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.
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.
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.
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Uqaqtittiji, I mentioned already that we all know about the overrepresentation of indigenous and racialized people in the correctional system. This bill would broaden the reverse onus on many of the categories that are indigenous and marginalized people.
I wonder if the member can share what supports will be established for those who are still quite oppressed under the current system.
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Madam Speaker, once again, we have made it very clear that resources will be allocated to ensure that all provinces will be ready to do their work. Mental health criteria will be looked at, so we can ensure the jails are not overpopulated with people who do not benefit from the reverse onus—
Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C‑14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act. This is a bill that is of paramount importance for public safety, public trust in our legal institutions, and the fundamental balance of justice and responsibility in Canada.
Bill C‑14 seeks to address a concern that is largely shared by Canadians to ensure that our bail system remains fair, credible, effective and consistent with today's reality.
Over the past few years, we have seen an increase in cases where individuals charged with or sentenced for serious violent crimes have been released on bail, and some of them have gone on to reoffend, with tragic outcomes. This undermines public confidence and weakens the very principle of justice, which is grounded in the safety and security of all Canadians. It is precisely this imbalance that Bill C‑14 seeks to address while at the same time safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bill C‑14 enhances the rigour of the bail process for the most serious crimes, including random violence, the use of firearms, extortion, breaking and entering, and motor vehicle theft involving violence. It introduces reverse onus provisions for certain offences, which means an accused must justify why they should be released pending trial. This does not constitute an arbitrary limitation of the right to defend oneself against charges, but rather, it is a measured response in situations where public safety must come first.
The enactment of this legislation would require justices of the peace to consider the gravity and frequency of offences when making a decision. This measure will strengthen judicial decisions across the country and provide clear benchmarks depending on the gravity and repeat offending.
Bill C‑14 is not limited to punishment; it also addresses prevention. Requiring that primary consideration be given to denunciation and deterrence in cases of repeat violent offences, organized motor vehicle theft, and breaking and entering sends a clear message that there will be zero tolerance for gratuitous violence and organized crime.
This bill also retains the spirit of justice and rehabilitation, which is a hallmark of the Canadian system. It clarifies the definition of “violent offence” in relation to young offenders, while ensuring that mechanisms for bail and supervision reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for rehabilitation. It also protects the public's right to information in emergencies and enables law enforcement agencies to disclose a young person's identity where there is an imminent danger. This is a common-sense, balanced and proportionate measure.
Bill C‑14 also introduces new aggravating factors for crimes committed against first responders, the women and men who risk their lives every day to keep us safe. Professionals like police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and correctional officers deserve not only to be recognized, but also to be better protected under the law. This bill turns that recognition into concrete action.
The bill also modernizes the National Defence Act by aligning sentences and principles of deterrence with those in the civilian system, while respecting the specific nature of the military context.
It strengthens how fines are managed, facilitates remote appearances in certain circumstances and makes sentences more consistent for contempt of court offences. These are technical, but essential, adjustments to ensure a more effective and swifter justice system that is more in tune with the reality on the ground.
Bill C‑14 is not a partisan response. It is a call for collective responsibility. Public safety, confidence in the justice system and social stability are not partisan issues, but rather shared Canadian values. This bill reflects the government's willingness to listen to the concerns of citizens, first responders, municipalities, provinces and territories.
It is not a question of pitting justice against compassion; it is a question of reconciling them. By supporting this bill, we are saying that the right to safety is as fundamentally important as the right to freedom.
Bill C‑14 is a decisive step toward a more consistent, more robust and more humane justice system. It protects our communities, supports our law enforcement agencies, holds offenders accountable and modernizes our institutions. Supporting this bill means supporting a Canada where freedom is exercised in accordance with the law, where compassion meets responsibility and where justice means safety for all.
I therefore invite my colleagues from all parties to support Bill C‑14 so that together we can build a justice system that lives up to the Canadian values of safety, justice and respect for human dignity.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Madam Speaker, I have a question with respect to the bill and the clamping down on the availability of conditional sentences. In our respective view, this is a partial admission of the failures of the introduction of Bill C-5, which allowed for conditional sentences to be served for very serious offences. I recognize that Bill C-14 mentions sexual offences and sexual offences against children, but there is another problem in this country, and that is fentanyl. It is a scourge and there is an opiate crisis in our country.
