Debates of Oct. 30th, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

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

Mr. Speaker, when I reflect on the desires of my constituents when looking at bail reform, I note that the Prime Minister made a commitment to bring in bail reform. That is what we are debating today.

I understand the comments that NDP members have put on the record. I have a very straightforward question. Does the member and the NDP support the principles of bail reform in Bill C-14?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, as I said, we are quite cautious in our approach.

I am very concerned, especially about the reverse onus sections of this bill. We know that, for example, even the former ministers of justice David Lametti and Arif Virani did not agree with the reverse onus. They felt that it did not increase public safety.

I am quite concerned about it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an interesting point earlier, when she spoke about the costs associated with this. Let us not forget that the changes the federal government made to the Criminal Code with respect to cannabis meant that the federal government collected taxes and kept all the money for itself, while the provinces had to bear the administrative costs of these changes.

In this specific case, we are amending the Criminal Code, which is easy to do. However, it will result in administrative costs for provinces, which are already struggling.

Does my colleague believe that, if the federal government wants to make these changes, then it should also provide the provinces with the necessary funding to manage them?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am thankful for the important question because I do agree. As I mentioned in my speech, I am quite concerned that if these amendments go through, it will leave the provinces and territories without the resources they need to be able to take care of the people they have to take care of, and they will not be able to. I mentioned the fact that Nunavut has 25 fly-in communities. It has a travelling court. I do not know how it would manage the additional work that would be required to implement this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not 100% clear in regard to the NDP's position in terms of the passage of the legislation.

Given the nature of the support from the many different stakeholders who are out there, would the member not agree this legislation, at the very least, should pass into committee?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do agree it needs to reach committee so there can be deeper consultations and conversations about this bill.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short comment. The bill has much support. There is tremendous support from the provinces, the territories and lots of municipalities, as well as premiers, ministers from provinces and mayors. Various police associations also show their support for this bill. I would like to thank the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime and their teams for working on this bill and spending the entire summer going with us to see all the law enforcement in our ridings.

I really want to thank everybody who put this bill together, and I am looking forward to passing it in the shortest amount of time.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do hope there are more consultations with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, with the BC Civil Liberties Association, with indigenous groups and with women’s groups, because it is those groups that are not feeling heard with how this bill was tabled. I do hope there will be more work done to hear from those most marginalized communities.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

The Liberal government's complacency has numbed not only itself but the country. When leaders stop reacting to lawlessness, Canadians stop believing it will ever end.

In Richmond Centre—Marpole and beyond, I hear it every week: one more violent act, one less ounce of faith. People, and even the officers sworn to protect them, no longer believe their struggle matters. When a community stops expecting accountability, lawlessness becomes the norm. This is not alarmism. It is observation. It is what happens when a justice system meant to serve public safety instead offers repeat violent offenders the benefit of the doubt again and again.

Individuals with multiple prior convictions and individuals with active conditions, who are known to law enforcement, are released often within hours of their arrest only to offend again. Some of them rob. Some assault. Some kill. How did we let this become normal? The answer lies in a string of decisions made here in this chamber.

Six years ago, the Liberals passed Bill C-75, which put into legislation what they called the principle of restraint. This principle made release the default. It instructed police and judges to prioritize letting accused individuals go early and with minimal conditions. The intent, we are told, was fairness, equity and efficiency. The reality has been chaos.

Bill C-75 shifted the weight of our legal system away from public safety and toward procedural leniency. It was not reform. It was retreat. It took a system already struggling to keep up with repeat offenders and made it harder for police, Crown prosecutors and judges to do their jobs.

Do not take my word for it. Look at the numbers in British Columbia, where there were nearly 4,800 bail hearings in just over a year. Detention was sought in less than a quarter of them. Even in cases involving serious violence, detention was ordered less than half the time. The consequences were predictable and tragic.

In the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, we have seen a rise in violent assaults, break-ins and attacks on law enforcement. Officers report rearresting the same individuals multiple times in a matter of weeks. Frontline morale is eroding. Many feel like they are working in circles, handcuffed to the criminals they repeatedly arrest and to the system they are forced to comply with. Our communities, families, small businesses and seniors are the ones left to deal with the fallout.

This is not a local issue. It is a national one. Police chiefs, mayors, premiers and victims' rights groups from across Canada have said the same thing many times, which is that the system is too slow, too soft and too disjointed to protect the people it is supposed to serve. What makes it worse is that for years, these warnings were met without a care.

