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

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked me to repeat the last line, which was to ask my colleague if he had indications, as I feel I have, that the government will consider helpful amendments that would allow us to support the bill. I know that he has criticisms, and I have criticisms. Maybe we can compromise and get a better bill.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, my relationship with our current justice minister is vastly different from those with previous justice ministers. He is open to conversation. We have exchanged our personal cell numbers. I spoke about the bill with him this past weekend. He knows that we are going to be putting forth reasonable amendments. He has indicated a willingness to look at that. In fact, I am even going to suggest that I would pass those on to him even before we get to committee because I think there is an opportunity for the House to work together to make this the best possible bail and sentencing reform that we can produce at this juncture in time.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot today that the Liberal government coming up with workarounds for the old Bill C-75, which introduced section 493 to the Criminal Code, which is the principle of restraint in the administration of bail in bail court.

Instead of doing these workarounds, could we get rid of section 493 altogether? The Liberals are blaming it on the Supreme Court of Canada, but we were never instructed to change the law.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question and his equally excellent suggestion. It is a particular issue that, for years, we have been advocating for.

As I indicated in my speech, in 2019, the creation of the principle of restraint and the amendment to the code was the genesis of the problems we face today. It would be a very easy fix to simply repeal section 493.1, the principle of restraint, in the code and use language that emphasizes the protection of the public when dealing with violent repeat offenders.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see you in the chair.

It is great that we are having this debate today. I want to thank our hon. colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for sharing his time with me. I believe its name has changed, and I hope that is the new name.

Today, we rise to talk about Bill C-14. However, if members will pardon me, I am going to talk about those the bill has an impact on and a piece of legislation we have before us today in Bill S-233.

Bill S-233 is an act to amend the Criminal Code to make it an aggravating factor at sentencing if the victim of violence is a firefighter, a paramedic, a nurse or a health care worker.

I have said this a million times over the last decade of my serving in this House: Our brave men and women who put their uniforms on every day do so knowing they are going to experience some of the worst of the worst in our communities and see people at their lowest point. They experience some horrendous sights, smells, sounds, yet they put their uniforms on every day and go out the door to serve our country, our communities, my family and the families of members. They do it because they care. They want to make a difference.

These are nurses, paramedics, firefighters, police officers, correctional officers, social workers and psych nurses, who are on the streets administering care to some of our most vulnerable. They are facing an epidemic of violence perpetrated against them. How far have we fallen when it is okay to punch a nurse as she is taking one's temperature or a firefighter who is responding to a 911 call? By the way, do members know that firefighters cannot stop what they are doing because they think it is unsafe? They have to respond. They have to go into those burning buildings. They have to go toward danger, risking their life and the safety of their colleagues. I am at a loss with what we are seeing. Acts of violence are being perpetrated against them. Paramedics have to wear bulletproof vests, because they have been stabbed or shot at. They are attacked just doing the job. Nurses are being attacked by their patients behind closed doors.

When I stood in the House to debate Bill C-321, I read out some horrific stories that had been shared with me. I brought some of them with me: A paramedic was thrown down the stairs, beaten and had both legs broken during a call. A B.C. ambulance attendant in Duncan, near Victoria, was knocked unconscious. A firefighter was stabbed. What we are hearing is horrific.

Over the last three years, we have worked collaboratively across all sides of the House. We got Bill C-321 passed at all levels in this House, unanimously. We did the same in the Senate. Unfortunately, an election was called, so the bill fell off the Order Paper. It disappeared. However, over the last month since we have been back in the House, the Senate, because of the leadership of the senators, saw the importance of getting this bill passed so that our first responders and health care workers knew we had their backs. They brought it forward, passed it at all levels and reported it back to this House late last week. The minister stood up and said that he does not care who gets the credit. I do not care either.

I do know one thing: We are in a minority Parliament. The bill, Bill C-14, still has to go through all the stages and committee, so it is going to take time. There are good discussions being had on all sides of the House right now about friendly amendments, etc., but we could send a message to our first responders and our health care workers that we care.

