Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2025

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-4—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on October 29, 2025, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning the admissibility of amendments made to Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, by the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the whip of the Bloc Québécois for their interventions.

The parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-4 was accompanied by a royal recommendation specifically to authorize the Canada Revenue Agency to draw from the consolidated revenue fund to make a payment for first-time homebuyers who meet the terms, conditions and qualifications in the bill. This payment would be for an amount equal to the GST that the buyer paid to the builder of the house.

The parliamentary secretary further argued that 11 amendments adopted by the committee required a royal recommendation since they seek to advance the start date of the rebates scheme from May 27, 2025, to March 20, 2025, which would result in additional charges to the consolidated revenue fund. He also drew the Chair's attention to a Speaker's ruling from February 1, 2024, about the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-356, an act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other acts.

In his response, the whip of the Bloc Québécois said that, according to a departmental news release, Bill C‑4 would eliminate the GST for some first-time buyers of a property and reduce it for others. He added that buyers would apply to the government for a GST rebate, to be paid out once they prove they are eligible.

The whip of the Bloc Québécois argued that the legislative proposals to effect non-refundable tax credits or tax exemptions do not require a royal recommendation. He also cited a government backgrounder on Bill C‑4 that referred to the elimination or reduction of a tax, as opposed to a refund that could exceed the amount of GST originally paid. This point, the member suggested, is what separates this situation from one that would require a royal recommendation.

With respect to Bill C‑356, the member argued that the bill would have authorized the reallocation of roughly $100 million for purposes unrelated to the GST rebate also envisaged in the bill, something that clearly required a royal recommendation, and that it was unclear whether the GST refund set out in Bill C‑356 might exceed the amount of GST paid.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene in matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, concerns about the procedural admissibility of any amendments adopted by a committee may be brought to the attention of the Speaker once the bill is reported back to the House.

Accordingly, the Chair has reviewed the Standing Committee on Finance's clause-by-clause proceedings on Bill C-4. The 11 amendments modifying clauses 3 to 13, which are included in the committee's report and in the reprint of the bill, had been ruled inadmissible by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, as she determined that these amendments would impose a charge on the public treasury, which would affect government revenues and expenditures, and, as a result, would require a royal recommendation. The committee chair's rulings were challenged and overturned, and the amendments were ultimately adopted.

Fundamentally, the question before me is whether the rebating of a tax already collected constitutes an expenditure of the government or constitutes a reduction in taxation.

In its summary, Bill C-4 states that it is intended to “implement a temporary GST new housing rebate for first-time home buyers.” In other words, eligible buyers would be able to receive a refund of the GST they have paid. Furthermore, several clauses of Bill C-4 indicate that this is a GST rebate. This means that buyers who qualify would be reimbursed for the GST they have paid under this program.

As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 838, “a royal recommendation is not required for a bill whose effect is to reduce taxes otherwise payable.”

While this is a complicated and nuanced question, I am guided by a decision dated October 16, 1995, when Speaker Parent had to rule on whether the reimbursement of a tax constituted a levy on public funds that would require a royal recommendation. On page 15410 of the Debates, he stated:

...that the repayment of tax revenues already received was not an appropriation of public money.

The Chair can further add that while such measures may result in reducing the government's revenues, they are not, per se, charges on the consolidated revenue fund.

In this context, and after careful consideration of the specific measures contained in Bill C-4, the Chair finds that the amendments in question do not require a royal recommendation, and that the committee's report and the reprinted bill are properly before the House.

I thank all members for their attention.

Criminal Code

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

moved that Bill C‑238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (restitution orders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to my bill, Bill C‑238, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to restitution orders.

Every day in Canada, community organizations step in to support those affected by crime. They save lives, counsel survivors, and help families and neighbourhoods rebuild, yet the very people who absorb the cost of those crimes have no formal place in restitution. Bill C-238 would change that. It would ensure that when an offender is held accountable, communities that bear the harm can share in the repair, and it recognizes community harm as part of justice itself. This bill comes from a simple but powerful idea: that justice should recognize not only the individual victim, but also the communities that bear the weight of the harm.

Across Canada, our cities, towns and first nations are on the front lines of two intertwined crises: organized crime and the opioid epidemic. The human toll is heartbreaking, but there is also a quiet, grinding cost that falls on the shoulders of community organizations, shelters, counselling services, harm-reduction sites, addiction programs and first responders. Every day, they pick up the pieces after an overdose, after a trafficking rescue or after a family is shattered. They provide care, compassion and safety, often with too few resources and too little recognition. Meanwhile, those convicted of drug trafficking or human trafficking often profit from the suffering they cause.

It is entirely appropriate for our courts to be given a clear way to order restitution for those who help victims rebuild their lives.

Under section 738 of the Criminal Code, judges already have discretion to order restitution payments made by an offender to compensate for losses. That restitution is rightfully given to individual victims. Let me be clear: Bill C-238 would not change that principle; it would strengthen it. It would clarify and expand who can receive restitution in certain cases.