The Liberal government had opportunity after opportunity to course correct. Instead, it offered half measures, like Bill C-48, which tinkered with language but did not attempt to touch the core issue. With Bill C-14, we finally see an acknowledgement that the current approach is not working, that reverse-onus bail provisions are necessary for serious and repeat offenders, that conditional sentences or house arrest for crimes like sexual assault are a gross misplacement of compassion and that sentencing needs to reflect the gravity and frequency of violent crimes.

This bill contains good elements. Conservatives welcome those changes, but let us be honest: This is not a product of vision. It is a reaction, one that is long overdue.

For four years, Conservatives have been raising the alarm. We have introduced a private member's bill to strengthen bail. We have stood with victims' families, spoken with law enforcement and warned the House that, without reform, the system will continue to fail. Those warnings were brushed aside, and while the government hesitated, Canadians suffered.

Yes, we support Bill C-14, but it is the floor, not the ceiling. Conservatives will be pressing for critical amendments.

First, we must fully repeal the principle of restraint as outlined in Bill C-75. It is too vague. It gives too much weight to factors that have nothing to do with risk to the public. Judges must be empowered to detain individuals who pose a threat, not be told to default to release.

Second, we must restore mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent offences. The repeal of these sentences under Bill C-5 sent the wrong message: that even the most dangerous crimes might not result in jail time. That approach undermines deterrence and betrays victims.

Third, we need to implement a broader presumption of detention for individuals with violent criminal histories. The public has a right to be protected from those who have repeatedly shown disregard for the law and for human life.

Fourth, we must ensure proper support for provincial systems that bear the brunt of these changes. Without investments in Crown capacity, corrections and law enforcement, stricter laws will not translate into better outcomes. This cannot be legislation without resources.

Finally, we need transparency. Canadians should know how often bail is granted, how often conditions are breached and how often violent crimes are committed by those already out on release. This information must be reported and made public. Only then can we hold the system accountable.

This is not about being tough for the sake of being tough. It is about being serious about protecting the innocent, serious about consequences for the guilty and serious about restoring public faith in a system that too many now see as broken. Justice must be firm, fair and focused. It must prioritize the safety of communities over the convenience of repeat offenders. It must send a clear message that if people endanger others, if they repeatedly violate the law, the consequences will be certain and swift. The bill before us is an opportunity to start sending that message again, but only if we are willing to finish the work.

The people of Richmond Centre—Marpole do not want more promises; they want action. They want to know that when a dangerous individual is arrested, the justice system will act to keep them and others safe. They want a government that puts victims first.

Canadians have had enough of revolving-door bail, enough of tragic headlines and enough of policies that offer more exit ramps to offenders than pathways to accountability. Let this be the moment we choose differently. Let us send Bill C-14 to committee for further scrutiny. Let us strengthen it, and let us restore the most basic promise any justice system can make to its people: that their safety matters.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree on this side of the aisle that we do need changes and improvements, which is why we are introducing this bill. However, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press this week, Crown attorneys are desperately overloaded and understaffed. Many people are out on bail, not because of insufficient provisions in the law but because they do not have enough Crown attorneys to give them timely bail hearings, which is necessary for the denial of bail.

Does the hon. member not agree that the federal government cannot solve this alone and that we need better participation from the provincial governments?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague on the other side listened to my speech carefully. I did mention that we cannot change the system through legislation only. We cannot just use promises to change the system. We can make things work better only if the system is being supported with an implementation plan and with resources. That is why I pointed out that we have to give more capacity to Crown prosecutors, to law enforcement and to the people who are out in the community protecting us.

Legislative change is important, but there has to be capacity building with it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. I heard him talk about the issue of sentencing. We know that, in the judicial process, judges are responsible for sentencing. They have the flexibility they need to apply a sentence that fits the crime.

Does my colleague's current emphasis on sentencing and wanting to pass legislation reflect his belief, namely that judges are not doing their job properly?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have suggested, the people in law enforcement are trying to do the best job they can. However, the present system has their hands tied. The bail system right now is catch-and-release. Prosecutors, as well as judges, are being told they have to release the accused at the earliest possible moment and with the least restrictions. With those kinds of restrictions, how can the judges and the prosecutors do their job?

