Bill C-246

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences for sexual offences)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require that sentences for sexual offences be served consecutively.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting Victims Act

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing her time.

Before I get into Bill C-16, I would like to acknowledge that last weekend the great people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek commemorated the 213th anniversary of the Battle of Stoney Creek, one of the most important victories in Canadian history. In June 1813, a determined force of British soldiers, local militia and loyal settlers faced a much larger American army and won in what served as the Stalingrad of the War of 1812. Their courage helped turn the tide in the defence of Upper Canada and demonstrated that the people of this land would not be intimidated by a larger neighbour.

More than two centuries later, the Battle of Stoney Creek remains a powerful reminder of the Canadian spirit: resilient, independent and determined to stand up for our national interests. As Canadians continue to face economic uncertainty and challenges beyond our borders, the lessons of Stoney Creek remain as relevant as ever. Our strength has always come from our unity, our perseverance and our confidence in Canada. May we always honour those who defended this country and continue building a free, proud and sovereign Canada.

I rise today also to speak about Bill C-16 and against a major flaw hidden inside it, specifically clause 63, the safety valve. First, it is a fact that after 11 years of Liberal government, Canadians are less safe. Violent crime is up 55%, and extortion is up 330% across Canada. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up almost 76%, and Canadians can see this. They see other Canadians feeling scared and threatened. They see crime becoming more common. They see repeat offenders arrested one day and back on the streets the next. In a country that used to feel safe, this is completely out of the ordinary. Canadians are desperate for change. They want to feel safe again.

After all that, what is the Liberal answer? It is more of the same. The Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe he is tough on crime, but Bill C-16 proves otherwise. While Liberals are trying to sell the bill as a crackdown on criminals, buried inside is a loophole that would allow judges to bypass almost every mandatory minimum sentence left in the Criminal Code.

Bill C-16 would amend the general sentencing principles that require courts to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum, where applying the minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. This would apply to all mandatory minimum penalties currently in the Criminal Code, with the only exceptions being murder and high treason. What it actually means is that the mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. A custodial sentence would still be required, but the length of the imprisonment would be up to the judge's judgment.

The Liberals spent the last 11 years slowly eroding the laws that are keeping Canadians safe from criminals by keeping them behind bars. Now they want judges to ignore many of the ones that remain. Hidden inside a bill called the “protecting victims act” is a proposed get-out-of-jail-free card that claims it would protect victims. That is not getting tough on crime. That is getting softer on criminals.

The Liberals voted against the following Conservative bills that would have created stricter bail laws and tougher penalties for violent and repeat offenders. Bill C-381 would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-220 would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-246 would have required criminals convicted of multiple sexual offences to serve consecutive sentences, but the Liberals voted against it.

The Liberals also weakened bail laws through Bill C-75. Police chiefs, premiers, and Conservatives warned them, but the Liberals ignored everybody. What was the result? It was the principle of restraint: letting criminals out at the earliest reasonable opportunity on the least onerous conditions, a catch-and-release justice system where violent repeat offenders cycle through our courts and back into our communities.

In 2022, the Liberals' Bill C-5 struck down 14 mandatory minimums, including on possession and discharging of weapons and firearms. As a direct result of these Liberal laws, there have been multiple examples of firearms smugglers, gun traffickers and violent criminals receiving no jail time for crimes that should have put them behind bars. In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, police have repeatedly laid firearms charges against individuals who are already on probation, under release conditions or subject to firearms probation.

Canadians are asking why people who have already demonstrated that they will ignore court orders continue finding themselves back with the police on new charges. Canadians are losing confidence in a justice system that seems more focused on giving offenders another chance than giving victims peace of mind. When someone is arrested for a serious firearms offence while already under a court order, Canadians do not see that as a mistake. They see a system that is failing to protect them, which the Liberals have created. Every time a violent repeat offender is released only to commit another crime, another family, business owner or community pays the price. The consequences and the fear are real, and the frustration Canadians feel is completely justified.

