Debates of Oct. 30th, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Edmonton should know that when it comes to the reverse onus, this bill addresses that, and people who commit serious crimes will stay behind bars. Also, consecutive sentences will address the issues that are important in his riding. I have travelled to his riding. This is also happening in my riding and across Canada.

The hon. member should not play politics and should not turn this into drama theatre. He should support this bill and make sure that Canadians across Alberta, across British Columbia and across Canada feel safe in their communities.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I asked one of the member's colleagues to give us the facts that the government is working from to call for an amendment to the Criminal Code's bail provisions. I did not really get an answer earlier. We were told that some people were complaining.

I will give the government another opportunity, through the member, to explain to us the current problem with the bail system. What is stopping a judge from denying bail and keeping an accused in prison to protect the public?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member two examples from British Columbia. One is the Kelowna example. It is very clear that the person was out on bail when he committed the offence of murder. The other example is an offender from Manitoba who was out on bail, went to White Rock and committed a murder there. These are the types of cases bringing people in my constituency to tell me that we have to reform bail laws to make sure that the onus is on the offender, not the Crown, to prove they should not be kept behind bars.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, even before I was part of the House, I knew this was a very important issue for the hon. member and his constituents. He has raised it many times.

What parts of this bill, when it is implemented, will ease the minds of his constituents when he goes back and talks to them about it?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his support in caucus and for bringing issues forward.

The major issue facing my constituents and British Columbians right now is extortion. It is the key concern in my riding and across Canada. This legislation would crack down on extortionists by making bail harder to get. Once someone commits the crime of extortion, they should stay behind bars.

The second issue is consecutive sentencing. For example, if arson or a firearm is used during extortion, the sentences for those offences should be consecutive, not served side by side.

Those are the two issues.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am having tremendous difficulty listening to the Liberals pat themselves on the back like they have done something amazing for Canada. Under their watch, we have seen chaos and crime. The member talked about extortion in B.C., which has seen a 400% to 500% increase.

Will the member not recognize that the Liberal Party, which he has been a member of for many years, has been absolutely sleepwalking this entire time?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I knew the member when he was part of the provincial assembly in B.C., and he was sleeping all the time while crimes were being committed. Policing is a provincial responsibility, but he did nothing then, and he is doing nothing constructive right now, just making this a political circus.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-14, an act that proposes long-awaited reforms to Canada's bail and sentencing framework.

At the outset, let me just say that Conservatives welcome this legislation. We have been calling for meaningful bail reform for years at this point. We have stood alongside police associations, provincial governments and victims' advocates to push for stricter bail legislation and stricter sentencing laws.

The government's decision to bring this bail law forward is in many ways an acknowledgement that the system is not working as it should and that public safety should once again become the paramount guiding principle of our justice system. While we welcome this step, and it is a step in the right direction, we also recognize that it does not go far enough.

I am also pleased to see that the government has admitted, in its own news release regarding the bill just last Thursday, that there is a direct correlation between the rise in crime and the Liberal government taking office. The news release stated that while crime was down between 1998 and 2014, it went up between 2014 and 2024.

This admission comes after years of Liberal politician after Liberal politician claiming that crime is in fact going down. There have been mailers sent out by Liberal MPs, who for years have been trying to convince the public that rising crime is in their heads. Some former members of this House would cherry-pick certain periods to suggest to their constituents that crime is not actually the problem they think it is.

I, for one, am happy that the Liberal government has finally highlighted the fact that the best way to examine the trend of increasing crime is not to pick one short period for the purposes of political messaging, but to look at it over a long period of time, to recognize the trend and course correct.

As I have stated before time after time in this House, people in Vaughan—Woodbridge do not feel safe in their homes and in their own community. Our community was never like this before, and it would not be like this today had the Liberal government chosen to act sooner.

In York Region, in 2025, as of September 30, there have been 60 shootings. This is more than double the occurrences to date from 2021, 2022 and 2023. For years, all major stakeholders were largely ignored by the Liberal government, and many of its members still sit in this House today. Premiers, mayors, police chiefs and victims were all ignored for years. Why? Why has it taken so long for the Liberals to act?