What we have also observed in Bill C-14 is that it is silent on those serious crimes that deserve mandatory sentencing. There are two issues: One is the bail system, and the other is that there are no mandatory sentences for serious crimes, such as those committed by drug kingpins.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was incredible, very insightful and very heartfelt. When I was an MLA in B.C., starting in 2017, we were arguing the same points to the B.C. government. The B.C. government was blaming the federal government, and now we hear the federal government saying that we need more co-operation. It is a back-and-forth blame game.

Could we have gotten ahead of this if, four years ago, the federal government had listened to Conservatives' recommendations?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that we have a system in which the federal government's being ignorant or being incapable of dealing with the issue creates a problem. The problem becomes too big, and the government tries to blame other people. When it cannot blame other people for the consequences, it then tries to do as little as it can to improve the system.

This has been going on for years. As I mentioned in my speech, the Conservatives have warned the House many times that the current system, and the previous provisions as passed by the federal government, were not working. I think we are seeing the consequences today.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I were to encapsulate the bill, I would say that it is far too little and far too late. It is not an act of leadership; it is an act of desperation. It is a half-hearted political band-aid from a government caught red-handed presiding over a public safety crisis of its own making.

For nearly a decade, the Liberals have gambled with the safety of Canadians. They have told us that their modern bail system would be fairer, more compassionate and more enlightened. Well, it has been none of those things. Their ideology has unleashed chaos on our streets, fear in our neighbourhoods and heartbreak in our families.

All 10 premiers, every single one of them, have begged the Prime Minister to fix his broken bail system. Every police chief and every frontline officer who has spoken out has warned the Liberal government that its bail policies are handcuffing police and setting criminals free. Every ordinary Canadian knows, because they can see and feel it, that violent crime has exploded under the Liberal government.

Since the Liberals have come into power, violent crime is up 55%; extortion has skyrocketed 330% across our nation and is closer to 600%, at 582%, in British Columbia; and sexual assaults are up 75%. In British Columbia, the number of sexual violations against children has quadrupled.

These are not abstract numbers; these are shattered lives, broken families and terrified communities. Behind each of those statistics is a name, a face and a story: for example, Bailey McCourt, brutally murdered by her ex-husband, who had been released on bail after an assault conviction; or Savannah Kulla-Davies, a 29-year-old mother of four who was shot and killed in Brampton. Her killer was out on bail. When will the government understand that its compassion for criminals has become cruelty toward victims?

Bill C-14 is not a solution; it is a confession. It is the government's finally admitting that its so-called reforms are a disaster. The Liberals talk about adjusting and clarifying, but no; the bill is a watered down imitation of the Conservative plan the Liberals voted against time after time. They ridiculed it, then they quietly copied it when Canadians demanded action. They are trying to clean up their own mess with a mop made of Liberal spin.

Let us remember how we got here. Bill C-75, the Liberal law that enshrined the so-called principle of restraint, told judges to release first and ask questions later. Then there is Bill C-5, the law that scrapped mandatory minimums for gun crimes and sexual offences and brought back house arrest for criminals who should be behind bars.

This has meant that convicted sexual offenders have served sentences in their own living room, that a child pornographer in British Columbia got an 18-month house arrest, and that a man who tried to pay for sex with a 15-year-old girl received a three-month term house arrest because a longer sentence might have delayed his citizenship. In 2022, nearly one-third of homicides were committed by people already out on some form of release, whether bail, probation or house arrest.

If that does not bring the Liberals and the administration of justice into disrepute, I do not know what does.

What do the Liberals do now? They bring in Bill C-14, a timid half measure that tinkers around the edges. Yes, it would narrow the principle of restraint and expand reverse onus provisions, which are steps Conservatives have been demanding for years. However, it would not repeal Bill C-75 or Bill C-5, the twin pillars of the government's soft-on-crime experiment.

The bill would not restore mandatory minimums for gun offences, sex offences and repeat violent crimes. It would not create true presumption of detention for dangerous offenders, and it would still tell judges to impose the least onerous conditions possible when granting bail. Tell that to the family of Bailey McCourt and to the children of Savannah Kulla.

Here is the core of the problem. Conservatives believe in due process and the presumption of innocence, but due process does not mean a revolving door. If an accused person can be released, that is fine. However, we must give judges the power to impose strict bail conditions when necessary.

Strict bail is fair, it is safe and it saves money compared to unnecessary incarceration, but the government's ideology ties judges' hands. It says to either grant bail on the easiest terms imaginable or deny it entirely. That is absurd. Half-baked legislation creates half-safe communities.

