Debates of Nov. 18th, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want to step up the fight against crime. Would my colleague agree that we should crack down on criminal organizations by creating an organized crime registry?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, at this point in time, we have already done a few things that needed to be done, for instance, calling the Bishnoi gang what it was.

It is really important that we understand that, right now, people are facing gunfire and extortion in our neighbourhoods. Canadians need a bill that restores mandatory jail time for gun and sexual offences.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to address an issue that goes to the very heart of Canadians' confidence in their justice system: bail reform. This is not a matter of legal procedure. It is about the safety of our communities, and it is directly tied to the responsibility that we bear as parliamentarians to uphold both justice and fairness.

Across the country, Canadians are seeing the impacts of more sophisticated criminal networks, of repeat violent offenders and of organized crime-driven offences. They are asking us a very simple question: Are we doing enough to keep them safe? That question carries immense weight because when public trust in the justice system erodes, the very fabric of our democracy is weakened.

With the introduction of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, we strengthen this fabric. The bill sets out a clear, responsible path forward, one that protects public safety and upholds the rights enshrined in the charter. The purpose of our bail law is straightforward. It is to ensure that individuals awaiting trial are managed in a way that reduces risk, that supports accountability and that maintains the presumption of innocence.

Let me be clear. The conversation about safety is not theoretical. It is not happening in law school lecture halls or legal symposiums. It is happening in living rooms, in small businesses and in community safety meetings. In Mississauga—Malton, I have heard from families, from workers and from local leaders who see the consequences of repeat violent offending and organized crime first-hand. That is why our response, guided by experts throughout the justice system, introduces stronger and smarter tools for courts to assess risk and impose meaningful conditions.

Let me be clear. We do not abandon restraint. We honour it, but restraint cannot mean complacency. Restraint cannot mean turning a blind eye. Restraint cannot come at the expense of public safety.

We know the stakes. We are not debating abstract principles. We are debating whether a survivor of violence feels safe coming forward, whether a neighbourhood struggling with auto theft sees justice done and whether families feel secure walking home at night, knowing that dangerous repeat offenders are not slipping through the cracks. This legislation recognizes the urgency of that reality.

Firstly, we are expanding the reverse onus provision so that individuals charged with some of the most serious offences, from human trafficking to violent extortion and organized crime-related auto theft, must demonstrate why they should be released. That is a balanced approach, one that puts public safety first while safeguarding constitutional rights.

Secondly, we strengthen bail conditions, ensuring that courts consider real, concrete restrictions, including curfews, geographic limits and prohibitions on weapons or break-in tools.

Thirdly, we give judges more information. We extend the look-back period for prior convictions from five to 10 years, because courts should see the full pattern of behaviour and not just a fragment of it.

We also reinforce the critical principle that Canadians have been championing: that victims and communities deserve to feel safe. Let me say this clearly, because the stakes demand clarity. These reforms are not about abandoning the presumption of innocence. These changes are not designed to punish those who pose no risk at all. They are about ensuring that when someone poses a demonstrable risk, such as a repeat violent offender, a member of a criminal organization or an individual with a pattern of dangerous conduct, our justice system has the tools to respond firmly and responsibly. That balance is a cornerstone of a democratic society where, by protecting rights, we protect people.

Bill C-14 speaks to the kind of country we want to be in, a country where our justice system is not feared but trusted. In my riding, many people work late hours in logistics, transportation, airport services and hospitality. Many are newcomers who walk home at night alone or who rely on public transit at unconventional hours. These are the people who stand to benefit the most from a justice system that takes repeat violent offenders seriously. These are the people to whom I am accountable when I stand in the chamber. Our laws must evolve to respond to the challenges that we face right now.

We must hold close to something else: Justice cannot simply be punitive, because justice without hope is not justice, accountability without rehabilitation is not progress, and punishment without possibility leads to dangerous cycles that we have seen before. We must hold dear the belief that we can make ourselves into better people even after we have wronged, and in fact especially after we have wronged. The justice system should be a part of that rehabilitation.