We could pass Bill S-233 this week and not delay it by waiting for Bill C-14 to pass. When the stakeholder groups, the nurses' associations and IAFF found out that it was put into Bill C-14, they were very happy, but then the reality sunk in that it is still potentially going to take a long time. What happens if this Parliament falls? It is then scrapped again.

We talk about showing leadership. Leadership is about putting our partisan ways behind us and passing the legislation that really matters most. The minister said we should do what we were sent here to do, work together and work in the best interests of Canadians. That is what Bill C-321 was about; that is what Bill S-233 is.

The IAFF, the International Association of Fire Fighters, are watching today. Over 100 firefighters are going to be here in Parliament next week for their lobby days. Do colleagues want to know what their number one request is in their legislative days, or their lobby days? It is passing Bill S-233 to get protections for them. Furthermore, they have been asking for this for years. Transit workers had it within months in 2015. The very same things that we are asking for were given to transit workers, yet we expect paramedics, nurses, health care workers and firefighters, first responders, to go into danger and to suck it up. They are fed up with being used as political pawns. That is how they feel.

We have a responsibility to those who protect us not to play politics with their lives or their safety. I hope that at some point in the very near future, I can stand and call for UC, to see this bill, Bill S-233, passed at all levels.

I will work with all sides on it. I have proven over the last decade that when it comes to our first responders, when it comes to those who serve our country and our community, I will fiercely defend them; I am a champion of them. I will work for all of them, and I will work across all sides to get something done that benefits them, but others should not cross me.

Right now, the firefighters, the paramedics and the health care workers feel they are being used as pawns. I think we can send a message. I hope the House can come together and send a message. The minister's words gave me hope. Those who are watching also got hope from that.

I just want to say that I thank my hon. colleague for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for allowing me the time to talk about Bill S-233 as it pertains to Bill C-14. I know we have other champions of first responders and health care workers across the way. I have worked with them for the last decade. I hope they can do whatever they can within their ranks to see it so that if we do come before the House to call for UC, they will be able to support it. Then, once and for all, our first responders, paramedics, health care workers, will know that we cherish them and we have their backs.

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

Madam Speaker, in terms of our first responders, I think that all members of this chamber understand, appreciate and value the work they do. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is an honorary member of the International Association of Fire Fighters and has been a very strong advocate. I remember her sitting beside me as the deputy House leader, constantly talking about and advocating for firefighter issues.

I do not want to politicize this. We need to recognize that Bill C-14 is widely supported by all the different stakeholders and sectors of our communities, and it is substantial legislation. As in the question I posed to the Conservative shadow minister, I ask, why not recognize the true value of the legislation, as what the member is referring to is within this legislation, and make an honest commitment to actually see this legislation pass before the end of the year? With the will of this chamber, we can make that happen.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have a piece of legislation before us, Bill S-233. It has gone through all levels of committee. My comment to our hon. colleague is to work with me; let us get Bill S-233 passed as soon as tomorrow. It does not have to go through a lengthy process. We can then send that message to the firefighters, paramedics and health care workers who are watching this debate right now. They feel that their safety is being punted further down into the future, but we could actually send that message today. The work has been done. Let us do it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up with my hon. colleague in the same vein of questioning. The member had the opportunity to ask the justice minister, and he very correctly stated that he is not worried about who gets credit.

In his speech, the member brought up the concerns about getting this through all stages quickly, not only because it would to send the message for next week but also because it is possible that this Parliament may not even exist three weeks from now, based on the posturing by the Liberal government. The Liberals may be indicating that they want to call an election.

Would the member agree that if we can get this through, we are at least getting something done that Bill C-14 would partially address, but that the bill from the Senate that the member formerly brought forward as a private member's bill is important for first responders?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have a crystal ball in front of me. I deal in facts. We do not know what next week will bring, but we have Bill S-233 here, which is a complete bill, has gone through all the process and could be passed today. That is a good-news story for this House. Whatever happens next week or in the near future, who knows? However, what we can say is that we came together, we valued our first responders and our health care workers and we managed to get something done. It could be done today.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his tireless advocacy for first responders' safety and for introducing a private member's bill in the last Parliament and now again this time. Where would his private member's bill from the last Parliament be today if former prime minister Trudeau had not selfishly prorogued Parliament for purely partisan reasons?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it would have been law. The sad thing is that it would have been law. However, I can say that all sides of the House, both here in Parliament and in the Senate, worked tirelessly to get this done during the last Parliament. Colleagues who are in the House right now worked tirelessly to get this done.

