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;
(a.1) provide that a person must not be named as surety if the person was convictedof an indictable offence within ten years prior to a release order, except in certain circumstances;
(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, certain offences in the commission of which violence was allegedly used and that would constitute the accused's third or subsequent such indictable offence 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 cancelled, provide for circumstances in which they can be cancelled and allow for the review, by the court of appeal, of decisions to cancel such documents;
(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, mischief to property offences and assaults against public transit employees;
(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 Department of Justice Act to provide that the Minister must prepare an annual report on the state of judicial interim release in Canada.
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 or involving the use or trafficking of a firearm;
(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.

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to deviate slightly from protocol, as I would like to speak about a colleague who is held in high regard by all. His zest for life is unmatched. I am, of course, referring to our colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, who suffered a serious medical emergency last week. I would like to commend his assistant, Lauriane, who acted with calm and composure. Without her, our colleague would probably no longer be with us today. I thank her for what she did.

On behalf of the member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, I would also like to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the House who have written to wish him a speedy recovery. It is clear that we can rise above our differences and move beyond party politics. This member is clearly held in high regard by all our colleagues in Ottawa. Finally, on behalf of all parliamentarians, I would like to wish my colleague a speedy recovery. May he get plenty of rest and return to us in fine form in the fall. Be well, my friend.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, spring economic update 2026 implementation act. As the parliamentary session draws to a close and members return to their communities, I want to take this solemn moment to offer a rigorous assessment of the past few months, an assessment that, unfortunately, can be summed up in a single word: respect. Actually, it is more accurately described as flagrant, persistent, calculated and insulting disrespect on the part of the Liberal government, day after day, toward Parliament, toward our democratic institutions, and toward all Canadians.

The Parliament of Canada is a sacred place. This is where 343 duly elected members gather to convey the voices, fears, hopes and needs of over 40 million citizens from coast to coast to coast. It is the beating heart of our democracy. What have the Liberals been doing throughout this parliamentary session, and particularly over the past two weeks? They have been stifling democratic debate. They have been shutting down debate over and over through heavy-handed closure motions on bills that are critically important to the future of our country. They shut down debate on Bill C‑14. They shut down debate on Bill C‑26. They shut down debate on Bill C‑20. They shut down debate on Bill C‑9. Finally, they shut down debate on Bill C‑30.

Elected officials did not have the time to study the legislation, question experts in committee or amend the clauses, which needed quite a bit of work. I have a simple question, one that millions of taxpayers are asking: How can Canadians trust the Liberals to manage their money? That is a fundamental question. The Conservatives are asking this on behalf of Canadians, who are still awaiting an answer.

This government's contempt does not stop there. The Liberals have shown that they have no respect for taxpayers' money. Day after day, Canadians send money to Ottawa and ask us to manage it wisely in order to deliver services. That is what we need to do. However, what the Liberals have done is add more bureaucracy and create a never‑ending financial fiasco.

Facts are facts. The Cúram software project had an initial budget of $1.75 billion. It ended up costing $6.6 billion. Instead of calling for an investigation, expressing outrage and saying that this is unacceptable, what did the Liberals do in the economic update? They added another $500 million to that project. Employees are telling us that what they need is not more money, but to be heard.

Employees working with the Cúram system have written to me and spoken to me over the phone. They say that the system is not working and that they are not being listened to, unfortunately. I reached out to the minister. I offered to meet with her and with the employees who use the Cúram system so that they can tell us what is not working so that she could fix it. She turned down my offer. Employees are willing to help us and to help the Liberal government fix this fiasco, but what did the Liberals do? They turned a deaf ear.

The situation involving Maritime Launch Services is a financial scandal. A private company is leasing a parcel of land for $13,500 and subleasing it to the federal government for $20 million a year for 10 years, for a total of $200 million. Then the government asks Canadians to send a portion of their hard-earned paycheque every Thursday, telling them that it is going to manage the money properly. It is embarrassing.

I asked the minister some clear questions. Who signed the contract? Who read the contract? When did the minister meet with that company? I did not get any answers.

For the past few years, we have been fortunate to have social media to keep us connected to the population. People are furious. They are writing to ask me whether the minister gave me an answer and whether he told me who signed the contract. They are asking why I am not allowed to know who signed the contract. This is a flagrant breakdown in transparency on the part of the government.

I asked the minister if I could go meet with the government employees who are telling us that things are not working right but that they are prepared to help us. They have been working with the system for years and are ready to help us because they know it inside out. I am asking the minister to let me go meet with these employees so that they can explain what is going wrong, because that is our role. The minister refuses to meet with them. This is no joke. People working for the government want to help us, but the government refuses to meet with them.

Canadians are frustrated about the way things are being handled, and opposition members are frustrated about how we are being treated right now. When I asked the minister a question about the lease, he said he would set up a meeting so I could get to know some astronauts. Quite frankly, that is embarrassing. I do not want to meet with the astronauts; I want to meet with the managers. Our role is to manage the money that Canadians entrust to us. We must manage this money the way good fathers and mothers do and, above all, the way good managers do. We need to use that money wisely. We must give Canadians services that are worth the money they entrust to us. That is our role.

However, right now, the government is operating by stifling debate over and over. The government is muzzling the opposition and working without respecting Canadians and the money they entrust to us.

We are getting ready to go back to our ridings, get back to our communities and see our constituents. I hope that my Liberal colleagues will also go out and meet with Canadians and listen to them.

I have had the privilege of serving at both the municipal and provincial levels, and now I have the privilege of serving at the federal level. I have always said the same thing: It is a great privilege to be the eyes, ears and voice of our constituents. I hope the Liberals will be the eyes, ears and voice of their constituents this summer, because they are probably going to be surprised by what they hear. Canadians are not happy that their public finances are being mismanaged. They do not like that.

In closing, I would like to share my hopes for when Parliament returns from the summer recess. I hope the government will respect Parliament and answer questions honestly, so that we get real answers. I hope the government will invest in the community rather than continuing to fund bureaucracy. I hope the government will manage Canadians' money in a responsible, disciplined and transparent manner. The people listening to us are probably thinking I am dreaming.

