Bill C-242

Jail Not Bail Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in order to
(a) replace the principle of restraint in section 493.1 of the Act with the principle of protection of the public;
(b) add the protection of the public as a consideration in decisions on the release of an accused;
(c) add several violent indictable offences to the list of reverse-onus offences in subsection 515(6) of the Act for the determination of judicial interim release;
(d) create a list of major offences, composed of violent reverse-onus offences;
(e) prevent those charged with a major offence from being released after arrest by a peace officer;
(f) require that only a superior court judge may determine, on a reverse-onus basis, whether to permit the interim release of an accused if the accused was charged with a major offence while they were on release in respect of another major offence and if they were convicted of a major offence in the last ten years;
(g) provide for the expiry of the interim release of an accused upon their conviction of an indictable offence while they await sentencing;
(h) prohibit those who have been convicted of an indictable offence in the last ten years from being named as a surety;
(i) require that a justice assessing judicial interim release consider whether or not an accused is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident and, if not, whether they may attempt to leave the country;
(j) make it a condition that those who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents deposit their passports in order to be released whether by a peace officer after arrest or by a justice on judicial interim release; and
(k) change the standard of assessment under paragraph 515(10)(b) of the Act of whether an accused, if released, will commit an offence or interfere with the administration of justice from a “substantial likelihood” to “whether it is reasonably foreseeable” and require that the criminal history of an accused be taken into consideration.
It also amends the Department of Justice Act to require the Minister of Justice to prepare and table in Parliament an annual report on the state of judicial interim release in Canada.

Jail Not Bail Act

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

moved that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the chamber to intervene on my private member's bill, the jail not bail act.

Before I dive into the topic at hand, I want to take a moment to honour the veterans. They are the brave men and women who served our country, who continue to serve and who have paid the ultimate sacrifice so that folks in the chamber could have healthy debate and fight for democracy, and so that Canadians can enjoy the freedoms we enjoy today. Next week, on the 11th, is Remembrance Day. I encourage all members of the public to please wear a poppy to honour their great legacy. We continue to pay tribute to their contributions to making Canada a free, true and prosperous nation.

When it comes to my jail not bail act, there are a lot of individuals and folks who I want to take the time to thank. There are those who helped draft the bill and those who came together to share their ideas. I am honoured that we have had elected officials from all walks of life, regardless of political—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member for a moment. There is a lot of noise in the chamber. Members are still having discussions while a member is speaking to his private member's bill. The clock has stopped, so I assure the member he will have his full time.

I invite all members to leave the House if they are having side conversations, so the member and the business of the House can continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not very far from the hon. colleague, and I could not hear. Therefore, I am asking for this member to be able to start over in speaking to his private member's bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We will start the clock at the beginning so that the member gets the full time. I could not even hear much of it. I will allow the member to begin his speech to his private member's bill.

[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.

[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, our jail not bail act is fully constitutionally compliant. These targeted, reasonable, proportionate measures to change the Criminal Code go after a small number of repeat violent offenders. I am strongly confident that our bill is charter-compliant.

Speaking of charter-compliance, on this side of the House, we stand for the charter rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians, unlike what we saw recently with the decision of the Supreme Court, which removed minimum mandatory sentencing for child sexual offences. The government has stayed quiet.

On this side of the House, we will invoke the notwithstanding clause to ensure that law-abiding Canadians and children are kept safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that a losing a person who was murdered and then seeing the person who committed that crime get parole is a sensitive and emotional issue.

As my colleague knows, and as the facts bear out, a lot of people are currently being detained arbitrarily or while awaiting trial. Our prisons are filled with people awaiting the outcome of their trials. The solution proposed by our colleague could create a space shortage.

The question I want to ask my colleague is this. Has the time come to modernize the process and the various stages of parole? Is it not time to work on that very specific process?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. There is time for us to modernize our justice system, but it is important that we modernize our Criminal Code to defend the rights of law-abiding Canadians.

When it comes to our prison capacity, it is important for everyone to understand that this bill targets repeat violent offenders. To share some facts, in Kelowna, the same 15 individuals committed 1,500 crimes in a single year. In Vancouver, the same 40 committed 6,000 crimes in a single year. If we put away these repeat violent offenders, there will be less in and out happening in the criminal justice system.

Our job is to make sure we go after repeat violent offenders. As always, there will be a presumption of innocence, and we will let the courts do their work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the work he has done on this bill.

I want to give him another opportunity to talk about something he mentioned in his intervention. He said that it is too late for the victims' loved ones, but they are not fighting for that. They are fighting for next family. They do not want another family to go through what they have gone through.

Perhaps he could share a further story on that.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the stories. We have seen the headlines in the media, the social media posts and the cries for help. The headlines seem like they are from Hollywood movies.

Families get destroyed. Sometimes the person who is killed is the only income-earner. Sometimes they are the only person taking care of their kids. It is not only about the stories we want to share, but about the feelings and emotions that come with them. Bailey's family's lives are completely destroyed. They are not in a good spot right now. It is the same with other victims.

For Conservatives, the purpose of sharing these stories is for us to all wake up and know that we are in this chamber to keep Canadians safe. That is one of our top priorities. It is also to make sure the Criminal Code reflects those changes.

I thank all the victims who have courage, take a stand and share their stories. It is with their stories and efforts, when we are all united, that we can make change happen in our country.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada our constituents, like mine in Scarborough—Agincourt, are voicing concerns about violent crime, repeat offending and the safety of their communities. These concerns are rooted in real experiences and in a desire to have a justice system that protects the public and upholds the rule of law. That is why I rise today to talk about Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, as part of a broader national conversation about how our bail system should function: how it can best manage risk, promote accountability and maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Bill C-242, introduced by the hon. member for Oxford, proposes a number of amendments to the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act. Among other measures, the bill would expand reverse onus provisions for certain violent offences, restrict release by peace officers for major crimes and modify the standard at bail hearings for assessing risk.

