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

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

moved that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to commence debate on an important bill that would help reinforce and strengthen Canada's criminal laws and promote public safety in communities in every part of the country.

This bill is about stronger laws and safer communities. It is about keeping people safe in the places they love and the places they live.

Importantly, although this particular piece of legislation focuses on bail and sentencing, it is part of a broader strategy to promote public safety across the country. This strategy rests on three key pillars: first, stronger laws to help protect people; second, investments in the front line to ensure that law enforcement has the ability to do its job and our border officials have the ability to keep the country safe; and third, upstream investments to ensure that we do not just seek to punish crime after it takes place but do what we can to prevent crime, both in the short and long term.

Before we get too deep into this conversation, it is important that we acknowledge where we are as a country. We understand that crime is a very real problem in different parts of the country. We know that we have to do more to protect Canadians against criminal activity that exists in different regions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

We understand that Canadians have the desire to see the criminal law keep up with the experience in their communities. We do not think it is acceptable that repeat violent offenders would be routinely released after having their bail hearings.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is difficult. There are members of the opposition who are seeking to heckle and interrupt. I would very much prefer to have your assistance in keeping this debate civil on matters of such importance.

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

It is extremely disruptive to be heckling a person while right in front of them. I thank the hon. member for exiting the chamber.

The hon. minister.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we actually make space for all parties to be heard and to have a conversation.

It is essential that we take action to ensure that people who are violent, who commit serious crimes, who are dangerous and who pose a risk to public safety do not continue to find themselves released into our communities if they pose a public safety threat to Canadians. This is going to take changes to our criminal law in both bail and sentencing.

I remember, as a kid, the last time we saw the Blue Jays in the World Series. My pals and I would ride bikes and play ball hockey in our community until we lost daylight. We never feared for our safety, and neither did our parents. Sadly, today, a lot of people do not enjoy that same level of comfort, the peace and security we enjoyed. We see, too often, people installing cameras on their doorbells. Instead of simply seeing deliveries arrive at their home, they are actually seeing people break into their neighbour's homes and cars being stolen from their driveways. We do not have to accept this as a reality, not in Canada, certainly.

Crime is a real concern throughout the country. Canadians are frustrated to see repeat violent offenders being released from prison. They are concerned about their safety. We see it every day: Car thefts and break-ins in the middle of the night are being caught on camera.

People simply want to know that the system puts their safety first.

What I have some faith in is that the lessons we have learned that have been embedded in the bill were not developed behind closed doors on Parliament Hill. They have benefited from extraordinary collaboration with provincial governments in different parts of the country and of different partisan persuasions. They have benefited from the advice of law enforcement, the people who actually work within the system. They have benefited from the advice of municipalities, which see the impacts of crime first-hand; of community organizations that promote the rights of victims; and of business associations that wanted to share their frustration with the level of crime and its impact on local economies.

We must not develop these measures behind closed doors. They must come from working together with the provinces and territories, cities, community organizations, business associations and, of course, the police.

The bill really focuses on two key areas. The first is bail. The second is sentencing.

Let us spend a moment looking at some of the changes we are proposing to bail. The bill includes more than 80 specific measures, sweeping reforms that are designed to help keep communities safe. In the limited time I have, I am going to focus on a few key portions.

The first, when it comes to the system of bail, is on the issue of the principle of restraint. This is not a principle that was created by any particular government; it is a principle that was advanced and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. After the principle was embedded into Canadian law through a previous piece of legislation in a previous Parliament, I have been hearing stories, from when I engage with law enforcement, about its misapplication in certain circumstances.

For that reason, we are going to move forward with significant changes to the Criminal Code that would clarify precisely that the principle of restraint is not a “get out of jail free” card. In fact we are going to be, more specifically, clarifying that the court must be satisfied that it has the ability to protect public safety, before deciding to release someone into the community. If it does not have the ability to manage the public safety imperative, it will have grounds to detain that person. If a person is to be released, the court must be satisfied that it can place conditions on their release that will protect public safety.

Release on bail is not a free pass. The principle of restraint must be applied with judgment. Our new bill makes it clear that public safety must always come first.

If public safety is at risk, then the courts will have the tools to order detention.

In addition to the significant change to the principle of restraint, we are advancing new factors for the courts to consider, to ensure that when hearing a bail application, they consider the seriousness of the charges that a person will face, in order to determine whether it would undermine public confidence in the justice system should that person be released.

We are also taking another step, which is a direct response to the feedback we have heard from provinces, municipalities and the business community. There are certain individuals, though they represent a small minority of the population in a given community, who represent a significant majority of the criminal activity that may take place in a given community.

In order to respond to this pressing need, in addition to considering the seriousness of the charges a person may be facing, we will be looking to have the court consider the number of outstanding charges, and where the number of charges a person is facing would cause public confidence in the administration of justice to be jeopardized, we would use that to give the court grounds to detain a person in order to prevent that outcome.

We also want to respond to the feedback we have heard specifically about acts of random violence that take place in our communities that cause people not to feel safe when they experience life in different parts of this country.

In addition to the changes to the principle of restraint, the new factors we wish to have the court consider, we also going forward with changes to reverse onus within the Criminal Code. Before I describe the specific offences, I will say that the reverse onus regime would change the way bail applications would be heard for certain offences where we believe there is a risk to the Canadian public.

Normally at a bail hearing, the Crown bears the obligation to demonstrate why a person ought to be detained, often on the basis of their risk to public safety. A reverse onus changes that analysis and requires the person who has been accused of a crime to demonstrate why they should be released on bail. We would shift this analysis for several key offences, including violent home invasion, auto theft, human trafficking and human smuggling, violent extortion, assault and sexual assault where there is choking or strangulation involved.

We would also be responding to very real circumstances that have led to tragedies in this country involving people who have been released after they have been convicted of a crime but before they have been sentenced. With these changes, we not only expect to promote public safety in our communities. One of the common threads that binds these unique offences together is that they often are conducted by criminal organizations. By making it harder for people to be released on bail when they have been charged with these crimes, we can both promote public safety and potentially cut revenue streams from criminal organizations, which would further enhance the safety of the Canadian public.

The second theme in the bill, beyond the changes to the bail regime that would make it harder for violent repeat offenders to be released into our communities, is that we would be making serious changes to the sentencing regime that exists within the Criminal Code.

There are a number of different changes that I am happy to walk everyone through now. The first would be adding aggravating factors to the Criminal Code, which would lead to harsher penalties when certain kinds of crimes are committed and a person has been convicted. These aggravating factors would certainly apply to violent repeat crimes, no matter where they take place in Canada, but we have also decided to add aggravating factors for certain offences where the harm is felt not simply by the individual victim but also reverberates more broadly throughout the community.

In particular I want to draw attention to some of the changes that we are making, including adding an aggravating factor when a crime is committed against a first responder in the line of duty who is seeking to keep our communities safe. When people put their life on the line to help protect our communities, the very least we can offer is protection for the people who protect us. We need to ensure that the people who are putting out fires, stopping heart attacks and defending our communities against criminal activity are not themselves subjected to assaults in the street.

It is not reasonable to ask people in the line of duty to defend themselves when they are trying to defend us, and it makes it difficult for them to recruit more members into the profession when people face these inherent dangers of the job. The stiffer penalties would serve not only as protection in the moment but also as a deterrent for would-be criminals who may be thinking of committing crimes against first responders.

In addition, we would be adding aggravating factors for crimes that impact our essential infrastructure, the systems that deliver power to our communities, or our telecommunications networks. Oftentimes, people who steal copper wire are charged with a fairly small offence, theft under $5,000, but the damages that result from those crimes can cost millions and in fact create very serious challenges in our communities, whether it is power outages or communications systems' going down.

We would also be adding aggravating factors when it comes to organized retail crime, people who are stealing in a systematic way from businesses, often small businesses, in our communities, in order to promote profiteering for themselves and potentially for criminal organizations. People who commit crimes against the people who protect us, the systems that power us or the businesses that serve us should expect harsher sentences as a result of these proposed changes to Canada's criminal laws.

In addition, we would be adding certain changes to the consecutive sentencing regime in this country. For people who may not be familiar with the way things normally operate, I will say that sometimes someone can be sentenced to different crimes that carry different sentences. Oftentimes, depending on the circumstances, courts may decide to allow a person to serve multiple sentences concurrently, not necessarily capturing the severity of the penalties associated with particular offences in the Criminal Code.

The change we are proposing would empower the courts to impose consecutive sentencing for repeat violent offenders and for people who commit home invasions and auto theft. We believe that if someone is convicted of two crimes, one that carries a sentence of four years and another that carries a sentence of two years, they should serve both sentences, for a total of six years. The changes we would be making have the opportunity to bring that vision into a reality.

In addition to these changes to aggravating factors and consecutive sentencing, we would also direct the court, when it comes to violent home invasion and auto theft in particular, to make denunciation and deterrence primary considerations. It is important that we not only ensure that there are consequences for the actions of individuals but that we also send a signal, to others in the future who may be thinking about committing crimes, that this behaviour will not be tolerated.

When it comes to the changes to our sentencing laws, we would also be imposing restrictions on the ability of the court in certain circumstances to impose what are known as conditional sentencing orders. These changes would restrict access to house arrest for people who commit serious sexual assault or sexual crimes against children. When I speak to survivors of sexual assault, the prospect that the perpetrator of such horrific violence could serve their sentence at home in the same community where their victim lives does not feel like justice to the people who have been through such a horrific experience.

The restriction on house arrest for sexual assault and sexual crimes against kids would ensure that people who commit such violent and heinous crimes would actually spend time being incarcerated, to demonstrate there are in fact very serious consequences for their activities.

We would also be making changes to the remedies available for certain kinds of crimes. I want to draw the attention of members to one in particular. For people who are convicted of criminal negligence causing death involving a motor vehicle, we would restore the ability of courts to implement a prohibition on driving. If someone makes the decision to become intoxicated, to drive drunk, and they kill someone, we want to empower the courts to revoke their ability to get behind the wheel again. Driving in this country is a privilege.

The fact that people may cause such grievous harm to others and nevertheless be entitled to get behind the wheel is not something I am comfortable with. It is not something the government is comfortable with. Through this change, we would be able to save countless lives going forward and to ensure once again that there are serious consequences for serious crimes.

Sentences must reflect the seriousness of the crime. We are adding aggravating factors for those who assault first responders, participate in organized theft or threaten critical infrastructure. We are ending house arrest for serious crimes like sexual assault and crimes against children.

Finally, courts will once again be able to prohibit driving in cases of negligence causing death or serious bodily harm.

It is important we understand that the changes we would be making are part of the broader strategy I alluded to at the outset of my remarks. Certainly the first pillar of the strategy is to adopt stronger laws to promote safer communities.

This includes not only these important and sweeping reforms to the bail and sentencing regimes that exist inside the Criminal Code but also the act to combat hate that we tabled in Parliament earlier in the fall, as well as legislation I will be tabling before the House rises for the Christmas holidays. These would better protect Canadians against intimate partner violence and against sexual offences, to offer additional protections for children who are being exploited online, to ensure that victims have a significant role to play in the criminal trial process, and, importantly, to deal with delays in the justice system that are leading to sometimes serious charges' being thrown out of court.

In addition to these laws, though, we know we have to take a whole-of-society approach to addressing public safety. The second pillar of the strategy involves investing in the front line to ensure that the people who keep communities safe have the tools and resources they need to do their job. In the short term, this includes investments in the RCMP to add 1,000 new personnel. It includes resources to the Canada Border Services Agency to add 1,000 new officers at the border to help prevent illegal guns and drugs from coming into our country. It also includes additional resources for the Public Prosecution Service to ensure that we have the ability not only to investigate crime but also to prosecute crime on the back end.

It is important that we put these tools in place so law enforcement can do its job to prevent crime, but we know we need to do more if we are going to have long-term prevention and long-term reductions in crime, violent crime in particular. That is why the third pillar of our strategy involves upstream investments aimed at prevention. Specifically, they would include generational investments in affordable housing and supportive housing through the new Build Canada Homes entity to ensure that people have a roof over their head, can escape poverty and have access to supportive housing when they would otherwise potentially be at risk of recidivism or at risk of becoming a criminal in the first place.

This pillar also involves our continued support for mental health and addictions, which will certainly engage conversations with provincial governments. We know that we need to do more to help address mental health challenges in this country if we want to reduce crime overall.

We also intend to make the investments necessary to target at-risk youth to potentially turn them away from a life of crime before it begins. The best way to stop crime is not simply to punish it after it happens, but to stop it in the first place.

I am confident that if we back these three pillars with the resources necessary to deliver on the plan, we will see a reduction in crime and violent crime in this country.

This bill is part of a broader strategy to keep our communities safe. Yes, we need tougher laws, but we also need more support for first responders and more investments in prevention, mental health and housing, so that more can be done sooner.

In conclusion, we have a chance to promote a safer country. It is no coincidence that this bill has gained significant support from law enforcement, including the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario, the Toronto Police Association and the New Glasgow Regional Police in my own community and others. It has attracted the support of provinces from different partisan affiliations, including the Conservatives in Ontario and Nova Scotia and the NDP in Manitoba and British Columbia. It has attracted the support of municipalities, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; local governments in places like Brampton, London and Winnipeg; and the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. The list goes on. Of course, there are organizations like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.

We can take violent repeat offenders more seriously. We can strengthen our laws, but I would much prefer to do it in a non-partisan way that attracts the support of all members of this House. Let us do the jobs we have been entrusted to do to help keep Canadians safe, and let us cast our vote in support of this important legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, the bill is some 35 pages long. It would make 80 significant changes to the Criminal Code. In fact, the title of the bill is the bail and sentencing reform act.

The question I will put to the minister is regarding sentencing. He spoke very generally about the consecutive sentence aspect of the bill. He spoke about the aggravated features of the bill for sentencing purposes, but he did not mention the one particular clause in this 35-page bill that would increase the sentence for one particular offence.

Despite all the serious violent crime that is happening in this country, with extortion alone up 330% in 10 years, I would like to know why this particular Liberal justice minister and his government sought to change the penalty for contempt of court from 90 days to two years less one day. That is the only sentence in this bill that would be changed.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, before I address the member's question directly, I want to thank him for the conversations we have had and for his advocacy in advancing some of the specific reforms that are included in this bill.

This bill was not necessarily intended to revisit the penalties associated with every offence that exists in the Criminal Code. Of course, serious offences deserve serious penalties, but it was important for me to address the issue of contempt of court, because frankly, one of the themes carried throughout the text of this bill is the underlying culture of a lack of respect for the law.

Members can see the measures we put in place to address that, which deal with violent repeat offenders and address the number of crimes that are outstanding, but I was not satisfied that we had appropriate penalties in place for those who would openly defy orders of the court. It is important to me that we not only have penalties associated with the criminal activity that takes place in communities, but that we have a regime that will protect the integrity of the court's processes if all other offences are going to be treated with respect by Canadians writ large.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, many police associations have called for the rapid passage of this bill. In fact, the London Police Association said, “The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act represents a vital and long-overdue advancement. This is an essential step in creating a safer London that our members serve. Equipping them with much needed legislative supports, holding violent repeat offenders more accountable.”

Maybe the minister can share with the House why it is really important that we work together, all parties across the House, to make sure this bill passes as soon as possible.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, to the extent that we can adopt this bill quickly, we expect to see the positive implications it will have on communities more quickly.

What is important, to the member's question, is that I would prefer to do that in a way that is collaborative, not just with members in the House but with different levels of the government and policing associations. The fact that this bill has attracted such extraordinary support from the people who enforce our laws and manage the justice systems in the provinces speaks to the buy-in from people across the spectrum of political ideologies, across geographies and across partisanship.

I hope the spirit we implemented in the bill's development will also carry through when it comes time to cast our votes in the House.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we agree with Bill C-14. Obviously, like everything else, we will study it more thoroughly in committee. My colleague, the Bloc Québécois justice critic, will be taking care of this file.

However, certain questions come to mind. Contrary to popular belief, we know that the number of inmates awaiting trial has never been higher. The percentage of incarcerated individuals awaiting trial rose from 64% in 2019-20 to 72% in 2022-23. That is huge.

I have two questions for the minister. First, how is that possible? Second, how does the bill address that?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague and the Bloc Québécois for their position on this bill. It is very important that we work together to implement the changes it proposes. I will continue in English in order to be more clear.

My colleague has raised a very real concern about the number of people in Canada facing pretrial detention. The right answer, in my view, insists that we implement a framework designed to protect the public's safety. This will engage conversations, particularly at provincial levels, about the resources necessary to deal with bail hearings expeditiously and to make sure there are enough police on the ground, enough prosecutors, enough judges to make bail decisions and enough administrative support for the courts to do their jobs.

If we extend the logic of the fear I have heard, which is very real, from people who have raised similar points, we would end up concluding that the right solution to process challenges is to weaken Canada's criminal laws. I disagree with that approach, but I invite a healthy conversation during committee proceedings about what resources should be in place and which levels of government have such responsibilities. That will ensure we do not just have strong laws on paper; we have a system that has the capacity to implement them.

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

Madam Speaker, I have worked collaboratively across all sides of the House for the last three years in the work on Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it pertains to first responders and health care workers. I worked collaboratively across all sides to get it passed unanimously in the last Parliament at all stages. It did, but the dissolution of Parliament made it fall off the Order Paper.

We have a bill before us today, Bill S-233, that the Senate side passed unanimously because it is so important. The minister said this part of Bill C-14 is critically important, and I could not agree with him more.

Would he support carving this section out and, with us as a House standing together to send a message to first responders, paramedics and health care workers that we value them, passing Bill S-233 at all stages at some point during this conversation?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, before I address the question directly, I want to thank the hon. member, because I had the opportunity to work with him a number of years ago when he put forward Bill C-211 in our first Parliament, which addressed the need to better support first responders and their mental health in particular. I know he has been a champion for first responders, as I have been, from the day we were first elected.

This is an important component of the bill, but quite frankly, I do not care who gets the credit. I want to see protection afforded to our first responders. We can have a conversation, perhaps after the debate concludes today, on the best way to make that happen the most quickly. To the extent that we can support those working to keep our communities safe, it is an idea, whether Liberal, Conservative or otherwise, that I support not only philosophically but in practice as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I note that at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the director of the criminal justice program has pointed out that three successive ministers of justice have noted that we do not have any standardized approach to collecting data about how many people who apply for bail get it. The vast majority do not, and without standardized data, we are making reforms without necessarily having the evidence base we need.

I wonder if the hon. Minister of Justice has any comments on the question of whether we have a data and evidence base that is not driven as much by the very painful anecdotes but by evidence.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands is right that there is a paucity of data when it comes to the administration of bail in Canada. Part of the reason is that we have different provincial systems with different challenges. We have challenges not only as to when a person may be released on bail and how often they may receive bail, but also as to the reasons behind those decisions.

This issue will require collaboration among the provinces to develop common standards and collect the data we need going forward, but at the same time, in the absence of a perfect dataset, we have the opportunity to work directly with the governments that administer the system and the law enforcement officials who work within the system day to day.

When there are nearly unanimous perspectives on certain changes posing very real problems in communities, it is incumbent upon me to listen to those who have the responsibility to deliver on the words included in the Criminal Code. To the extent that we can launch an initiative to better collect and share data in a disaggregated way about offenders who may pose risks, I would be more than willing to entertain a conversation as to what role the federal government may play in collaboration with provinces, which have the primary responsibility in this space.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There has been some consultation, and I hope you will find unanimous consent for us to go back to questions on the Order Paper for less than a minute.

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

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, before I start, I seek unanimous consent to split my time.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George.

It is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the fine constituents of my riding, and it is significant for me as a former participant in the criminal justice system for almost two decades. This is an issue that I have been pushing for, and it is an issue for which I have been advocating for change. Really, it is one of the rationales as to why I left the Crown attorney system in Ontario and sought to become a legislator, which was to make and pass laws that would improve community safety.

If we take a look at the last 10 years, we see rising crime rates, which is a very serious matter right across the country. I have embarked on a cross-Canada tour and engaged with all of the stakeholders we can imagine who would have a position on this. All of them were unanimous in what needs to be done. For the last four years, these stakeholders engaged in their own advocacy with the federal government, writing to not only the current justice minister but also former justice minister Virani to affect change. For four years, that was largely ignored.

We know how we got to this situation. I often get asked the question as to why the Liberals are so preoccupied with the rights of the accused at the expense of victims and community safety. I have never really had a concrete answer to provide without doing a bit a research, so I did that.

Surprisingly, this goes back almost 50 years, to the early 1970s. The Trudeau government, this time the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, appointed a solicitor general by the name of Jean-Pierre Goyer, who stood in the House of Commons, not this building but Centre Block, and proudly proclaimed in the House, at that time, his intention to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society. That struck me as a wow moment, as it is the origin of the whacked out hug-a-thug mentality of the Liberal government in making it so much easier for them to conduct their trade.

We then heard from Justin Trudeau and his justice ministers, who said to not blame them, that they are simply following what the Supreme Court of Canada literally asked them to do to codify changes in bail with the passage of Bill C-75.

I have read those decisions, both in my professional capacity and, again, as a parliamentarian. Specifically, I am referring to the decisions of Antic, Zora and St-Cloud, which never instructed the federal government to do anything and never instructed it to codify any principle in the Criminal Code.

How criminal justice is administered in this country is that we follow the Criminal Code. We also bear in mind case law, the decisions of our lower courts, the decisions of our superior courts, the decisions of appellate courts and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is how the administration of justice works.

Justin Trudeau and the current Liberal government did not have to do anything, but they did.

At the time, and this was 2019, I was in the trenches. I was dealing with bail court. I was asking myself why it has become exceedingly difficult. There would be an obvious case, such as when someone had proven themselves to be unreliable in making promises and to be a menace to not only themselves but also the community, but they were being released. Of course, we would get memos from our superiors in Ontario and Queen's Park, and, lo and behold, I found out that the federal Liberal government had changed the law, changed the direction and changed the trajectory of what bail court is all about.

This also instructed, in my view, all judges and justices of the peace who hear bail applications every single day to prioritize the release of the accused with the principle of restraint, releasing them at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. That is and will always be the origin of catch-and-release. I lived it. I experienced it, and unfortunately, the rest of Canada is still experiencing it.

Then the Liberal government made it worse in 2022 when it decided it had to pass Bill C-5 to make it even easier and softer for criminals to get through the criminal justice system. It decided that, for all the most serious gun offences, to take away the mandatory minimum penalties and to give the ability to ask for conditional sentences for very serious offences. We all know the consequences. Then the government started to hear from the stakeholders, and again it promised that it was listening and would make some changes. Hence, it introduced Bill C-48, which increased reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code. We know that did not have the desired impact.

When I look at Bill C-14, I see more reverse onus provisions, much like those in Bill C-48. I cannot say that this bill is Bill C-48 2.0, because it is not. I listened to the justice minister, who wants to provide some confidence to Canadians and victims that the Liberals are finally getting it right, that they are striking the right balance and that community safety is going to be paramount, but there is nothing in Bill C-14 that directs judges not to release in certain circumstances. It makes recommendations that they should not give primary consideration to early release, but it does not mandate that these dangerous repeat criminals should remain in custody. We all know what happens when we lock up the repeat violent criminals. It is that crime rates go down. In fact, when we look at Statistics Canada's statistics over the last 15 years, over the last four or five years of the Stephen Harper government, the crime rate went down significantly. When we look at that same graph, we see a spike the moment Justin Trudeau took government and every year thereafter.

I am not saying that Bill C-14 is going to be manna from heaven, because it is not. It is being supported by law enforcement, just like they supported Bill C-48, because, let us face it, law enforcement is desperate for something. I have spoken to all of the major stakeholders who are now saying in the media that they support Bill C-14. They have made recommendations to the government, and some have been captured, but not all. There are many avenues for improvement, and I would encourage the government, as it listens to the debate in the House and, ultimately, as it reviews it at committee, to look at the common-sense solutions in the member for Oxford's jail not bail act. That would provide direct instructions to judges on how to deal with repeat violent criminals.

If we start by scrapping the principle of restraint and replacing it with the principle of public safety and protection, that is an instruction that would telegraph to judges that, when they are dealing with a class of individual who has been on a number of releases or who has a criminal record, it shows repeated behaviour of not abiding by conditions, and the priority is on the protection of the community, not the convenience of the accused. I encourage the government to look at that.

Bill C-14 is good, but not good enough. Conservatives will make it better.

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

Madam Speaker, we all know that the Prime Minister made a solemn commitment to Canadians when he said that we would bring forward bail reform legislation. A phenomenal amount of work has been done in consultations with a wide spectrum of stakeholders, whether it was provinces, territories or indigenous leaders. There has been so much consultation on it. We now have substantial bail reform legislation before us. There are mayors, premiers and individuals who want to see Parliament act on this legislation.

Would the member not agree that it would be a wonderful thing to commit to seeing this bail reform legislation ultimately pass and even get royal assent before the end of the year?

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

Madam Speaker, it is optimistic for the member to suggest that the bill could be passed by the end of the year. I am hoping, as we consider it as an opposition party, that my friend's party would also consider reasonable amendments to improve the bill. I said that it is good, but it is not the best, and it can be improved.

My friend talks about a substantial bail reform package. I would disagree with the use of the word “substantial”. There is some relief here that law enforcement would like. The reality though, in practical terms, is that it would not separate out those offenders who should not be in consideration of getting bail. I encourage the member to read the proposed jail not bail act, which provides great counsel on that issue.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's take on the legislation is fascinating. I know how hard he has worked in this area. I would be very grateful to share ideas for reasonable amendments.

My sense from the minister is that he and the government are open to amendments. My question to my hon. colleague is this: Has he also been asking to see how open the Liberals are to improve the bill through amendments?

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

Madam Speaker, could the member repeat her last line? I did not quite catch it. There was some talking in the background and I could not hear it.

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

Apparently there was some issues with the sound.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands can repeat the question.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with the member for Rivière-du-Nord on the justice committee in the last Parliament.

He is talking about who is going to be tougher on crime, the Liberals or the Conservatives. He was on the committee when we received a letter from 13 premiers asking for bail reform. Bill C-48 was the response, and he was involved in that debate. It did not go far enough, and now we have Bill C-14.

Clearly there is a public perception that the administration of justice is being brought into disrepute by overly lax bail laws. Does the member agree that something needs to be toughened up in that area?

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

Madam Speaker, I can confirm that working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was a true pleasure. I consider him a man of integrity and intelligence. Working with him is always enjoyable.

To answer his question, yes, we have seen the letter signed by all 13 premiers. Yes, it was a concern to us. I was concerned about the situation myself.

However, my remarks relate to the fact that both we and the premiers lack sufficient data on this specific issue. The only data we have tells us that 72% of inmates are awaiting trial. Personally, I think that number is huge. Now, is more data needed? Maybe, maybe not. We will have to study that carefully in committee.

I would like to turn that question back to my colleague. He can ask one of his colleagues to answer if he does not have another turn to speak. I would like to know whether the Conservatives are going to vote in favour of Bill C‑14. Even if the bill does not go as far as theirs, it is a step in that direction. Will they flatly oppose Bill C‑14? I really do not know.

Yes, we need to tackle this problem. Even if we ultimately determine that there is no problem, if the public and the premiers are concerned, then it is our job to address those concerns, check the facts and suggest solutions.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his highly enlightening speech.

There is something I do not understand. What is causing the growing number of crimes committed by repeat offenders? Something about that perplexes me. Could it be that the causes go deeper than the parole system alone? Should we be looking somewhere else?

My colleague is an expert. I would appreciate it if he could enlighten us on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I quite like. He is a true friend, someone I have known for a few years and with whom I enjoy chatting.

Are more crimes really being committed by repeat offenders? That is an excellent question. Unfortunately, I cannot say I am an expert on this, because I do not have the answer. The experts I have spoken with also hesitate to say for sure.

First, what is recidivism? When someone convicted of a crime violates their release conditions, is that considered a repeat offence? They did not commit the same crime again. They committed a new offence by failing to comply with their conditions. The various offences really need to be untangled before any conclusions can be drawn.

First, data needs to be collected. Second, that data needs to be analyzed. Third, a study needs to be done by experts such as criminologists and legal experts. They will be able to tell us what the real problem is and propose things to solve it.

Proposed regulations are being developed right now for a problem that I do not think we fully understand.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier, I posed a question to the Conservative shadow minister with regard to the legislation. Here we have before us the long-anticipated bail reform legislation. It was a commitment given to Canadians by the Prime Minister coming out of the last election.

Given the spectrum of support from the many different stakeholders, would the member not agree that the House should seriously look at the opportunity to have this legislation pass throughout the system before the end of the year? Does he believe that is doable?

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, it is not up to me to decide that, and I can say that we are currently very busy at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are studying two issues at the same time and have extended our working hours.

We usually meet for two hours twice a week. Now we are meeting for three hours twice a week and we are studying the bail and sentencing issues concurrently. That is kind of what bills C‑14 and C‑9 are about. We are studying both at the same time. Are we going to add Bill C‑14? I would like to because it is important. However, when are we going to do that? Do we have access to meeting rooms? Do we have interpreters?

There are a number of practical questions that I cannot answer. In any case, it is not up to me to decide whether we should fast-track Bill C‑14. However, I do believe that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and I will leave it to those responsible for managing the business of the House to decide the pace at which we proceed with Bill C‑14.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my very humble colleague. He is a lawyer, as members know, and he has some authority or reputation when he talks about a bill that is closely related to his former duties.

I want to ask him the following question. What possible explanation is there for the fact that we now have a huge number of inmates awaiting trial? Is there a delay in appointing judges? Is someone dragging their feet? What could be causing this situation?

From what I understand, Bill C‑14 may also lead to an increase in the number of people in jail. We do not disagree with that, but why are our prisons currently overcrowded with people awaiting the outcome of their trial?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague. It is always a pleasure to work with her.

The problem we have, that she rightly raised, is the following. There are people serving intermittent sentences on weekends who are being told to go home because there is no more room. We can increase the number of inmates, but how are we going to deal with this in practical terms? I do not know. As I said earlier, we have a problem with underfunding of the justice system, and we will have to address it at some point.

Currently, there is a shortage of special education teachers in schools, a shortage of doctors, and a shortage of nurses in hospitals. Infrastructure is falling apart. There is not enough money. Funding will have to be aligned with mandates. I think we need federal money to strengthen the judicial system. It is true that we are short on judges, but we are also short on court clerks, bailiffs, and courtrooms. It all goes hand in hand. This needs to be taken seriously.

I have already suggested to the Minister of Justice that he set himself a six-month time limit for filling judicial vacancies. Six months seems reasonable to me. If he says that nine months or three months is better, I am all ears. At some point, we might have to set maximum time limits for filling vacancies. It may be necessary to appoint new judges and transfer funds to the provinces and to Quebec in order to manage the justice system properly.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I am here today to speak about the bail and sentencing reform act, one of the most comprehensive updates to Canada's bail and sentencing laws in decades. Since 2014, crime in Canada has risen by 12%, and our violent crime severity index is now 41% higher than it was a decade ago. While 2024 saw a modest 4% decrease, people in Canada remain deeply concerned, and rightfully so. They see increases in homicides, sexual assaults, extortion, child sexual offending and violent firearms offences. They see repeat offenders cycling through our system, breaching conditions and reoffending, too often with tragic consequences. The reasons for these increases are many and complex. Criminal law reform can play an important role in addressing these disturbing trends.

People in Canada expect their communities to be safe. They expect a justice system that protects victims, supports those on the front lines and holds repeat and violent offenders to account. They expect all levels of government to take steps to ensure that these things happen.

The federal government is playing its part. The bail and sentencing reform act introduces over 80 clauses of targeted reforms to strengthen both our bail and sentencing regimes to respond to this reality.

The bill is the result of extensive engagement with provinces and territories, police, prosecutors, victims' advocates, indigenous partners and community organizations. Through these discussions, it became clear that one of the most urgent areas of reform was the bail system, particularly for cases involving repeat and violent offenders.

I will first turn to the proposed bail reforms. Over the past several years, people in Canada have seen too many headlines about violent crimes committed by individuals who are already out on bail, sometimes with a long history of prior offences. Police, mayors and victims' advocates have all told us that the bail system is not working as it should in these cases. The bail and sentencing reform act would address these criticisms head on.

First, it would make bail stricter and harder to get for repeat and violent offenders. The bill would create new reverse onus provisions, meaning that it would be up to the accused to demonstrate why they should be released, and not the other way around. In particular, the bail would create new reverse onuses for violent and organized crime-related auto theft, break and enters of a home, trafficking in persons, human smuggling, assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocation or strangulation, and extortion involving violence. This is intended to help ensure that those who pose the greatest risk to public safety remain in custody until it is proven that they can be safely released.

The bill would offer clarity to police and courts regarding how to apply the principle of restraint. This includes clarifying that the principle does not, in fact, require release, and that the accused should not be released if their detention is justified, including for the protection and safety of the public. At the bail stage, courts would be required to consider key risk factors, such as whether the allegations involve random or unprovoked violence, and the number or seriousness of the outstanding charges that the accused has accumulated while on bail. They would also have to impose weapons prohibitions at bail for those accused of extortion and organized crime, unless it is not required for public safety reasons.

