Debates of Oct. 30th, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. Yesterday, the shadow critic was here, and there was a wonderful experience of just watching and listening and of a sense of co-operation. I then posed a question of the shadow critic. In his response, he was open-minded in terms of potentially even seeing the bill become law before the end of the year, and that was encouraging.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss the government's proposed changes to bail and sentencing in Bill C-14. In order to better understand the bill, we need to reflect on how we made it to this point, because while the Liberals are now acknowledging that bail reform is needed, they are hoping Canadians will forget that they have been in power for a decade and introduced the legislation that severely jeopardized the safety of Canadians.

Before I go on, I want to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

For years now, Canadian families, communities and neighbourhoods have witnessed the catch-and-release crime wave that has swept across our nation. The Liberals talk about the need for judicial independence, yet with Bill C-75, they took what used to be a judge's decision on granting bail, after weighing and considering previous case law, and put their thumb on the scale by codifying the principle of least restraint, which directs courts and police to release accused persons “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

For six years, the Liberals have told Canadians that they have not ruined the bail system and are not responsible for catch-and-release policies that have led to a spike in crime. Let us look at some stats from when they have been in power. From 2015 to 2023, auto theft went up 45%, extortion went up 357% and gang-related homicides went up 78%. Cars are being stolen from people's driveways while they sleep. Violent home break-ins have become so bad that police issue warnings for families to leave their keys at the door in the hopes that home invaders would not come further into the house and endanger the people living there. Mr. Speaker, talk about creating a new norm, not only of fear but of helplessness, as Canadians feel that they are left to fend for themselves.

To make matters worse, the Liberals added Bill C-5, which allowed for repermitting conditional sentence orders or house arrest for serious offences, including sexual assault. In many cases, this allows violent abusers back into the homes and communities of the people they are a danger to. It also allows for kidnappers, human traffickers and people who abduct children under 14 to be given house arrest. Letting a violent abuser back into the very home of the people they are a danger to is not compassionate, despite what the Liberals have claimed over the last several years.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister said that letting violent sexual assault abusers off on house arrest was wrong and that they intended to fix it. It took three years for the Liberal government to figure out that letting people convicted of sexual assault serve house arrest was a bad thing. No intimate partner, family or community should have to live in fear that someone who commits sexual assault could be given house arrest. While the Liberals have continued to put the rights of violent criminals ahead of those of victims, Conservatives believe in putting the rights and protections of victims first.

Members opposite me from the Liberal benches will now say that they are bringing forward positive changes and that Canadians should be satisfied. They will say that repealing the principle of restraint in Bill C-75 would not solve the problem since there is precedent set by court rulings, but what they fail to own up to is that they are the ones who created the precedent in the first place.

In Bill C-14, the Liberals are proposing a change to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release. Why would the government need to clarify that its legislation does not require violent offenders to be released unless it currently does just that? Having said that, I note that this clarification does not repeal the “least onerous conditions” set out in the Liberals' catch-and-release bail laws; rather, it still provides a pathway to release and remains the directive that is to be applied.

Let us be clear: Conservatives have been advocating for changes to the broken Liberal bail system. We have advocated for tools our judges can use to keep repeat violent offenders off the streets. We have advocated for changes so that the brave men and women who serve as first responders and police officers do not have to arrest the same repeat violent offenders over and over again.

While Bill C-14 does provide for outcomes that would prevent the overly broad catch-and-release policies that allow for repeat violent offenders to be withheld, it falls short of an actual repeal of the policy that made it possible in the first place.

For years now, together with my colleagues, I have stood in this place and shared the stories of what is happening in our communities and of the victims of the Liberals' soft-on-crime approach. Their broken bail system started six years ago. It has taken six years and too many devastating accounts for the Liberals to finally act and put forward any changes that would reverse course on their disastrous bail legislation. What is the excuse for not acting sooner?

Members should make no mistake: Conservatives have been right on this all along. We have never lost sight of the victims of violent crime or those who protect our communities.