Why did the government choose to not clamp down on the availability of conditional sentences for traffickers of fentanyl? Case law has deemed them to be merchants of death.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, the bill will be studied in committee, where it can be debated and amended. I am asking my colleagues to support this bill so that we can craft a piece of legislation that reflects Canada.
We have implemented measures at the border with the United States to address the fentanyl crisis, but I believe there are still challenges on that front.
However, we need to restore order at home and this bill corrects things in order to maintain order in a way that reflects Canadian values.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question. In my colleague's opinion, what kind of risk could the new bail rules pose in terms of regional or systemic disparities?
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his decidedly technical question.
We are now in the early days of a bill that is going to be read and sent to committee for amendment. We are updating things that were not prepared or adjusted properly during previous Parliaments. We have a new government. We have a new bill.
With the support of the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the other parties in the House, I think we will be able to turn this bill into a shared undertaking for Canada and ensure proper justice across the country.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my friend for raising an aspect of the legislation that is so critically important, which is recognizing our first responders. It is something that is important to the member. I know the fine work our firefighters and paramedics do for us day in and day out is also important to Canadians in all regions of the country.
Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it was to have first responders incorporated into this legislation?
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, first responders are very important, given all that they have done from the COVID‑19 pandemic to this day. These men and women play a crucial role in our society, all across the country, from coast to coast to coast. I felt it was important that we talk about them this morning in the House to support Bill C‑14. I think it is important to include them in this bill.
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK
Madam Speaker, on October 6, the member across the way had the opportunity to vote to scrap Liberal bail, the catch-and-release ridiculousness that criminals are enjoying across this country, some of them repeatedly. I have heard in a few speeches today that the Liberals are claiming criminal justice is a non-partisan issue.
I am just wondering why the member opposite voted against our motion, which would have kept violent criminals behind bars.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague listened carefully to my speech, but I am pretty sure I talked about regulating bail procedures, because that is very important. This bill updates and fixes things that were not properly regulated before. I believe that we are here not to play partisan games, but to do what is right for Canada.
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.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to the member. If he is true to his words, at the very least he will recognize that, at the end of the day, there have been extensive consultations done. That is the reason why, when the Prime Minister made the commitment to Canadians to bring in bail reform legislation, we could not just snap our fingers and have it appear. It requires a great deal of effort.
We now have the legislation before us. We want to see this legislation become law before the end of the year. Would the member not agree, if this issue is so critically important to him and the Conservative caucus, that the best way to ensure we deliver on bail reform, all of us collectively, is by allowing the legislation to move forward? For example, allowing it to get to committee so we can have the discussions the member raised today would be a positive step.
Would the member agree that this is the type of legislation Canadians deserve and that we should make an effort to get it passed—
Bill C-14 Bail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Madam Speaker, I already said, in my remarks, that I look forward to working on this bill in committee. I welcome the member for Winnipeg North joining us for a meeting, if he would like to contribute.
I find it interesting that the member for Winnipeg North said, in a previous intervention in the House, “Bill C-75 actually made it harder to be released on bail.” That is the precise opposite of what law enforcement told us in our consultations.
I would encourage the Liberal government, if it is so committed to this, to support the three bills I mentioned by the members for Oxford, Lethbridge and Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives would love to import the so-called three strikes law. In the United States, a third conviction means life in prison. It is causing the prison population to explode, and it is not reducing crime. Experts tell us that crime stems from the housing crisis, addictions and inadequate services.
Why are the Conservatives so focused on a policy that does not work and does not reduce crime, instead of adopting an approach based on evidence, rigour, accountability and, above all, prevention?
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
This is a debate about the Liberal government's legislation, Bill C-14.
However, on three-strikes laws, we put a motion before the House that would call for one. I would ask my hon. colleague if his constituents agree about this for people who repeatedly flout and violate the law, terrorize communities and are back on the street.
How many strikes does he think are enough before they should be kept behind bars?
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Madam Speaker, that was a great speech by my colleague.
I just spoke with a councillor from Prince George yesterday. She is in town for FCM. Cori Ramsay told me a story about being on a ride-along with the local RCMP in Prince George. They caught someone breaking into the local Value Village and had them arrested. She saw the person go to jail. Within an hour and a half, that person was back on the streets again. Then, on the same ride-along, four hours later, the same person was rearrested. That is real life for Prince George and the issue around bail being issued so many times.
Is the member confident that Bill C-14, in its current state, would truly address the “bail not jail” revolving door the Liberals have created?