Importantly, in reverse onus cases, the accused would have to present a credible and reliable bail plan. Courts would need to closely scrutinize the plan before granting bail.

These reforms are about protecting the public and ensuring accountability for those who repeatedly show disregard for the law and the safety of others in a way that balances the charter rights of those accused of criminal offending.

Making bail stricter is only part of the solution. Our sentencing laws need to better reflect the gravity of violent crimes and the harm done to victims and communities. The bill therefore proposes significant sentencing reforms to make penalties tougher for repeat and violent offending, including car theft, extortion and crimes that endanger public safety. For example, the act would require consecutive sentences when violent auto theft is committed with a break and enter, or when extortion is committed with arson. This means that offenders would serve one sentence after another rather than serving them at the same time. This may result in longer penalties' being imposed.

The bill would also enact new aggravating factors at sentencing for crimes against first responders, for retail theft and for offences that impact critical infrastructure such as power stations, water systems and communications networks.

The bill would end house arrest for serious sexual assaults and child sexual offences, ensuring that custodial sentences are served in a secure setting, like jail, appropriate to the severity of the crime.

The bill would restore driving prohibitions for offences like criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death and for manslaughter. It would also improve fine enforcement to make sure that penalties are meaningful and are able to be enforced.

As all members know, the criminal justice system in Canada is a shared responsibility. I want to thank the provinces and territories, which have been strong advocates for these reforms. They have shared their on-the-ground experiences with repeat violence offending, and they have helped shape a package of measures that are practical, targeted and grounded in evidence.

The government is also working to improve the youth criminal justice system to support ongoing successful implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act by the provinces and territories. The proposed amendments are very focused in nature to clarify areas that have led to litigation and uncertainty, to assist the provinces and territories in administering sentences and to make some other technical improvements.

The bail and sentencing reform act is part of a broader modernization of Canada's justice system. In the coming months, the government has announced, it will bring forward further changes to address court delays, strengthen victims' rights and better protect people facing sexual and intimate partner violence, as well as take new steps to keep children safe from horrific crimes.

Canadians deserve to be safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. They deserve a justice system that protects the innocent, supports victims and holds offenders accountable—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will not be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North and will take the remaining 12 minutes allotted for my speech. I am sure the member for Winnipeg North will have an opportunity to address the House on this important matter as well.

The bail and sentencing reform act would deliver on that commitment. It would balance firmness with fairness. It would strengthen bail and toughen sentencing. These changes underscore that a strong Canada means strong communities and a justice system that works for everyone.

I worked very hard to make sure I could inform the creation of the bill every step of the way, along with the Minister of Justice. I am very pleased to see the final product that has come out. It has been informed by provinces and territories across this country. It has been informed by chiefs of police and by police associations. I was really pleased to see that many of them have given positive statements in regard to the bill. I would like to quote some of them.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has said, “The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police...welcomes the introduction of the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act (Bill C-14) as a landmark piece of legislation that strengthens Canada's response to repeat and violent offenders, organized crime, and threats to public safety.” We have gotten much great feedback just like this from other associations.

I heard from my own mayor, who came to Ottawa this week and was very pleased. He has been a strong advocate for bail reform for some time but also has constantly pointed out that it takes co-operation at all levels in order to be able to get the results that are needed. I will dive into that a little later.

Patrick Brown, the mayor of Brampton, says, “I welcome the Federal Government's recent announcement today on bail and sentencing reform. This is something that our police, our councils in this region have advocated for aggressively. This is a step in the right direction and shows Ottawa is listening to cities like Brampton. I hope the legislation is passed right away.”

There are similar calls from others who are calling upon the opposition to make sure we can co-operate during the process of the legislation through the House. We have heard from Premier Doug Ford as well. He said, “We're glad to see the federal government accept many of our recommendations and take a strong step in the right direction.”

There has been an uptick in violent repeat offenders in this province and in others as well. It was important to work with the premiers, to work with their attorneys general and solicitors general, to get the piece of legislation just right.

I know that the mayor of London had many concerns as well. He says, “I applaud the Government of Canada's action and London welcomes these important, positive steps toward strengthening community safety and ensuring our justice system better protects law-abiding citizens. I look forward to seeing this legislation move quickly and working with all levels of government to make our city, and communities across Canada, safer for everyone.” Yes, it is very important. I know that members from these regions are here in the House right now.

We have also heard from the mayor of Winnipeg, Scott Gillingham, who states that the “legislation looks to be a big step forward in the fight against serious crime here in Winnipeg.”

As I travelled this country through the summer, in consultation on this and other public safety measures, I heard first-hand from law enforcement and many mayors that they were dealing with different issues in different regions, so what we have tried to do in the bill is address all the different factors that have come up. Whether some areas of the country are facing a rise in auto theft and home invasions or other areas are dealing with retail theft and other organized crime, it is important to have a solution that fits and meets the demands of all the different jurisdictions. I am encouraged to see that the final piece of legislation is very strong in this area.

Another thing the opposition often brings up, and which we have heard across the country, is how the principle of restraint is being applied. I referenced in my remarks yesterday as well that the bill would address the principle of restraint in, I feel, the most appropriate way that the House could do so, because the principle of restraint comes from a Supreme Court decision made in 2017 in the Antic case. The principle had been codified and put into legislation previously as well, but it was never intended to be used as a “get out of jail free” card.

The bill clarifies that the principle of restraint would not mean automatic release. We put parameters around it so courts can feel confident in still abiding by the Supreme Court decision but also in being able to go back to the foundational tertiary principles by which bail should be guided. One of the principal ones is public safety.

Public safety should never be compromised. Everything we do in the ministry of public safety and that I have taken on as a responsibility in my new role is to ensure that Canadians can feel safe. As a mom, this has been really important to me when I have heard the growing concern. At times it took a while, perhaps not for people on the ground but for law enforcement and governments, to look at property crime in the same way as we looked at violent crime. Those two things came to a crossroads, and we started seeing more and more property crime committed with violence.

Stories of cars being stolen, at times with kids in the back seat during the commission of a car hijacking, make me wonder as a mom. I started worrying a lot about making sure my child was out of the car before I got out of it. That is not how I want to feel nor how I want any of the people in my community to feel. The bill would take the steps needed to make sure we bring back the confidence of the public when it comes to our judicial system. That is very important to me.

There is another thing the bill would do that is very important, from what I heard from communities across this country. People have felt that there are no repercussions to committing property theft. It is really important that people understand there are repercussions in Canada, so in the bill, we clarify sentencing objectives.

The bill would require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence for second and subsequent convictions of violent auto theft, break and enters, and organized crime offences. This is a very important measure. It would bring courts back to considering safety as the main concern. It gives this direct guideline and would make it mandatory for courts to look at it.

The bill would also make it mandatory for the courts to go through a safety plan if they do choose to release an individual. The process of going through creating a plan, that exercise, is very important to better understanding whether it is an appropriate plan or not.

Along with that, an offender's history should also be looked at. It is a bit of a surprise and a shock to me that courts would not already be doing so. It is appropriate to look at an offender's past history, but what we heard from Crown counsel and others in law enforcement is that it was not always being done. The piece of legislation before us would mandate courts to do so.

I know that if the bill is passed through the House of Commons, it would have a great impact on keeping our communities safe. I would also like to mention, as I began my speech with yesterday, that we are doing our part as a federal government, but the provinces will now need to do their part as well. For example, Ontario is having over 50% of cases withdrawn or dismissed and sentences being shortened. A story recently came out about a sentence for murder that has been decreased and the person released because of the conditions of provincial jails.

It is really important that provincially appointed judges be able to make the decisions needed to keep the public safe and that they also have a place to put offenders. I now put it on the provinces to do their part to make sure that people are not released into our communities because of these provincial responsibilities that are not being met. It is very important for us to be able to get the results we need.

I am thankful for the extra opportunity to address this very important piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, from my review of Bill C-14, I believe that there is a partial admission by the government that it failed and that it dropped the ball when it introduced Bill C-5. It actually rolled back some of the conditional sentences, so I want to spend a bit of time talking about that.

Given that sex assault is on the rise across this country, why did the member's government see fit to claw back the eligibility of conditional sentences only where the Crown proceeds by indictment versus summary conviction, when the vast majority of sex assault prosecutions in this country are done by summary conviction? Why has the member failed victims?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, gender-based violence sexual offences have been top of mind for our government. In Bill C-75, we have strengthened our position when it comes to the justice system. We would be further strengthening it in the bill that is before us, by not allowing courts to impose conditional sentences that can be served in the community. It is important to make sure the offenders stay behind bars.

In this role, I am here trying to do my job to inform the government to take measures that would protect public safety. As I said, I take that role very seriously, and I believe the bill would address that issue and is a step in the right direction. We also have a gender-based violence bill coming out that would further strengthen our position to make sure offenders get what they deserve.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-14. However, we still have some concerns about the text of the bill, including the discretion that it gives to judges to reverse the burden of proof for certain crimes. These include some serious crimes for which it would be justifiable for a judge to keep the accused in remand.

However, some crimes on this list, like auto theft, are not necessarily violent crimes or crimes committed by people who pose a danger to public safety. I was wondering, does the government not feel that the definition of violent crime it has adopted with respect to this specific reverse onus criterion is a bit too broad?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe we have gone overboard at all. I believe we are addressing all the issues Canadians are concerned about. Repeated auto theft in our communities has made Canadians feel unsafe. The proceeds of these types of crimes also go to transnational organized criminal networks. These criminal networks are involved in the gun trade and in bringing dangerous drugs into our country. It is important we clamp down on these criminal organizations.

A step we have also taken in the past is that criminals who are using young people in the commission of a crime like this will serve even more severe penalties. We have already implemented that, but this is another step we can take sure to make sure we can deter that crime from happening.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I think we all know in this room and in the rest of Canada that indigenous and racialized people have some of the highest incarceration rates in Canada.

I wonder if the member can share with us how the bill on reverse onus will have an impact on those who are most marginalized and how their justice will be protected in the bill.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that there is over-representation of indigenous communities. That issue came up as I consulted in communities. It is important to continue to work with policing so that we can make sure that policing methods are done appropriately and not biased and that our courts are not biased when applying these rules and regulations. It is important to continue to have good training for judges as well.

This piece of legislation was created so that we can protect Canadians. I believe in restorative justice as well, and measures need to be taken so that when a person has ended their sentence, they can reintegrate into the community in the best way possible. Our correctional services have done a lot of good work in communities to make sure that there are different systems in place for the communities that have asked for it, and they will continue to do that work.

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

Madam Speaker, what I like about Bill C-14 is the fact that in the last federal election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians that he would bring forward bail reform legislation. That is what we are debating today.

I would double down on that commitment in terms of the very minister who spoke now. She was appointed as the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. That is a compliment to the degree to which the government is serious about dealing with bail reform legislation.

Would the secretary of state not agree that, given the consensus of the many different stakeholders out there in support of the legislation, a goal to try to build a consensus in the chamber and have the legislation in place and passed before the end of the year would be something Canadians deserve to see?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. Canadians deserve for us to care about their safety and to put victims first. The bill does that. It keeps repeat violent offenders off our streets.

I would also call on all opposition parties to help us get this passed through the House as quickly as possible and get it to the committee process, where we can look at it in detail. I have been disappointed and surprised by the Conservative opposition. We have had other bills that also addressed public safety in this country, such as Bill C-2, but the Conservatives would not agree with portions of that bill, including lawful access, money laundering and searching mail for fentanyl and drugs getting into our country. I am shocked that they do not care about the concerns that Canadians have and that they did not allow us to bring that to pass in this Parliament at this time.

I also call on them to help us pass that original Bill C-2 and those portions of lawful access, which would give police the tools they need to—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for York Centre.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not propose to politicize this issue. I just want to speak about the shortcomings of the bill and ask the secretary of state specifically why there is an absence of any stiffer sentences for young offenders. Why is the bill silent on parole? Why is the bill silent on cash bail, something that police associations across the country are talking about?

Most importantly, I am very interested in the diversionary framework introduced in Bill C-75 for offences involving failures to comply with court orders, such as failure to appear, breach of undertaking or even breach of bail. Basically, C-75 allows Crowns to divert, to remove those types of offences from the docket, as they often do. We also heard from the OPP commissioner a couple of days ago in justice committee saying that he thinks the fact that BIll C-75 allows for this kind of diversionary regime framework for offences against court orders undermines the rule of law.

Why does Bill C-14 not fix the travesty created by Bill C-75?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, most of the issues the member opposite has brought up are provincial issues. If they would like to deal with them, they can do so in their provincial courtrooms. When offenders do not listen to court orders, they can enforce those orders. At the provincial level, the court has every right to do so, and it should. When sureties come forward and put up a bond, it should retrieve that bond. Courts are not doing those things. This is why I said there is a part for provinces to play in this. They have a really crucial role in administering the justice system, and I hope provinces will step forward, resource their courtrooms, train judges and make sure they have space in their jails.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to an important legislation, which is Bill C-14, bail reform and sentencing reform. However, before I do that, I want to advise that I will be sharing my time with the very effective member of Parliament for Souris—Moose Mountain.

Here we go again with bail reform 2.0. In the 44th Parliament, we had Bill C-48, brought to us by the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau. The bill was in response to several high-profile violent crimes committed by people who were, at the time of the crime, out on bail on charges for other violent crimes.

Let us take, for example, Randall McKenzie, who murdered an OPP officer, Constable Greg Pierzchala on December 27, 2022. That murderer was out on bail at that time, awaiting trial on charges of a violent, weapons-related crime against his girlfriend. We call that intimate partner violence. He was in breach of his bail conditions, of course, having a weapon in his possession, having removed his ankle bracelet and having left his home. That is where he was supposed to be. There had been a warrant for his arrest for about six months, but the police had failed to apprehend him. There were too many people out on bail and not enough police resources. This man was getting away with murder. There were too many people out on bail. That was the problem at the heart of this. This man should have been behind bars in pretrial incarceration.

There were other high-profile cases at that time. I raise this one because it really woke up the public to weaknesses in our criminal justice system. When the public gets concerned over a public policy issue, politicians scramble to get ahead on the story. In a rare show of cross-country, cross-party co-operation, all the premiers of the 10 provinces and of the three territories wrote a letter to the then attorney general and to the former prime minister demanding bail reform. The response to that was that AG Lametti introduced a very weak bail reform bill, Bill C-48, which made it just slightly more difficult for people like Pierzchala's murderer to get out on bail while awaiting trial.

The accused now had to convince the judge that he could be trusted to be out on the streets instead of the government lawyer having to convince the judge the accused should stay behind bars. We call that a reverse onus. It is a slight improvement, from a law and order perspective. We, the Conservatives, supported the bill because it was a step in the right direction. Provincial politicians and law enforcement agencies across the country supported it too although many expressed disappointment that it simply did not go as far as they had hoped.

Why did the Liberals not go further when public sentiment was clearly on the side of going for the bail reform? The underlying challenge for them was a previous bill from the 42nd Parliament, Bill C-75. It was one of the last enactments of the 42nd Parliament before it rose for the summer. The bill introduced the principle of restraint in bail hearings, the principle that directs a judge to release the accused at the earliest possible time and with the least onerous conditions. This is set out in section 493.1 of the Criminal Code, which states, “consideration [should be given] to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances”.

This is what happened to Mr. McKenzie, the murderer of Constable Pierzchala. He was out on bail under his mother's supervision, with an ankle bracelet. He was not to leave home, and he had a weapons prohibition. This was all for a man who had been charged and was awaiting trial on charges of a violent crime against his girlfriend with a weapon. How is that even right? How can that happen in this country?

It is easy to point the finger at the judge, as some people did, but the judge was responding to the principle of restraint introduced by the Liberal government in Bill C-75. We hear the Liberals say they had no choice, the court told them they had to do that in a case called R v. Antic. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada, with Chief Justice Wagner writing, did say that “release is favoured at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous grounds.” It is true that the court said that.

We have always argued, as Conservatives, that the Supreme Court of Canada never directed Parliament to throw open the gates to unfettered bail. It did not direct Parliament to introduce new legislation. It did not direct Parliament to do anything. Antic was a case that simply clarified some confusion around the rights of the accused when it comes to bail: the right to be presumed innocent; the right to a fair trial, with the burden of proof on the Crown's lawyer; and the right, of course, to reasonable bail as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Antic was not a case in which the court had struck down any legislation under section 52 of the Constitution Act 1982, the so-called supremacy clause. That does happen from time to time, as happened a few years ago in a case called R v. Ndhlovu, which was decided in 2022. According to that decision, certain subsections of section 490 of the Criminal Code, the ones mandating automatic registration of anyone convicted of a sexual offence, were unconstitutional and contrary to section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects life, liberty and the security of the person.

The court, in that case, gave Parliament 12 months or 18 months to correct the impugned legislation. I forget exactly how long it was. That was exactly what we did in the last Parliament. All the parties worked together co-operatively to make that happen.

I want to be clear: Antic was not that kind of case. The Supreme Court just wanted to clarify things. It was the Liberal government, under Justin Trudeau, with David Lametti at the time, that introduced Bill C-75 and introduced section 493.1 to the Criminal Code. This was of their own volition. This was the Liberals appealing to their base, trying to distinguish themselves from law and order Conservatives.

They are now seeing the effects of that legislation. There is public outcry about what members of the public are calling catch-and-release provisions. They are blaming the Liberals for that. There are widespread calls for bail reform from premiers, police services across the country, police unions and public safety advocacy groups.

What do they do? They introduce Bill C-14, which is before us today. They are bringing in workarounds around their own defective legislation. We ask why they do not just get rid of section 493.1 altogether. It was not mandated. It is not necessary. It is not helpful. It has been harmful to the administration of justice in this country. It is time to get rid of it.

Our judges on bail hearings know what the common law says about the right to bail. They know what the charter says about reasonable bail. They know what the Supreme Court and other courts have said to guide this age-old principle.

Bill C-48, from the 44th Parliament, took a small step in the right direction, a timid step. It did not go nearly far enough. That is why we are here today.

I am more hopeful today with the current Attorney General and Minister of Justice signalling that perhaps Bill C-75 went too far. Perhaps Bill C-5, another enactment, which I did not talk about too much in my speech so far but which relaxed some sentencing rules, had gone too far. Perhaps the two bills have had a negative impact on the public's confidence in the administration of justice. It is time to fix it.

Like Bill C-48, Bill C-14 does not go far enough. At committee, Conservatives will introduce amendments to get Canada back on track, putting public safety first and putting public confidence in the administration of justice first, because that is what Canadians deserve. That is what Canadians right across the country have been demanding for a long time. It is time to get it fixed. We will do our best to make sure that Bill C-14 comes out of Parliament as strong as possible, to protect Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that over the last number of months, we have had many Conservatives stand in their place and demand bail reform legislation. The good news is that we are now actually debating Bill C-14. The member knows full well how important this issue was to Canadians in the last election. We have a Prime Minister who has materialized substantial bail reform legislation.

We can take a look at next week's agenda, which has the national budget coming before us.

I am wondering if the member would not agree that setting a goal to actually have the bail reform legislation pass through the system before the end of the year would be a wonderful thing to see, based on the demand for it from the people whom we represent and the consensus that has been built by many different stakeholders.

Would he not agree that the House should give its best effort at passing the legislation before the end of the year?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that the House should give its best efforts, but that requires the Liberals giving their best efforts, as well, to passing this legislation.

We are going to committee. We are going to request reasonable amendments to this legislation to make it better. I am very happy to have this high-level conversation in Parliament. There seems to be substantial agreement that bail reform is needed. We are happy the Liberals are finally coming to the table, and we hope there is continued co-operation at committee.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has concerns about this bill, but we want to study it in committee so we can propose amendments. The Conservatives will probably want to propose amendments too.

However, an additional concern has emerged. During the committee's study of Bill C‑3, members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration voted in favour of a number of amendments. When the bill came back here, the Liberals set out to use the work of the House to undo all the amendments we had worked on in committee.

Is my colleague as concerned about this as I am? This bill will go to committee, where we will do a rigorous job and work hard to amend it. Is he afraid the Liberals will undo all of the committee's work when the bill comes back to the House?

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

Madam Speaker, I share the concern with members of the Bloc Québécois that the Liberals are going to try to prevent any reasonable amendments to this legislation. However, I am an optimistic person.

I will go back to the sex offender registry case that was found to be unconstitutional. All the parties worked together to pass that legislation through. We really did. If the Liberals are taking this bail reform and sentencing reform initiative as seriously as they say they are, I am pretty confident they will be co-operative at committee and work with us on reasonable amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, I will ask my colleague to reflect on the issue of the principle of restraint. Obviously, it has not been abandoned in Bill C-14. There have been some attachments and limitations to its application.

Why are provisions of the principle of restraint in jail not bail a better approach for the protection of Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, Bill C-14 retains the principle of restraint, which has been at the centre of the problems in the administration of criminal justice in the last decade. It is at the heart of the public's loss of confidence in the administration of justice. I think that is a very important principle.

I am sure our amendments at committee are going to focus on the secondary and tertiary grounds, public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are tired of watching the same headlines play out every week: another violent crime committed by someone who never should have been released in the first place. They see the revolving door of justice spinning faster than ever and have the right to ask why their safety no longer seems to matter. That is why we are here today to debate Bill C-14, the government's latest attempt to clean up the mess it created years ago through soft-on-crime policies.

Let us not forget how we got here. In 2019, the Liberals passed Bill C-75, which enshrined in law the principle of restraint. It directed police and judges to release offenders at the earliest reasonable opportunity under the least onerous conditions. That single change and that Liberal ideology opened the floodgates to the catch-and-release system we now have in our justice system. Then came Bill C-5, which gutted mandatory minimum sentences and made house arrest available for serious crimes like sexual assault and drug trafficking. When crime inevitably spiked, the government tried to paper over this damage with Bill C-48, a bill it sold as tough on bail but that barely scratched the surface with a handful of new reverse-onus offences and no real change to the culture of automatic release.

The result has been devastating. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearm crime is up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assault is up 76% and homicide is up 29%. Those are not just numbers. Each one represents a victim, a family and a community that has been forever changed. Let us not forget the names behind those statistics. Bailey McCourt was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail for assaulting her. Savannah Kulla, a 29-year-old mother of four, was gunned down in Brampton by a man who had already been released on bail. These tragedies are not anomalies. They are the predictable outcome of policies that put ideology ahead of safety.

After a decade of denial, the Liberals introduced Bill C-14, which admits, finally, that their reforms have failed. The bill tweaks the Criminal Code to clarify that restraint would not require release when detention is necessary to protect the public. It adds a few more reverse-onus offences, such as violent auto theft, break and enter and human trafficking, and it slightly tightens conditional sentences for youth custody rules.

While Conservatives welcome any movement in the right direction, let us be clear. Bill C-14 is not the bold reform Canadians deserve. This bill keeps the principle of restraint that caused the crisis in the first place. It does not restore the mandatory minimum sentences that were stripped away with Bill C-5. It does not presume detention for repeat violent offenders. It simply shifts the burden of proof. It still allows house arrest for robbery, trafficking and firearm crimes. Its so-called guidance to judges remains optional, not mandatory. Canadians do not want more guidance. They want guarantees that violent repeat criminals will not be back on the streets to terrorize their communities.

Our Conservative plan, the jail not bail act brought forward by my colleague from Oxford, would deliver those guarantees. It would replace the principle of restraint with a public safety primary clause, making the safety of the public in our communities the governing principle in bail. It would presume detention, not release, for serious violent crimes, such as sexual assault, human trafficking, armed robbery and home invasion. It would restore mandatory minimums for firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping and other serious offences. It would ban house arrest for robbery, gun and trafficking crimes. It would require judges to consider every prior conviction, any outstanding charge and any pattern of offending while on bail. It would bar criminal sureties and enforce surety obligations so that bail means accountability, not just paperwork. It would raise the risk threshold from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonably foreseeable” because, if it is reasonably foreseeable that someone will reoffend, they should not be released.

The Liberals call Bill C-14 a comprehensive reform. I call it an admission of guilt and an admission that Conservative warnings were right all along. They copied our ideas because the evidence left them no choice. They copied them only halfway, because political optics still matter more to them than public safety. They talk about compassion for victims, but every piece of legislation they have passed since 2015 has sided with offenders. They cannot be pro-victim and pro-offender at the same time.

Communities across my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain know this reality all too well. People used to leave their doors unlocked, and now they lock their vehicles, barns and shops every night. Farmers are losing quads or trucks to organized theft rings. Small business owners are watching thieves walk in, clean out the shelves and walk out, only to see those same offenders released the next day.

The numbers tell the story clearly. In Souris—Moose Mountain, violent crime has increased from about 3,500 incidents in 2015 to nearly 4,700 incidents in 2024, a staggering 34% jump. This is not an abstract statistic. Those are hundreds of real families in our rural communities that have been victimized, that have lost their sense of safety and that are asking when the system will finally put law-abiding citizens first.

Every time an offender is released without consequence, confidence in the justice system erodes a little more. That is why our message is simple: Scrap Liberal bail. Canadians deserve more than half measures. They deserve to live without fear in their homes, on their farms, in their shops and on their streets. They deserve a justice system that puts their safety first, not the comfort of repeat offenders.

The government has had 10 years to get this right. Instead, it has chosen ideology over evidence, leniency over law, and rhetoric over results. Conservatives will support sending Bill C-14 to committee, but we will fight for real amendments to eliminate the principle of restraint entirely, to presume detention for major and repeat violent offences, to restore mandatory minimums and to turn judicial suggestions into judicial obligations. Only then can we begin to undo the damage caused by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

Canadians have lost faith in their justice system, and they have every right to. We owe it to victims like Bailey McCourt and Savannah Kulla, and to every Canadian who wonders whether their government still values their safety, to make this right.

The Conservative position is clear: Public safety comes first, justice means accountability and no violent repeat offender should walk free while innocent Canadians live in fear. That is why we will continue to press the government to strengthen Bill C-14 or step aside and let Conservatives fix the system for good. Canadians do not want tougher laws. They want safer communities. Only a Conservative government will deliver both.

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

Madam Speaker, that is where the member is wrong.

I believe what we have seen is a prime minister who is committed to making our communities safer. We have seen that through the demonstration of two ministers being charged with bringing forward the bail reform legislation we are debating today.

This is not something we just came up with overnight. This is something that had a great deal of consultation, working with different stakeholders. Our judicial system is a shared responsibility. We worked with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and Canadians as a whole. I believe we have delivered first-class legislation that will assist in making our communities safer. I say “assist” because it also involves provinces, municipalities, law enforcement and stakeholders coming to the table.

I am pleased the member indicated he supports the legislation going to committee. It is a relief to hear that.

The question I have for the member is specific. Does he share the same ambition that I have to deliver bail reform legislation, a law, before the end of the year? Would he not agree that this is a goal we should strive to achieve?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member's assessment, but the legislation should have Conservative amendments.

I came from the business world. In the business world, we manage our budgets and our companies by results. I want to take a look at some of the results in the member's home city of Winnipeg since the Liberal bail laws were put in place. There were 24 previous violent offences like shootings and carjackings by someone out on probation. There was a murder while someone was out on bail with 16 arrests, nine violent convictions and 15 breaches. There was a fatal stabbing while someone was out on bail with 11 previous convictions like possession of firearms. I could go on with this list. The results speak for themselves.

We need laws that protect our citizens and put victims first, not offenders.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, today being October 30, 2025, allow me to acknowledge a historic moment in Quebec's history. Thirty years ago today, the Lower St. Lawrence said yes: yes to the country of Quebec, yes to liberty, yes to pride. It very courageously said yes. That same conviction is still very much alive today among the people in my region. We want to be masters of our own destiny because Quebec's independence is the logical next step in our history, our language, our culture, our identity, our very existence.

My question for my colleague is this. We know that the Conservative Party wanted to implement reforms in an attempt to improve certain aspects of security. At the same time, it wanted to challenge a fundamental principle of justice, namely the presumption of innocence. I would like my colleague to explain how he sees a fundamental need versus a fundamental right in our society. What is he proposing today with regard to this bill introduced by the government?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, although I fundamentally disagree with the premise of that question, I will comment on how we are not talking about first-time offences here. We are talking about repeat offenders who have committed violent crimes over and over again.

The member talks about the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence should be that people make mistakes. We have compassion and we all believe that everyone should have a fair trial and a fair crack at the judicial system, but when it has been abused over and over again by repeat criminals committing violent offences, our whole system needs to be looked at again. That is why the Conservative jail not bail act would address the very issues the member is talking about.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the John Howard Society recently called on Ontario to expand its bail system and make it stronger. The society has a 96% success rate in ensuring that bail conditions are met.

I wonder if the member agrees that the work of community-based supervision programs, like the 17 programs across Canada, should be expanded.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my other answer, I am a very results-based person. If something is proven to work, I am sure the Conservatives would be very happy to take a look at it and work with it.

I could defer to my colleagues, the shadow minister for justice or the member for York Centre, who have a lot more experience in this field than I do. We are compassionate and we want the best for Canada. If there are ways we can make that happen by working with other parties, we will do it.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.

It is an honour to rise today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to speak on behalf and in support of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. It is the most significant modernization of Canada's bail and sentencing laws in a generation.

This bill is about one thing above all else: keeping Canadians safe in their homes, safe on their streets and safe in their communities. It would do two critical things. First, it would strengthen our bail system to ensure that violent and repeat offenders are kept off our streets. Second, it would modernize sentences to ensure that the punishment truly fits the crime.

On bail reform, this bill would deliver exactly what Canadians elected us to do in the last election. We would tighten bail provisions so that the system is no longer a revolving door for violent offenders. The message is clear: The principle of restraint does not mean automatic release. For the first time, courts would have to consider random or unprovoked violence when making bail decisions. They would also have to consider the number and seriousness of outstanding charges, because Canadians know that someone facing 10 charges should not be treated the same as somebody facing one.

For serious crimes, such as organized crime, home invasions and sexual assault, this bill would change the starting point. Through new reverse onus provisions, it would be on the accused to show why they deserve to be released, not on the Crown to prove why they should be detained. This stronger threshold would ensure that those charged with violent or high-impact offences face a tougher path to bail. On top of that, we would direct courts to carefully scrutinize the bail plan of the accused to ensure that it is both credible and reliable before any release is granted.

That is how we keep dangerous offenders behind bars. That is how we restore Canada's confidence in our justice system.

Let us contrast that with what the Conservatives are proposing in their so-called jail, not bail plan. It was not written by legal experts, inspired by victim advocates or made in consultation with police officers. It was written by a career politician who lost a national election and his own seat, and who now wants to sound tough without showing any real seriousness.

It is a slogan, not a solution. It is unconstitutional and reckless. It would hand provinces a legal disaster that sees dangerous offenders back on the street the moment the law is struck down, just as six Harper-era laws were struck down, one by one, by the Supreme Court of Canada during the Conservatives' time in government. Their plan would tie judges' hands, trample on the charter and make a mockery of the rule of law. It would do more for political fundraising emails than it would for community safety. Canadians deserve laws made in Canada, not bumper-sticker slogans imported from south of the border.

I will go back to Bill C-14 and its second pillar, which is sentencing reform. Bill C-14 would add new aggravating factors for crimes against first responders, for repeat violent offenders, for organized retail theft and for offences that threaten our critical infrastructure, like copper. It would allow consecutive sentences for serious crimes, like auto theft, arson, extortion and breaking and entering.

Let me be clear that if a person commits a crime or is a repeat offender, they should and would face multiple consequences, full stop. We are clarifying sentence objectives to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for repeat violent and organized crime because Canadians are tired of seeing serious criminals walk away with light sentences.

We have worked closely with the Government of Quebec on restricting access to house arrest for sexual offences, including those committed against children. This reform has been welcomed by police forces across Quebec.

I sincerely hope that my Conservative colleagues from Quebec will have the courage to stand up, go against the party line and vote in favour of what they were elected to do, which is to keep their communities safe. I also invite the Bloc Québécois to join us in defending our Quebec values, namely firmness, justice, and the protection of victims.

While the Leader of the Opposition spent his summer targeting his own MP's seat to save his job, the Minister of Justice spent his summer targeting repeat violent offenders to keep Canadians safe. What did that work achieve? It achieved a national consensus, with Conservative, New Democrat and Liberal premiers alike all calling for the swift passage of Bill C-14. When every province and territory welcomes federal justice reform, it is not politics; it is partnership and leadership.

Even municipalities are on board. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities called this bill a step forward for community safety. Police associations, mayors and victim advocates are all on board with and in favour of the passage of this bill. Who would not be? At its core, there are 80 proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to strike the right balance that Canadians expect. It is strong on safety, firm on justice and faithful to the Charter of Rights and the rule of law.