Specifically, Bill C-242 seeks to make public protection a guiding principle in all bail decisions. It would expand the list of offences for which an accused must demonstrate why they should be released, adding a range of serious violent crimes to existing reverse onus provisions. It would also prevent individuals charged with major indictable offences, such as homicide, kidnapping or sexual assault, from being released by a peace officer following arrest.

In addition, the bill proposes that only a superior court judge would be able to determine bail for someone charged with a major offence while already on release for another, reflecting the heightened risks involved in repeat offending. The bill would also prohibit anyone convicted of an indictable offence in the past 10 years from acting as a surety, and it would require non-citizens to surrender their passport as a condition of release.

Finally, it would lower the threshold for assessing risk, changing the standard from a substantial likelihood of reoffending to what is reasonably foreseeable, and it would require explicit consideration of an accused person's criminal history when determining bail.

The bill's proposal to give paramount importance to public safety above other principles of bail deserves close scrutiny, and we are committed to doing that, but we cannot be reactive. We must strike the right balance.

By elevating public safety above all other factors, we risk overlooking cases where the accused does not pose a danger to the community but may present other risks, such as flight risk. In such circumstances, a narrow focus could paradoxically lead to the release of individuals who should remain in custody, while also eroding long-standing principles of bail. Moreover, public safety is already a well-established ground for detention under existing law, so it is unclear what additional value the proposal would actually add to the existing framework.

People in Canada expect their justice system to be firm, fair and focused on safety. They expect that individuals who pose a real threat to others will be dealt with decisively and that victims and communities will be protected. The government shares that commitment. The government has taken and will continue to take strong, targeted action to make Canada's bail system more responsive to the risks posed by repeat violent offenders.

In 2024, Parliament passed reforms that were supported unanimously by provinces and territories. These changes made it more difficult for individuals charged with serious violent offences, particularly those involving firearms or other weapons, to obtain bail. They addressed real concerns with community safety and responded directly to the concerns raised by police services and provincial and territorial leaders across the country.

At the same time, the government knows that supporting first responders is an essential part of ensuring community safety. Police officers, paramedics, firefighters, correctional officers and health care workers face violence and danger as part of their daily work. Through Bill C-3, Parliament took action to protect those who protect us. That legislation amended the Criminal Code to create tougher penalties for assaults against health care workers and first responders. It sent a clear and unequivocal message that violence against the people serving our communities is never acceptable.

Bill C-3 was also part of a broader approach that recognizes the complexity of these challenges. It strengthened the justice system not only through penalties but also through education and awareness, ensuring that our judges, law enforcement officers and service providers have the tools and the understanding they need in order to respond effectively.

However, the government's work did not stop there. Recently the Prime Minister announced that the government would bring forward new legislation to strengthen bail provisions for organized crime-related offences, including auto theft, home invasion and human trafficking. These measures are designed to address the kinds of high-risk, repeat behaviour that most undermine public safety and confidence.

As Parliament continues its study of Bill C-242 and other proposed reforms, it is important that our discussions remain grounded in evidence, guided by collaboration with provinces and territories and focused on the shared goal of keeping Canadians safe.

Public safety and public confidence depend not only on the laws we pass but also on how those laws are implemented, monitored and enforced. That is why the government continues to prioritize data collection, transparency and accountability in the bail system, so we can identify what works, close the gaps and ensure that the system delivers on its promise of protection and fairness.

Law enforcement remains on the front line of this effort. Police services across the country are adapting to increasingly complex cases involving firearms, organized crime and repeat violent behaviour. The federal government continues to work closely with police associations and provincial counterparts to ensure that officers have the legal tools and the operational resources they need in order to keep people in Canada safe. That co-operation is essential because public safety cannot be achieved in isolation; it requires co-ordination among all levels of government and clear communication among the courts, police and the communities they serve.

We must also recognize that public confidence in the criminal justice system is as much about visibility as it is about outcomes. People in Canada need to see that justice is being done, that bail decisions are informed by fact, that breaches are enforced and that high-risk offenders are monitored closely. Transparency in these processes helps restore trust, and trust is the foundation on which our entire justice system depends.

People in Canada deserve a justice system that reflects both firmness and fairness, one that distinguishes between people who can be safely managed in the community and those who cannot. They deserve to know that when someone poses a serious risk to public safety, the system will respond swiftly, decisively and effectively. That is the approach the government continues to take.

Through legislation such as Bill C-3, recent bail reforms and the Prime Minister's announcement on reforming the bail system, the government is acting to strengthen public safety while upholding the principles of justice that define this country.

Public safety will always be a top priority for the current government. People in Canada expect no less. As we consider proposals for reform, including the ones before us today, we must continue to work together to ensure that our laws remain strong, fair and effective in keeping our communities safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, there are fundamental principles that distinguish true democratic regimes from states that merely claim to be democratic. The rule of law is based on rules, values and principles that are non-negotiable.

The current mood among certain political parties, thinkers and columnists seems to be more about vengeance in the justice system than true justice. It is sometimes more about seeking likes on social media than creating social peace, showing compassion and being thorough. The current mood criticizes dialogue, moderation and the search for balance. Looking at things in black or white pays off for some. Being nuanced and thoughtful is seen as an expression of weakness in society. I do not subscribe to that ideology. As I often say, I support democracy, justice and the law.

For years, the Conservative Party has been capitalizing on fear and criticism of judicial institutions. Its leader even makes dubious connections and disturbing conflations about the separation of powers. It is therefore no surprise that we are seeing the Conservative Party's desire to inject another dose of populism into our institutions with Bill C‑242.