It is no surprise that under the Liberal government, crime is increasing at alarming rates. Now the Liberals are making the same mistake again. Canadians want to feel safe. Criminals are becoming more aggressive. They are targeting businesses and using intimidation and violence. The Liberal response is a bill that could allow offenders convicted of extortion with a prohibited firearm to receive a sentence below the current mandatory minimum. That makes no sense. If someone uses a gun to terrorize a business owner, Canadians expect serious consequences, not loopholes and leniency. They certainly do not expect the Liberal government to make it easier for criminals to avoid punishment. It does not make any sense.

We have a mandatory duty as elected officials to make our communities and Canada at large safer. This is not optional. Conservatives believe the justice system should stand with victims, not criminals; that mandatory minimum sentences should actually be mandatory; and that organized criminals, repeat violent offenders and sexual offenders should stay behind bars where they belong, not be treated like they are entitled to endless second chances. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to fix this bill.

The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for the following: aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted, prohibited firearm. Parliament set mandatory minimums for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums, there will be nothing mandatory about them, full stop. Mandatory is not optional, and that is what Conservatives are fighting for.

We are happy with the positive changes in the bill. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners and bringing in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse material would help Canadians and would keep our kids safe. Despite these changes, Bill C‑16 still fails to reverse the dangerous soft-on-crime agenda that the Liberals have spent the last 11 years enacting. Conservatives were defeated or ruled out of scope on 30 amendments that would have tightened or restored mandatory minimums for violent and serious crimes and repeat violent offenders. Those amendments would have kept our streets safer by removing the safety valve from crimes including extortion, aggravated assault and child sexual offences, and they would have kept criminals who commit these heinous acts behind bars, where they belong.

The safety valve would be a dangerous clause to include in this otherwise positive bill. This is another example of Liberal half measures. We have come this far with a good bill that would protect Canadians from serious crimes, but keeping the safety valve provision would completely contradict the principles of keeping victims safe. The Liberals should simply split this provision off so that Parliament can work to make this bill better to keep victims safe.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a theatrical performance and what a great piece of gaslighting by the Liberals, but I do have some facts here.

It is because of that actual member's voting on Bill C-75 that Daniel Senecal was out on bail in Welland for a horrific crime. Most of those members voted for that. That is the actual result of bad Liberal policy that they voted on with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Now he is going to stand here and gaslight us.

Here is another thing that is an actual fact: All those members over there voted against Bill C-381, which would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion; Bill C-220, which would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences; and Bill C-246. They voted against all that just a couple of months ago. It is a great piece of gaslighting—

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole.

It is an honour to rise on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa to speak to Bill C-22.

Over the past couple of weeks, like all of us in the House, I was fortunate to spend time at home, where I had the opportunity to meet with many proud and resilient Oshawa residents, community leaders and local organizations. Those conversations are always meaningful. They are sobering, though, because again and again, I keep hearing one concern raised, and that is safety.

Canadians are worried about safety in their communities and about the never-ending crimes taking place in Oshawa. They are worried about violent repeat offenders who are continually being caught and released again. They are worried that the system is not working the way it should. This is the context in which we are debating the bill before us today. It is not just about lawful access or technical authorities. It is about trust in our justice system. For many Canadians, that trust has been shaken over the past 11 years of the Liberal government.

In recent weeks, the self-proclaimed, so-called “new” Liberal government, which has been in power for over a decade, has asked Canadians to trust it on public safety. At the same time, Liberals voted against four solution-oriented Conservative public safety bills that were all focused on one thing, protecting Canadians.

For example, Bill C-220 would have ended the practice of courts considering a non-citizen's immigration status when issuing a sentence. We saw that happen again recently, this time in New Brunswick, where a judge reduced a man's sentence so he would not be deported from Canada, just 10 days after that man was charged with assaulting his former partner.

Bill C-242 would have ensured tougher bail rules, fewer release loopholes for violent repeat offenders and real protection for victims and communities.

Bill C-243, if passed, would have ended annual parole hearings for murderers, a practice that retraumatizes and revictimizes survivors over and over again.

