House of Commons Hansard #47 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-14.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-4 Mr. Perron raises a point of order on the admissibility of Bloc Québécois amendments to Bill C-4's GST exemption for first-time homebuyers. He argues they do not require a royal recommendation, as they lower revenue. 1100 words, 10 minutes.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act Second reading of Bill C-14. The bill aims to strengthen bail and toughen sentencing, targeting repeat violent and organized offenders. It expands reverse onus provisions and restricts conditional sentences for sexual offences. While the government emphasizes public safety and Charter compliance, the opposition deems it insufficient, arguing previous Liberal laws caused current problems. Other parties express concerns about judicial discretion, the bill's impact on marginalized groups, and provincial resource implications. 47400 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives criticize the Liberal government for its lavish spending on insider bonuses (e.g., $30 million at CMHC) and consultant contracts, alleging cronyism with high-salaried friends. They highlight the resulting affordability crisis for Canadians, citing record food bank visits, doubled rents, and youth unemployment, while questioning the Prime Minister's offshore tax havens and trade failures impacting Canadian farmers.
The Liberals promote their upcoming budget as a plan to build the strongest economy in the G7, focusing on housing affordability for young Canadians, including GST cuts, and investments in skills training and social programs like the national school food program and dental care. They criticize Conservatives for voting against these measures and risking a Christmas election.
The Bloc champions Quebec's self-determination, demanding the repeal of the Clarity Act. They also seek urgent federal support, like a wage subsidy, for the forestry industry against U.S. tariffs and highlight a minister's correction on Driver Inc. inspections.
The NDP advocates for universal public health care, including dental and pharmacare, and opposes cuts to arts and culture funding.

Canada Health Act Second reading of Bill C-239. The bill aims to amend the Canada Health Act to strengthen accountability by requiring provinces to develop and report on frameworks for timely health care access. Critics argue it adds more red tape, duplicates existing reporting, disrespects provincial jurisdiction, and fails to address the federal government's underfunding of health care or the shortage of health professionals. 7100 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

Ship recycling in British Columbia Gord Johns argues for federal investment in ship recycling infrastructure in British Columbia, highlighting the number of vessels needing recycling and the potential for an indigenous-led center of excellence in Port Alberni. Annie Koutrakis says the government recognizes the importance of safe ship recycling and is reviewing international regulations.
Softwood lumber industry Helena Konanz criticizes the Liberal government's inaction on softwood lumber, leading to mill closures and job losses. Annie Koutrakis responds, emphasizing the government's commitment to building Canada's economic strength through housing and infrastructure projects, and its investment in skills training programs for workers.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Foreign AffairsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Joël Lightbound LiberalMinister of Government Transformation

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Kingdom of Spain on the Protection of Classified Information”, done at Madrid on September 9, 2025.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 115, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the sixth report later this day.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Pilot Project to Include Inuit Languages on Federal Election Ballots in Nunavut”.

It now being later this day, if the House gives it consent, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Fiscal ReportingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Conservative

Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are deeply concerned about the government's manipulation of our national books. These citizens are calling on the government to restore integrity and transparency in fiscal reporting and to stop redefining what counts as capital investment simply to make the deficit look smaller.

The petitioners note that under this new definition, even subsidies, tax breaks and corporate handouts are being rebranded as investments, despite building nothing that the Canadian government owns. Furthermore, the petitioners observe that it is always risky for an entity to change its accounting definitions, let alone when deficits are ballooning, economic conditions are deteriorating and fiscal anchors are being abandoned. Canadians deserve a government that manages its finances, not one that manipulates them.

The petitioners conclude by noting that a change in definition does not improve our economic condition. A government that cannot live within its means will never make life affordable for people who need to live within theirs.

I thank these citizens for bringing this critical issue before the House of Commons at a critical time, and I hope the government will stop manipulating the budget to serve its own political agenda.

Fiscal ReportingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask that you look at and review the ending remarks. These are political views being expressed by the member of Parliament. Potentially, you can come back and provide some guidance on how to present petitions.

GazaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling this petition on behalf of Canadians who are deeply concerned about the delivery of humanitarian aid in Gaza.