I am happy that the Liberals have woken up and have taken many of our ideas, but they need to go further. I implore them to take all of our ideas, please, because behind these numbers are heartbreaking stories of families shattered, communities shaken and victims left wondering why individuals known to be violent were released back on their streets.

How did we get here? It stems largely from legislative and cultural shifts following the introduction of the principle of restraint in Bill C-75 in 2019. Section 493.1 of the Criminal Code directs that an accused be released at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it has too often meant that repeat violent offenders are released despite a clear risk to public safety.

Police, prosecutors and victims have seen the consequences first-hand. Bailey McCourt was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. A young mother of four, Savannah Kulla, was shot and killed at a Brampton strip mall, with her killer having been released on bail. I have heard the Liberals blame this on the Supreme Court of Canada, but the fact remains the Liberals were never told to change the law.

Bill C-14 proposes tougher standards for bail in serious cases and new reverse-onus provisions for certain violent offences. These are moves in the right direction, no question. However, the principle of restraint remains. The same language that tells decision-makers, judges and justices of the peace to prioritize release under the least restrictive conditions is still very much intact. I would say that means the culture of release will persist unless Parliament goes further and unless there are amendments to Bill C-14.

Earlier this month, I was proud to jointly second my colleague from Oxford's bill, Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which addresses many of the areas in which Bill C-14 falls short. The jail not bail act would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint by offering a new directive of public and community safety as the primary consideration in bail. This would end the default of the release culture created by Bill C-75.

It would also do the following: restore mandatory minimums for firearms, sexual assaults, kidnappings, human trafficking, robbery, extortion with a firearm, arson and other serious violent crimes; mandate consideration of full criminal history and outstanding charges; and presume detention for major offences and repeat violent offenders, not just reverse onus. There are several others, which unfortunately I do not have the time to mention in my speech. However, I encourage members opposite to look at that bill intently. I encourage them to examine it and find ways in which to strengthen Bill C-14. They should take our ideas and let us work collaboratively for the benefit of all Canadians.

These changes do not undermine fairness or due process; they simply ensure that the justice system exercises caution where it is warranted and that public safety is the priority of our justice system. Public confidence in the justice system depends on visible fairness, but it also depends on safety. When a young mother is murdered by a partner who was released on bail despite prior violent charges, Canadians naturally ask us how we could allow this to happen. They are not asking for vengeance; they are asking for prevention. They are asking to feel safe in their homes and their communities.

Our police officers, Crown attorneys and victim service workers have been clear that the current framework too often ties their hands. Bill C-14 acknowledges that truth, but now we must complete the work. These bail reforms must also be accompanied by sentencing reforms that reinforce accountability.

The Liberals' Bill C-5, passed in 2022, eliminated many mandatory minimum penalties and expanded the use of conditional sentences, even for certain firearms and violent offences. In my view and the view of many practitioners across Canada, that change weakened deterrence and contributed to the perception that serious crime is met with leniency. Restoring proportionate, consistent sentencing is essential to rebuilding trust in our justice system.

Conservatives will work in good faith to ensure this bill passes as quickly as possible, with the strongest possible protections for Canadians. We are not opposing it for the sake of opposing; we are offering solutions informed by experience from police, prosecutors, victims and those who have lived with the consequences of repeat violent offences.

We also recognize that this legislation has broad support from law enforcement organizations, premiers and community leaders who are eager to see progress. The momentum should not be lost. If the government is willing to accept reasonable amendments, such as elevating public safety to the first consideration and closing the remaining gaps around repeat offenders, then we can together deliver the kind of reform that Canadians have been demanding for years.

In a country like Canada, it should never be seen as contradictory to defend both the rights of the accused and the safety of the public. The balance between those values is what defines a mature justice system.

