Debates of Nov. 18th, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to an issue that is fundamental to what Canadians want from their government: security, safety and the conviction that the law will protect innocent people rather than reward violent criminals.

Canadians nationwide are dealing with the fallout from a justice system that puts violent repeat offenders ahead of the security of families and small business owners after 10 arduous years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies. The government has now acknowledged with the introduction of this bill that the catch-and-release strategy has failed. However, it is not enough to ensure that Canadians are safe in their country and that those who commit crimes are jailed and not out on bail.

It is good to see that the government has finally responded to the pleas of the Conservative Party. We have been advocating over the last four years for the scrapping of Liberal bail. One of the things we want to see in this bill changed, enhanced or improved is the adoption of the principle of public and community safety. At its base level, that means eliminating the principle of restraint, presuming detention for major offences and turning Liberal redundancy into mandatory actions from judges.

Let me tell members why. I made a promise to a group of people in my riding several months ago after the brutal assault of a three-year-old toddler on a street on which I grew up, at my grandparents' house in Welland. I made the promise that I would stand in this House until bail reform and the justice system were changed for people like Daniel Senecal. This repeat offender was recently released after serving just one year after sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy. He served one year for that sexual assault and then was released into the community. Within weeks, he brutally sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl in Welland. While she was in her bed at night, this three-year-old toddler was brutally assaulted and left for dead.

I know everybody in this House is familiar with that case, and as I continue to talk over and over again about it, I am grateful to the many people in my community who have supported the petition that I launched and that was tabled in the House about a week ago. Tens of thousands of people have called on the government to change bail laws and initiate bail reform.

It is becoming almost a habit in my riding on Saturday mornings to meet with people who are survivors of sexual assault or who have children who are survivors of sexual assault. We sit and have coffee on Saturday mornings in my office, and they give me the strength to carry on in this quest. This last Saturday, more people arrived. It seems they know that the only voice they have is their representative on the floor of the House of Commons. They have spoken to municipal councils around southern Ontario to ask municipal governments to help support this effort to get bail reform on the floor of the House of Commons.

In a vacuum, people will do anything they can to raise awareness, from the delegations around southern Ontario to municipal councils to the protests that have popped up across Niagara. There were several protests in front of courthouses and municipal buildings. These are people who are frustrated with the lack of action after 10 years of catch-and-release.

A police officer came to my office a couple of weeks ago, and I asked him, “What is the pattern of catch-and-release, because I hear a lot about it and the Conservatives have been talking about it?” He looked at me and said that I would not believe it, but over the span of about 60 days, he arrested the same guy 30 times. In some cases, it is now a situation where they sit in the back of a cruiser, they do a promise to appear and then they let someone out, only to rearrest them a few hours later.

That brings me to the question of release after the shortest possible time under the least onerous conditions.

Daniel Senecal, the guy who raped and beat a three-year-old toddler, was out early, reoffended and is now in jail awaiting trial. Under this legislation, he would get out again in probably about seven years, if he is convicted. We are waiting for that trial.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asks over and over again why we do not just let this bill go to committee, where we can do the work and make amendments. Well, we did that with Bill C-3 at the immigration committee. We did a lot of work, as my colleague will attest to. We did months of work and made lots of positive amendments to the legislation, but once we brought it back to the House, the government wiped it out in a single vote.

I understand the government would rather us not talk about that here on the floor of the House of Commons, because it raises too many of the issues that are inherent in this bill, too many of the shortcomings, but we will take it to committee eventually and we will propose amendments. I guarantee that when those amendments come back to this House, the government will reverse everything we would like to do to improve this legislation. That is a travesty.

When we talk about co-operation, the government likes to say that this is a minority Parliament and that we should co-operate. I say to prove it, because we have tried and members have voted us down. We will try again with this legislation. I request that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader commit today to taking our amendments seriously and not just throwing them out when it comes to report stage. I hope he will accommodate that request today.

I want to move on to a couple of things in this proposed act about the CBSA. I am going to refer to it as the CBSA facade. We heard the minister say that he wants to hire 1,000 new recruits at the RCMP and 1,000 new recruits at the CBSA. That sounds interesting and sounds like a lot, but once we take into account retirements, attrition and people who leave the profession, it amounts to a drop in the bucket of what the CBSA actually needs to protect Canadians today.