Our first responders and police officers put their lives at risk every single day to keep us safe. Firefighters do not need to risk their lives putting out yet another fire caused by arson that is tied to an extortion investigation. Nor do our police officers, when they have to arrest the same violent offenders who are out on bail dozens of times over. Nor do our nurses and doctors, when they work to treat the sick and wounded but have been victims of violent assaults in the hospitals they work in.

To add insult to injury, the Liberals repealed mandatory minimum sentences on violent firearm offences, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and importing illegal firearms. How does it make our communities safer when we know that the people who commit offences like these do not have to serve a mandatory prison sentence? It does not.

If we remove the mandatory punishment for committing a crime, we watch the incidents of that crime increase. If we direct judges to grant the least onerous conditions for bail, which lets criminals out the same day they committed a violent crime, and we watch them continue to commit violent crimes.

That is why Conservatives put Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, before the House. While the Liberals have signalled that they will not support the bill, it is an opportunity to take action that would protect victims.

Bill C-14 was inspired by the measures put forward by Conservatives in calling on the government to change course on its disastrous bail policies. However, it is still a half measure that, after three years, refuses to acknowledge the pain caused by allowing sexual offenders to be given House arrest, while claiming to be standing up for the victims of the Liberals' own policy.

Even though the Liberals have proposed that violent sexual offenders will no longer be eligible for house arrest, they are also proposing, with the bill, that kidnappers and human traffickers will remain eligible for house arrest.

Conservatives have pushed, and will continue to push, for legislation that cracks down on crime rather than encouraging it. We disagree with the Liberal government's decision to keep the directive for judges to release offenders on the least onerous conditions, and we will seek to ensure, through amendments, that kidnappers, human traffickers and those who abduct children under 14 do not get to serve house arrest in the communities they are a danger to.

I look forward to hearing the testimony that will be provided at committee once the bill is sent there. I welcome the members opposite to ensure that they will be doing the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail reform legislation.

For a couple of days, we have been debating the bail reform legislation. We want to be very crystal clear on this particular point. At the end of the day, we have an opportunity to have bail reform legislation, which is supported in every region of the country and, most importantly, is in high demand among Canadians. We could have the legislation in law before the end of the year, passing through the different stages.

The only thing that could prevent this is the Conservative Party. Will the member provide her personal thoughts on seeing the legislation pass?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals desperately want to avoid accountability for creating the issues their disaster bail system, through catch-and-release legislation like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, has created. While they are now telling Canadians that reforms are needed and we need to get this done quickly, it took them six years to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require a release. If Bill C-75 had not let violent repeat offenders out on bail, they would not have needed to clarify it.

Conservatives want solutions, and we will work to strengthen this bill to address the areas where it falls short.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying a motion that I moved because I was worried and wanted to know whether the justice system is currently responding to the concerns of victims and survivors of violence.

In particular, I proposed a study to review section 810 of the Criminal Code. Working with the Conservatives, we finally managed to get another study added to the agenda on bail and sentencing. My colleague and I worked together on this study that is now before the committee. That said, I want to talk to my colleague about another matter.

The Bloc Québécois does indeed want to study this issue in committee. As I said, we recently introduced a motion in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Yesterday, the witnesses all told us about the criminalization of coercive control, a subject that is even more important than what we are discussing today. Survivors and victims are calling for this. What does my colleague think about that?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my response to the member opposite, we are committed to looking for solutions that will ensure violent criminals remain in jail and that they are not prematurely released back into the community to cause more crime.

This bill falls short on a number of issues. The principle of restraint, which I have spoken about, remains in place. This keeps the culture of release in place, even though tragic cases like Bailey McCourt's illustrate the very real costs of releasing known violent offenders back into the community.

I look forward to the interventions that will be made on this bill at the justice committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's response to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader about trying to make this bill better.

You said it best when you said the government has had six-plus years to get this right. The election is almost seven months removed. Why do you think the government left out such substantive pieces of reform, particularly in the areas of sentencing and bail reform? Why did it purposely leave out significant details when our opposition party has been giving it suggestion after suggestion for the last seven months?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

As a reminder, all questions must go through the Chair.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this tends to be the modus operandi of the current government. It introduces legislation that is deeply flawed and does not address the problems for which it is supposed to be a solution.