Conservatives have been calling for action for years, not because it is politically convenient, but because it is right. If we get this right, we will not only make our laws stronger; we will make our communities safer. Let us work together to strengthen this bill so we can end the cycle of violence that has plagued our streets and restore faith in the justice system for the people of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member talking about our working together, recognizing that it is, in fact, a minority government. The Prime Minister made a commitment to genuine bail reform legislation. The only way we are going to be able to pass this legislation and give Canadians what they want is if we can get the Conservatives to make the commitment to do so.

After it goes to committee, when it comes back to the House, a majority of the members of the House will have to support any amendments brought forward. I look forward to seeing amendments coming from the Conservatives. We will see to what degree they add value to the legislation and if we can achieve that magic number of a majority to pass it.

Does the member share my belief that, with co-operation, we could get this legislation passed before Christmas?

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives would like nothing more than bail reform and sentence reform to be passed immediately. That is why we introduced our jail not bail act. We put forward the serious amendments that are needed to the bail system to facilitate the conditions that will keep repeat violent offenders in prison.

I, for one, am all for having this legislation move to committee. At committee, we hope the Liberal government and our Bloc colleagues on the committee will look very closely at our proposals and at removing the principle of restraint because we do not want to leave that loophole open for repeat offenders to end up on the streets. We want to close that loophole for good and forever.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues since earlier this evening. I know that they are well aware that there is a separation between the legislative and judicial branches, but they seem to be questioning the judges' ability to use discretion with regard to pre-trial custody.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Does he agree that a judge is able to determine whether or not pre-trial custody is appropriate? There are some examples in the bill that are quite troubling. I am thinking in particular of car theft. It seems to me that judges should be responsible for determining whether pre-trial custody is necessary for this type of crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly in the time period we have just gone through, when crime has become increasingly of concern, we are witnesses to the fact that serious repeat offenders constantly out on bail are constantly committing crimes. This is not new. We hear this from police associations, victim advocacy groups, premiers and municipal governments.

Clearly, we have to start with federal legislation, where the Criminal Code belongs, to set the culture and set the conditions to say that repeat violent offenders need to remain behind bars. To do so, we must get rid of the principle of restraint that was enshrined through Bill C-75.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, 2025, following extensive consultation, the Government of Canada introduced legislation with more than 80 provisions to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-14. I would like to take some time to more specifically outline the proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In the interest of time, I will use the acronym YCJA moving forward.

The YCJA is the federal law that governs Canada's youth criminal justice system. It applies to youth aged 12 to 17 who come in contact with the criminal justice system. The YCJA recognizes that young persons must be held accountable for criminal acts, although not in the same way as an adult. I know this first-hand as I was a youth worker for two decades. Society benefits when the greatest possible number of youth who come into contact with the criminal justice system are rehabilitated and supported to become productive members of the community.

Since the YCJA came into force in 2003, police have reported that youth crime statistics in Canada have been on a general downward trend. For example, measures of police-reported youth crime decreased by about 31% from 2014 to 2024. This shows that, overall, the YCJA works well.

However, the YCJA has not been amended for many years. Legislative changes are needed to ensure the public is well protected while promoting the rehabilitation of youth. This is why we are proposing targeted amendments to the YCJA in Bill C-14. These amendments are intended to improve the administration of the youth criminal justice system and further support the continued and successful implementation of the YCJA by the provinces and territories. Provinces and territories are primarily responsible for enforcing and implementing the YCJA. This includes investigating and prosecuting most offences, managing youth justice courts and youth custodial facilities, and providing programming and services for youth.

I will provide an overview of the amendments. First, to address a lack of clarity in the law, the bill proposes to amend the definition of violent offences. This is a key amendment to the legislation as the definition plays an important role in the type of sentences that can be imposed on a young person. This includes which offences are eligible for custody. This amendment would allow youth courts to better assess what constitutes a violent offence when a young person causes bodily harm. It would also provide them with greater flexibility to impose custodial sentences when it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Second, while many aspects of criminal procedures are similar in the youth and adult criminal justice systems, the YCJA establishes special procedures to ensure that young people are treated fairly and to promote their rehabilitation. For example, as a general rule, the privacy of young offenders, and young victims and witnesses in the youth justice system, is protected through publication bans on their identity. The privacy of young persons takes into account their age-based vulnerability and the need to protect them from the harmful impacts of publication of their information. This is to maximize their chances of rehabilitation and promote long-term public safety.

