Debates of Nov. 18th, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's father's service. However, the member across the way was a part of the previous Trudeau government that brought in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which caused all the problems that it is trying to unwind with Bill C-14.

I just do not understand why, if you are having to fix it now, you brought in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 in the first place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Again, members should address comments through the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government is committed to addressing public safety issues and ensuring that repeat violent offenders, where it makes sense, do not get out on bail and have tougher sentences. I think we have always maintained that. I know the members opposite like to put forward proposals and legislation that would get struck down by the Supreme Court and be deemed unconstitutional or unaligned with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are looking to strike the right balance. When we see our justice system not striking the right balance between the liberties that Canadians enjoy and the consequences for people who choose to break the law, we are zeroing in and addressing those issues.

We have consulted all across the country. We are very clearly doing the right things in this bill because mayors, ministers of justice at the provincial level and all of the police associations agree with us.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S‑201, an act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, the Economy; the hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Riding Mountain, Mental Health and Addictions.

The House resumed 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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C‑14 on the issue of bail and justice system reform more broadly, which is something that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying. I proposed that the committee study the use of section 810 of the Criminal Code of Canada to see whether it is appropriate in terms of ensuring the safety of women who are victims of domestic violence, in particular. Together with the Conservatives, we also wanted to look at bail and other aspects of the justice system to see whether it adequately meets the needs of women who are victims of domestic violence.

I remember my female Liberal colleagues telling me there was no need to do this study because a bill was on its way that would deal with violence against women. I expressed reservations because I saw no reason not to study the justice system concurrently at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, focusing specifically on women's lack of confidence. In too many cases, women do not report their attackers because they have lost faith in the system. I said that we could go ahead with the study and then look at the bill. Now I realize that what I am going to talk about today are the reservations that Bloc Québécois members will express in committee when we have the opportunity, we hope, to take a somewhat closer look at this bill. That was my introduction.

First, let us consider the broader context. The Liberal government is introducing Bill C-14 to make it harder to get bail. The bill is a political response to high-profile cases involving violent repeat offenders, including certain inmates released in Manitoba. As we know, there are even places in Canada where domestic violence against women is said to have reached epidemic proportions. This is a serious issue. We acknowledge it. We know that the Conservatives are pushing for an even tougher approach, particularly with Bill C-242. They often take a populist, "three strikes and you're out" approach. Would that necessarily be helpful? We are not so sure.

What we are seeing right now is that the system is already under pressure. Here are some statistics: In 2022-23, 72.56% of people in custody in Canada were awaiting trial. That was an all-time high. In 2019 and 2020, it was 64.89%. That represents an increase of almost 8% in three years. In addition, only 26.51% remained in custody following a conviction. This suggests that the problem is not bail, or at least, that remains to be determined. Rather, the problem is a slow-moving system and a lack of resources.

Bill C-14 specifies that the principle of restraint "does not require the accused to be released". That is in clause 14, but it goes against the presumption of innocence and the St-Cloud, Antic and Zora decisions, which define release as the rule and detention as the exception. We in the Bloc Québécois are concerned about the decline in judicial independence and judges having less discretionary power. We want to study that aspect in committee.

There is also an increase in the number of instances where the burden of proof is reversed. Bill C‑14 increases the number of situations where the accused must prove that they can be released. These include motor vehicle theft, extortion and breaking and entering a dwelling-house. Human trafficking offences are also being added. I would be interested in looking into this a little more, because right now, the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, a non-partisan group that I am part of and that is studying this issue, is seeing statistics that show a worrying increase. Could this bill address a growing problem? We will have to see. There are also offences involving choking, suffocation and strangulation during an assault. Several victims have told us about these horrors. This seems to be a recurring theme in assault cases. In committee, we heard some rather disturbing testimony from victims. There is also a risk of pretrial detention turning into automatic detention in a large number of cases. We therefore need to study this further.

The Bloc Québécois supports the bill, but I would say we have concerns. We want to vote to send the bill to committee, but, as I said, we have many reservations. The main thing we want to do is protect victims at all costs without undermining the presumption of innocence. It is about finding a balance.

I would like to turn to another subject and talk about the real causes of crime.