Lastly, Bill C-246 would have ensured an end to sentence stacking for sexual predators, so that every crime would carry its own penalty.

These proposals were supported by police associations, victim organizations, victim services and advocacy groups across Canada, yet every single one of them was voted down by the Liberal government.

As the member of Parliament for Oshawa, I cannot fathom how every single Liberal MP representing a constituency in the Durham region, for instance, could vote against these bills. This is specifically difficult to understand given the clear calls from our own community. The Durham Regional Police Service, the Durham Regional Police Association and local victim organizations have all spoken out on the need for more solutions to strengthen our justice system. Andrew Tummonds, the president of the Durham Regional Police Association, said it clearly after Bill C-242 was defeated:

Yesterday Bill C-242 was voted down in the House of Commons. This Bill was supported by Police Associations and Victim Organizations and presented common sense solutions to ongoing problems within our Criminal Justice System. This non partisan Bill focused on the need for tougher bail conditions and allowed for the closing of loopholes that resulted in dangerous offenders being released.

Each and every day in the Region of Durham the Members of the DRPA work to keep violent repeat offenders off our streets. We are disheartened that much needed change was voted down and believe that community safety and the protection of victims should supersede partisan politics.

Those are not partisan words. They are the voices of those who serve and protect on the front lines. All of this is happening while our community faces very real and immediate concerns, including just a few weeks ago, when a convicted first-degree murderer and child rapist was granted an unescorted, 72-hour release in Oshawa.

When the Liberal government now brings forward Bill C-22 and asks Canadians to trust it with new powers over their digital lives, I am sure it will excuse us from wondering if this is a good idea. We have the right to question. In fact, it is our job to question. We have the responsibility to take a step back, take a look, ask the hard questions and ensure that we get this right for every Canadian who expects that their private life will remain private.

Part 1 of this bill focuses on giving law enforcement faster and more effective access to information, and we all understand that matters. Crime has changed; we get that. Criminals operate online, often anonymously. They use encrypted platforms and operate across borders in ways that make investigations so much more complex. Law enforcement has told us this has created some real challenges. In some cases, investigations into serious crimes can stall because authorities cannot quickly identify who is behind an account.

This bill attempts to respond to those challenges by allowing police to ask telecommunication providers to confirm whether they provide service to a specific account or identifier, which would create judicial mechanisms to obtain basic subscriber information such as a name, an address or an email; and clarifying how officers could search and examine computer data during an investigation.

Bill C-22 would also allow, for urgent situations, for certain information to be obtained without a warrant when time is critical and would enable Canadian authorities to work with international partners when data is held outside the country. These are meaningful tools, absolutely, and in the right circumstances they could help prevent harm and bring criminals to justice. However, we have to proceed with care, because when we expand powers, we must also make sure we are strengthening safeguards. When we act in urgency, we still must protect rights, and when we grant authority, we must also ensure accountability in that authority.

Part 2 of the bill raises another important set of issues. It would create a framework requiring electronic service providers to ensure they can support lawful access when authorized. In some cases, companies could be required to build and maintain systems that allow authorities to access information under legal authority. It would also allow the Minister of Public Safety to issue confidential orders requiring specific technical capabilities, subject to review by the intelligence commissioner.

It raises serious questions, though, about privacy, transparency and about how far government should go in shaping digital systems. It is up to us as the official opposition to ask those questions. In fact, it is a role that we take very seriously, and it is an important role that makes this Parliament work.

We have been told that Canada is behind other countries in adopting a lawful access regime. However, Canadians not only are asking us to move quickly but want us to move carefully and with great accountability and care in taking a look at what exactly is going on. They are asking us to get this right and ensure that any system we create reflects our values.

This bill would include a parliamentary review after three years. That is a positive step, but our responsibility to Canadians is to get this right from the start. Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe in supporting law enforcement and protecting victims, but we also believe that freedom matters. That is why we are carefully reviewing the legislation. We are listening. We are asking serious questions. We are doing the work necessary to ensure that this bill strikes the right balance, because Canadians should not have to choose between safety and freedom. They deserve both.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should take a minute or two to thank the great people of Barrie who attended the Barrie Santa Claus parade this past weekend, even in the rain. It was great to see everybody out there. It was nice, a good parade. I thank the Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce for putting it on.

