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.

Jail Not Bail Act

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

Mr. Speaker, improving safety in our communities is a mainstay of our Liberal platform.

Six months into the new government's mandate, we have clearly backed up our commitments with a series of concrete actions, as the budget tabled earlier this week shows.

During the election campaign, we promised Canadians that this new government would make bail reform and tougher sentences a priority. That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C‑14, for example.

On this side of the House, our approach is responsible and constructive. We ensure that proposed amendments to the Criminal Code are constitutional. Otherwise, if the bill passes, the courts would strike it down. This wastes time and resources, and leaves Canadians disheartened. That is not something we want.

Looking at Bill C‑242, one really has to wonder whether our colleagues in the official opposition have really taken the time to analyze it from a constitutional perspective. If my colleagues' goal is truly to make communities safer, I wonder why they are promoting a redundant bill that creates confusion and poses constitutional risks, rather than working to implement Bill C‑14.

I will take the next few minutes to explain why Bill C‑14 is a step in the right direction to make our communities safer, as we committed to do during the election campaign. Bill C‑14 proposes a comprehensive reform of Canada's bail and sentencing systems, with more than 80 targeted amendments. This is a major undertaking that will meet the public's expectations. It includes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

With regard to strengthening the bail system, Bill C‑14 will create new reverse onus provisions for serious and violent crimes. This means that bail will no longer be the norm for these types of crime. The accused would be detained by default, and would then have to prove why they should be released on bail. This applies to crimes that are plaguing our society. I am thinking in particular of organized auto theft. In recent years, people going on vacation are finding that their vehicles have been stolen from the airport. People should not have to worry about whether or not they will find their vehicle when they return home. We are therefore going to make bail harder for people who engage in organized auto theft.

We are going to crack down on home invasions. People should feel safe in their own homes. It will be more difficult for those who attack people in their own homes to get bail. The same is true for people who engage in human trafficking and smuggling. People who exploit vulnerable individuals should have a harder time getting bail, and that is what we are doing with Bill C‑14. This bill also addresses crimes such as violent assault, sexual assault and extortion involving violence. It will be more difficult for those who commit such crimes to get bail in Canada. I believe that this is what Canadians expect of us.

We are also going to ask the courts to take into account allegations of random or unprovoked violence. Let us say that someone attacks me when all I was doing was walking down the street, minding my own business. That will be an aggravating factor that must be considered when determining whether the person should be kept in custody while awaiting trial. It is the same thing if the accused has a history of intimate partner or other violence.

We will also change the conditions of release. For people charged with offences related to auto theft, burglary, extortion, and organized crime, courts will have to consider imposing stricter conditions, such as curfews, geographic restrictions, and no-contact orders. For those charged with extortion or organized crime, the same will apply, and there will be prohibitions on possessing a weapon.

When a court assesses the grounds for keeping a person in custody pending trial, there are three main factors to consider. First, it is essential to make sure the person will appear in court. Is the person a flight risk? Second, the protection of the public must be ensured. If the person is released, does this pose a risk to public safety? Finally, public confidence in the administration of justice must be maintained. This last reason is very important. That is why, with Bill C‑14, we are introducing an amendment to require courts to take into account the number and seriousness of pending charges.

This means that if a person appears in court for a crime and has several other pending charges, those charges could play a role in the decision to take the person into custody or not, in order to maintain public trust in the administration of justice.

Bill C‑14 also provides stiffer sentences for different serious and violent crimes. We need to ensure that the sentences imposed are proportional to the severity of violent offences committed by repeat offenders. During the election campaign, people asked us to review these sentences, and that is what we are doing through Bill C‑14, because stronger deterrence through sentences that fit the crime is important.

New aggravating factors are going to be added, which ultimately means harsher sentences. This includes offences against first responders in the performance of their duties. Examples include police officers or firefighters, who put their safety at risk every day to protect us. These people deserve protection. If crimes like assault are committed against our first responders, the perpetrator will face harsher prison sentences.