We need to make sure that the policies we bring forward work in criminal law terms, that they have a positive effect on recidivism and that we are not simply punishing people who should be helped through other channels. We have to keep in mind that in sentencing less-serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective and unduly punitive, and leads people down a path from which they may not return.

We must remain a country that is vigilant about equity. We shamefully know that indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. That is why the implementation of the bill would be accompanied by clear data, careful oversight and continued collaboration with provinces and territories, because safety and fairness are not opposing forces; they are dual pillars of a society committed to justice.

The debate on bail reform is not simply about legislation; it is about the protection of Canadians, the strength of our democracy and the trust people place in their justice system every single day. Our government's reforms strike the right balance: firm where firmness is required, fair where fairness is essential, and grounded in the belief that public safety is inseparable from justice.

I urge all members of the House to support the legislation, stand for safer communities and stand for a justice system worthy of the people we serve, not for political gain but for the families, workers and small business owners in their riding and in all ridings across this country who simply want to feel safe in the place they call home.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend's speech was very eloquent. I know that he has a background in law, and I think a lot of parts of his speech were particularly poignant. He mentioned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I know that some of the things the Conservatives accused the Liberals of doing were actually overturned by the Supreme Court because they were found to be unconstitutional because they lead to some of the things that he said in his speech about the injustices in our justice system.

Does the member believe that Canadians want us to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or should we just use the notwithstanding clause every time there is a political uproar about something?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians hold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms very dear in their hearts. During the election and during periods when the Leader of the Opposition campaigns, he has consistently referred to the “three strikes and you're out” rule. That law would be unconstitutional from the very foundation of where it comes from. It is not the type of law and society Canadians want. They want laws that work synchronously with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it was a very eloquent speech, but the Liberals put a lot of focus on the Charter of Rights, and we have not yet heard one comment about the victims nor the charter rights of the victims.

When we talk about situations that hit home, such as when a repeat offender who molests a 12-year-old boy is released on bail and then sexually assaults a three-year-old girl who has to go to the hospital, and the news is full of these stories, does the member still agree that the Charter of Rights rises above the three-year-old victim's rights or her well-being, or those of the 12-year-old boy who was molested?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question is unfounded, because if my colleague were to listen to my speech and actually read the bill, he would know that we would be strengthening bail laws so bail would be harder to get in a case exactly like the one the member mentioned. If he supports the rights of victims, and the victims whom I have spoken to support the bill, I hope my colleagues from the other side can get on board as well.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, judges lose a lot of independence with this bill. For instance, it imposes pretrial detention for a range of crimes that do not necessarily pose a threat to the public, such as car theft. Just because someone is accused of car theft does not necessarily mean that they are guilty or that they pose a threat to the public.

The Bloc Québécois is not opposed to all reverse onus provisions, like in cases of domestic violence for example, but I would like to hear a little more from my colleague on this subject.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the ultimate responsibility for deciding bail and for deciding what the sentence eventually will be would always lie with the judge; the judge would have that latitude to play with.

When we talk about the reverse onus brought in specifically for auto theft, it is violent auto theft for which the reverse onus would be activated. When we are talking about just auto theft, the principles of justice would be maintained, and bail is actually guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so that principle would always be applied.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we keep referring to the charter, and as somebody who actually thinks Bill C-14 is important because we do need bail reform, I think we need to reflect on the principles of our entire body of law, from the Commonwealth through to Canada. It starts with Blackstone's principle from 1760, which is a hard one to hear right now, but it is foundational. The principle is that it is better that nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be imprisoned.

These are tough choices, and it is not just about the charter.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadian law and the Constitution of Canada are a living tree, so I think it makes sense to look at other jurisdictions and their laws. When we look at the charter, we see that it will always apply to legislation we bring forward, so I suggest that all colleagues support the bill.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-14 on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe.

Every week when I speak with residents across my riding, I hear concerns about how crime is affecting their daily life. People tell me that they no longer feel the same comfort and predictability they once felt in their own neighbourhood. They talk about rising incidents of crime in their community and about a justice system that feels too quick to release the same offenders again and again. People ask why the consequences for serious and repeat violent crimes seem weaker than ever.