The petitioners note that under common article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, Canada must respect international humanitarian law. The petitioners highlight that article 59 of the fourth Geneva Convention requires occupying powers to allow impartial humanitarian relief and that Canada's international assistance accountability act mandates that our aid uphold human rights and international legal standards. The petitioners say that Israel's current policies violate these obligations.

The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to reject military aid models, to restore access for UN agencies and NGOs such as UNRWA and the World Food Programme, to permit safe entry for Canadian health care and humanitarian workers and, last, to ensure that all Canadian aid is delivered through internationally recognized neutral and independent channels.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-4Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I would like to follow up on yesterday's government intervention. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton said, we reserved the right to respond to the arguments regarding the amendments to Bill C-4.

I would like to talk about what happened at the Standing Committee on Finance on Monday with regard to the amendments that the Bloc Québécois proposed to part 2 of Bill C‑4. It is clearly established that a ways and means notice must precede any bill that would result in a tax increase for at least one class of taxpayers. Similarly, any bill that generates or reallocates an expenditure, or a charge against the consolidated revenue fund, must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Any amendment to a government bill that goes beyond the royal recommendation associated with that bill could also be deemed inadmissible in committee.

However, a tax credit does not require a notice of ways and means or a royal recommendation to move forward, as evidenced by the many private members' bills that include such action. Amendments that would lower or eliminate a tax are admissible in committee.

Part 2 of Bill C‑4, clauses 3 to 13, amends the Excise Tax Act to exempt new homes from the GST for first-time buyers. The news release issued by the Minister of Finance on May 27, 2025, when the notice of ways and means was tabled for the introduction of Bill C‑4, describes the measure as follows:

Eliminate the Goods and Services Tax (GST) for first-time home buyers on new homes valued up to $1 million, saving them up to $50,000, and lower the GST for first-time home buyers on new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million.

The government backgrounder accompanying this release uses the same language and refers to eliminating or lowering a tax. In short, that is precisely what part 2 of Bill C‑4 does. It eliminates the GST for first-time buyers of a property that sells for less than $1 million and lowers it for first-time buyers of a residence that sells for somewhere between $1 million and $1.5 million.

In concrete terms, under this bill, the homebuyer will pay GST to the seller when purchasing the home, and the seller will pay the GST to the government. The homebuyer will then apply for a GST rebate, which will be paid out once they have proven that they are eligible. The bill lays out a number of different formulas for different scenarios, including the purchase of a completed home, a pre-construction purchase for future delivery or an owner-built home.

However, there are no scenarios where the tax rebate can exceed the amount of GST paid at the time of purchase, resulting in a charge against the consolidated revenue fund. This part of the bill will lower the government's GST revenue, but there is no scenario where it will involve a charge against the consolidated revenue fund.

The member for Mirabel introduced a series of amendments that cover the various scenarios referred to earlier. They would all have the same effect: They would move the date on which the GST is eliminated or reduced for first-time buyers from May 27, 2025, to March 20, 2025. March 20, 2025, was the day the government originally announced the measure that would become Bill C‑4.

Witnesses told the committee that many people saw the government announcement and believed that the measure was effective immediately, as is often the case when it comes to taxation. An announcement typically coincides with the tabling of the notice of ways and means, on the assumption that it will be adopted, paving the way for it to come into effect immediately. That is why the member for Mirabel's amendments were introduced.

As is the case with the original version of Bill C‑4, there is no scenario where the member for Mirabel's amendments could result in a rebate that exceeds the amount of tax paid and result in a charge against the consolidated revenue fund. In that sense, they are different from refundable tax credits or the GST rebate, whose value can exceed the amount of tax that the taxpayer paid. The excess amount has to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, meaning a royal recommendation would be required.

Both part 2 of Bill C-4 and the member for Mirabel's amendment represent fairly classic cases of tax credits or exemptions that have never been viewed as charges on the consolidated revenue fund requiring a royal recommendation.