Unfortunately, when Canadians from across the country are united, Conservatives try to divide them. The Conservatives have been peddling misinformation about one key element, namely, the principle of restraint. Let us be clear that whether or not it is written into the Criminal Code, the principle of restraint has always existed in our laws. It is not me saying that, but the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2017 Antic decision. This is not some Liberal invention, as the Conservatives would like Canadians to believe; it has been established by Supreme Court jurisprudence. It is the rule of law, yet the Conservative Party is now suggesting that we ignore a Supreme Court precedent or, even worse, that we use the notwithstanding clause to overrule the highest court in this country.

On this side of the House, we respect the rule of law and we will never trample on the Constitution simply because we do not like a court's decision. Quite frankly, we also do not go on podcasts and call the brave men and women of the RCMP “despicable”, as the Conservative leader did. We do not hide behind keyboards to attack Crown prosecutors for doing their jobs.

What are we doing instead? We are making it crystal clear to the courts that the principle of restraint would not mandate automatic release and that the requirement for the least onerous bail conditions would not apply to serious or violent offenders, who would now be subject to the reverse onus. That is the difference between responsible, steady leadership and the politics of division and resentment.

Canadians deserve to feel safe and be safe in their communities. We know that keeping Canadians safe requires actions from all orders of government. As many legal experts and frontline officers have emphasized at the justice committee, this work cannot be done by one level of government alone. The provinces must step up to ensure public safety. The federal government is stepping up and doing its part within its jurisdiction through this bail and sentencing reform act, but on its own, it is not enough. We are calling on the provinces and territories to do their part in ensuring that their courts and correctional facilities are well funded and that they have sufficient justices of the peace, Crown prosecutors and court staff to apply these stronger tools effectively to keep repeat and violent offenders off our streets.

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

Madam Speaker, I will highlight how disappointing it was to hear the parliamentary secretary for justice being so partisan in her attacks. I thought we were getting along so well in the spirit of collaboration. Public and community safety are not a partisan issue. They never should be. Our goal is to make this bill as strong as possible, and her attacks were absolutely not appreciated.

The title of the act is the bail and sentencing reform act, yet there is only one particular charge in this 80-paragraph bill, some 35 pages long, that would address sentencing reform. It is the question of contempt of court. Despite all the rising crime across this country, why did the parliamentary secretary for justice and the minister see fit to address only contempt of court and raise the penalty from six months to two years less one day?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, to come back to the comments that were made by the member opposite, this is not a partisan issue and it should not be. I totally agree with him.

The member also sits on the justice committee. Once this bill gets to the justice committee, I hope we will be able to work collaboratively to strengthen it by studying it and making all of the necessary recommendations and amendments to ensure that Canadians get the bill—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, they are heckling on the other side and I cannot hear myself speak. Would you please address this issue?

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

I would ask members to wait for the hon. parliamentary secretary to finish her answer to the question.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, who also sits on the justice committee, will have the opportunity to bring forward his recommendations for and amendments to this robust bill, so we can make it as complete as necessary to serve the interests of Canadians, ensuring—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made several interesting points in her speech.

First, she said that the Liberals are not going to change the Constitution just because they do not like a law. In that regard, I would like to draw the House's attention to Bill 21, which was passed by the Quebec National Assembly and which the government is challenging all the way up to the Supreme Court because it disagrees with this use of the notwithstanding clause.

There is not just that. My colleague also said that this should not be a partisan debate, when she spent half her speech attacking the Conservatives' positions and saying that they are making this a partisan issue.

I would like to mention, once again, that the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of Bill C‑14. We want to send it to committee to debate it because the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois have some ideas for improving it. I think this is an important issue that all parties should have a say in.

There is also another thing that the Liberals are not doing and that they should be doing to keep Quebeckers and Canadians safe, and that is addressing the issue of judicial vacancies. They have been slow to appoint judges, which means that the number of detainees and inmates awaiting trial in prison is growing. That does not help address issues of violence.

Does my colleague think that perhaps, at some point, the government could shake a leg and speed up the non-partisan, neutral appointment of judges?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill includes a number of reforms to the Criminal Code. In addition, the government has been very clear. We want to have more resources in our courts. Specifically, a number of judges need to be appointed. In fact, I mentioned that in my speech. It is an approach and a reform that will of course require additional resources.

However, those resources are the responsibility of the provinces. As members are aware, the federal government writes the laws, but it is up to the provinces to administer the justice process.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I mentioned already that we all know about the overrepresentation of indigenous and racialized people in the correctional system. This bill would broaden the reverse onus on many of the categories that are indigenous and marginalized people.

I wonder if the member can share what supports will be established for those who are still quite oppressed under the current system.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, we have made it very clear that resources will be allocated to ensure that all provinces will be ready to do their work. Mental health criteria will be looked at, so we can ensure the jails are not overpopulated with people who do not benefit from the reverse onus—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C‑14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act. This is a bill that is of paramount importance for public safety, public trust in our legal institutions, and the fundamental balance of justice and responsibility in Canada.

Bill C‑14 seeks to address a concern that is largely shared by Canadians to ensure that our bail system remains fair, credible, effective and consistent with today's reality.

Over the past few years, we have seen an increase in cases where individuals charged with or sentenced for serious violent crimes have been released on bail, and some of them have gone on to reoffend, with tragic outcomes. This undermines public confidence and weakens the very principle of justice, which is grounded in the safety and security of all Canadians. It is precisely this imbalance that Bill C‑14 seeks to address while at the same time safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill C‑14 enhances the rigour of the bail process for the most serious crimes, including random violence, the use of firearms, extortion, breaking and entering, and motor vehicle theft involving violence. It introduces reverse onus provisions for certain offences, which means an accused must justify why they should be released pending trial. This does not constitute an arbitrary limitation of the right to defend oneself against charges, but rather, it is a measured response in situations where public safety must come first.

The enactment of this legislation would require justices of the peace to consider the gravity and frequency of offences when making a decision. This measure will strengthen judicial decisions across the country and provide clear benchmarks depending on the gravity and repeat offending.

Bill C‑14 is not limited to punishment; it also addresses prevention. Requiring that primary consideration be given to denunciation and deterrence in cases of repeat violent offences, organized motor vehicle theft, and breaking and entering sends a clear message that there will be zero tolerance for gratuitous violence and organized crime.

This bill also retains the spirit of justice and rehabilitation, which is a hallmark of the Canadian system. It clarifies the definition of “violent offence” in relation to young offenders, while ensuring that mechanisms for bail and supervision reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for rehabilitation. It also protects the public's right to information in emergencies and enables law enforcement agencies to disclose a young person's identity where there is an imminent danger. This is a common-sense, balanced and proportionate measure.

Bill C‑14 also introduces new aggravating factors for crimes committed against first responders, the women and men who risk their lives every day to keep us safe. Professionals like police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and correctional officers deserve not only to be recognized, but also to be better protected under the law. This bill turns that recognition into concrete action.

The bill also modernizes the National Defence Act by aligning sentences and principles of deterrence with those in the civilian system, while respecting the specific nature of the military context.

It strengthens how fines are managed, facilitates remote appearances in certain circumstances and makes sentences more consistent for contempt of court offences. These are technical, but essential, adjustments to ensure a more effective and swifter justice system that is more in tune with the reality on the ground.

Bill C‑14 is not a partisan response. It is a call for collective responsibility. Public safety, confidence in the justice system and social stability are not partisan issues, but rather shared Canadian values. This bill reflects the government's willingness to listen to the concerns of citizens, first responders, municipalities, provinces and territories.

It is not a question of pitting justice against compassion; it is a question of reconciling them. By supporting this bill, we are saying that the right to safety is as fundamentally important as the right to freedom.

Bill C‑14 is a decisive step toward a more consistent, more robust and more humane justice system. It protects our communities, supports our law enforcement agencies, holds offenders accountable and modernizes our institutions. Supporting this bill means supporting a Canada where freedom is exercised in accordance with the law, where compassion meets responsibility and where justice means safety for all.

I therefore invite my colleagues from all parties to support Bill C‑14 so that together we can build a justice system that lives up to the Canadian values of safety, justice and respect for human dignity.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question with respect to the bill and the clamping down on the availability of conditional sentences. In our respective view, this is a partial admission of the failures of the introduction of Bill C-5, which allowed for conditional sentences to be served for very serious offences. I recognize that Bill C-14 mentions sexual offences and sexual offences against children, but there is another problem in this country, and that is fentanyl. It is a scourge and there is an opiate crisis in our country.

Why did the government choose to not clamp down on the availability of conditional sentences for traffickers of fentanyl? Case law has deemed them to be merchants of death.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill will be studied in committee, where it can be debated and amended. I am asking my colleagues to support this bill so that we can craft a piece of legislation that reflects Canada.

We have implemented measures at the border with the United States to address the fentanyl crisis, but I believe there are still challenges on that front.

However, we need to restore order at home and this bill corrects things in order to maintain order in a way that reflects Canadian values.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question. In my colleague's opinion, what kind of risk could the new bail rules pose in terms of regional or systemic disparities?

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his decidedly technical question.

We are now in the early days of a bill that is going to be read and sent to committee for amendment. We are updating things that were not prepared or adjusted properly during previous Parliaments. We have a new government. We have a new bill.

With the support of the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the other parties in the House, I think we will be able to turn this bill into a shared undertaking for Canada and ensure proper justice across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my friend for raising an aspect of the legislation that is so critically important, which is recognizing our first responders. It is something that is important to the member. I know the fine work our firefighters and paramedics do for us day in and day out is also important to Canadians in all regions of the country.

Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it was to have first responders incorporated into this legislation?

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, first responders are very important, given all that they have done from the COVID‑19 pandemic to this day. These men and women play a crucial role in our society, all across the country, from coast to coast to coast. I felt it was important that we talk about them this morning in the House to support Bill C‑14. I think it is important to include them in this bill.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, on October 6, the member across the way had the opportunity to vote to scrap Liberal bail, the catch-and-release ridiculousness that criminals are enjoying across this country, some of them repeatedly. I have heard in a few speeches today that the Liberals are claiming criminal justice is a non-partisan issue.

I am just wondering why the member opposite voted against our motion, which would have kept violent criminals behind bars.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague listened carefully to my speech, but I am pretty sure I talked about regulating bail procedures, because that is very important. This bill updates and fixes things that were not properly regulated before. I believe that we are here not to play partisan games, but to do what is right for Canada.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege and an honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York Centre.

When I was first elected, I was shocked at how quickly crime became the issue I had to contend with as a member of Parliament, because it was the significant issue that galvanized the community of St. Thomas this summer, in many respects. A rather historic building, which happened to be my campaign office in the last election, that was 140-some odd years old was burned down by a serial arsonist out on bail. This was a symbol of a problem that Canadians have seen in communities large and small across the country, which is rampant repeat offenders unleashing what police have called chronic criminality and prolific offending onto the streets.

If we talk to any police service across the country, as I have with the police chiefs in my riding and others through my work on the justice committee, we will hear that a small number of offenders, sometimes 100 people or maybe even fewer, are responsible for 80% to 90% of the calls the police must respond to. A small group of prolific offenders is taxing communities, taxing and straining police resources, and terrifying and terrorizing communities.

They are making it so people do not feel safe walking streets they once could comfortably, safely and freely walk down at any hour of the day or night. People do not feel comfortable letting their children go out to a mall. People are forced to take other forms of transportation because they do not feel safe on public transit.

Just this morning, I saw that London, Ontario, is promoting police officers being on public transit. I am grateful to the brave men and women in the London Police Service, the St. Thomas Police Service, the Aylmer Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police who are forced to deal with this, but they have had to deal with a problem that has by and large been a consequence of federal government policy.

We have heard testimony for several weeks now from police associations, police chiefs and victims' rights groups, and almost all of them have pointed directly to Bill C-75. This was legislation from the Liberal government that, among other changes, codified something called the principle of restraint, a provision of the Criminal Code that makes it easier for repeat offenders to get out on bail under conditions that are very lax.

I bring this up because for months, when we have raised these issues in this House, the government has said not to worry and that bail reform legislation is coming, but this was not a significant priority to the extent that other bills were. We saw Bill C-9, which was the first priority, as far as justice legislation goes, of the government. That came out and was tabled in this House weeks before the bail legislation was. Now we see Bill C-14.

I will say first and foremost that I am grateful the Liberal government recognizes there is a crisis unfolding in our criminal justice system. I am grateful that the Liberal government has finally responded to the calls from law enforcement, municipal governments, victims' rights groups, ordinary citizens and Conservative members of Parliament that action is needed.

What the Liberals have delivered falls short in some very key areas, and I think this is important because they said they needed time because they wanted to get it right. They needed time because they wanted to cover all the bases. We had before the justice committee on Tuesday the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, Thomas Carrique, a very decorated officer. He is also the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and commissioner Carrique said that he was disappointed the legislation did not tackle sentencing in a meaningful way.

The bill was supposed to tackle bail and sentencing, and with the exception of beefing up the penalty for contempt of court, it has not really touched sentencing head-on when we are talking about sentences for violent offences. That is a key shortcoming of this bill.

On the principle of restraint, we have another key issue, which is that the bill offers, and I will read it precisely, the following language on the principle of restraint:

For greater certainty, section 493.‍1 does not require the accused to be released.

The Liberals are basically giving a little asterisk for judges and police officers to tell them not to worry and that the principle in the Criminal Code that says we must release people at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions does not mean they have to release them at all.

Everyone knows that. No matter how critical someone is of the justice system, they know that 100% of people do not get bail, although the Liberals have certainly tried to get as close to that figure as possible it seems. This is a clarifying note; it is not a meaningful change. The Liberals are just saying that it does not mean what we think it does, that this section does not mean what police officers have been saying it has done to them and what attorneys are saying it has done to the justice system.

To be fair, the Liberals made some acknowledgement that there is a problem when they expanded the reverse onus. This is something I welcome, but when this bill goes before committee, it is incumbent on the Liberal government to accept the very significant measures Conservatives have already proposed in this House that would be genuinely and seriously tough on crime, measures that would provide real solutions, real resolutions and concrete reforms to fix the Liberal bail system.

For example, the principle of restraint needs to first and foremost be a principle that makes public safety its primary obligation, not the rights of the accused but the right of the public to feel safe and secure in their own communities. This is very important, and it is a direct response to months and months of consultation by Conservative members with law enforcement officials, who have said they feel ignored by the government and that morale has taken a massive hit. Officers feel it is not even worth arresting people, knowing that under the law on the books right now, they are just going to be released.

For years, Liberal government members, when we have sounded the alarm about this, have said that it is not really an issue. They have attempted to gaslight Canadians into thinking the problem is not as a bad as it, which makes me ask the question about Bill C-14 of why now. Are the Liberals finally acknowledging that they got it wrong with Bill C-75, Bill C-48 and Bill C-5?

With each of these bills, there has been a trend. Some members of law enforcement have looked at them and said they looked like they had some good things in them, but years later, when they see the application of them, they realize they did not actually deliver on the promises made and what the government said it would do. That is, of course, a concern I have with Bill C-14, as with any legislation. We need to make sure these are not just things that exist on paper that do not translate in the real world.

We have given the government the answers. We have provided three pieces of legislation in this House already. While the Liberals were still trying to figure out where they wanted to go with Bill C-14, my colleague from Oxford introduced the jail not bail act, Bill C-242. It would put front and centre the role of public safety when talking about bail. It would also prohibit someone from serving as a surety to help other accused offenders get out on bail if they themselves have been convicted of a serious criminal offence within the last 10 years. Reform of the surety system does not appear at all in Bill C-14, which is another shortcoming that has already been identified by witnesses testifying before the justice committee in its bail study.

We also have, from my colleague from Lethbridge, Bill C-246, which would put consecutive sentences in place for sexual offenders. Heinous criminals who have been convicted should be serving their sentences consecutively, which is a proposal we offered to the government. I ask the Liberals to please take our idea and put it in law if they are serious about these measures.

My colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola introduced Bill C-225, which would create new offences pertaining to intimate partner violence, provisions that Jennifer Dunn of the London Abused Women's Centre told the justice committee yesterday should be passed by the House of Commons to protect women. Victims are being failed by the justice system as it is now, and Ms. Dunn said in her testimony that many of the women she sees do not even refer to the justice system as the justice system anymore.

I am committed to working with government members if they are serious about wanting to reform and genuinely fix these problems, but they need to acknowledge their role in creating them. They need to acknowledge what law enforcement has been saying, which is that so much of what we are dealing with on the streets now, which has led to Bill C-14, is a consequence of Liberal laws, notably Bill C-75.

I am committing to the people of Canada, the people in my riding and the members of this House that I will work in the justice committee to beef this bill up to what it should be, but Canadians deserve more.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to the member. If he is true to his words, at the very least he will recognize that, at the end of the day, there have been extensive consultations done. That is the reason why, when the Prime Minister made the commitment to Canadians to bring in bail reform legislation, we could not just snap our fingers and have it appear. It requires a great deal of effort.

We now have the legislation before us. We want to see this legislation become law before the end of the year. Would the member not agree, if this issue is so critically important to him and the Conservative caucus, that the best way to ensure we deliver on bail reform, all of us collectively, is by allowing the legislation to move forward? For example, allowing it to get to committee so we can have the discussions the member raised today would be a positive step.

Would the member agree that this is the type of legislation Canadians deserve and that we should make an effort to get it passed—

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

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I already said, in my remarks, that I look forward to working on this bill in committee. I welcome the member for Winnipeg North joining us for a meeting, if he would like to contribute.

I find it interesting that the member for Winnipeg North said, in a previous intervention in the House, “Bill C-75 actually made it harder to be released on bail.” That is the precise opposite of what law enforcement told us in our consultations.

I would encourage the Liberal government, if it is so committed to this, to support the three bills I mentioned by the members for Oxford, Lethbridge and Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives would love to import the so-called three strikes law. In the United States, a third conviction means life in prison. It is causing the prison population to explode, and it is not reducing crime. Experts tell us that crime stems from the housing crisis, addictions and inadequate services.

Why are the Conservatives so focused on a policy that does not work and does not reduce crime, instead of adopting an approach based on evidence, rigour, accountability and, above all, prevention?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This is a debate about the Liberal government's legislation, Bill C-14.

However, on three-strikes laws, we put a motion before the House that would call for one. I would ask my hon. colleague if his constituents agree about this for people who repeatedly flout and violate the law, terrorize communities and are back on the street.

How many strikes does he think are enough before they should be kept behind bars?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was a great speech by my colleague.

I just spoke with a councillor from Prince George yesterday. She is in town for FCM. Cori Ramsay told me a story about being on a ride-along with the local RCMP in Prince George. They caught someone breaking into the local Value Village and had them arrested. She saw the person go to jail. Within an hour and a half, that person was back on the streets again. Then, on the same ride-along, four hours later, the same person was rearrested. That is real life for Prince George and the issue around bail being issued so many times.

Is the member confident that Bill C-14, in its current state, would truly address the “bail not jail” revolving door the Liberals have created?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, sadly, the member's experiences in his community are not rare. They are the same things I hear from the police officers I work with in my riding and what my colleagues have been hearing as well. This makes it all the more shameful that the Liberal government has ultimately ignored what they have been saying for so long. Even now, it is falling short.

I would love nothing other than for Bill C-14 to work and answer these key concerns, but it needs a lot more. That is why the committee process will be very important. I intend to put forward these solutions, and I hope the Liberals do not obstruct them.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, finally, after years of us pleading with the Liberal government, the Liberals are trying to do something about bail and sentencing in Canada. If the Liberals admit there is a problem, we know there is a problem. The problem is crime and chaos on our streets. Violent criminals, gang violence, guns and auto thefts are terrorizing Canadians. Like many Torontonians, I get up in the morning and wonder if I am going to see my car, which is why I had to buy one of those big clubs to lock my wheel. We used to see those only in the movies but not anymore. This is after my insurance company told me that, unless I install a tracking device at their expense, my insurance rate will go up. How is it possible that the Liberals cannot stop this? The criminals know they can get away with stealing a Jeep and take it to the port of Montreal, where, the very same night, it will be on its way to the Middle East. My provincial counterpart, the Solicitor General of Ontario, had his car stolen.

I love our country very much. I remember what life was like before the 2015 Liberal government. We need two timelines like BC and AD. We need before Liberals, BL, and after Liberals, AL. I remember times before the Liberals, when Canada was one of the safest countries in the world.

I often talk about my first love. My first love is the city of Toronto. In the time before Liberals, I felt safe walking anywhere in the city of Toronto, on any street, at any time of day or night. Safety and the feeling of safety add so much to our quality of life. After a decade of the Liberals, I do not feel safe anymore in multiple neighbourhoods in the city of Toronto after dark, even in some of the safest neighbourhoods. North York in north Toronto is being terrorized by gang violence, gun crime and drug-related shootings almost daily. It is all done by criminals, and it is all done with illegal guns. The justice committee heard from the OPP commissioner this week that almost all gun violence is perpetrated by criminals with illegal guns, not the legal guns the government seeks to confiscate from law-abiding citizens.

How did we go from being one of the safest countries in the world to this? How did Toronto, one of the safest metropolises in the world, lose that sense of safety? Toronto is becoming Gotham City. It is a combination of many things. It is for sure the economic decline thanks to the Liberals. That is part of it, for sure. People are hopeless. CTV reported, the other day, that young people cannot land a minimum-wage job anymore. I was told by a Toronto police officer that the going rate for stealing a car is $500. Imagine a young offender stealing one car per night and that is how they are making their living.

It is not just because our economy is in the gutter. Young offenders know that there are no consequences for what they do. I remember first-year criminal law like it was yesterday. What is the purpose behind sentencing? What is the policy? First and foremost, it is deterrence. It is the threat of legal consequences and possibly jail. However, now there are no consequences.

That is where I will start in taking this bill apart. In its current form, it falls very short. The prevalence of young offenders in crime and gang violence is very troubling. Participation in auto theft rings is just shocking. We would think the Liberals would want to do something about it, but no. There is no sentencing reform to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They closed a loophole and clarified what violence is for the purpose of custody but did not increase any sentences.

I want to be clear. I do not want a kid who breaks a vending machine to be part of the correctional justice system. However, for murder, for instance, custodial sentences for youth are limited to four years. They do pre-trial custody and get two-for-one. By the time they are sentenced, they are barely in custody for a year. Then they come out as much better criminals and terrorize the community.

There is another issue I would like to flag, and this one is very special to me because we are a democracy and respect the rule of law. One of the big failures of Bill C-75, the previous Liberal crime bill, was that it created a diversionary regime for offences involving failures to comply with court orders. For instance, offences such as failure to appear in court or breach of an undertaking, or even breach of bail, may go unpunished. That is what Bill C-75 by the Liberals provided for. It basically allows Crown attorneys to divert or remove such offences from the docket. Crown attorneys, unfortunately, often do this. Bill C-14 is completely silent on this. We had the OPP commissioner at the justice committee this week. He said that this is an affront to the rule of law, and the Liberals will not correct their own mistake.

Another major failure is not fixing a bail condition that every police association across the country is telling them to do: cash bail. I am going to explain this. Right now, in almost all cases, a surety is not required to post a cash bail. They just make a promise to pay in the event there is a breach of bail conditions. Often, they do not have the money and no one comes after them. It is meaningless. We now have this class of professional sureties that help criminals get out on bail. If they were made to post cash bail, this practice would end. A surety should have some skin in the game.

Finally, on bail reform, here we go again. We already reversed the onus for a number of offences under Bill C-48, but people are still caught and released even with those offences. Reversing the onus is not enough. What is missing is the burden of proof, a definition to direct the courts as to what the burden is that the accused must meet in order to be released. What is very important, also, is that, without such a burden, we do not have consistent application among courts. We have courts in different jurisdictions and different provinces. While they are directed to reverse the onus and place it on the accused, they are not sure what the burden they actually have to meet is. That is something every police force and every police association has brought up, and it is something that I sincerely hope we can address at committee.

Another major problem with the bill with respect to bail reform is the ladder principle. The ladder principle basically directs the court that the accused must be released at the earliest opportunity. The problem, specifically noted by the Police Association of Ontario this week, is that the ladder principle is not eliminated in reverse-onus offences. Just two days ago, my colleagues in the room with us heard testimony from the Police Association of Ontario asking for this very clearly. It said that we need to codify the fact that the ladder principle does not apply in a reverse-onus offence.

Finally, Bill C-14 is completely quiet on parole. In Canada, one is, essentially, automatically eligible for parole after serving a third of their sentence. We heard from a criminal defence attorney last week in the justice committee. Even he, a criminal defence attorney, thought it was lunacy that we see criminals sentenced to a custodial sentence do a third of their sentence, leave, reoffend, get sentenced again, do another third of their sentence and then leave again. That is a practice that we need to put an end to.

This week, the justice committee heard from Meechelle Best and Ron Best from Manitoba, parents whose daughter was killed by an intoxicated driver in a car accident. He was out on bail and had breached his bail condition. There was a warrant for his arrest. That was not the first time. He had breached bail before and got out on bail again. It was one of the most moving and saddest testimonies I have ever heard.

We cannot bring Kellie back, but we can prevent the next atrocity. We need to fix the bill. I am asking the government, in good faith, to work with us to fix Bill C-14, which is currently a flawed bill.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, the latter principle is addressed in the bill, and it would not apply to reverse onus cases.

The member made an interesting comment about young offenders. He said that, when they are incarcerated for a period of a year or so, they come out as even more hardened criminals. I thought that was an interesting observation that he highlighted.

For this bill, we consulted with a lot of stakeholders and experts in this area, and we are trying to get the balance right. I would like to ask the member if he thinks that serving a sentence makes young people become even more hardened criminals. What would be a solution that is appropriate to make sure our young people can live a good, successful life and get out of a life of crime?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had my first legal gig as a young law student at the community legal clinic at the law school in London. I dealt with a lot of young offenders. This is what I really want to stress: We have to delineate, or separate, those who got into the system because of a good-faith error, such as those who broke a vending machine or those who stole their parents' car on the day of their prom. We do not want those folks in the system. However, there are also the hardened criminals, those who commit repeat violent offences or those who are participating in gangs, who are in the auto theft rings.

They need to understand the concept of deterrence. It is something they do not understand right now. We accomplish deterrence by increasing the prospect of jail for serious offences. That is required right now, and it is something that Bill C-14 does not do.

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

Madam Speaker, I have long been troubled by the fact that sureties, and the member raised this issue, do not have to put forward the money themselves, and people do not go after them. It happens that my stepson is a criminal prosecutor for the Province of British Columbia. One thing that is maddening is that, if someone got their mother to put up the bail money, she could lose her house because, although he is the one who broke the bail conditions, she is responsible. I do not know that we can fix this in federal legislation.

I am asking the member quite honestly if managing bail is a provincial matter. How is it that sureties do not necessarily have to put up the money, and that we do not go after it if bail conditions are broken?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am mindful of the member's concern. We need to remember why we are here. We are here because the Liberal government finally woke up to the fact that bail needs to be fixed. One of the challenges we have is the surety regime. I am here to say that we can look at how other jurisdictions address this, but if a surety is going to be meaningless, if there is no risk of forfeiting that deposit or collecting on that promise, then the entire component of bail in that respect loses all relevance and meaning.

I can imagine situations where parents put up a bit of money, typically not a high amount, depending on the offence, and they do their job and honour their undertaking to supervise their child or sibling to make sure they do not breach their bail conditions. We have to make bail meaningful again.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of sitting on the justice committee with the member. He has referred to a defence lawyer and a police commissioner, both of whom came to committee and asked us to pass this bill. My question for him is this: Will he comply with their request to move quickly and agree to support this bill?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this week, I heard the OPP commissioner, Thomas Carrique, agree with me that there are at least four, five or six serious concerns, which I have articulated today, with this bill.

I respect the member opposite. I commit to working with him in good faith in trying to fix this bill at committee.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I am pleased to stand on behalf of my constituents in the great riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, as I always am, but in particular I am pleased to speak to a bill of such importance to not only my community but also communities across the country.

Bill C-14 is the result of an overwhelming effort from our Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, the Department of Justice and the government. They spent the last six months travelling across the country to meet with stakeholders in the court system, the law enforcement community, lawyers and the Crown attorney. This is the product of that hard work.

We have seen the response from members of the law enforcement community and from the justice system at large who have come out supporting this bill overwhelmingly. I am going to keep asking the opposition whether its members will do the same. I find it very ironic, frankly, that the Conservatives opposite spend so much time asking for something and then complain about it when they get it, which is what we are dealing with on Bill C-14.

I will talk about two or three major issues.

One issue is an unfortunate piece in all of this, which is the rhetoric. This matter is non-partisan, as a number of my colleagues said earlier today. Unfortunately, it is wrought with members of Parliament trying to score political points on an issue and in an area for which they should be doing the exact opposite. Just this week, at the justice committee, we had a number of witnesses, who were called by the Conservatives, I might add, and this is a point that must be remembered. One of those witnesses asked that there, please, be no politics and no sound bites. There is the rhetoric, the rhyming, the “bail not jail” and the “catch and release”. All of these catchy phrases serve no purpose other than to undermine the integrity of our justice system and strike fear in the hearts of the public, when it should not be doing that. I am asking the Conservatives to stop, and this is an opportunity for them to make that change.

The speaker before me referred to my city of Toronto as “Gotham City”. I do not know. Maybe he still watches Batman, but it is just embarrassing when these guys get up to say ridiculous things like that. It does not get to the heart of what we are talking about. It creates an impression that is entirely false.

The other thing I want to address is that, every single time these discussions take place in that manner, it suggests that some members in the chamber are less concerned about keeping our communities safe than others, which is absolute, utter nonsense. To any member who wants to look me in the face, either here or out in the hallway, to tell me that I do not care about the safety of my community and the residents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, let us go outside and do it right now, because that is absolutely false. They know it is false, yet they continue to do it over and over again. It is completely unacceptable.

Let us talk about an example. Bill C-75, the bill that the Conservatives constantly talk about as the piece of legislation that somehow undermined the integrity of the justice system, did the exact opposite. It strengthened the laws for intimate partner violence. When they talk about Bill C-75, they fail to mention that.

I have talked to frontline officers in the city of Toronto in 22 Division, and I am very proud of its membership. I work with them on a regular basis. I support them every way I can, and they know that. Bill C-75 codified a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada called the principle of restraint. If members go to section 493 of the Criminal Code, they can read the provisions. Nowhere in that section does it say that courts are to do what the Conservatives suggests they do, which is to release multiple-offending criminals out on the street. It is an absolute falsehood, and they need to stop.

The witness the previous speaker spoke to appeared before committee last night. He is a renowned criminal lawyer in the city of Toronto, who has been practising for decades. His evidence was that the principle of restraint is nothing new. All they did was codify it. I have been making the same arguments on behalf of my clients in courtrooms for decades. Nothing has changed. It is a red herring. Those are my words, not his, but he agreed with me. They need to stop. I would encourage them to actually go read the bill, to go read that section.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage members to take some time to read it. Having said that, this bill does enhance the provisions in that section of the Criminal Code.

[An hon. member]

Jail not bail, buddy. Jail not bail.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there we go. There is the rhyming. It is very productive.

Bill C-14 creates a regime that is going to help our frontline police officers. It is going to help our Crown attorneys, and it is going to make sure they are properly informed on what the principle of restraint actually means so it can be applied properly. When I speak with those frontline officers, unfortunately, the rhetoric of the world permeates their environment as well. What this new legislation would do is explain what the principle of restraint is. It would enhance the provisions of Bill C-75, and it is going to make an existing set of bail laws, which are already very good, better. They are good, because another Conservative witness came before the committee just this week and said that the existing bail laws in Canada right now are very good. The issue is enforcement, which takes me to my next point.

We are constantly being accused by the members opposite of trying to blame the provinces. We are not blaming the provinces; we are trying to teach the members of the opposition some civics. There are jurisdictional boundaries that the federal government has to follow, the province has to follow and municipalities have to follow. We are responsible for amending the Criminal Code. The provinces, which in my case is Ontario, are responsible for funding the court system, hiring Crown attorneys, building jails, and making sure there is the capacity to do what it has to do. Right now, it does not, and every witness who has come before the committee has agreed with that. The problem is that, if we do not work in conjunction with the provinces, or they do not work in conjunction with us, the problem could potentially become more problematic, because the weight of the new laws on a system that is already overburdened could create a whole new set of problems it is not prepared to deal with.

On Monday afternoon, we had a Crown attorney from British Columbia who agreed with that. We have had members of the law enforcement community who agree with that. We have had defence lawyers who agree with that. Everybody who is in the system agrees with that, because they understand it. This is not a case of pointing fingers and assigning blame. It is a case of people accepting responsibility for their own actions and what they can do. This is what this piece of legislation does.

If the Province of Ontario, in my case, is prepared to work with us, it needs to adopt these laws. In the riding of the justice critic for the Conservatives, there was a decision released just yesterday, or just this week, by a local judge who said, and I am sure he has probably appeared before him, that the system is broken because the jails are over capacity. We cannot even put people in there. The system is under such duress.

Building jails is the responsibility of the provincial government because it is the justices of the peace and the provincial governments that are responsible for this. In fact, this judge, and I would encourage the members opposite to go read the decision, increased the sentence so he could put them in a federal jail because there is capacity. The province is under-funding the system.