On this side of the House, we will always be there to stand up for Canadians and to ensure that their money is managed wisely.

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, I am not kidding. It is true.

Mr. Speaker, we see that, and I will give a good example. Last week, the Conservatives finally, after years, agreed that they would sit late. A few hours later, they moved a motion to adjourn the House, and it was not the first time. It is not about wanting more time to debate. It is more about preventing the legislation from passing.

I can say to the members opposite that, whether it is this Prime Minister specifically, the government as a whole or every Liberal member of Parliament, we are prepared to use the tools available to the government in order to pass the legislation. This is what Canadians expect and want, and this government will deliver. It was part of our election platform. It is what communities want to see happen.

If we look at lawful access, yes, the Conservatives were destructive. They are in opposition to it.

Let us look at what we had to do for Bill C-9. That was really a grassroots movement that we witnessed in the last federal election, and we made it a part of our platform to deal with the issue of hate. We brought in legislation and set up new aspects to the criminal law that would deal with hatred directly. Not only has the Conservative Party voted against it, but it continues to spread misinformation in regard to it. It is so unfortunate, because racism hurts to the core. The Conservatives had the opportunity to stand up and do something on the hatred file to fight racism.

If we look at Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation, once again, much like Bill C-22, we have law enforcement officers across our nation saying they want it. We have prosecutors who have been demanding bail reform. I have been holding this piece of paper in my hand, which is a press release from 10 municipal cities in Manitoba saying that they want bail reform legislation, as did the mayor of Winnipeg. I only highlight these cities because they are in my home province.

I can assure members that of the law enforcement agencies in every region, province, municipality and rural community, and the many different people we all represent, I cannot point to one who has told me we do not need bail reform. Our constituents want a government that is going to deal with the issues before us. When we talk about building Canada strong, that includes bringing in legislation that is going to make our communities stronger, healthier and safer, yet we see resistance.

Yes, we are trying to push Bill C-22 through. The Conservatives cannot try to tell me they have not had enough time to debate the issue. It has been there since September 2025 in one form or another. That is the reality, but the Conservatives have made the decision that they do not want this legislation passed because they have a divided caucus, and the extreme right within the Conservative Party, the ones who wear the tin hats, are saying they do not want it. We say to them that it is time they look at what past Conservatives would say about it. There is no reason whatsoever that today's Conservative Party should be in opposition. We are the only Five Eyes country that does not have lawful access.

Combatting Hate Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am honest. I am actually quoting Conservative emails, and I can say that there are a lot more emails with regard to Bill C-9.

With respect to what Bill C-9 actually would do, I provided a quote providing those assurances. It would deal with hatred in Canada in different ways. It would protect our institutions, whether they are community centres, Christian churches, Sikh gurdwaras, temples, mosques and synagogues, from protests that are intimidating to people who want to be able to attend. It would protect us from hatred-driven or hatred-motivated offences, whether they are assaults or mentally related issues, if I can put it that way. Those are the types of things that are tangible and that the legislation would actually deal with.

The Prime Minister has said that we want to include Bill C-9 in a series of bills dealing with crime. We made a commitment in the last federal election to deal with hatred, and that is what this legislation would do. It would be a fulfillment of an election platform that we made just last year when Canadians chose a new Prime Minister and a new government. In fact, today, among the Liberal benches, there are 70-plus new Liberal members of Parliament, not to mention a new Prime Minister.

A series of actions has been taken to deal with crime. I will make quick reference to some of them, and I want to provide some additional thoughts on the hate file. I can say that every Liberal caucus member recognizes that, as a government, we want to do something to deal with hate, something of substance and a reflection of what members have been hearing from the constituents they represent. That is what is reflected in this bill. We also believe that it would meet any constitutional challenge and that it complements the Charter of Rights. These are the changes that we believe are in the best interests of the public.

If we contrast that to those in opposition to the bill, I would suggest we need to look at the motivation behind it, as I have already articulated, issues such as data mining, fundraising and catering to a far-right element of society. That seems to be their motivation, not what is in the public good or the best interests of Canadians. There is a responsibility of all members to be straightforward on some of the things being said in this House because of the anxiety and concerns being raised in our faith communities. Whether they are leaders in faith facilities or members of a congregation, there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent the types of things we are hearing talked about and preached about in synagogues, PAOC churches or other faith facilities.

There is very little tolerance in Canada for hatred and terrorism by the constituents we represent. I would ask members to reflect on that and for the Conservatives to reconsider their positioning. They do not have to vote against this legislation. I have heard a lot of arguments from the Conservatives, many hours of argument, and I have done a lot of reading. Not one argument that has been presented, I believe, has any legitimacy or justification for voting against this legislation. It seems to be more of a self-serving argument as opposed to what is in the public best interest.

I referred to a series of legislation and I want to highlight them. We have Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, that we are debating today, Bill C-12, the new borders act and asylum issue, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform legislation, Bill C-16, which would reinstate mandatory minimums and highlights new legislation dealing with feminism and coercive action, and Bill C-22, which deals with lawful access. There is a suite of crime and hate legislation that is real, tangible and would make our communities safer. That is what our constituents want.

My last appeal would be for members to look at those bills as a holistic package and get behind what the Government of Canada is doing to make our communities safer.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 15, 2026

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Ken MacKillop, Deputy of the Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 15th day of June 2026 at 8:25 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ryan McAdam

Executive Director

Office of the Secretary to the Governor General

The bills assented to on Monday, June 15 were Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures) and Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate as follows:

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint it that, in relation to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), the Senate does not insist on its amendments with which the House of Commons has disagreed.

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have to agree to it. The opposition parties are guaranteed those 26 days, which do not include the many days when the Conservatives brought in concurrence motions.

Here is why it is important. If the Conservatives follow along, they will better understand why there is time allocation. Let us look at the legislative agenda. There is Bill C-3, the Citizenship Act; Bill C-4, the carbon tax cut; Bill C-8 respecting cybersecurity; Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act; and Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a piece of legislation I know the minister responsible for crime is very keen on.