These policy choices of the Liberal government created the chaos we have on our streets, weakened deterrence and supercharged catch and release. If the Liberals were truly serious about addressing the issues brought forward by Conservatives and Canadians, they would have included those things in Bill C-14.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, drugs, stolen vehicles and church burnings are all things that have risen under the Liberal government since it came into power over 10 years ago. If we listen to the Liberals, they say Canadians have never had it so good and that crime is at historic lows.

We could make a graph of crime. The interesting thing about graphs is the time scale. If we look at it over the last 100 years, yes, crime is now at an average rate and lower than it was 100 years ago. However, the population of Canada was completely different then. It was much smaller. With respect to the sample size of crime per capita, which is how it is referenced most of the time, if we change the denominator by a factor of millions, it changes the rate significantly.

If we were to take a time scale of the last 30 years, it would be a very interesting graph to look at. There was a declining rate, which stabilized in the nineties. In the late to mid-2000s, it started declining again, and it declined rapidly for a period of time leading up to 2015. From 2013 to 2015, the rate on that graph dropped dramatically. Interestingly, there was a complete reversal. We could have expected it to flatten or something like that, but it did not flatten; it turned around immediately. Something very interesting happened in 2015. The Liberals got elected to power in this country. Since then, that incline took off and has continued to climb.

Let us go back to the 100-year average. Again, the time scale matters. We are back to an average, so when the Liberals say that, I am not here to dispute it with them. However, I would say that in a rolling average of five years, we are way past that. Those are the statistics. We know what they say about statistics.

The reality on the ground is that people feel it. People know this. They understand this. The police in Toronto are telling people to leave their keys near the door so that if somebody comes to steal their vehicle, at least they will find their keys quickly and not disturb the rest of their house. This stuff is happening in our country. We do it.

We hear from the Liberals all the time that “jail, not bail” is just words and not actions. It means something. People understand what it means. I acknowledge that Bill C-14 came from the last election. It came out of the campaign we fought for, with jail, not bail. Those are our words, but they mean something. They give a political will to what we would do if we were in power.

I referenced earlier today that in Vancouver, 43 individuals caused 1,100 police interactions in one year. Many of them were out on bail. We have one case after another of violent crimes committed by people who are out on bail, often for the second or third time.

The members of the RCMP in my constituency, who do very good work, are completely frustrated. They work very hard to build a case and get a conviction. They arrest somebody, and within four hours, these people are back on the streets. In one case that was brought to me, there were something like 72 charges by the time the guy got to the first court date. He had been arrested three times and charged with multiple offences each time he was arrested, just to be let out again.

The most interesting story I have heard is probably the one from Westlock a number of years back. It was not covered in the news, so I do not know if it is true or not. A spike belt, which is used to stop fleeing vehicles, was used three times inside of 48 hours, and the police used it on the same person. They were pursuing a stolen vehicle, they used a spike belt and they arrested the person in the stolen vehicle. She got out on bail and immediately stole another vehicle. The police used the spike belt on that one, arrested her again and put her in jail overnight. The next morning, she was out on bail and, again, she stole a vehicle and the police pursued her and used a spike belt.

This was a number of years ago. I point that out because it seems that stolen vehicles no longer rise to a certain level. The police do not have the resources to even pursue them. It just does not happen anymore where I come from, because it is such a common occurrence, and it is occurring all across the country.

One of the things that I find interesting is that, for as long as I have been a member of Parliament, vehicle theft has been quite a problem in northern Alberta. I do not think the trend has changed. I think it has held steady, but what has changed is that folks living in the big cities are now experiencing vehicle theft carte blanche.

Now, after the Liberals have caused all of these problems, they suddenly want to talk about bail reform. I would say the reason they want to talk about it is that we have made the case that the bail system is broken in Canada, but we are not asking for reform. We are asking for Liberal bail to be repealed. We do not like the Liberal bail system. We think the Liberal bail system sucks and it should be repealed entirely. We have put forward our vision for what bail ought to look like.