We talked about Bill C-48. Bill C-48 was adopted unanimously in the House. It is a positive piece of legislation. It helped the system. It strengthened the system, but we do not have any data on that, because data collection is also the responsibility of the provincial government. We need them to work with the federal government, the municipalities and the police forces so we can get this data, and any changes that need to be made at the provincial level can be done.

This is something that has been admitted by all of the witnesses who appear before the committee as well. To see the effectiveness of these laws, we need the co-operation of the provincial governments. They need to do their part and step up so we can make the system better as a whole.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke about principles of restraint, but he failed to mention Jonny, my daughter's boyfriend, who was stabbed to death by a violent repeat offender out on five different charges on bail, including attempted murder, all because of Bill C-75. Way to go.

Will Bill C-14, a bill that admits Bill C-75 was a failure, prevent cases like that of Jonny from happening? If not, will he admit it is a weak bill and needs improvement?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say how sorry I am. The heart of every member of the House, as I said earlier, goes out to people like that. I want to live in a world where that is not going to happen, just like the member does, and just like Jonny did. However, using these examples to suggest that the entirety of the system is broken is, with respect, unfair and a mis-characterization.

I am not familiar with the details of the case, so I cannot comment on it. The criminal should not have been out on bail. However, I would like to know what the circumstances were in the bail court, how many bail hearings there were that day, what the training of the justice of the peace was and what the Crown attorney's responsibilities were that day, because this is where the system is really under duress and is breaking down. We have to prevent situations like that from occurring ever again.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for his speech. I work with that member on various issues, including those related to Tibet, but we are dealing with something else today.

As my colleague knows, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑14 and wants to refer it to committee. However, we are apprehensive. We will propose amendments in committee. There will be discussions and hard work. The bill may be amended in committee.

Our fear is what will happen when the bill returns here from committee. If it is amended, but the Liberals do not like the amendments, they might use the House of Commons to cancel the amendments to the bill made in committee. That is what happened with Bill C‑3. That scares me because, if they can do that, then what is the point of working in committee?

Can my colleague assure us that the committee's work on Bill C‑14 will be respected?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also enjoy working with the hon. member on important issues like Tibet. His question was an excellent one.

We are prepared to work with all parties at committee to make sure the bill would be adopted in a fashion best suited for Canadians. We are open to amendments; we are always open to amendments. That is what the committee process is for. We respect the process of committees, and we respect the process of the House. The ultimate goal of course is to get the bill passed as quickly as possible, and that includes getting it through committee.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a very important point about data. I heard about that quite a bit this summer. Just the other day, a Conservative member was yelling out at me, asking how many people have been released on bail this year. I said we do not know, because that is not information the federal government has, nor do we know what types of crimes those people who end up being released more often have committed. Several times we have asked the premiers of the provinces to provide this information so we can make the best informed decisions for public safety in our country.

I would like to hear more from the member about how data could provide us with better informed decision-making at the federal level.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. It gets to the nub of the issue, because without data we cannot make further enhancements and the provinces cannot make further enhancements.

As I was saying in my previous response, we need to know the circumstances in which offences are subject to criminals' being released: how busy the courts are, what the workloads are for the Crown attorney and what the capacity is in the court system. This is the data we need as a country. The federal government can play a role in aggregating data, but the data comes from the provinces. It is as simple as that because they control the system. Without that data, further steps become more and more challenging, so I want to thank the member for the question. This is an issue we need to keep pushing forward.

A witness who actually was the commissioner of the OPP came to committee and talked about getting that data, because he said that Bill C-48 was a good bill but that we do not know how good because we do not have the provinces collecting the data.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to address what I believe is a major issue, one that has been talked about at great length.

I am going to go back to the last federal election. The constituents of Winnipeg North looked to the political entities and made a decision to support certain specific policy ideas and initiatives. The Prime Minister talked a great deal about building Canada strong, about one economy and about looking at ways to expand trade beyond the United States, but the Liberals also spent a great deal of time talking about bail reform.

We understand the concerns Canadians have regarding safer communities. That is why the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament have spent a great deal of time and energy dealing with the subject. Two ministers were assigned the responsibility of bringing forward bail legislation that reflects what we were hearing at the doors. Ministers have done extensive consultations on substantial issues like extortion, violent repeat offenders, automobile theft, sexual assault and many other crimes that take place in our communities.

The legislation is not only a reflection of what Canadians have been telling Liberal members of Parliament over the last number of months; it is also a reflection of what stakeholders have been telling the government. It has widespread support throughout our nation, I would suggest. That does not mean it is absolutely perfect legislation; I do not think anyone is saying that, but I will continue to advocate that if members are serious when they talk about the need for bail reform, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we cannot deliver that to Canadians before the end of the year.

I do not know how many Conservatives I have heard talking about the importance of bail reform. They are challenging the government to bring it forward. It is here, and we are debating it. I am now going to turn the tables and tell my Conservative friends that if they want to deliver on bail reform, we have the opportunity to do just that.

I would remind all members of the House, but in particular my Conservative friends, that this is not something one political party is talking about; it is something Canadians want, and they want Parliament to deliver it. In a minority situation, that requires a whole lot more co-operation. We have demonstrated that very clearly. Now the opposition has the opportunity to show Canadians it is more than just talk on the issue and will, in fact, respond.

The end of the year is coming quickly. There is other very important legislation before the House. There is Bill C-3, which deals with citizenship, and a Superior Court order has demanded that the legislation has to pass by November 20. Bill C-4 has just come from committee and would legitimize a tax break for over 20 million Canadians. Bill C-14 is before us, and I understand that the official opposition wants and is demanding bail reform legislation, but we all know it does not take much to frustrate the legislation.

We have a budget coming up on November 4, which will also demand the time of the chamber. There are substantial things before us, and that is why I look to my friends across the way, because they will ultimately determine whether in fact we are going to be able to have bail reform before the end of the year. It is up to the Conservatives to make that determination.

Let me encourage members in the strongest way possible that if we want bail reform legislation and the opportunities to have extensive discussions at the committee level, we need the bail reform legislation to pass quickly to committee. This would not take away from democracy within the chamber; In fact I can cite what members said earlier today when I raised the issue about the end: Let us have a goal and pass the legislation, new bail laws, before the end of the year.

Today a number of Conservatives have said that, yes, that is something we can achieve. I am going to call their bluff and challenge them to allow the bill to go to committee. That would mean they could continue to discuss it if they want to once it comes back at third reading, but it would also provide for detailed discussions and debate.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that this is the second day. All she has to do is check with some of her colleagues on the private member's bill.

I do not know his riding, but a member talked about passing his private member's bill and about how substantial it is for legislative changes, which it is, and he wanted it passed unanimously that day. He was trying to speed it up, and there is a limit of two hours of debate before it goes to committee. Members cannot have it both ways.

I would be happy if debate were limited to two hours like that on the private member's bill was, but the point is that we are not saying members cannot debate the bill. The bill can debated in committee. It can be debated endlessly at third reading, but if the Conservatives are genuine and they want bail reform to pass before the end of the year, they need to allow the legislation to pass. They cannot continue to filibuster legislation.

Bill C-2 was debated for over 18 hours. The opposition members are not a bunch of dummies. They understand the optics of filibustering. They understand that if they want to deliver for Canadians on bail reform, they need to allow the legislation to go to committee. Instead of trying to politicize the issue, they need to allow the legislation to deliver for Canadians. We need to put the interests of Canadians ahead of political parties; that is what I would say to my Conservative friends across the way.

The federal government is stepping up to the plate in a real and tangible way. Stakeholders have been very clear on that. We have worked with provinces, other stakeholders and average Canadians. The legislation before us is a true reflection, and that is why it is receiving the type of support it is. It needs to go to committee.

However, it is not just the federal government that needs to step up. I will read a quote from the Winnipeg Free Press from September. It is referring to the government in Manitoba:

The NDP has spoken frequently about its commitment to safer communities. It has announced more funding for police and has supported federal efforts to tighten bail laws.

But those measures mean little if there are not enough prosecutors to move cases through the courts in a timely manner....

The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials

The point is that the federal government, the provincial government and law enforcement officers who do their job through municipalities all need to deliver for Canadians.

The Prime Minister and government have now presented substantial legislation to reform the bail system. That would have a profoundly positive impact on making our communities safer. I ask the Conservatives to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. There is a lot of back-and-forth in that exchange. Let us try to keep the heckles to a minimum.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not even know where to start with the member opposite, but I would point out that the bill is an admission of Liberal failure. We are calling for the repeal of Liberal bail law. We are calling for jail, not bail for repeat offenders.

We have heard from communities across this country. One example is the city of Vancouver, where 43 individuals caused 1,100 police interactions in one year. It is not that we have a lot of criminals in this country, but the criminals we do have are prolific because the Liberals keep letting them out on bail. What does the member have to say about that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I say that it is grossly exaggerated in terms of how the Conservatives often approach crime-related issues. It appears that they are more concerned about partisan political shots, as well as slogans like “jail as opposed to bail” in order to raise money, than they are about the interests of Canadians. We saw that in the type of question we just had.

At the end of the day, the responsibility for the types of things the member just made reference to is not just on Ottawa. Provinces need to step up, and municipalities need to step up. We need to work together. Obviously, we need to put Canadians' interests ahead of political—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Winnipeg North for doing such a great job getting our Conservative colleagues all worked up. It happens every time: As soon as he gets up to give a speech, emotions run high in the opposition benches. It livens things up a bit in the House of Commons, and we should be grateful to him for that, even if we do not always agree with what he says.

As we have been saying all morning, I think we all agree on the principle of Bill C‑14. We also agree that it needs to go to committee so that we can improve it and discuss certain points that concern us.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the idea, as I said, but we have made some suggestions for reducing crime in Quebec and Canada in order to make neighbourhoods safer. Crime is not committed only by petty criminals. We also have to think about criminal organizations.

One of the Bloc Québécois's recommendations was to create an organized crime registry and another was to facilitate the seizure of assets. We are discussing reversing the burden of proof, but that burden of proof could be reversed in relation to property obtained by crime, so as to avoid being unable to recover property obtained by crime—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I appreciate the kind words.

The Bloc party is in a very interesting position. Eventually, Bill C-14 will go to a standing committee. There is a chance that we are not going to be able to get a consensus on all issues, which means that at times there will be the need for a vote. I suspect that any political entity sitting around the committee table would play a very important role and make sure there is some balance. We would be looking for opposition parties to co-operate and look at how we could deliver the best legislation possible to serve Canadians, going out of the committee. I would encourage my friends in the Bloc to work very closely with the ministers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am saying this from the bottom of my non-partisan heart: The last exchange was unfortunate. I have been in Bill C-14 debates; the hon. Minister of Justice spoke yesterday, and there have been some really respectful exchanges. I want to mention something said yesterday by the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, himself a criminal prosecutor with lots of experience. He said that he was enjoying the fact that the Minister of Justice is open to change, and they are having good exchanges and an openness to try to find consensus.

Therefore, I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary if he thinks it is a good idea to pretend that we do not actually have reasons to work together in this place and just attack the Conservatives for rhyming. I hate the rhyming too, by the way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. Yesterday, the shadow critic was here, and there was a wonderful experience of just watching and listening and of a sense of co-operation. I then posed a question of the shadow critic. In his response, he was open-minded in terms of potentially even seeing the bill become law before the end of the year, and that was encouraging.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss the government's proposed changes to bail and sentencing in Bill C-14. In order to better understand the bill, we need to reflect on how we made it to this point, because while the Liberals are now acknowledging that bail reform is needed, they are hoping Canadians will forget that they have been in power for a decade and introduced the legislation that severely jeopardized the safety of Canadians.

Before I go on, I want to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

For years now, Canadian families, communities and neighbourhoods have witnessed the catch-and-release crime wave that has swept across our nation. The Liberals talk about the need for judicial independence, yet with Bill C-75, they took what used to be a judge's decision on granting bail, after weighing and considering previous case law, and put their thumb on the scale by codifying the principle of least restraint, which directs courts and police to release accused persons “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

For six years, the Liberals have told Canadians that they have not ruined the bail system and are not responsible for catch-and-release policies that have led to a spike in crime. Let us look at some stats from when they have been in power. From 2015 to 2023, auto theft went up 45%, extortion went up 357% and gang-related homicides went up 78%. Cars are being stolen from people's driveways while they sleep. Violent home break-ins have become so bad that police issue warnings for families to leave their keys at the door in the hopes that home invaders would not come further into the house and endanger the people living there. Mr. Speaker, talk about creating a new norm, not only of fear but of helplessness, as Canadians feel that they are left to fend for themselves.

To make matters worse, the Liberals added Bill C-5, which allowed for repermitting conditional sentence orders or house arrest for serious offences, including sexual assault. In many cases, this allows violent abusers back into the homes and communities of the people they are a danger to. It also allows for kidnappers, human traffickers and people who abduct children under 14 to be given house arrest. Letting a violent abuser back into the very home of the people they are a danger to is not compassionate, despite what the Liberals have claimed over the last several years.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister said that letting violent sexual assault abusers off on house arrest was wrong and that they intended to fix it. It took three years for the Liberal government to figure out that letting people convicted of sexual assault serve house arrest was a bad thing. No intimate partner, family or community should have to live in fear that someone who commits sexual assault could be given house arrest. While the Liberals have continued to put the rights of violent criminals ahead of those of victims, Conservatives believe in putting the rights and protections of victims first.

Members opposite me from the Liberal benches will now say that they are bringing forward positive changes and that Canadians should be satisfied. They will say that repealing the principle of restraint in Bill C-75 would not solve the problem since there is precedent set by court rulings, but what they fail to own up to is that they are the ones who created the precedent in the first place.

In Bill C-14, the Liberals are proposing a change to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release. Why would the government need to clarify that its legislation does not require violent offenders to be released unless it currently does just that? Having said that, I note that this clarification does not repeal the “least onerous conditions” set out in the Liberals' catch-and-release bail laws; rather, it still provides a pathway to release and remains the directive that is to be applied.

Let us be clear: Conservatives have been advocating for changes to the broken Liberal bail system. We have advocated for tools our judges can use to keep repeat violent offenders off the streets. We have advocated for changes so that the brave men and women who serve as first responders and police officers do not have to arrest the same repeat violent offenders over and over again.

While Bill C-14 does provide for outcomes that would prevent the overly broad catch-and-release policies that allow for repeat violent offenders to be withheld, it falls short of an actual repeal of the policy that made it possible in the first place.

For years now, together with my colleagues, I have stood in this place and shared the stories of what is happening in our communities and of the victims of the Liberals' soft-on-crime approach. Their broken bail system started six years ago. It has taken six years and too many devastating accounts for the Liberals to finally act and put forward any changes that would reverse course on their disastrous bail legislation. What is the excuse for not acting sooner?

Members should make no mistake: Conservatives have been right on this all along. We have never lost sight of the victims of violent crime or those who protect our communities.

Our first responders and police officers put their lives at risk every single day to keep us safe. Firefighters do not need to risk their lives putting out yet another fire caused by arson that is tied to an extortion investigation. Nor do our police officers, when they have to arrest the same violent offenders who are out on bail dozens of times over. Nor do our nurses and doctors, when they work to treat the sick and wounded but have been victims of violent assaults in the hospitals they work in.

To add insult to injury, the Liberals repealed mandatory minimum sentences on violent firearm offences, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and importing illegal firearms. How does it make our communities safer when we know that the people who commit offences like these do not have to serve a mandatory prison sentence? It does not.

If we remove the mandatory punishment for committing a crime, we watch the incidents of that crime increase. If we direct judges to grant the least onerous conditions for bail, which lets criminals out the same day they committed a violent crime, and we watch them continue to commit violent crimes.

That is why Conservatives put Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, before the House. While the Liberals have signalled that they will not support the bill, it is an opportunity to take action that would protect victims.

Bill C-14 was inspired by the measures put forward by Conservatives in calling on the government to change course on its disastrous bail policies. However, it is still a half measure that, after three years, refuses to acknowledge the pain caused by allowing sexual offenders to be given House arrest, while claiming to be standing up for the victims of the Liberals' own policy.

Even though the Liberals have proposed that violent sexual offenders will no longer be eligible for house arrest, they are also proposing, with the bill, that kidnappers and human traffickers will remain eligible for house arrest.

Conservatives have pushed, and will continue to push, for legislation that cracks down on crime rather than encouraging it. We disagree with the Liberal government's decision to keep the directive for judges to release offenders on the least onerous conditions, and we will seek to ensure, through amendments, that kidnappers, human traffickers and those who abduct children under 14 do not get to serve house arrest in the communities they are a danger to.

I look forward to hearing the testimony that will be provided at committee once the bill is sent there. I welcome the members opposite to ensure that they will be doing the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail reform legislation.

For a couple of days, we have been debating the bail reform legislation. We want to be very crystal clear on this particular point. At the end of the day, we have an opportunity to have bail reform legislation, which is supported in every region of the country and, most importantly, is in high demand among Canadians. We could have the legislation in law before the end of the year, passing through the different stages.

The only thing that could prevent this is the Conservative Party. Will the member provide her personal thoughts on seeing the legislation pass?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals desperately want to avoid accountability for creating the issues their disaster bail system, through catch-and-release legislation like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, has created. While they are now telling Canadians that reforms are needed and we need to get this done quickly, it took them six years to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require a release. If Bill C-75 had not let violent repeat offenders out on bail, they would not have needed to clarify it.

Conservatives want solutions, and we will work to strengthen this bill to address the areas where it falls short.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying a motion that I moved because I was worried and wanted to know whether the justice system is currently responding to the concerns of victims and survivors of violence.

In particular, I proposed a study to review section 810 of the Criminal Code. Working with the Conservatives, we finally managed to get another study added to the agenda on bail and sentencing. My colleague and I worked together on this study that is now before the committee. That said, I want to talk to my colleague about another matter.

The Bloc Québécois does indeed want to study this issue in committee. As I said, we recently introduced a motion in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Yesterday, the witnesses all told us about the criminalization of coercive control, a subject that is even more important than what we are discussing today. Survivors and victims are calling for this. What does my colleague think about that?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my response to the member opposite, we are committed to looking for solutions that will ensure violent criminals remain in jail and that they are not prematurely released back into the community to cause more crime.

This bill falls short on a number of issues. The principle of restraint, which I have spoken about, remains in place. This keeps the culture of release in place, even though tragic cases like Bailey McCourt's illustrate the very real costs of releasing known violent offenders back into the community.

I look forward to the interventions that will be made on this bill at the justice committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's response to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader about trying to make this bill better.

You said it best when you said the government has had six-plus years to get this right. The election is almost seven months removed. Why do you think the government left out such substantive pieces of reform, particularly in the areas of sentencing and bail reform? Why did it purposely leave out significant details when our opposition party has been giving it suggestion after suggestion for the last seven months?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

As a reminder, all questions must go through the Chair.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this tends to be the modus operandi of the current government. It introduces legislation that is deeply flawed and does not address the problems for which it is supposed to be a solution.

These policy choices of the Liberal government created the chaos we have on our streets, weakened deterrence and supercharged catch and release. If the Liberals were truly serious about addressing the issues brought forward by Conservatives and Canadians, they would have included those things in Bill C-14.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, drugs, stolen vehicles and church burnings are all things that have risen under the Liberal government since it came into power over 10 years ago. If we listen to the Liberals, they say Canadians have never had it so good and that crime is at historic lows.

We could make a graph of crime. The interesting thing about graphs is the time scale. If we look at it over the last 100 years, yes, crime is now at an average rate and lower than it was 100 years ago. However, the population of Canada was completely different then. It was much smaller. With respect to the sample size of crime per capita, which is how it is referenced most of the time, if we change the denominator by a factor of millions, it changes the rate significantly.

If we were to take a time scale of the last 30 years, it would be a very interesting graph to look at. There was a declining rate, which stabilized in the nineties. In the late to mid-2000s, it started declining again, and it declined rapidly for a period of time leading up to 2015. From 2013 to 2015, the rate on that graph dropped dramatically. Interestingly, there was a complete reversal. We could have expected it to flatten or something like that, but it did not flatten; it turned around immediately. Something very interesting happened in 2015. The Liberals got elected to power in this country. Since then, that incline took off and has continued to climb.

Let us go back to the 100-year average. Again, the time scale matters. We are back to an average, so when the Liberals say that, I am not here to dispute it with them. However, I would say that in a rolling average of five years, we are way past that. Those are the statistics. We know what they say about statistics.

The reality on the ground is that people feel it. People know this. They understand this. The police in Toronto are telling people to leave their keys near the door so that if somebody comes to steal their vehicle, at least they will find their keys quickly and not disturb the rest of their house. This stuff is happening in our country. We do it.

We hear from the Liberals all the time that “jail, not bail” is just words and not actions. It means something. People understand what it means. I acknowledge that Bill C-14 came from the last election. It came out of the campaign we fought for, with jail, not bail. Those are our words, but they mean something. They give a political will to what we would do if we were in power.

I referenced earlier today that in Vancouver, 43 individuals caused 1,100 police interactions in one year. Many of them were out on bail. We have one case after another of violent crimes committed by people who are out on bail, often for the second or third time.

The members of the RCMP in my constituency, who do very good work, are completely frustrated. They work very hard to build a case and get a conviction. They arrest somebody, and within four hours, these people are back on the streets. In one case that was brought to me, there were something like 72 charges by the time the guy got to the first court date. He had been arrested three times and charged with multiple offences each time he was arrested, just to be let out again.

The most interesting story I have heard is probably the one from Westlock a number of years back. It was not covered in the news, so I do not know if it is true or not. A spike belt, which is used to stop fleeing vehicles, was used three times inside of 48 hours, and the police used it on the same person. They were pursuing a stolen vehicle, they used a spike belt and they arrested the person in the stolen vehicle. She got out on bail and immediately stole another vehicle. The police used the spike belt on that one, arrested her again and put her in jail overnight. The next morning, she was out on bail and, again, she stole a vehicle and the police pursued her and used a spike belt.

This was a number of years ago. I point that out because it seems that stolen vehicles no longer rise to a certain level. The police do not have the resources to even pursue them. It just does not happen anymore where I come from, because it is such a common occurrence, and it is occurring all across the country.

One of the things that I find interesting is that, for as long as I have been a member of Parliament, vehicle theft has been quite a problem in northern Alberta. I do not think the trend has changed. I think it has held steady, but what has changed is that folks living in the big cities are now experiencing vehicle theft carte blanche.

Now, after the Liberals have caused all of these problems, they suddenly want to talk about bail reform. I would say the reason they want to talk about it is that we have made the case that the bail system is broken in Canada, but we are not asking for reform. We are asking for Liberal bail to be repealed. We do not like the Liberal bail system. We think the Liberal bail system sucks and it should be repealed entirely. We have put forward our vision for what bail ought to look like.

Most people think the Canadian bail system does something it does not do at all. People watch movies all the time and they hear about how someone made bail. Their family or friends had to scrape together $10,000 to get them out of jail. That does not happen in Canada. People are not putting up money to get bail. They are being released with a promise to pay. Sometimes it is $1,000 and sometimes it is less. By the third time they get out on bail, they may have forfeited $2,000, but they have not forfeited any actual cash. These were forfeitures of promises to pay. They were forfeitures of IOU notes, essentially. We need to have bail that works in this country.

I do not know where the Speaker was last week. I was sitting at committee when my phone made a very loud noise. I thought I had my phone on silent, so I was quite embarrassed by it. All of a sudden, I noticed that my phone was not the only phone making a lot of noise. Everybody's phone was making a lot of noise, and it was an Amber Alert. Subsequently, I found out that the Amber Alert had been issued because somebody had abducted a child, and that person was out on bail. We had already arrested this person for another crime and let them back out on bail, and now they were committing another crime. It interrupted our meeting, so I got to hear about that one in particular. That is very tangible for this place. I hope it will have an impact on my colleagues on the other side.

Bill C-14 is an admission by the Liberals that the bail system is broken in this country. It is an admission that our slogan of “jail, not bail” for repeat offenders worked when we brought it to the Canadian public. They are stealing our homework again, and I am happy about that, but I wish they would go the whole way by repealing Liberal bail and bringing in a bail system that works in its entirety.

I have lots to say on this. I spoke extensively on Bill C-75. I was asked to be a witness at the Senate committee meeting on Bill C-75. I had lots to say about that. I would love to have a long chat about consecutive sentencing and how this bill also touches on that, and I am hopeful that the Liberals will ask me about it in the questions that follow.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member based the premise of his speech on auto theft in the province of Ontario, which I assume is the province he was referring to. In 2007, Manitoba's automobile theft rate was the highest in the country, virtually three times as high as in Ontario. I do not need to tell the member that it was the Conservatives in government in Ottawa then, but that is a secondary issue. The primary issue is who resolved it. It was the provincial government, working with MPI and Winnipeg law enforcement officers. That is what resolved the issue.

Would the member not agree that, at the end of the day, this is a shared responsibility? We have done our job in working with stakeholders and presenting this legislation. Would he like to see it pass before the end of the year?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member listened to my speech. The whole first part of my speech outlined the graph of crime in Canada and how there is a distinct V in the crime statistics. I understand that correlation is not always causation, but it corresponds with when the Liberals came to power.

On consecutive sentencing, when the Liberals brought in Bill C-75 and got rid of consecutive sentencing, the member for Winnipeg North argued extensively that consecutive sentencing was against the charter and was cruel and unusual punishment. Today, he is defending a bill that would reinstate consecutive sentencing.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are especially concerned about human trafficking. We are all on the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.

Bill C‑14 contains a provision to establish a reverse onus, particularly for some offences related to human trafficking or human smuggling.

Will this new provision really bring about significant changes to deal with this scourge, which may need to be addressed in a much broader manner?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Shefford for her great work on the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.

One of the reasons I ended up at the Senate committee hearings on Bill C-75 was that I was in the role of the all-party co-chair. I was there with Senator Christmas at the time, who was the other co-chair back then. We pointed out that Bill C-75 not only ended consecutive sentencing for human traffickers, who in many cases traffic many victims, but also allowed for house arrest for human traffickers. Human traffickers are often operating from their house. Putting them back in the same environment where they operated from is totally ludicrous.

While we appreciate the acknowledgement that the Liberals have failed with the introduction of Bill C-75 and that there is a need for repealing Liberal bail, there are many other things we need to do.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would still allow serious offenders, including those guilty of robbery, trafficking and firearms-related crimes, to serve time at home under house arrest. This is a loophole in the bill.

Can the hon. member tell us why the government left this loophole in Bill C-14?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these are things we have been pointing out for a very long time. I do not know why the Liberals left in these loopholes, other than they do not want a wholesale change to our justice system. On the one hand, they want to say this is a new government doing new things, but on the other hand, they always have a niggle in the back of their minds that since these are the laws they brought in, they cannot wholesale admit that the whole system is not working, because they engineered it only 10 years ago.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Guelph.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. This bill would amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act to improve public safety, strengthen accountability for repeat violent offences and serious property crime, and modernize procedures that affect victims, police and the courts.

Across the country, Canadians are calling for a justice system that better protects communities, supports victims and holds repeat and violent offenders accountable. That is why our government is acting through our three-pillar approach to strengthen public safety and confidence in the justice system. Pillar one is about strengthening our legal frameworks, including the bail and sentencing reform legislation we are talking about today. Pillar two is about increasing the capacity and resourcing on our front lines by adding 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officers and, importantly, by creating the financial crimes agency to pursue complex, financial and organized criminal offences so we can follow the money. Pillar three is about supporting a continuum of care through social and mental health supports, addiction services and supportive housing and by working with local organizations that provide prevention, outreach and rehabilitation programs to help people avoid entering or re-entering the criminal justice system. Strong laws, strong enforcement and strong community supports are what are needed to tackle both the causes and consequences of crime.

The bill we are debating today would strengthen Canada's justice system by ensuring that repeat and violent offenders face greater accountability and would make it harder for individuals with serious or repeated charges to receive bail. It would also tighten sentencing for organized and repeat property crime and would prioritize community safety while maintaining fairness and rehabilitation.

While Bill C-14 would make 80 amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act, I want to focus on a few key areas that are highly relevant to my constituents in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. They include creating tougher bail conditions, with judges having to consider both the number and the seriousness of an accused's outstanding charges when deciding when bail is appropriate, making it harder for repeat offenders to be released back into the community. The bill would also create a new reverse onus for break and enters so that the accused would have to demonstrate why they should be granted bail, rather than the current onus, which has the Crown proving why bail should be denied. The bill would also create stronger sentencing for organized property crime. Organized retail crime would be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, and courts would have to prioritize deterrence and denunciation when sentencing for repeat break-ins and property offences. Together, these reforms would target repeat and organized offenders, strengthen deterrence and help increase public confidence in the justice system.

Residents across Canada, including in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, want a justice system that keeps people safe, supports victims and remains fair and efficient. On the Sunshine Coast, and particularly in Sechelt, concerns about crime have become one of the most pressing issues for residents. Recent RCMP reports have shown that violent crime in Sechelt has risen by 26% this quarter, with increases in uttered threats and weapons-related offences. Property crime and break and enters continue to affect families, seniors and small businesses, particularly in certain regions, and these incidents are often the subject of community meetings and local news stories.

I want to acknowledge the understandable frustration when people see the same individuals cycling through the system and not seeing meaningful deterrence or accountability. People deserve to be safe and feel safe in their neighbourhoods and to know that repeat offenders are being held to account. I have personally participated in community meetings and town halls on this matter, and I want to let the community know that I hear these concerns and they are being acted on.

Bill C-14 would directly respond to them by strengthening bail for repeat violent offenders and introducing tougher sentencing for serious and organized property crimes. These reforms would help ensure that those who repeatedly endanger public safety face real consequences while we maintain fairness and rehabilitation where it is due.

The bail and sentencing reform act would strengthen public safety by tightening how bail and release decisions are made. It would clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release when detention is justified. I can tell that this principle has been the subject of a lot of misunderstanding, particularly in this House, but it is important to clarify that this principle of restraint in bail decisions was not created by legislation. It came from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. A previous government codified this principle, but even if it were repealed, it would remain good law because of court decisions that have interpreted the Charter Rights and Freedoms accordingly.

Bill C-14 would provide clarity by ensuring that restraint does not mean automatic release. It would also direct peace officers and judges to tailor release conditions to the actual risks posed by the accused, ensuring detention remains appropriate for repeat, violent or organized offenders. This would strengthen public confidence while maintaining fairness and, importantly, charter compliance.

Reverse-onus provisions would be expanded to cover a broader range of serious offences, including extortion involving violence; breaking and entering a dwelling house; human trafficking; smuggling; alleged choking, suffocation or strangulation; and when an accused faces a serious violent charge with a weapon and has been previously convicted of a similar offence within 10 years. These updates build on reforms introduced last year through Bill C-48, which expanded the reverse onus to include repeat violent offenders using firearms and those charged with serious offences involving weapons. Bill C-14 would extend these provisions to cover serious and organized property crimes and other offences that have caused growing concern in communities in my riding and across the country.

Courts would be required to impose conditions when folks get bail for offences such as break and enters, including geographic restrictions, curfews and prohibitions on break-in tools. For violent and organized crime offences, mandatory prohibitions on firearms and other weapons would apply unless safety considerations make that inappropriate.

To strengthen accountability for repeat offending, judges would also be required to consider both the number and the gravity of an individual's outstanding charges when determining whether detention is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The bill would also expand the circumstances under which release documents can be cancelled and would modernize arrest and review procedures for breaches of bail conditions, ensuring the justice system remains responsive, consistent and focused on protecting public safety.

These changes matter for communities like Sechelt, where residents and small businesses continue to feel the effects of repeat and organized crime. Bill C-14 would help ensure that release decisions reflect real risk and that accountability is built into every stage of the process, giving law enforcement and communities stronger tools to keep people safe.

Bill C-14 would also strengthen sentencing to ensure that penalties reflect the seriousness of repeat and organized crime. It would direct courts to treat as aggravating factors repeat violent offences, crimes against first responders, organized retail theft and fraudulent return schemes, and interference with essential infrastructure. It would also introduce consecutive sentencing for repeat break and enters and violent crime offences, with clear guidance to prioritize deterrence and denunciation for repeat and organized offences.

Conditional sentences would be restricted for sexual assault and other sexual offences, particularly those involving victims under the age of 18. The bill would also restore driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, would increase penalties for contempt and would improve fine-enforcement tools by working with provinces and territories.

Locally, the Sunshine Coast RCMP, the Sunshine Coast Community Services Society and others play key roles in prevention, early intervention and support for victims and vulnerable individuals. Their work very much complements Bill C-14's goal of accountability by addressing the root causes of repeat offending through mental health supports, domestic violence prevention and community policing initiatives.

Bill C-14, importantly, would accomplish all of these measures in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would maintain judicial discretion and focus on the highest-risk patterns that affect our communities, including repeat violence, serious offences with weapons, organized criminal activity, as well as the repeat property crime that undermines community confidence.