It is a plea, because this is weighty stuff, hearing the stories of another firefighter attacked, somebody who has died by suicide because they are done with the violence, or health care workers and nurses who cannot go back to work because of the violence they face each and every day. Bill S-233 could be passed right now. Bill C-321 could have been passed in the last Parliament if it had not dissolved.

The work has been done. The heavy lifting has been done. The sacrifice is done every day by our firefighters and health care workers. Let us come together and pass Bill S-233.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Public Safety.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives and Liberals seem to fighting over who gets to respond to an issue that has been raised. There is an expression in French for that, but I will not say it because I am not sure that it would be parliamentary. Let us just say that they both want to be more tough on crime than the other. The Conservatives introduced their Bill C‑242, while the Liberals introduced Bill C‑14, which will obviously be examined before the Conservative bill. Now, we just need to wait and see who will be the toughest on crime. That seems to be the expression of the day.

What exactly are we talking about here? Judges are not obliged to automatically release individuals who appear in court after having been charged with a crime. Judges use their discretion. Basically, they look at three things.

First, are they convinced that the individual before them will participate in the subsequent stages of their trial? If a judge thinks there is a high risk that the accused will not be present, then that person is kept in custody to ensure that they are.

Second, the judge will consider public safety. Is there a danger that, if this individual is not kept in custody, they will commit one or more crimes in the short or medium term, regardless of why? If the judge believes that releasing them would indeed be a danger to public safety, the accused will be kept in prison.

Third, the judge will consider whether releasing the accused will bring the administration of justice into disrepute. They will look at a number of issues with that in mind to determine how the average person would respond. Is the charge so serious that releasing this individual would cause public outrage? Is the charge serious? Are the events documented? For example, some crimes are caught on camera. Perhaps the individual can say that they are not guilty for such-and-such a reason but, if it truly is a serious crime, then the courts will certainly rule that, given the circumstances, this individual must remain in custody to keep the public peace.

Those are the three criteria that the courts currently apply. When someone commits a crime, they appear in court and the judge asks those three questions. If there are any concerns in these three areas, the individual will be kept in custody.

Bill C‑14 tells us many things, including the fact that there will be a reverse onus for certain crimes and charges. In the future, it will not be up to the Crown to prove that the individual will fail to appear, is dangerous or will bring the administration of justice into disrepute; it will be up to the accused to prove to the judges that there is no chance that they will fail to appear at the subsequent steps of their trial, that they are not a threat to public safety and that their release at this stage, as they await trial, will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The bill keeps the same criteria, but adds a few more. It is true. For example, the bill adds that the judge must take into account the individual's criminal record and any crimes they were found guilty of in the past 10 years. However, the courts already took these criteria into account, even though they were not clearly set out in the Criminal Code. Does this add anything? I am not convinced it does.

The number of inmates in our prisons who are awaiting trial rose from 66% in 2018 to 72% in 2024. I am not making these numbers up; they are out there. That means that 72% of inmates, a big number, are in prison not because they were found guilty of a crime but because they are awaiting trial. The remaining 28% have been found guilty and are serving their sentence.

Do our courts release people automatically? These statistics lead us to believe that this is not the case. They suggest that judges are diligently exercising the discretion granted to them under the law. Does that mean that the release conditions should not be reviewed? I am not saying that. It certainly makes sense to look at everything and try to see if we can improve things.

Every time a repeat offender commits a crime, somebody always makes the following criticism, and rightly so: They may have been released too soon, or, they were not rehabilitated. That is a key issue. When someone is sentenced to prison for committing a crime, what happens in prison? Do we genuinely rehabilitate them? Personally, I believe in rehabilitation. I think we should strive to build a perfect society. Obviously, it will never be perfect, but I am saying that we should strive for that. We should ensure that all residents of this land behave in accordance with the societal rules we have set for ourselves and do not commit crimes. Of course, there will always be some who do. I am not that naive, although I may be at times. There will always be people who commit crimes, but I do not think we should throw in the towel. We should focus on rehabilitating all those who have already committed crimes.