Most people think the Canadian bail system does something it does not do at all. People watch movies all the time and they hear about how someone made bail. Their family or friends had to scrape together $10,000 to get them out of jail. That does not happen in Canada. People are not putting up money to get bail. They are being released with a promise to pay. Sometimes it is $1,000 and sometimes it is less. By the third time they get out on bail, they may have forfeited $2,000, but they have not forfeited any actual cash. These were forfeitures of promises to pay. They were forfeitures of IOU notes, essentially. We need to have bail that works in this country.

I do not know where the Speaker was last week. I was sitting at committee when my phone made a very loud noise. I thought I had my phone on silent, so I was quite embarrassed by it. All of a sudden, I noticed that my phone was not the only phone making a lot of noise. Everybody's phone was making a lot of noise, and it was an Amber Alert. Subsequently, I found out that the Amber Alert had been issued because somebody had abducted a child, and that person was out on bail. We had already arrested this person for another crime and let them back out on bail, and now they were committing another crime. It interrupted our meeting, so I got to hear about that one in particular. That is very tangible for this place. I hope it will have an impact on my colleagues on the other side.

Bill C-14 is an admission by the Liberals that the bail system is broken in this country. It is an admission that our slogan of “jail, not bail” for repeat offenders worked when we brought it to the Canadian public. They are stealing our homework again, and I am happy about that, but I wish they would go the whole way by repealing Liberal bail and bringing in a bail system that works in its entirety.

I have lots to say on this. I spoke extensively on Bill C-75. I was asked to be a witness at the Senate committee meeting on Bill C-75. I had lots to say about that. I would love to have a long chat about consecutive sentencing and how this bill also touches on that, and I am hopeful that the Liberals will ask me about it in the questions that follow.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member based the premise of his speech on auto theft in the province of Ontario, which I assume is the province he was referring to. In 2007, Manitoba's automobile theft rate was the highest in the country, virtually three times as high as in Ontario. I do not need to tell the member that it was the Conservatives in government in Ottawa then, but that is a secondary issue. The primary issue is who resolved it. It was the provincial government, working with MPI and Winnipeg law enforcement officers. That is what resolved the issue.

Would the member not agree that, at the end of the day, this is a shared responsibility? We have done our job in working with stakeholders and presenting this legislation. Would he like to see it pass before the end of the year?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member listened to my speech. The whole first part of my speech outlined the graph of crime in Canada and how there is a distinct V in the crime statistics. I understand that correlation is not always causation, but it corresponds with when the Liberals came to power.

On consecutive sentencing, when the Liberals brought in Bill C-75 and got rid of consecutive sentencing, the member for Winnipeg North argued extensively that consecutive sentencing was against the charter and was cruel and unusual punishment. Today, he is defending a bill that would reinstate consecutive sentencing.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are especially concerned about human trafficking. We are all on the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.

Bill C‑14 contains a provision to establish a reverse onus, particularly for some offences related to human trafficking or human smuggling.

Will this new provision really bring about significant changes to deal with this scourge, which may need to be addressed in a much broader manner?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Shefford for her great work on the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.

One of the reasons I ended up at the Senate committee hearings on Bill C-75 was that I was in the role of the all-party co-chair. I was there with Senator Christmas at the time, who was the other co-chair back then. We pointed out that Bill C-75 not only ended consecutive sentencing for human traffickers, who in many cases traffic many victims, but also allowed for house arrest for human traffickers. Human traffickers are often operating from their house. Putting them back in the same environment where they operated from is totally ludicrous.

While we appreciate the acknowledgement that the Liberals have failed with the introduction of Bill C-75 and that there is a need for repealing Liberal bail, there are many other things we need to do.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would still allow serious offenders, including those guilty of robbery, trafficking and firearms-related crimes, to serve time at home under house arrest. This is a loophole in the bill.