In closing, I can tell members that this legislation responds directly to the concerns I have heard in my riding. It would target repeat violence and serious property crime, support first responders and victims, and strengthen confidence in our justice system while remaining fair. However, nothing in this bill will matter unless the work is done in partnership with provinces and territories, including the British Columbia government, to ensure the system is properly funded so it can be administered properly, to ensure there is proper training for all justices of peace and to ensure we have capacity in our jail system. It is critical that the prosecution service in each and every region understands the community interests that are at sake in the decisions being made at bail hearings. Bill C-14 would help give them the tools to do their jobs properly.

I encourage all members of the House to support this important piece of legislation to get to committee.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue; in fact it is one the Conservatives have been sounding the alarm about for many years, urging the government to take action on it.

Would the member acknowledge the failures of previous Liberal bills, notably Bill C-75, which law enforcement officials have said has directly allowed for the catch-and-release bail policies that have necessitated the response from the government in Bill C-14?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that there has been a mischaracterization of what the principle of restraint is, as well as of the impact of the inclusion of it in Bill C-75. As I also mentioned, this is a principle that was well articulated in the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, and it simply was legislated through that legislation.

The Conservatives talk about how the principle of restraint is the source of all issues, any issue we see in the commission of criminal activity across the country, but in getting rid of it, we would still have the principle that is established through the jurisprudence. Through the legislation before us, we would actually be helping to further define the principle so it could be best utilized to ensure the best and proper administration of justice at each level.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill talks about giving “primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence of repeat...offences”, particularly in the case of organized crime. Has my colleague had a chance to look into that?

The Bloc Québécois has proposed measures that we think would be much more effective in addressing organized crime. They include cutting off their financial resources and creating a registry of these criminal organizations. What does my colleague think about that?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill makes good progress in the fight against organized crime. As I said in my speech, we announced the establishment of a new financial crimes agency. We have made a lot of changes to our laws in recent years, we have a new registry for companies, and I know that, if we can work together with the provinces and all members of the House, we will come up with even more ideas to better address this difficult problem.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member mentioned that the principle of restraint existed long before Bill C-75 and that it is still within our common law as a Supreme Court decision. That is a very important note, because there has been a lot of misunderstanding of the issue.

I would like the member to clarify and get into that a little more, because the opposition Conservatives have announced that they would use the notwithstanding clause to get around the Supreme Court decision.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the principle of restraint was established through the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence in interpreting how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should apply to bail hearings.

We are very committed to making sure we would be passing legislation that is compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There has never been a federal government that has promised to invoke the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively, for legislation. It is a very dangerous idea to go down that road.

It is there to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and it is important that the highest laws of the country are respected. There is a way to do both. There is a way to make sure we are strengthening our criminal justice system while respecting those fundamental rights. I believe that the piece of legislation before us would do exactly that.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to the bail and sentencing reform act, one of the most comprehensive updates to Canada's bail and sentencing laws in decades.

I have the privilege of representing one of Canada's safest communities, with an overall crime severity index that is the sixth-lowest among Canadian cities. It is an improvement from our ranking as eighth-lowest in 2023 and a dramatic improvement from our ranking of 19th-lowest in 2018, but Guelph used to be the safest city in Canada, and we are seeing a concerning rise in some serious crimes.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the people in community organizations that work to prevent crime by addressing root causes and that support victims of crime, and of course Guelph Police Service for its excellent work in our community. It is a collaboration.

People in Guelph and across Canada do not just want an improvement in the statistics; they expect and deserve that their communities should feel safe. They want to be safe. They expect a justice system that protects victims, supports the people on the front lines and holds repeat and violent offenders to account, and I agree with them. People expect all levels of government to take steps to ensure that these things happen. The new government is playing its part.

The bail and sentencing reform act would introduce over 80 clauses of targeted reforms to strengthen both our bail and our sentencing regimes to respond to this reality. This comprehensive and constitutional bail reform is more than a motion or a slogan, and it is not a warmed-over version of failed U.S. policies. It is the result of extensive engagements with the provinces and territories, police, prosecutors, victims' advocates, indigenous partners, and community organizations. Through these discussions, it became clear that one of the most urgent areas for reform was the bail system, particularly for cases involving repeat and violent offenders.

Let us talk about bail reform first. Over the past several years, people in Canada have seen too many tragic headlines about violent crimes committed by individuals who were already out on bail, sometimes with a long history of prior offences. Police, mayors and victims' advocates have all told us that the bail system was not working as it should in these cases.

The bail and sentencing reform act would address these criticisms head-on. In fact, Michael Gendron of the Canadian Police Association has said, “Front-line police have long called for pragmatic reforms to strengthen Canada's bail and sentencing framework. This legislation is an important and timely step to improve public safety and restore confidence in our justice system.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police welcomes the introduction of Bill C-14, calling it “a landmark piece of legislation that strengthens Canada’s response to repeat and violent offenders, organized crime, and threats to public safety.”

Why do we have the support of these police associations and so many mayors and community organizations? First, it is because Bill C-14 would make bail stricter and harder to get for repeat and violent offenders.

The bill would create new reverse onus provisions, meaning it would be up to the accused person to demonstrate why they should be released, and not the other way around. In particular it would create new reverse onus provisions for violent and organized crime-related auto theft; break and enter of a home; trafficking in persons; human smuggling; assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocating or strangulation; and extortion involving violence. This is intended to help ensure that the people who pose the greatest risk to public safety would remain in custody until it is proven they can be safely released.

The bill would offer clarity to police and courts regarding how to apply the principle of restraint. This includes clarifying that the principle would not in fact require release and that an accused person should not be released if their detention is justified, including for the protection and safety of the public.

At the bail stage, courts would be required to consider key risk factors, such as whether the allegations involve random or unprovoked violence, and the number or seriousness of any outstanding charges that the accused has accumulated while on bail. Specifically, courts would need to assess whether releasing the accused person would undermine confidence in the justice system. They would also have to impose weapons prohibitions at bail for people accused of extortion and organized crime, unless this is not required.

Importantly, in reverse onus cases, the accused would have to present a credible and reliable bail plan. Courts would need to closely scrutinize those plans before granting release.

These reforms are about protecting the public and ensuring accountability for those who repeatedly show disregard for the law and the safety of others in a way that balances the charter rights of people accused of a criminal offence. However, making bail is stricter is only part of the solution.

Our sentencing laws also need to reflect the gravity of violent crimes and the harm done to victims and communities. The bill therefore proposes significant sentencing reforms to make penalties tougher for repeat and violent offending, including car theft, extortion and crimes that endanger public safety. For example, the act would require consecutive sentences when violent auto theft is committed with a break and enter, or when extortion is committed with arson. This means that offenders would serve one sentence after another rather than serving them at the same time, which may result in a longer penalty's being imposed.

The bill would also enact new provisions concerning aggravating factors, and I think we can all agree on that. Sentencing would be tougher for crime against first responders, which would be an egregious crime; retail theft, which is growing and concerning; and offences that impact critical infrastructure such as power stations, water systems or communication networks, on which we all depend.

The bill would end house arrest for serious sexual assaults and child sexual offences, ensuring that custodial sentences are served in a secure setting appropriate to the severity of the crime. The bill would restore driving prohibitions for offences like criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, or manslaughter. It would also improve fine enforcement to make sure that penalties are meaningful and are able to be enforced.

As all members know, the criminal justice system in Canada is a shared responsibility. I want to thank the provinces and territories, which have been strong advocates for these reforms. They have shared their on-the-ground experience with repeat violent offending, and they have helped shaped a package of measures that is practical, targeted and grounded in evidence. I look forward to seeing provincial investments in courthouses, detention facilities and mental health services to ease existing backlogs and speed up trials.

The proposed amendments are very focused in nature to clarify areas that have led to litigation and uncertainty and to assist the provinces in administering sentences and making some other technical improvements.

The bail and sentencing reform act is part of a broader modernization of Canada's justice system and action on community safety. Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 would tackle auto theft, money laundering, human trafficking and drug trafficking. We will introduce anti-scam measures in the coming months. We will bring forward further changes to address court delays, strengthen victims' rights and better protect people facing sexual and intimate partner violence, as well as take new steps to keep children safe from horrific crimes. These are all issues that are close to my heart.

Canadians deserve to be safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. They deserve a justice system that protects the innocent, supports victims and holds offenders accountable. The bail and sentencing reform act would deliver on that commitment. lt would balance firmness with fairness, and it would strengthen bail and toughen sentencing.

These changes would underscore that a strong Canada means strong communities and a justice system that works for everyone. They would occur in parallel with investments in upstream prevention of crime, such as in housing, mental health and youth supports, to reduce petty crime and property crime before they happen. We are cracking down on the people who pose the highest risk to community safety, while investing in prevention so fewer people turn to crime in the first place.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work.

We have been hearing a lot about the work done in committee and how important that work is when legislation like Bill C‑14 makes its way there.

Unfortunately, something happened recently with Bill C‑3, which the committee worked on and amended. The bill that came back here was not the same as the original version because we had amended it with Conservative support. However, the Liberal government decided to undo those amendments using House of Commons procedure.

Apparently the government decided not to respect the work done in committee. We are in favour of Bill C‑14, but we want to work on it in committee. We have concerns.

I would like assurances from my colleague today that the committee's work on Bill C‑14 will be respected and that what happened to Bill C‑3 will not happen to Bill C‑14.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that we are here to celebrate the contribution of the provinces and the federal government. We are working together to ensure that the justice system serves communities and to improve the justice system in Canada and Quebec.

I have confidence in the work of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They will be able to call on a number of experts who have already been consulted.

Ultimately, I have confidence in the House and the Parliament of Canada.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Guelph Police Service's board in my hon. colleague's riding was pushing for bail reform years ago, endorsing a nationwide campaign of police service boards joining police chiefs and municipalities, calling on the Liberal government to act on this and to recognize the shortcomings in Liberal government policy that have gotten us here.

I fully share the hon. member's desire for public safety and improved measures to deal with criminality.

Does the hon. member acknowledge that it was Bill C-75 that got us here and made this a crisis demanding a response from the government?

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a new MP here. I have been here about six months. I can tell members that the Guelph Police Service does an extraordinary job in the community and in its advocacy.

What is the point, really, of looking back? Here we are today, having heard the feedback of a number of speakers who are experts in this field, who have provided 80 targeted measures.

Here we are today. I am happy to hear the member opposite say that he fully supports these new measures.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in the House several times today, the principle of restraint was not created in Bill C-75. It was ruled on in a Supreme Court decision, in the Antic decision in 2017, although the principle of restraint is something that was applied in courtrooms far before that as well.

I would like to ask the member about the feedback she is getting from her community on Bill C-14 and all the measures that are contained in it.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had these ongoing questions. I was a member of city council for six years before; crime in the community, as well as community safety more broadly, is clearly an issue. I quoted a member of the police association in my remarks. I do not want to take the chief out of context, but their police association welcomes the legislation.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I welcome the new member to the House.

As a potential effect of the bill, it could eventually result in placing more people in detention. From what we have heard from the Liberal government, we are going to have an austerity budget. I wonder if the member could share with us how the government expects provinces and territories to meet the potentially increased demands without the increased budget necessary to do so.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the legislation came about through extensive consultation with the provinces. They will understand what the impacts of the legislation would be. They are responsible for the administration of justice, so I think that we, and all citizens, can expect investments in courthouses, not only in the physical structures but also the staffing, detention centres and mental health facilities, as well as other supports, really, both in the upstream and postcommitment of offences.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

As always, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the wonderful folks of Oshawa. I also want to wish all families in Oshawa a happy Halloween tomorrow and remind everyone that on the last Friday in October, we mark poppy day, when Canadians begin wearing the poppy in remembrance of those who have served and continue to serve our country.

A lot of Canadians are living in a country they no longer recognize. Repeat violent offenders are terrorizing our streets. Law-abiding families are locking their doors in fear and are being encouraged to follow a 9 p.m. shutter routine; meanwhile, the same criminals are released over and over again, free to reoffend within hours. This is a direct consequence of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime agenda through bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which stripped away mandatory jail time and created a culture of catch-and-release.

After years of pressure from Conservatives, pressure the Liberals once dismissed as fearmongering, they have finally admitted what every Canadian already knows, which is that their so-called justice reforms were a disaster.

We are now debating Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which is a bill the Liberals claim would fix the very problems they, of course, created. Let us be clear: Conservatives will work to make sure the bill actually scraps Liberal bail and does not just rebrand it.

I would like to mention a post by one of the Durham Region Liberal MPs, the member for Whitby, who wrote, “Justice is no longer a revolving door. With the Minister of Justice...unveiling the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, our new government is closing the loopholes that once allowed repeat and violent offenders to slip through the cracks.”

I thought it would be prudent to repeat some of the comments made on this post by constituents of mine, as well as others in the Durham Region. John said, “‘Slip through the cracks’? How did it take you ten years to claim to fix a problem that you created with reduced bail and lenient sentences[?]” Darren said, “Thank you...for doing the Conservative thing. Pierre and team are proud. Looks a bit like Bill C-242, but that's okay, right, elbows up?” Scott said, “You guys installed the revolving door.” Derek said, “You know you could have also gotten rid of the bail reform...but instead we got a cut down version of what the [Liberals] voted down last month”. James said, “Look at us! We're slapping a bandaid on the problem we created!” Steve said, “Let's break it, then glue some pieces back together. We can say we are the ‘New Government’ [and] they will never know!” Kent said, “Look at us taking years to realize conservatives were right the whole time.”

In 2019, Bill C-75 enshrined the principle of restraint, directing judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity, even those with violent histories. In 2022, Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for serious crimes, such as robbery with a firearm, drug trafficking and sexual assault. The results have been devastating.

Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearm offences are up 130%, extortion has risen by over 300%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29% across Canada.

These are not abstract numbers. I know I mention them often in the House, but this is because there is a victim behind each statistic, a family shattered and a community left reeling.

This summer saw the heartbreaking murder of Bailey McCourt, who was killed by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. Just this month, Savannah Kulla, a 29-year-old mother of four, was shot and killed in Brampton. Her accused killer was also out on bail. May both women rest in peace as we continue this fight in their names and in the names of countless others.

I saw the frustration first-hand this summer in Oshawa when I met with Andrew Tummonds and Tim Morrison from the Durham Regional Police Association. They told me what police officers and civilian members have been saying for years: Our justice system has tied their hands. They arrest the same violent offenders again and again, only to see them released the next day, sometimes within hours.

These officers and civilian members need stronger bail laws and the resources to enforce them, monitor offenders, support victims and keep dangerous individuals off our streets. These are the men and women on the front lines, and they have been sounding the alarm for a long time, long before the government finally decided to have half a listen.

At the Victims and Survivors Symposium in Mississauga last month, the Durham Regional Police Service chief, Chief Peter Moreira, put it bluntly. He said, “C-75, introduced in 2019...fundamentally changed bail in this country”. He went on to say:

You can see the problems with C-75. It has...created this imbalance.... One of the driving principles behind C-75 was to impose the least onerous conditions possible.... That sounds great in concept, but...it needs to be balanced against...the safety of victims [and the community]. We see recidivists being at the core of these very, very serious criminal offences..., people we had the opportunity to [detain, to protect victims] and future victims, and that has not occurred.

Chief Moreira was right. Police leaders across the country have been warning that Liberal policies are putting Canadians in danger. It should not have taken years of tragedy for the Liberals to admit they were wrong.

Bill C-14 represents a rare Liberal admission that their justice reforms have failed. It attempts to patch the damage caused by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 but still clings to the same failed framework. This shift is not driven by principle but by politics, yet it is a clear vindication of what Conservatives have said for six long years: Catch-and-release has put Canadians in danger.

One of the most heartbreaking and pervasive forms of violence in this country is intimate partner violence. It is nothing short of an epidemic. Every 48 hours in Canada, a woman or girl is killed.

Recently, I spoke with Cait Alexander from End Violence Everywhere, who survived an attack by her ex-partner when he was out on bail. Her advocacy is giving survivors a voice and exposing the gaps in our justice system. As she has said, Canada has become a graveyard of preventable deaths, with innocent women and children paying the ultimate price while begging for reform and safety.

In Oshawa, I have also heard from Victim Services of Durham Region, The Denise House and Luke's Place. They provide life-saving resources, including shelter, counselling and legal support for women and children fleeing abuse.

I want to thank Durham Regional Police's intimate partner violence unit, based in Oshawa, for the critical work it does every day. The officers and advocates, some of them close friends, stand on the front lines of some of the most dangerous and emotionally devastating situations. I thank each and every one of them from the bottom of my heart. I thank them for the incredible work they do, day in and day out, to serve Oshawa.

When our justice system releases violent abusers back into the same communities where their victims live, it fails those victims completely. Bill C-14 must ensure that repeat domestic violence offenders face real consequences and that public safety, especially for women and children, comes first.

After years of Conservative advocacy and Liberal denial, the government now claims it wants to act. As always, the devil is in the details and Conservatives will make sure, through amendments, that the bill is as strong as possible. Conservatives believe public safety must be the overriding test in bail decisions.

While the government plays catch-up, Conservatives have already been leading. We have introduced and supported legislation to strengthen our justice system, protect first responders and stand with victims.

Bill C-225, a Conservative private member's bill, would strengthen protections for victims of intimate partner violence.

Bill C-221, inspired by Oshawa resident Lisa Freeman, would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to guarantee that victims of crime receive full disclosure.

Bill C-246 would amend the Criminal Code to ensure that sentences for sexual offences are served consecutively rather than concurrently.

Bill S-233, which was recently passed in the Senate and tabled here in the House, and which I was proud to second, would amend the Criminal Code to make it an explicit aggravating factor when assaults involve first responders and health care workers.

Conservatives have been listening. Bill C-14 might sound right, but sound bites do not stop bullies. After all, it took the Liberals six years, multiple ministers and countless victims to finally admit what the Conservatives have been saying since 2019, which is that catch-and-release does not work.

We must protect Canadians and finally scrap Liberal bail for good.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member said that Conservatives have been listening. I would like the member to clearly demonstrate that.

We have now fulfilled the Prime Minister's commitment to bring in substantial bail reform legislation, which would make our communities safer. We will continue to work with provinces and municipalities. Let there be no doubt about this. We have widespread support for Bill C-14 among stakeholders, whether policing, provinces, Crowns or others.

If the commitment is there in the Conservative Party, we can have new bail laws in Canada before the end of the year. It requires the Conservative Party to listen to what Canadians have said and allow us to fulfill a commitment we made in the last election.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only response I can give to that is, what took so long? We have had 10 years of Liberal failure and, for six years, we have seen the devastating effects of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. There is so much that needs to be done. What about all the people lost in all that time for whom we have been advocating? We have been speaking to the police associations. In six years, how many deaths were there? How many assaults on how many women were there?

That is my answer.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Oshawa for her speech. I would like to acknowledge her concern for victims of domestic violence. This is an issue that affects us all and one on which we must all stand together.

That is why I think there are some interesting aspects to Bill C‑14. When Parliament resumed this fall, the Conservatives introduced Bill C‑242, another bill that deals with pretty much the same subject.

I would like to ask my colleague whether the Conservative Party will work together with the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals in committee to improve the bill before us, to fix its flaws, so that we can find common ground and finally help communities to feel safe. People do not feel safe right now. I would like to know whether the Conservatives will co-operate, even though this is not their pet project, their bill. Will they work seriously to improve it so that something good can come of it?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a legitimate question. Yes, we had Bill C-242, which is still on the Order Paper. However, the measures in Bill C-242 go far beyond what Bill C-14 would do. Of course, if we can see some marked improvement with Bill C-14, a small step is better than no step at all.

We will certainly put the public safety of Canadians first, as always.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the folks on the other side seem to want to split their time between insulting us, asking us to please vote for their bill and trying to avoid responsibility for the whole mess in the first place.

If Bill C-14 is the great bill the Liberals claim it is, can my colleague explain why it is necessary in the first place? Who caused the problem in the first place?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my speech was super clear on this.

The problem, in the first place, started with Bill C-75 in 2019 and continued with Bill C-5 and the reduction of mandatory minimum sentences. Canadians have been feeling so completely unsafe in their communities for six years. Police associations have been begging us to change this for years. The comments made by folks in Whitby, under a Facebook post by the member for Whitby, made it clear. The revolving door the Liberals are trying to destroy was created by them, built by them and made to work by them so that serious violent offenders could continue to be released on our streets to murder, abuse and harm Canadians on a daily basis.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just saw two Liberals stand up. It appears they want to take up time here. Actually, one of them was the member for Winnipeg North. I really enjoy his interventions on the law.

We are talking about the law today. One of my favourite aspects of our banter in the House with the member for Winnipeg North is Bill C-2. It was really interesting to hear him talk. He will often get up and, dare I say, pontificate on the law when it comes to these issues. On Bill C-2, he repeatedly told us, and let us call it pontification again, about how somebody needs a search warrant to get access to mail. However, in the legislation, it clearly says, “The Corporation may open any mail” to see if it contravenes the legislation.

The member for Winnipeg North should be applauded for his zeal in this regard. I love not only how often he says something but also the fervour with which he says it. Unfortunately, the problem is that his officials contradicted this very thing. We spent literally days in the House of Commons debating about mail. I hope that, when the member gives us exhortations on the legal front, he has done his homework this time.

The member tells us he was right the first time. I do not want to say someone is wrong, but I would say he is wrong.

I will go on to something a bit more serious. I learned that a person from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, Fred Sawada, recently passed away. He was an uncle to one of my friends, someone I went to kindergarten with, Kristy Sawada. He was a brother to her father, Jack. They did a lot for the community. They ran service stations, one of which was a few blocks from where I grew up. My deepest condolences go to Fred's family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I would also like to take this time to recognize Ari Jyrkkänen, a young man from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola who contributed tremendously to democracy. In the last year, he was someone who was of great help to me. I want to give him a shout-out. His father, Ken, is a veteran of our Canadian Forces. We thank him for his service. We thank the family for all they have done. I wanted to give him a shout-out.

I was on the phone with a prosecutor not long ago. One thing they said is deficient in this bill, and perhaps the member for Winnipeg North already knows what I am going say, is regarding section 525 of the Criminal Code. This varies from region to region, but section 525 is on a review of bail. The principle is that nobody should be languishing in custody after charge approval.

Back in the day, for instance, in my prior career, I saw a murder file from 1984, I believe. The file was about this thick, which is what a theft file now looks like. Trial dates were set, I think, on the third or fourth court appearance. In other words, people got to trial. It got done. Now people do not get to trial, oftentimes, for a year and a half or two years. It was this mentality that beckoned the Jordan decision.

I am not here to give a discourse. I am here to raise this issue. We have this antiquated law that says there should be a bail review after 90 days in custody. This is assuming a person has only one file, because section 524 operates this way: Let us say somebody is in custody on an indictable matter, such as robbery. They have a bail hearing at day 81 of detention, which can happen. Counsel can just put it off. The person says they want to apply for bail at day 81. If that person is detained at day 81, by virtue of the operation of section 525 and how it has been interpreted in British Columbia, I am told, that person can then have a review of their bail nine days later.

Obviously, this is completely antithetical to what we intend. If they want to have a review of bail, it should be an appeal of bail. A review and an appeal are two very different things. An appeal is saying that the judge messed up. A review is meant to address this ongoing languishing that we do not want people to do when their matter has not gone to trial yet. To me, this is something that needs to be addressed.

I will go on to sex offences. I am trying to think of how many times I have said this in the House. I rose in the House and questioned former minister Lametti about this very issue of house arrest for sex offenders. In fact, I put it to him in committee that there was a mother who offended against her own child. She facilitated an offence. It was absolutely disgusting. Thankfully, it was overturned on appeal. That mother got house arrest. I have said it no less than, probably, 20 times. I gave a speech on this very issue of house arrest for sex offenders two weeks ago. Every single time, the Liberals looked the other way. “There is nothing to see here. There are no issues.” We were constantly told it is the provinces' fault: “Look this way. Look that way. There is no problem with bail. We have it figured out.” Former minister Virani and former minister Lametti actually told us there was no problem.

Yes, I am speaking with a great deal of passion, because I cannot say how many victims have suffered as a result of that inaction. The Liberals will say that the provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. Yes. However, Mr. Speaker, do you know what? The provinces interpret the laws we make in the House. Those ministers, along with many of the people in the House right now, told us we were out to lunch. Hopefully, one of them will be permitted to get up on a question. This is on sex offences against children and house arrest. This is absolutely nuts.

Another aspect we need to look at for clarification is in the reverse onus provision itself. I will be candid. Reverse onuses typically have their place, but, again, we have heard from the Liberals so often about them. Here is the issue with the reverse onus: Typically, though not always, when an accused person is in a reverse onus, in my experience, they are actually in two, three, four or five reverse onuses. We could have somebody who is subject to literally 10 reverse onuses, so we have to recognize that.

The second issue with the reverse onus is that, oftentimes, it will apply to indictable offences only. When the issue was changed in sentencing to say that just about every summary conviction offence could get two years less a day, I believe the motivation behind that was to put more things in provincial court, which operates in a more streamlined manner. Okay, that is fine. There is no issue there, but what that means is that the Crown will proceed by indictment. For those watching, if they do not know the difference , it is felony versus misdemeanour and summary versus indictment. Then we have hybrid offences; the Crown can elect which is which. The whole point was so that the Crown would elect summary.

The reverse onus says that, if somebody has committed an indictable offence, they are in a reverse onus. What about somebody who has 80 convictions, but the Crown expects to seek 18 months of jail, which is fairly serious jail? If they elect to proceed summarily, that person, according to my information, in certain provinces and depending on the jurisdiction, will no longer be subject to the reverse onus provisions. We have a stymying of legislative intent there. This is something I really hope the Liberals deal with.

The last thing missing from Bill C-14 is Bailey’s law. Let us hope the Liberals do not heckle us on this, this time. The reality is that we need to pass legislation on intimate partner violence. We need to create a specific offence on intimate partner violence. We need to recognize the scourge and the plague that is intimate partner violence. I exhort the House, in the strongest language possible, to pass Bill C-225 with the urgency it deserves.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, a strong Canada means strong protections to keep our communities safe. Our new Liberal government is taking a rigorous approach to fighting crime, as evidenced by our many bills, our investments to support law enforcement and our Bill C-14. That legislation proposes more than 80 amendments to the Criminal Code to bring in tougher sentences and stricter bail conditions for repeat and violent offenders.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has urged all parties to pass this bill swiftly to enhance public safety and restore confidence in our justice system. Does my colleague agree with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that we need to pass Bill C-14 swiftly?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I see the Liberals are clapping. I wonder where that type of urgency was when we had our jail not bail act. That bill was endorsed by many of the same organizations that are endorsing this bill.

The Liberals are content to say that we need to pass the bill right away because these law enforcement bodies are telling us that they need it. Where was that urgency from the Liberals when the MP for Oxford put forward his bill, when the police association said it needed the bill? Where were the Liberals then? They voted against it, so it is quite hypocritical of them to say that we need to pass this bill right away, or by the same token, that we do not need to pass things the police chiefs say unless it is Liberal legislation. We will scrutinize this legislation and do our best.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. He referenced Bailey McCourt, the tragic, preventable homicide that is still on the books in British Columbia, which was a result of a decision made by a judge to release after conviction pending sentence. Bill C-14 does not close that gap. What would the jail not bail act say in reference to that type of process?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when somebody is convicted, the presumption of innocence is gone. I have no problem talking about the Conservative position on bail, which is generally that bail has become too loose, and I believe this bill could actually go much further. I also believe that, when the presumption of innocence has been displaced, as my colleague just mentioned, we need to act in a different manner. The principle of innocent until proven guilty has been displaced.

The principle of restraint is still on the books in such situations. I understand and recognize that Bill C-14 addresses the principle of restraint to a certain degree. It does attenuate it, but it does not remove it. I would go so far as to say that the principle of restraint needs to be reworked. It was common law. It needs to be readdressed.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently studying this issue of section 810 and minimum sentences at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We are conducting a study on this subject. What we are hearing, and what we heard in previous studies is that the use of the Jordan decision must also be regulated with respect to gender-based violence.

Earlier, a Conservative member was talking about Cait Alexander, who came to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and talked about her experience as a victim and survivor of domestic violence. She was calling for the Jordan decision to be regulated because, as things stand, some criminals' cases are thrown out because of delays.

How could the Jordan decision be better regulated to meet the needs of victims and survivors in cases of sexual offences and murder?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend's question about the Jordan principle is an incredibly critical question. The Jordan principle will delay charges. We are waiting far too long to institute charges because the clock starts ticking. A sexual offender who offends against a woman may not be charged until day 365 so that the clock does not start ticking. What happens on that day? That delay is critical to protecting people. I agree with my colleague that we must address Jordan in the House. It is time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nunavut.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to strengthen Canada's bail and sentencing laws by tightening release provisions for repeat and violent offenders and ensuring that serious crimes would be met with sentences that reflect their gravity. I would like to focus my remarks today on the proposed changes to the conditional sentence order regime, which is commonly referred to as house arrest.

Conditional sentencing was introduced in 1966 to reduce the overreliance on incarceration and correctional institutions by allowing judges, in appropriate circumstances, to order that a sentence of imprisonment be served in the community under strict conditions. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that conditional sentences are designed to combine the objectives of denunciation and deterrence with the rehabilitation and reintegration of the offenders. Judges must impose conditions that reflect this balance.

Such conditions can include curfews, mandatory counselling, abstention from alcohol or drugs, abstention from owning weapons, and frequent reporting to a supervisor. Breaching any condition can result in the offender being placed in custody to serve the remainder of the sentence. To qualify for such an order, a number of conditions must be met. Number one, an offender must receive a sentence of less than two years. Number two, the court must be satisfied that serving their sentence in the community would not endanger public safety. Number three, such a sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

The Criminal Code imposes other limitations on the availability of conditional sentences even if those conditions are met. Specifically, conditional sentences cannot be imposed for offences that carry a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, or for offences related to terrorism or criminal organizations, when prosecuted by indictment and the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment, or for the offences of attempted murder, advocating genocide and torture.

Bill C-14 proposes to add new restrictions to the conditional sentence regime to ensure that that conditional sentences would no longer be available for serious sexual offences, including those involving children. In particular, conditional sentences would no longer be available for the following offences: sexual assault when prosecuted by indictment; sexual assault with a weapon; threats to a third party causing bodily harm; aggravated sexual assault; and sexual exploitation of a person with a disability when prosecuted by indictment. In addition, any offence that is of a sexual nature involving a victim under 18 years of age would be ineligible for a CSO when prosecuted by indictment.

These proposed changes to the availability of conditional sentences are measured and deliberate. They would maintain the conditional sentencing option for low-risk offenders in appropriate cases, while reaffirming that sexual violence and exploitation demand more significant consequences.

In my view, these changes are important and necessary. Although appellate courts across the country have affirmed that conditional sentences are not appropriate for sexual offending, there have been a number of decisions in which courts have nevertheless ordered conditional sentences for serious sexual offences, including cases involving minors or vulnerable victims. Given the profound harm these crimes inflict on victims and the need for sentences that clearly denounce such conduct, I am supportive of the proposed amendment to restrict conditional sentences in that type of offending.

Additionally, the proposed changes were to respond to concerns raised by a number of partners and key stakeholders, including the provinces and territories, about the availability of conditional sentences for offenders convicted of sexual assault and other serious sex offences, particularly when those crimes involve children or other vulnerable persons. Partners and stakeholders have been clear and consistent in their views. Conditional sentences should never be available for sexual offences of this nature, and especially not for those committed against minors.

Bill C-14 would respond directly to these calls to reform. It represents constructive federal-provincial collaboration to ensure that sentencing laws strike the right balance between judicial discretion, public safety and society's confidence in the administration of justice. The proposed amendments also respond to the lived experience of victims and survivors. Many of them have described the retraumatization that can result when they learn that an offender has remained in the community after conviction. For survivors, seeing a person found guilty of sexual offences serving a sentence at home can undermine confidence in the justice system and deter others from coming forward.

Let me be clear. Conditional sentences can be an important pathway to accountability and reintegration, but only when the circumstances of the offence and the offender make that outcome consistent with justice and public safety. In some cases, though, conditional sentences are simply not appropriate and send the wrong signal.

In closing, I would like to convey that Bill C-14 represents necessary and responsible criminal law reform. It demonstrates that Parliament can respond thoughtfully to emerging challenges in the justice system by refining the law to reflect both fairness and accountability. It strikes the right balance so that our sentencing framework remains coherent, consistent and worthy of public trust.

For those reasons, I urge all members to support the swift passage of Bill C-14, a set of reforms that reaffirm our collective commitment to a justice system that stands for victims, protects communities and preserves the integrity of the justice system. In doing so, we send a clear message that fairness and safety can reinforce each other and that the criminal justice system in Canada will always remain both principled and strong.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives worked hard to repeal Liberal bail. We introduced legislation weeks ago. Unfortunately, the Liberals refuses to work with us. They refused to propose amendments, and ultimately, they defeated our bill because it was put forward by us, not them.