We have Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act; Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act; Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-13, respecting trade in Great Britain. We also had Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and Bill C-20. Bill C-14 is the bail and sentencing reform legislation. I was just speaking about Bill C-16. There was filibustering even on that legislation.

There is Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which the Conservatives were criticizing in the speech before mine. There is Bill C-21, the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act, and Bill C-22, the lawful access act. When we brought in Bill C-2 regarding lawful access, the Conservatives said, “absolutely not”. They were going to oppose it, and there was no way they were going to let it pass. We had to bring in Bill C-22, and they are still opposing it.

There is Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Do members remember that one? I just made reference to it. Everyone agreed to it, yet the Conservatives still made the bells ring because they really did not want to debate, apparently.

Bill C-26 would authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. Conservatives talk a lot about housing and affordability, even though the average cost of a house has gone down since the new Prime Minister was elected. The average cost of rent has gone down since the Prime Minister was elected. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives.

The list goes on. Bill C-28, one I really like, is the Canadian space launch act. There is a whole industry, and there is industry potential. Thousands of jobs could be created. However, all the Conservatives say is that they do not like it and do not want it. We have to force legislation through.

That is not to mention the Senate bills. I can say that the Government of Canada, headed by our newly elected Prime Minister, has a very aggressive legislative agenda because we want to and will, despite what the Conservatives continue to put in our way, continue to fight and bring in legislation that is going to make our communities safer and stronger. As the Prime Minister says, we want a strong Canada for all Canadians. That is what we are striving for. We are saying we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7.

All one needs to do is look at the actions that the government and the Prime Minister have taken since the last election. All I made reference to was the legislation. In that legislation, there are a number of initiatives that complement the legislation. That is all part of the budget process and what the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act, is all about. It is the next step in supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada, but the Conservatives still want to filibuster.

Let us look at what took place at the standing committee. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more time. They had 30 hours. From what I have been told by many of my colleagues and have heard from across the way, it was a filibuster show, with no discussions back and forth that could have taken place. That is a decision made depending on the motions that are brought forward. I know how standing committees work. When there is collaboration, good ideas and a willingness to work together, a standing committee can be very productive. I know that because there was a day I participated in standing committees. There is so much potential for all of us to work more collaboratively together on a wide spectrum of budgetary issues and legislative issues.

In fact, with respect to legislative issues, the first thing we did when we formed a majority government, contrary to what the Conservatives will say, is that we actually passed Conservative opposition private members' bills through to different stages. I suspect there is a real chance that under the Prime Minister since we have been a majority, in eight, nine or 12 weeks, whatever period of time it is, we have probably passed more opposition initiatives than Stephen Harper did in his four-year mandate. It would not surprise me if this is in fact the case.

I challenge members opposite to show me what private members' initiatives from the floor of the House of Commons actually passed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table, and contrast that to what we have done in eight weeks. There is no surprise there, because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to collaboration. Where there is a willingness to collaborate, we collaborate.

Let us take a look in terms of all the provinces. Let us talk about the major projects. Let us talk about Bill C-5, which I made reference to. That was possible only because of the collaboration between provinces and Ottawa under the Prime Minister. There is a reason we had the King of Canada make the throne speech. The King of Canada came in a historic moment and delivered the throne speech here. It was a significant time in Canada's history.

I think that, coming out of the election, we all need to recognize what was taking place prior to the last federal election. Canadians were concerned about our economy. They were concerned about what I classify as the three Ts: President Trump, the issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. We have consistently taken actions to address the issues Canadians have faced and will face yesterday, today and, obviously, looking forward into tomorrow.

All one needs to do is take a look at the actions we have actually taken. Shortly after the last federal election, numerous meetings took place between the Prime Minister and premiers, with the idea, as we said to Canadians in the last election, of building one Canadian economy. Based on what was taking place with President Trump in the United States, and to address the anxiety and the concerns Canadians had, the Prime Minister was working hand in hand with provinces.

By doing that, we were able to build a consensus. We were able to bring in the legislation. We were able to take down the federal barriers, interprovincial barriers that the federal government is responsible for, which enabled us to be able to talk and continue the dialogue with provinces to take down those provincial barriers that prevent the trade between provinces. We have had some success in doing even that. We continue to have dialogue with provinces.

All one needs to do is take a look at a province such as Alberta. In the province of Alberta, we are now implementing an MOU that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta. The Conservatives can criticize that, but I believe that the Premier of Alberta is right in her assessment, as is the federal government, of the way in which we can in fact build Canada and make Canada a superpower when it comes to energy.

All one needs to do is to look at the consensus building that we have been able to bring together by working collaboratively through major projects from coast to coast to coast. There have been serious investments in things such as wind power and the expansion of energy opportunities on the east coast, as well as something I often talk about, which is the expansion of the Montreal port. We can take a look at Ontario and how we are enhancing the nuclear industry in Ontario through major projects.

In my home province of Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba is NDP, but we work with all political entities. The people of Manitoba have realized that, for the first time in generations, there is now opportunity to have hope in regard to the port of Churchill and the potential of its becoming a port where things such as, potentially, LNG and certain minerals could go through, let alone other opportunities through agriculture. These are very tangible and real in my home province.

In Saskatchewan, we could talk about copper investments through the major projects. On the canola front, the Prime Minister was able to deal with it, at least in part and far more than what we saw when the leader of the Conservative Party was seated around the caucus table. We could talk about Alberta and B.C., the two of them together, whether it is on the issue of coming up with agreements on pipelines, LNG and other fossil fuels, or mining.

We could talk about northern Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister, was in, I believe, Yellowknife in northern Canada. I am not 100% sure it was Yellowknife, but he made the announcement about how we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty by investing literally billions of dollars. We have great potential, major investments, coast to coast to coast.

