Debates of Nov. 18th, 2025

Criminal Code

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

moved that Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce Bill S-228, seconded by the member for Lethbridge. This legislation is identical to amended Bill S-250, which the Senate unanimously endorsed and sent to the House of Commons in October 2024.

Bill S-228 directly confronts the abhorrent and ongoing reality of the forced and coerced sterilization of women, indigenous women and other marginalized individuals in Canada. By making it explicit in the Criminal Code that performing sterilization without consent constitutes aggravated assault under subsection 268(1), we would send a clear message that such acts will not be tolerated in our society.

I want to express my deepest gratitude to Senator Boyer, whose vision and leadership have been instrumental in shaping the bill, along with Senator Wells. Most importantly, I honour the survivors. Some of them are with us in Ottawa today, specifically from the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice. Combined, their courage, resilience and unwavering advocacy have brought this issue to the forefront.

Without their voices and determination, this legislation would not be before us today. Let us allow this opportunity to get the bill passed. Now is the time to act to protect the vulnerable, uphold justice and ensure that such violations never happen again in Canada.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Firearms

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House that comes from firearms owners who are concerned about past legislation and new orders in council in which the government targets law-abiding firearms owners.

The petitioners say that Bill C-21 does nothing to tackle firearms violence, but rather adds red tape to law-abiding Canadians. They also describe how the bill does little to tackle the true source of firearms violence: gangs and organized crime.

The petitioners are calling on the government to repeal Bill C-21 and devote greater resources to police so they can combat the sources of illegal firearms.

Human Rights in India

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about human rights protections in India.

The petition calls upon the House of Commons to formally ensure that all trade deals with India, including the early progress trade agreement, the comprehensive economic partnership agreement and the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, initiate targeted sanctions against extremists guilty of inciting violence against religious minorities in India, and, lastly, promote mutually respectful and mutually beneficial human rights dialogue in Canada and India.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 282, originally tabled on September 15, 2025, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled in an electronic format.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Extortion in Canada

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to inform the House that I have received notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. Leader of the Opposition to rise and make a brief intervention.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, let us say someone mortgaged their house and took risks. They stayed up late wondering how they would pay the bills. Finally, after all that, they have success: a wonderful business with 30 to 50 people that is growing every day. Then suddenly the phone rings, and on the other end of the line, someone is threatening that if they do not pay millions of dollars to a gang, their house will be burned down, their children's bedroom will be shot up in the middle of the night or their employees may be killed. That sounds like an extreme case, but it has now become the norm.

Radical open door and open border policies by the Liberals have allowed gangsters to visit this country and gain visitor visas, which are granted to them without any criminal background checks. Catch-and-release laws passed by the Liberal government under Bill C-5, which lowered the jail sentence for extortion with a gun, have caused an extortion crisis across this country. To put it in perspective, since the Liberal government took office, extortion is up 330%. In British Columbia, it is up 400%. In the Lower Mainland, it is up 500%. Countless families have received threatening phone calls.

Just the other day, I met with the sons of a lifelong successful businessman who was mercilessly killed by gangsters without any provocation. People are living in terror in places like Surrey, northeast Calgary, parts of Edmonton, Brampton, Windsor and elsewhere. Over the weekend, I attended events at numerous businesses where literally dozens of people told me they have personally received threatening phone calls. They lie awake at night wondering if a bullet will fly through their children's front window or if they will be gunned down when they walk out the door.

This crisis was entirely avoidable, but Liberal policies have provoked it. The Liberals have released extortionists onto the streets with lower prison sentences. They have brought foreign gangsters and criminals to our shores by granting visitor visas and opening up our country to terror. After much pressure from Conservatives, they finally agreed to ban the Bishnoi group, but it was too late. They let the Bishnoi gangsters into this country in the first place because they do not protect our borders, and their radical policies on immigration have endangered many of the very people who came here lawfully and legitimately.

If we look at these facts and look at the numbers, we have no choice but to conclude that we have a Liberal extortion emergency in this country. People are living in terror, and it is a shame that the Liberals have allowed this crisis to form and grow. It is a shame that the very communities that have vested support in the Liberal Party are now the ones paying the biggest price for the violence and carnage that Liberal policies have unleashed.