Let us get into the fun stuff. I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the great people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte about Bill C-14.

Bill C-14 seeks to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act to clarify that the principle of restraint introduced by the Liberal government does not require release. It also proposes to expand reverse onus offences and would direct courts to weigh the number and gravity of outstanding charges when determining bail. Finally, it would add new aggravating factors, mandate certain consecutive sentences, restrict house arrest for sexual offenders and strengthen youth custody and disclosure powers.

Conservatives have been pushing for meaningful changes to fix our broken bail system for years, and I am pleased to see that steps are being taken to ensure safety in our communities after decades of decline under the Liberal government. In fact, this piece of legislation is a rare admission from the Liberal government that its approach to the criminal justice system has failed. By tabling this legislation, it is acknowledging the 41% increase in the violent crime severity index in the past decade and the increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences, which happened under its watch.

Residents in my community and across Canada are living in fear. Communities that were once peaceful and welcoming are now plagued by crime. The downtown core of almost every major city in Canada is overwhelmed by drug use, break-ins and public disorder. The numbers do not lie. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearms crime has surged by 130%, extortion has skyrocketed by 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides have risen by 29%.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute recently released the “Urban Violent Crime Report”, which studied the crime rates in 20 of Canada's largest census metropolitan areas. The results are shocking. Over the past decade, the violent crime rate and sexual assault rate increased in all 20 census metropolitan areas. Notably, the violent crime severity index is up by 71% in Kitchener, 63% in Quebec City and 61% in St. Catharines. These are not just numbers. These troubling statistics represent shattered lives, broken families and communities living in fear.

How did we get here? The Liberal government introduced soft-on-crime legislation like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which gave high priority to releasing repeat violent offenders and took away mandatory jail time for certain violent crimes, unleashing a crime wave across the country. Specifically, Bill C-75 enshrined the principles of restraint in law, which direct the courts to release offenders at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. Bill C-5 abolished most mandatory minimum sentences and made house arrest a possibility for serious, heinous crimes like sexual assault and drug trafficking.

In 2023, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-48, which expanded reverse onus provisions but did not make it more difficult to get bail and did nothing to make it harder for repeat violent offenders to get bail.

I have talked to police services across the country and have been on ride-alongs in several cities from coast to coast, and I hear the same thing time and time again, which is that a very small number of people are responsible for the majority of crimes. These are offenders who are arrested and released the same day and go on to commit crimes while on release. These individuals are placing a strain on our courts, our communities and our first responders.

We witnessed a string of violent incidents over the summer, including the tragic murder of Bailey McCourt by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail following an assault conviction. In my own community, OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala, a Barrie resident, was ambushed and murdered by a violent repeat offender who was out on bail and under a lifetime firearms ban.

Just last year, Constable Jim Peters, a Barrie police officer, was stabbed while on duty by a repeat violent offender who was on probation at the time of the stabbing. Thankfully, Jim has recovered. In the two years leading up to this incident, the individual responsible had been arrested and released 17 times and had over 100 interactions with the Barrie Police Service.

Recently, Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, appeared before the justice committee. I asked him how incidents like these are affecting the mental health of officers on the front lines. He told the committee that officers are being assaulted every day by repeat offenders. He shared a horrifying story from April, when an offender attempted to set a police officer on fire by pouring a flammable liquid on him during an arrest attempt.

Thomas Carrique, who is the OPP commissioner and president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, told the justice committee something similar. He stated:

When these perpetrators are brought before the courts, and when they are released and the officers can clearly see an elevated risk—they're released into communities, and they further victimize innocent, law-abiding Canadians, including police officers in the lawful execution of their duties—it is very demoralizing for our officers.