The government recognizes that building a stronger infrastructure, improving our economic corridors, if I can put it that way, through trade, means a great deal to our nation. It is where our future is in terms of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. We have a Prime Minister who goes out and looks for investment. We have commitments for billions of dollars of foreign investment to come to Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment coming to Canada in the last 12 months, if it is not number one in the G7, which I believe it is, it could be as high as number one in the G20 countries. That factors out some of the commitments that were also made.

There is reason for us to be optimistic, because we have a government that understands the importance of investment, of bringing and building our infrastructure. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to enhancing where we can and being patient with the United States in regard to the trade file. We are not going to capitulate. We will continue to advocate for the very best deal for Canadians, and where we need to, we are assisting industries that are being hurt by the negotiations and what is taking place in the United States.

Let us recognize this: We have had 20 trade and defence agreements, and we have agreements in the making. I often talk about how important the United States is, and everyone should recognize that. I recognize that, but let there be no doubt that we have a government and a Prime Minister committed to expanding our trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. That is where we got the 20 defence and trade agreements, and we also have had formal trade agreements not only signed off but brought into the House and passed as trade legislation.

I could also talk about the trade potential between Canada and India, two great nations. I would welcome and love to see a formal agreement signed off this year. The Prime Minister has met with the prime minister and the president of two great nations.

The opportunities are real and tangible, which is why there have been 17%, I believe, export increases to non-U.S.A. locations. Our government continues to work, day in and day out, at expanding opportunities for businesses, small, medium and large alike, because we realize the real beneficiaries from those are the citizens of Canada, and they are who we will continue to work for every day.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would thank the member opposite for that question, but I do not think it was a very good question. What I would say is that everything I have said is on the public record. The Prime Minister is aware of what I think. All of the members of the Liberal caucus are, and they welcomed me, with my Conservative views, into this caucus. I am very proud to be part of this team.

My view has not changed. As I said, the things that were done that undermine the justice system are being repaired here in Bill C‑14, and that is why it is critical that we get this legislation passed.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-14, as well as the Senate amendments that have come forward. I will start off by talking about the importance of passing this legislation quickly and getting it into law. I will then give a bit of detail about the Senate amendments and my thoughts on those before I sum it up.

First of all, I want to say that this is not a partisan issue. Every Canadian wants to be safe in their community and safe in their home. It does not matter which party we come from; we all think that. Every Canadian is tired of seeing violent repeat offenders out on the streets when they should be behind bars.

In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, we had a very tragic incident happen recently at Lambton College, where an innocent student, Dane Nisbet, was shot by someone who has been involved in crime previously, and he died. He was 20 years old. People in my community are outraged now because the perpetrator has been let out on bail. This is why Bill C-14 needs to go into play. Bill C-14 would prevent these things from happening, and I will talk a little about how it would do that.

Over the last few years, there have been unintended consequences, from Bill C-75, for example, with the principle of restraint. The principle of restraint was making judges think that they had to let people out at the earliest possible opportunity with the least possible punishment. Bill C-14 would actually clarify this. It would clarify how police and courts apply the principle of restraint to specify that it does not mean automatic release where detention is justified to protect public safety. This is an incredibly important part of Bill C-14 and something that we definitely are going to need.

Also, Bill C-14 would add aggravating factors, making sure we do not have sentences that are too light in extreme cases. When the offence is committed against victims who are first responders, it would be an aggravating factor in sentencing, as well as repeat violent offenders with previous convictions within the last five years and organized retail theft. I heard a question earlier about auto theft. This kind of thing would be an aggravating factor in sentencing, as well as offences interfering with essential infrastructures, which we see in copper theft and some of the drug-trafficking offences. All of those things are very good measures.

One of the other things that was an unintended consequence of Bill C-5 was that house arrest was being allowed for perpetrators of sexual assault. That would be reversed here in Bill C-14. That is a very good measure. It is something that is needed, and we heard lots about that.

The other thing this bill would do is align to the military justice system to make sure both systems are consistent.

With respect to the Senate amendments that have come forward, some are good, and some we would prefer not to have. I think the one that would allow the measures for the youth justice system to come into force, that would allow some time to get that right, would be very, very important.

I have heard discussion from the Conservatives today that they do not like the measures that the Senate has submitted on sureties, but one of the things that Conservatives continue not to understand is that when an independent court is making a decision, it has to have discretion. We have seen mandatory minimum penalties fail at the Supreme Court because they do not give the judges discretion and the judges are independent. Therefore, this is an important principle that we see represented here.

It is only part of the story. When it comes to preventing violent crime in our neighbourhoods and in our communities, we have to have the laws, and then we have to enforce the laws. There is an opportunity to do a better job on enforcement. We have to also look at where we are going to put the people. A lot of times, people are being released because there is no room in the prisons. That is a shared responsibility, federally and provincially, and something that we need to look at. However, if we can get the deterrence to crime right and enforce the law, we are going to see fewer people in the prisons, which is what we saw previously.

That, in a nutshell, is why it is critical that we get this legislation passed. The sooner it is passed and gets royal assent, the sooner it would get into law. Then we can stop seeing these repeat and violent offenders out on the streets and getting sentences that I consider to be inadequate.

I am very proud of the government for the measures that it put in place, and not just Bill C‑14, as Bill C‑16 is exactly what we asked for at the status of women committee, which I am a part of. It addresses coercive control, femicides, deepfakes and a lot of the things that we brought forward. I think the government is serious about addressing crime in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, last year, in our election platform, we wrote: “A strong Canada means strong protections in our communities and a Criminal Code which is responsive to emerging issues and protects victims of crime and keeps our kids safe.”

Since then, we have introduced several bills: Bill C‑14 makes it harder to get bail and imposes harsher penalties on criminals, particularly violent and repeat offenders; Bill C‑16 better protects victims of crime; and Bill C‑22 gives law enforcement access to the tools they need, particularly to fight crimes committed using modern technology. We have also introduced legislation to strengthen security at our borders.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the work we have done over the past year to fulfill the campaign promises we made to make our communities safer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.