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Madam Speaker, sadly, the member's experiences in his community are not rare. They are the same things I hear from the police officers I work with in my riding and what my colleagues have been hearing as well. This makes it all the more shameful that the Liberal government has ultimately ignored what they have been saying for so long. Even now, it is falling short.
I would love nothing other than for Bill C-14 to work and answer these key concerns, but it needs a lot more. That is why the committee process will be very important. I intend to put forward these solutions, and I hope the Liberals do not obstruct them.
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, finally, after years of us pleading with the Liberal government, the Liberals are trying to do something about bail and sentencing in Canada. If the Liberals admit there is a problem, we know there is a problem. The problem is crime and chaos on our streets. Violent criminals, gang violence, guns and auto thefts are terrorizing Canadians. Like many Torontonians, I get up in the morning and wonder if I am going to see my car, which is why I had to buy one of those big clubs to lock my wheel. We used to see those only in the movies but not anymore. This is after my insurance company told me that, unless I install a tracking device at their expense, my insurance rate will go up. How is it possible that the Liberals cannot stop this? The criminals know they can get away with stealing a Jeep and take it to the port of Montreal, where, the very same night, it will be on its way to the Middle East. My provincial counterpart, the Solicitor General of Ontario, had his car stolen.
I love our country very much. I remember what life was like before the 2015 Liberal government. We need two timelines like BC and AD. We need before Liberals, BL, and after Liberals, AL. I remember times before the Liberals, when Canada was one of the safest countries in the world.
I often talk about my first love. My first love is the city of Toronto. In the time before Liberals, I felt safe walking anywhere in the city of Toronto, on any street, at any time of day or night. Safety and the feeling of safety add so much to our quality of life. After a decade of the Liberals, I do not feel safe anymore in multiple neighbourhoods in the city of Toronto after dark, even in some of the safest neighbourhoods. North York in north Toronto is being terrorized by gang violence, gun crime and drug-related shootings almost daily. It is all done by criminals, and it is all done with illegal guns. The justice committee heard from the OPP commissioner this week that almost all gun violence is perpetrated by criminals with illegal guns, not the legal guns the government seeks to confiscate from law-abiding citizens.
How did we go from being one of the safest countries in the world to this? How did Toronto, one of the safest metropolises in the world, lose that sense of safety? Toronto is becoming Gotham City. It is a combination of many things. It is for sure the economic decline thanks to the Liberals. That is part of it, for sure. People are hopeless. CTV reported, the other day, that young people cannot land a minimum-wage job anymore. I was told by a Toronto police officer that the going rate for stealing a car is $500. Imagine a young offender stealing one car per night and that is how they are making their living.
It is not just because our economy is in the gutter. Young offenders know that there are no consequences for what they do. I remember first-year criminal law like it was yesterday. What is the purpose behind sentencing? What is the policy? First and foremost, it is deterrence. It is the threat of legal consequences and possibly jail. However, now there are no consequences.
That is where I will start in taking this bill apart. In its current form, it falls very short. The prevalence of young offenders in crime and gang violence is very troubling. Participation in auto theft rings is just shocking. We would think the Liberals would want to do something about it, but no. There is no sentencing reform to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They closed a loophole and clarified what violence is for the purpose of custody but did not increase any sentences.
I want to be clear. I do not want a kid who breaks a vending machine to be part of the correctional justice system. However, for murder, for instance, custodial sentences for youth are limited to four years. They do pre-trial custody and get two-for-one. By the time they are sentenced, they are barely in custody for a year. Then they come out as much better criminals and terrorize the community.
There is another issue I would like to flag, and this one is very special to me because we are a democracy and respect the rule of law. One of the big failures of Bill C-75, the previous Liberal crime bill, was that it created a diversionary regime for offences involving failures to comply with court orders. For instance, offences such as failure to appear in court or breach of an undertaking, or even breach of bail, may go unpunished. That is what Bill C-75 by the Liberals provided for. It basically allows Crown attorneys to divert or remove such offences from the docket. Crown attorneys, unfortunately, often do this. Bill C-14 is completely silent on this. We had the OPP commissioner at the justice committee this week. He said that this is an affront to the rule of law, and the Liberals will not correct their own mistake.
Another major failure is not fixing a bail condition that every police association across the country is telling them to do: cash bail. I am going to explain this. Right now, in almost all cases, a surety is not required to post a cash bail. They just make a promise to pay in the event there is a breach of bail conditions. Often, they do not have the money and no one comes after them. It is meaningless. We now have this class of professional sureties that help criminals get out on bail. If they were made to post cash bail, this practice would end. A surety should have some skin in the game.