Police services are facing serious recruitment and retention challenges because of the extraordinary risks officers face when trying to apprehend these individuals. This is not just a public safety crisis, but it is a mental health crisis for those on the front lines. Officers are exhausted and demoralized; they are leaving the profession in record numbers. Who suffers? It is every Canadian who depends on them for safety. These tragedies are not isolated and did not happen in a vacuum. They are a result of dangerous offenders' being released on bail, time and time again, because of the Liberal government's catch-and-release bail laws.

While the Liberal government was denying that there were any issues with our bail system, Conservatives were fighting for solutions. In just this session, Conservatives have introduced several pieces of legislation to address skyrocketing crime rates, including Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, to extend reverse onus for major crimes and protect first responders, and Bill C-246, which proposes to make a consecutive sentence mandatory for such crimes as sexual assault. The Liberal government has ignored or voted against both pieces of legislation.

While we welcome any constructive efforts to try to fix our broken bail system and bring safety back to our communities, Conservatives believe that the legislation does not go far enough. The most significant example of the legislation missing the mark is on the principle of restraint. Bill C-14 now confirms that restraint does not require release. However, it still provides a pathway to release and retains the directive to apply the least onerous conditions on an offender.

Conservatives believe that the principle of restraint clause should be replaced entirely by a clause that prioritizes public and community safety as the governing principle. We also believe that the bill does not reform sentencing in a truly meaningful way. Conservatives believe that we must restore mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent offences, including firearms, kidnapping, human trafficking, robbery, extortion with a firearm, arson and others. The repeal of these sentences under Bill C-5 was wrong and has led to crime and chaos in our communities.

Another point that we hope to see improvements on is what offences would be eligible for house arrest. We are very concerned that individuals charged with robbery, drug trafficking and firearms offences would still be eligible for house arrest under the legislation. That being said, it is promising to see changes proposed to the youth criminal justice system. Last session, while studying the auto theft crisis in Canada, we learned about the startling prevalence of young people involved in violent crimes.

Commissioner Thomas Carrique of the OPP noted that a significant number of youth are participating in organized auto theft rings, many of them armed.

Deputy Chief Robert Johnson of the Toronto Police Service told the committee that one-third of individuals arrested for carjacking in Toronto were young offenders.

Beyond auto theft, Clayton Campbell, president of the Toronto Police Association, recently informed the justice committee that in Toronto alone, more than a dozen youth were charged with murder in the past year and 102 illegal firearms were seized from youth in the city. This underscores the urgent need to update our justice and bail laws to reflect the changing landscape of offender profiles in Canada.

Conservatives will work collaboratively to ensure that the legislation is strengthened and genuinely achieves the goal of keeping our communities safe. We hope that all parties will come together during the committee process to pass reasonable amendments. Unless these changes are made, serious and dangerous offenders will continue to walk free, communities will remain at risk and families will continue to live in fear.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that puts their safety first. They deserve a justice system that protects victims, not criminals. That is why we are calling on the Liberal government to work with us to end the scourge of crime, chaos and disorder in our streets. It is time to restore safety, accountability and justice for all Canadians. Conservatives will always stand on the side of victims, families and safe communities.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, last Tuesday I was finishing up a meeting in my office when the all-too-familiar ring of an Amber Alert went through on my phone. I picked my phone up and promptly looked at it, only to find out that a one-year-old baby girl had been abducted. Members can imagine how this grasped my heart, and I continued to follow the story through its progression.

The next day, I learned the details. I learned that the mother of that child, Savannah Kulla-Davies, had been shot and killed by her ex-partner, Anthony. It was later revealed that Anthony had a record of violence and threats against Savannah, the young woman and mom whose life was taken.

The man had faced firearm-related charges in 2023 for an attack against Savannah. A court document stated that he “did discharge a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of Savannah Rose Kulla Davies”. He even evaded police for a month before finally being arrested by the Waterloo police. A short time later, however, he was out on bail. Sadly, while he was out on bail, he was free to continue his pattern of violence, and this time it ended in the death of Savannah.