The Bloc Québécois is committed to a number of principles. First and foremost, it believes in the presumption of innocence, the foundation of our justice system, which holds that all people are considered innocent until proven guilty. This principle is clearly set out in our charters, in paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in section 33 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, or the Quebec charter. Section 33 states that “Every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.”

We must avoid any attempt to do otherwise at all costs. It is crucial that we not revert to a time when mob justice ruled, emotional outbursts held sway and justice was unfettered by clear, impartial and humane rules. Any breach, however small, could set a precedent and allow the risk of seeing our rule of law and justice system left violated and broken.

Democracy and the rule of law are based on a fragile balance between citizens' confidence in their institutions and the weight of popular will and reason. Our democracies are already under attack by harmful ideologies. All we have to do is look around us to see what is happening. Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to maintain this balance between respect for rights, confidence in institutions and public opinion. To do that, we need to be clear, we need to educate and we need to listen, not play petty populist games or use baseball analogies to talk about a subject as important as the law, justice and public safety. Our Conservative colleagues can keep repeating “three-strikes law” all they want, but it does not make this issue any less complex.

I would say to my colleagues in the official opposition that if they want clear and concrete proposals for fighting crime, they can adopt the Bloc Québécois's proposals. We propose creating a registry of criminal organizations, like the registry for terrorist organizations. This would make it easier to prove when a crime is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization. We also propose facilitating the seizure of assets by reversing the burden of proof to prevent the dissipation of assets when an individual belonging to organized crime is arrested. We also propose prohibiting criminal organizations from parading their insignia. Currently, criminal organizations parade with impunity and promote their organization. Finally, we propose creating a specific offence to criminalize the recruitment of young people to commit crimes. This new tactic has become the modus operandi of organized crime. It ruins lives and families. We must crack down harder on those who abuse our young people.

Understandably, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the Conservative Party's populist bill. We will always choose being constructive and democratic over being populists. Our commitment to democracy has always been at the heart of our national project. We will always be committed to the independence of our institutions.

[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, 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.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the great people of Abbotsford—South Langley, whom I have the honour to represent in this House.

I want to recognize the important week we have coming up as we approach Remembrance Day. I want to take a moment to reflect on the significance of this time and why the simple act of wearing a poppy holds so much true meaning.

The poppy has become a symbol of remembrance for the men and women who served our country so proudly and continue to serve in our armed forces. These heroes laid down their lives so we could have the ability to call Canada home, a place we are so proud of and have the honour to live in. Canada's freedom, democracy and the values we preserve are the result of their courage, sacrifices and unwavering commitment to our nation.

Wearing a poppy is more than just a tradition; it is a pledge of gratitude. It is our way of honouring the courage, resilience and dedication of our veterans and our members in active service. I encourage everyone to wear a poppy with pride to reflect on the sacrifices made for our country and to express the most profound thanks to all who have served and are currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are speaking about such an important topic today. I made a statement earlier about an individual who was shot down in my community of Abbotsford. Bail reform and justice need to be brought to our country. It is why the Conservative Party put the jail not bail bill forward in this House. We are prioritizing our country and our nation.

We need change. People have dealt with this for long enough. They are suffering. There are people in our communities who are asking us questions, like why there is no justice and why justice is not being presented to the families that have lost loved ones.

It breaks my heart when family members cry in front of us and say that their loved one had done nothing. An eight-year-old boy from Toronto was shot while sleeping in his bed. What did he do to deserve such an act? This is why the bill is very important, and I look forward to continuing to speak to this matter.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 3:03 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 17, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 3:03 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 7, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-242, the Conservative bill on Canada's bail system.

I want to begin with something that unites every member of this House. Regardless of party affiliation, Canadians deserve to feel safe and be safe in their communities. They deserve to walk their streets, send their children to school and go about their daily lives with confidence that the justice system is there to protect them. They deserve a system that holds repeat violent offenders accountable, that supports a victim and that functions effectively on the ground, not just in theory but in real practice.

The reality is that good intentions are not enough.

The question before us is not whether we strengthen bail. The question is whether we do it in a way that is effective, constitutional and actually implementable. On that question, Bill C-242 falls short, while our government's bill, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, delivers. Let me be clear: Bill C-14 already achieves the objective that Bill C-242 aims to achieve. The difference is that our bill does so in a constitutional way.

It would introduce over 80 targeted reforms to the Criminal Code. It was developed in collaboration with provinces, territories, police leaders, victims, survivors and justice system experts. Most importantly, it has the support of all 10 premiers in this country, across party lines. That matters, because when it comes to bail, the provinces administer justice. They run the courts, they hire prosecutors and they oversee policing resources, so when all 10 premiers tell us that Bill C-14 strikes the right balance, we should listen.

Compare that to Bill C-242. How does it differ? It has a series of changes that do not really consider the operational realities of our justice system. It would duplicate measures that already exist in Bill C-14, which is now being studied at the Senate. Where it goes in a different way, it does so in ways that raise serious constitutional concerns and practical risks.

Let us start with one of the central proposals, the so-called removal of the principle of restraint. Bill C-242 proposes to eliminate it from the Criminal Code. On its face, that might sound appealing, but it is fundamentally flawed. Unlike some claims from the opposition, the principle of restraint does not come from the Criminal Code alone. It comes from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Antic. That means it is binding law under our common-law system. Even if we deleted it from the statute, it would continue to apply, so Bill C-242 would not actually change the law, but create confusion and risk clogging up the courts, as lawyers argue over a principle that still exists but is no longer clearly codified.