Experts have repeatedly said that the housing crisis is throwing a wrench in the works. There is clearly a compelling connection. When a woman cannot find housing, she will not leave the cycle of domestic violence and poverty because she does not want to end up on the street. Addictions are also exacerbating this crisis. Because federal health transfers are lacking, we cannot seriously address this issue, which should be seen as a public health issue.

Insufficient psychosocial services is also among the causes. We use a different model in Quebec, where health and public services are combined. As I often say in committee, Quebec's community groups benefit from the system we set up, rather than relying exclusively on a hospital-centred approach. At least, that is our hope. Our system of community groups and psychosocial services are an integral part of what a victim care pathway should provide.

Extreme poverty also drives people to commit crime. Once again, I see a connection with the fact that it keeps women in a cycle of domestic violence. Last Friday, I took part in a women's finance day organized back home, in Granby. I heard powerful accounts from women who are now successful, but were once victims of violence, unable to escape their situation because they were trapped in a cycle of poverty. Once they decided to empower themselves economically, to lift themselves out of poverty, find a job and develop their personal wealth, they managed to break free from the cycle of violence.

Where does the responsibility lie? The federal government is amending the Criminal Code, but justice is administered by Quebec and the provinces, which lack funding. This is often overlooked, but it is another example of a fiscal imbalance that is making it hard to hire judges. As we have seen, the federal government is dragging its feet on appointing them. It is not great at judicial appointments. Sometimes its appointments even flout the government's own rules. The fiscal imbalance also undermines reasonable wait times and the availability of correctional and clinical services.

Some aspects of Bill C‑14 are problematic, including for example the tacit withdrawal of the ladder principle. There are too many obligations imposed on judges, which creates a risk of automatic justice. Mandatory consecutive sentences can also lead to injustice. There is a problematic provision in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Specifically, there is some confusion regarding how time served is calculated. This will have to be studied in committee. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We would be curious to see how this could be improved.

Ultimately, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a real fight against organized crime, which includes a registry of criminal organizations. That is important. We also want to ban these criminal groups from displaying their emblems, which is also important. We want a reverse onus for the seizure of the proceeds of crime. We want it to be illegal for gangs to recruit young people, because that is a serious problem in the Montreal area.

We are also proposing to regulate the use of the Jordan decision for the most serious crimes. That was mentioned in committee. It is not right that, because of delays, perpetrators of domestic violence against women get away with it. This should be regulated, at least for certain crimes such as sexual assault. We are also proposing that the religious exemption for hate speech be removed.

Finally, Bill C-14 is filled with good intentions, but it also includes several risks. The bill could threaten the presumption of innocence, increase the number of innocent people being detained and undermine confidence in the justice system. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who is the justice critic, could explain this even better than I can. The Bloc Québécois wants to strengthen security without sacrificing fundamental rights.

I will close my speech by providing a few interesting statistics.

In Quebec, in 2022, women accounted for 89% of victims of sexual assault reported by the police, according to the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, or INSQ. Reported cases of women victims of sexual assault is 157.5 incidents per 100,000 women, compared to 19 incidents per 100,000 men. In Quebec, one in four women, or 25%, aged 15 and older reported having been sexually assaulted by someone other than an intimate partner. The rate for men is approximately 6%. In Quebec, in 2021, women accounted for 76.4% of victims of domestic violence, or offences committed by an intimate partner. Also in 2021, individuals aged 25 to 39 accounted for 48.2% of victims of offences committed in an intimate context. The rate was 725.3 per 100,000 among people aged 25 to 29.

I also have a relevant example from the news in Quebec. In March 2025, the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, a coalition of women's shelters, issued a press release calling on the government to address the inadequacy of legislative measures and resources to protect women who are victims of violence.

With that, I will now answer my colleagues' questions.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for her speech. Before I ask my question, I would like her to know that I agree with several points she raised. In my experience with the Montreal police force and as vice-chair of Montreal's public safety commission, I have been confronted with these realities. I have witnessed a surge in violence, particularly among couples.