I want to take this opportunity to share a few very important observations. I have always felt very passionately in terms of the residents of Winnipeg North advocating and sharing with me about the issue of crime. This is something I feel very strongly about. In the last federal election, people at the doors were genuinely concerned about crime. I am very proud of the fact that, during the election, Canada's newly elected Prime Minister made a commitment to deal with the issue of crime in a very proactive way.

He committed to bringing forward bail reform legislation, and that is exactly what we have before us today. Going even further than that, the Prime Minister and this government made a commitment to strengthen our criminal laws and take action where we can to make our communities safer and healthier. The Prime Minister often talks about building a strong and healthy Canada that is going to be there to serve all Canadians and that all Canadians are able to access. A part of that means feeling that sense of security in the communities we represent.

We have brought forward a series of pieces of legislation. Members will recall that, back in November or December, I stood in my place, literally begging and pleading with the Conservatives to allow Bill C‑14, which we are debating today, to pass. Bill C‑14 is all about bail reform legislation. This is something that has been supported by municipalities and law enforcement agencies. Most importantly from my perspective, this is something the constituents in Winnipeg North want to see.

I believe that every member of the Liberal caucus will advocate for the need for bail reform and, like me, feel frustrated, to a certain degree, with the amount of opposition and filibustering that we have seen. Back in November, as I indicated, I was virtually begging the Conservatives to allow the legislation to pass. Six months later, once again, we have the legislation before us. This is something that has to pass before the summer. Members can talk to municipalities, law enforcement, Crowns, provinces and, most importantly, the people of Canada, who all want it. We should deliver. This House has the ability to do that today.

It is not only about Bill C‑14 for me. As I indicated, the government has put forward a series of legislative initiatives to build safer communities. I could talk about Bill C‑9, which deals with hate propaganda and protecting us in different ways, in particular our churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and gurdwaras, and making sure people have access to those facilities.

I could talk about Bill C‑16, which the Conservatives have come out in opposition to. Let us take a look at what Bill C‑16 does: recognizing the issue of femicide in a very strong and powerful way, raising it to a first-degree murder in certain situations virtually automatically. We can talk about coercive behaviour, again, with one spouse using coercive behaviour that leads to certain situations.

For my constituents, it is all about reinstating a number of mandatory minimums. Recognizing that this is something our constituents want to see, I am disappointed because I would have thought there would be unanimous consent in the House, but the Conservatives have made the decision to vote against that legislation.

I can talk about Bill C-22, which stems from Bill C-2. We could not get Bill C-2 passed back in September. We tried all last fall. Ultimately, we had to break it up. Bill C-22 incorporates a part of Bill C-2 that we continue to push, yet we get resistance from the Conservative Party. It is all about lawful access. It deals with things such as the exploitation of children and extortion. We hear a great deal about those issues. Law enforcement, in particular, want to see lawful access. Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes nations that does not have lawful access. The reason we do not have it today is that the members across the way in the Conservative Party refuse to allow that legislation to pass.

We had Bill C-12, legislation that I am grateful we were able to pass, which enhances our border control and helps deal with asylum. Again, it was legislation that had to be reintroduced because Bill C-2 was legislation the Conservatives just would not consider passing.

If we go back to Bill C-2, we see aspects of it that we have not been able to secure passage of. I am thinking of the issue of individuals putting fentanyl into envelopes and mailing them anywhere in Canada. We do not have the authority to search those envelopes. I articulated extensively on why this is important. If Conservatives believe there are issues around drug abuse, particularly in dealing with things like fentanyl, I would think they would recognize the value of this legislation and, at the very least, allow it to pass. It is one of the ways we can deal with fentanyl. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party still has not changed its position on it. In fact, many members of the Conservative Party have stood in their place and mocked me personally on the issue, not fully understanding its significance and its importance.

The bail reform legislation deals with things such as protecting first responders if there is an aggravated situation. These are the people on our front lines, whether police, paramedics or firefighters. This is something we know Conservatives tell first responders they support. We could have passed it last fall because it is incorporated in the legislation.

What is interesting is that some speakers today talked about how the government is not passing their private members' bills. This Prime Minister has likely seen and supported more opposition private members' bills than in the entire four years of Stephen Harper. The current leader of the Conservative Party did not pass anything back then unless it was a Conservative measure. Bailey's law is a Conservative measure. We looked at it, saw the benefits and saw it go through, even when we had the majority and could have prevented it. I can assure the members opposite that is what Stephen Harper would have done.

I can tell the House something about the Prime Minister. Under his leadership, we have seen laws related to the crime file. Members cannot identify a prime minister in generations who has done more to fight crime and work collaboratively with provinces and law enforcement than this Prime Minister. Members cannot name another prime minister who has brought forward so much in the legislative agenda. We have even taken into consideration certain aspects of Private Members' Business.

At the end of the day, I would ask my Conservative friends to stop filibustering, to stop looking at their own politically vested interests of raising money and so forth and to get behind and support good legislation.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned briefly, this amendment deals with the confidentiality of records. Bill C‑14 addresses legislative gaps in the Youth Criminal Justice Act regarding how long records should be kept.

For example, in cases where the charges were withdrawn or discharged, there were inconsistencies, and in some cases, no time limit was specified at all. To ensure the law is properly applied, a short grace period is being granted to allow the courts to update their IT systems, for example, and to enable police forces to ensure that records are kept properly. It makes sense to allow for a grace period rather than bringing the bill into force immediately upon royal assent.

We felt that this amendment was entirely justified and that the time frame was reasonable.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be relatively brief in my comments on the amendments proposed by the Senate. Let us not forget that we are actually debating the Senate's proposed amendments today, as opposed to the substance of Bill C-14, since we have already debated it in the House and it was passed on division. I will nevertheless take the liberty of making a few comments on the substance of the bill, but only very briefly.

The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to improve the bill. Some were adopted, for example the fact that, in the Youth Criminal Justice Act or what was known as the Young Offenders Act, the use of a firearm was added to the definition of violent offence. This made the courts' work easier because, otherwise, it was always up to the Crown, on a case-by-case basis, to prove that an offence committed with a firearm was in fact a violent offence. We finally corrected something that seemed obvious.

