Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous. The supposed new, shiny Prime Minister promised to get changes done right away. In his own words, he said he would be decisive. With every single day that goes by, 1,600 people are victims of crime.

The member talks about being patient. He wants us to be patient when people are dying in this country. I say shame on the Liberals. People are dying. Bailey McCourt's family has called us in tears because their daughter would be alive if my bill had passed. This is something the Liberals need to wake up and look at, because Canadians are dying and it is their inaction. They are all about photo ops and headlines. Why are they delaying action? Their policies are causing problems. Their bail reform ideas from 2019 have destroyed our country.

Enough is enough. Let us bring back safe streets.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the list of serious offences related to today's motion includes aggravated sexual assault. I would like my colleague to explain what aggravated sexual assault means to him because that is something that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is looking at right now.

I moved a motion in committee on gender-based crimes, crimes committed against women. I also moved a motion to enable the committee to study the criminalization of coercive control. In the near future, the committee will be conducting a study on the justice system and its responses to victims, particularly with regard to section 810 of the Criminal Code.

I would like my colleague to tell us whether he has any interest in the report that we will be publishing and the recommendations it will contain.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all the work she is doing on advocating for women and against intimate partner violence.

We have seen a massive rise, because of the government's policies, of women being abused and killed. I have talked about this in the past. Cait Alexander, who runs the charity End Violence Everywhere, was also a victim of abuse by her ex-partner. She was left to die, and her ex-partner got bail for only $500. She was so scared that she left the country and is now living in the States.

The problem is very real. Making it part of a major offence category would put a reverse onus on those who commit those crimes so that they would have to prove they should be released, not the other way around. On this side of the House, we will stand with women and make sure there are safe streets in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague from Oxford for his work on this. When he was talking about the Bailey McCourt case, there was some groaning from the Liberal side of the aisle, which is very offensive to us, as it is to all victims of crime and their families, especially when we know that tangible changes in law could improve the situation and legitimately save lives.

My colleague's riding of Oxford is right next to mine, and there are a lot of rural communities in it, as there are in mine. We have seen, in these rural communities, a decline in feelings of safety and security. Could the member speak to that, what that means and what the bill would do for them?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Oxford has 30 seconds to respond.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting with Woodstock Police Service and the Crowns, along with the OPP.

I want to thank the member for the great work he has been doing in advocating for those in rural communities across Canada.

The member is right that Canadians in rural communities do not feel safe. Once-safe communities and neighbourhoods are now being targeted by repeat violent offenders. In Plattsville, 20 minutes from me, a repeat violent offender committed a break and enter into a home, bashed a car and took it. This is now becoming the norm, whether it is in rural communities like Oxford or big cities like—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great citizens of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. It is particularly poignant for me given today's topic and given my prior history in the criminal justice system. I dare say that one of the driving forces for me to leave behind, at that point, almost 28 years in criminal justice to become a legislator was that I saw first-hand, daily, the tragic consequences of the failed, soft-on-crime agenda of the Liberal government.

It started in 2015; changes were then made in 2019 with Bill C-75 and Bill C-83 and later, in 2023, with Bill C-5. The cumulative effect is that Canadians are now living in a state of fear. Canadians are waking up every single day to read, see and hear about one heartbreaking story after another, usually about someone who has been killed, wounded, maimed or injured; someone who has had their car stolen or their home invaded; or someone who has been subject to sexual assault. Lo and surprise, individuals committing these offences are on numerous releases and are classified by police services as being well known to them, because they are repeat violent offenders.

That is the reality Canada is facing. This was not the reality prior to 2019. In 2019, there was a balance in our criminal justice system, in which the constitutional rights of the accused, such as the right to be presumed innocent and the right to reasonable bail, were balanced evenly with community safety and the safety of victims. We saw more releases and more detention orders, and people had a level of confidence that things were working as they were supposed to.

In 2019, the government decided to lie to Canadians. Justin Trudeau and his former ministers deliberately lied to Canadians by saying—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order, please.

There are certain words we consider unparliamentary, so I encourage the member to leave out those words and carry on with his comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government misled Canadians into believing that it was simply codifying language from the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision the Liberals were referring to was Antic, which basically reiterated the principles under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that apply to people who are factually innocent, although charged with a serious crime. Justin Trudeau and his ministers said they were taking the language from Antic and applying it to the Criminal Code, but the decision from Antic never directed the federal government to do anything. It was a reminder about the balance that needed to take place every single day in every single courthouse in this country.