These concerns are felt especially in the east end of London, in the community I represent. However, it is no longer just an east London problem. In recent weeks, I have attended town hall meetings alongside colleagues in nearby communities, and I am hearing the same stories and frustrations all around London and beyond. People everywhere are dealing with the same patterns, the same risks and the same reality: Repeat offenders are being pushed through a system that releases them by default.

When we look at Canada-wide data, we see that these concerns reflect a national trend that has been growing for years. Across Canada, we have seen the consequences of a system that defaults to release. We have seen heartbreaking cases where individuals with a long history of violence were released, only to commit another serious offence days or even hours later. Families across the country have endured tragedies that should never have happened.

Community groups, victims' advocates and frontline workers have pleaded for change because they see first-hand what happens when warnings are ignored. These voices deserve to be heard. They deserve a justice system that supports them instead of leaving them to pick up the pieces.

For nearly a decade, Canada's bail and sentencing laws have been shaped by Liberal Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. These bills weakened deterrence, reduced meaningful consequences for serious crimes and told judges to prioritize release. They created a system that made it easier for repeat violent offenders to walk free. Police services across the country have been dealing with the consequences ever since.

When I speak with frontline officers, they describe the same pattern: a number of prolific offenders cycling through the system without meaningful consequences. Officers tell me about the frustration of seeing the same individuals arrested on a Monday, released on the Tuesday and back in custody by the end of the week for another violent offence. This is not a theoretical problem; it is a day-to-day reality for the people tasked with keeping our communities safe, and they are asking Parliament to finally give them a system that works.

In London, the effects are clear. Communities that once felt predictable and safe now report rising incidents of property damage, violent behaviour and threatening encounters. Residents describe feeling uneasy on evening walks that used to feel routine. Families talk about being more cautious about where their children go after school. People who finish work late tell me they feel anxious waiting for transit or walking through parking lots. Neighbours who once left their doors unlocked now obsessively check them throughout the day.

These experiences are real, and they weigh heavily on people who simply want to feel safe in their own community. London's chief of police has spoken clearly about this. He has said that the current system is broken and that violent repeat crime is a symptom of a much larger problem in our justice system. He has stressed that communities are being put at risk when individuals with serious histories are released without meaningful safeguards and that Londoners are paying the price for decisions that fail to account for real patterns of violent behaviour.

The chief of police has called for urgent bail reform and tougher penalties for people who commit serious violent offences, making it clear that the status quo is failing the very people it is supposed to protect. He has insisted that it is time to move toward a jail not bail approach that reflects the reality officers and communities are facing every single day.

The warnings did not begin this year; they have been raised constantly by police chiefs, frontline officers, survivors of crime, mayors and community leaders. For 10 years, my Conservative colleagues have been raising these same concerns in the House, calling for stronger bail reform, while the Liberals ignored everyone sounding the alarm.

Now, with Bill C-14, the government is finally acknowledging that the system it created through legislation like Bill C-75 has failed. The bill would introduce a few measures that move in the right direction: It would expand some reverse onus rules, add new aggravating factors and make limited adjustments to sentencing.

Police services appreciate any help they can get, but these steps alone do not solve the underlying problems. The core issues remain untouched. Bill C-14 does not repeal the principle of restraint introduced in Bill C-75. That principle directs judges that if they choose to release someone, they must impose the least strict conditions possible. The instruction sits at the heart of the entire catch-and-release system. It remains embedded in the culture of bail decisions across Canada, and it continues to shape outcomes in a way that leaves communities exposed to unnecessary risk.

Bill C-14 says restraint does not guarantee release, but it leaves the same framework in place. It keeps public safety as an afterthought, rather than the starting point. It does not create a true presumption of detention for violent or repeat offenders. It does not restore mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent crimes. It does not require judges to treat a long record of violence as the serious risk it is. It does not address the concerns raised by police services, including those raised in London, that the system continues to function as an open door for offenders who pose real danger.

This is exactly why Conservatives have put forward a practical solution through our jail, not bail plan, a plan built to close that open door and put public safety back at the centre of bail decisions. Under this plan, violent offenders face a presumption of detention instead of release. People who reportedly break conditions do not get an endless sequence of chances. Serious crimes like sexual offences, robbery, human trafficking, kidnapping, arson and major firearms offences cannot be handled through conditional sentences or house arrest; judges must consider full criminal history every time. People with serious criminal records cannot act as guarantors, non-residents who may flee must surrender passports, and consequences for breaking bail conditions must be automatic.