There is not enough training capacity to train 1,000 new officers for the CBSA right now. This is the first problem. Second, we have a serious problem of morale at the CBSA and a very high level of suicide. The morale level is bad, and the government needs to dig into that to make improvements at the CBSA so it becomes a profession that people would like to join.

Interestingly, the CBSA recently reduced its detention capacity across Canada. We are talking about jail and not bail, and the CBSA has actually reduced by over 40% the detention capacity across Canada. How is this reality reflected in the legislation we are talking about today?

There is lots more I could speak about. I would like to take some time to talk about the extortion problem in this country and the crime issues. In my community, I have several businesses that I still manage, and I see that the level of crime in our streets has gone up substantially over the last number of years. It saddens me that in my small town of Port Colborne, crime is at a fearful level for the business community. We have never seen the number of security cameras we see today at our homes, at businesses, at commercial buildings and on our streets in our communities and municipalities. We rely on them now for policing and to help police catch criminals roaming our streets.

In conclusion, I really hope the government will take up our suggestions at committee when the bill goes to committee and will help us improve it. Let me be clear. I will continue to rise in this House day after day on this issue until criminals like Daniel Senecal spend the rest of their lives in jail and until he never gets another chance to assault a little toddler, as he did in Welland such a short time ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, in some ways, I am encouraged by the member's words. I will give him my word. At the end of the day, hopefully we will see this bill go to committee. The Conservatives will make that determination. If it goes to committee, all amendments will be taken seriously and considered.

Having said that, my word is that a majority of the House will ultimately determine the fate of the legislation. We do not have a majority. We require others to provide a majority.

Would the member not agree that bail reform is important, not only for parliamentarians but for Canadians? That is who this is all about, the constituents we serve. Will the member give his commitment that he will do whatever he can to see this bail—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give a chance to the member for Niagara South to respond.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I am fully committed to ensuring that bail reform is strengthened in this country, but this bill does not do it. We will take it to committee. We will refine it. We will introduce amendments.

I would caution the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that the reason all of the amendments were reversed on the immigration bill was that the Liberals relied on a few members of the NDP who did not sit in committee and did not have the benefit of the debate we had. When this bill goes to committee, I would encourage all members of the House to take our amendments seriously and accept them.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, when we are discussing Bill C-14, the Liberal government seems to be rushing us through its consideration and wants to send it to committee. Members have talked about the ineffectiveness of committees.

We are rushing through a bill that does not address the fundamental issues in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. I would like to ask the member to comment further on that. Why is the Liberal government rushing us through Bill C-14, an incomplete bill with shortfalls?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is urgently needed to fix the problems of the individual I spoke about being released early. The urgency is to ensure that repeat offenders do not get the opportunity to reoffend and that violent offenders, particularly with offences against children, do not see the light of day.

Under the current legislation, my guess is that Daniel Senecal will be released in about seven years, if he is convicted. There is urgency to fix the problem, but we need time to debate the bill adequately in the House so Canadians can hear our perspective, see our point of view and understand why there are issues with this bill. If we debate it reasonably in this House, we will come to a good solution for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, this may seem slightly off topic from the current bill, but it was important for me to rise as a member of a party that has never been a recognized party in the House so that Canadians know that those of us who are not permanent members of committees are aware of what happens in committee.

This is prompted by the member's comment that NDP members were not sitting on the committee. I am not putting myself in their shoes, but having been in their shoes many times, I want to assure Canadians that when we bring forward amendments as members of parties in this place but not recognized parties, we have access to what happens in committee. In the case of the colleague who sits right in front of me, the hon. member for Vancouver East, no one knows more about that piece of legislation than she does, having worked on it through many iterations and through many committees.

The hon. member may disagree with the way colleagues voted, including me, but it was not because we did not have access to the information. We had more than enough access to the information. We wanted to see Bill C-3 pass.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment. I agree that without permanent membership on committees, there is limited access, at least for me as a member of the committee, to hear the perspectives of people who are in a non-party situation. However, we worked through so many amendments, which took a long time and a lot of work, only to come back here and have them all wiped out with one vote. Not one single amendment—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary McKnight.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Calgary McKnight. I want to speak specifically to this bill today because the safety of Canadians is something I am very passionate about, as I am sure many of my colleagues, members of the House, are as well.