In cases of drug or human trafficking, courts would be able to order restitution directly to a community organization that provides frontline services and can show that it incurred measurable expenses because of that crime. This could include emergency shelters, medical services, harm reduction and overdose prevention programs, security measures for staff and clients, counselling for workers exposed to trauma, and additional staffing or training to meet surging demand.

This bill builds on existing judicial tools. It would not require new government spending. It would simply give courts a clearer signal from Parliament that restitution can and should flow where harm is proven and where recovery begins. This is a bill about justice with purpose and about pragmatic compassion. Punishment alone cannot heal the damage caused by trafficking or addiction, but when an offender is required to contribute directly to repairing that harm and when restitution helps fund the very services that support victims, justice becomes tangible.

This helps to rebuild trust, restore dignity, and show victims and service providers that the justice system cares about them.

In my community of Sudbury, I have met with police, outreach workers, addiction counsellors and victim service agencies. They told me in plain words that the current system leaves community responders invisible. At our meeting with Chief Sara Cunningham of the Greater Sudbury Police Service, she told me that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police has already discussed this bill and views it as a good and timely effort that would have a real impact across Ontario.

She noted that while proceeds of crime can sometimes be allocated to victim support services, resources remain limited. She emphasized that community groups such as Angels of Hope are essential partners in the recovery process and need more consistent funding.

Ali Farooq, who runs the Go-Give Project and operates Sudbury's warming centre, shared his support for this bill. His organization recently had to hire 30 additional staff to stay open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He said plainly they are doing everything they can, but they need fair ways to recover costs directly tied to the crimes they respond to every day.

At Angels of Hope, an organization supporting victims and survivors of human trafficking, staff told me they were pleased to see this bill introduced. Its team, made up of survivors themselves, work in difficult conditions with limited short-term grants. As one worker put it, the funding ends, but the trauma does not. They reminded me that Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Niagara are hot spots for trafficking and that too many victims have nowhere safe to go once they are rescued.

These are the voices behind Bill C-238. They are not asking for charity. They are asking for fairness and for the ability to recover costs directly tied to the crimes themselves.

The preamble of this bill affirms what Parliament already recognizes: that crimes like drug and human trafficking have far-reaching community impacts, that acknowledging and repairing community harm is a legitimate objective of sentencing and that frontline organizations should have a clear legal pathway for restitution from offenders. This is fully consistent with the principles of proportionality, accountability and reparation already embedded in our sentencing framework.

It also aligns with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which guarantees victims the right to seek restitution and have their losses recognized by the court.

Across Canada, municipalities and service agencies are struggling to absorb the costs of the opioid crisis. According to Health Canada data, more than 38,000 Canadians have died of apparent opioid toxicity since 2016. Behind every number are families, paramedics and community workers who respond to tragedy again and again.

In Sudbury, the police service reported a record number of overdose calls last year, and local shelters are often at capacity. Bill C-238 would not change the standard of proof or judicial discretion. It would simply direct what restitution is considered for trafficking offences. The court may include frontline organizations if they demonstrate specific, reasonable costs resulting from the crime.

Eligible expenses are practical and narrow: medical supplies, security, counselling and other operational costs that can be verified by receipts or financial statements. This preserves judicial independence while giving meaning to the concept of community harm.

This proposal also reflects modern thinking about restorative justice. Restitution is not only about money; it is about accountability. It allows an offender to take part, in a very concrete way, in repairing the damage they caused. For many victims and service providers, that recognition matters as much as the funds themselves. It sends a message that justice is not blind to the broader human impact of crime.

In northern Ontario and across the country, frontline workers often feel invisible to the justice system. They see the same individuals cycle through addiction, arrest and relapse. They bear the secondary trauma, yet the system treats them as bystanders. This bill tells them that we see them, we value them and we will empower courts to recognize their losses.

Some might ask whether expanding restitution eligibility could reduce what is available to individual victims. It would not. Individual victims remain the first priority. This bill would simply add another category of possible recipients, allowing judges to decide fairly based on the facts of each individual case. Others might ask whether this would create new bureaucracy or costs. It would not. Restitution orders are offender-paid.

No new government programs or additional funding are required. The process already exists. We are simply making sure that communities affected by trafficking are not left behind.

Some people may also ask why the bill focuses only on drug trafficking and human trafficking. The answer is this: precision. These are crimes that inflict measurable cascading harm and are linked to organized networks that exploit people and communities for profit.

By targeting these specific offences, the bill remains focused and effective, addressing the most egregious examples of harm to the community.

Local police, frontline agencies and victim support organizations in Sudbury and across northern Ontario have expressed strong support. One outreach coordinator told me that the bill gives them hope that the justice system will finally acknowledge what they live every day.

Restitution orders are not a silver bullet, but they are a tool that can complement other efforts, such as treatment, prevention and law enforcement. They reinforce a simple truth: When harm is done, repair should follow. In clarifying that restitution can extend to community organizations, we strengthen local capacity, reinforce public confidence and promote offender accountability in a practical and restorative way.