Earlier this week, I attended a cocktail party hosted by the International Association of Fire Fighters, and I had the opportunity to speak with a number of firefighters from across the country. Many of them told me they were very pleased to see this measure included in Bill C‑14. They said that it was a step in the right direction and that it made them feel included in our deliberations. It is very important to ensure that our first responders are protected.

If the accused is a repeat violent offender who has previously been convicted of a violent offence in the last five years, this will also be an aggravating factor. If someone is serving a sentence, gets out of prison and commits another violent crime, they will have to go back behind bars. It just makes sense.

Organized retail theft in businesses and stores is now recognized as an aggravating factor. Small business owners and their staff get up every morning and work hard to earn a living. These people deserve to be protected. They do not deserve to be robbed. By better protecting them, we are sending them a message that we recognize how important they are to our country and our economy. If people commit crimes in their businesses, whether it is shoplifting or offences related to organized crime, they will be punished more severely.

It is the same thing for offences the interfere with essential infrastructure, especially copper theft. When a person steals copper from transmission lines or towers, it interferes with essential infrastructure. Let me give an example. Last summer, in Restigouche, in my riding, someone stole copper, which caused several cell towers to stop working. A large area was left with no cell coverage. Had there been an emergency, the public could have been in danger. That is why we need to crack down on this type of crime.

We will also increase penalties for certain crimes. For example, house arrest will no longer be an option for those who are found guilty of aggravated sexual assault or child sexual abuse. These individuals will have to serve a prison sentence. I think that Canadians expect such crimes to be severely punished. This is a measure that I unequivocally support, and it is included in Bill C‑14.

Bill C‑14 is part of a comprehensive approach to fighting crime put forward by our government. Our approach also includes Bill C‑12, which will strengthen security at our borders, and Bill C‑9, which will strengthen the fight against hate crimes. In addition, we have made commitments that will very soon result in legislative changes to better protect victims of intimate partner violence. There is our anti-fraud strategy, which aims to better protect our seniors from financial crimes. There are also the investments announced in the budget, plus those dedicated to crime prevention. We want to crack down on serious crimes, but we also want to prevent them. That is why we are investing in housing, mental health and youth support to strengthen crime prevention.

Bill C‑14 and all the other measures we are putting in place show that our new Liberal government takes the fight against crime very seriously. Sometimes I get the impression that my colleagues across the floor see politics as theatre. They propose ideological measures such as Bill C‑242, which would probably not even pass constitutional muster. On this side, we know that community safety is not about theatrics, it is not a matter of political gamesmanship. It is a serious issue that deserves concrete and constitutional measures such as Bill C‑14.

I think this is an excellent bill, particularly because we listened to the public, the provinces and the territories. I invite all of my colleagues to work collaboratively on adopting the Liberals' Bill C‑14 instead of continuing to promote a bill like Bill C‑242.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals formed government in 2015, this country has had a steady and alarming increase in major crime. Violent crime is up 55%, homicides are up 29%, sex assaults are up 76%, firearms offences are up 131% and extortion is up a whopping 330%. The government’s tireless efforts to prioritize the rights and freedoms of the accused at the express expense of victim and community safety is the problem.

In 2019, the Liberal government initiated bail reform in this country by amending the Criminal Code to introduce the principle of restraint, which immediately instructed judges and justices of the peace to prioritize the release of the accused at the earliest opportunity and under the least restrictive conditions. Contrary to a false Liberal narrative, neither the Supreme Court decision in the Antic case nor its decision in the Zora case instructed the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to add the principle of restraint.

From the perspective of a former Crown attorney, the amendment meant that regardless of the nature of the charge committed by the accused and its impact on the community or victim; regardless of the accused's criminal record, which could show a pattern of breaching court orders or being found guilty of the same offence; and, most important, regardless of the number of prior bail orders the accused may already have been subjected to, the government instructed judges and justices to release the accused.

This was the origin of catch-and-release, which we now have in this country, where repeat violent criminals circulate through the justice system with regularity, offering up false promises of bail compliance.