Can the hon. member tell us why the government left this loophole in Bill C-14?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these are things we have been pointing out for a very long time. I do not know why the Liberals left in these loopholes, other than they do not want a wholesale change to our justice system. On the one hand, they want to say this is a new government doing new things, but on the other hand, they always have a niggle in the back of their minds that since these are the laws they brought in, they cannot wholesale admit that the whole system is not working, because they engineered it only 10 years ago.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Guelph.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. This bill would amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act to improve public safety, strengthen accountability for repeat violent offences and serious property crime, and modernize procedures that affect victims, police and the courts.

Across the country, Canadians are calling for a justice system that better protects communities, supports victims and holds repeat and violent offenders accountable. That is why our government is acting through our three-pillar approach to strengthen public safety and confidence in the justice system. Pillar one is about strengthening our legal frameworks, including the bail and sentencing reform legislation we are talking about today. Pillar two is about increasing the capacity and resourcing on our front lines by adding 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officers and, importantly, by creating the financial crimes agency to pursue complex, financial and organized criminal offences so we can follow the money. Pillar three is about supporting a continuum of care through social and mental health supports, addiction services and supportive housing and by working with local organizations that provide prevention, outreach and rehabilitation programs to help people avoid entering or re-entering the criminal justice system. Strong laws, strong enforcement and strong community supports are what are needed to tackle both the causes and consequences of crime.

The bill we are debating today would strengthen Canada's justice system by ensuring that repeat and violent offenders face greater accountability and would make it harder for individuals with serious or repeated charges to receive bail. It would also tighten sentencing for organized and repeat property crime and would prioritize community safety while maintaining fairness and rehabilitation.

While Bill C-14 would make 80 amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act, I want to focus on a few key areas that are highly relevant to my constituents in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. They include creating tougher bail conditions, with judges having to consider both the number and the seriousness of an accused's outstanding charges when deciding when bail is appropriate, making it harder for repeat offenders to be released back into the community. The bill would also create a new reverse onus for break and enters so that the accused would have to demonstrate why they should be granted bail, rather than the current onus, which has the Crown proving why bail should be denied. The bill would also create stronger sentencing for organized property crime. Organized retail crime would be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, and courts would have to prioritize deterrence and denunciation when sentencing for repeat break-ins and property offences. Together, these reforms would target repeat and organized offenders, strengthen deterrence and help increase public confidence in the justice system.

Residents across Canada, including in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, want a justice system that keeps people safe, supports victims and remains fair and efficient. On the Sunshine Coast, and particularly in Sechelt, concerns about crime have become one of the most pressing issues for residents. Recent RCMP reports have shown that violent crime in Sechelt has risen by 26% this quarter, with increases in uttered threats and weapons-related offences. Property crime and break and enters continue to affect families, seniors and small businesses, particularly in certain regions, and these incidents are often the subject of community meetings and local news stories.

I want to acknowledge the understandable frustration when people see the same individuals cycling through the system and not seeing meaningful deterrence or accountability. People deserve to be safe and feel safe in their neighbourhoods and to know that repeat offenders are being held to account. I have personally participated in community meetings and town halls on this matter, and I want to let the community know that I hear these concerns and they are being acted on.

Bill C-14 would directly respond to them by strengthening bail for repeat violent offenders and introducing tougher sentencing for serious and organized property crimes. These reforms would help ensure that those who repeatedly endanger public safety face real consequences while we maintain fairness and rehabilitation where it is due.

The bail and sentencing reform act would strengthen public safety by tightening how bail and release decisions are made. It would clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release when detention is justified. I can tell that this principle has been the subject of a lot of misunderstanding, particularly in this House, but it is important to clarify that this principle of restraint in bail decisions was not created by legislation. It came from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. A previous government codified this principle, but even if it were repealed, it would remain good law because of court decisions that have interpreted the Charter Rights and Freedoms accordingly.

Bill C-14 would provide clarity by ensuring that restraint does not mean automatic release. It would also direct peace officers and judges to tailor release conditions to the actual risks posed by the accused, ensuring detention remains appropriate for repeat, violent or organized offenders. This would strengthen public confidence while maintaining fairness and, importantly, charter compliance.