It was also at the suggestion of the Bloc Québécois that the government included in the bill the obligation for parliamentarians to review the legislation after five years of its coming into force, which we think is an excellent thing, especially in a context where aspects of the legislation deal with the issue of the presumption of innocence.

We pointed out at the time that we were less in agreement with the idea that certain offences should be increased or that consecutive sentences should be handed down for offences that did not necessarily involve violence. These measures seemed designed to address a political issue rather than a legal one. For example, I am thinking of the issue of auto theft. We know, as recent history has shown, that consecutive sentences or longer sentences for auto theft are not the way to solve the problem. Rather, we can solve the problem by investing in border security. That is why we have recently seen a drop in the number of auto thefts.

Among the changes set out in Bill C‑14, there were some we considered acceptable and others we did not like. All things being equal, we felt that the bill still had more benefits than drawbacks, and so we decided that we would vote for it if the bill were put to a vote at third reading. It was passed on division and went to the Senate. That is how we ended up debating Senate amendments today.

As far as our position on the amendments go, I am about to spoil the surprise. We agree with the government's position on the Senate's amendments, accepting some and rejecting others. I will briefly run through them.

The Senate had a few concerns, a few fears, particularly about the disproportionate impact of incarceration on certain marginalized groups, such as indigenous people, racialized people, youth, and individuals experiencing homelessness. Allow me to go over the proposed amendments.

Bill C-14, as drafted, automatically prohibited anyone convicted of an indictable offence within the past 10 years from acting as a surety. We just discussed this during questions and comments. The government accepts the less stringent amendment proposed by the Senate, and so do we. It allows a judge some discretion in situations where no one else could act as a surety for an accused. For example, a newcomer may not necessarily have family here.

In our view, there are still sufficient safeguards in place. The judge must explain how it would serve the interests of justice for a person who has been convicted of an indictable offence in the past to act as a surety. The judge must explain this and must enter the reasons into the record. In exceptional cases, this allows a judge to let someone who has been convicted of an indictable offence act as a surety. We believe this strikes an appropriate balance.

Take, for example, a person who has previously been convicted of vandalism. I would remind the House that there are major and minor offences. Should someone who once committed an act of vandalism be prevented from being named as surety? If it has been less than 10 years and the person committed a truly serious crime, then surely they would still be in prison, which would immediately disqualify them, so that seemed to be an appropriate balance to us.

There is also the matter of whether we should add an obligation for judges to systematically ask defendants whether they belong to any of the groups mentioned in section 493.2 of the Criminal Code, namely racialized or minority groups, and to include that information in the court record. The government rejected the Senate amendment in that regard. We agree with the government. The amendment makes it mandatory to ask the question, when we know that judges are already required to include in the record the fact that they took those criteria into consideration.

In my opinion, and this is why we oppose the amendment, we should not force a judge's hand when it comes to how they comply with this obligation to ensure that the person is not part of a targeted group. That gives judges some discretion because it is not always necessarily relevant, appropriate or reasonable to ask a person whether they are part of a targeted group. We will leave it up to the judge to decide how to meet that obligation in each case, since they are required to indicate in the court record that they took those factors into consideration.

I know that the Senate heard testimony that the obligation to document that the criteria had been considered was not always being met. This section has only been around for two years, since 2024. Since it is already not being complied with, I respectfully suggest that, rather than creating a new section, we should instead ensure that the section that was created two years ago is complied with and that judges are more careful about including a statement that they have properly taken this obligation into consideration in the record.

There are also amendments about an annual report on interim release. It is not an amendment, since it already existed in Bill C‑14, but the Senate wants to improve it in various ways. One of the proposed changes is to add the rates of detention in custody before trial to this report. The government agrees with the amendment, and the Bloc Québécois supports it as well. Having real, accurate statistics will help us gain a better understanding of the reality of preventive detention and will probably help better inform future debates on this issue.

However, one of the amendments proposed by the Senate is a requirement to consult Statistics Canada and experts in data collection when preparing the annual report. We believe that this amendment might be a little too restrictive. The courts and the minister already have the option of consulting Statistics Canada and engaging with various experts, but making this mandatory might remove some flexibility in how things are documented. It might be more rigid than necessary. We therefore agree with the government that the amendment should not be adopted.

Another Senate amendment would change the implementation date for all the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, particularly regarding the confidentiality of records. A certain degree of flexibility is required to implement these changes. By allowing a certain period of time to do so, we ensure that it will be done properly. The amendment delaying the coming into force date is therefore entirely justified and appropriate. The government supports it, and we support it as well.

I think I have finished walking us through the Senate's amendments, the government's position and our position. Some of the amendments do indeed improve Bill C‑14, and we support them. We share the government's position on them. The rejected amendments are not necessarily bad, but they are already addressed, to a certain extent, by existing Criminal Code provisions. Strengthening them further might take away some of the flexibility that is required in criminal matters.

I did not mean to needlessly belabour my observations on the amendments. In closing, I would say that we agree with the government's response to the Senate concerning the amendments it accepts and those it rejects.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his strong speech. After years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies that drove violent crimes up, Canadians are sadly paying the price in their communities every day, as he spoke of in his speech. Conservatives improved Bill C‑14 with key amendments in the House, but the majority Liberal, Trudeau-appointed Senate has once again watered it down, prioritizing criminals' rights over public safety.

Will my colleague join me in calling on the government to reject these weakening Senate amendments and restore the strong public safety version that Conservatives helped build?

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

Mr. Speaker, bail reform has been on the agenda for months. I can recall standing in this place six months ago, as I indicated earlier, pleading, begging and offering leave for this legislation to pass. Constantly, the Conservative Party puts up a roadblock.