In 2022, the government weakened the criminal justice system again and exposed Canadians to immense risks with the passage of Bill C-5. Notwithstanding the long-established position of the Supreme Court that mandatory minimum penalties do not necessarily violate the charter, the Liberal government repealed mandatory minimums for serious gun crimes and violent crimes and expanded house arrest for all drug offences and serious violent crimes.

In 2023, after hearing from numerous stakeholders regarding the stolen vehicle crisis, the Liberal government brought in Bill C-48, its second attempt at bail reform. A core feature of the bill was to introduce a number of new reverse onus provisions to gun offences and other serious violent offences. The key messaging was that this meant that violent repeat offenders would be detained and that the bill would contribute to the safety of Canadians. The opposite happened; the rising crime state clearly establishes that the bill failed miserably in achieving its goals.

Over the course of the last four-plus years, we have heard from premiers of all provinces and territories, police chiefs, presidents of police associations, mayors from across the country, and several victim advocacy groups, pleading for the government to exercise its number one priority: to keep Canadians safe and to implement immediate bail reform.

What was the response? David Lametti, the former minister of justice, proudly proclaimed that he did deliver bail reform. He was completely oblivious to the crime and chaos happening all around him. Lametti was later fired, and the government appointed Arif Virani. His first comments after his swearing-in were to remind Canadians that it was all in their heads that Canada is less safe. He too reminded Canadians that he delivered bail reform, through the passage of Bill C-48.

In the 45th Parliament, we have heard from the public safety minister that our Canadian bail system is sound and is working as it should. Later we heard from our justice minister, who blamed the provinces for the bail problems we have, and he said that Canada is not the Wild West. That was on the very same weekend when there were violent home invasions that led to the deaths of homeowners.

Canadians and our stakeholders could not wait any longer. A recent Abacus poll conducted this past September showed that 79% of Canadians felt that it is too easy for serious offenders to get bail. That is precisely why my colleague from Oxford introduced the jail not bail act. I would like to take this opportunity to point out, notwithstanding the false narrative from the Liberals, that law enforcement unconditionally endorsed the bill as offering the best opportunity to rebalance the bail system to prioritize community safety over the release of repeat violent offenders.

What would the bill do? The principal feature would be to repeal the principle of restraint and replace it with the principle of public and community safety. The practical effect would be to end the default to release culture, which has created the bail crisis we have in this country. The priority is the safety of communities and victims, not the release of repeat violent offenders. This is a marked distinguishing feature of Bill C-14, which would still preserve, to various degrees, the principle of restraint.

The bill also creates a list of major offences that would trigger a presumption of detention, regardless of whether it would be a reverse onus charge. For major offences, peace officer release is unavailable.

The bill expands reverse onus to several violent offences, including firearms, sexual offences, kidnapping/trafficking, home invasion, break and enter, robbery, extortion and arson offences.

The bill adds surety and non-resident safeguards, which are completely absent in Bill C-14. It bars naming as surety anyone convicted of an indictable offence within 10 years. It also requires consideration of non-residency and flight risk, and it mandates passport denial for non-residents upon release.

Another significant feature of the jail not bail act is an adjustment to the risk threshold analysis under the secondary grounds for detention under section 515 of the Criminal Code. The current test is whether detention is necessary for the protection and safety of the public, including victims or witnesses, or to prevent the commission of a further criminal offence based on the substantial likelihood of such an event occurring. “Substantial likelihood” has been defined in case law as a real and significant probability of a particular outcome occurring. This was never viewed as an onerous test from Crown counsel; they often asked the justice to consider the criminal record of the accused and to look for patterns of conviction either for the same offence or a conviction for breaching a court order, such as bail, probation and conditional sentences.

The jail not bail act lowers that secondary ground threshold from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonable foreseeability” in assessing risk of reoffending or interference with justice.