Our approach through Bill C-14 is far more effective. We clarify the principle of restraint. We make explicit that it does not mean automatic release. We make it clear that detention is appropriate where public safety is at risk. That is how we strengthen the law, instead of pretending we can erase binding Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Let us talk about repeat violent offenders, because that is where Canadians expect action. Bill C-242 would create a broad category of major offences and apply reverse onus provisions to these offences. Bill C-14 takes a different path. It would target the real problem by introducing reverse onus provisions for specific high-risk offences identified by police, provinces and municipalities, such as violent auto theft linked to organized crime, human trafficking, assault involving strangulation or extortion involving violence. This means that for these categories of offences, the starting point becomes detention, and it would be up to the accused to prove why they should be released on bail, rather than on the Crown to have to meet this high threshold.

Let us consider court capacity. Bill C-242 proposes that more accused persons must go through a judge for a bail hearing, removing the ability of the police to release individuals in a broader range of cases. It would also require that only judges grant bail in many situations. What would that mean in practice? It would mean more hearings, more delays, more pressure on already overburdened provincial courts, more strain on prosecutors and police resources and, most importantly, fewer guilty pleas. Provinces have been clear that they do not have the capacity for this kind of reform. Bill C-14 recognizes that reality and would maintain the existing framework while clearly guiding peace officers and the courts so that individuals who pose a real risk are not released.

Let me now turn to one of the most troubling aspects of Bill C-242, which is its treatment of non-citizens. The bill proposes mandatory passport surrender and distinct bail conditions based solely on citizenship status, but we are not the United States. In Canada, the charter guarantees “equality before the law”. Creating different bail rules for non-citizens risks violating these protections. It would open the door to legal challenges that could strike down these provisions entirely.

There is another concern here as well, one that goes beyond legal principles and speaks to who we are as a country. We must be very careful not to send the message that people who are not born in Canada are somehow more likely to be a threat to public safety. That is simply not true, and it risks unfairly stigmatizing entire communities that contribute every day to the strength of this country. Public safety is not advanced by dividing Canadians or by casting suspicion on newcomers. It is advanced by targeting real risks by focusing on behaviours, rather than identity. That is the standard Canadians expect from us, and it is one we must uphold.

This brings us to the broader contrast. Bill C-14 is the product of collaboration. Bill C-14 reflects input from the provinces, police, victim groups and experts, and it would deliver targeted reforms that are practical, constitutional and ready to implement. Bill C-242, in contrast, reflects a different approach. It is broad where it should be precise, it is rigid where it should allow judicial discretion, and in key areas, it proposes measures that legal experts, civil liberty organizations and constitutional lawyers would immediately flag as problematic.

Canadians expect better. They expect us to do the hard work of getting this right.

Let me say this directly to my colleagues opposite. If the goal is truly to strengthen bail and protect communities, then the path forward is clear. Bill C-14 is already before the Senate. It has the support of every single premier in this country, from the NDP premier in B.C. to the Conservative premiers in Alberta and Ontario and the nationalist premier in Quebec to the Liberal premier in New Brunswick, so why not deliver real tools to provinces and law enforcement, instead of advancing a bill that would duplicate what already exists and introduce unnecessary risks?

We all want safer communities and a justice system that works, but we must be honest about what will achieve that goal. Bill C-14 would strengthen bail in a way that is targeted, practical and constitutional. It reflects collaboration, not division. It would deliver results, not rhetoric. Bill C-242 would not meet those standards.

For those reasons, I urge all members of this House to support the serious and responsible work already undertaken in Bill C-14. I further call on my Conservative colleagues to press their Conservative colleagues at the Senate to expedite its passage so that law enforcement can begin using the tools they have clearly said they need to protect Canadians.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my regard to my colleagues on this Monday morning. I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-242 regarding interim release. I read the bill and examined it very closely. In short, this bill seeks to do 12 different things. Let us start with the first one.

First, it is important to remember that the bill seeks to replace the principle of restraint in section 493.‍1 of the Criminal Code with the principle of protection of the public. The Criminal Code currently provides for the principle of restraint, which is as follows:

493.1 In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances, including conditions that are reasonably practicable for the accused to comply with, while taking into account [other] grounds....

The bill aims to replace this principle with what is called the principle of public safety and protection, which the bill describes as follows:

493.1 In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the protection and safety of the public.

The wording in this part of the bill seems to be somewhat misleading. It seems to suggest that the principle of restraint does not ensure the protection of the public. However, when considering the legal implications of this provision, it appears that it would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly section 11(d) of the charter. It calls into question the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Certain circumstances call for the use of reverse onus. I have used this myself, in Bill C‑290, a bill I introduced in the previous Parliament that aimed to protect whistle-blowers. It is meant to be used in situations where it is impossible for a victim to prove their case. However, in this case, it seems fairly unacceptable to us.

Second, the bill proposes to do the following:

(b) add the protection of the public as a consideration

However, this does not mean that existing legislation and the government's proposals do not take public safety into account.

Third, the bill proposes to do the following:

(c) add several violent indictable offences...for the determination of judicial interim release.

Fourth, the bill seeks to prohibit release or allow additional restrictions within the judicial system for a very specific list of offences. Accordingly, the bill is proposing to do the following:

(d) create a list of major offences, composed of violent reverse-onus offences;

That is problematic in itself. As I said, the burden of proof can be reversed under certain circumstances, but depending on the circumstances, it could make it impossible for victims to provide evidence, and that seems problematic.

Fifth, the bill proposes to do the following:

(e) prevent those charged with a major offence from being released after arrest

This would significantly restrict the discretion and decision-making power of judges in various courts. Currently, the Criminal Code provides that the only offences for which the accused cannot be released are treason, intimidating Parliament, mutiny, sedition, piracy and murder. The Conservatives want to add a whole list of other offences to this.