At present, in certain circumstances, the police can seek a court order to request the authority to publish the identity of youth. The proposed amendments to the YCJA would provide an additional tool for police to publish identifying information about a young person without prior court authorization. This would be in narrow circumstances, in urgent situations where the young person poses an imminent danger to the safety of the public and a court order cannot be obtained within a reasonable time. For example, when there is an active shooter in a public area and they need to be apprehended quickly to protect the public, this would apply.

Another way the YCJA protects the privacy of young persons is by limiting access to their records. The act allows certain persons listed in the act to have access to certain youth records for specific periods of time. However, the law does not currently address access to two types of records, those for cases where one has been diverted from the court system and those for files related to police investigations where there has been no charge or diversion. These amendments are important, as the YCJA encourages the use of measures outside of the formal court system for less serious offences. These measures are often the most appropriate and effective way to respond to youth offending and include options such as police warnings and referrals to community-based programming. The proposed amendments would allow certain individuals to access these records for a period of two years. These amendments would bring clarity to an area of the law where there has been litigation and emphasizes the importance of youth privacy rights.

The bill also includes a number of technical adjustments to sentencing to support provinces and territories in administering youth sentences more effectively. Many of the proposed amendments would also align the YCJA with the Criminal Code in ways that would bring greater clarity to the sentencing provisions applying to youth. For example, the amendments would make clear that any time a youth spends unlawfully at large would not count toward their term of a custodial sentence. For example, the amendment would also clarify that certain probation orders should be served after a deferred custody and supervision order. A deferred custody order is similar to a conditional sentence in the adult system.

Additionally, the amendments would add certain sentences to the existing list of sentences that can be transferred and enforced in different provinces and territories.

The bill would also make a technical amendment in cases where it is alleged that a young person has breached a condition of their sentence while under supervision in the community and the conditional supervision has been suspended.

This would allow the young person to apply for bail pending a decision by the youth court on the breach. The court would then need to determine if bail is appropriate in the circumstances. These amendments echo what is currently being done in practice and align with the Criminal Code.

As I mentioned earlier, the primary objective of the YCJA remains the protection of the public. The proposed amendments would not change this fundamental objective of the youth criminal justice system, which is distinct from the adult criminal justice system and is based on the accountability of young people, their rehabilitation and the prevention of recidivism. This includes referral to community programs or organizations that help them address the underlying causes of the offending behaviour. The federal government continues to support provinces, territories and community organizations in the delivery of youth justice services focused on the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth involved in the criminal justice system.

Because a strong Canada means strong and safe communities, and a justice system that works for everyone, I will be supporting Bill C-14 and encourage all members of Parliament to support the bill, as it would improve the youth criminal justice system. We will continue to collaborate with provinces and territories to address the causes of youth crime. Today's young people are tomorrow's adults.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction. However, the administration of justice is largely Quebec's responsibility. We know that there are already problems, particularly around the fiscal imbalance. Additional transfers are needed, including for health care.

Can my hon. colleague acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance and explain how Quebec would handle the additional costs related to this bill? Will the federal government commit to transferring money to cover the additional costs that provinces will incur? If so, how much?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the time of the election, at every home we went to, this is what we heard. Our Prime Minister, Mark Carney, promised, at that time, that we would invest into the criminal system. That is throughout the country. Quebec is also included in that. Provinces will get their share. The implementation of these changes relies on the provinces. They will have to come up with, within their means, how they could impose these changes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will just remind the member not to use the proper names of members of the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many thoughts the member has shared with us this afternoon on such an important piece of legislation, legislation that was a commitment made by the Prime Minister and Liberal members in the last election. It is great to see we have Bill C-14 before us today, and I am very hopeful we will actually see it become law before the end of the year.