We have all heard about the tragic yet preventable murder of Bailey McCourt, a young Kelowna mother who was bludgeoned to death by her ex-husband with a hammer in broad daylight. She was murdered the very same day, and within a few hours, of his being convicted of assault and uttering threats. He was released on bail pending sentencing, with the obvious condition that he not have contact with Bailey.

Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, provides for the expiry of the interim release of an accused upon their conviction of an indictable offence while they await sentencing. The finding of guilt by a justice expunges the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by the charter. This provision in the jail not bail act is simply common sense.

This country has long awaited real immediate bail reform. The Liberal government created the mess we find ourselves in. Do we now really expect it to provide the solution when it had the last 10 years to reverse course on its hug-a-thug mentality to exercising its number one priority, which is the safety of all Canadians? Law enforcement across this country has hailed the jail not bail act as the common-sense solution to keeping communities and victims safe while ensuring repeat violent criminals are kept in jail where they belong.

I urge all parliamentarians to set aside their political ideology and make it their priority to pass Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. As I have said numerous times inside and outside the House, and in town halls right across this country from coast to coast to coast, community and victim safety ought not to be a partisan exercise. Let us get this passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, when people propose amendments to the Criminal Code, they must approach the matter seriously and check that each of the proposed amendments is constitutionally sound. If a bill containing unconstitutional measures passes, it will be struck down in court. This wastes time and resources, and it disheartens Canadians.

On this side of the House, we have introduced Bill C‑14, which addresses public safety expectations and complies with the Constitution.

If my Conservative colleague's objective is really to improve safety in our communities, why is he trying to promote a redundant and constitutionally questionable bill, rather than help us move Bill C‑14 forward?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to stand in this chamber to discuss such an important piece of legislation.

Before I dive right into Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, I would like to take a moment to reflect on and thank our veterans: those who have served and have paid the ultimate sacrifice and those brave men and women who continue to serve today for the freedoms that we have and we enjoy, even in this chamber, to have healthy debates and discussions and to make sure that Canada always remains a true, strong democracy. I encourage all members of the public and all hon. members to please wear a poppy. That is the least we can do. It is not a political symbol; it is an important task to honour those who have done so much for our freedoms.

It is always an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. I want to start by thanking the many individuals who have come together to make this piece of legislation possible.

I want to thank all those from different political parties and from various levels of government who shared their expertise, including municipal leaders, mayors, local councillors and MLAs. I thank first responders, who risk their lives every single day running to emergencies. Whether police officers, firefighters, paramedics or others, their input has been greatly valuable to me. I thank the Crown attorneys, who apply the law to defend the rights of Canadians, many of them from Oxford County, who shared their expertise when it comes to the bill.

I also thank the victims. It is very important for us to understand that the bill would put the rights of victims first because, at the end of the day, they should be the fundamental centrepiece of our justice system.

Locally from Oxford County, I want to give special thanks to our mayor, Jerry Acchione, from Woodstock. We have our Woodstock police chiefs from the Woodstock Police Service and some of their members who have helped me table the bill. I also thank various police associations from right across the country that were part of the consultations and put in letters of support for our bill.

In terms of community organizations, we have Cait Alexander, the founder of End Violence Everywhere; the One By One Movement; and the Oaks Revitalization movement, as well as Megan Walker, Debbie Henderson, C Trang, Scott Weller, Krissy Jennings and countless other victims and advocates who have shared their heartbreaking stories and who have asked us to bring the legislation forward so that Canadians can have safe streets again.

Those safe streets are not something that is so far out of reach. We can just think of a world where our kids could play on the streets and our seniors could go for a coffee with their friends and talk about the good old days, when parents could drop their kids off at school and not worry about their safety. It was a country where we had vibrant communities, and we were not watching our backs. Law enforcement personnel were motivated and had the support of this chamber and the Criminal Code, and they knew that if they did their job, after risking their lives, they would have somebody who backed them up to keep repeat violent offenders away.