This does not mean that the accused is automatically released when other offences are committed but, once again, it would remove a great deal of discretion from the courts, which are in a position to assess the evidence before making such a decision. Furthermore, this would mean that a person charged with the offences listed could not be released, whether arrested with or without a warrant.

Sixth, the bill proposes to do the following:

(f) require that only a superior court judge may determine, on a reverse-onus basis [which I mentioned earlier], whether to permit the interim release of an accused if the accused was charged with a major offence while they were on release in respect of another major offence and if they were convicted of a major offence in the last ten years;

This simply seeks to make it so that only superior court judges can authorize release on bail. Once again, this complicates the justice system's operation because, as we all know, criminal cases are not heard exclusively by superior courts. The Court of Quebec also hears them. Obviously, there are access to justice issues and backlog issues, and we are by no means certain that adding this constraint will necessarily serve the interests of justice. As we can see, we are not only dealing with principles here, but also with the operation of our justice system.

Seventh, the bill proposes to do the following:

g) provide for the expiry of the interim release of an accused upon their conviction of an indictable offence while they await sentencing;

This is not uncommon for legal decisions. We cannot assume that judges are not already doing the very things included in this bill as they deem appropriate.

Eighth, the bill proposes to do the following:

h) prohibit those who have been convicted of an indictable offence in the last ten years from being named as a surety;

That is fine. Nine, the bill proposes to do the following:

i) require that a justice assessing judicial interim release consider whether or not an accused is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident and, if not, whether they may attempt to leave the country;

We know that judges can already deny bail if they determine that the accused really does represent a flight risk. In fact, bail is not granted in many cases. Subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code already sets out three cases in which an accused person may be denied bail. They are as follows:

(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court...b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public...and (c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including (i) the apparent strength of the prosecution's case, (ii) the gravity of the offence, (iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence...and (iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment

The Criminal Code already takes that into account. Tenth, the bill proposes to do the following:

(j) make it a condition that those who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents deposit their passports in order to be released

Judges can already order the deposit of passports under subsection 515(4) of the Criminal Code, and from what I am told, this happens fairly frequently. That section reads:

When making an order under subsection (2), the justice may direct the accused to comply with one or more of the following conditions specified in the order:...(f) deposit all their passports as specified in the order;

I do not want to say that the bill is pointless, but some aspects of it are clearly redundant. The Bloc Québécois will obviously be voting against Bill C-242, not because it is completely inappropriate, but because we believe that we must be very careful about reversing the burden of proof and calling into question the presumption of innocence. Although we believe that some reforms need to be made to the Criminal Code, we do not think that this bill is the best way of going about that. Before I close, I would just like to point out two things.

First, there is the issue of judicial discretion. People need to trust the justice system and they need to trust judges. Of course, mistakes happen. Of course, sometimes, things go too far. Of course, sometimes judges make headline-worthy mistakes. However, for the most part, judges are the ones who see all the evidence and they are best able to make these decisions, and in most cases, the system works relatively well.

Then there is the issue of judicial resources. As I said earlier, restricting certain decisions to the superior courts can compromise the way the legal system operates. There is an issue with court resources. There are also issues with the appointment of judges, the number of judges, access to justice and the appointment of clerks. Resources are needed. For years, the Bloc Québécois—especially my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who has repeatedly raised the issue—has called for more resources to be transferred to the provinces, which are responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code. It is easy for us to pass legislation in the House, but provinces have to enforce it. Again, I think the federal Parliament should acknowledge this fact and ensure that while the House debates possible amendments to the Criminal Code, resources are transferred to the provinces as soon as possible so that these additional resources can be used to enforce existing legislation more swiftly, which would strengthen public confidence in the system.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in the chamber and to speak on behalf of my constituents, the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. Crime is one of the most serious concerns facing my riding today, with Kelowna also represented by a Liberal member, sadly becoming ground zero for the consequences of failed Liberal bail policies.

Before I speak directly to the jail not bail act, I think it is important to remind the House how we got to this place. In 2018, for purely ideological reasons, the former Trudeau Liberal government passed Bill C-75, amending the Criminal Code and fundamentally reshaping Canada's bail system. Although there were several changes, the guiding principle was very clear: Release should be the default position at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions possible. In that decision lies the heart of what Canadians now recognize as a catch-and-release justice system.

The results have been devastating. Between 2015 and 2022, violent crimes increased dramatically. The number of murders rose, gang-related homicides surged and violent gun crime more than doubled. These are not abstract statistics I speak of. They represent real victims, real families and real communities, our communities, paying the price. It became so serious that every provincial premier, regardless of their political stripe, jointly wrote to the federal government, demanding bail reform. That alone should have been a wake-up call to the seriousness of the problem, yet here we are in 2026 still debating how to clean up a mess that was created eight years ago by the former Liberal majority government.

Last week in Kelowna, a prolific career criminal, someone who had 67 criminal convictions, was once again released on bail. Can any member of the House guess what happened next? We all know the answer: This individual was released back into the very community he has repeatedly victimized, despite an extensive record that clearly demonstrated a pattern of reoffending. The situation became so serious that the RCMP took the unprecedented step of issuing a public warning upon his release. This is not normal. This is not normal policing. This is what happens when law enforcement is forced to manage risk created by bad legislation.

Out of respect for families affected by violent crime, I will not be retelling individual stories in this debate. We all have these stories. We all know the damage that has been done to our communities over and over, and the real damage to families and their lives.

I do want to just take a moment to acknowledge the terrific work of my colleague the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and the families, particularly in Kelowna, whose advocacy has given rise to what we now know as Bailey's law. This brings me to the legislation before us today.