The Prime Minister made an election platform commitment to bring in bail reform legislation. The member says he checks with the RCMP on a regular basis. Has he asked how the RCMP feels about Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation? Law enforcement, as a whole, has been exceptionally supportive of Bill C-14. Has the member asked about lawful access, another piece of legislation that the Conservative Party has indicated it is going to be voting against? How does the member justify or reconcile those two issues?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour to rise today to represent the people of Bow River, and the river keeps flowing.

I rise to speak to Bill C‑14 and to the Senate amendments that have been returned to the House.

Before addressing those amendments themselves, I want to return to my maiden speech, which was not much more than a year ago. I came to Ottawa because I was tired of watching common‑sense Canadians feel like nobody was listening to them. I came here because farmers and families, teachers and nurses, doctors, mechanics, oil field workers, seniors and residents across Bow River told me they were worried about the direction of this country. They were worried about a government that seemed increasingly disconnected from everyday realities. They were worried about public safety, and they were tired of hearing the same stories over and over again.

Just this year, a man from Okotoks was charged after police found more than 500,000 images and videos of child sexual abuse material in his home. Investigators described it as one of the largest collections they had ever encountered and involved tens of thousands of victims. Following his arrest, he was released on bail, which sparked outrage and concern throughout the community. The RCMP warned the public against retaliation, threats and vigilante actions. A criminologist from Mount Royal University, Kelly Sundberg, said that stricter bail conditions could help the community feel at ease.

I need to mention that after years of Liberal judicial appointments, the Liberals have established a culture in the judiciary to defer to the perpetrator. This is maybe not deliberate by every judge. It is maybe not a grand scheme, but it is a culture that has insidiously infected our judiciary and that has resulted in deference to the perpetrator. Where does this leave victims? Where does this leave the public when they are worried about crime? The crime wave that is sweeping across this country, which we have been enduring for years, is sometimes bringing our communities to its knees.

The people I represent do not believe public safety should be controversial. They do not believe accountability should be controversial. They certainly do not believe that protecting victims should take a back seat to protecting criminals. That is why Bill C‑14 matters. This bill is really important.

The original purpose of Bill C‑14 was straightforward. It was intended to strengthen Canada's bail system and restore confidence to a justice system that many Canadians believe has become far too lenient toward repeat offenders and violent offenders. The intent was to ensure that meaningful safeguards were in place when accused persons were released into our communities.

I just spoke about how our communities feel and how they feel unsafe. These safeguards are what Canadians expected from Parliament when it began studying this legislation. Unfortunately, we are here today because the Senate has chosen to weaken one of those safeguards.

Before turning to the amendment itself, Canadians and parliamentarians need to understand the broader context. Throughout this Parliament, Liberals repeatedly stood in the way of common-sense criminal justice reforms. They voted down Bill C‑220. They voted down Bill C‑242. They voted down Bill C‑246. These were not half measures, but substantive legislative proposals designed to address real and growing public safety concerns facing Canadians.

Bill C‑242, the jail not bail act, would have strengthened Canada's bail system for repeat violent offenders. Canadians have watched too many tragic cases unfold, where dangerous individuals repeatedly cycle through the justice system and are released back into communities despite extensive criminal records. The principle behind that legislation was simple: Public safety should come first. The Liberals voted it down.

Bill C‑246 would have strengthened sentencing provisions for serious sexual offences and recognized the profound and lasting harm that these crimes inflict on victims. Victims deserve confidence that the offenders will face consequences that reflect the severity of their crimes. The Liberals voted it down.

Bill C-220 represented another serious effort to strengthen accountability within our justice system and restore public confidence in a system that too many Canadians believe is failing to protect them. It would have amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences resulting in sentences of six months or more inadmissible to Canada and subject to removal. It sought to close loopholes that allowed serious offenders to avoid removal proceedings through lengthy appeals and technicalities. We have heard time and time again in this place, in question period and in debate, just a small sampling of the examples from across the country where this is happening in real time. The consequences for our communities are palpable, real, tragic and avoidable. The Liberals voted it down.

Additionally, the Liberals just voted down Bill C-232, which dealt with blocking transfers of dangerous offenders who pose a risk to public safety, like Paul Bernardo, to medium- or low-security prisons, ensuring they remain in maximum-security prisons.

When Parliament finally had an opportunity to study Bill C-14, the Liberals repeatedly blocked progress there as well. If we think back to December, they prevented the justice committee from studying this legislation not once, not twice, but 18 separate times. If the government was so anxious to get this legislation enacted and have it receive royal assent, it had every opportunity at innumerable times to progress it through the parliamentary process. It would be in force today, and we would not be having this debate in the House. I cannot help but think what the impact is in communities because we, the Liberal government, delay. If we had been permitted to do this work earlier, we would be much further along in the process.

I would like to share some stories from my home, from where I live, remarks on the impact of crime and the impact of repeat offenders. At home, it is now commonplace to hear about copper theft. It may seem like a fringe or a fad, a petty theft kind of circumstance, but the impact to communities and, in this particular case, farmers is significant and massive. Petty criminals will go and raid an irrigation pivot for less than $100 of copper, sometimes less than $50 of copper, but the cost to get that equipment repaired is tens of thousands of dollars. More importantly, that machine is not available when the crops need water. It impairs the farmer's ability to grow food. It makes the farmer feel vulnerable. He does not know what kind of bad actor he is going to run into when he is out in the field, checking the equipment and doing the work, growing the food for Canadians.

I have visited multiple RCMP detachments across my riding. I make a point to visit them. Every time I have a chance to visit a community, I stop by the detachment. I speak to the sergeant in charge and to the constables. I ask them what they worry about. I ask them what problems they see. Habitually, it is the repeat offenders who have been kicked out on bail, who have not been rehabilitated and who keep coming back into the system. They deplete RCMP resources in these areas that are, using the words of the constables, “police deserts”. There is a 40-minute or an hour to two-hour response time. That is what the detachment staff tell us.