Now the Liberals have introduced their own bill and are calling for co-operation. I want to be clear that we will work with anyone and everyone to protect Canadians, but there have been several victims of crimes perpetuated by people out on bail in the interim.

Will the member admit that Liberal bail was a failure and apologize to those victims? Will he admit that the Liberals played politics with Canadians' safety?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member opposite that we do not play politics and we do not play with slogans. We are here to defend Canadians, and we will do whatever it takes to defend them.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. What is the factual basis for the government's claim that the bail system is broken? When the Minister of Justice announced Bill C-14, he said that accused persons had a "get out of jail free" card, and that being granted bail was incredibly easy.

The figures show that, in Canada, 71% of inmates in provincial or territorial prisons are currently awaiting trial. These are people who were denied bail. In the 1980s, 75% of people were denied bail and now it is even harder to get.

What is the factual basis for what the government is trying to do?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, may I request that my friend repeat his question? The translation was not working.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We will pause the clock briefly.

I would ask the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj to repeat his question.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. The Minister of Justice said that under the current system, when someone is charged, they have a free pass that they can show and they will be released right away. I want to know the factual basis for that claim.

The figures show that, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, 70% of people in provincial prisons are currently awaiting trial. By comparison, in England, that figure is 20%. We imprison a lot more people before their trial here in Canada. Another thing worth noting is that people are being put in prison to await their trial far more now than they were in the 1980s.

What exactly is the problem that my colleague and his government want to solve?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before introducing this legislation, our Attorney General travelled across the country. He met with mayors. He met with police forces. He met with all the other people who are responsible for law enforcement in Canada. These are the things we were told. This is what needs to be done to create confidence among Canadians in our justice system. That is exactly what our legislation will do.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his work when it comes to protecting people in Surrey, where we both come from. An issue particularly on the rise there is extortion. How would the bill help to make people feel safe in their communities from acts of extortion?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the number one thing to note is that people who take part in extortion would have to prove to a judge that they are worthy of being released, rather than it being the responsibility of the Crown.

Second, we would be able to look into their history, going back 10 years. If they are sentenced, they would have to serve their sentence. If it is two five-year terms, it would not be one term. They would have to serve exactly 10 years.

Those are the things that would make sure criminals do not continue to do what they are doing.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen violent crime increase by 55% in the last 10 years under the Liberal government. Sexual assaults are up 60%. Homicides are up 29%. The Liberals keep releasing criminals onto the streets under the least onerous conditions available.

What does the member have to say to victims of crime who have seen this repeatedly across our country? How can he justify not taking faster action to keep criminals behind bars, where they belong?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation has been brought in to ensure that what my friend on the opposite side said does not happen again. We are bringing in legislation to toughen the law and ensure that Canadians feel safe in their homes and that laws are there to protect them.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-14 as the NDP justice critic, and I acknowledge that there is huge public concern about the bail system and that Canadians want to feel safe.

The New Democrats, having read through this bill, have concerns. There are real challenges in our bail system. Some examples include the high detention rate of those charged and awaiting trial. One-third of those charged are never convicted of anything. Jails are full and bursting. This bill does not address resources for provinces and territories, which would have to bear the burden of this bill. While in detention, there is no access to supportive programming, like drug and alcohol addiction programs and any other substance abuse programs. There is a severe lack of data about the number of people out on bail who are reoffending. Of course, we all know there is an overrepresentation of indigenous and marginalized communities in corrections.

Conservatives like to talk about catch and release to stoke fear. Most of these are urban, public disorder problems caused by poverty, drugs, alcohol and mental health problems.

Jurisdictions all over the world, including the United States, have a tough-on-crime approach to bail, which does not make communities safer. We see that all the time in the media. Often, these policies make communities less safe and increase recidivism.

Regarding pretrial detention, I have some facts to share. Over the past 30 years, the rate of pretrial detention in Canada has more than tripled. The rate is far higher in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and most western European nations. The poor, the homeless and those suffering from addiction or mental health issues are more likely to be denied bail and held in detention because of a few factors: They do not have phones, do not have access to stable housing and employment, which are necessary to meet the requirements of bail, or lack friends and relatives who could serve as sureties.

More than 60% of those being held in provincial correctional institutions are awaiting trial. Many detainees are never convicted of an offence, and less than 65% of charges result in convictions. Those in pretrial detention have no access to alcohol, drug, or mental health programs. Even short periods in detention lead to higher rates of future conflict with the law. More than 40% of those detained are held for longer than a month. Pretrial detention often has serious impacts that can lead to loss of housing, employment and custody of children.

For those who do get bail, failure to meet conditions set out for bail often leads to additional criminal charges. Too many of those lack the personal supports and resources necessary to meet those conditions.

As I mentioned briefly, there is a serious lack of data and evidence-based information for reform. That is what we are calling for. No jurisdiction in Canada collects standardized data about the number of people out on bail and what their bail conditions were when offences were recommitted while on bail.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association made a submission to the justice committee and included recommendations about data collection. It cited the importance of grounding amendments to the Criminal Code in data and evidence. Regarding legislative reform, it must be done once adequate data has been collected. The federal government must collaborate with provinces, territories and civil society to launch specific initiatives to collect and report standardized data about bail systems to inform legislative reforms. There must also be improved conditions in provincial and territorial jails, because the potential for poor conditions undermines the objectives of preventing crime and ensuring rehabilitation. There is a lack of leadership from the federal government regarding data collection in the criminal justice system.

Another concern is the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the corrections system. Indigenous people are drastically overrepresented in the corrections system.

This bill would establish a broad category of reverse onus bail provisions applying to many offenders. It would have a disproportionate effect on indigenous, racialized and marginalized Canadians. There are, of course, specific Nunavut concerns because of the lack of infrastructure and a travelling court system.

Canadians' concerns about violent repeat offenders are real. New Democrats are also concerned, but rushing ahead with reforms without data and without considering the impact on indigenous and marginalized groups is a huge concern. These broad reforms, without informed data or evidence, are not the solution.

New Democrats have a different approach to bail reform. There need to be pragmatic and achievable solutions to keep communities safe. They need to address the root causes of crime, and justice reform should be targeted, not broadly capture everyone.

We need to provide better supervision for those on bail. Another solution is on-demand drug, alcohol and mental health treatment programs to end the revolving door of criminality.

For these reasons, the NDP believes in supporting and expanding community-based bail supervision programs. For example, the John Howard Society has run bail supervision and verification programs in partnership with the Ontario Attorney General since 2011. These programs now operate in 17 Ontario communities.

The success rate of these programs is over 90% in making sure bail conditions are observed and clients show up in court. The cost is five dollars per day, as opposed to $184 per day for detention in Ontario, and this has reduced the overall numbers in pretrial detention. These programs ensure those on bail meet their conditions and have opportunities to be connected to alcohol, drug and mental health treatment programs.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association agrees with the NDP that Canada must increase support for community corrections. Additional bail supervisors must be hired, and alternate bail release and supervision programs must be implemented, with a focus on offenders with mental health or addiction challenges.

The NDP is cautious in our approach to this bill, and we will continue to consult with women's groups, civil liberties groups and indigenous groups to ensure their voices are being heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I reflect on the desires of my constituents when looking at bail reform, I note that the Prime Minister made a commitment to bring in bail reform. That is what we are debating today.

I understand the comments that NDP members have put on the record. I have a very straightforward question. Does the member and the NDP support the principles of bail reform in Bill C-14?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, as I said, we are quite cautious in our approach.

I am very concerned, especially about the reverse onus sections of this bill. We know that, for example, even the former ministers of justice David Lametti and Arif Virani did not agree with the reverse onus. They felt that it did not increase public safety.

I am quite concerned about it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an interesting point earlier, when she spoke about the costs associated with this. Let us not forget that the changes the federal government made to the Criminal Code with respect to cannabis meant that the federal government collected taxes and kept all the money for itself, while the provinces had to bear the administrative costs of these changes.

In this specific case, we are amending the Criminal Code, which is easy to do. However, it will result in administrative costs for provinces, which are already struggling.

Does my colleague believe that, if the federal government wants to make these changes, then it should also provide the provinces with the necessary funding to manage them?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am thankful for the important question because I do agree. As I mentioned in my speech, I am quite concerned that if these amendments go through, it will leave the provinces and territories without the resources they need to be able to take care of the people they have to take care of, and they will not be able to. I mentioned the fact that Nunavut has 25 fly-in communities. It has a travelling court. I do not know how it would manage the additional work that would be required to implement this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not 100% clear in regard to the NDP's position in terms of the passage of the legislation.

Given the nature of the support from the many different stakeholders who are out there, would the member not agree this legislation, at the very least, should pass into committee?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do agree it needs to reach committee so there can be deeper consultations and conversations about this bill.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short comment. The bill has much support. There is tremendous support from the provinces, the territories and lots of municipalities, as well as premiers, ministers from provinces and mayors. Various police associations also show their support for this bill. I would like to thank the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime and their teams for working on this bill and spending the entire summer going with us to see all the law enforcement in our ridings.

I really want to thank everybody who put this bill together, and I am looking forward to passing it in the shortest amount of time.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do hope there are more consultations with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, with the BC Civil Liberties Association, with indigenous groups and with women’s groups, because it is those groups that are not feeling heard with how this bill was tabled. I do hope there will be more work done to hear from those most marginalized communities.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

The Liberal government's complacency has numbed not only itself but the country. When leaders stop reacting to lawlessness, Canadians stop believing it will ever end.

In Richmond Centre—Marpole and beyond, I hear it every week: one more violent act, one less ounce of faith. People, and even the officers sworn to protect them, no longer believe their struggle matters. When a community stops expecting accountability, lawlessness becomes the norm. This is not alarmism. It is observation. It is what happens when a justice system meant to serve public safety instead offers repeat violent offenders the benefit of the doubt again and again.

Individuals with multiple prior convictions and individuals with active conditions, who are known to law enforcement, are released often within hours of their arrest only to offend again. Some of them rob. Some assault. Some kill. How did we let this become normal? The answer lies in a string of decisions made here in this chamber.

Six years ago, the Liberals passed Bill C-75, which put into legislation what they called the principle of restraint. This principle made release the default. It instructed police and judges to prioritize letting accused individuals go early and with minimal conditions. The intent, we are told, was fairness, equity and efficiency. The reality has been chaos.

Bill C-75 shifted the weight of our legal system away from public safety and toward procedural leniency. It was not reform. It was retreat. It took a system already struggling to keep up with repeat offenders and made it harder for police, Crown prosecutors and judges to do their jobs.

Do not take my word for it. Look at the numbers in British Columbia, where there were nearly 4,800 bail hearings in just over a year. Detention was sought in less than a quarter of them. Even in cases involving serious violence, detention was ordered less than half the time. The consequences were predictable and tragic.

In the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, we have seen a rise in violent assaults, break-ins and attacks on law enforcement. Officers report rearresting the same individuals multiple times in a matter of weeks. Frontline morale is eroding. Many feel like they are working in circles, handcuffed to the criminals they repeatedly arrest and to the system they are forced to comply with. Our communities, families, small businesses and seniors are the ones left to deal with the fallout.

This is not a local issue. It is a national one. Police chiefs, mayors, premiers and victims' rights groups from across Canada have said the same thing many times, which is that the system is too slow, too soft and too disjointed to protect the people it is supposed to serve. What makes it worse is that for years, these warnings were met without a care.

The Liberal government had opportunity after opportunity to course correct. Instead, it offered half measures, like Bill C-48, which tinkered with language but did not attempt to touch the core issue. With Bill C-14, we finally see an acknowledgement that the current approach is not working, that reverse-onus bail provisions are necessary for serious and repeat offenders, that conditional sentences or house arrest for crimes like sexual assault are a gross misplacement of compassion and that sentencing needs to reflect the gravity and frequency of violent crimes.

This bill contains good elements. Conservatives welcome those changes, but let us be honest: This is not a product of vision. It is a reaction, one that is long overdue.

For four years, Conservatives have been raising the alarm. We have introduced a private member's bill to strengthen bail. We have stood with victims' families, spoken with law enforcement and warned the House that, without reform, the system will continue to fail. Those warnings were brushed aside, and while the government hesitated, Canadians suffered.

Yes, we support Bill C-14, but it is the floor, not the ceiling. Conservatives will be pressing for critical amendments.

First, we must fully repeal the principle of restraint as outlined in Bill C-75. It is too vague. It gives too much weight to factors that have nothing to do with risk to the public. Judges must be empowered to detain individuals who pose a threat, not be told to default to release.

Second, we must restore mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent offences. The repeal of these sentences under Bill C-5 sent the wrong message: that even the most dangerous crimes might not result in jail time. That approach undermines deterrence and betrays victims.

Third, we need to implement a broader presumption of detention for individuals with violent criminal histories. The public has a right to be protected from those who have repeatedly shown disregard for the law and for human life.

Fourth, we must ensure proper support for provincial systems that bear the brunt of these changes. Without investments in Crown capacity, corrections and law enforcement, stricter laws will not translate into better outcomes. This cannot be legislation without resources.

Finally, we need transparency. Canadians should know how often bail is granted, how often conditions are breached and how often violent crimes are committed by those already out on release. This information must be reported and made public. Only then can we hold the system accountable.

This is not about being tough for the sake of being tough. It is about being serious about protecting the innocent, serious about consequences for the guilty and serious about restoring public faith in a system that too many now see as broken. Justice must be firm, fair and focused. It must prioritize the safety of communities over the convenience of repeat offenders. It must send a clear message that if people endanger others, if they repeatedly violate the law, the consequences will be certain and swift. The bill before us is an opportunity to start sending that message again, but only if we are willing to finish the work.

The people of Richmond Centre—Marpole do not want more promises; they want action. They want to know that when a dangerous individual is arrested, the justice system will act to keep them and others safe. They want a government that puts victims first.

Canadians have had enough of revolving-door bail, enough of tragic headlines and enough of policies that offer more exit ramps to offenders than pathways to accountability. Let this be the moment we choose differently. Let us send Bill C-14 to committee for further scrutiny. Let us strengthen it, and let us restore the most basic promise any justice system can make to its people: that their safety matters.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree on this side of the aisle that we do need changes and improvements, which is why we are introducing this bill. However, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press this week, Crown attorneys are desperately overloaded and understaffed. Many people are out on bail, not because of insufficient provisions in the law but because they do not have enough Crown attorneys to give them timely bail hearings, which is necessary for the denial of bail.

Does the hon. member not agree that the federal government cannot solve this alone and that we need better participation from the provincial governments?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague on the other side listened to my speech carefully. I did mention that we cannot change the system through legislation only. We cannot just use promises to change the system. We can make things work better only if the system is being supported with an implementation plan and with resources. That is why I pointed out that we have to give more capacity to Crown prosecutors, to law enforcement and to the people who are out in the community protecting us.

Legislative change is important, but there has to be capacity building with it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. I heard him talk about the issue of sentencing. We know that, in the judicial process, judges are responsible for sentencing. They have the flexibility they need to apply a sentence that fits the crime.

Does my colleague's current emphasis on sentencing and wanting to pass legislation reflect his belief, namely that judges are not doing their job properly?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have suggested, the people in law enforcement are trying to do the best job they can. However, the present system has their hands tied. The bail system right now is catch-and-release. Prosecutors, as well as judges, are being told they have to release the accused at the earliest possible moment and with the least restrictions. With those kinds of restrictions, how can the judges and the prosecutors do their job?

What we have also observed in Bill C-14 is that it is silent on those serious crimes that deserve mandatory sentencing. There are two issues: One is the bail system, and the other is that there are no mandatory sentences for serious crimes, such as those committed by drug kingpins.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was incredible, very insightful and very heartfelt. When I was an MLA in B.C., starting in 2017, we were arguing the same points to the B.C. government. The B.C. government was blaming the federal government, and now we hear the federal government saying that we need more co-operation. It is a back-and-forth blame game.

Could we have gotten ahead of this if, four years ago, the federal government had listened to Conservatives' recommendations?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that we have a system in which the federal government's being ignorant or being incapable of dealing with the issue creates a problem. The problem becomes too big, and the government tries to blame other people. When it cannot blame other people for the consequences, it then tries to do as little as it can to improve the system.

This has been going on for years. As I mentioned in my speech, the Conservatives have warned the House many times that the current system, and the previous provisions as passed by the federal government, were not working. I think we are seeing the consequences today.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to encapsulate the bill, I would say that it is far too little and far too late. It is not an act of leadership; it is an act of desperation. It is a half-hearted political band-aid from a government caught red-handed presiding over a public safety crisis of its own making.

For nearly a decade, the Liberals have gambled with the safety of Canadians. They have told us that their modern bail system would be fairer, more compassionate and more enlightened. Well, it has been none of those things. Their ideology has unleashed chaos on our streets, fear in our neighbourhoods and heartbreak in our families.

All 10 premiers, every single one of them, have begged the Prime Minister to fix his broken bail system. Every police chief and every frontline officer who has spoken out has warned the Liberal government that its bail policies are handcuffing police and setting criminals free. Every ordinary Canadian knows, because they can see and feel it, that violent crime has exploded under the Liberal government.

Since the Liberals have come into power, violent crime is up 55%; extortion has skyrocketed 330% across our nation and is closer to 600%, at 582%, in British Columbia; and sexual assaults are up 75%. In British Columbia, the number of sexual violations against children has quadrupled.

These are not abstract numbers; these are shattered lives, broken families and terrified communities. Behind each of those statistics is a name, a face and a story: for example, Bailey McCourt, brutally murdered by her ex-husband, who had been released on bail after an assault conviction; or Savannah Kulla-Davies, a 29-year-old mother of four who was shot and killed in Brampton. Her killer was out on bail. When will the government understand that its compassion for criminals has become cruelty toward victims?

Bill C-14 is not a solution; it is a confession. It is the government's finally admitting that its so-called reforms are a disaster. The Liberals talk about adjusting and clarifying, but no; the bill is a watered down imitation of the Conservative plan the Liberals voted against time after time. They ridiculed it, then they quietly copied it when Canadians demanded action. They are trying to clean up their own mess with a mop made of Liberal spin.

Let us remember how we got here. Bill C-75, the Liberal law that enshrined the so-called principle of restraint, told judges to release first and ask questions later. Then there is Bill C-5, the law that scrapped mandatory minimums for gun crimes and sexual offences and brought back house arrest for criminals who should be behind bars.

This has meant that convicted sexual offenders have served sentences in their own living room, that a child pornographer in British Columbia got an 18-month house arrest, and that a man who tried to pay for sex with a 15-year-old girl received a three-month term house arrest because a longer sentence might have delayed his citizenship. In 2022, nearly one-third of homicides were committed by people already out on some form of release, whether bail, probation or house arrest.

If that does not bring the Liberals and the administration of justice into disrepute, I do not know what does.

What do the Liberals do now? They bring in Bill C-14, a timid half measure that tinkers around the edges. Yes, it would narrow the principle of restraint and expand reverse onus provisions, which are steps Conservatives have been demanding for years. However, it would not repeal Bill C-75 or Bill C-5, the twin pillars of the government's soft-on-crime experiment.

The bill would not restore mandatory minimums for gun offences, sex offences and repeat violent crimes. It would not create true presumption of detention for dangerous offenders, and it would still tell judges to impose the least onerous conditions possible when granting bail. Tell that to the family of Bailey McCourt and to the children of Savannah Kulla.

Here is the core of the problem. Conservatives believe in due process and the presumption of innocence, but due process does not mean a revolving door. If an accused person can be released, that is fine. However, we must give judges the power to impose strict bail conditions when necessary.

Strict bail is fair, it is safe and it saves money compared to unnecessary incarceration, but the government's ideology ties judges' hands. It says to either grant bail on the easiest terms imaginable or deny it entirely. That is absurd. Half-baked legislation creates half-safe communities.

Conservatives are not asking for a right turn; we are demanding a U-turn. We are all on the Liberal bus, careening down a dangerous road. The provinces are shouting, the police are shouting and Canadians are shouting, “Turn around.” The Liberals just smile, tap the brakes and pretend they have changed direction, while the cliffs keep coming closer. Conservatives will not sit silently in the back seat while the government drives safety over the edge.

The government loves to say it is investing in safety, but the Minister of Public Safety says he is not responsible for hiring RCMP or CBSA officers. If he is not responsible, then who is? Is it the tooth fairy? Canadians deserve a government that takes responsibility, not one that points fingers and shrugs.

Yes, Conservatives will work to strengthen Bill C-14 as much as we can. We will push for real reforms, not window dressing. We will demand that Liberal bail be scrapped once and for all. However, let me be crystal clear: Until the Liberals make public safety their top priority, until they put victims ahead of violent repeat offenders and until they make justice mean something again, Canadians will not be safe.

Liberal leniency has become Liberal lawlessness, and the only way to stop it, the only way to make our streets safe again, is with a Conservative government that believes in law, order and accountability. This is not about politics; it is about every parent who does not feel safe walking their child to school, every woman afraid to take the bus at night and every senior locking their door in broad daylight because they no longer recognize their neighbourhood.

Canadians deserve better, victims deserve better and Conservatives will never stop fighting for them. It is time to scrap Liberal bail, restore common sense and make Canada safe again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the previous speaker's making reference to the fact that the bill needs to go to committee. Even the member opposite, although he has lots of concerns about the bill from his perspective, appears to be saying that in principle he is supportive of it.

The Prime Minister, as an election platform promise, established bringing in substantial bail reform to Canadians. That is what Bill C-14 is all about. There has been a great deal of effort and a phenomenal amount of support from all the different stakeholders behind Bill C-14. As I am sure the member will agree, our constituents want bail reform. I want it, the Prime Minister wants it, and every Liberal MP wants it.

The Conservatives are going to make their determination. Would the member agree that we should pass the legislation before the end of the year?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we support measures within the bill and will want to bring in other motions and amendments when it goes to committee. That is essential because, as it is, it is very watered down.

Conservatives believe that public safety is paramount. We believe the principle of restraint must be repealed and replaced by a public safety primacy clause and that mandatory minimums must be restored for firearms and sexual offences, as well as repeat violent offences, because we do not see that. House arrest must be barred for robbery, trafficking and violent crimes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague earlier. He was talking about the ideology of the Liberals, who have unleashed fear in our streets. Those are my colleague's words.

I think we need to be careful with ideology. If we engage in alarmist rhetoric, we could needlessly elicit fear in people and end up with laws ill-suited to the public's needs. Sometimes I get the impression that my Conservative colleagues' assertions in this regard are a bit far-fetched.

I have one fairly simple question for my colleague. The bill contains an item that is problematic for us: the reverse onus. In some cases, the reverse onus would even apply to auto theft under the bill.

Does auto theft really require a reverse onus for pre-trial custody or remand? I think not.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am no judge, but I certainly know that there is an unbelievable number of car thefts. We see it at the ports. Cars leave from the port of Montreal and other ports and go straight to Africa. What is happening? Not much is happening. The situation remains unchanged

As Conservatives, we believe that legal principles and control measures are needed to put an end to all this. That is not happening right now under the justice system that the Liberals have set up. Crime is rising at an alarming rate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. It is important that we make a commitment to pass the legislation before the end of the year.

Again, I would ask the member to provide his thoughts. Does he believe his constituents would like to see the bail reform law in place before the end of the year?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, they would like to see changes in our communities. Despite all of these measures, I am not convinced of how much change there is going to be. Yes, there is going to be some. We need a lot more teeth because we have had 10 years of chaos and crime on our streets under the Liberal government. The government has had somewhat of a deathbed conversion, but I have to question its sincerity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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 Courtenay—Alberni, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Employment.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Brooklin.

I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which is a landmark piece of legislation that responds to the urgent call for safer communities and a justice system that reflects the seriousness of violent and repeat offending.

For too long, Canadians have been frustrated as individuals charged with serious crimes are released on bail only to reoffend. They have seen sentences that fail to match the seriousness of such offences as home invasion, human trafficking and violent assault. Bill C-14 changes that. It delivers over 80 targeted amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act, making bail harder to get for repeat and violent offenders and ensuring that sentences are tougher and more consistent with public expectations.

The first pillar of the bill addresses a weakness in our justice system: bail provisions that have not kept pace with the realities of violent crime and organized criminal activity. Bill C-14 makes it clear that the principle of restraint does not mean automatic release. Courts would now have explicit direction that detention is justified when public safety is at risk. We are also clarifying the ladder principle, ensuring that it would not apply to offences subject to a reverse onus.

In plain terms, for certain serious crimes, the accused would have to demonstrate why they should be granted bail. The legislation introduces new reverse onus provisions for some of the most dangerous offences threatening our communities today: organized auto theft, break and enter of a home, human trafficking and smuggling, sexual assault and violent extortion. For repeat offenders, the reverse onus will apply between conviction and sentencing, closing a loophole that has allowed individuals to reoffend while awaiting judgment.

Bill C-14 would also strengthen the grounds for detention, requiring courts to consider the number and seriousness of outstanding charges when deciding whether release would undermine confidence in the justice system. This is about restoring public trust and ensuring that those who pose the greatest risk are not back on our streets. Moreover, the bill would direct courts to scrutinize bail plans more rigorously, ensuring they are credible and enforceable. It expands conditions of release, including weapons prohibitions for those accused of extortion and organized crime offences, and it encourages stricter conditions, such as curfews and geographic restrictions, for high-risk offences.

These changes respond directly to what Canadians have been asking for: a bail system that prioritizes public safety and victim protection.

The second pillar of Bill C-14 ensures that sentencing reflects the seriousness of the offence and strengthens deterrence. Canadians expect that those who commit violent crimes will face real consequences. The bill delivers on that expectation.

First, it introduces new aggravating factors for sentencing, including offences committed against first responders, repeat violent offenders with prior convictions within five years, organized retail theft and crimes interfering with essential infrastructure, such as copper theft.

Second, Bill C-14 would allow for consecutive sentences in cases as the combination of offences demands. For example, a sentence for extortion must be served consecutively to a sentence for arson; a sentence for violent or organized crime-related auto theft must be consecutive to a sentence for breaking and entering of a home. Judges would also be required to consider imposing consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders, ensuring accountability for those who repeatedly harm our communities.

The bill clarifies sentencing objectives, directing courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence for second and subsequent convictions for violent offences, auto theft, break and enter, and organized crime-related offences. This is a clear message that serious crimes deserve serious consequences.

Other important reforms include increasing the maximum penalty for contempt of court; ending house arrest for serious sexual offences, including those against children; reinstating mandatory driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm; modernizing enforcement of federal fines by allowing provinces to suspend licences until payment is made. These measures would strengthen the integrity of our justice system and protect Canadians from those who repeatedly disregard the law.

Furthermore, we are strengthening the Youth Criminal Justice Act by expanding the availability of custodial sentences. Under these reforms, offences that cause bodily harm would now be clearly recognized as violent offences, ensuring greater accountability for serious crimes and better protection for communities.

Crime rates have risen over the past few years, with notable increases in homicides, sexual assaults, extortion and violent firearms offences. Offenders with multiple prior convictions remain far more likely to reoffend, and they often do so while on bail.

Extortion is a major concern in my riding, and this legislation cracks down on extortion by making bail harder to get and sentences tougher, as well as by ensuring that those who use fear and intimidation face real consequences. It would do so in two ways: by tightening bail laws and by strengthening sentencing for extortion-related offences. The bill would also require consecutive sentences for extortion and arson, ensuring offenders serve one sentence after another rather than all at once.

Communities across Canada have demanded action, and Bill C-14 answers that call. The legislation is not about slogans or political theatre. It is about real, enforceable tools that courts, police and prosecutors can use to keep Canadians safe. It is about restoring confidence in a justice system that too often feels disconnected from the realities of crime in our neighbourhoods.

Bill C-14 was built through collaboration with provinces, territories, law enforcement and victims' advocates. It is charter-compliant and legally sound. It would close loopholes, strengthen accountability and ensure that public safety is paramount.

Canadians deserve a justice system that protects them, not one that leaves them vulnerable to repeat and violent offenders. Bill C-14 delivers that protection. It would make bail harder to get for those who pose the greatest risk, and it would ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-14 and move it forward without delay. Every Canadian deserves to feel safe in their home, in their community and in their daily life.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 still allows serious offenders, such as those who commit robbery, trafficking and firearms-related crimes, to use the option of house arrest.

I know, and the member opposite knows, that communities are struggling with ongoing extortion demands and killings in the community. How would he justify the continuing loopholes in Bill C-14?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Edmonton should know that when it comes to the reverse onus, this bill addresses that, and people who commit serious crimes will stay behind bars. Also, consecutive sentences will address the issues that are important in his riding. I have travelled to his riding. This is also happening in my riding and across Canada.

The hon. member should not play politics and should not turn this into drama theatre. He should support this bill and make sure that Canadians across Alberta, across British Columbia and across Canada feel safe in their communities.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I asked one of the member's colleagues to give us the facts that the government is working from to call for an amendment to the Criminal Code's bail provisions. I did not really get an answer earlier. We were told that some people were complaining.

I will give the government another opportunity, through the member, to explain to us the current problem with the bail system. What is stopping a judge from denying bail and keeping an accused in prison to protect the public?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member two examples from British Columbia. One is the Kelowna example. It is very clear that the person was out on bail when he committed the offence of murder. The other example is an offender from Manitoba who was out on bail, went to White Rock and committed a murder there. These are the types of cases bringing people in my constituency to tell me that we have to reform bail laws to make sure that the onus is on the offender, not the Crown, to prove they should not be kept behind bars.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, even before I was part of the House, I knew this was a very important issue for the hon. member and his constituents. He has raised it many times.

What parts of this bill, when it is implemented, will ease the minds of his constituents when he goes back and talks to them about it?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his support in caucus and for bringing issues forward.

The major issue facing my constituents and British Columbians right now is extortion. It is the key concern in my riding and across Canada. This legislation would crack down on extortionists by making bail harder to get. Once someone commits the crime of extortion, they should stay behind bars.

The second issue is consecutive sentencing. For example, if arson or a firearm is used during extortion, the sentences for those offences should be consecutive, not served side by side.

Those are the two issues.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am having tremendous difficulty listening to the Liberals pat themselves on the back like they have done something amazing for Canada. Under their watch, we have seen chaos and crime. The member talked about extortion in B.C., which has seen a 400% to 500% increase.

Will the member not recognize that the Liberal Party, which he has been a member of for many years, has been absolutely sleepwalking this entire time?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I knew the member when he was part of the provincial assembly in B.C., and he was sleeping all the time while crimes were being committed. Policing is a provincial responsibility, but he did nothing then, and he is doing nothing constructive right now, just making this a political circus.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-14, an act that proposes long-awaited reforms to Canada's bail and sentencing framework.

At the outset, let me just say that Conservatives welcome this legislation. We have been calling for meaningful bail reform for years at this point. We have stood alongside police associations, provincial governments and victims' advocates to push for stricter bail legislation and stricter sentencing laws.

The government's decision to bring this bail law forward is in many ways an acknowledgement that the system is not working as it should and that public safety should once again become the paramount guiding principle of our justice system. While we welcome this step, and it is a step in the right direction, we also recognize that it does not go far enough.

I am also pleased to see that the government has admitted, in its own news release regarding the bill just last Thursday, that there is a direct correlation between the rise in crime and the Liberal government taking office. The news release stated that while crime was down between 1998 and 2014, it went up between 2014 and 2024.

This admission comes after years of Liberal politician after Liberal politician claiming that crime is in fact going down. There have been mailers sent out by Liberal MPs, who for years have been trying to convince the public that rising crime is in their heads. Some former members of this House would cherry-pick certain periods to suggest to their constituents that crime is not actually the problem they think it is.

I, for one, am happy that the Liberal government has finally highlighted the fact that the best way to examine the trend of increasing crime is not to pick one short period for the purposes of political messaging, but to look at it over a long period of time, to recognize the trend and course correct.

As I have stated before time after time in this House, people in Vaughan—Woodbridge do not feel safe in their homes and in their own community. Our community was never like this before, and it would not be like this today had the Liberal government chosen to act sooner.

In York Region, in 2025, as of September 30, there have been 60 shootings. This is more than double the occurrences to date from 2021, 2022 and 2023. For years, all major stakeholders were largely ignored by the Liberal government, and many of its members still sit in this House today. Premiers, mayors, police chiefs and victims were all ignored for years. Why? Why has it taken so long for the Liberals to act?

I am happy that the Liberals have woken up and have taken many of our ideas, but they need to go further. I implore them to take all of our ideas, please, because behind these numbers are heartbreaking stories of families shattered, communities shaken and victims left wondering why individuals known to be violent were released back on their streets.

How did we get here? It stems largely from legislative and cultural shifts following the introduction of the principle of restraint in Bill C-75 in 2019. Section 493.1 of the Criminal Code directs that an accused be released at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it has too often meant that repeat violent offenders are released despite a clear risk to public safety.

Police, prosecutors and victims have seen the consequences first-hand. Bailey McCourt was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. A young mother of four, Savannah Kulla, was shot and killed at a Brampton strip mall, with her killer having been released on bail. I have heard the Liberals blame this on the Supreme Court of Canada, but the fact remains the Liberals were never told to change the law.