The example raised at committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue as grounds for the chair to rule the member for Mirabel's amendment inadmissible, specifically the Speaker's ruling of February 1, 2024, concerning Bill C-356, has nothing whatsoever to do with the case before us today. That bill provided for some $100 million to be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund, which we can all agree would require a royal recommendation. Furthermore, Bill C‑356 did not make it clear that the GST rebates provided could not under any circumstances exceed the amount paid, whereas this is clearly stated in Bill C‑4.

The fact that Bill C-4 was accompanied by a royal recommendation in no way means that it was necessary for the implementation of part 2 of the bill, which has the effect of reducing revenue rather than appropriating funds from the consolidated revenue fund, as the government itself explained in its news release on May 27, 2025.

In our view, if we start considering the elimination or reduction of a tax as an expense, it could set a precedent that might in future severely limit the ability that members currently have to bring forward bills or amendments to that effect, and this in turn would make it very hard for committees to work on any bills with fiscal or financial implications.

Instead of seeking advice from the legislative clerks who were present, the committee chair asked the Department of Finance officials whether the Bloc Québécois's amendments were admissible. However, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, deals with financial procedures, and the royal recommendation specifically, in chapter 18, with the exceptions to the rule clearly stated on page 836.

Footnote 61 refers to an article by John Mark Keyes entitled “When Bills and Amendments Require the Royal Recommendation: A Discussion Paper and Guidelines”. Page 20 lists the cases where a royal recommendation is not required, and among them is the type of amendment proposed by the member for Mirabel.

In our opinion, the amendment proposed by the member for Mirabel, adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance at its meeting on October 27, 2025, and included in the committee's report was admissible and should be maintained in the committee's report.

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-4Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

I thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his perspective on the matter. I will reserve my decision and come back to the House in due course.

The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will not be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North and will take the remaining 12 minutes allotted for my speech. I am sure the member for Winnipeg North will have an opportunity to address the House on this important matter as well.

The bail and sentencing reform act would deliver on that commitment. It would balance firmness with fairness. It would strengthen bail and toughen sentencing. These changes underscore that a strong Canada means strong communities and a justice system that works for everyone.

I worked very hard to make sure I could inform the creation of the bill every step of the way, along with the Minister of Justice. I am very pleased to see the final product that has come out. It has been informed by provinces and territories across this country. It has been informed by chiefs of police and by police associations. I was really pleased to see that many of them have given positive statements in regard to the bill. I would like to quote some of them.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has said, “The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police...welcomes the introduction of the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act (Bill C-14) as a landmark piece of legislation that strengthens Canada's response to repeat and violent offenders, organized crime, and threats to public safety.” We have gotten much great feedback just like this from other associations.

I heard from my own mayor, who came to Ottawa this week and was very pleased. He has been a strong advocate for bail reform for some time but also has constantly pointed out that it takes co-operation at all levels in order to be able to get the results that are needed. I will dive into that a little later.

Patrick Brown, the mayor of Brampton, says, “I welcome the Federal Government's recent announcement today on bail and sentencing reform. This is something that our police, our councils in this region have advocated for aggressively. This is a step in the right direction and shows Ottawa is listening to cities like Brampton. I hope the legislation is passed right away.”

There are similar calls from others who are calling upon the opposition to make sure we can co-operate during the process of the legislation through the House. We have heard from Premier Doug Ford as well. He said, “We're glad to see the federal government accept many of our recommendations and take a strong step in the right direction.”

There has been an uptick in violent repeat offenders in this province and in others as well. It was important to work with the premiers, to work with their attorneys general and solicitors general, to get the piece of legislation just right.

I know that the mayor of London had many concerns as well. He says, “I applaud the Government of Canada's action and London welcomes these important, positive steps toward strengthening community safety and ensuring our justice system better protects law-abiding citizens. I look forward to seeing this legislation move quickly and working with all levels of government to make our city, and communities across Canada, safer for everyone.” Yes, it is very important. I know that members from these regions are here in the House right now.

We have also heard from the mayor of Winnipeg, Scott Gillingham, who states that the “legislation looks to be a big step forward in the fight against serious crime here in Winnipeg.”