We are talking about financial aid, the appointment of judges, and so on. I agree on those points. Could my colleague also talk about the assistance we can offer in terms of prevention? That would be very important. What kind of help can we offer in terms of prevention, whether in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just this morning, on the radio, they were talking about the new Institut Écho initiative. I will try to learn more about it. This initiative, which was launched by the organization Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, is tackling the issue of housing and includes a prevention component, I believe, that could address these concerns.

In committee, we are often reminded that we need to take a holistic approach to the problem. We cannot think that simply addressing the issue of the justice system will solve everything. We also need to be proactive by working on prevention. In fact, our next study will focus on the rise of the anti-feminist movement.

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

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about the Liberal government's introducing the bill as a workaround for its old bill, Bill C-75, which introduced the principle of restraint. Therefore, why not just get rid of the principle of restraint as introduced by Bill C-75, rather than doing these awkward workarounds, which are likely not to be as effective as they could be?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague a straightforward answer.

In committee, the Conservatives raised the issue of Bill C‑75. At the moment, there is no consensus on the principle of restraint, either among the groups consulted or among the justice system stakeholders who testified before the committee. That is the answer I can give him.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Shefford and congratulate her on her excellent speech. I would like her to tell us more about what our party, the Bloc Québécois, has put forward. I would also like her to talk about the concerns she raised in her speech in relation to the Jordan decision.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the previous Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill that sought to provide a framework for the Jordan decision. That was in response to requests from a lot of victims and groups of women who were victims of intimate partner violence. These women opposed the fact that the Jordan decision enabled some attackers to avoid going to trial.

The Jordan decision exists, but we would like to have a framework for it, at least for some specific crimes. That is what victims want. During the previous Parliament, the committee heard from victims while it was studying the Bloc Québécois bill to codify the framework for the Jordan decision. Many groups and many victims supported that idea and continue to support it.

We will see if we can raise this very important issue once again in this Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can just provide her thoughts in regard to recognizing that the issue of bail reform, or justice in general, is a shared responsibility. Municipalities, provinces and the federal government all have a role to play, and we need to take that into consideration when it goes to committee also.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I went over that point too quickly. My colleague's question gives me an opportunity to conclude my speech by reiterating the importance of this aspect and highlighting the imbalance it creates. It is all well and good for us to pass laws here at the federal level, but then we transfer the management of criminal issues to the provinces and municipalities.

Quebec is responsible for administering justice and addressing homelessness, which involves expenses and security issues for municipalities. They find themselves having to tackle these challenges head-on. That is why we have to be careful about the legislation we pass here, because inevitably, we end up putting these responsibilities on the provinces, Quebec and the municipalities.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak about public safety in Canada or, more accurately, the lack of public safety in our country under the Liberal government.

Bill C-14 is another classic miss by the Liberals. Right now, we should be strengthening Canada's bail laws and protecting law-abiding citizens. We should be making the public safer and keeping criminals in jail. We should be protecting victims from dangerous offenders and keeping murderers behind bars where they belong.

Instead, the Liberals have put forward a bill that does not come close to the changes we need to fix Canada's justice system. We need to be tough on crime. We need to keep criminals in jail. We especially need to keep repeat violent offenders behind bars. We should be increasing penalties for repeat violent criminals, including people who commit sexual assault.

This is about public safety. It is just common sense. Conservatives have been pointing this out for years.

The Liberals' soft-on-crime approach to bail is simply not working. We have taken issue with their generous bail laws in the past and sentencing reforms that return criminals to the streets. Time and time again, their laws have granted criminals the freedom to keep causing chaos. These revolving-door policies allow criminals to reoffend. Unfortunately for Canadians, under the Liberals, criminals essentially have a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is a dangerous game of Monopoly.

This summer, our country was plagued by a string of high-profile violent crimes. It is heartbreaking to know that each and every one of these crimes was preventable, and each crime was a failure of our system to protect our citizens. Sadly, many of these crimes occurred in my community of Edmonton.

Just this summer, Cody Desjarlais was in jail facing 27 charges, including impaired driving, yet he got bail. He was released on July 4, and less than two weeks later, he went on a crime spree. He stole a vehicle. He then used this stolen vehicle to plow into a 59-year-old cyclist. After that, he attacked and stabbed a 40-year-old man. He now has a laundry list of charges, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of stolen property, two counts of dangerous operation, driving while prohibited, breach of release order, possessing a weapon dangerous to the public, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, failing to stop after an accident and theft of a motor vehicle.