These reforms reflect what people expect from a justice system that protects them. They line up with what Londoners tell me they want, they match what police officers across the country say they need, and they reflect a simple principle: Safety must come first.

Conservatives will support Bill C-14 at second reading because it moves in the right direction, but we will work to make it stronger. We will push to repeal the principle of restraint. We will push to restore public safety as the main consideration. We will push to bring back mandatory minimums for serious violent crimes. We will push to expand ineligibility for house arrest. We will push to create a real presumption of detention for repeat violent offenders. We will push to ensure that judges must consider full criminal histories and outstanding charges.

People in London—Fanshawe want to feel safe. They want to know that violent repeat offenders will not be released without meaningful safeguards. They want a justice system that protects them, supports victims and holds dangerous individuals accountable. Bill C-14 does not go far enough, but we will work to strengthen that. We will work to rebuild safety and trust in our communities. We will stand up for victims, families and every person who deserves to feel safe in the place they call home.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is concerning when we hear members of the Conservative Party talk as if they genuinely want to see bail reform, and then, when they have the opportunity to stand up and vote for it, to actually allow bail reform to take place in Canada, they back away. They are more concerned about raising money for their political party. They are more concerned about raising the issue and just having talking points than they are in regard to actions.

Will the member who just spoke make a commitment that he will do his very best at pushing the Conservative caucus to allow bail reform legislation to pass through the system before the end of the year?

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel personally offended with regard to making this a partisan issue. Canadian safety is what is being discussed here, especially with regard to the justice system. What I want to add, though, is that Bill C-14 does not go far enough, but it has support, because London—Fanshawe cannot afford more delays while Parliament debates the perfect solution. I am supporting Bill C-14 at second reading because people like me are asking for change right now, but supporting a bill to move forward does not mean pretending it fixes the core problems created by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. It simply means I want the bill to reach committee, where it can be strengthened. Londoners want real safety, not half measures, and I will be pushing for real improvements.

To add to that, Bill C-14 expands reverse onus for violent offences. Expanding reverse onus is better than doing nothing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Surrey Police Board recently sent a letter to the Minister of Public Safety, begging for meetings with the federal government.

Does my colleague think that if the Liberals had supported our jail, not bail motion, we could have been much further ahead on protecting citizens today?

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do agree that with the Conservatives' proposal, we would have gotten a lot further dealing with the issues at hand, which are courtesy of the Liberals' Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

I also want to expand on what I was discussing earlier. Bill C-14 would expand reverse onus for violent offences. Expanding reverse onus is better than doing nothing. The issue is that reverse onus still operates inside the same framework the Liberals created with Bill C-75, where release is still the normal outcome. For people with long, violent histories and repeated breaches, the starting point should be public safety. Bill C-14 does not make that shift, and that is why Conservatives want a real presumption of detention for serious repeat violent offenders.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the 44th Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C‑392 to provide a framework for the use of the Jordan decision, which results in cases being thrown out and criminals being released on the grounds that the proceedings are taking too long.

We would like to make it impossible to use the Jordan decision for sexual offences, murder, kidnapping, crimes involving firearms, or terrorism. I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the member opposite; I am not familiar with the Jordan bill, and I was not here during the 44th Parliament.

Regarding Bill C-14, I do want to mention that police chiefs and stakeholders were consulted widely, but these consultations are not the same as action. Police chiefs have been calling for real bail reform for years. Communities have been saying the same thing. The government is only now agreeing that Bill C-75 created serious problems. Bill C-14 picks up a few pieces, but it does not address the core issue. The principle of restraint is still there, but an automatic release is still the culture. Listening means action and acting on time, not years later.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise today to speak on the bail and sentencing reform legislation.

It is clear that every Canadian deserves to feel safe and secure in their community, yet too often people tell me that their sense of security has been shaken, shaken by the headlines they see, but also by repeat violent offenders in their communities who have them worried whether the laws are keeping up with today's realities.