The problem is that we cannot get there. We cannot do it because we do not have the budget. We do not have the resources. The provinces are responsible for the administration of justice, as we know, and they have to provide those resources to the prisons, but the provinces do not have the money. The money is in Ottawa. When we ask for transfers to Quebec and the provinces, whether for health, education or any other area, the same always happens: We always get the brush-off. The Bloc Québécois made six requests for the budget that is being tabled next week. The indications we have received so far lead us to believe that none of our requests will be granted. Does anyone think that is normal? I do not think that is normal. I think that the federal government has an obligation to meet the needs of the provinces. Our reflection on Bill C-14 on bail conditions inevitably leads us to ask the same question: Does the federal government transfer enough money to the provinces to enable them to fulfill their obligations with regard to inmate rehabilitation? I can say that in Quebec, that is not the case. I am also pretty sure that it is not the case anywhere in Canada.

Preventive detention is not a perfect solution. What does pre-trial detention mean? It means holding someone in custody before they are found guilty or not guilty. As we know, trials rarely occur within three months. They often take one or two years, if not longer. Say it takes a year, and someone is held for a year before their guilt or innocence is proven. After that year, if the court finds the accused not guilty, it means that they were kept in prison for a year even though they were innocent of the crime they were charged with. To me, that is serious. It means that, during that year, the individual in question had no choice but to associate with people charged or convicted of other crimes. Is that advisable? The answer is obvious.

However, let us say that after a year, the individual is found guilty. Then it may seem like detaining them was a good idea after all, because they were guilty. However, the time that this person spent in prison before being convicted will count as time served. It used to be counted as double time, but now it is counted as time and a half. If the prisoner spent a year in remand and was subsequently sentenced to five years, they would be considered to have served a year and a half already. In a way, it could be said that some accused persons stand to gain by being detained before their trial.

It is even better if the trial drags on a bit, because if someone serves two years, they will be credited for three. I am not saying it is bad to detain people preventively. That is good for public safety in particular. We certainly do not want to release someone into society and find out the next week that they have gone and killed someone else or committed a crime, serious or otherwise, because they were released pending trial. That would not be good news. The fact remains that this is not a perfect solution. There is no reason to believe that we can solve everything by putting people in prison before their trial. As I said, this could lead to even more serious problems than if those individuals had been released. It is important to study this carefully.

Bill C-14 proposes to bring back consecutive sentences for certain offences. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled that many of these sentences are unconstitutional. Are we not just setting ourselves up for another Supreme Court decision that will invalidate the work we are doing? That may be the case. When I hear about consecutive sentences, I see a red flag. This needs to be examined thoroughly.

It is the same thing with conditional sentences. I generally think that getting rid of conditional sentences for sexual assault is a good thing. We certainly do not want someone who has been accused of threatening to kill their spouse, for example, to carry out their threats a week later. In all cases, quite likely, or at least in many cases, the judge will determine that a conditional sentence is not appropriate. However, judges are not all dummies. I have good friends who are judges and who do a really great job. Judges already have the option of deciding whether to give an individual a conditional sentence. They are not required to give an inmate a conditional sentence. They will assess the case and decide whether it is better to send the inmate home with an electronic bracelet or something else, or whether it is better to keep them in prison.

Obviously, judges are not perfect. They are human and they make mistakes from time to time. However, I have to say that I do not hate the idea of allowing for human discretion when it comes to sentencing. It helps prevent some problems, although it can certainly create others. This week, there were media reports about an individual who triggered an alarm 93 times in the span of 66 days by coming too close to his ex-partner. He had been ordered to stay away from her. I am not sure how far away he was supposed to stay, but he violated the terms of his conditional sentence 93 times in 66 days. Obviously, he was charged and convicted. I think it was for contempt, but regardless of the conviction, he was being monitored and the problem was resolved. This is an example of a case where there was a major problem with a conditional sentence. We do not want that. We do not want people to take advantage of the the fact they have to wear an electronic bracelet to then further harass and intimidate the partner they had been convicted of abusing. That is a problem, and the other problems are also serious.