Finally, on bail reform, here we go again. We already reversed the onus for a number of offences under Bill C-48, but people are still caught and released even with those offences. Reversing the onus is not enough. What is missing is the burden of proof, a definition to direct the courts as to what the burden is that the accused must meet in order to be released. What is very important, also, is that, without such a burden, we do not have consistent application among courts. We have courts in different jurisdictions and different provinces. While they are directed to reverse the onus and place it on the accused, they are not sure what the burden they actually have to meet is. That is something every police force and every police association has brought up, and it is something that I sincerely hope we can address at committee.
Another major problem with the bill with respect to bail reform is the ladder principle. The ladder principle basically directs the court that the accused must be released at the earliest opportunity. The problem, specifically noted by the Police Association of Ontario this week, is that the ladder principle is not eliminated in reverse-onus offences. Just two days ago, my colleagues in the room with us heard testimony from the Police Association of Ontario asking for this very clearly. It said that we need to codify the fact that the ladder principle does not apply in a reverse-onus offence.
Finally, Bill C-14 is completely quiet on parole. In Canada, one is, essentially, automatically eligible for parole after serving a third of their sentence. We heard from a criminal defence attorney last week in the justice committee. Even he, a criminal defence attorney, thought it was lunacy that we see criminals sentenced to a custodial sentence do a third of their sentence, leave, reoffend, get sentenced again, do another third of their sentence and then leave again. That is a practice that we need to put an end to.
This week, the justice committee heard from Meechelle Best and Ron Best from Manitoba, parents whose daughter was killed by an intoxicated driver in a car accident. He was out on bail and had breached his bail condition. There was a warrant for his arrest. That was not the first time. He had breached bail before and got out on bail again. It was one of the most moving and saddest testimonies I have ever heard.
We cannot bring Kellie back, but we can prevent the next atrocity. We need to fix the bill. I am asking the government, in good faith, to work with us to fix Bill C-14, which is currently a flawed bill.
Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)
Madam Speaker, the latter principle is addressed in the bill, and it would not apply to reverse onus cases.
The member made an interesting comment about young offenders. He said that, when they are incarcerated for a period of a year or so, they come out as even more hardened criminals. I thought that was an interesting observation that he highlighted.
For this bill, we consulted with a lot of stakeholders and experts in this area, and we are trying to get the balance right. I would like to ask the member if he thinks that serving a sentence makes young people become even more hardened criminals. What would be a solution that is appropriate to make sure our young people can live a good, successful life and get out of a life of crime?
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I had my first legal gig as a young law student at the community legal clinic at the law school in London. I dealt with a lot of young offenders. This is what I really want to stress: We have to delineate, or separate, those who got into the system because of a good-faith error, such as those who broke a vending machine or those who stole their parents' car on the day of their prom. We do not want those folks in the system. However, there are also the hardened criminals, those who commit repeat violent offences or those who are participating in gangs, who are in the auto theft rings.
They need to understand the concept of deterrence. It is something they do not understand right now. We accomplish deterrence by increasing the prospect of jail for serious offences. That is required right now, and it is something that Bill C-14 does not do.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I have long been troubled by the fact that sureties, and the member raised this issue, do not have to put forward the money themselves, and people do not go after them. It happens that my stepson is a criminal prosecutor for the Province of British Columbia. One thing that is maddening is that, if someone got their mother to put up the bail money, she could lose her house because, although he is the one who broke the bail conditions, she is responsible. I do not know that we can fix this in federal legislation.
I am asking the member quite honestly if managing bail is a provincial matter. How is it that sureties do not necessarily have to put up the money, and that we do not go after it if bail conditions are broken?
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I am mindful of the member's concern. We need to remember why we are here. We are here because the Liberal government finally woke up to the fact that bail needs to be fixed. One of the challenges we have is the surety regime. I am here to say that we can look at how other jurisdictions address this, but if a surety is going to be meaningless, if there is no risk of forfeiting that deposit or collecting on that promise, then the entire component of bail in that respect loses all relevance and meaning.
I can imagine situations where parents put up a bit of money, typically not a high amount, depending on the offence, and they do their job and honour their undertaking to supervise their child or sibling to make sure they do not breach their bail conditions. We have to make bail meaningful again.