Conservatives are not asking for a right turn; we are demanding a U-turn. We are all on the Liberal bus, careening down a dangerous road. The provinces are shouting, the police are shouting and Canadians are shouting, “Turn around.” The Liberals just smile, tap the brakes and pretend they have changed direction, while the cliffs keep coming closer. Conservatives will not sit silently in the back seat while the government drives safety over the edge.

The government loves to say it is investing in safety, but the Minister of Public Safety says he is not responsible for hiring RCMP or CBSA officers. If he is not responsible, then who is? Is it the tooth fairy? Canadians deserve a government that takes responsibility, not one that points fingers and shrugs.

Yes, Conservatives will work to strengthen Bill C-14 as much as we can. We will push for real reforms, not window dressing. We will demand that Liberal bail be scrapped once and for all. However, let me be crystal clear: Until the Liberals make public safety their top priority, until they put victims ahead of violent repeat offenders and until they make justice mean something again, Canadians will not be safe.

Liberal leniency has become Liberal lawlessness, and the only way to stop it, the only way to make our streets safe again, is with a Conservative government that believes in law, order and accountability. This is not about politics; it is about every parent who does not feel safe walking their child to school, every woman afraid to take the bus at night and every senior locking their door in broad daylight because they no longer recognize their neighbourhood.

Canadians deserve better, victims deserve better and Conservatives will never stop fighting for them. It is time to scrap Liberal bail, restore common sense and make Canada safe again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the previous speaker's making reference to the fact that the bill needs to go to committee. Even the member opposite, although he has lots of concerns about the bill from his perspective, appears to be saying that in principle he is supportive of it.

The Prime Minister, as an election platform promise, established bringing in substantial bail reform to Canadians. That is what Bill C-14 is all about. There has been a great deal of effort and a phenomenal amount of support from all the different stakeholders behind Bill C-14. As I am sure the member will agree, our constituents want bail reform. I want it, the Prime Minister wants it, and every Liberal MP wants it.

The Conservatives are going to make their determination. Would the member agree that we should pass the legislation before the end of the year?

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

Mr. Speaker, we support measures within the bill and will want to bring in other motions and amendments when it goes to committee. That is essential because, as it is, it is very watered down.

Conservatives believe that public safety is paramount. We believe the principle of restraint must be repealed and replaced by a public safety primacy clause and that mandatory minimums must be restored for firearms and sexual offences, as well as repeat violent offences, because we do not see that. House arrest must be barred for robbery, trafficking and violent crimes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague earlier. He was talking about the ideology of the Liberals, who have unleashed fear in our streets. Those are my colleague's words.

I think we need to be careful with ideology. If we engage in alarmist rhetoric, we could needlessly elicit fear in people and end up with laws ill-suited to the public's needs. Sometimes I get the impression that my Conservative colleagues' assertions in this regard are a bit far-fetched.

I have one fairly simple question for my colleague. The bill contains an item that is problematic for us: the reverse onus. In some cases, the reverse onus would even apply to auto theft under the bill.

Does auto theft really require a reverse onus for pre-trial custody or remand? I think not.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am no judge, but I certainly know that there is an unbelievable number of car thefts. We see it at the ports. Cars leave from the port of Montreal and other ports and go straight to Africa. What is happening? Not much is happening. The situation remains unchanged

As Conservatives, we believe that legal principles and control measures are needed to put an end to all this. That is not happening right now under the justice system that the Liberals have set up. Crime is rising at an alarming rate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. It is important that we make a commitment to pass the legislation before the end of the year.

Again, I would ask the member to provide his thoughts. Does he believe his constituents would like to see the bail reform law in place before the end of the year?

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

Mr. Speaker, they would like to see changes in our communities. Despite all of these measures, I am not convinced of how much change there is going to be. Yes, there is going to be some. We need a lot more teeth because we have had 10 years of chaos and crime on our streets under the Liberal government. The government has had somewhat of a deathbed conversion, but I have to question its sincerity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Employment.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Brooklin.

I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which is a landmark piece of legislation that responds to the urgent call for safer communities and a justice system that reflects the seriousness of violent and repeat offending.

For too long, Canadians have been frustrated as individuals charged with serious crimes are released on bail only to reoffend. They have seen sentences that fail to match the seriousness of such offences as home invasion, human trafficking and violent assault. Bill C-14 changes that. It delivers over 80 targeted amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act, making bail harder to get for repeat and violent offenders and ensuring that sentences are tougher and more consistent with public expectations.