Reverse-onus provisions would be expanded to cover a broader range of serious offences, including extortion involving violence; breaking and entering a dwelling house; human trafficking; smuggling; alleged choking, suffocation or strangulation; and when an accused faces a serious violent charge with a weapon and has been previously convicted of a similar offence within 10 years. These updates build on reforms introduced last year through Bill C-48, which expanded the reverse onus to include repeat violent offenders using firearms and those charged with serious offences involving weapons. Bill C-14 would extend these provisions to cover serious and organized property crimes and other offences that have caused growing concern in communities in my riding and across the country.

Courts would be required to impose conditions when folks get bail for offences such as break and enters, including geographic restrictions, curfews and prohibitions on break-in tools. For violent and organized crime offences, mandatory prohibitions on firearms and other weapons would apply unless safety considerations make that inappropriate.

To strengthen accountability for repeat offending, judges would also be required to consider both the number and the gravity of an individual's outstanding charges when determining whether detention is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The bill would also expand the circumstances under which release documents can be cancelled and would modernize arrest and review procedures for breaches of bail conditions, ensuring the justice system remains responsive, consistent and focused on protecting public safety.

These changes matter for communities like Sechelt, where residents and small businesses continue to feel the effects of repeat and organized crime. Bill C-14 would help ensure that release decisions reflect real risk and that accountability is built into every stage of the process, giving law enforcement and communities stronger tools to keep people safe.

Bill C-14 would also strengthen sentencing to ensure that penalties reflect the seriousness of repeat and organized crime. It would direct courts to treat as aggravating factors repeat violent offences, crimes against first responders, organized retail theft and fraudulent return schemes, and interference with essential infrastructure. It would also introduce consecutive sentencing for repeat break and enters and violent crime offences, with clear guidance to prioritize deterrence and denunciation for repeat and organized offences.

Conditional sentences would be restricted for sexual assault and other sexual offences, particularly those involving victims under the age of 18. The bill would also restore driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, would increase penalties for contempt and would improve fine-enforcement tools by working with provinces and territories.

Locally, the Sunshine Coast RCMP, the Sunshine Coast Community Services Society and others play key roles in prevention, early intervention and support for victims and vulnerable individuals. Their work very much complements Bill C-14's goal of accountability by addressing the root causes of repeat offending through mental health supports, domestic violence prevention and community policing initiatives.

Bill C-14, importantly, would accomplish all of these measures in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would maintain judicial discretion and focus on the highest-risk patterns that affect our communities, including repeat violence, serious offences with weapons, organized criminal activity, as well as the repeat property crime that undermines community confidence.

In closing, I can tell members that this legislation responds directly to the concerns I have heard in my riding. It would target repeat violence and serious property crime, support first responders and victims, and strengthen confidence in our justice system while remaining fair. However, nothing in this bill will matter unless the work is done in partnership with provinces and territories, including the British Columbia government, to ensure the system is properly funded so it can be administered properly, to ensure there is proper training for all justices of peace and to ensure we have capacity in our jail system. It is critical that the prosecution service in each and every region understands the community interests that are at sake in the decisions being made at bail hearings. Bill C-14 would help give them the tools to do their jobs properly.

I encourage all members of the House to support this important piece of legislation to get to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue; in fact it is one the Conservatives have been sounding the alarm about for many years, urging the government to take action on it.

Would the member acknowledge the failures of previous Liberal bills, notably Bill C-75, which law enforcement officials have said has directly allowed for the catch-and-release bail policies that have necessitated the response from the government in Bill C-14?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that there has been a mischaracterization of what the principle of restraint is, as well as of the impact of the inclusion of it in Bill C-75. As I also mentioned, this is a principle that was well articulated in the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, and it simply was legislated through that legislation.

The Conservatives talk about how the principle of restraint is the source of all issues, any issue we see in the commission of criminal activity across the country, but in getting rid of it, we would still have the principle that is established through the jurisprudence. Through the legislation before us, we would actually be helping to further define the principle so it could be best utilized to ensure the best and proper administration of justice at each level.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill talks about giving “primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence of repeat...offences”, particularly in the case of organized crime. Has my colleague had a chance to look into that?