We as Conservatives will state clearly that extortion is a crisis after 10 years of the Liberals. We need an emergency debate to address this extortion crisis, and we must enact a serious plan to end extortion so Canadian small business owners can go back to living their lives, creating jobs, serving customers and making life affordable again for this country.

Our plan is very clear. We need mandatory jail time to lock extortionists up and throw away the key; stronger borders to keep and kick extortionists out of our country; and a clear self-defence law so that people can protect themselves in their homes when invaded by extortionists or other burglars.

This is an emergency. We have the answer. Let us restore safety, tranquility and peace to our streets.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his intervention. However, I am not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

The House resumed from November 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-14, which is quite a substantial bill with a relatively broad scope. It is clear that this is something that the House has been very interested in. Several private members' bills have been introduced that deal directly or indirectly with the same subject as Bill C‑14. I expect that this will open the door to some very interesting debate, if not in the House, then at least in committee.

According to the minister, Bill C‑14 seeks to tighten bail rules. It also affects other aspects of the Criminal Code and even the Youth Criminal Justice Act, or YCJA. I will not get into all of the details because there is a lot of material in there, but I do want to go over a few aspects of the bill. Before I do that, however, I just want to give a little background on the situation.

Contrary to popular belief, we know that the number of inmates awaiting trial has never been higher. Considering how many bail reform bills that have been tabled, a lot of people seem to believe that accused persons are normally released pending trial. However, inmates awaiting trial accounted for 64% of the prison population in 2019-20. By 2022-23, the percentage had gone up to 72%, which is extremely high. This is not a great look for Canada. I believe the only country with a higher percentage is the United States, which is not exactly a good role model, generally speaking. The idea that accused persons are systematically being released is therefore a misperception.

The other factor to consider is that there is no such thing as zero risk of recidivism. We may want to eliminate the possibility of a crime being committed by a person awaiting trial, but the only way to achieve that would be to systematically imprison everyone who is accused of any offence, however minor. This would very likely create other problems, not least of which would be prison overcrowding. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that prisons are often referred to as schools for crime, so increasing the prison population could potentially create more problems than it would solve. All of this must be kept in mind.

It is also important not to give in to the temptation to think that the judges analyzing an accused person's risk of recidivism do not take a whole host of criteria, particularly the person's criminal history, into account when they determine whether the person should be released. The judge analyzes the accused person's record and also looks at the nature of the offences. A great deal of data is taken into consideration by the judges. They have some discretion, and it is not a given that a person will be released so easily. People must not think that judges have no tools for keeping accused persons in custody while awaiting trial. An in-depth analysis of the bill is in order.

I would like to go over some general clauses and provide a few examples of what is in the bill. As a reminder, judicial discretion is generally a central consideration when analyzing the justice system. Members may be tempted to systematically tell judges what they should do and to tie their hands, but that could lead to situations that would simply not make sense, situations where judges would be forced to do things they do not want to do, just because parliamentarians tried to be more cautious than those on the ground were suggesting.

There is a possibility that some things might conflict with certain provisions in the bill. For example, section 718 of the Criminal Code already sets out how a sentence is determined. It would conflict with one element in the bill, namely consecutive sentencing. For repeat offenders, the bill would require consecutive sentences for offences arising out of the same initial event. That would conflict with the principle set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides that sentencing should have certain objectives, including “to denounce unlawful conduct” but also “to deter the offender” and “to separate offenders from society, where necessary”. Sentencing also seeks “to assist in rehabilitating offenders” and “to provide reparations for harm done”. Lastly, sentencing should “promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or the community”. There are already provisions for analyzing how a sentence should be imposed. Would this bill not override these provisions by systematically imposing consecutive sentences?

There are also clauses dealing with freedom of expression that should be studied in committee, including the one that would make interfering with access to essential infrastructure an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes. In a way, would this not curtail freedom of expression, for example in the event of protests that may be deemed illegal? Certain protests that took place not too far from here come to mind. That could potentially be considered an aggravating circumstance. Do we want to go down that path? That raises some questions.