Desjarlais should never have had the chance to go out on this crime spree. He should have remained behind bars. The public should have remained safe from him. Desjarlais' crimes were severe and dangerous enough but, sadly, crimes committed by others who got out on bail have been even worse.

Here is one story of a crime that did not have to happen. It was horrendous. It is the murder of Bailey McCourt. Bailey was murdered in a parking lot by her ex-husband, James Plover. However, here is the thing: Plover had been released on bail following an assault conviction just hours before murdering Bailey.

This murder obviously should never have happened. James should have been behind bars. Just that afternoon, he had been convicted of choking someone and uttering threats. He was a dangerous offender who should have been locked up. Instead, he was out and free to cause even more harm. Our justice system had the chance to protect Bailey McCourt, but our laws failed her.

Another person who fell victim to the Liberals' weak bail laws was Marina Simard. Marina was just 18 years old, with her entire life ahead of her. Sadly, she was murdered by her 26-year-old brother, Tyrone. Guess what. He was out on bail.

There are so many heartbreaking examples of this happening. There are too many to share in my time today, but I also must mention Savannah Kulla. Savannah was a 29-year-old mother of four who was brutally shot and killed at a Brampton strip mall. Her killer, Anthony Deschepper, surprise, surprise, was out on bail. Following Savannah's senseless murder, one detective shared some stark comments about the crime spree with the Toronto Sun. A detective told reporters:

If you continue to release these sorts of people, events like this are going to happen. It’s inevitable.... There are so many people out there like this; no community is safe. And now, because of the broken bail system, a young woman has paid with her life.

This murder was preventable. It is just a matter of keeping criminals behind bars. How hard is that?

My heart goes out to the families and loved ones of these victims. To the families of Bailey McCourt, Marina Simard and Savannah Kulla, I say I am so sorry for their loss and for the heartbreak they have endured.

Let this be a reminder to all of us. The legislation we pass in this place has real consequences. We must stand up for Canadians, protect them and keep them safe. As I have said, Bill C-14 is a missed opportunity to do just that. It is a missed opportunity to strengthen penalties for serious violent offences. It is a missed opportunity for the Liberals to recognize the disastrous mistakes being made. It is a missed opportunity to keep Canadians safe.

The laws in our country must change. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%. Firearms crime is up 130%. Extortion has risen 330% across Canada. Sexual assaults are up 76%, and homicides are up 29%. A recent poll by Leger Marketing asked Canadians about public safety. Unfortunately, the results confirm what Conservatives already knew: Canadians do not feel safe. The poll found that 51% of Canadians say they are worried about general safety in their own neighbourhood and that more than half of Canadians feel that the justice system is working against the interests of citizens.

Police officers across this country know that the lax Liberal laws are not working. The Saskatoon police chief, Cam McBride, has called for urgent bail reform. He said, “There are, at any point in time, violent [offenders] in our communities that really need the support and structure of incarceration or remand”.

The Police Association of Ontario has blasted Canada's bail system, warning that it is putting communities at risk. The president of the association said:

Every day, our members work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of the communities we serve, yet violent and repeat offenders are routinely released on bail and returned to the streets.... This ongoing threat undermines public safety, erodes confidence in our justice system, and puts both police officers and innocent people at risk.

There is one good thing this bill accomplishes. It is an admission by the Liberals that their criminal justice reforms have failed. In a press release, the Liberals acknowledged this problem themselves. They noted that there has been a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index since 2014. That is outrageous.

Conservatives will always work to toughen bail laws. We must put public safety and community safety ahead of the rights of criminals. We must keep serious, dangerous offenders off our streets. My colleagues and I are calling on the government to end crime, chaos and disorder in our streets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Edmonton Griesbach is back in Ottawa and back in the chamber. It is good to have him back.

He alluded to some of the mistakes of the previous Trudeau government over the last 10 years with Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. We are really in the place we are now with rampant crime and problems because of those failures.

The member alluded in his speech that Bill C-14 is really one thing: an admission of a failed Liberal attempt at justice. Does he agree?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hear it all the time in my community.