Before I go further, I should say that I thank the member for Oxford for his leadership on this issue and for bringing forward the jail not bail legislation, which squarely puts public safety back at the centre of bail decision. I thank the member for his contributions. I thank him for the time he spends away from his family, educating Canadians on the problems created by the previous government, and for the solutions being proposed by him as a member of Parliament, a Conservative member who believes strongly that this country and our streets can be safe again.

The legislation reflects the concerns being raised in our communities by police and by provincial leaders across the country, and it puts forward a clear, principled alternative to the status quo. Canadians have heard a lot about government attempts to fix bail laws, including Bill C-14. While some amendments are welcome and have been pushed by our caucus as supportable, I want to acknowledge that on this bill, we have tried to work in good faith with the government. Despite Bill C-14's solutions, the fundamental problem remains untouched, and that is the principle of restraint. It still exists.

The principle, enshrined by the Liberal majority in 2017, continues to prioritize release over detention, even for repeat and violent offenders. It is the philosophical core of catch-and-release, and it is precisely why incremental changes since that time, whether they be Bill C-48 in the previous Parliament or Bill C-14 in the current Parliament, will not fix the problem. That is why the jail not bail act is necessary. Unlike Liberal half measures, the jail not bail act would confront the problem head-on.

First, it would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint, making public safety the primary consideration in bail decisions, not an afterthought and not one factor among many but the guiding principle that judges must take into consideration.

Second, it would introduce a new major offences category, applying reverse onus bail to the most serious crimes: firearms offences, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and serious assaults. These are crimes where the burden should rest squarely on the accused to justify their release.

Third, the jail not bail act would strengthen bail decisions by requiring judges to consider the accused's full criminal history, not just the offence that is immediately before the court. It would also prevent individuals convicted of a major offence within the last 10 years who are already out on bail and who are charged again from being released yet again. Importantly, it would toughen the legal standard itself, replacing the vague threshold of substantial likelihood with a more realistic and protective test of what is reasonably foreseeable.

The bill would also close loopholes by prohibiting anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor. Someone who has done a crime should not be able to be a guarantor for another. This would require meaningful enforcement of guarantor responsibilities. The bill would also require non-residents to surrender passports where appropriate.

These are not radical ideas. They are common-sense protections that put victims and our communities ahead of repeat offenders.

Recently I met with the City of Kelowna, along with the member for Oxford and the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, to discuss this issue. Representatives presented documents in which their executive summary stated very clearly that federal bail reforms have prioritized release over detention, even for chronic offenders. Their conclusion was clear: Kelowna supports presumptive detention and stricter bail conditions for chronic offenders.

I want to say that I stand with the City of Kelowna on these points, and I believe that most Canadians do. In fact, we held a town hall to discuss how we can stop crime in our neighbourhoods. We visited community leaders like those from the Uptown Rutland Business Association. We walked the streets with them to hear their concerns about criminality and public disorder. It became abundantly clear at our town hall that citizens in places like Kelowna and throughout the Central Okanagan are fed up. They want to know that when police charge and when people are prosecuted, people are held accountable and not simply released, only to harm families and communities again and again.

The jail not bail act would answer that question by doing what the government has refused to do: put public safety first, clearly, consistently and without apology backing up our RCMP officers, who work so hard to stop the crime, only to have those individuals released, while they are stuck with the paperwork and are arguing for more resources to deal with them.

I want to conclude by acknowledging the many members on all sides of the House who care about justice and public safety. I respect the work that the member for Oxford has done on the legislation, and I ask that all hon. members support the jail not bail act.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about the issues of crime and safety in our communities. I thought the parliamentary secretary who spoke prior to me spoke exceptionally well about why what is being proposed is, in fact, not necessarily to the benefit of public safety.

However, I will give the Conservatives credit to the extent that they can encapsulate an issue, turn it into a bumper sticker and ultimately make money on it through social media and spreading what I would suggest is misinformation. They are using it as a fundraising tool. I give them full credit. They are really good at doing that when it comes to the crime file.

What about the reality of it? The member who spoke before me talked about public safety. Let there be absolutely no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that the Government of Canada, every Liberal member of Parliament, understands the issue of community safety. We all want our communities to be safe and for people to feel safe in the communities in which they live. We want people to realize that there are consequences to crime. If someone commits a crime, there will be a consequence.

We have a system in Canada that ensures a high sense of co-operation between the different levels of government. The Conservatives have brought forward legislation. If there were a question and answer period for the presentations being made today, I would have asked to what degree have the Conservatives gained the support of the different premiers, mayors and councillors in bringing forward this particular legislation. To what degree are they looking at the judicial system as something that is independent from government? I think these are valid questions, and I believe the Conservatives need to be truthful and open with Canadians.

The federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution. If someone were to listen to what the speakers from the Conservative Party are saying, they would begin to believe that it is the Conservatives' ace in the hole and that they would have absolutely no reservations in using it. No matter what legislation the Conservatives bring forward, even if it were to be ruled as being unconstitutional and against the charter, the charter that provides rights to every Canadian, the Conservatives would be very comfortable overriding those rights.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives have made it very clear that, under their current leadership, there is no reservation whatsoever. They are saying that they would use the notwithstanding clause to get what they want because what they want is not necessarily in the public's best interest. It is to satisfy the far right.

The last Conservative member said, “put public safety first”. That is exactly what the government has done. If we were to contrast the bumper sticker bills on crime provided by the Conservatives, we would see that this bill has a lot of similarities with Bill C-14. It deals with issues such as the principle of restraint. First and foremost, it deals with the issue of public safety. When we look at Bill C-14, we will find that it has virtually unanimous support coming from all regions of the country. I should not say “unanimous”, but we are getting close to it.