I believe that along with the cost of living crisis, the increasing crime level across Canada is the most important issue needing to be tackled by the current Parliament. This rising wave of crime is not just something I have observed; recent reports by Stats Canada tell the same story. Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, violent crime is up 55%, gun crime is up 130%, sexual assaults are up 76%, homicides are up 29% and extortion is up 330%.

In Calgary, roughly 75 repeat offenders are responsible for a large chunk of the crime calls all around the city. A Calgary police superintendent said that the same 75 criminals commit hundreds of disturbances, from assault with a weapon to store robbery and illegal drug use. We have heard stories like this from all across the country. In Vancouver, the same 40 offenders have been linked to over 6,000 negative police contacts. Calgary police inspectors say that these criminals just cycle through the system and continue to recommit offences upon release.

In my riding in northeast Calgary, there were five attacks on transit workers over the course of this summer. In one incident, a bus driver was pepper-sprayed and then beaten so badly that they were sent to the hospital in critical condition. In another case, a bus driver was stabbed and beaten, and, again, was taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries.

This summer in Kelowna, a woman was murdered by her ex-husband just three hours after his assault conviction. He was supposed to have been released for a 10-week period while waiting on delivery of a psychiatric report, but only four kilometres away from the courthouse and only three hours later, he attacked his ex-wife and another woman with a hammer, ultimately killing his ex-wife.

Just last month, a mother of four was gunned down by her ex-boyfriend outside a Brampton strip mall while he was out on bail. Another man who was out on bail committed a mass stabbing in Manitoba this September and even killed his 18-year-old sister. The stories go on and on.

I commend the effort and bravery of our police and other first responders in fighting the rise in crime, but I am disappointed by the Liberal government's agenda to limit the ability of our justice system to keep dangerous offenders behind bars. The rise in crime has come in large part due to Liberal Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

Passed in 2019, Bill C-75 forced judges to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. To make matters worse, in 2022, Bill C-5 further weakened deterrence by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences like sexual assault. It also repealed mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes like extortion with a firearm.

Extortion has turned into one of the fastest-growing crimes in Canada. Police across the country have reported waves of threats against small business owners in communities like Brampton, Surrey, Vancouver and Calgary. Families in their homes are regularly shot at, firebombed and threatened. Just last week while I was in my riding, four separate constituents approached my office for help after receiving extortion calls. South Asian communities have faced the brunt of extortion cases in Canada, and authorities in B.C. even had to establish a special task force dedicated to these incidents.

Extortion has gotten so bad that over half of Canadians no longer feel safe in their homes. That is why, last year, my Conservative colleague, the member for Edmonton Gateway, introduced Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act. The bill would have delivered stricter mandatory minimums for extortion and treated arson as an aggravating factor. Shamefully, the Liberals watered it down and left Canadians stranded without the protection they desperately need.

More recently my colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C-242, the jail not bail act. Bill C-242 would prioritize public safety and the rights of survivors rather than the freedom of criminals. It would introduce tougher bail rules for major crimes like gun offences, sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping and human trafficking, and it would require judges to take an offender's full criminal record into account. Most importantly, Bill C-242 would stop the revolving door of bail by blocking repeat violent offenders from being released over and over again.

Now it seems that the Liberals are finally starting to listen to mayors, premiers and police associations from coast to coast calling for an end to the failed catch-and-release bail experiment. After Conservatives campaigned for four years to scrap Liberal bail, the Liberals have finally accepted the reality that the rights of survivors are more important than those of criminals.

Bill C-14 would expand reverse onus bail rules for certain violent and weapons-related offences and would ask judges to more intently consider community safety and an offender's history, but it would still keep the existing principles of restraint and the foundation of the bail system.

Considering the state of fear that Canadians currently live in and the fact that Canada's violent crime severity index has gone up by 41% in the last 10 years, I do not believe that Bill C-14 as it currently stands would go far enough to address the issues of bail reform or to restore the trust in our justice system to keep the public safe.

A Conservative plan for bail would prioritize public safety over the principle of restraint. We would restore mandatory minimums for firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, robbery, extortion with a firearm, arson and other serious violent crimes. We would exclude people who have committed robbery, gun violence and trafficking, as well as property offenders, from being eligible for conditional sentencing. We would also mandate the consideration of criminal history instead of just encouraging judges to keep it in mind.