Justin Trudeau and his then justice minister, David Lametti, decided to make it one step easier for criminals. They introduced the “Principle of restraint” under section 493.1 of the Criminal Code, which said that regardless of the grounds for detention in the Criminal Code, the primary ground for release was whether the person was going to show up for court. The secondary ground was whether there was a protection issue for the public and a presumption that this person was going to incur further charges if released. The tertiary ground was to maintain the confidence of the public, depending on the severity of the charge.

Those three grounds worked, but Justin Trudeau and David Lametti decided to introduce the principle of restraint. That telegraphed to every judge and justice of the peace hearing bail applications to this day that they “shall”, which is mandatory language, “release...the accused at the earliest...opportunity and on the least [restrictive] conditions”. This was regardless of what the charge was or the carnage the charge had caused to the community or to the victim. It was regardless of the offender's criminal record, which may have shown a pattern of breaching court orders or committing that same offence again. It was also, get this, regardless of the number of outstanding releases that person might be on. This person, according to the Liberal government, was worthy of release. That is the origin of catch-and-release. That is the reason we have the problems that exist today.

I know the member for Winnipeg North likes to turn everything into a partisan issue. To my colleague from Woodstock, I say that this particular bill and our arguments are not partisan, because community safety is not a partisan issue. Every member in the House represents constituents, and those constituents want to wake up in homes that are still safe, with windows that are still intact, doors that have not been broken in and vehicles that are still in the driveway, where their kids can play safely in the backyard and play street hockey on the streets and not be hit by stray bullets or invaded at night, as we are constantly seeing, day after day. That is what Canadians want, and that is why this is not a partisan issue.

The number one responsibility of the Liberal government is to keep Canadians safe. The member for Winnipeg North says that the Prime Minister has a robust agenda he has promised Canadians, but this is a classic bait and switch. We heard these promises during the election; we heard the promises in the throne speech, and we have heard numerous members on that side of the House make promises that this is coming. However, here we are, seven months removed since the Prime Minister became the new prime minister of this country, and we are still waiting. In that time frame, people have died, people are fearful and people are being sexually assaulted or extorted at an alarming rate.

Let us look at the statistics. Because of Liberal bail laws, violent crime is up 55% since 2015. Firearms crime is up 130% because of Liberal bail laws. Because of Liberal bail laws, extortion has skyrocketed 330%. Because of Liberal bail laws, sex assault is up 76%. Because of Liberal bail laws, homicide is up 29%. This is why, if the Liberals do not want to exercise their number one responsibility, they should get out of the way and let us bring forth common-sense solutions to protect Canadians.

I brought a petition, which I was hoping was going to go viral across the country, this past July, calling for the immediate repeal of the principle of restraint, restoring safe streets and applying the principle of community safety, just like the member for Oxford has done in our jail not bail act. Since the middle of July, 60,000 proud Canadians, Canadians those members in the government represent, have signed my petition. For the last four years, the government has heard from premiers, mayors, presidents of police associations, police chiefs, victim advocacy groups, to do one thing: change your approach to bail, keep Canadians safe.

Here is the Liberal government's opportunity. If you want to clearly distinguish yourself, and remove yourself from the Trudeau legacy, here is your opportunity. Stand in support of the jail not bail act, or abstain from the vote, but please telegraph to your constituents, who I am sure are going to be watching our speeches today, and if they are not, I will certainly share it among all my followers across this country, that you will do your job. Stand up for Canada, stand up for safety, stand up for victims and put violent criminals where they belong, back in jail.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before we move to questions and comments, just a reminder that we address comments through the Chair and not directly to members on either side.

Questions and comments, the hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with a lot of what the member says, minus a lot of exaggeration and some oversimplification at times. We are bringing forward legislation that is going to reform the bail process. We have also brought forward other, smaller bills, wherein a lot of the work was already complete. Our strong borders act, Bill C-2, was the second piece of legislation we brought into the House, and Bill C-9, hate crime, is what we have before us. In a few weeks, we will have the bail reform as well. We are hard at work on this.

I would like to know, from the member, whether he is going to support Bill C-2, because what I have heard from a lot of the Conservatives is that they are in opposition to what law enforcement has asked for.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my friend did not hear me as clearly as I wanted her to hear me. Law enforcement has been pleading with the government for the last four years. They have had regular meetings here in Ottawa and in many parts of this country. They came here to Ottawa for a one-day summit, a one-day summit producing Bill C-48, which added reverse onus provisions to a number of firearm offences, which did not move the needle one iota on community safety. They are asking her to do her job.