That being said, we should not throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. Some of the amendments proposed in the bill are interesting, particularly with regard to the YCJA, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. For example, one of the clauses seeks to fill a sort of legal vacuum in the YCJA regarding the length of time a record is kept when a young offender is the subject of an investigation and the investigation is dropped. The courts have attempted to fix this legal vacuum by suggesting record retention periods. A retention period is codified in the bill, but the proposed period may need to be reviewed, because the bill suggests that records should be retained for two years for a young person who is the subject of an investigation that is discontinued, whereas when a young person is convicted of an offence but given an absolute discharge, their record is kept for one year. The bill says that the active record for someone who has been the subject of an investigation that was subsequently dropped should be retained longer than for a young person who has been convicted. There are some minor contradictions like this that will need to be addressed.

One interesting amendment to the YCJA is the codification of the definition of “violent offence”. The bill codifies what was determined by the Supreme Court in 2005. It expands the application of the definition of “violent offence” found in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Act. The emphasis is on the repercussions of the offence on the victim, rather than the legal characterization of the offence. The amendment establishes that the definition of a violent offence is based on whether it caused harm, including psychological harm, rather than on whether the offence involved the use of force, in line with the Supreme Court's rulings in this area. This could be a good amendment. Still, it remains to be seen whether it is actually useful, given that the court has already codified this.

However, the bill has a blind spot with regard to offences involving a firearm. There is a definition of what constitutes a violent offence, which was not defined in the YCJA, but offences involving a firearm are left out altogether. As we know, firearm use is a serious problem among young offenders nowadays. It is extremely difficult for Crown attorneys to get someone committed to custody for an offence involving a firearm. It might be worthwhile to look into this aspect at committee, as it seems to be one of the bill's blind spots.

In light of the section on the YCJA, which adds some valuable elements to the bill, we suggest that the bill be passed at second reading and referred to the committee so that it can be studied in greater depth with a view to making good recommendations while still preserving certain essential criteria, such as judicial discretion. That work will be particularly meaningful.

I would like to take the few seconds that I have left to thank two of my colleagues—they know who they are—for the groundwork they did on Bill C-14. They have already given us some good ideas about what we should be looking at in committee. I want to acknowledge them here, and I will certainly be calling upon them again for additional matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised today by the Conservatives' attempt to bring forward an emergency debate when talking about the issue of extortion. Extortion is actually in Bill C-14, so there is time in which we can see tangible actions being taken in order to deal with important issues like extortion. I appreciate the Bloc's position in seeming to support the bill's at least going to committee.

Does the member believe that it is in the best interest of people who are concerned about extortion to see the legislation go to committee at the very least, so we can hear more about these types of important issues?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's question. However, he may be conflating different issues.

The issue of extortion, as addressed in Bill C-14, is important. However, from what I read, the Conservatives' request for an emergency debate does not specifically target extortion itself; rather, it focuses on the fact that the government is letting people with a known criminal past into the country and that those people are then committing crimes here.

Members may or may not agree with the substance of the Conservatives' request, but I think these are two different issues that need to be looked at separately. We do need specific sanctions for extortion crimes, but we also have to consider the fact that people who may be more likely to commit such crimes are being let into the country.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can both agree that there are at least two key reasons for our Criminal Code and our corrections system. One is the protection of the public, and the other is the hope that these offenders will somehow be rehabilitated in prison. We know, after 10 years of the Liberal government, that the Liberals have failed to protect the public in policies such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, but what is less talked about is their failure to rehabilitate offenders.

I want the member to talk about whether she is aware of the early resignation of the Office of the Correctional Investigator and his concerns that the government has failed to fund programs on mental health in prisons, which are essential to rehabilitating prisoners.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in this question, but I would like to repeat a statistic I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. There are more accused persons awaiting trial in prison today than there were, say, five years ago. During the Liberals' time in office, more accused persons have been kept in prison than in the past, yet the Conservatives are complaining that it is not enough.