I believe that unless these changes are made, serious and dangerous offenders will continue to be released onto our streets to pose a threat to our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have made reference to the issue of extortion, which is indeed a very serious issue.

The Prime Minister, who was elected in April, made a commitment to Canadians, as all Liberal MPs have done. We are going to deliver on bail reform. The only thing that is standing in the way of getting bail reform before the end of the year is the Conservative Party of Canada.

The issue I have is that, as members talk about extortion, they could put the talking aside, pass the legislation and actually take tangible action against extortion. Do I have a commitment from the member that he will do his best to pass the legislation before the end of the year?

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been calling for bail reform for years now, and we have proposed numerous bills to keep repeat violent offenders behind bars.

If the Liberals were really serious about keeping Canadians safe, they would support the Conservative jail not bail act. The Liberals are now trying to cover up a problem they have created. If they were really serious about fighting crime, they would support our jail not bail act.

I hope we can work together to deliver a positive result for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a very specific question. To the member's credit, he did not skip a beat. He went right back to his speech and completely ignored the question.

If the member is serious about extortion, and if the leader of the Conservative Party is serious about extortion, as opposed to giving their political drivel in regard to how they want to filibuster the legislation, will the member commit to having Bill C-14, an election platform commitment from the Liberal Party, pass before the end of the year, yes or no?

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there was a rally in B.C., and a member from the Liberal Party attended that rally, which was about defunding police organizations. How can crime be stopped if Liberal members are attending those kinds of rallies in B.C.?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, how ridiculous is that? The Liberal Party does not support defunding police services. The member knows that, yet he continues to refuse to answer a very specific question.

Will the member agree that it is in Canada's best interest that we have bail reform legislation? It is before us today. The Conservatives can attempt to amend it. Will the member commit to allowing the legislation to pass before the end of the year? Again, is it yes or no?

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to trust someone to fix a problem they created. Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have proven to be disasters and have caused harm to Canadians. I hope the Liberals can right their wrong and provide effective relief to Canadian communities and families.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a friend who owns a shop in Rexdale, Ontario. His shop was shot up twice in the span of the last 15 days. Again it was an extortion-related issue. We have had 10 years during which extortion-related issues have gone up 330% in Canada and over 360% in all of Ontario. Based on these trajectories, we have not had any sensible solutions proposed by the Liberals over the last 10 years.

The question for my colleague is this: What are we going to do as a Conservative Party?

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 are the root causes of the issues we are trying to tackle here today. The Conservatives have led the debate on key issues like the cost of living and the carbon tax, forcing Liberals to take action. I hope the Liberals take note of my constituents' concerns that I have shared here today.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to speak to Bill C-14, an act that proposes a long-awaited reform to Canada's bail and sentencing framework. For too long, the system has focused more on the rights of offenders than on the safety of our communities. Together with police associations, provincial governments, victims and survivors, we have listened to our communities and advocated for stronger bail and sentencing regulations.

However, it is important to remember that these reforms come after years of Liberal policy failures. It took Liberals years to even acknowledge the problems they caused with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Even now, under Bill C-14, they have not removed the principle of restraint, the rule that tells police and judges to focus on releasing accused people as quickly as possible under the least restrictive condition. The principle remains the heart of Canada's catch-and-release crisis.

The numbers tell the story of rising crime in our communities. In my riding of King—Vaughan, between 2020 and 2024, assaults increased by 73%, robberies increased by 119% and homicides increased by 100%. In case we missed it, twice the number of people were murdered between 2020 and 2024. Breaking and entering increased by 69%; sexual violations increased by a staggering 194%, and thefts of a motor vehicle increased by 122%. Between 2019 and 2025, York Regional Police charged 19,522 individuals with criminal offences. Of those, 32.6% were charged again for breaching bail or other release conditions. These numbers show a system that too often fails to protect the public from repeat offenders.

Recently, at a town hall in Vaughan, the community came together to hear the story of Darian Hailey Henderson-Bellman, a beautiful young woman of 25 years who was fatally shot on July 28, 2020. The accused killer, Darnell Reid, had been arrested four previous times for violating the condition of his bail, for contacting her. He was also arrested and charged in May 2020 for being in possession of an illegal firearm.

The Liberal catch-and-release principles of restraint ensured that he only spent six days in custody before being released again. A mere three months later, he shot and murdered a young, beautiful soul with her whole life in front of her. Darian's parents, Mr. Paul Henderson and Mrs. Flo Bellman, told the community that courts must make public safety a priority and consider the rights of victims and survivors when deciding bail.