As I travelled this country through the summer, in consultation on this and other public safety measures, I heard first-hand from law enforcement and many mayors that they were dealing with different issues in different regions, so what we have tried to do in the bill is address all the different factors that have come up. Whether some areas of the country are facing a rise in auto theft and home invasions or other areas are dealing with retail theft and other organized crime, it is important to have a solution that fits and meets the demands of all the different jurisdictions. I am encouraged to see that the final piece of legislation is very strong in this area.

Another thing the opposition often brings up, and which we have heard across the country, is how the principle of restraint is being applied. I referenced in my remarks yesterday as well that the bill would address the principle of restraint in, I feel, the most appropriate way that the House could do so, because the principle of restraint comes from a Supreme Court decision made in 2017 in the Antic case. The principle had been codified and put into legislation previously as well, but it was never intended to be used as a “get out of jail free” card.

The bill clarifies that the principle of restraint would not mean automatic release. We put parameters around it so courts can feel confident in still abiding by the Supreme Court decision but also in being able to go back to the foundational tertiary principles by which bail should be guided. One of the principal ones is public safety.

Public safety should never be compromised. Everything we do in the ministry of public safety and that I have taken on as a responsibility in my new role is to ensure that Canadians can feel safe. As a mom, this has been really important to me when I have heard the growing concern. At times it took a while, perhaps not for people on the ground but for law enforcement and governments, to look at property crime in the same way as we looked at violent crime. Those two things came to a crossroads, and we started seeing more and more property crime committed with violence.

Stories of cars being stolen, at times with kids in the back seat during the commission of a car hijacking, make me wonder as a mom. I started worrying a lot about making sure my child was out of the car before I got out of it. That is not how I want to feel nor how I want any of the people in my community to feel. The bill would take the steps needed to make sure we bring back the confidence of the public when it comes to our judicial system. That is very important to me.

There is another thing the bill would do that is very important, from what I heard from communities across this country. People have felt that there are no repercussions to committing property theft. It is really important that people understand there are repercussions in Canada, so in the bill, we clarify sentencing objectives.

The bill would require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence for second and subsequent convictions of violent auto theft, break and enters, and organized crime offences. This is a very important measure. It would bring courts back to considering safety as the main concern. It gives this direct guideline and would make it mandatory for courts to look at it.

The bill would also make it mandatory for the courts to go through a safety plan if they do choose to release an individual. The process of going through creating a plan, that exercise, is very important to better understanding whether it is an appropriate plan or not.

Along with that, an offender's history should also be looked at. It is a bit of a surprise and a shock to me that courts would not already be doing so. It is appropriate to look at an offender's past history, but what we heard from Crown counsel and others in law enforcement is that it was not always being done. The piece of legislation before us would mandate courts to do so.

I know that if the bill is passed through the House of Commons, it would have a great impact on keeping our communities safe. I would also like to mention, as I began my speech with yesterday, that we are doing our part as a federal government, but the provinces will now need to do their part as well. For example, Ontario is having over 50% of cases withdrawn or dismissed and sentences being shortened. A story recently came out about a sentence for murder that has been decreased and the person released because of the conditions of provincial jails.

It is really important that provincially appointed judges be able to make the decisions needed to keep the public safe and that they also have a place to put offenders. I now put it on the provinces to do their part to make sure that people are not released into our communities because of these provincial responsibilities that are not being met. It is very important for us to be able to get the results we need.

I am thankful for the extra opportunity to address this very important piece of legislation.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, from my review of Bill C-14, I believe that there is a partial admission by the government that it failed and that it dropped the ball when it introduced Bill C-5. It actually rolled back some of the conditional sentences, so I want to spend a bit of time talking about that.

Given that sex assault is on the rise across this country, why did the member's government see fit to claw back the eligibility of conditional sentences only where the Crown proceeds by indictment versus summary conviction, when the vast majority of sex assault prosecutions in this country are done by summary conviction? Why has the member failed victims?

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON

Madam Speaker, gender-based violence sexual offences have been top of mind for our government. In Bill C-75, we have strengthened our position when it comes to the justice system. We would be further strengthening it in the bill that is before us, by not allowing courts to impose conditional sentences that can be served in the community. It is important to make sure the offenders stay behind bars.