We cannot wait. The justice minister has been promising reform for the last six months. Get on board with the jail not bail act and protect Canadians.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his work Zadig; or, The Book of Fate, Voltaire said, “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.” This is a principle that exists in all democracies, in all developed societies around the world.

Keeping an accused person in jail rather than making efforts to release them under the presumption of innocence goes against all the basic rights that we stand for in democratic societies. Some countries, however, would disagree. North Korea, China and Iran do this, among others, but here in Canada, it is not part of our values.

Does my colleague still believe in a democratic system and in our core values that we follow and respect here in Quebec and Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe in democracy. I absolutely believe in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the charter, we have two fundamental rights that apply to bail matters: the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and the right to reasonable bail. This is bail, not sentencing. Reasonable bail does not mean absolute bail, and that is the consequence, literally, of Bill C-75. The purpose behind a bail hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence; it is an assessment of risk. When we are dealing with violent repeat offenders, the easy solution is that community outweighs the freedom of the accused—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I quote the Vancouver Sun, from February 25, 2025: “Just weeks after former Abbotsford gangster Jarrod Bacon was arrested in a shooting in [Fort Nelson,] B.C., the charge against him has been dropped.”

Witnesses against him simply do not feel safe.

Ben Wall, from Fort Nelson, had nine pieces of equipment destroyed. His shop was burned to the ground. Organized crime has set up shop in Fort Nelson, and people in Fort Nelson do not feel safe.

The member made a great speech.

Would the bill make people feel safe in Fort Nelson once again?

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the bill would see immediate changes to the safety quotient across the country. There would be a rebalancing of our criminal justice system, where the rights of the accused are balanced with community safety and victim safety. Those repeat violent offenders would find it exceedingly difficult, although not impossible, to obtain bail.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all want to end the cycle of crime. I will give an example to my colleague. In my riding, there was an application for a rapid housing initiative. The initiative was going to create housing for the most vulnerable and for people who were released.

This application has a sworn letter from the Nanaimo parole office, from Correctional Service Canada, highlighting that they did not have any beds for clients they were releasing who had been serving two years plus a day. This application was denied by the Liberals. There was not a single bed—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, I appreciate the opportunity to debate this motion. Public safety and our bail and sentencing laws play a critical role in the criminal justice system. These are some of the most important laws that are supposed to ensure not only that justice is served but also that Canadians are safe in their communities.

Over the past years, Canadians have raised legitimate concerns about violent crime and repeat offending. These concerns are real, and our government is working hard with law enforcement, Crown attorneys and other levels of government across this country to act on them. It is encouraging to see alignment between the Conservative opposition and the newly elected Liberal government when it comes to improving public safety, including through the adoption of stronger laws to build safer communities.

I have good news for my colleagues. The Minister of Justice will be introducing legislation during this parliamentary session to comprehensively change parts of the Criminal Code and other aspects of the criminal justice system. These comprehensive changes would strengthen bail reform in this country, to have harsher, longer sanctions for violent offenders and to make sure we have the support to help keep communities safe with direct investments in law enforcement.

As set out in our 2025 electoral platform, our government is committed to strengthening the Criminal Code bail provisions to make it onerous to obtain bail for those charged with violent or organized crime related to auto theft, home invasion, trafficking in persons, human smuggling and drug trafficking. Our government is also committed to adding a requirement for courts to impose a firearms or weapons prohibition when granting bail to anyone charged with an organized crime-related offence.

Our government has committed to reforming Canada's sentencing regime to better address repeat and violent offending. More specifically, the 2025 electoral platform includes commitments to change the law to direct courts to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when determining a sentence for anyone who has numerous convictions. That means courts would have to primarily consider a sentence that would deter repeat offenders. It includes commitments to broaden sentencing tools by allowing consecutive sentences for violent or organized crime-related auto theft.

The Prime Minister followed up on these electoral commitments when he agreed to strengthen the Criminal Code bail and sentencing laws during the June 2 first ministers meeting. Later that month, the Minister of Justice also announced publicly that bail and sentencing reforms will be forthcoming this fall to address growing concerns of repeat and violent offending at all stages of the criminal justice process. Over the summer, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and I undertook significant engagement with the provinces and territories, law enforcement and legal stakeholders alike to inform and develop these reforms.