Again, it does not seem like something out of a fantasy. We used to have this in Canada. We had safe streets. However, when the current Liberal government took office, it brought in legislation that has disrupted our country but has moved out of balance the rights of victims and prioritized the rights of criminals. We saw that with Bill C-75, when the Liberals brought in the principle of restraint, which I will talk about later on in my remarks. That principle literally told judges that they have to release the accused person at the earliest opportunity and on the least restrictive conditions. The Liberals brought in bills like Bill C-5, which took away mandatory minimum sentencing and allowed for house arrest for some of the most violent crimes that are happening in our community.

My colleagues and I have been touring and meeting with stakeholders right across our country. We have gone coast to coast to coast, from Yukon all the way out to the east coast. We have met with families and with victims, and their stories are at the heart of Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. Their stories have motivated us to put forward a piece of legislation after so many years on a file the Liberals ignored.

I want to share a story that I have shared in the past in this chamber. I know the Minister of Justice has also met this family, so I want to thank him for that.

Bailey McCourt, as many of us know, was killed by her ex-partner. Just three hours after he was released on bail, he found her in a public parking lot four kilometres away. He took a hammer and smashed her head. Her life is gone. She is gone. She is no longer with us today.

I spoke to the stranger who held her hand at that very moment. His life has now been affected by this as well. He cannot believe what happened that day. He has lost faith in our system.

Debbie Henderson and Bailey's stepmom came to Ottawa just last week to testify at committee. Debbie shared some more stories with us. Bailey was a caring mother. When her friends and family held a celebration of life for Bailey, her kids thought it was a party for their mom and that she would be coming back home. The kids think she is alive. The kids still believe today that their mom is coming back to them and that all those celebrations are for their mom.

What is hard is that crime shows us that it is not just the lives that are lost directly but the effect it has on everyone else, from immediate family and neighbours to strangers just walking down the street, whole communities and our country. Bailey could have been any one of us. She did everything right, but the system failed her.

We had the same problem in Peel. I was there for a town hall. Flo Bellman and Paul Henderson shared their daughter's story. It was very similar to what happened to Bailey. Their daughter, Darian, was attacked, again by her former partner. He was arrested, charged and released five times. After the fifth time, he took a gun and shot and killed Darian.

When we are at these town halls, we should look into the eyes of these parents. We should see the pain in their eyes and the tears flowing down their cheeks. The strength they show in sharing their stories is not because they know their loved ones could come back. It is because they are pleading for help. They do not want to see another daughter shot by a repeat offender. I am sure there are many parents in this House, and this could happen to any one of our kids.

When it comes to extortion, we have seen a massive rise right across our country. In Edmonton last year, there was a massive extortion case. Some developments were burned down, and shots were fired. The police did their job and arrested the individual, someone who was charged with such a magnitude of carnage. They arrested him, they brought him before a judge, and thanks to Liberal bail policies, he was released. As soon as he was released, he packed his bag, took a flight and left the country.

That is how easy it is for criminals to operate in our communities. The Liberal bail laws have had no deterrence. They invite this chaos to our country. I know the Liberals have brought forward Bill C-14. I do want to give them credit for one thing. They have finally admitted that their policies, and their failure to act, have caused this crime wave. It was in their own government news release that under their watch, there has been a massive spike of violent crime in our communities. I do give them credit for that.

Conservatives will always welcome any changes to the Criminal Code that protect families. It might be a step in the right direction, but it is not going to fix the problem. The Liberals are putting band-aids on gunshot wounds, when the wound has to be treated and fixed.

We have to make significant changes to the system. We cannot just do photo ops and hope the problem is going to go away. That is why our plan, the jail not bail act, is focused on making systematic changes to Liberal bail laws.

First, the principle of restraint that I spoke about earlier today, the principle that allows repeat violent offenders to be released on the least restrictive conditions at the earliest opportunity, has to be removed completely. It has to be gone. The Liberals, in their bill, are tinkering with it, adding some exceptions to the rule, but it still exists. It is still their fundamental, primary consideration when it comes to bail.