Public safety, we all can agree, is a foundation of trust in every community. It is a trust between citizens, between citizens and their government, between citizens and a system that is supposed to uphold justice. It allows our communities to thrive, businesses to grow, families to live without fear and children to grow up in safe neighbourhoods.

That is why I am proud to support Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. The bill takes concrete steps toward building that trust and ensuring that the law protects everyone it is meant to serve. It gives law enforcement officers the tools they need and have been asking for.

As the member of Parliament for Whitby, I have the privilege of meeting residents from every walk of life: families walking their children to school, small business owners opening their doors every day, educators shaping our future and first responders keeping us all safe. Without fail, they share a common expectation, which is to live in a community where they feel safe and can rely on our justice system, not just on paper, but in practice. Safety is essential for a healthy community, and Canadians deserve to know that the law will protect them and their loved ones.

Public safety is not just a commitment I have as an elected representative; it is also personal to me. My father served with the Peel Regional Police for three decades, serving and protecting our community, the one I grew up in. From him I learned that keeping people safe requires courage and commitment. It requires a strong sense of duty, but also a thick skin and, yes, compassion, especially for those impacted by crime.

I have vivid memories of growing up as a young boy and my dad's pager going off in the middle of the night, because he was a homicide detective for much of his career. He would put a bulletproof vest on and run out the door to be the first on the scene to apprehend violent offenders. Many violent offenders in our community were brought to justice by the work that my father did over three decades. My dad was and remains my hero. If he is listening today, I hope he knows how much I appreciate his long and distinguished career in law enforcement and just how much I have learned from him over the years. He was dedicated to enforcing the law, and in many ways, I followed in his footsteps. We joke about it, but by improving laws today, hopefully I am making him proud.

Bill C-14 is one such effort. I have confirmed with my father, who I know supports this bill, that these legislative efforts we are here to debate today are pursuing a path that takes significant steps in the right direction.

I also want to extend my heartfelt thanks to the officers of the Durham Regional Police Service, the men and women who patrol our streets, respond to emergencies, investigate serious crimes and comfort families in the aftermath of tragedy. Their courage is what holds the fabric of our community's safety together, and we appreciate their work wholeheartedly and thank them for that work every day.

In September, I had the opportunity to meet with our police chief, Peter Moreira, and his leadership team to discuss growing challenges in our community, such as repeat offenders, auto theft, organized crime, human trafficking, hate-motivated violence and the persistent social challenges at the intersection of poverty, homelessness, and mental health and addictions in our region. When those charged with protecting our communities tell us this bill matters, I believe we should listen. Effective public safety demands coordination, investment and the right tools for law enforcement. Canadians want a justice system that prioritizes safety and accountability, and that is exactly what Bill C-14 delivers.

Earlier this year, I hosted a public safety round table in my community and was happy to have the Minister of Public Safety join us. Last week, I did a virtual town hall on this legislation in my community with our Minister of Justice and Attorney General. We engaged directly with law enforcement, service providers, victim service organizations and residents, all of whom urged us to pass this legislation and to continue moving forward, and many of whom urged us to put aside any partisan politics. I would urge members opposite to put aside the delay tactics here and get this bill to committee.

Bill C-14 answers that call by strengthening bail for serious offenders, expanding the reverse onus provisions for repeat violent crime and ensuring courts put the safety of victims and communities first. It answers the call of those who have been asking us to make these reforms. These reforms reflect what Canadians have asked for and would make a real, measurable difference in preventing harm and restoring confidence in our justice system.

With over 80 targeted amendments, including changes to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act, this bill aims to enhance the effectiveness of the justice system by clarifying processes and sentencing standards. New sentencing measures under Bill C-14 include protections against crimes targeting first responders, penalties for organized retail theft and safeguarding critical infrastructure. The bill would also mandate consecutive sentences for repeat violent crimes, remove house arrest as an option for serious sexual crimes and reinstate mandatory driving bans for offences causing death or physical harm. These are real, responsible changes that would protect people and help restore faith in our justice system.