We have to weigh the pros and the cons. I admit that the more I read Bill C-14, the more questions I have. I understand the dynamic, though. The Conservatives introduced Bill C-242. Usually these crime issues are not as much of a priority to the Liberals. In any case, no one would accuse them of being tough on crime, as our Conservative friends like to say. Now the Liberals seem to be saying that they are jumping on the bandwagon and that they too will get tough on crime by proposing Bill C‑14. Between Bill C‑14 and Bill C‑242, which one is the best response to a situation that we are not sure we understand?

I gave the statistics on detention. We do not really have statistics on rehabilitation capacity. No real follow-up has been done. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we asked some experts about this and they told us that it was a problem. Data is not being collected, so there are not enough statistics on rehabilitation and on what happens to inmates once they leave. This needs to be monitored more closely. Maybe we will need to study the bill in committee, hear from experts on the matter and come back with an improved Bill C-14.

Incidentally, I wish Bill C‑14 had been split. The bill amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Criminal Code. In my view, that may not be wise. There are some questionable aspects to that. I discussed this with some criminal lawyers who work with young people, and they said this is a catch-all bill that needs a lot of cleaning up. Would it have been better to deal with them separately? As is so often the case, the Liberals have introduced a bill that puts all our eggs in one basket. We will have to sort this out in committee, which is unfortunate. That said, we will do it if we have to.

At the end of the day, the Liberals are saying that Bill C‑14 is the cornerstone of their tough-on-crime approach. If that is so, I will pass on seeing the rest, because this bill is pretty weak. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps, after working on it in committee, we can improve it enough to make it acceptable, but it is not going to be a game-changer in fighting crime.

What is the government doing about criminal organizations? I introduced a bill to crack down on criminal organizations three times. Each time, I received an incredibly tepid response from our colleagues in the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. I proposed creating a registry of criminal organizations so that we could identify them and impose sanctions against them. Are the emblems that street gang members wear to intimidate the public acceptable in this country? I am not sure. Are we okay with gangs recruiting young people to commit crimes on the assumption that they will get a lighter sentence than an adult? The answer is no.

What are our Liberal colleagues waiting for? They are the government and they need to tackle these problems, which dominate the headlines week after week. People are likely more concerned and stressed about those issues than they are about the fate of Bill C‑14. I think we need to look at the issue of young people, criminal organizations and intimidation by criminal organizations.

This summer, criminal organizations were selling T-shirts and ball caps to young people in order to fund criminal activities. These items of clothing bore the famous slogan “Support 81”. The eight and the one represent the letters H and A for Hells Angels, respectively, so it means “Support Hells Angels.” I am not sure that a 12-year-old boy who goes to school wearing a T-shirt that says “Support Hells Angels” knows what that means. I am not sure that his parents, who bought him the T-shirt, knew what it meant. We have to tackle this; it is our job.

The Criminal Code falls under federal jurisdiction; it is our job to keep it current. Regrettably, we have failed in that regard. The cornerstone of the government's tough-on-crime approach is a bill that is like some sort of a sales pitch or a way to up the ante on what the Conservatives are proposing. The bottom line is that an individual's release conditions will be essentially the same as they are right now. Again, it will be up to the judge to decide what is appropriate.

I hope that the bill will be studied in committee. I would like it to be split but I understand that this will not be the case. There is work to be done on Bill C‑14 in order to make it acceptable and useful.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

We have heard the Quebec government repeatedly call for tougher laws on bail.

Does my Bloc Québécois colleague not think that we should encourage everyone here to send this bill to committee so that it can be discussed and passed as quickly as possible? First of all, the Quebec government has asked for this. Second, Bill C-14 responds to those demands. Third, the bill aims to keep Quebeckers safe.

Can my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois tell us whether he thinks we should pass this quickly and have these discussions in committee as soon as possible in order to pass this bill as quickly as possible?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and I appreciate her expression of friendship. I have not yet had the opportunity to meet her, but I would be happy to be her friend, if that is possible.

That said, the short answer to her question is yes. I think we need to work on the bill in committee. Now, does the bill address the concerns raised by Quebec? I am not so sure.