Bill C-14 proposes tougher standards for bail in serious cases and new reverse-onus provisions for certain violent offences. These are moves in the right direction, no question. However, the principle of restraint remains. The same language that tells decision-makers, judges and justices of the peace to prioritize release under the least restrictive conditions is still very much intact. I would say that means the culture of release will persist unless Parliament goes further and unless there are amendments to Bill C-14.

Earlier this month, I was proud to jointly second my colleague from Oxford's bill, Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which addresses many of the areas in which Bill C-14 falls short. The jail not bail act would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint by offering a new directive of public and community safety as the primary consideration in bail. This would end the default of the release culture created by Bill C-75.

It would also do the following: restore mandatory minimums for firearms, sexual assaults, kidnappings, human trafficking, robbery, extortion with a firearm, arson and other serious violent crimes; mandate consideration of full criminal history and outstanding charges; and presume detention for major offences and repeat violent offenders, not just reverse onus. There are several others, which unfortunately I do not have the time to mention in my speech. However, I encourage members opposite to look at that bill intently. I encourage them to examine it and find ways in which to strengthen Bill C-14. They should take our ideas and let us work collaboratively for the benefit of all Canadians.

These changes do not undermine fairness or due process; they simply ensure that the justice system exercises caution where it is warranted and that public safety is the priority of our justice system. Public confidence in the justice system depends on visible fairness, but it also depends on safety. When a young mother is murdered by a partner who was released on bail despite prior violent charges, Canadians naturally ask us how we could allow this to happen. They are not asking for vengeance; they are asking for prevention. They are asking to feel safe in their homes and their communities.

Our police officers, Crown attorneys and victim service workers have been clear that the current framework too often ties their hands. Bill C-14 acknowledges that truth, but now we must complete the work. These bail reforms must also be accompanied by sentencing reforms that reinforce accountability.

The Liberals' Bill C-5, passed in 2022, eliminated many mandatory minimum penalties and expanded the use of conditional sentences, even for certain firearms and violent offences. In my view and the view of many practitioners across Canada, that change weakened deterrence and contributed to the perception that serious crime is met with leniency. Restoring proportionate, consistent sentencing is essential to rebuilding trust in our justice system.

Conservatives will work in good faith to ensure this bill passes as quickly as possible, with the strongest possible protections for Canadians. We are not opposing it for the sake of opposing; we are offering solutions informed by experience from police, prosecutors, victims and those who have lived with the consequences of repeat violent offences.

We also recognize that this legislation has broad support from law enforcement organizations, premiers and community leaders who are eager to see progress. The momentum should not be lost. If the government is willing to accept reasonable amendments, such as elevating public safety to the first consideration and closing the remaining gaps around repeat offenders, then we can together deliver the kind of reform that Canadians have been demanding for years.

In a country like Canada, it should never be seen as contradictory to defend both the rights of the accused and the safety of the public. The balance between those values is what defines a mature justice system.

Conservatives have been calling for action for years, not because it is politically convenient, but because it is right. If we get this right, we will not only make our laws stronger; we will make our communities safer. Let us work together to strengthen this bill so we can end the cycle of violence that has plagued our streets and restore faith in the justice system for the people of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member talking about our working together, recognizing that it is, in fact, a minority government. The Prime Minister made a commitment to genuine bail reform legislation. The only way we are going to be able to pass this legislation and give Canadians what they want is if we can get the Conservatives to make the commitment to do so.

After it goes to committee, when it comes back to the House, a majority of the members of the House will have to support any amendments brought forward. I look forward to seeing amendments coming from the Conservatives. We will see to what degree they add value to the legislation and if we can achieve that magic number of a majority to pass it.

Does the member share my belief that, with co-operation, we could get this legislation passed before Christmas?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives would like nothing more than bail reform and sentence reform to be passed immediately. That is why we introduced our jail not bail act. We put forward the serious amendments that are needed to the bail system to facilitate the conditions that will keep repeat violent offenders in prison.

I, for one, am all for having this legislation move to committee. At committee, we hope the Liberal government and our Bloc colleagues on the committee will look very closely at our proposals and at removing the principle of restraint because we do not want to leave that loophole open for repeat offenders to end up on the streets. We want to close that loophole for good and forever.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues since earlier this evening. I know that they are well aware that there is a separation between the legislative and judicial branches, but they seem to be questioning the judges' ability to use discretion with regard to pre-trial custody.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Does he agree that a judge is able to determine whether or not pre-trial custody is appropriate? There are some examples in the bill that are quite troubling. I am thinking in particular of car theft. It seems to me that judges should be responsible for determining whether pre-trial custody is necessary for this type of crime.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly in the time period we have just gone through, when crime has become increasingly of concern, we are witnesses to the fact that serious repeat offenders constantly out on bail are constantly committing crimes. This is not new. We hear this from police associations, victim advocacy groups, premiers and municipal governments.

Clearly, we have to start with federal legislation, where the Criminal Code belongs, to set the culture and set the conditions to say that repeat violent offenders need to remain behind bars. To do so, we must get rid of the principle of restraint that was enshrined through Bill C-75.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, 2025, following extensive consultation, the Government of Canada introduced legislation with more than 80 provisions to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-14. I would like to take some time to more specifically outline the proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In the interest of time, I will use the acronym YCJA moving forward.

The YCJA is the federal law that governs Canada's youth criminal justice system. It applies to youth aged 12 to 17 who come in contact with the criminal justice system. The YCJA recognizes that young persons must be held accountable for criminal acts, although not in the same way as an adult. I know this first-hand as I was a youth worker for two decades. Society benefits when the greatest possible number of youth who come into contact with the criminal justice system are rehabilitated and supported to become productive members of the community.

Since the YCJA came into force in 2003, police have reported that youth crime statistics in Canada have been on a general downward trend. For example, measures of police-reported youth crime decreased by about 31% from 2014 to 2024. This shows that, overall, the YCJA works well.

However, the YCJA has not been amended for many years. Legislative changes are needed to ensure the public is well protected while promoting the rehabilitation of youth. This is why we are proposing targeted amendments to the YCJA in Bill C-14. These amendments are intended to improve the administration of the youth criminal justice system and further support the continued and successful implementation of the YCJA by the provinces and territories. Provinces and territories are primarily responsible for enforcing and implementing the YCJA. This includes investigating and prosecuting most offences, managing youth justice courts and youth custodial facilities, and providing programming and services for youth.

I will provide an overview of the amendments. First, to address a lack of clarity in the law, the bill proposes to amend the definition of violent offences. This is a key amendment to the legislation as the definition plays an important role in the type of sentences that can be imposed on a young person. This includes which offences are eligible for custody. This amendment would allow youth courts to better assess what constitutes a violent offence when a young person causes bodily harm. It would also provide them with greater flexibility to impose custodial sentences when it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Second, while many aspects of criminal procedures are similar in the youth and adult criminal justice systems, the YCJA establishes special procedures to ensure that young people are treated fairly and to promote their rehabilitation. For example, as a general rule, the privacy of young offenders, and young victims and witnesses in the youth justice system, is protected through publication bans on their identity. The privacy of young persons takes into account their age-based vulnerability and the need to protect them from the harmful impacts of publication of their information. This is to maximize their chances of rehabilitation and promote long-term public safety.

At present, in certain circumstances, the police can seek a court order to request the authority to publish the identity of youth. The proposed amendments to the YCJA would provide an additional tool for police to publish identifying information about a young person without prior court authorization. This would be in narrow circumstances, in urgent situations where the young person poses an imminent danger to the safety of the public and a court order cannot be obtained within a reasonable time. For example, when there is an active shooter in a public area and they need to be apprehended quickly to protect the public, this would apply.

Another way the YCJA protects the privacy of young persons is by limiting access to their records. The act allows certain persons listed in the act to have access to certain youth records for specific periods of time. However, the law does not currently address access to two types of records, those for cases where one has been diverted from the court system and those for files related to police investigations where there has been no charge or diversion. These amendments are important, as the YCJA encourages the use of measures outside of the formal court system for less serious offences. These measures are often the most appropriate and effective way to respond to youth offending and include options such as police warnings and referrals to community-based programming. The proposed amendments would allow certain individuals to access these records for a period of two years. These amendments would bring clarity to an area of the law where there has been litigation and emphasizes the importance of youth privacy rights.

The bill also includes a number of technical adjustments to sentencing to support provinces and territories in administering youth sentences more effectively. Many of the proposed amendments would also align the YCJA with the Criminal Code in ways that would bring greater clarity to the sentencing provisions applying to youth. For example, the amendments would make clear that any time a youth spends unlawfully at large would not count toward their term of a custodial sentence. For example, the amendment would also clarify that certain probation orders should be served after a deferred custody and supervision order. A deferred custody order is similar to a conditional sentence in the adult system.

Additionally, the amendments would add certain sentences to the existing list of sentences that can be transferred and enforced in different provinces and territories.

The bill would also make a technical amendment in cases where it is alleged that a young person has breached a condition of their sentence while under supervision in the community and the conditional supervision has been suspended.

This would allow the young person to apply for bail pending a decision by the youth court on the breach. The court would then need to determine if bail is appropriate in the circumstances. These amendments echo what is currently being done in practice and align with the Criminal Code.

As I mentioned earlier, the primary objective of the YCJA remains the protection of the public. The proposed amendments would not change this fundamental objective of the youth criminal justice system, which is distinct from the adult criminal justice system and is based on the accountability of young people, their rehabilitation and the prevention of recidivism. This includes referral to community programs or organizations that help them address the underlying causes of the offending behaviour. The federal government continues to support provinces, territories and community organizations in the delivery of youth justice services focused on the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth involved in the criminal justice system.

Because a strong Canada means strong and safe communities, and a justice system that works for everyone, I will be supporting Bill C-14 and encourage all members of Parliament to support the bill, as it would improve the youth criminal justice system. We will continue to collaborate with provinces and territories to address the causes of youth crime. Today's young people are tomorrow's adults.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction. However, the administration of justice is largely Quebec's responsibility. We know that there are already problems, particularly around the fiscal imbalance. Additional transfers are needed, including for health care.

Can my hon. colleague acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance and explain how Quebec would handle the additional costs related to this bill? Will the federal government commit to transferring money to cover the additional costs that provinces will incur? If so, how much?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the time of the election, at every home we went to, this is what we heard. Our Prime Minister, Mark Carney, promised, at that time, that we would invest into the criminal system. That is throughout the country. Quebec is also included in that. Provinces will get their share. The implementation of these changes relies on the provinces. They will have to come up with, within their means, how they could impose these changes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will just remind the member not to use the proper names of members of the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many thoughts the member has shared with us this afternoon on such an important piece of legislation, legislation that was a commitment made by the Prime Minister and Liberal members in the last election. It is great to see we have Bill C-14 before us today, and I am very hopeful we will actually see it become law before the end of the year.

I know the member has a very full understanding of youth and the impact youth have on our communities, especially related to concerns with respect to crime and so forth. I am wondering if she can just share her thoughts about youth justice, if she is comfortable with that.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like I said, I was a youth worker for 20 years in the city of Toronto, day in and day out, dealing with youth offenders and trying to put them into programs that would rehabilitate them. Most times, we look at why they turned to crime and what is needed in the community for these rehabilitation purposes. As we see auto thefts, home invasions and jewellery heists increase and youth are involved in this, I really feel the amendment to the bail system will actually alleviate these problems, because they are working with adults who are not coming in front and are using the youth to do these deeds. As such, from my experience, when the bail system gets these changes in, and I hope the opposition will help us do this when Bill C-14 comes again, we would definitely see a reduced rate of youth crimes in the community.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going through times where youth unemployment is at a record-high number.

Does she agree with me that making youth employment a priority on the Liberal side would have an impact on crime when it comes to youth?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, definitely, the economy does impact crime in general, and youth are no different. The budget that is coming in is an austerity budget that is supposed to create a lot of jobs, and youth jobs are included in that. I hope the member opposite will vote yes for our budget this time to help alleviate crime as well.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the good people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay to speak to the legislation before us, Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

Today, the House debates the very urgent and serious subject of Canada's broken bail laws. The member opposite just spoke about Bill C-14 alleviating problems. Let there be no mistake about who broke these bail laws. The Liberal government broke them. The government's bill today is to amend its own laws that broke our bail system. Conservatives have continually spoken across our country of the disastrous catch-and-release, revolving-door policy that the Liberal government used to turn our bail system into what we have today.

In my riding, I think of a notorious case in Penticton, where a local Toyota dealership was set on fire a couple of years ago. This week, the same arsonist was charged in a second case for aggravated assault. He was intimidating the witness for his first trial, and he kicked the victim in the face with a steel-toed boot. This continues on and on in a community that used to be considered incredibly safe and in communities across Canada.

I am also in the process of surveying my own constituents on public safety matters and have received many responses from constituents. The number one issue across my riding, and I believe across Canada, is safety.

A constituent in Oliver named Angela wrote, “There is a repeat offender that lives a block away from my house who is a known drug dealer, who is also well known for break and entries/theft. He’s sent to jail at least once a year and let out the next day. He’s on probation but it doesn’t stop him. How is this protecting the community if he’s constantly released. This isn’t fishing, why the catch and release? Why would he stop if he never has to face any consequences.”

Angela is right: Catch and release is a failure to uphold public safety and Canadians' rights. It also does nothing to reform the behaviour of offenders if they do not face any consequences. These days, even the Liberal government now acknowledges a 41% increase in the violent crime severity index in the last decade, as well as increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences. It is in its own press releases.

Without Conservatives, the Liberal government would still be proceeding with the disastrous past policies outlined in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which prioritized repeat violent offenders instead of victims, with too often deadly consequences.

Residents in my region of the Okanagan were shocked by the failure of our bail system to protect the public and victims in the case of Bailey McCourt. Bailey was a young woman, a mother and a survivor of intimate partner violence. This past summer, her former partner was convicted of abusing her. However, within hours of that sentencing, he had left the courtroom, tracked her down in broad daylight and murdered her in public with a hammer. With Bailey at that time was one of her friends, who survived but was left with serious physical and mental traumas that she will now have to live with for the rest of her life.

I know the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and I have been in contact with both families, and they are clear in their cause that the government must change our laws to protect victims of intimate partner violence so this never happens again.

The McCourt family said in a joint statement:

Bailey deserved to live her life free from fear and violence. She sought help from a system that was supposed to protect her, yet that system repeatedly failed to take the necessary actions to keep her safe. This is not just a tragedy, it is a preventable injustice.

It is a broken system and a preventable injustice. Too many Canadians have lost their lives to a violent repeat offender who should never have been free to kill, harm or traumatize again. Our bail system has failed them. All Canadians should support the McCourt family's calls to fix our federal laws, which we know the Prime Minister has seen because it was given to him in a letter by Premier Eby this past summer. Does the legislation before us match what the McCourt family is calling for? Unfortunately, it does not.

I will again quote the McCourt family:

We are deeply concerned about the lack of clarity surrounding reverse onus provisions as there are simply not enough details outlining what hurdles an accused must meet in order to be released.... The ambiguity in these measures risks undermining public confidence and safety.

For those without a law degree, reverse onus is a legal provision that shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the defendant. While this legislation makes some shifts in this category that would help to deny bail to repeat violent offenders, it would not go as far as we need it to. Stronger restrictions should make these offences ineligible for bail all together and prevent automatic release.

This legislation would also not repeal the disastrous Bill C-5 or Bill C-75. It merely tinkers with them. It was the Liberal government that brought in the principle of restraint, which caused judges to provide bail to even repeat violent offenders. Judges were required to apply the least onerous conditions to many criminals charged with violent offences. While this legislation now confirms that restraint does not require release, it would still provide a pathway to release and still retain the directive to apply the least onerous conditions. There is still much risk of release for violent offenders.

There is also nothing in this legislation that would return Canada's criminal justice system to the principle of mandatory minimums to ensure consistent sentencing outcomes for serious crimes. Violent offences committed with firearms, the mass production of deadly hard drugs and sexual violence should come with consistent sentencing. A predictable and fair justice system is one that Canadians can have much more confidence in.

Lastly, house arrest would remain an allowable sentence for those convicted of armed robbery and drug trafficking. This is particularly wrong because the victims of these crimes are often living in the same neighbourhoods as their assailants. It is an insult to public safety to say assailants should be able to serve their sentences in the same neighbourhoods as their victims.

In speaking with the public safety officials in my community, they tell me the Okanagan Correctional Centre is only 20% full. I think it would be better if convicted criminals were placed there than left in their communities on house arrest. The RCMP in our communities are losing faith in the system.

Lastly, I will mention that Conservatives also have Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, which I seconded, to address the serious issue of intimate partner violence, which the McCourt family wishes to be known as Bailey's law. I am proud to support the law and would call on all members of the House to support Bailey's law as well so that we can pass it as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about how important bail reform is. I have mentioned on numerous occasions today a commitment that was made to Canadians in the last election. It would appear that all political entities in the House want to see some form of bail reform take place. We have a golden opportunity to have something in place before the end of this year. A lot of that is going to depend on the Conservative Party. Is the Conservative Party prepared to allow the legislation to see its way through? That includes going to committee, where there will be good, healthy discussions and, no doubt, a number of different amendments proposed.

I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts on how important it is that we provide Canadians with new bail legislation before the end of the year.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the bill is an attempt by the Liberals to fix the bail laws they took 10 years to break. Of course we are going to work on the bill. Of course we are going to do everything we can to make Canadians safer. I just wish this had been brought forward sooner, and that is what my constituents are saying. It is not fair that for the past 10 years they have been made to feel unsafe in their own neighbourhoods.

Yes, we do look forward to talking about the bill in committee and to making sure it would actually make our communities safer and is not just talk.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what tool is missing from the Criminal Code that judges can use to keep potentially dangerous individuals in remand until their trial?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, judges are obviously missing multiple tools. In the city I live in, there are people who commit a crime, go to jail, walk out of jail the next day and then throw a brick into a car window. They are sent back to jail, spend the night, get back out and throw a brick through a window again.

It happens continually, and a lot of the time, judges, who are completely exhausted, are blamed, but they just do not have the tools to keep the criminals in jail. As I said, the Okanagan Correctional Centre is 20% full right now, and there are prolific offenders wandering our streets. We need to make sure judges have the tools they need to keep criminals behind bars.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the frustration victims feel when the same offenders are released again and again, as well as the terrible tragedies that are happening from it. Could she share more on how the revolving door justice system erodes public confidence, overwhelms our police forces and puts victims at greater risk?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been an exhausting 10 years for communities across Canada. People of all ages cannot even go into a grocery store without wondering whether they are going to be approached by a criminal or be a witness to shoplifting. What are they supposed to do? They do not feel safe in their own neighbourhood. RCMP officers are being overworked and are becoming exhausted. They are doing everything they can to keep us safe, but they are not given the tools to do that.

We need to make sure the people in our communities across Canada feel safe. I look forward to strengthening the bill so it is not just talk. By the way, we are also going to need to put the genie back in the bottle, because it has been 10 years of Liberal bail not jail, so I am sure it is going to take a while.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-14, which was introduced by the Minister of Justice last week. When he introduced the bill, he said it was important to get rid of the “get out of jail free” card. That is really what I want to focus on, even though there are a lot of other things in this rather dense bill with 80 clauses. Among other things, the bill proposes to amend the provisions on interim release.

According to the Minister of Justice, under the current system, an accused person just has to pull out a “get out of jail free” card, like in Monopoly, and they will be released. For the people listening to us, let me start by defining interim release. What is interim release? It is when a person is charged with a crime that is serious enough for the police to take them into custody. That person will have to appear before a judge within 24 hours. Even if the accused has not yet been found guilty, there is a possibility that that individual may remain in prison until their trial. The cardinal principle behind all this is the presumption of innocence.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Any person charged with an offence has the right

...

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

That is a key principle of our criminal law. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This principle implies that, if a person is arrested, they are presumed innocent until a court of law finds them guilty. What follows from the presumption of innocence is the principle of restraint. According to this principle, the decision-maker “shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances”. That is because the person has not yet been found guilty.

Does that mean that our system permits someone who is arrested to simply pull our their card to get released? No, that is not the case at all. Very specific Criminal Code provisions allow for pre-trial detention in certain cases. Sometimes, it can take months before a trial is held. In some cases, a person may be held in custody while still presumed innocent, because the necessity to protect the safety of the public takes precedence over the presumption of innocence, as set out in subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

Here is how it works. Generally, if the Crown prosecutor does not want an accused person to be released, there will be a bail hearing. The accused, their lawyer and the Crown prosecutor will appear before the judge. Normally, the burden is on the Crown if it wants the accused to remain in custody.

What tools do Crown prosecutors have, as outlined in the Criminal Code? There are actually quite a few. The Crown prosecutor may request that an accused remain in custody on the following grounds:

(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law;

If the person has failed to appear in court in the past, or if the person already had a plan to escape, these arguments can be made and the person can be detained. Here is another argument that Crown prosecutors can make right now:

(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public

It is already written in black and white. The Crown prosecutor may refer to the protection of victims, witnesses to the offence, or children under the age of 18. He or she may explain the circumstances that make it necessary to detain the person, even if they are presumed innocent, even if it will take months, because the public must be protected. The Criminal Code provides the following clarification:

including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice;

That alone is already a very useful tool for Crown prosecutors. Here is another argument that can be made:

(c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice

This makes it possible to argue the seriousness of the offence.

That is the current system. That is how things are done in courts across the country right now. My question for the government is, what is wrong with this system? Where is the problem? What is not working? What is missing? We ask these questions and we are not really getting any answers. We have asked government representatives these questions to find out whether they had any facts to prove that the system is not working and the answer is no.

What we do know is that people do not feel safe, and this feeling is legitimate. It must be addressed. People need reassurance. Is there any evidence that our system gives people a “get out of jail free” card? There is no data on this.

When I ask my colleagues questions, they base their answers on cases in their riding or some other riding. Every one of these cases is heartbreaking. Nevertheless, if an individual is charged and released, it is because the judge was of the opinion that there was no likelihood of another crime being committed, no worries about that individual being released. If the individual is released and commits another crime, and members of Parliament point to such an incident here and another there to prove that something must be done, what that basically means is that, logically, as soon as someone is charged, they should be kept in prison. We would have to keep everyone in prison.

There will always be one, two or even fourteen people who will be released and commit new crimes. If we want that number to be zero, it would mean keeping people in prison as soon as they are charged. Where does that leave the presumption of innocence? Basically, they are proposing that we undermine that principle, even without evidence. I find that quite worrying.

I was curious about how things work in practice. I worked for 10 years as a legal aid lawyer. I practised criminal law off and on, but not often. I wrote to one of my colleagues, Hugo Caissy, who has been practising criminal law for about 20 years and is an excellent lawyer. I asked him what he thinks about this bill. He wrote me this:

In reality, the claim that violent criminals are easily released is false. The opposite is true. Release for these defendants is far from guaranteed. Judges consider the accused's history, particularly when it involves crimes against the person and breaches of conditions (probation, undertakings and promises). Moreover, in the case of a breach of promise or undertaking, the burden of proof is already reversed.

...While not perfect, the current system has the necessary flexibility to detain those who need to be detained and release those who can be released with minimal risk.

...

The system could be improved, but not at the expense of individual liberties.

I thought his last point was well said.

Perhaps someone will point out that Mr. Caissy is a criminal defence lawyer. However, the criminal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, which is made up not only of defence lawyers, but also Crown prosecutors, has written an open letter about Bill C‑14. The letter states:

...reverse onus provisions and modifications to the ladder principle may not achieve their intended deterrent effect, and we question whether such provisions would be Charter compliant...[especially given the] disproportionate effect on Indigenous accused and [other racialized accused]....

We have testimony from lawyers who work in the courts. We looked at the Criminal Code. Tools do exist. We have no data from the government, apart from a few impressions. However, there are some statistics. What the statistics show is that, first of all, it is harder now to obtain interim release than in the past, and it is harder here than it is in Great Britain. In 1980, 75% of accused persons were released. In 2025, only 25% of accused persons manage to be released. In Canada, 70% of people in provincial and territorial jails are awaiting trial, compared to only 20% in Great Britain. Statistics show that it is harder to be released on bail than in the past, and it is harder here than some other places.

The Bloc Québécois therefore supports the principle of studying this bill. That is why we agree that it should be studied in committee. We believe that we must be vigilant because there is the risk of putting innocent people in prison. What we are proposing is a rational approach. The problem must be documented. It is a sensitive issue, because every single case is one case too many. I have met victims of crime and I am aware of how devastating it can be. However, when we legislate, we must still take a comprehensive and rational approach, so let us document the problem properly and then find appropriate solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question to pose is, why? I can assure the member that after talking to constituents and listening to the mayor of Winnipeg, the premier and individuals who are directly involved with the justice system, I believe that not only is the demand for bail reform very real and tangible, but it is necessary. In the last federal election, there were commitments to make changes. That in itself justifies us having Bill C-14 before us today.

I must say that I look forward to the Bloc's ongoing contribution—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary to give the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj a chance to respond.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that the demand is real. I know that people are worried, including in his home province of Manitoba. Yes, they do not feel safe, but we have to look beyond feelings.

We have to look at the Criminal Code as it stands and the values that underpin it, including the presumption of innocence. We will study all that. There is a risk that, in responding to a perception of being unsafe based on specific cases that have an impact on people, we may move toward a criminal justice system that puts innocent people in prison if we fail to look at the big picture.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj for his interesting and informative intervention. I think this is the first time I am interacting with him in the House, so I congratulate him on being elected just six months ago. I think he is the only one in the House to have beat a Liberal incumbent. I wanted to point that out. It was the only instance of that.

On this file, obviously he has relevant expertise that he is putting to use. I would like his thoughts on the reverse onus. He mentioned it, he talked a lot about the precedents that are being set. As far as a I know, and I am not a lawyer, but a journalist and I covered cases, reverse onus happens in very rare cases. Normally, it is exactly the opposite.

What, in his opinion, explains the government's approach? Does he believe in it?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under the Criminal Code, a person charged with murder is held in custody before their trial. Certain reverse onus provisions already apply.

For example, if a person has been previously convicted or discharged of a charge of intimate partner violence, if it happened before and the person is charged again, the onus is reversed. This makes it much easier for the Crown prosecutor to keep the person in custody.

Reverse onus is a significant legislative change and no trivial matter. Above all, before pursuing this course, the problem must be carefully documented.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague really hammered on the notion of feeling safe, and I get the impression that by using random examples and saying that people released on bail commit other crimes, it may be we politicians, myself excluded, who are somehow exacerbating this feeling people have of being unsafe.

New media may also be making it easier to access this very specific type of case.

I would like to ask my colleague this: How can we truly achieve justice? Are tougher measures and more severe bail restrictions the answer?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It really is so important, because what people want is reassurance.

Perhaps the first thing to do is explain to people how the system works now, which is why I humbly took some time to explain the current rules. I think one way to provide that reassurance is to help them better understand how criminal law works.

The House resumed from October 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, after a decade of passing laws to make life easier for criminals, the Liberal government has suddenly realized it created a problem. From its rare attempt to face reality, we have Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.

Conservatives have been pointing out for years that the Liberal approach to crime has the opposite effect of what the Liberals intended. Criminals did not realize the error of their ways. Instead of being thankful for generous bail and sentencing reforms that returned them to the street, they took their unexpected freedom as an opportunity to commit another crime or more crimes. Liberal bail reforms brought more crime, not less, and many Canadians began to live in fear as the Liberal revolving-door policies put criminals back on the streets to reoffend, no matter how serious the alleged crime.

For years, Conservatives have been calling on the Liberal government to repeal Bill C-75, which passed in 2019. The legislation created a catch-and-release system in which repeat and violent offenders are routinely freed pending trial. To make matters worse, in 2022, Bill C-5 further weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and repermitting house arrest for serious offences, including sexual assault. In 2023, when they realized that they had maybe gone too far, the Liberals introduced Bill C-48, but this was insufficient in terms of dealing with the problem they had created. The bill included only a handful of new offences to be considered in a reverse onus position. It did not do anything to make it harder for repeat offenders to get bail. That has been the problem: People accused of violent crimes are turned loose to reoffend.

I think every member here understands that this is a problem. In my home city of Edmonton, time and time again, we hear stories about people arrested for violent crimes who are released on bail and immediately reoffend. For example, on July 17, Edmonton police arrested a man and charged him with attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of stolen property, two counts of driving while prohibited, breach of release order, possession of a weapon dangerous to the public, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, failure to stop after an accident and theft of a motor vehicle. The accused criminal had been previously arrested for other crimes and released on bail on July 4. Did he learn from the lenient bail conditions? No, he took the opportunity to go on a crime spree

That is not the first time this sort of incident took place. In 2023, an Edmonton public transit rider was attacked and killed by a man with a history of violence who was on bail at the time, supposedly under house arrest and subject to a court order to stay away from transit property. A life was snuffed out by someone who should have been in custody. A loving father was taken from his family because of a misguided belief that violent offenders could be trusted not to reoffend.

By bringing forth this legislation, the Liberals are admitting that their criminal justice reforms have failed. Since 2014, there has been a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index, along with increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences. Conservatives warned everyone about the consequences of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 for years.

Bill C-14, the bill we are dealing with today, is a clear vindication of Conservative criticisms, but it does not go far enough. The legislation amends the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act and National Defence Act to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release, particularly in cases in which detention is necessary to protect the public, victims or witnesses and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

It would expand reverse onus offences such as violent auto theft, break and enter, human trafficking and extortion, and would direct courts to weigh the number and gravity of outstanding charges when determining bail. The bill would add new aggravating factors, would mandate certain consecutive sentences, would restrict house arrest for sexual offences and would strengthen youth custody and disclosure powers.

While the bill moves closer to the Conservative approach on bail and sentencing, it would not repeal the principle of restraint or restore mandatory minimum sentences. It is essentially a half-hearted effort that the Liberals are offering, hoping that Canadians will be happy with at least some improvements to the justice system without admitting that the need for change is due to Liberal mismanagement.

Consecutive sentences and aggravating factors are useful but are still subject to judicial discretion. As Bill C-14 does not reinstate mandatory minimums, outcomes would remain uneven and uncertain. House arrest would still be a possibility for those convicted of robbery, drug trafficking and firearms offences, not that the Liberals understand anything about who is committing firearms offences. One would think that, having realized the Conservatives were right about how disastrous Liberal justice system reforms have been, they would come to understand the problems with their firearms policies. They need to admit that law-abiding gun owners are not criminals and stop persecuting them.

Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Liberal Prime Minister is repeating his predecessor’s mistake and taking hunting rifles and shotguns from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people. After 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, it has never been easier for violent criminals to obtain a gun. The government has failed to fix the border disorder that lets in almost all of the illegal firearms used in gun crimes. Violent gun crime has increased 116% since 2015.

On May 1, 2020, Justin Trudeau announced a ban on assault-style firearms and promised to “implement a buy-back program as soon as possible to safely remove these firearms and to introduce legislation as early as possible”. We all know how that has worked out.

It has been five years since that announcement, and all the government has managed to do is a pilot project. Planning to spend $750 million on confiscating legally acquired and owned firearms will not reduce gun crime. Just so my friends opposite know, criminals do not register their guns.

Banning hunting rifles or target-shooting pistols does nothing to reduce crime and is virtue signalling at its best. Spending three-quarters of $1 billion on a gun confiscation program is a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. However, given the government spent $54 million on the ArriveCAN app, which should have cost $80,000, I guess money does not matter to it.

Violent gun crime is on the rise because of the catch-and-release bail system the Liberals created with Bill C-75, but also because they reduced penalties for at least nine gun crimes through Bill C-5. When will they realize that?

Bill C-14, which we are considering today, is a good start, but only a half measure. If they were serious about reforming our justice system and ending their catch-and-release bail policies, they would repeal Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that I disagree with a number of things the member put on the record this morning. The bail reform legislation was an election commitment given by the Prime Minister. It was part of the platform. After the election, extensive consultations were done with mayors, premiers and many other different stakeholders and law enforcement agencies. This legislation has widespread support. It was a commitment made to Canadians.

The only thing that will prevent this legislation from becoming law is the Conservative Party. We could pass it before the end of the year. Does the member feel in any way that he owes it to his constituents to get the bail reform legislation passed before the end of the year?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows well that we need Canadians to be safe, first and foremost. In order for Canadians to be safe, the government cannot be light on criminals, as it has been through Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

I said in my speech that this bill, Bill C-14, is a good start. The Conservatives want it to be stronger. We want criminals to understand they cannot just get a freebie every time they do something stupid like attack or kill someone or commit any criminal offence against any Canadian. This is the Conservative Party's aim. We need strong legislation to make sure criminals stay behind bars and are not set free on the streets to recommit crimes again and again.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned that it is important to have strong legislation, rules and laws as long as we give judges the opportunity to make an assessment.

Think about a criminal who has stolen a car for the first time versus one who has committed acts of physical violence against other people or even caused death. I think we can agree that those are two very different things.