Savannah knew that Anthony was dangerous. She had once told her mom, “If I stay with him, he’s going to end up killing me.” As a result, she had left, but unfortunately the justice system failed to protect her. Despite his record and Savannah's repeated pleas, she was failed by the people who were supposed to ensure her safety. Warnings were ignored, and ultimately death was her end. Far too often, this is the case.

This past summer, another woman, Bailey McCourt, was also failed by our justice system and its weak laws. The proud mother of two young girls was bludgeoned to death with a hammer. Her ex was the culprit. That same afternoon, just hours before her life was taken, James had been convicted of four counts of assault by choking and of uttering threats in a domestic violence case. Despite this, however, he was allowed walk. He went and immediately killed Bailey.

Sadly, now two little girls are growing up without a mom, and a family is left with a big hole in their heart. Bailey had lost her faith in the judicial system and in the court's ability to protect her. Her uncle even commented on this, saying that she was “frustrated, scared and felt [altogether] unsupported”.

Both Savannah's and Bailey's stories lay bare the devastating truth: Our justice system all too often sides with the perpetrator and not with the victim. To say that our justice system is broken would be an understatement.

How did we get here? For 10 years, the Liberals have proudly stood behind two soft-on-crime policies: Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. With Bill C-5, the Liberals weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and re-permitting conditional sentences like house arrest for serious offences, extending all the way up to sexual assault. Under Bill C-75, the Liberals forced judges to release offenders “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

The decisions of legislators have real consequences, and these soft-on-crime laws have now resulted in devastation after devastation. After a decade of negligence, the Liberals are finally realizing, it seems, that crime does take place when lax laws are present, but Bill C-14 unfortunately does not go to the extent that it needs to. It is like putting a a band-aid on a gaping wound.

I would like to discuss a few Conservative proposals that would help bring about a right justice system. If the Liberals really do seek to address crime with real solutions, my Conservative colleagues and I have put forward a number of bills, over a dozen. They are common-sense proposals to end catch-and-release bail, restore accountability in sentencing and put the rights of victims and communities ahead of the rights of repeat violent offenders.

I will take my time to outline just three of those common-sense proposals.

One proposal is to end sentence discounts. For a decade, the Liberals have favoured criminals over victims, with light sentencing in the form of concurrent sentences. Sexual assault charges should never be served concurrently, but this is the current practice in Canada. Predators get a two-, three- or four-for-one deal when they commit a crime. It is disgusting. It allows offenders to serve a single sentence for multiple crimes, often reducing their time behind bars significantly.

In Toronto, a family doctor was convicted of nine charges of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation involving three of his patients. He was handed a concurrent sentence of only three and a half years. Again, the penalties for his crimes were combined into one, thereby robbing justice from many of those victims. These patients were supposed to be able to see their family doctor and feel safe and cared for; instead, they were exploited. They were taken advantage of. Instead of their being able to walk a life of freedom, they will bear these scars for a lifetime while the man, the culprit, the perpetrator, will go free very soon.

Each offence is a distinct harm; each victim is a whole person, and each act must carry its own consequence. My private member's bill, Bill C-246, would require consecutive sentences for those who commit sexual assault rather than their being able to serve the sentences concurrently. The Liberals' Bill C-14 fails to address this practice. It fails to address the practice of giving discount sentences for the most heinous crimes. Therefore, it is lacking.

A second proposal that my Conservative colleagues have brought forward that I believe the government should consider has to do with intimate partner violence. We know that, across Canada, women are being failed by a system unable to protect them from their known abusers. In both Savannah's and Bailey's cases, as outlined, their abusers were their ex-partners, something that is all too familiar. About a quarter of all victims of violent crime are victimized by an intimate partner. My colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, introduced Bill C-225, a bill designed to strengthen the legal response to intimate partner violence. If the Liberals truly wished to address this, they would adopt the principles of that bill, and it would serve Canadians incredibly well.

The third bill that I would like to draw attention to has to do with bail. I recently heard from a grieving mother in my riding. She reached out to me from Lethbridge. Her daughter Christina Webber was brutally murdered on December 26 of last year, the day after Christmas. Three individuals were charged in this first-degree murder. One of Christina's killers had been serving an intermittent sentence, meaning that he served time in prison on the weekends, but then he was allowed out during the week, supposedly to work, although he did not have a job. It was during the time he was out of prison that he committed this murder.