Every premier, law enforcement agencies and many stakeholders have recognized that Bill C-14 is the way to go. There are 80 targeted reforms within it, many of which have been incorporated into Bill C-242, the bill we are debating today. That is a substantial change.

I remember standing in this very same spot, back in November and December, challenging the Conservative Party to pass Bill C-14. It was the only political entity in the country back then that wanted to postpone its passage. All one needs to do is reflect on the amount of filibustering the Conservatives were doing back then. No matter how much we shamed them, they did not respond to the public interest.

The principle of restraint does not mean an automatic release. Public safety has been and will continue to be taken into consideration before release. Bill C-14 would help to address that. It would provide a bit more detail on that issue. The Conservatives believe that they would ultimately have control, through the notwithstanding clause, to dictate what judges hand out. I think that is a very dangerous path.

That is why I challenge members of the Conservative party who will be speaking, particularly the mover of the legislation, to give a clear indication of which premiers are supporting the legislation they are proposing. What major city mayors, or mayors in general, are in support of this legislation, Bill C-242? I can say that the New Democrats, the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives, even the Saskatchewan Party, see the true value of legitimate bail reform, something the Prime Minister committed to for Canadians in the last federal election. We understand the need for bail reform. We do not question that. Where we differ is that we have done our homework on the issue, and our first priority is the people of Canada and providing good, sound public policy for the different stakeholders who are lining up in support of Bill C-14, which is currently at the Senate. Hopefully, it will be out of the Senate soon so we can implement it into law.

The good news is that the government has not just ended this with Bill C-14. There is also other substantial legislation to deal with things, such as femicide. I think of Bill C-16 and the reinstatement of mandatory minimums. These are the types of things that are before the House.

Under the new Prime Minister and new government, which were elected less than a year ago, we have brought forward a suite of legislative amendments to do what the last member of the Conservative Party said, which was to put public safety first. That is what every member of the Liberal caucus strives to do through supporting substantial legislation, in consultation, that would not be an assault against the judicial system. When I say the judicial system, I am talking about stakeholders, first ministers, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and so much more.

[An hon. member]

What about victims?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course there are the victims. That is who we are talking about. They are our primary motivation.

I appreciate the heckle, but at the end of the day—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We have to move on.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge has the floor.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, at second reading. It was put forward by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Oxford, and I am proud to have seconded the legislation.

I just listened to the Liberal government's narrative of our perspective on crime, and it is an alternative universe. This bill, the jail not bail act, was announced in Woodbridge last September, in my riding, where the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member from Oxford and I, along with other colleagues, were joined by the families of victims. The members of these families were crying in our arms. They had felt the pain of a failed Liberal bail system and the constant consequences of inaction.

The location of this announcement was not a coincidence. Woodbridge was chosen because the people who live there know this problem first-hand. They do not live in the abstract where politicians debate theories of justice. They live in the real world, the here and now, and they live with the consequences of the broken bail system and constant Liberal inaction.

I want to start in Vaughan because I feel similar to what the member for Kelowna is feeling. Vaughan feels like ground zero to many in our community for the issue of crime in this country. Now, according to York Regional Police, in the latest full-year report on crime statistics for 2024, my community recorded 16,407 criminal offences, the highest of any municipality in York region. We recorded 749 break and enters, 1,996 assaults, 274 reported sexual violations and 167 robberies. All of this was in a single year.

The stats highlight the numbers; however, there is a reality that members of the House need to realize. The reality is that, just last week, in the early hours of March 17, armed suspects forced their way into a home on Carrville Woods Circle in Vaughan. The homeowner, to protect his family, discharged a legally owned firearm. Two suspects are still at large. The family at home did nothing wrong. They had no choice, and they had no warning.

Some weeks before that, a man was shot dead outside a business at Weston Road and Rowntree Dairy Road in the middle of the afternoon. In February, a Thornhill residence was struck by gunfire. On another evening, shots were fired at a home on Allison Ann Way. In the early hours of a cold January morning, a man was shot near Martin Grove Road. A gun was seized after a commercial break-in at a Vaughan business. Another investigation linked one suspect to nine separate break and enters across Vaughan and Markham. This is what daily life has become in my riding.

When I look at the reality and at what our bill system has been doing, that connection is not hard to find. Since the Liberals took office in 2015, violent crime in Canada is up by 55%, firearm offences are up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%. These are Statistics Canada figures. They reflect a decade of policy choices that constantly prioritize the rights of the accused over the safety of the community.

In 2019, Bill C-75, the Liberals inserted what is called the “Principle of restraint” to the Criminal Code. That principle directs judges and justices of the peace to release the accused at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive conditions. My colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, a former Crown attorney, explained precisely what that means in practice, which is that it does not matter how serious the charge, how long the criminal record or how many times the accused has already breached a bail order, the law tells the court that it has to let them go.

Then in 2022, Bill C-5 repealed mandatory minimum sentences for serious firearms and violent crimes, as well as extended the availability of conditional sentences, house arrest, for offences that most Canadians would expect to end in imprisonment. The deterrent effect of the justice system was weakened at both ends, at the point of bail and again at the point of sentencing.

The Liberals have since introduced Bill C-14 and have framed it as bail reform. I want to be fair. It is better than what exists today. Conservatives worked on that committee to strengthen the bill wherever we could. We secured tighter surety rules, provisions for repeat violent offenders who re-offend on release and annual reporting requirements.

However, when we pushed for public safety to become the primary governing principle, moved to eliminate house arrest for major crimes and sought mandatory consecutive sentences for repeat human traffickers, the Liberals voted against every one of those amendments. Of course, the fundamental problem with Liberal bail is that the principle of restraint would still remain. It would be modified at the edges, but it would still there, telling the courts to default towards release. The culture of prioritizing release is perpetual in our justice system, and the Liberal bail bill, Bill C-14, would do nothing to address this.

Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, starts from a different premise entirely. It would remove the principle of restraint and replace it with a clear direction that public and community safety is the primary consideration for the justice system. It would change what judges would be asked to weigh first when someone stands before them: public safety over early release.

The bill would create a major offence category covering some of the most serious crimes we see in communities like Vaughan: firearm offences, sexual offences, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasions, robbery, extortion and arson. For anyone charged with one of these offences, the bill would establish a presumption of detention. For repeat violent offenders, the bill would heighten the risk standards. Today, courts ask whether there is a substantial likelihood that an offender would reoffend. This bill would change that to “reasonable foreseeability”, meaning whether a reasonable person looking at an accused's full criminal history, record of breaching orders and pattern of how they have moved through the system would conclude that their risk of reoffending is real.

Bill C-242 would also close gaps in our system. For example, it would bar anyone convicted of an indictable offence from serving as a guarantor. It is difficult to believe that this needs to be legislated at all, but right now in this country, someone who is an organized crime member can legally vouch for another person in bail proceedings. That would end under our bill. The bill would also require non-resident accused persons to surrender their passports.

The difference between the Liberal bill and the one before us today is that what the Liberals propose and what we are proposing is a matter of effective execution and practicality. Liberal bail reform would keep the principle of restraint. Our Conservative bill would repeal it. The Liberals want to encourage courts to consider an accused person's history. The jail not bail act would make that consideration mandatory. The Liberals do not touch surety eligibility or passport surrender. Our Conservative approach would address both. The differences are clear. The Liberals still default to release, and the Conservatives start from a principle that public safety must be the key consideration of the justice system.

The Liberals have suggested that Bill C-242 would raise constitutional concerns. It would not. In the Crown v. Lloyd decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that mandatory minimum penalties need to be narrow and targeted. The measures introduced in the jail not bail act are targeted and proportionate measures directed at a defined category of repeat violent offenders who are before the courts under serious charges. I am very confident it would be charter-compliant. I would also observe that charter compliance cuts both ways. The charter protects the rights of law-abiding Canadians and victims too, not just those who are charged with harming them. I challenge my Liberal colleagues to remember this position.

The Bloc members have also raised concerns that more detention would strain prison capacity. We agree that we must modernize our justice system, but it is important to understand that the data do not support the worry over prison capacity. As my colleague from Oxford rightly pointed out, this issue is about repeat offenders. In Kelowna, 15 individuals committed 1,500 crimes in a single year. In Vancouver, 40 people, in one year, were arrested 6,000 times. The chronic high-volume offenders this bill targets are not filling prisons and leaving. They are cycling through the system repeatedly, generating arrest after arrest, hearing after hearing and breach after breach.

When this legislation was announced, it was informed by direct consultation with police chiefs, police associations, mayors, victim advocates and families of people killed by repeat offenders who should have never been free in the first place, but under Liberal bail law they were. I urge every member to support this bill at second reading.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I offer the hon. member for Oxford five minutes for his right of reply.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians we are entrusted with something special: the duty to do what is right, not what is easy. What is right is very clear. It is right to build a criminal justice system that protects Canadians and protects the most vulnerable, that listens to the stories of victims and that recognizes the profound impact that every life lost and every family shattered truly carries.

Behind every crime stat there is a name, a face and a family that will never be the same. I have met with those families. They are parents who will never see their child again. Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents and communities are now divided into before and after, all because a repeat violent offender was released in their communities over and over again. The stories stay with me: the heartbreak, the tears and the silence when we have no other words left to share with them.

We must ask ourselves how many more headlines we have to read, how many more victims will have to suffer and how many more families have to be broken before we finally take serious action in this chamber. Victims are feeling like they are the ones living on house arrest, looking over their shoulders and changing their routines, all while the criminals walk in and out of jail scot-free. Victims who have had their lives permanently changed are the ones facing life sentences. It is not the criminals; they are out on the streets, enjoying life.

As such, the jail not bail bill, which we consulted on right across this country, has one guiding principle. It is that repeat violent offenders, that small class of folks who terrorize our communities, should not be released on our streets. The bill is about restoring balance in our system. It is about restoring deterrence. The Liberals can heckle me all they want. They can sit here and heckle all they want. They have been doing that for a long time, but the bill is about restoring trust in our criminal justice system when far too many Canadians have lost faith in it.

My colleagues and I have travelled the country, coast to coast to coast. We have had over two dozen town halls. We have met with thousands of Canadians, families, victims and law enforcement. We have tens of thousands of signatures on petitions. The message we hear is very clear. It is that Canadians are terrified. They are fed up. They have anxiety. Sadly, they are hurting, but despite that pain, they still have hope that we can make the right call in this chamber and put forward solid policy ideas that could restore safe streets in our country yet again.

That is why my bill offers over a dozen clear, concrete solutions to the criminal justice system that would prioritize public safety, that would put the rights of victims first for a change and that would make our communities the thriving communities we used to have. As such, I encourage all members, with the vote coming up on Wednesday, to send a clear message to criminals that enough is enough, but also a clearer message to victims that we see them, we hear them and we stand with them.

On this side of the House, Conservatives are united. We are united in fighting for safe streets. To those Canadians watching at home, they should not lose faith or give up, but hold on, because it is in the darkest chapters we have the brightest lights shining. We will stand with the victims. We will stand with law enforcement. We will stand with every single Canadian right across this country, and we will put the rights of victims first because we know they are worth fighting for.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

This sitting is now suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:56 a.m.)

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Jail Not Bail Act

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-242 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #91

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion defeated.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 47 minutes.