Mr. Henderson said, “Right now, it's on the police officers, Crown attorney and victim to say why the offender should stay in custody, which doesn't make any sense.... What we're suggesting is that [this] needs to be flipped around.”

He continued, “If he hadn't been released on bail again, Darian would be alive today.... The courts put faith in a surety to justify bail, even though the same surety had failed multiple times before with no consequences. That failure cost our daughter her life.”

The pain for Mr. Henderson and Mrs. Bellman is unimaginable. They relive the tragedy every single day: the moment their daughter was shot, the grief of losing her and the knowledge that the system failed her.

The sad story for Mr. Henderson and Mrs. Bellman is their having to relive the tragic death of their daughter and the brutal way in which she was killed. She was shot four times, including once in the eye. Her parents went on to say, “The system seems to prioritize the rights of offenders over the safety and well-being of victims and survivors.... The daily loss of life is unacceptable.... Violent offenders—keep them off the streets to protect those who are most vulnerable in our communities.”

According to an article, the Durham Regional Police's “Chief Peter Moreira said the number of people out on bail committing serious crimes is a ‘growing epidemic’ across Ontario.”

He said, “without a strong deterrent, those people who have already demonstrated that they don't deserve to be in the public spaces, living among us, are out there reoffending and victimizing more and more people”.

York Regional Police chief, Chief Jim MacSween, was clear that the Liberal policy on violent offenders needs to change. Chief MacSween stated, “Once again, we're seeing cases where individuals released on bail are involved in serious crimes within our communities. To ensure public safety and protect our officers, we need a bail system that effectively addresses repeat violent offenders while maintaining public confidence.”

King—Vaughan has seen this first-hand. Months ago, a father of four, Abdul Aleem Farooqi, was shot and killed in front of his children during a home invasion in Vaughan. Just last week, York Regional Police announced arrests and charges. One of the suspects, Mohammad Abuhmaid, a 26-year-old from Mississauga, was out on bail at the time of the murder. He faces multiple charges, including first-degree murder, breaking and entering with intent, robbery with a firearm, possession of stolen property over $5,000 and breach of probation.

Police said, “There are four separate forms of release that he was out in the community on.... The offences vary in severity...but it is concerning when this type of event happens.”

In addition, a 16-year-old remains at large, wanted for multiple offences, including first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. These tragedies are preventable. If bail laws had prioritized public safety instead of the Liberal principle of restraint policy, Mr. Farooqi might be alive today. His children would still have their father, but this family now has to live with unimaginable loss.

Bill C-14 proposes some improvements, but it does not go far enough. It fails to remove the principle of restraint, the very clause added in Bill C-75 that tells judges and police to prioritize release. Mandatory minimums repealed by Bill C-5 have not been restored, leaving sentencing highly discretionary. The limits imposed on conditional sentences do not go far enough. Those sentenced for robbery, firearms and human trafficking offences can still access home arrest.

A police detective recently told me a story about an individual he arrested who was in possession of an illegal firearm. When arrested, the individual laughed and said that he would be out before the paperwork was finished. He also told the detective that since the Liberals removed the mandatory minimum for illegal gun possession, he would not have to do a minimum of three years in jail. He would be out in no time. He was smiling from ear to ear.

The Liberals have spent years ignoring the mess they created with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. They finally admitted that changes were needed, but their so-called reforms still leave dangerous repeat offenders in the systems that prioritize their release over public safety.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the floor. The Conservatives have constantly changed their position on Bill C‑75, first vowing to repeal it entirely, then targeting the principle of restraint and now proposing to amend it. Bill C‑14 now clarifies that restraint does not mean “automatic release”.

With such constant flip-flopping, why trust a party that is so unclear on the principles of fundamental justice?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to look in the faces of the people in my community and tell them that they have made everything possible. I believe that the Carney Liberal candidate for Victoria—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member.

The member cannot use the first name, the last name or the full name of the Prime Minister in the House. Members do make mistakes about the rules in this House.

I will let the member for King— Vaughan finish.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said earlier that the Liberal candidate from Victoria is on the record calling to defend the police, to disarm most police and promote drug decriminalization. If they believe that—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Defending?

[An hon. member]

Defunding.