I know the member has a very full understanding of youth and the impact youth have on our communities, especially related to concerns with respect to crime and so forth. I am wondering if she can just share her thoughts about youth justice, if she is comfortable with that.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like I said, I was a youth worker for 20 years in the city of Toronto, day in and day out, dealing with youth offenders and trying to put them into programs that would rehabilitate them. Most times, we look at why they turned to crime and what is needed in the community for these rehabilitation purposes. As we see auto thefts, home invasions and jewellery heists increase and youth are involved in this, I really feel the amendment to the bail system will actually alleviate these problems, because they are working with adults who are not coming in front and are using the youth to do these deeds. As such, from my experience, when the bail system gets these changes in, and I hope the opposition will help us do this when Bill C-14 comes again, we would definitely see a reduced rate of youth crimes in the community.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are going through times where youth unemployment is at a record-high number.

Does she agree with me that making youth employment a priority on the Liberal side would have an impact on crime when it comes to youth?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, definitely, the economy does impact crime in general, and youth are no different. The budget that is coming in is an austerity budget that is supposed to create a lot of jobs, and youth jobs are included in that. I hope the member opposite will vote yes for our budget this time to help alleviate crime as well.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the good people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay to speak to the legislation before us, Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

Today, the House debates the very urgent and serious subject of Canada's broken bail laws. The member opposite just spoke about Bill C-14 alleviating problems. Let there be no mistake about who broke these bail laws. The Liberal government broke them. The government's bill today is to amend its own laws that broke our bail system. Conservatives have continually spoken across our country of the disastrous catch-and-release, revolving-door policy that the Liberal government used to turn our bail system into what we have today.

In my riding, I think of a notorious case in Penticton, where a local Toyota dealership was set on fire a couple of years ago. This week, the same arsonist was charged in a second case for aggravated assault. He was intimidating the witness for his first trial, and he kicked the victim in the face with a steel-toed boot. This continues on and on in a community that used to be considered incredibly safe and in communities across Canada.

I am also in the process of surveying my own constituents on public safety matters and have received many responses from constituents. The number one issue across my riding, and I believe across Canada, is safety.

A constituent in Oliver named Angela wrote, “There is a repeat offender that lives a block away from my house who is a known drug dealer, who is also well known for break and entries/theft. He’s sent to jail at least once a year and let out the next day. He’s on probation but it doesn’t stop him. How is this protecting the community if he’s constantly released. This isn’t fishing, why the catch and release? Why would he stop if he never has to face any consequences.”

Angela is right: Catch and release is a failure to uphold public safety and Canadians' rights. It also does nothing to reform the behaviour of offenders if they do not face any consequences. These days, even the Liberal government now acknowledges a 41% increase in the violent crime severity index in the last decade, as well as increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences. It is in its own press releases.

Without Conservatives, the Liberal government would still be proceeding with the disastrous past policies outlined in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which prioritized repeat violent offenders instead of victims, with too often deadly consequences.

Residents in my region of the Okanagan were shocked by the failure of our bail system to protect the public and victims in the case of Bailey McCourt. Bailey was a young woman, a mother and a survivor of intimate partner violence. This past summer, her former partner was convicted of abusing her. However, within hours of that sentencing, he had left the courtroom, tracked her down in broad daylight and murdered her in public with a hammer. With Bailey at that time was one of her friends, who survived but was left with serious physical and mental traumas that she will now have to live with for the rest of her life.

I know the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and I have been in contact with both families, and they are clear in their cause that the government must change our laws to protect victims of intimate partner violence so this never happens again.

The McCourt family said in a joint statement:

Bailey deserved to live her life free from fear and violence. She sought help from a system that was supposed to protect her, yet that system repeatedly failed to take the necessary actions to keep her safe. This is not just a tragedy, it is a preventable injustice.