It would be nice if we could conduct an in-depth study of this bill in committee. I am wondering whether my colleague would be willing to accept the Bloc Québécois's amendments.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, if anyone should accept any amendments, it should be the government, not the Conservatives.

When it comes to the bill going to committee, it is very important for any bill of this importance to go to committee to be examined by all parties. This is the way we do things. I hope the committee will be able to study this bill well to make sure we can present to Canadians, once and for all, a strong justice system that will really protect them, their families and our streets.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on a couple of things. I very quickly looked at a few numbers. Since Bill C-75 passed, there were 182 murders committed by people out on bail in 2019, 198 in 2020, 171 in 2021, 256 in 2022 and 267 in 2023. We do not have numbers for 2024 and 2025. This does not include intimate partner violence abuse and child abuse by criminals who were out on bail.

A member opposite said that we have all these organizations supporting this bill and asked why we cannot support it. Why does my colleague think the members opposite did not support our motion to quickly pass Bill C-242, the bail not jail bill, when all of those same organizations urged them to support it?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot in the news everywhere about how many crimes are committed every day, and the majority of them are committed by repeat offenders, people released from prison within 15 days who go out on the streets again and start attacking people. I hear about it in Edmonton every day. Toronto is also a great example.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. This legislation represents a significant effort to strengthen public safety and ensure that Canada's justice system works as it should: firm, fair and focused on protecting people.

In my riding of Surrey Centre, we have seen first-hand how crime can shake a community's sense of safety. I have spoken with families, business owners and community leaders who have been directly targeted by extortion and intimidation. Some have received threatening calls demanding money. Others have seen shots fired at their homes and businesses, or had their livelihoods put at risk because they refused to pay. Some may have even been murdered for failing to pay.

These are not abstract crimes; they are real acts of fear and coercion that are leaving long-lasting damage. They rob people of their peace of mind and the freedom to live and work without intimidation, and they erode trust in the system when those responsible are seen walking the streets soon after being arrested.

Canadians want communities to be safe. When those expectations are not met, they expect their government to respond. That is why this bill matters. The bail and sentencing reform act is about restoring confidence that our justice system will protect the innocent, support victims and hold offenders fully accountable. It is also about restoring confidence that the federal government is listening to the concerns of Canadians and responding with concrete action.

Bill C-14 would introduce more than 80 clauses of targeted reforms to make bail laws stricter and sentencing tougher for repeat and violent offenders, while safeguarding the rights guaranteed under the charter. These proposed reforms reflect months of government consultation with provinces and territories, mayors, law enforcement, victims' advocates and community organizations, all united in the shared goal of keeping Canadians safe.

While this bill covers a range of reforms, I want to focus my remarks in a few areas that matter deeply to me and to the people I represent, particularly those dealing with bail, violent crime and the growing problem of extortion and organized crime. I will talk first about Bill C-14's aim to strengthen the bail system.

Across the country, too many tragic and violent crimes have been committed by individuals who were already out on bail. There is growing concern that the bail system is not working as it should when it comes to repeat and violent offenders. This bill aims to address that problem and make bail decisions more responsive to public safety.

It would offer clarity to police and courts about how to apply the principle of restraint and would make clear that it does not require release in every case. Detention is justified when it is necessary to protect public safety. The legislation would also strengthen the guidance given to courts when assessing bail, ensuring that decisions take full account of risks to public safety and the circumstances of the alleged offence. Most importantly, Bill C-14 would introduce several new reverse onus provisions for crimes such as organized auto theft, home invasion, human trafficking, sexual assault involving choking or strangulation, and, critically, extortion involving violence.

Typically, when prosecutors want to detain an accused person while they await trial, they bear the onus or burden of demonstrating to the court that the accused should not be released on bail. The reverse onus would shift this burden from the prosecution to the accused, creating a presumption in favour of keeping the accused in custody unless they can show to the court that they should not be denied bail. In other words, it would be up to the accused to demonstrate why they should be released and not the other way around. By shifting the burden in these cases, the law would help ensure that individuals who repeatedly endanger others remain in custody unless it is truly safe to release them.

I will turn next to how this legislation would help address the growing threat of extortion and organized crime.

In my riding of Surrey Centre, this issue is deeply personal. The Surrey Police Service has reported 65 extortion cases so far this year, with 35 of them involving gunfire. These numbers are alarming, and behind each one are people and families living in fear and uncertainty as a result. When fear like this takes hold, it can damage livelihoods and the sense of safety that communities deserve and depend on. For example, I have heard from business owners who feel targeted simply for working hard and succeeding. No one should ever have to look over their shoulder just for building a successful business.

Bill C-14 would give our justice system stronger tools to respond, making it more difficult for an accused charged with extortion involving threatened or attempted violence to secure their release on bail. It would require the courts to consider the number of and seriousness of outstanding charges accumulated while out on bail, and it would expand weapons prohibitions at the bail stage to include those accused of extortion and organized crime. Importantly, it would also require courts to consider imposing tougher conditions like curfews, no-contact orders and clear geographic restrictions when bail is granted to help prevent further intimidation while cases are before the courts.

These proposals would complement other actions to tackle organized crime and extortion, most notably the recent listing of the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist entity. This equips law enforcement and prosecutors with stronger tools to investigate, disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal networks that traffic in fear and violence. Together, these measures would help ensure that my constituents in Surrey Centre, and Canadians across the country, can live and work without fear or coercion.

Canadians also expect that sentences will reflect the seriousness of the crime committed and the harm done to victims. I would like to highlight a few elements of this bill that would strengthen accountability once offenders are convicted. Bill C-14 would amend the Criminal Code to include significant sentencing reforms to make penalties tougher for repeat violent offenders, including extortion and crimes that endanger public safety. It would require consecutive sentences for certain combinations of offences, as when extortion is committed alongside arson or when a violent auto theft is linked with the breaking and entering of a home. Each act would be treated as a separate harm deserving of its own consequence. These measures would make sure sentences send a clear message: Those who commit acts of violence or intimidation will face consequences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes.

Bill C-14 represents a balanced and responsive path forward. It is the product of co-operation across multiple levels of government, engagement with frontline responders and listening to the concerns of Canadians, and it reflects the federal government's commitment to doing its part. For those measures to have their full effect, they must be matched with strong implementation at every level, from the provincial administration of justice to local law enforcement in communities across the country.

Keeping Canadians safe requires all partners to work together to uphold their shared responsibilities. In my riding of Surrey Centre and across the country, families, small business owners and community leaders have been clear that they want safer streets, stronger accountability and real consequences for those who commit violent crimes. This bill would help deliver exactly that.

I urge members to give it their full support.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are tired of the spin. The government's Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 turned our justice system into a revolving door: catch, release, repeat. Since then, violent crime is up 41%. In my own riding, I sat across from small business owners this weekend who are terrified of extortion, and from families afraid to walk home at night. Add to that record-high immigration levels with no proper vetting, and our neighbours are being shot at while they sleep in their homes. We are watching communities buckle under the pressure.

Please tell me this: After years of failure, why did the Liberals not support the Conservatives' jail not bail bill when they had the chance to fix it?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share a lot of the same concerns as my hon. colleague, whose riding is adjacent to mine. Yes, there is a lot of concern among business owners and families, but the bill that the member opposite is speaking about was more about slogans. It was not charter-compliant and did not have the consultation of the provinces and territories, the attorneys general, the solicitors general, the municipal police forces, victims or the average Canadians and business owners who are reporting these crimes.

Bill C-14 was done with the consultation of municipal police forces, the provinces and territories, solicitors general, attorneys general and members of the public. This is a charter-compliant, victim-focused bill, and that is why we are supporting it.

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

Madam Speaker, the bill seeks to restrict the principle of restraint, or at least set guidelines for it.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about the reasons for these restrictions.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this concept of restraint came from a Supreme Court ruling in 2017 showing why it should be done. What I have seen is that the concept of restraint has not been equally implemented across Canada.

Take, for example, the extortion cases I have seen. I have met victims of extortion in Ontario and Alberta as well as British Columbia. The same bail provisions via the Criminal Code are implemented in all three jurisdictions. However, I would commend the training and ability of the Alberta prosecution in terms of any of those. Nine were charged with extortion there, and nine never received bail. Out of the nine, six have been convicted and three are awaiting trial and sentencing. However, in other jurisdictions, the same restraint was not implemented in the same, effective way.

I think clarity on restraint is very important. We need to have it. It is asked for by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, how that restraint is implemented requires proper training for our prosecution offices, as well as training for those judges.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of extortion because it has been a very serious one.

The member made reference to arson with extortion and how serious an offence that is. Yesterday, I was at the airport. I had someone approach me and share a social media post of some individuals walking into a store, pouring gas all over the place and lighting it on fire. It was an extortion case. These are very serious.

The member made reference to the fact that it is great the bail reform law will, in good part, deal with issues like this, but we need to have the co-operation and efforts of the different jurisdictions, whether it is the provinces, municipalities or law enforcement agencies. We all need to step up to the plate. The bail reform legislation we are introducing today is one of the ways in which the federal government is stepping up to the plate.

Could the member provide his thoughts as to why it is important that all levels of government step up to the plate?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is imperative that all three levels do. We have to remember that, in Canada, it is the local, municipally governed police or the RCMP in that jurisdiction that have to do the investigation and catch the culprits. It is the provinces that have to press the charges and control the prosecution. They must make their efforts and we must make the laws.

We are doing our part. We ask that the provinces and municipalities do theirs.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the Liberals have lost control of crime. Let us look at their track record. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%. Firearms crime is up 130%. Extortion skyrocketed and is up 330%. Sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%.

They have introduced Bill C-14. It takes in some of the Conservatives' suggestions, but I feel that the bill still falls short in some areas. It does not remove the principle of restraint, which prioritizes criminals over victims. It does not restore mandatory minimum sentences, which were repealed by Bill C-5. Conditional sentence order limits do not go far enough. For example, robbery, gun and trafficking offences can still access house arrest.

Let us start with the principle of restraint. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-75, it weakened our courts' ability to keep violent repeat offenders behind bars because it directed them to release the accused persons at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. Bill C-14 stops short of repealing this. Although it confirms that restraint does not require release, it still leaves the door open to allow violent criminals to get bail.

Bill C-75, which introduced the principle of restraint, was the Liberals' attempt at bail reform. The fact that we are standing here talking about it means that it failed. Bill C-14 is only going halfway to removing it. The bill would still direct our courts to release criminals under the least onerous conditions necessary when they do order bail. What Canadians need are safe streets they can walk down and safe homes they can sleep in. The only way we can restore that is by completely removing this weak Liberal bail policy. Bill C-75 was the Liberals' attempt at bail reform, and we can now agree that it completely failed. We should be scrapping the principle of restraint entirely and replacing it with a clause that prioritizes public safety or just gets rid of it completely.

Bill C-14 also stops halfway to solving the issue of mandatory minimums. It would include consecutive sentences and aggravating factors, but it leaves those up to judicial discretion. Most importantly, it would not reinstate mandatory minimums. Criminals charged with firearm, sexual and repeat violent offences should be afraid of committing crimes because they would receive a mandatory minimum sentence. This creates accountability and puts fear into criminals. Instead, criminals are not deterred by weak Liberal policies.

Just to name a few, Bill C-5 repealed the following mandatory minimums. Discharging a firearm with intent had a mandatory minimum of four years. Discharging a firearm with recklessness had four years. Robbery with a firearm had four years. Extortion with a firearm had four years. Why should those have been repealed? It makes absolutely no sense.

Here are some examples of how weak Liberal bail policies impact our communities. In the House, we heard about Bailey McCourt, a young mother of two daughters who was killed by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. Recently, another young mother of four, Savannah Kulla, was killed by her former partner in Brampton while he was out on bail. Earlier this year, Hamilton police had to release a statement after a man convicted of several sexual assaults was released on bail. In 2022, this man dragged a woman into the woods, gagged her, tied her hands behind her back and proceeded to assault her. In 2023, he entered the home of a 74-year-old woman and assaulted her for over an hour. In February of this year, he was released on bail pending his trial. Hamilton police released a statement with his picture to warn people because they believed he remained a threat to the community, obviously.

Bill C-14 gives us half measures instead of complete solutions. I heard from Canadians over the course of the election that they want to be safe at home and out on the streets. However, after 10 years of Liberal government, they do not feel safe in their own neighbourhoods, and rightfully so when we have criminals like those I just described being released back on our streets within hours.

For 10 years, the Conservatives have been advocating for, and presenting, solutions to the weak bail system. At every turn, the Liberals have voted against us. Our plan to restore safe streets is common sense.

We want to repeal the principle of restraint and replace it with a public safety primacy clause. This would put the public and community safety as the governing principle, putting Canadians, not criminals, first. We also want to restore mandatory minimum sentences for firearms crimes, sexual assaults, kidnapping, human trafficking and other serious violent crime. It sounds very reasonable to me.

We want to restore CSO ineligibility, in order to exclude robbery, firearms offences, trafficking and chronic violent offenders. Conditional sentence orders allow an offender to serve their sentence in the community under strict conditions like house arrest or curfew. There is no reason someone who commits human trafficking should be able to serve their time in the comfort of their own home and in our neighbourhoods. It makes absolutely zero sense.

Conservatives already proposed extending reverse onus on major crimes and making any attack on first responders a major offence, in the jail not bail act of one of my colleagues, which the Liberals voted against.

The Liberals are starting to see what their destructive policies have done to our communities, which is why they have started taking Conservative suggestions on bail reform, but their proposed solution, Bill C-14, would not patch up all the holes they have made. The Conservatives have listened to Canadians and have already come forward with a plan that would completely patch up the holes the Liberals have made in our bail system.

Our jail not bail act covers everything I have just talked about. It would put victims first and focus on public safety instead of on how short we can make a criminal's sentence. It would create a major offences category that would trigger a detention-first posture for the following charges: firearms offences, sexual offences, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, breaking and entering into dwellings, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. This sounds very good to me.

The jail not bail act would make it mandatory for judges to consider the full criminal history of the accused and would introduce the 10-year look-back rule, meaning that if someone has been convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years and is charged with another major offence while on bail, they would be barred from receiving bail again.

These all sound like common-sense policies, but under the Liberal government, common sense has disappeared and been replaced with weak policies that allow bail for violent criminals. We cannot prioritize the victim and the offender at the same time.

For too long, the government has been prioritizing the criminal, and our public safety has declined as a result. Our cities have been taken over by violent repeat criminals, released time and time again. The Liberals are admitting their prior policies have failed Canadians when it comes to safety, because they acknowledge a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index since 2014 and increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences.

Bill C-14 attempts to fix the consequences of the Liberals' past Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which weakened the bill system, but they are keeping the same language framework, the same language that puts priority on releasing the criminal. Conservatives would make sure the bill before us would actually scrap the weak Liberal policies in favour of public and community safety.

Our country hit absolute rock bottom this weekend when the Supreme Court ruled there will be no mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who access or possess child sexual abuse content, in other words, content that includes children being raped. Yes, I was heard clearly: The new Supreme Court ruling, after 10 years of the Liberal government, has removed mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who access or possess child sexual abuse content.

The Liberals have been creating the kind of culture in Canada for the past decade where even a mandatory minimum jail sentence for accessing or possessing child sexual abuse content is viewed as unconstitutional.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite if he will be supporting this bill that really would reform the justice act to put in place harsher sentences when it comes to bail reform. I also want to know if the Conservatives will help pass the legislation.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the past week has been very difficult for me, as a father.

We heard something that, yes, is a Supreme Court ruling, but after 10 years of weak Liberal policy, this is what we have come to. This is a low point in the Canadian judicial system.

Will the Liberals be using the notwithstanding clause? Will the Prime Minister simply even comment on what happened on Friday? That is what I and every Canadian, especially the parents out there, would like to know.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals take a lot of flack.

I would agree that the government is quite often clumsy and imperfect. There may even be some incompetence in certain areas. However, the Conservatives are claiming that a Supreme Court ruling is due to the policies of the government that has been in power for the past 10 years. I would remind my colleague that the Supreme Court assesses the constitutional validity of legislation.

If we want to be credible when debating such a serious issue, no one should be making up ridiculous theories for partisan purposes.

My question for my colleague is this. Bill C-14 does not go nearly as far as the Conservatives would like. The Conservatives want to take a much more aggressive approach to justice and parole. Bill C-14 does move things forward somewhat. It does improve certain things. Even the Bloc Québécois can find some positive things in the bill.

Does my colleague not agree that we should start by sending this bill to committee and improving it as much as possible? Then, well, we will see what happens after that.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, the bill proposes some things, but not enough.

We are here debating it because Liberal bail reform, in the form of Bill C-75, which the Liberals introduced many years ago, has completely failed. In my opinion, the bill before us does not even go halfway. Bill C-75 should be repealed completely.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's intervention today was great. He has attended many events across the community and has been to town halls. I see him interacting with people in Hamilton and across the GTA.

What is the member hearing from parents and seniors when it comes to crime? What is happening on the ground? If the member could share some of those stories with us today, it would be appreciated.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I have attended a lot of town halls, and I will be having my own shortly.

People have had enough. We have heard some very sad stories. We have heard stories of things that could have been prevented. We have heard of lives lost. We are hearing that Canadians are completely fed up. Record numbers of people are coming out to town halls, which, I would like to point out, are not partisan events. People are coming looking for answers. They are asking us why these things are happening to them, to someone they know or to their child.

We keep pointing back to Bill C-75 and to the failed Liberal justice system. After 10 years, I find it heard to believe that members on the other side are absolutely not listening to Canadians when they are speaking, loud and clear, to every member of the House.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, back in April, Canada elected a new Prime Minister, who made a commitment to Canadians that we would bring forward substantial bail legislation. Bill C-14 has 80 targeted clauses to make substantial changes. The consultation included law enforcement agencies, provinces, municipalities and victims of crime. There were extensive consultations.

Our new Prime Minister has brought forward substantial bail legislation. If the Conservatives are prepared to see the legislation move forward, we could have this in law before the end of the year.

Does the member agree with me and the constituents I represent that passing bail reform legislation is of critical importance and that we should achieve to get it done before the end of the year?

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

Madam Speaker, the easy question to ask is what took so long. The system has been broken for years.

Yes, there is a so-called new Prime Minister. The member was part of the old government that broke the system. I can assure him, having talked to victims and frontline police officers, that there have not been consultations for the last 10 years. They have been ignored.

This has been an academic exercise in trying to figure out the best way to stop crime, and it has failed. The soft-on-crime, revolving-door Liberal justice system is an admonishment of the approach the Liberals have taken. It is a complete failure. It is time that we listen to victims and frontline police officers and put criminals behind bars, where they belong.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us more about the impact that a bill like this one would have on the Oval Office, on Donald Trump.

Some things are taking a long time, but we have come under pressure from the Americans to take swift action. Do we feel as though we are taking too long? Should we bend even further to the will of the United States?

That is exactly what the Liberals told us that they would do. They said that they were going to sort everything out really quickly and that they would appease the U.S. In the end, that is not what is happening.

What does my colleague think would be the impact on the Oval Office?

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to highlight the insane number of promises the so-called new Prime Minister of the lengthy, 10-year Liberal administration has made, how few he has kept and how few he possibly could keep.

The member mentioned my community. When Kellie died, it shook our community. My hometown has 13,000 people. Within hours, everybody knew, and then they heard what had actually happened. They were sad. They were heartbroken when Kellie died because she was such an important pillar of our community, but that sadness turned into sheer disgust knowing that her death was entirely preventable. If the Liberals had taken the bail system seriously over the last nine months or, more importantly, over the last 10 years, as we have seen a steady increase in crime rates across this country, she might still be with us. Her death did not need to happen.

It is so disappointing to have so many Liberal MPs stand up and forget that they defended the status quo that has caused so many tragedies to families like Kellie's and others right across this country.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are trying to pass their so-called bail and sentencing reform act today. However, as Canadians may recall, Conservatives tabled our jail not bail act just weeks ago. It is a piece of legislation that we thoughtfully and carefully drafted in consultation with police departments, victims groups and police associations to close all the Liberal loopholes. We worked all summer and did the homework for the Liberals, and they swiftly voted it down. The Liberals chose to keep repeat offenders on our streets and give house arrest to fentanyl traffickers, offenders of gun crime and sexual offenders. The Liberals are now tabling Bill C-14, which does not even meet us halfway.

Why do you think the Liberals are pretending to fix a problem that they caused?

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

I remind the hon. member that I do not think anything while I am in the chair.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar has 10 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I suppose it is par for the course. The Liberals break it, promise they can fix it and fail. It is a vicious cycle.

Bill C-242 is a solution. The Liberals stole enough Conservative ideas in the last election. They should take this one, run with it and make this country a safer place.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is my honour to rise in the House on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island.

I would like to take a minute to recognize Peyton Hammond, a 17-year-old who just won the World Darts Federation World Cup youth championship. Congratulations and well done. He certainly is a rising star.

Today, I would like to speak specifically about violent repeat offenders. Let us be clear. The Liberals' soft-on-crime Bill C-75 has allowed our towns and cities to become havens for violent repeat offenders. Frankly, Bill C-14 is not much better.

Let me take members to Duncan on Vancouver Island. It is a small town with a population of around 7,000. Lewis Street is the epicentre of violent repeat offenders, drug crimes and drug overdoses. There is an overdose prevention site, people are camping everywhere and there is struggling and suffering on the streets. It is one block from two schools. An elementary school and a middle school are one block away. I have been there many times. I have witnessed drug dealing and people overdosing, fighting and camping on the street. It is out of control. The park is a public toilet. There are no toilets; it is just a park. People are living on balconies. Residents there witness this every day.

“Stick Man” takes sticks every day and goes down the street, smashing cars. He gets arrested, is released the next day and does it again. I have seen him. The residents there have told me they have seen him doing it again and again. They witness it from their balconies and their front yards, or from behind their windows. They know the criminals. They see them again and again. They see public sexual acts and public indecency.

I am, and we are all, sympathetic to those suffering from homelessness and drug addiction. They, too, are victims of violent repeat offenders. These people are somebody's son, daughter, brother or sister. They have a family. They, too, suffer.

Seniors there are afraid to go out at night. They know who the violent repeat offenders are. They know who is going to attack them, day and night. Some of them are 90 years old. They are struggling to get property insurance because of where they live, because of the crime and because of the violent repeat offenders.

I would like to speak about Hank's Handimart, which is nearby. James Kim is a senior and a store owner. He was working in his store and was beaten nearly to death. He was put in hospital for several weeks, yet the next day, as his sons were covering shifts to keep the family business, which is helping the community, open and alive, they watched the accused walk past the store. The next day, he was out on bail.

The overall crime severity index there is 339 and the violent crime severity index is at 324. It is among the worst in British Columbia. The violent crime rate is 153% above the national average. That is not just in Duncan; it is in small and big towns and communities across Canada. People are suffering from Bill C-75 and the culture of violent repeat offenders and catch and release. Bill C-75 has failed Canada and it has failed Duncan. Is Bill C-14 any better?

Johnny was my daughter's boyfriend. He was murdered in downtown Victoria not three years ago. He was brutally stabbed to death. He was gutted with a hunting knife by a violent repeat offender who was out on bail. He had been charged multiple times. In fact, some of the charges were laid not two weeks earlier. They were violent crimes: attempted murder and attacking a police service dog. He should not have been out on bail, but he was. That is Bill C-75's failure. Will Bill C-14 solve it?

Last week, I asked the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, from the party opposite, if Bill C-14 would solve the issue of violent repeat offenders and if it would have saved Johnny. He said the problem was the judges. He questioned their training, how busy they were that day and their experience. He wanted to know their qualifications. He was pointing fingers and blaming our legal system for Bill C-75's failures. I think that was shameful. He then went on to challenge members who disagreed with him to take it outside.

Most importantly, the member was unable to answer, and did not answer, whether Bill C-14 would have saved the life of somebody like Johnny or the lives of so many other people across Canada who have been affected and whose lives have been shattered by violent repeat offenders. Violent repeat offences have spiked in the last 10 years.

Bill C-14 fails to impose automatic detention for those already on bail. This would have prevented Johnny's murder and so many other crimes. It leaves the principle of restraint in place, the very policy that forced the judges to release Johnny's murderer at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions.

These are some of the examples specific to violent repeat offenders, which Bill C-14 fails to address. It fails to keep violent repeat offenders behind bars. It falls short. The principle of restraint remains. The “least onerous” language persists. It keeps the culture of release there.

House arrest limits do not go far enough for robbery, gun crimes and trafficking. The solution is clearly to bring the bill to committee and put in some hard work to fix Bill C-14. Sure, it copies some Conservative ideas, but not all of them. It certainly does not go far enough, as I outlined, specifically on the violent repeat offender problem. We need to keep these people where they belong, which is behind bars. What we have now is not working. Duncan knows it. Vancouver Island knows it. Towns across Canada know it. Victims know it. Law enforcement knows it.

Sure, Bill C-14 is a start. It also acknowledges that Bill C-75 was a failure. There is a lot of work needed to make some serious improvements to Bill C-14. We support getting it to committee in order to get it fixed and deliver good laws for Canadians with key elements like, for example, the principle of restraint, house arrest limits and restoring mandatory minimums. It needs to be responsive to the needs, requirements and advice of law enforcement officials and, indeed, all Canadians. The solution is, clearly, to work together, as a minority government should. It is not about saying, “We need to vote for their bill as it is, or we are the bad guy.” We need to be collaborative and work together for the betterment of Canadians, in order to keep people safe.

Bill C-14 needs lots of work. It needs fixing. It needs improvement. Conservatives are ready to work together to keep Canadians safe. I am wondering if the Liberals are ready to work together.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member mentioned mandatory minimums. This has been brought up several times this morning. I am sure the member is aware that the Supreme Court struck down several cases based on mandatory minimums and their unconstitutionality. Our new bail and sentencing reform legislation would allow courts to use discretion in individual cases to ensure that criminals are properly punished without the risk of violating the charter.

Does the member understand the problem with mandatory minimums and their compliance with the charter, and will he support the reformative crime legislation the government has brought forward?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said very clearly, we need to work together so we can solve the challenges, failures and shortcomings of Bill C-14. With collaborative work to fix it, we will work to support it.

As for mandatory minimums, judges need to be working on the particulars of the cases. They have their discretion, but they need to maintain those mandatory minimums.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives want tougher measures to fight crime. I would like to know their thoughts on the following ideas for cracking down on organized crime: creating a registry of criminal organizations and making it illegal to display symbols or insignia used by criminal organizations.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, while I spoke specifically to violent repeat offenders and how Bill C-14 applies to them, I certainly agree that organized crime also needs to be addressed. That falls under my description of how the bill needs more work. Cracking down on organized crime would certainly be part of it.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, as members know, I have stood in this place many times over the last couple of months to talk about the brutal sexual assault and rape of a little girl in my riding of Niagara South, “Little E”. Everyone is keenly aware of this case. She was assaulted by a repeat offender, somebody who had just been released and who served one year of a year-and-a-half sentence. He attacked this little girl within weeks of his release.

I am wondering if my colleague can comment on how this legislation might have dealt with the release of this offender. Would it have happened under this legislation, and what improvements does he believe need to happen so that people like Daniel Senecal have a sentence that is commensurate with the crime?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, while I do not really know how to answer that question, it is an absolutely heartbreaking story. We need Bill C-14 to be worked on so cases like that simply cannot happen. It happens too often. That one example is too much, yet we know there are so many examples.

As Conservatives, our goal is to work together in committee to fix this bill so that Canadians like the ones in the story the member gave us are protected, and so that violent repeat offenders stay behind bars. We made suggestions already on how to fix it with our jail not bail act. Now is the time to work together and come up with a positive solution.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, an article in last week's Winnipeg Free Press described how Manitoba has been underfunding its Crown attorneys. This has been happening in other provinces as well. We all know that, in order to be denied bail, someone needs a bail hearing, and there are not enough Crown attorneys for timely bail hearings. Under law, then, they have to be released.

Would you not agree that there is some responsibility among the provincial governments to make sure this is properly administered?

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

I give the hon. member a reminder that I cannot agree or disagree with anything.

I ask the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to answer the question.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not asking you to agree or disagree with anything, but I appreciate the guidance for the House, in general.

I am not familiar with the article in the Winnipeg Free Press mentioned by the member for Winnipeg West. Yes, there are challenges at the provincial level, but we need to set the guidance in Bill C-14 to make the conditions correct so that provinces can deal with it. The Liberals have had 10 years to work on and fix this. They have not done that. At all levels, we need to make Canadians able to feel safe on the streets so they can enjoy a safe life.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, Ponoka—Didsbury is a great riding in rural central Alberta. It is almost as close to the north end of Calgary as it is to the south end of Edmonton, with some of the finest, hardest-working and noblest people we could ever find, and honest, law-abiding citizens. There are lots of farmers, businesses and all-around good people. It is a pleasure for me to rise on their behalf today to give a speech that I am going to entitle “We told them so”.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-14, a bill introduced by the Liberal government to fix a problem that it, essentially, created. When the Conservative government left power in 2015, Canada had the lowest total crime rate since 1969, and that was not simply a coincidence. Conservatives understand that the justice system is not a toy for the use of social engineering. It is, in fact, an important tool for restraining the liberties of those who threaten public safety, especially when they are likely to reoffend. In other words, Conservatives believe public safety to be the paramount consideration in whether somebody's civil liberties should be restrained.

Victims of crime deserve a voice, and the actions of criminals should have real-world consequences. Unfortunately, the last 10 years of Liberal rule have seen all the progress made under the Harper administration completely erased. During these years, the current Liberal government and the ones before it waged an ideological crusade against those who uphold Canada's laws. Of the Liberals' soft-on-crime bills, none are more egregious than Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Bill C-75 eased bail provisions and legislated the principle of restraint for police and courts, ensuring that criminals would be released at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. This is, essentially, the open door to the catch-and-release system we see today. I am a conservationist at heart and an angler. I know that catch and release can sometimes be a good thing. When it comes to justice, though, catch and release is poor public policy and comes at enormous costs for certain Canadians.

Bill C-5, for its part, removed the mandatory minimum sentences on 14 different Criminal Code offences, even some minimum sentences that were put in place by none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau. These were common-sense penalties for dangerous offences and included using a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence. It also included possession of a firearm or weapon while knowing that the possession is unauthorized. We all know criminals do not get gun licences and do not register their guns. Why on earth would we take away minimum penalties for people who knowingly do that?

Regarding possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, I do not know why people would not go to jail for that. Every law-abiding gun owner knows they would not have to suffer those consequences because they follow the rules, but criminals do not follow the rules. Regarding possession of a weapon obtained in the commission of an offence, if someone steals somebody's guns, they do not get to go to jail. As a matter of fact, someone would probably get in more trouble for having their guns stolen from them than the person who actually stole the guns in the first place.

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

Could we see to the noise in the corridors, please? It is very disturbing.

Thank you.

The hon. member.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, what I was saying is very important. If the Liberals had listened over these 10 years, we would not have the problems we have right now, but it is clear they do not like to listen.

When it comes to weapons trafficking, excluding firearms and some ammunition, one does not have to go to jail if one trafficks in weapons. Possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, that is, when a person carries them across the border or sells them; and importing or exporting firearms or ammunition without a permit, all related to organized crime and the smuggling trade, are things for which the Liberals erased minimum sentences.

Discharging a firearm with intent or recklessly is a problem. If someone discharges a firearm recklessly or with the intent to hurt somebody, they should go to jail. All hunters and farmers know this, and we are very careful. Gun control means muzzle control to a law-abiding gun owner but not to a criminal. However, if someone is a Liberal, why would they let common sense get in the way of ideological agendas? Of course they would remove that provision.

Robbery with a firearm must be a lot of fun for the victim. If a person is robbing somebody at gunpoint, under the previous or current Liberal laws of this country, they do not have to fear going to jail. As a matter of fact, they are probably going to be able to serve their sentence from their couch.

Extortion with a firearm is up by over 350% in Canada. In some communities it is up by over 500%. It was not like that until Bill C-5 was passed. The bill even permitted conditional sentences, allowing house arrest for serious offences such as sexual assault. Imagine a person's sexually assaulting somebody and being able to serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home.

The Liberal government has been one of the most divisive governments in Canada's history over the last 10 years. Somehow the one thing it was able to do was unite all 13 premiers with respect to its approach on crime. The 13 premiers, one for each province and territory, wrote to the previous prime minister in 2023, saying that he had it completely wrong. The most unifying thing the Liberals have actually done is galvanize the whole country in saying that they had it wrong.

Since 2015, there has been a staggering increase of lawlessness across Canada. Violent crime is up 55%, and firearms crimes are up by over 130%. These are crimes committed with illegal guns; they are not committed by hunters like me or by sport shooters but by criminals who get guns illegally. Extortion is up by over 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%. It is no wonder a recent Léger poll shows that over half of Canadians no longer feel safe in their own home.

I would like to know this: Will the government apologize to all the victims of crime for all the abuse and the murders, to the people who are suffering as a result of the decisions the MPs on the other side have made?