The Bloc Québécois has proposed measures that we think would be much more effective in addressing organized crime. They include cutting off their financial resources and creating a registry of these criminal organizations. What does my colleague think about that?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill makes good progress in the fight against organized crime. As I said in my speech, we announced the establishment of a new financial crimes agency. We have made a lot of changes to our laws in recent years, we have a new registry for companies, and I know that, if we can work together with the provinces and all members of the House, we will come up with even more ideas to better address this difficult problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member mentioned that the principle of restraint existed long before Bill C-75 and that it is still within our common law as a Supreme Court decision. That is a very important note, because there has been a lot of misunderstanding of the issue.

I would like the member to clarify and get into that a little more, because the opposition Conservatives have announced that they would use the notwithstanding clause to get around the Supreme Court decision.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the principle of restraint was established through the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence in interpreting how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should apply to bail hearings.

We are very committed to making sure we would be passing legislation that is compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There has never been a federal government that has promised to invoke the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively, for legislation. It is a very dangerous idea to go down that road.

It is there to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and it is important that the highest laws of the country are respected. There is a way to do both. There is a way to make sure we are strengthening our criminal justice system while respecting those fundamental rights. I believe that the piece of legislation before us would do exactly that.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to the bail and sentencing reform act, one of the most comprehensive updates to Canada's bail and sentencing laws in decades.

I have the privilege of representing one of Canada's safest communities, with an overall crime severity index that is the sixth-lowest among Canadian cities. It is an improvement from our ranking as eighth-lowest in 2023 and a dramatic improvement from our ranking of 19th-lowest in 2018, but Guelph used to be the safest city in Canada, and we are seeing a concerning rise in some serious crimes.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the people in community organizations that work to prevent crime by addressing root causes and that support victims of crime, and of course Guelph Police Service for its excellent work in our community. It is a collaboration.

People in Guelph and across Canada do not just want an improvement in the statistics; they expect and deserve that their communities should feel safe. They want to be safe. They expect a justice system that protects victims, supports the people on the front lines and holds repeat and violent offenders to account, and I agree with them. People expect all levels of government to take steps to ensure that these things happen. The new government is playing its part.

The bail and sentencing reform act would introduce over 80 clauses of targeted reforms to strengthen both our bail and our sentencing regimes to respond to this reality. This comprehensive and constitutional bail reform is more than a motion or a slogan, and it is not a warmed-over version of failed U.S. policies. It is the result of extensive engagements with the provinces and territories, police, prosecutors, victims' advocates, indigenous partners, and community organizations. Through these discussions, it became clear that one of the most urgent areas for reform was the bail system, particularly for cases involving repeat and violent offenders.

Let us talk about bail reform first. Over the past several years, people in Canada have seen too many tragic headlines about violent crimes committed by individuals who were already out on bail, sometimes with a long history of prior offences. Police, mayors and victims' advocates have all told us that the bail system was not working as it should in these cases.

The bail and sentencing reform act would address these criticisms head-on. In fact, Michael Gendron of the Canadian Police Association has said, “Front-line police have long called for pragmatic reforms to strengthen Canada's bail and sentencing framework. This legislation is an important and timely step to improve public safety and restore confidence in our justice system.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police welcomes the introduction of Bill C-14, calling it “a landmark piece of legislation that strengthens Canada’s response to repeat and violent offenders, organized crime, and threats to public safety.”

Why do we have the support of these police associations and so many mayors and community organizations? First, it is because Bill C-14 would make bail stricter and harder to get for repeat and violent offenders.

The bill would create new reverse onus provisions, meaning it would be up to the accused person to demonstrate why they should be released, and not the other way around. In particular it would create new reverse onus provisions for violent and organized crime-related auto theft; break and enter of a home; trafficking in persons; human smuggling; assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocating or strangulation; and extortion involving violence. This is intended to help ensure that the people who pose the greatest risk to public safety would remain in custody until it is proven they can be safely released.

