how we can fix these problems. They keep saying that this bill is a start, but it needs to be done better.

Our bill, Bill C-242, would address the problems once and for all and bring in safety for Canadians.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving such a touching speech on Bill C-14 and the loopholes within it.

There is still the principle of restraint and house arrest for traffickers and people involved in firearms crimes and serious crimes. How does that resonate with him? How does that resonate given the ongoing threats, killings and shootings throughout Canada?

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all know that Canadians are suffering from crime. Crime waves are up because of the Liberals' soft-on-crime laws. This is a problem we started seeing years ago. Every single day, when a shooting happens, people call us. This is a non-partisan issue. We need to provide safety to Canadians.

The principle of restraint gives judges the opportunity to give bail under the least onerous conditions at the first opportunity, which is not right. That needs to be replaced completely.

Bill C-242 would address all the major issues and would provide safety for Canadians. I am so happy to support Bill C-242. If everyone would accept it, it would be a wonderful opportunity to provide safety for Canadians.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a humbling privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Portage—Lisgar, particularly on such an important issue.

Before I get into the substance of today's matter, I would like to give a little shout-out of pride to my beautiful wife Cailey. We welcomed our second daughter into the world last month. She has been an absolute rock star. Today is the 22-month birthday of our first daughter, Maeve. I just want to say how much mommy and daddy love both Morgan and Maeve.

Before I was even elected to Parliament, the need to reverse the dangerous changes the Liberals made to our bail system was front-page news for years. This issue has been raised time and time again, almost every day in the House, for years. During that time, Canadians have listened to various Liberal MPs and commentators defend the disastrous legislative changes that have directly contributed to the crime crisis that is currently plaguing our communities.

When the Liberals weakened the previous bail system, the Liberals told Canadians that they were simply following a court decision. They claimed that by passing Bill C-75, they were only honouring legal precedent, but the truth is that no court demanded the automatic principle of release to be codified into law. That was a political choice, one the Liberals engineered and that Canadians have paid the price for.

Then came Bill C-5 back in 2022. That legislation removed mandatory minimums for serious gun offences and allowed conditional sentences for many other very serious crimes. The results were entirely predictable. Repeat violent offenders cycled through the system again and again. There was little to no deterrence. Victims were left behind and ignored. Later, the Liberals introduced Bill C-48, and while it added a few reverse onus provisions, it still failed to give clear direction on detaining repeat violent criminals.

Now, once again, we find ourselves trying to fix the mess the Liberals have created over the past 10 years. The consequences of their inaction have been devastating. Countless innocent Canadians have been harmed or have even lost their lives because the government failed to act when it mattered most.

We are often told that the justice system must balance the presumption of innocence with public safety, and of course it must, but that balance has been broken. Under the Liberals' watch, the bail system in Canada has become a revolving door. Dangerous individuals are released back on our streets where they continue to victimize innocent Canadians. That is not justice. That is negligence, and it is literally costing lives.

Laws are only as effective as the consequences they produce, yet over the past many years, the Liberal government has prioritized procedure over protection. We were told that reform would come from court interpretations or social programs rather than through tougher laws. Meanwhile, habitual offenders with long criminal records were repeatedly released, breached their conditions and returned to the same cycle of violence and victimization. The results were entirely predicable and preventable.

In 2023, rural police-reported crime in Manitoba reached 14,846 incidents per 100,000 people, almost 1.6 times the rate of urban areas. When bail decisions fail to account for repeat violent offenders, it is small towns and rural communities that pay the highest price. Municipal policing reports across the country tell the same story time and time again: Repeat violent offenders with long histories of arrests and breaches are being released, only to commit murder or some other serious assault or crime while out on bail. This is not a theoretical debate; it is a tragedy that has been unfolding in real time across our country over the past number of years, and it must come to an end.

The Association of Manitoba Municipalities has repeatedly called for bail reform. In its public safety agenda, the AMM outlined the urgent need for federal action and greater support for local policing across the province. Municipal leaders, from those in Winnipeg to those in small rural and northern communities, have been crystal clear that public safety is their top priority. A recent AMM survey found that nearly nine in 10 Manitobans want immediate federal action on bail reform and amendments to the Criminal Code to hold repeat offenders accountable. Those voices can no longer be ignored.