When I was sitting in bail court, watching proceedings to do research for my bill, I sat there for about 15 hours. Justices of the peace were quoting the principle of restraint and releasing offenders. Not one person was denied bail for being a repeat violent offender in the time that I watched that court.

My jail not bail act would repeal the principle of restraint, and it would introduce a principle of public safety as the primary consideration. This is where the Liberals did some copying and pasting, and I do admire that. I think sometimes being imitated is a great way to know that one is doing something right.

The bill would introduce something new called a major offences category. This would categorize some of the most extreme violent offences that we have seen in our communities, such as violent shootings, home invasions, violent carjackings, extortion, human trafficking and drug trafficking. Also, when someone attacks a first responder, irrespective of whether they are a police officer, a firefighter or a paramedic, that should be a serious offence requiring a serious look when it comes to bail.

We would make it a reverse onus. We would make sure it is on them to justify to a judge, a justice of peace or a peace officer why they should be released, not the other way around.

Furthermore, we would be tightening the risk assessment standard when it comes to bail. Right now, when it comes to assessing risk, the Liberals look at whether there is a substantial likelihood to reoffend. My bill would lower that threshold to look at reasonable foreseeability. Would a reasonable person believe that this accused person, based on their history and prior bail conditions, would be likely to reoffend? That change would lower the threshold. It would provide objective clarity to the test as well.

The bill would also make it mandatory in the Criminal Code for judges to look at someone's criminal history. We do not see that right now, so it would be codifying that aspect.

It would also make it tougher for repeat violent offenders, going after recidivism. If somebody has been convicted in the last 10 years for one of the major offences, was charged again and was out a third time, and then commits another offence, they should not be getting bail unless a superior court judge looks at their file.

We are also going to be collapsing bail post-sentencing for indictable offences. Bailey McCourt's killer was found guilty. He was guilty in the eyes of the law. He should not have been out on the streets. The next time somebody is found guilty of an indictable offence, they should not be released on bail until someone else looks at it, not just the regular courts.

The bill would make sure we do not have criminals who are vouching for other criminals as sureties. Can members believe that right now in our system, organized criminals can vouch for and be sureties for other criminals? That should not happen. If somebody is guilty of an indictable offence, they would be removed as a possible surety. I personally believe that someone needs to be of good standing or of good character to vouch for someone else, especially someone in their care.

Also, if someone who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident but a temporary resident commits an offence and is being charged, they must surrender their passport. We do not want any more flight risks like we saw happen in Edmonton. We will make sure there is annual reporting happening to Parliament. The stats are not there on a national level. We want to make sure there is accountability.

Safe streets should not be a fantasy in a faraway land. We should have them here in Canada. The jail not bail act would lock up repeat violent offenders and restore safe streets in our country once again.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to join my hon. friend in saluting our country's veterans, their families and their communities, and all of those we take a moment to remember on November 11. I know all of those people deeply appreciate the support that Canadians demonstrate in their communities on Remembrance Day. I want to join my friend, the opposition House leader, in sending along those wishes.

I want to thank members for an eventful budget week. We are looking forward, of course, to continuing debate on the budget today.

The vote on the Conservative Party subamendment will take place later today. We will resume debate on the budget tomorrow, as well as on the Monday after we return from spending the week of Remembrance Day in our ridings.

On Tuesday, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, will be debated again at the second reading stage.

On Wednesday, we will move to the report stage and third reading of Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure.

I must express a little puzzlement. We called Bill C-4 for debate on Monday afternoon. I know the Conservatives are not against taking the GST off of homes for first-time homebuyers. I know they are not against the income tax cut, and I know they are not against removing the carbon tax for Canadians. I am pretty confident about all of those things, so I know they will want to co-operate in advancing this very important piece of legislation on Wednesday.