This is what accountability and community protection and safety looks like in action. Justice must serve everyone, especially victims. The bill matters to people in my community, such as Kimberley Black, who was violently attacked while jogging in Whitby. Miraculously, she survived, but she is still recovering from the trauma of that attack. An 83-year-old woman, Eleanor Doney, was fatally attacked in her own front yard by a 14-year-old. Stories like these are the kinds that tear at the fabric of society and leave lasting negative impressions on people throughout the community. Bill C-14 matters to the victims of crime and is really a victim-centred approach to justice system reform.

I also want to say that police associations welcome Bill C-14 as a necessary step. They highlight that victims, officers and communities deserve safety, knowing that violent offenders will not continue to harm neighbourhoods. They have advocated for exactly the kind of measures this bill contains.

For example, the Durham Regional Police Association says it is “optimistic” with the introduction of Bill C-14. It also says this is “a much needed step forward in our criminal justice system.” It also said, “many of these recommendations are reflected in the legislation”.

Those changes include consecutive sentence options for repeat violent offenders, restrictions on the use of conditional sentences, amendments to the principle of restraint, expanding the tertiary grounds for detention to include the number or seriousness of outstanding charges, expanding reverse onus provisions for violent repeat offences, empowering police to identify young people in the most serious and urgent circumstances and requiring courts to consider that a victim was a first responder in the line of duty as an aggravating factor at sentencing.

That is from the local police association in my riding, and again, the police association continually reminds me, and it is right, that it represents the rank and file. They are the beat cops who are on the ground in community and not necessarily always reflecting the leadership, such as the chief and superintendents, etc. Sometimes they have differences of perspective, and that is real.

What is remarkable in this case is that police associations and the police chief associations agree that this bail and sentencing reform act is taking meaningful steps forward. Keep in mind, the association also urges us, in its statement, to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the provisions to strengthen bail conditions and prioritize public safety while ensuring those posing the greatest risk to communities remain in custody.

In short, we have lots of support for this bill. Bills can always be improved through the parliamentary process. I never discount the fact that lively, good-faith debate in committee can surface issues and find ways to strengthen bills. To the members opposite who like to bring up what I would call excuses for not voting this bill through to committee, I say let us get this bill to committee, let us strengthen it if it needs to be strengthened and let us continue to put community safety first and ensure we give law enforcement and our justice system the resources and tools they have been asking for to ensure we can really keep our communities safe.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is probably broad agreement in the House that we need bail reform for serious, repeat violent crime.

I am happy that Bill C-14 is taking a step in the right direction, but my question today is about repeat non-violent crime, the property crime that is plaguing our downtown cores. I have some statistics from the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association. For property damage, there have been 143 calls. For theft of autos, there have been 357 calls, and for open drug use, there have been 4,960 calls.

People are just coming out and being arrested. Later in the day, they are released. The next day, they are repeating these crimes again. They are not violent, but they are a nuisance and a plague to our cities.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that some of the things he points to are real issues.

While everything is not addressed in this one bill, it does have a specific focus on bail and sentencing reforms to address what Conservatives have said, over and over again, is a system that does not meet the right balance in ensuring communities are safe and people are held without bail in cases where it can be established that they are a threat to public safety. The issue of repeat violent offenders is what this bail and sentencing reform act is focused on.

Are you saying, by asking that question, that we should not move forward with the most egregious violent offenders and ensuring that our bail system is stronger because the bill does not deal with petty theft in our communities? That seems absurd to me.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Members should address comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bourassa.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague very much for his intervention and to congratulate him. I would also like to congratulate his father for his contribution to society.

Since my colleague had limited speaking time, could he now explain how this bill could make it easier to collaborate with municipal and regional authorities and reduce crime committed by potentially very dangerous individuals on the streets?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in particular, the reverse onus on serious violent offences that this bill includes is really significant. Obviously, it reverses the onus such that the offenders and their counsel are going to have to prove that they are not a risk to society, rather than bail being sort of the default when a repeat offender is being considered for bail.

Putting those reverse onuses in place is going to significantly strengthen the ability for our justice system to hold those individuals without bail, especially and only when those individuals are up on charges that demonstrate a clear history of repeat violent crime.