However, it is important to remember that keeping offenders in prison comes at a cost and that this is money that is potentially not being invested in rehabilitation programs. Is there a lack of funding for rehabilitation and for mental health programs in halfway homes? Yes, there is. However, several factors are linked to this.

If I had to draw one conclusion, I would say that systematically keeping more people in prison while awaiting trial is not a solution and will not automatically lead to safer streets. We need to be able to work in those gray areas. However, yes, rehabilitation is a key aspect and it is certainly associated with additional funding.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, it is quite problematic that the Liberals tabled the bill with very little data regarding bail, and a huge focus at committee needs to be on making sure that we are moving toward an evidence-based decision-making model regarding bail. I wonder if the member agrees that the federal government must show its leadership by creating a framework for data collection regarding bail.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we should base our decisions much more on data and science than on media hype, which can sometimes be politically slanted, but can also lead to decisions that do not achieve the desired outcome.

Unfortunately, when it comes to releasing accused persons, if we had more data, we could make better decisions. I still think that it is worth sending the bill to committee because it contains some interesting provisions.

Often, when there is complete disagreement on the principle of a bill, it is rejected at the second reading stage. However, since there are elements in this bill that may be of interest, it is worth sending it to committee, but the work done there will have to be based on statistics and science.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise before the House and speak to Bill C-14, an act that seeks to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

Before I get started with my speech, it is really important to talk about the request for emergency debate that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition, brought forward. Extortion is an extremely real issue for people across this country. It is rising, and it is unacceptable. In fact, I just received a message from a constituent that I would like to read into the record. It reads, “Hi.... Not sure if you know what we're living through right now in Spring Meadows Estates.” That is a community just west of Edmonton in my riding. The message continues, “Our neighbour is a victim of this targeted extortion. His house has been shot up twice now in the last three weeks. We live in fear, don't go out after dark, and if we are out and it's turned dark, we are nervous to come home. I can't believe we're living this way.”

I shouldn't have to talk about such things happening in a country like Canada, but this is what my constituents, in what was once a peaceful rural community just outside Edmonton, are telling me is happening to them.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition has been going across the country speaking to business owners about the extortion attacks they are facing in their communities. It is clear that, after 10 years of the Liberal government, the Liberals have failed to tackle the issue of extortion; they have failed to put in the tough penalties needed to protect Canadians.

In 2019, the Liberal government passed Bill C-75, which amended the Criminal Code to codify the so-called principle of restraint. The new legislation directed courts to release accused persons at the earliest opportunity, with the least onerous conditions. The Liberals even doubled down on this failed legislative approach in 2022 by passing Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory minimum sentences and even allowed house arrest for the most serious of sentences. Minimum sentences were repealed for using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with intent to harm and extortion involving a firearm, among other things.

Folks in my area have been reaching out; they are concerned. As I said, a home was shot up twice. I had to read the news article twice because I thought it was the same article, but, in fact, the same property was shot up twice.

However, house arrest is now a consideration for offences including sexual assault, kidnapping, abduction of a person under 14, theft over $5,000 and arson, among other things.

In 2023, Conservatives stood in the House hearing the cries of victims and tried to reverse these nonsensical parts of Bill C-5 through the introduction of legislation from my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, through his private member's bill, Bill C-325. The Liberal government voted it down.

In 2023, the Liberals started to recognize their failure. They were feeling a lot of heat from Conservatives and from Canadians, but they tried to get away with making only the most minor changes to bail rules, the bare minimum changes, with Bill C-48. I must say that this bill was clearly far from sufficient to deal with the problems we are facing in this country. Although the legislation created reverse onus provisions, the scope of those reverse onus provisions were so narrow that they did not apply to the growing number of violent actions that criminals are committing in Canada.

Earlier in this parliamentary session, my Conservative colleague, the member for Oxford, presented Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which was voted against by the same Liberal government.

For years, police have been calling for bail reform. Police and correctional officers have pointed out that there are very important amendments that should be made and very important provisions that should be brought forward in the bill, and they are concerned that they have not been brought forward in the Liberal legislation. However, after 10 years of the government's soft-on-crime legislation, they are desperate to see any action from the government. While Conservatives can support many elements of Bill C-14, we believe there is room for significant improvements with amendments.