I wish all members a good week of work in their constituencies as they ponder that final vote on this year's budget, which, as we saw today in question period, contains multitudes for so many Canadians who are looking for a hand up and a way forward.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a matter of grave concern: public safety in Surrey. Residents are deeply worried about their safety and the security of their livelihoods. Seventy-four cases of extortion are currently under investigation. These are not just statistics. They are families, entrepreneurs and neighbourhoods living in fear. With Bill C-14, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to work together across all levels of government to restore safety, confidence and peace of mind.

I want the people of Fleetwood—Port Kells to know their voices are being heard, and our government remains firmly committed to ensuring justice and safety for all Canadians.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I see I have been missed by my friends opposite.

I have good news on the subject that grounds the member's question. This is one where I think we can collaborate in a non-partisan way. The government has just tabled legislation, Bill C-14, that includes protections for first responders by adding aggravating factors to the sentences, which would result in harder penalties for those who commit assaults against our first responders.

If we are going to count on first responders to keep our communities safe, the least we can do is offer the protection of Canada's criminal law. I will work across party lines with that member and with Conservatives in the Senate to adopt measures that would protect first responders as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are all about protecting the rights of children. That is why we want to give law enforcement the tools that are needed to catch predators online. We brought forward tougher sentences for child offenders. Child abusers should be put behind bars, and that is exactly where we intend to keep them, through Bill C-14 and the new legislation that we are going to be tabling in the House this fall.

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

Mr. Speaker, child abusers are among the most reprehensible people in our society. That is why we have taken many measures like Bill C-63, Bill C-14 and the lawful access provision so they can be caught in the first place. We are also going to be bringing forward new—

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 has nothing to do with mandatory minimum sentences for people who possess and produce child sexual abuse and exploitation material.

I have looked far too many victims in the eye to feel comfortable giving the answer that the secretary of state just gave. Victims do not want excuses; they want action. We often hear about charter rights for accused individuals, including pedophiles, but we do not hear about rights for the victims.

If the minister has ruled out using the notwithstanding clause, what is his plan to take sex offenders off our streets?

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

Mr. Speaker, the rights of victims are very important to the government. That is why we have been taking action. Let me make it very plain and simple for the Conservatives: Child abusers should face the toughest penalties under Canadian law. That is why we introduced Bill C-14. We are making sweeping reforms that would make bail stricter, that would make sentences tougher and that would make sure child abusers stay behind bars.

We also introduced the lawful access provision so we can catch child predators and give law enforcement agencies the tools that are needed, but the Conservatives are against it.

Citizenship Act

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

Madam Speaker, we have a bill before us, Bill C-14, that takes into account a number of policies on bail reform. Included in Bill C-14 are parts of Bill S-233, or my private member's bill, Bill C-321, which would have made it an aggravating factor in sentencing if the victim of violence was a firefighter, health care worker or first responder.

Would it not send a message to the firefighters on the Hill, the nurses watching and the first responders who put their uniforms on every day to serve our country and community to pass unanimously, at all levels, Bill S-233 today?

Justice

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the heavy responsibility of protecting Canadians, especially the most vulnerable among us, our children, falls to the government. The government introduced Bill C‑14, which could have brought back minimum sentences and done something useful. But no, that is not what it did. Instead, criminals are being let off the hook. The Supreme Court confirmed it just last week.

Why is this government more inclined to protect the charter rights of pedophiles than the charter rights of children?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not silent on this issue. That is why we introduced sweeping reforms under Bill C-14 to make bail stricter and sentences tougher. We are making sure that child sexual offenders serve time behind bars, but let us not forget the conduct of the Conservatives. They refused to support Bill C-63, which would have helped protect our children against online crime and online predators, and a few months ago, they refused to support lawful access to help police catch pedophiles.

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

Mr. Speaker, plain and simple, child abusers should face the toughest penalties under Canadian law. Child abusers are among the most reprehensible in our society. That is why we have introduced sweeping reforms, through Bill C-14, that would make bail stricter and sentences tougher and would make child sexual offenders serve time behind bars. However, let us not forget Bill C-63. A Liberal government introduced that bill to protect kids online, but the Conservatives refused to support it, and a few months ago—