It really is terrifying and so sad that in a country like Canada, people are afraid to be out on the streets in their own neighbourhoods. As a parliamentarian, I truly believe that the first order of business for Canadians, for parliamentarians, is to keep citizens safe. That should be job one. There should be no reason that people could not walk in their own community, day or night, safely. They should not be afraid to be out and about at any time of the day or night.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that should be highlighted in the legislation, which I believe has a wide spectrum of support from all members, is in regard to first responders and the violence against them. It is sad when that takes place, but this legislation deals with that particular issue. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on our first responders.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, first responders are often victims of crime; because they are first to respond, they are always in danger.

I have talked to first responders personally. They feel very strongly that we need tougher laws so that they are not in danger, and that the people who are repeat violent offenders must be kept in jail so that the first responders can do their job of treating people, as they should, and not have to deal with assaults on their person.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a problem paying attention tonight.

The Liberal member for Winnipeg North just did something very interesting. He brought up a piece of Bill C-14 that he and his colleagues could have passed already. The private member's bill brought forward by the member for Cariboo—Prince George could have been passed two weeks ago. It would have helped to protect first responders by making it an aggravating factor to harm a first responder while in the line of duty. That private member's bill was put forward by our member of Parliament, but the Liberals would not let it pass with unanimous consent.

They ask us to pass Bill C-14 to protect first responders, but that is exactly what we put forward last week and the Liberals did not allow that bill to pass. It is a bait and switch, and the Liberals do it quite often. Would my colleague agree with that?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with that, and we hear it all the time. I hear it from people in my riding.

It is soft on crime, and that is what we get.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the importance of passing the legislation through the system so that, before the end of the year, Canadians will have bail reform.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation needs a lot of work, obviously.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Elmwood—Transcona to talk about Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.

We have seen crime increase year after year since the Liberals passed Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. These bills broke an otherwise normal, functioning bail system and directed the courts to release accused persons at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions, otherwise known as the principle of restraint. This has led to a revolving-door criminal justice system that saw the same repeat violent offenders receiving bail nearly immediately after they were initially arrested.

Now, many years later, we have businesses closing, extortion, auto thefts and home invasions on the rise, and chaos in our streets. We hear story after story about victims who are injured or even killed by a repeat violent offender who is out on bail.

Marina Simard was stabbed to death by her brother in northern Manitoba. Tyrone Simard was out on bail on the condition that he stay away from his sister. Bailey McCourt was murdered by her ex-husband James Plover just hours after he was released on bail following an assault conviction. Savannah Kulla, a 29-year-old mother of four, was shot and killed in a Brampton strip mall while her killer was out on bail.

These are not just horror stories from a Stephen King novel. These are real people who are victims of the Liberals' soft-on-crime bail. These laws put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims.

We now see the consequences of these policies every day in our streets. Violent crime is up 55%. Illegal firearms crime is up 130%. Sexual assaults are up 76%. Homicides are up 29%. Extortion is up a whopping 330%. It never used to be like this. These are unnerving statistics and they are a direct result of Liberal hug-a-thug bail laws. We cannot get numb to this reality. This should not be our new normal. The Liberals have now tabled Bill C-14 to try to fix the problem they caused. It is a bit like having the same plumber come back to fix a system they did not install properly the first time.

Bill C-14 is a start, but it falls short of what this country needs for crime legislation. It does not remove the principle of restraint that releases criminals on the least onerous conditions. It does not restore the mandatory minimum sentences that were removed through Bill C-5. It does not remove the option of house arrest for repeat offenders. It does not do enough to protect public safety by ensuring that judges are required to hold criminals to account for their actions.

We know we cannot fix this problem on our own and we want to work with all members of the House to make a positive difference in the lives of law-abiding Canadians. However, we want to ensure that any new measures that get passed by the House actually work toward fixing the problems we see in our communities.

I have heard from my neighbours and members of my community that they are concerned with the overwhelming rise in crime over the last few years. Parents are afraid to let their children walk to school. Stores are closing down due to theft, and people no longer feel comfortable leaving their doors unlocked at night.