I know this from personal experience. I had bad actors out in the middle of the field in the middle of the night, and it was four hours before the RCMP were able to get there, to get to us. My neighbours and I were alert all night long, in the middle of the night, in the winter, vigilant to make sure nothing bad was going to happen. It turned out that the individual was wanted on a Canada-wide warrant and from Winnipeg. He had been on the lam for more than a year and had been in and out of the justice system again and again.

These are not petty crimes. These are crimes and activities that tug at the fabric of the communities that hold Canadians together. Also, these long wait times do not impact just the community at large but sworn members themselves. They fear they are going to miss a call when something bad happens. They are stretched too thin because they are consistently dealing with repeat people. They cannot be in the community where they need to be when they want to be there because they are busy dealing with failures of the justice system. We cannot let this stand. It is my hope that we do not.

I think of the impact on farmers, small towns and rural communities, whether it is pickup trucks, cars and vehicles parked in front of the local co-op that are stolen in broad daylight or a spree of 14 vehicles, in a town that only has 150 residents, stolen over the course of a day and a half because the perpetrators are out on bail and looking for a joyride. It is irresponsible of the government to allow this to happen. It is because of these realities that Canadians expect Parliament to strengthen public safety. We need to strengthen these measures, not weaken them. These measures were debated in the House, and the House of Commons gave clear direction as to what the expectations were prior to sending the bill to the Senate.

That is precisely what the amendment before us would do. It concerns sureties. For the Canadians watching at home, a surety is not someone who simply signs paperwork. They play a critical role in the bail system. They are expected to supervise the accused, to encourage compliance with bail conditions, to report violations and to help ensure the accused attends court and does not pose a danger to the public. These are serious responsibilities. Being a surety is a privilege, not a right. That is why the House adopted a simple and common-sense rule: If someone has been convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years, they are not eligible. They have not earned back the trust of society to stand as the caretaker of someone who is in the system. The principle is straightforward. If a person has recently demonstrated a serious disregard for the law, they should not be entrusted with supervising another individual accused of breaking the law. Most Canadians would consider that common sense. The House agreed. Parliament agreed.

However, the Senate has now chosen to weaken the rule. I cannot understand why. The Senate amendment would create an exception that allows judges to approve individuals with recent indictable convictions as sureties if the judge believes no other surety is available and that doing so would be in the interests of justice. This is a loophole we could drive a bus through. This exception swallows the rule whole, like Jonah and the whale. Jonah escaped, but I am not sure we will. The original provision was clear that a recent indictable conviction would mean an individual is not eligible. It was simple. The Senate amendment would change that standard: eligible whenever no better option could be found. Public safety and the public perception of safety demands better than that. That notion transforms the prohibition into a guideline, which then, with the judicial culture we have today, makes it optional, an exception, if the judge feels like it. When safeguards become optional, they are no longer safeguards.

We were deliberate in the provisions that were put in the bill sent from this place, and they were debated vigorously. Canadians should ask a simple question. Parliament determined that a recent indictable conviction makes someone unsuitable to supervise an accused person, so why does that person suddenly become suitable simply because there are no other alternatives? Well, it is because there usually are alternatives, but the accused person does not like them. The answer is that they do not have to like them. The standard has simply been lowered.

The Senate presents a false choice. It suggests that if an accused person cannot find an eligible surety, then detention becomes the only option, but that is not so. It is simply not true. Canadian courts already possess numerous tools within the bail system. Courts can require financial pledges, impose cash deposits and set a number of other conditions in order to ensure that the public remains safe. The answer is not lowering the standard that Parliament deliberately established but maintaining confidence in the integrity of the system. The public demands it, and our honour demands that we deliver that to the public.

Polling cited during the Senate debate found that 72% of Ontarians supported limitations on who may act as a surety, 71% supported cash bail for violent and repeat offenders and two-thirds believed that Canada's bail system was not strict enough. Canadians are clearly asking for stronger safeguards, not weaker ones.

The Senate amendment would also undermine accountability. Sureties are expected to supervise accused persons, report breaches, encourage compliance and ensure attendance in court. Those responsibilities require trustworthiness. Canadians expect the person carrying out these responsibilities to have demonstrated respect for the law and, if they have lost it previously, that they have earned it back adequately. It is not an unreasonable expectation. It is common sense.

The Senate amendment relies heavily on the phrase “the interests of justice”. That sounds reasonable, but it is vague. When I spoke earlier about judicial culture, that is the thin edge of the wedge allowing the system to accommodate unreasonably. Different judges may interpret it differently. Different courts may apply it differently. This place deliberately established a clear rule, and clarity to the judiciary is required to meet the expectations of Parliament. The Senate is replacing certainty with discretion, and therein lies the loophole.

Canadians deserve clear standards, consistency and confidence that public safety measures will actually be applied. Bill C-14 was introduced because Canadians have lost confidence in the bail system. They have watched violent crime increase, repeat offenders cycle through the system and governments talk about public safety while failing to deliver meaningful reform. The House provision would help restore confidence. The Senate amendment would weaken that confidence.

The Senate has argued that some marginalized communities may face difficulties. We should absolutely recognize the challenges faced in some communities, but compassion cannot come at the expense of public safety. The purpose is not merely to find someone willing to sign a form but to find someone capable of providing meaningful supervision and accountability. If finding a surety is difficult, the answer cannot be lowering the standards.

The amendment focuses almost entirely on the circumstances of the accused, but what about victims, families and communities? The threads of the fabric of our communities are at risk. What about law-abiding Canadians who expect the justice system to prioritize their safety? Victims deserve meaningful safeguards before accused persons are released into their communities. Weakening those safeguards does not strengthen confidence in the justice system. It weakens it.

This debate ultimately comes down to a simple question: When public safety and convenience come into conflict, which side should Parliament choose? Conservatives believe the answer is clear, and it is that recent indictable offenders should not supervise accused persons released on bail. The Senate amendment abandons that principle and replaces it with a loophole. Bill C-14 was supposed to strengthen bail, and the Senate amendments would weaken it.

For that reason, and for the countless Canadians who expect Parliament to put public safety first, Conservatives cannot support these amendments, and we hope the government will reject them as well.