I want to talk a bit about the human costs behind some of the numbers we are talking about. We are talking about legislative policies and legalisms that can feel abstract, but there are real victims who are dealing with the consequences of these actions.

In July of this year, a young woman, Bailey McCourt of Kelowna, B.C., was brutally murdered in broad daylight by her estranged partner. She leaves behind two young children and grieving friends and family. For the people who do not know about this case, I will say that it is absolutely shocking. Her estranged partner was abusive. He was charged with assault but was let out on bail. He was then convicted of his violent act, but instead of being sentenced and put behind bars for his violent actions, he was released the very same day to await a hearing.

People who know the story will know that it ends tragically. Mere hours later and only a short distance from the very courthouse where the decision was made, the man proceeded to murder Bailey McCourt and seriously injure a bystander who tried to help. That is unacceptable.

In my riding, a criminal who was on house arrest went to the beach and took a young, five-year-old, girl. Now this person is responsible for the death of that young girl when they should have been on house arrest for breaking and entering with a weapon.

Should these people be allowed to roam freely in our communities? They should not, but that is the state of the law today in Canada, and it is unacceptable. Liberals have really failed when it comes to criminal justice, instead of being tough on the people who are terrorizing our communities.

After the government has finally been gotten through to, after years of failure, Bill C-14 starts to do the important work of scrapping failed Liberal bail policy. However, Conservatives want to emphasize that unless we take strong action on the so-called principle of restraint by putting forward an equally strong if not stronger principle of public and community safety, unless we presume detention when dealing with major and violent offences, we would not be seriously taking action that is going to result in people's being safer in our communities.

While the government is aiming to expand reverse onus for offences such as violent or organized crime, auto theft and human smuggling, among others, we are calling on the Liberals to repeal the principle of restraint and restore strong mandatory minimum sentences. When people talk about minimum sentences, they may think that 10 years, 15 years or 20 years is a bit harsh, yet the Supreme Court of Canada recently made a decision that a one-year mandatory minimum sentence was too much for people who knowingly possessed the most disgusting, most evil images of acts of torture against children, some as young as three years old: child sexual abuse material, formerly known as child pornography.

I think Canadians would look at that and think one year is far too little, yet the party in government is beholden to the opinions of the judicial elite, which is so out of touch with what everyday Canadians see as right and just. We live in a democracy, and it is the people who need to decide.

The people elect us to the House to stand up and put in good laws that protect our communities from people who would traffic in the images of children, people who would shoot up houses in extortion schemes, people who would murder, and people who would traffic firearms illegally. The bill would create uncertain outcomes in the charging of offences. We advocate, as Conservatives, restoring strong sentences for people who commit these serious crimes. We also call for the expansion of the reverse onus for a wider suite of serious crimes.

In summary, after 10 years of the Liberal government and repeated failed legislation, while there may be a glimmer of hope that the government is starting to recognize the errors of its way, we need stronger action today to protect our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member was sincere in his comments about stronger action, the Conservative Party could stop the filibuster on bail reform legislation.

A commitment was made by the Prime Minister to bring in bail reform legislation. This type of legislation deals with the issue of extortion, yet the leader of the Conservative Party stands up today and says he wants an emergency debate on extortion. Does he really? He has the opportunity to instruct his caucus to pass the legislation to committee; then we could actually see some action on extortion.

Why is the Conservative Party refusing to at least send this important legislation to committee?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be lectured by the member or by any members of the Liberal Party who, for 10 years, due to their actions, have failed to protect our communities, because of legislation that has released onto our streets violent criminals who are using firearms to extort our community and who are assaulting women and then murdering them when they are released on bail. I will not take any lessons from the Liberal government, which wasted months and months to bring forward the weak piece of legislation that is before us.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I recently visited a penitentiary in my riding where there is chronic underfunding and overcrowding. I know it is going to be difficult to know what the Liberals are thinking, but maybe the member can comment on whether it is possible that the Liberals' solution is soft-on-crime bail rather than building extensions or new penitentiaries to keep more criminals in jail.