In this role, I am here trying to do my job to inform the government to take measures that would protect public safety. As I said, I take that role very seriously, and I believe the bill would address that issue and is a step in the right direction. We also have a gender-based violence bill coming out that would further strengthen our position to make sure offenders get what they deserve.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-14. However, we still have some concerns about the text of the bill, including the discretion that it gives to judges to reverse the burden of proof for certain crimes. These include some serious crimes for which it would be justifiable for a judge to keep the accused in remand.

However, some crimes on this list, like auto theft, are not necessarily violent crimes or crimes committed by people who pose a danger to public safety. I was wondering, does the government not feel that the definition of violent crime it has adopted with respect to this specific reverse onus criterion is a bit too broad?

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON

Madam Speaker, I do not believe we have gone overboard at all. I believe we are addressing all the issues Canadians are concerned about. Repeated auto theft in our communities has made Canadians feel unsafe. The proceeds of these types of crimes also go to transnational organized criminal networks. These criminal networks are involved in the gun trade and in bringing dangerous drugs into our country. It is important we clamp down on these criminal organizations.

A step we have also taken in the past is that criminals who are using young people in the commission of a crime like this will serve even more severe penalties. We have already implemented that, but this is another step we can take sure to make sure we can deter that crime from happening.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I think we all know in this room and in the rest of Canada that indigenous and racialized people have some of the highest incarceration rates in Canada.

I wonder if the member can share with us how the bill on reverse onus will have an impact on those who are most marginalized and how their justice will be protected in the bill.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON

Madam Speaker, we know that there is over-representation of indigenous communities. That issue came up as I consulted in communities. It is important to continue to work with policing so that we can make sure that policing methods are done appropriately and not biased and that our courts are not biased when applying these rules and regulations. It is important to continue to have good training for judges as well.

This piece of legislation was created so that we can protect Canadians. I believe in restorative justice as well, and measures need to be taken so that when a person has ended their sentence, they can reintegrate into the community in the best way possible. Our correctional services have done a lot of good work in communities to make sure that there are different systems in place for the communities that have asked for it, and they will continue to do that work.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, what I like about Bill C-14 is the fact that in the last federal election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians that he would bring forward bail reform legislation. That is what we are debating today.

I would double down on that commitment in terms of the very minister who spoke now. She was appointed as the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. That is a compliment to the degree to which the government is serious about dealing with bail reform legislation.

Would the secretary of state not agree that, given the consensus of the many different stakeholders out there in support of the legislation, a goal to try to build a consensus in the chamber and have the legislation in place and passed before the end of the year would be something Canadians deserve to see?

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON

Madam Speaker, absolutely. Canadians deserve for us to care about their safety and to put victims first. The bill does that. It keeps repeat violent offenders off our streets.

I would also call on all opposition parties to help us get this passed through the House as quickly as possible and get it to the committee process, where we can look at it in detail. I have been disappointed and surprised by the Conservative opposition. We have had other bills that also addressed public safety in this country, such as Bill C-2, but the Conservatives would not agree with portions of that bill, including lawful access, money laundering and searching mail for fentanyl and drugs getting into our country. I am shocked that they do not care about the concerns that Canadians have and that they did not allow us to bring that to pass in this Parliament at this time.

I also call on them to help us pass that original Bill C-2 and those portions of lawful access, which would give police the tools they need to—

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Questions and comments, the hon. member for York Centre.

Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I do not propose to politicize this issue. I just want to speak about the shortcomings of the bill and ask the secretary of state specifically why there is an absence of any stiffer sentences for young offenders. Why is the bill silent on parole? Why is the bill silent on cash bail, something that police associations across the country are talking about?

Most importantly, I am very interested in the diversionary framework introduced in Bill C-75 for offences involving failures to comply with court orders, such as failure to appear, breach of undertaking or even breach of bail. Basically, C-75 allows Crowns to divert, to remove those types of offences from the docket, as they often do. We also heard from the OPP commissioner a couple of days ago in justice committee saying that he thinks the fact that BIll C-75 allows for this kind of diversionary regime framework for offences against court orders undermines the rule of law.

Why does Bill C-14 not fix the travesty created by Bill C-75?