Statistics confirm what Canadians already feel. The national data shows that the violent crime severity index has been climbing for years, frankly, ever since the Liberals took power back in 2015, when they began their process of breaking the bail system and the entirety of the justice system. Offences involving weapons are up. Studies on reconviction and recidivism show that offenders with multiple prior convictions are far more likely to reoffend within months of release than those with fewer convictions.

When someone has a documented history of violence, multiple arrests, convictions and breaches of court orders, releasing them on minimal conditions is not fairness; it is gambling with the safety of the public. Police chiefs, prosecutors and frontline officers all warned that this would happen. Many of us have talked to those frontline officers and heard directly from them. They knew this consequence was coming. For years, they asked Ottawa to provide the tools to keep the most dangerous individuals off our streets. Instead, the Liberals delayed. They deflected that there was ever a problem and left provinces and municipalities to deal with the consequences.

I want to highlight one heartbreaking example from my riding, in my home province of Manitoba. Meechelle and Ron Best recently appeared before the justice committee. They lost their daughter, Kellie, a young woman of 28 from Portage who had her entire life ahead of her. She was engaged to Travis and was expecting to walk down the aisle this year. She worked in tourism in the community. She had started her own small business. Everybody simply loved her. The man accused of killing her had multiple outstanding warrants and a long record of breaches, yet he was repeatedly released. It was when he was out on bail that he caused the crash that killed Kellie.

Before her death, he had been released on bail three times in the two weeks leading up to the Christmas prior to Kellie's early January killing. Despite his record, he remained free time and time again. After killing her, he was transferred to a behavioural facility, from which he quickly escaped. Meechelle told the justice committee that her heart sank when she heard that news. She feared for someone else’s life and that some other family was about to be destroyed, because his pattern of behaviour was so crystal clear to anybody who paid it any attention. She asked a simple but powerful question of that committee: What good are assurances when someone who shows no respect for the law, police or judges keeps getting another chance?

This is the question that every single one of us must answer. This is not about isolated failures, but about a system that has simply lost its way. If an offender has repeat violent convictions, uses weapons, has breached bail conditions and ignored warrants, we must ask ourselves what responsible jail system would still default to release. It is under the Liberal government that our system has done exactly that, and the consequences have been tragic. That is why I have been unwavering in calling for laws that protect victims, defend our public safety and restore confidence in our justice system.

Judges must begin every bail consideration with the highest safety threshold in mind, and repeat violent offenders must not be given a free runway to strike again. Governments at every level must act to support the municipalities, including those represented by the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, that are on the front lines of community safety.

To the families who have lost loved ones because of this system’s failure, we hear them. To the communities of rural Manitoba, the urban core of Winnipeg and Canadians across this country, we stand with them as Conservatives. They deserve a justice system that protects them, not one that endangers them. The Liberals have had years to get this right. They promised balance, but instead delivered policies that emboldened repeat offenders and eroded the public trust.

Too many Canadians have paid the price through trauma, fear and loss, and that simply cannot continue. It is time to fix the bail system. It is time for laws that put families, victims and communities first. Meechelle and Ron Best’s story reminds us why delay is not an option. Their grief is a call to action. I am so proud of them for coming to deliver their story. The lives of countless Canadians hang in the balance, and no one should have to endure what they have endured.

When this legislation reaches committee, I expect members of Parliament to strengthen it and fix the mess the Liberals have created once and for all. I will note, as the Conservative shadow minister for justice has pointed out, that this bill is entitled the “bail and sentencing reform act”, yet out of the 80 paragraphs spanning 35 pages, only a single provision touches on sentencing reform, and it concerns contempt of court, not violent crimes.

In the face of rising crime across Canada, why did the government fail to use this opportunity to strengthen penalties for other serious offences? It could have used this bill to send a clear message to every would-be criminal out there that their days of terrorizing our streets without consequences are over.

Parliament has a moral duty to do more than just tinker around the edges. We owe it to the family of Meechelle and Ron Best and the families of countless others who have faced serious loss, because no parent should ever have to endure the death of a child thanks to a broken bail system.