Now, although looking to future solutions is important, it is equally important to look to the past and to properly understand our criminal justice system and the current state of the law. For example, despite a persistent narrative that former Bill C-75 was soft on crime, I want to highlight that it explicitly strengthened the Criminal Code bail provisions as they relate to intimate partner violence. Former Bill C-75 made it more onerous for individuals previously convicted of intimate partner violence to obtain bail. This change was based on research suggesting that victims of intimate partner violence face a higher risk of violence from their intimate partners after charges are laid. This was a critical step in recognizing the unique risks posed by repeat offenders in intimate partner violence cases and in ensuring that survivors are protected.

More recently, in 2023, Parliament unanimously enacted former Bill C-48 in response to a new and pressing challenge: growing concerns about repeat violent offending involving firearms and other weapons at the bail stage. The former Bill C-48 amendments were not developed in isolation. They too were the result of extensive collaboration with the provinces and territories. They also responded directly to calls for reform from premiers across the country.

Among other changes, former Bill C-75 created a reverse onus at bail to better address the heightened public safety risks posed by those accused of repeat violent offending with firearms and other weapons. That meant that violent offenders with firearms now had to prove they deserve bail, as opposed to the previous process through which the Crown was having to prove why someone should not receive bail.

This presented a significant change that reflected the seriousness of this type of offending and the need to ensure that the courts would turn their minds to the unique public safety risks that those charged with this type of offending might present. Former Bill C-48 also strengthened the intimate partner violence reverse onus. The bill expanded the reverse onus to also apply to anyone who had been previously discharged, and not just those convicted, of an offence involving intimate partner violence.

Before moving on to what the government has committed to doing, I want to address another area of criminal law that generates significant commentary: conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. A CSO is a sentence that allows an offender to serve a term of imprisonment in the community under certain conditions. They are only available when the sentence is less than two years and when the court determines that it does not pose a risk to public safety or conflict with sentencing principles. CSOs cannot be imposed for offences that involve mandatory minimums, terrorism, criminal organization offences with indictable minimums of 10 years or more, advocating genocide, torture or attempted murder.

The current CSO rules stem from former Bill C-5, which was presented in 2022. This bill strictly made mention that courts may only impose CSOs when consistent with community safety and sentencing principles. CSOs must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's responsibility, and provide adequate denunciation and deterrent. The government has heard concerns that CSOs have been increasingly used for sexual offences in some lower courts. Even though appellate courts hold that they rarely represent proportionate sentences, our government continues to monitor the impacts of former Bill C-5 and will consider further refinements to ensure community safety and public confidence.

As crime evolves, so must our laws. This is why the Minister of Justice will be advancing additional bail and sentencing reforms this fall.

I would now like to turn to an aspect of our bail system that often gets overlooked, and that is the matter of shared responsibility between federal and provincial and territorial governments. While federal legislation sets the laws governing bail, the effectiveness of our bail system depends largely on how it is administered. Provinces are responsible for appointing provincial judges and judges who conduct most bail hearings, who are in some provinces are called justices of the peace; overseeing the operation of police services, which are responsible for supervising individuals who are released on bail; and enforcing any conditions of release.

Provincial investments in community-based supports and supervision programs to reduce the risk of reoffending at the bail stage are also critical to ensuring that our bail system works as intended. Provinces and territories also hold the key to improving our understanding of bail outcomes. Right now, the provinces do not keep the bail data needed to ascertain whether our bail system is failing. Provincial leadership in improving data collection, and reporting is necessary to ensure effective evidence-based law reform at the federal level. It is an issue that I have brought up with every provincial representative I have met. Bail data will be crucial in understanding the fight against the cracks in our bail system.

In my speech so far, I have addressed several areas where reverse onuses have been imposed, such as cases involving firearm-related offences. We have yet to know whether that has had a positive impact or not. I fear, as we continue to make other reforms, that perhaps we may not understand fully whether they are having the impact Parliament intends.

Further to that, the provinces administer the bail courts. Earlier this year, Brampton mayor Patrick Brown, on behalf of Ontario's Big City Mayors, wrote a letter to the Province of Ontario sounding the alarm on cases being withdrawn, discharged or dismissed. It was almost over 50% of cases. This is shocking.