According to a Postmedia-Leger poll, over half of Canadians say that they no longer feel safe in their neighbourhoods and that the justice system is working against their interests. This is a heartbreaking statistic. What has become of our great country when the majority of our citizens say that they do not feel safe living here? We have let fear control our justice system, and we have put the feelings and comforts of criminals ahead of the safety of law-abiding Canadians.

The reality is that we need to empower law enforcement to do their jobs rather than demonize and belittle them. Officers do their jobs to protect our communities, yet the same people they arrest in the morning end up back on the street, usually victimizing the same person, by the afternoon due to our current broken bail policies.

Let us take a local example from my community. In Winnipeg, dozens of 7-Elevens have closed due to the crime wave. Not only is it no longer profitable to operate some businesses due to theft, but the safety of employees is constantly at risk when repeat violent offenders are not held accountable for their actions. We are incentivizing bad behaviour by not punishing the perpetrators.

Recently, some of my Manitoba colleagues and I hosted a jail not bail town hall to meet with Winnipeggers to discuss the damaging effects of crime in our city and what can be done to stop it. During this town hall, I heard many harrowing stories. For example, Julia, who lives in Valley Gardens, the neighbourhood I grew up in, no longer feels safe going on walks alone at night.

It did not used to be this way, and it does not have to stay this way. Members of my community, who are scared to even leave their homes, are looking to all of us for leadership. We must work together to pass meaningful legislation that protects victims and punishes repeat violent offenders. To that end, Bill C-14 is on the right track to fix the Trudeau-era bail policies, but it still needs work.

It may be surprising to some, but outside of the victims, the people who struggle the most from the current disastrous bail policies are actually the police. I recently spoke with a family friend who works for the Winnipeg Police Service, and he recounted how dangerous the job is for him now compared to in years past, how he spends days arresting the same people for committing similar crimes and victimizing the same people.

The scary truth is, more often than not, it is a small group of people committing the same crimes over and over again. In Vancouver, the same 40 people were responsible for over 6,000 crimes. That is nearly 150 crimes per person in a single year. Our society cannot function like this. Hearing from our brave police officers how demoralizing it is to arrest the same people over and over for the same crimes is heartbreaking. The reality is that we can do something about it by passing concrete bail reform legislation that reverses the disastrous policies that have burdened our communities for nearly a decade.

Bill C-14 is the government's own admission that its bail experiment has failed. We have seen a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index since 2014. This means increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion across Canada. This has led to the marginalization of law-abiding Canadians in favour of repeat violent offenders.

The current system is broken and backwards. It is unacceptable that law-abiding Canadians are living in fear. It breaks my heart that my grandkids are not being raised in the Canada I grew up in, the Canada where we could leave our front door unlocked, walk around our neighbourhood at night without fear and spend time downtown without having to look over our shoulder. This was avoidable, and we need to give future generations the same safety guarantees we grew up with.

I want to reiterate that the bill itself replicates a lot of the asks that our party has made to the government regarding bail reform. It is on the right track. It rights the wrongs from the previous Liberal government and seeks to hold criminals accountable. However, it is not perfect, and it is unfortunate that it took this long to reach this conclusion.

When I listened to the justice minister introduce this bill, I finally felt that the government was starting to get it, that it was finally on the right track when it comes to addressing the serious bail reforms that need to be undertaken in Canada. Bill C-14 has the backing of law enforcement officers and gives them some of the mechanisms they need to do their job, but at this point they are desperate for a solution, and we are ready to work with every member in this House for the betterment of all Canadians.

However, in the spirit of collaboration and working together for the good of Canadians, I hope the government will act upon our recommendations and ensure that Bill C-14 mandates jail, not bail for repeat violent offenders, and that career criminals remain off our streets in order to keep our communities safe. The stats show that when criminals are off our streets, crime rates go down, and crime is disincentivized.

We are all human beings, and we all make mistakes. Everyone in this room believes in second chances; some of us might even have needed one, but we do not believe in 18 second chances. At a certain point, enough is enough. As lawmakers, we must replace the current status quo and the principle of restraint with the principle of public safety, and instruct judges to hold criminals accountable for their actions.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I obviously agree that violence, especially gun violence, is a very serious problem in our society. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of effective gun control.