Another one of Christina's killers, who was charged with first-degree murder, requested bail and received it. She now lives peacefully in her home while she awaits trial. Meanwhile, Christina's family, her two young boys and her parents, grieve the loss of this mom. It did not need to be that way.

Conservatives have pushed for a long time for changes to our bail system. Recently, my colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which would ensure that individuals charged with serious or violent offences could not easily return to the community while they are waiting for trial. It prioritizes public safety. It puts the victim and the family first. Sadly, the Liberals voted against the bill.

Conservatives welcome the Liberals' sudden recognition that bail reform is needed, but Canadians deserve so much more. They must have much more because their lives matter, their safety matters and our communities matter. Canadians deserve better. They deserve safety; they deserve accountability, and they deserve laws that protect the innocent, not the violent. Therefore, Conservatives will continue to fight for these changes to strengthen sentencing, to reform bail and to put victims first. Ultimately, people like Savannah, Bailey and Christina deserve nothing less. For crying out loud, I hope, for the sake of their families, that we would want to do better.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I was actually a little surprised by a few of those comments from the parliamentary secretary. It was not where I expected it to go, but I did not get an answer to my question. I did not need a synopsis of Bill C-14. We are tracking that.

The minister indicated in debate today that he is open to amendments to the bill. The debate today did not shy away from the fact that these are much-needed changes that we require.

Again, I will ask the parliamentary secretary this: Is the government open to enacting the key things in Bill C-242 with the principle of restraint, in Bill C-246 from the member for Lethbridge with consecutive sentencing, and in Bill C-225 with intimate partner violence?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to follow up on a question I asked the justice minister in June on when we could expect the much-needed bail changes to reverse the Liberal bail system we have in place. As I noted when I followed this up last month during Adjournment Proceedings and could not get an answer from the parliamentary secretary at that time on the specifics of it, this is not actually a new question. This is a question I have actually been bringing up in this chamber since 2022 about the urgent need for massive reversal around the Liberal bail system.

I point out, as well, that this is actually something the Liberal government voted against in early 2023, when we called for those changes here in this chamber. I did not get a specific answer last month, but I am happy to report that today, we are finally debating a recently tabled bill, Bill C-14, which addresses many of the reversals needed around the previous Liberal bills, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

As I assume the parliamentary secretary of justice is going to reply to me, out of all the Liberals present, I want to focus the remainder of my time tonight on giving her the opportunity to just focus in on some of the private member's bills we have already tabled in the House and ask her opinion. Can she reassure me that Bill C-14 is going to address these? If not, will she actually support these private member's bills?

This is important because, as I said in my question back in June, in my riding alone and in just the city of Owen Sound, the annual police report stated that violent crimes were up another 14.6%. I have addressed concerns about the fact that the delay specifically tied to decisions around the Jordan's limit is taking away justice for the victims.

Let us get to the three private member's bills I want to talk to the parliamentary secretary about. The first is Bill C-242, the jail not bail act by the great member of Parliament for Oxford. It is focused on a few things that I hope the parliamentary secretary can address. That is, it would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint that came out in Bill C-75, stating that instead, public safety and public protection have to be the primary consideration.

Bill C-242 also proposes a new major offences category, with reverse onus bail conditions on charges involving firearms, sexual acts, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. Bill C-14 would address a lot of the reverse onus aspects, but it would also strengthen bail laws by mandating that judges consider an accused's full criminal history when they are making a decision. It would also prohibit anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor. This is something I want to focus on as well.

We have Bill C-246 from the member for Lethbridge, which focuses on consecutive sentences and being able to do that, and I would ask whether Bill C-14 is able to address that.

Finally, there are a couple aspects of Bill C-225, by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, which would force an offender convicted of intimate partner violence within the preceding five years to be released only by a judge.

Can the parliamentary secretary assure me that Bill C-14 will address all the concerns in those three private member's bills?