The first pillar of the bill addresses a weakness in our justice system: bail provisions that have not kept pace with the realities of violent crime and organized criminal activity. Bill C-14 makes it clear that the principle of restraint does not mean automatic release. Courts would now have explicit direction that detention is justified when public safety is at risk. We are also clarifying the ladder principle, ensuring that it would not apply to offences subject to a reverse onus.

In plain terms, for certain serious crimes, the accused would have to demonstrate why they should be granted bail. The legislation introduces new reverse onus provisions for some of the most dangerous offences threatening our communities today: organized auto theft, break and enter of a home, human trafficking and smuggling, sexual assault and violent extortion. For repeat offenders, the reverse onus will apply between conviction and sentencing, closing a loophole that has allowed individuals to reoffend while awaiting judgment.

Bill C-14 would also strengthen the grounds for detention, requiring courts to consider the number and seriousness of outstanding charges when deciding whether release would undermine confidence in the justice system. This is about restoring public trust and ensuring that those who pose the greatest risk are not back on our streets. Moreover, the bill would direct courts to scrutinize bail plans more rigorously, ensuring they are credible and enforceable. It expands conditions of release, including weapons prohibitions for those accused of extortion and organized crime offences, and it encourages stricter conditions, such as curfews and geographic restrictions, for high-risk offences.

These changes respond directly to what Canadians have been asking for: a bail system that prioritizes public safety and victim protection.

The second pillar of Bill C-14 ensures that sentencing reflects the seriousness of the offence and strengthens deterrence. Canadians expect that those who commit violent crimes will face real consequences. The bill delivers on that expectation.

First, it introduces new aggravating factors for sentencing, including offences committed against first responders, repeat violent offenders with prior convictions within five years, organized retail theft and crimes interfering with essential infrastructure, such as copper theft.

Second, Bill C-14 would allow for consecutive sentences in cases as the combination of offences demands. For example, a sentence for extortion must be served consecutively to a sentence for arson; a sentence for violent or organized crime-related auto theft must be consecutive to a sentence for breaking and entering of a home. Judges would also be required to consider imposing consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders, ensuring accountability for those who repeatedly harm our communities.

The bill clarifies sentencing objectives, directing courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence for second and subsequent convictions for violent offences, auto theft, break and enter, and organized crime-related offences. This is a clear message that serious crimes deserve serious consequences.

Other important reforms include increasing the maximum penalty for contempt of court; ending house arrest for serious sexual offences, including those against children; reinstating mandatory driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm; modernizing enforcement of federal fines by allowing provinces to suspend licences until payment is made. These measures would strengthen the integrity of our justice system and protect Canadians from those who repeatedly disregard the law.

Furthermore, we are strengthening the Youth Criminal Justice Act by expanding the availability of custodial sentences. Under these reforms, offences that cause bodily harm would now be clearly recognized as violent offences, ensuring greater accountability for serious crimes and better protection for communities.

Crime rates have risen over the past few years, with notable increases in homicides, sexual assaults, extortion and violent firearms offences. Offenders with multiple prior convictions remain far more likely to reoffend, and they often do so while on bail.

Extortion is a major concern in my riding, and this legislation cracks down on extortion by making bail harder to get and sentences tougher, as well as by ensuring that those who use fear and intimidation face real consequences. It would do so in two ways: by tightening bail laws and by strengthening sentencing for extortion-related offences. The bill would also require consecutive sentences for extortion and arson, ensuring offenders serve one sentence after another rather than all at once.

Communities across Canada have demanded action, and Bill C-14 answers that call. The legislation is not about slogans or political theatre. It is about real, enforceable tools that courts, police and prosecutors can use to keep Canadians safe. It is about restoring confidence in a justice system that too often feels disconnected from the realities of crime in our neighbourhoods.

Bill C-14 was built through collaboration with provinces, territories, law enforcement and victims' advocates. It is charter-compliant and legally sound. It would close loopholes, strengthen accountability and ensure that public safety is paramount.

Canadians deserve a justice system that protects them, not one that leaves them vulnerable to repeat and violent offenders. Bill C-14 delivers that protection. It would make bail harder to get for those who pose the greatest risk, and it would ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-14 and move it forward without delay. Every Canadian deserves to feel safe in their home, in their community and in their daily life.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 still allows serious offenders, such as those who commit robbery, trafficking and firearms-related crimes, to use the option of house arrest.

I know, and the member opposite knows, that communities are struggling with ongoing extortion demands and killings in the community. How would he justify the continuing loopholes in Bill C-14?