Highlighting the need for more Crown attorneys to try these cases more quickly, more judges to hear them and more spaces in jails to put criminals away is crucial. Comprehensive criminal justice reform must include all levels of government coming to the table and doing their part. We are ready to do our part and to work with the provinces and territories that are ready to do theirs.

The changes I mentioned will help with our immediate issues, but if we are serious about reducing crime and seeing improvements of public safety, we must look beyond our criminal law system as well. Public safety begins with prevention. It requires supporting our youth, investing in communities and addressing the social conditions, including poverty, addiction, mental health and housing. Bail reform is but one piece of the complex puzzle. Lasting change requires a broader commitment to equity, opportunity and support.

All orders of government must work together to build an effective justice system that distinguishes between those who pose a genuine risk and those who can be safely managed in the community. People in Canada deserve a justice system that protects them all. They deserve laws that are clear, consistent and effective. They also deserve a justice system that works and that is firm but fair. They also deserve a government that listens, responds and acts, and we will do exactly that.

I also want to make mention of the opposition finally showing a shred of common sense, though it is long overdue. In Bill C-242, which is mentioned in today's motion, the Conservatives quietly removed the reckless American-style, far right, three-strike scheme they ran on in the last election. Empty slogans based on sporting rules will not foster a robust criminal system and keep Canadians safe. Canadians deserve real solutions that are guided by working collaboratively with law enforcement, attorneys and other levels of government. That is exactly what our comprehensive bill would do.

I pause here to comment on the way this motion is drafted. It claims that the Liberal government promised to pass criminal justice reform six months ago but has failed to do so. That is strange. Just last week, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which includes targeted Criminal Code provisions to address hate crimes, which are on the rise. The bill passed second reading yesterday evening on a deferred division and is now heading to committee for further study.

Over the summer, the Minister of Justice has been hard at work studying ways to improve our laws by consulting closely with his provincial counterparts, law enforcement, police chiefs and police associations. Meanwhile, the Conservative leader was busy fighting for his own job and then parachuted into Alberta, after being catastrophically rejected by Canadians across the country and in his own former riding of Carleton. However, it seems he has not learned any lessons from that rejection. He continues to act recklessly, prioritizing political posturing over meaningful, evidence-based criminal justice reform.

Let us reject slogans and oversimplifications. Slogans such as “jail not bail” may sound tough, but they do not get us any closer to solving the problem. Real solutions require real work. They involve strengthening laws, improving enforcement, investing in data, devoting resources to addressing the root cause of crime and ultimately building a justice system that works for everyone.

Let us embrace real solutions that are evidence-based, collaborative and grounded in the values of fairness and accountability. That is the path forward. That is the commitment of the government. That is what Canadians deserve and expect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her words this morning. I would like some clarification.

Last year in Barrie, a police officer was stabbed while on duty. The person who stabbed him had been arrested and released over 17 times in the two years prior to that altercation.

I wonder if the member opposite could speak to this motion and if she will support it. Then I could go back to this officer and tell him that we in the House of Commons are actually doing something to try and help him and his team and support the residents of Barrie.

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

Mr. Speaker, even today the tertiary principles, which were mentioned by a colleague on the Conservative side as well, apply when providing bail. Judges and justices of the peace should be considering public safety first and foremost. They should also be considering whether somebody is a flight risk and the confidence the public has in the judicial system. Those are very important basic foundational principles for deriving a decision on bail. Of course, there are other considerations they take into account, but public safety is the first and ought to be foremost.

Although I cannot really comment on what happened in that case exactly, and I do not know why the judge would make such a decision, I think it is import to recognize that these decisions are made at the provincial courthouses.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is twofold.

First, my colleague raised the issue of sexual crimes. We are currently studying a report on gender-based crimes in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The report discusses the fact that women are victims of violence, but also addresses the fact that they are victimized again by these time limits that are so unreasonable that their attackers can get off scot-free because of the Jordan decision. Witnesses have brought this up. The Bloc Québécois tabled a bill on this issue to ensure that someone accused of a sexual offence or an offence against women cannot get away with it by invoking the Jordan decision.

My colleague then spoke about court delays. She mentioned Crown attorneys, but the federal government is in no position to lecture anyone; it has been dragging its feet on the appointment of judges. The criteria are even rather questionable at times. For example, a judge who is an anti-secularism activist was appointed to the Quebec Superior Court even though he did not have the required 10 years of experience. This goes against the Canadian Judges Act, which requires much more than that.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about those two points.