The bill would offer clarity to police and courts regarding how to apply the principle of restraint. This includes clarifying that the principle would not in fact require release and that an accused person should not be released if their detention is justified, including for the protection and safety of the public.

At the bail stage, courts would be required to consider key risk factors, such as whether the allegations involve random or unprovoked violence, and the number or seriousness of any outstanding charges that the accused has accumulated while on bail. Specifically, courts would need to assess whether releasing the accused person would undermine confidence in the justice system. They would also have to impose weapons prohibitions at bail for people accused of extortion and organized crime, unless this is not required.

Importantly, in reverse onus cases, the accused would have to present a credible and reliable bail plan. Courts would need to closely scrutinize those plans before granting release.

These reforms are about protecting the public and ensuring accountability for those who repeatedly show disregard for the law and the safety of others in a way that balances the charter rights of people accused of a criminal offence. However, making bail is stricter is only part of the solution.

Our sentencing laws also need to reflect the gravity of violent crimes and the harm done to victims and communities. The bill therefore proposes significant sentencing reforms to make penalties tougher for repeat and violent offending, including car theft, extortion and crimes that endanger public safety. For example, the act would require consecutive sentences when violent auto theft is committed with a break and enter, or when extortion is committed with arson. This means that offenders would serve one sentence after another rather than serving them at the same time, which may result in a longer penalty's being imposed.

The bill would also enact new provisions concerning aggravating factors, and I think we can all agree on that. Sentencing would be tougher for crime against first responders, which would be an egregious crime; retail theft, which is growing and concerning; and offences that impact critical infrastructure such as power stations, water systems or communication networks, on which we all depend.

The bill would end house arrest for serious sexual assaults and child sexual offences, ensuring that custodial sentences are served in a secure setting appropriate to the severity of the crime. The bill would restore driving prohibitions for offences like criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, or manslaughter. It would also improve fine enforcement to make sure that penalties are meaningful and are able to be enforced.

As all members know, the criminal justice system in Canada is a shared responsibility. I want to thank the provinces and territories, which have been strong advocates for these reforms. They have shared their on-the-ground experience with repeat violent offending, and they have helped shaped a package of measures that is practical, targeted and grounded in evidence. I look forward to seeing provincial investments in courthouses, detention facilities and mental health services to ease existing backlogs and speed up trials.

The proposed amendments are very focused in nature to clarify areas that have led to litigation and uncertainty and to assist the provinces in administering sentences and making some other technical improvements.

The bail and sentencing reform act is part of a broader modernization of Canada's justice system and action on community safety. Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 would tackle auto theft, money laundering, human trafficking and drug trafficking. We will introduce anti-scam measures in the coming months. We will bring forward further changes to address court delays, strengthen victims' rights and better protect people facing sexual and intimate partner violence, as well as take new steps to keep children safe from horrific crimes. These are all issues that are close to my heart.

Canadians deserve to be safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. They deserve a justice system that protects the innocent, supports victims and holds offenders accountable. The bail and sentencing reform act would deliver on that commitment. lt would balance firmness with fairness, and it would strengthen bail and toughen sentencing.

These changes would underscore that a strong Canada means strong communities and a justice system that works for everyone. They would occur in parallel with investments in upstream prevention of crime, such as in housing, mental health and youth supports, to reduce petty crime and property crime before they happen. We are cracking down on the people who pose the highest risk to community safety, while investing in prevention so fewer people turn to crime in the first place.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work.

We have been hearing a lot about the work done in committee and how important that work is when legislation like Bill C‑14 makes its way there.

Unfortunately, something happened recently with Bill C‑3, which the committee worked on and amended. The bill that came back here was not the same as the original version because we had amended it with Conservative support. However, the Liberal government decided to undo those amendments using House of Commons procedure.

Apparently the government decided not to respect the work done in committee. We are in favour of Bill C‑14, but we want to work on it in committee. We have concerns.

I would like assurances from my colleague today that the committee's work on Bill C‑14 will be respected and that what happened to Bill C‑3 will not happen to Bill C‑14.