It is a broken system and a preventable injustice. Too many Canadians have lost their lives to a violent repeat offender who should never have been free to kill, harm or traumatize again. Our bail system has failed them. All Canadians should support the McCourt family's calls to fix our federal laws, which we know the Prime Minister has seen because it was given to him in a letter by Premier Eby this past summer. Does the legislation before us match what the McCourt family is calling for? Unfortunately, it does not.

I will again quote the McCourt family:

We are deeply concerned about the lack of clarity surrounding reverse onus provisions as there are simply not enough details outlining what hurdles an accused must meet in order to be released.... The ambiguity in these measures risks undermining public confidence and safety.

For those without a law degree, reverse onus is a legal provision that shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the defendant. While this legislation makes some shifts in this category that would help to deny bail to repeat violent offenders, it would not go as far as we need it to. Stronger restrictions should make these offences ineligible for bail all together and prevent automatic release.

This legislation would also not repeal the disastrous Bill C-5 or Bill C-75. It merely tinkers with them. It was the Liberal government that brought in the principle of restraint, which caused judges to provide bail to even repeat violent offenders. Judges were required to apply the least onerous conditions to many criminals charged with violent offences. While this legislation now confirms that restraint does not require release, it would still provide a pathway to release and still retain the directive to apply the least onerous conditions. There is still much risk of release for violent offenders.

There is also nothing in this legislation that would return Canada's criminal justice system to the principle of mandatory minimums to ensure consistent sentencing outcomes for serious crimes. Violent offences committed with firearms, the mass production of deadly hard drugs and sexual violence should come with consistent sentencing. A predictable and fair justice system is one that Canadians can have much more confidence in.

Lastly, house arrest would remain an allowable sentence for those convicted of armed robbery and drug trafficking. This is particularly wrong because the victims of these crimes are often living in the same neighbourhoods as their assailants. It is an insult to public safety to say assailants should be able to serve their sentences in the same neighbourhoods as their victims.

In speaking with the public safety officials in my community, they tell me the Okanagan Correctional Centre is only 20% full. I think it would be better if convicted criminals were placed there than left in their communities on house arrest. The RCMP in our communities are losing faith in the system.

Lastly, I will mention that Conservatives also have Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, which I seconded, to address the serious issue of intimate partner violence, which the McCourt family wishes to be known as Bailey's law. I am proud to support the law and would call on all members of the House to support Bailey's law as well so that we can pass it as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about how important bail reform is. I have mentioned on numerous occasions today a commitment that was made to Canadians in the last election. It would appear that all political entities in the House want to see some form of bail reform take place. We have a golden opportunity to have something in place before the end of this year. A lot of that is going to depend on the Conservative Party. Is the Conservative Party prepared to allow the legislation to see its way through? That includes going to committee, where there will be good, healthy discussions and, no doubt, a number of different amendments proposed.

I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts on how important it is that we provide Canadians with new bail legislation before the end of the year.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the bill is an attempt by the Liberals to fix the bail laws they took 10 years to break. Of course we are going to work on the bill. Of course we are going to do everything we can to make Canadians safer. I just wish this had been brought forward sooner, and that is what my constituents are saying. It is not fair that for the past 10 years they have been made to feel unsafe in their own neighbourhoods.

Yes, we do look forward to talking about the bill in committee and to making sure it would actually make our communities safer and is not just talk.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what tool is missing from the Criminal Code that judges can use to keep potentially dangerous individuals in remand until their trial?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, judges are obviously missing multiple tools. In the city I live in, there are people who commit a crime, go to jail, walk out of jail the next day and then throw a brick into a car window. They are sent back to jail, spend the night, get back out and throw a brick through a window again.

It happens continually, and a lot of the time, judges, who are completely exhausted, are blamed, but they just do not have the tools to keep the criminals in jail. As I said, the Okanagan Correctional Centre is 20% full right now, and there are prolific offenders wandering our streets. We need to make sure judges have the tools they need to keep criminals behind bars.