The bill is about bringing the justice system closer to the communities it serves. It is about recognizing that safety and recovery are shared responsibilities. When courts are empowered to acknowledge community harm, they also acknowledge community resilience, the courage of those who keep showing up, shift after shift, to help others heal.

Bill C-238 would be a modest but meaningful change. It builds on what already works in our justice system. It asks no more of taxpayers and no less of offenders. It would ensure that restitution serves its true purpose: to help victims and communities heal. I am proud to bring forward legislation that reflects both compassion and accountability.

I believe that members on all sides can agree that the costs of these crimes should not rest solely on the shoulders of the people already struggling to respond. The principle is simple: The people who profit from harm should contribute to the repair.

To my colleagues, I say that we should stand together for justice that restores as well as punishes, give our judges a clearer path to supporting the organizations holding our communities together and send a message to every community across Canada that Parliament hears them, values them and is willing to act.

Let us show Canadians that Parliament listens to them and values them. We are ready to take action.

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

Madam Speaker, a general theme running through the member's speech was offender accountability, and I think every member of the House appreciates that principle. However, I say to the member that if she were truly concerned about accountability, she would know that accountability also promotes meaningful consequences for individuals who prey on other humans in order to traffic them and for those individuals who traffic deadly substances that often lead to deadly results.

Instead of focusing on providing community supports and restitution, why did the member in fact support and vote for Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory minimum penalties for people who traffic in humans and for those who traffic in fentanyl?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question goes to the heart of this very bill, which is to make criminals pay for the crimes and the havoc they wreak in our communities. The bill focuses specifically on human trafficking and drugs because we can see the devastating harmful effects these have had in communities all across Canada. In our downtowns, the opioid epidemics and the numbers of deaths are very clear. We know that behind every one of those numbers is a family, and the bill is a step toward bringing justice for them.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, it is important to make criminals pay. Yes, it is important to support organizations that help victims, that provide victims with assistance. However, there already exists a process that works for victims.

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which my colleague referred to, does indeed affirm the right to restitution. The same Canadian Victims Bill of Rights also defines a victim as an individual who has suffered harm and is entitled to this remedy.

It seems to me that this bill complicates matters by adding something, like adding another dancer in a two-person dance like the tango. It complicates matters rather than simplify them. In a sense, victims will have to compete with community organizations for compensation, even though everyone agrees that community organizations have other things to worry about.

I would like my colleague to explain why the government wants to complicate something that is already working.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad my colleague asked that question. There is no question that, when it comes to compensation, priority is given to victims and families. This bill in no way changes that priority. That is very important. It simply allows judges to choose more organizations that provide services to the victims of these crimes. The process does already exist. This bill has the potential to make the system more effective.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-238 looks at putting first responders, victims and communities at the forefront of justice and repair.

I would like to ask the member to take a minute to explain the balance between justice and punishment, and repair.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill really does speak to being able to heal a community, as well as to holding offenders accountable. Restitution connects that responsibility to repair, and it turns words of accountability into real, tangible action. It is about making criminals pay for the devastation of their crimes in our communities all across Canada. It also helps rebuild trust in the justice system and shows that our first responders and service providers are visible to all of us, including within the justice system.

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

Madam Speaker, every member of the chamber has seen the toll that addiction, trafficking and exploitation take on our communities. I have spoken with first responders who arrive at overdoses of the same people night after night. I have met with outreach workers stretched to the breaking point and with volunteers who keep showing up because no one else will.

I want to begin by recognizing what the bill is trying to do: help those community frontline services that are carrying the heaviest load in the fight against crime and addiction. That is the goal every member can respect, but good intentions alone do not make good law. As we look more closely at Bill C-238, we have to ask whether it would actually deliver on its promise, or whether it would simply add another layer of process to a justice system already overburdened and under-resourced.

Section 738 of the Criminal Code already lets judges order restitution for losses to victims or organizations; the provision is there. It is tested, and it works, though only to a degree, sadly. Restitution has been part of Canada's Criminal Code since the code's inception in 1892, but the reality is that Canadian statistics suggest restitution is rarely ordered. A recent study from Stats Canada confirmed that “a mere 1.6 percent of all cases tried in adult criminal courts that produced a guilty verdict resulted in restitution orders.”

Bill C-238 would add process, not capability. Our justice system does not need another procedural loop; it needs the resources and efficiency to use tools it already has. When we start writing duplicate laws for things already covered, we do not make justice stronger; we make it slower and weak. Here is a case in point: Canadian courts are still suffering from lengthy delays suffered as a consequence of the pandemic.

The bill would apply only to drug offences and human trafficking offences, but if the principle is that communities deserve restitution for the cost of crime, why single out only those two categories? Moreover, if the member for Sudbury were fully concerned about the devastating impacts those two categories of offences have on this country, we would only conclude that she would be equally concerned about prosecuting and sentencing the offenders to real brick-and-mortar jails.

She cannot do this, because she and every member of her party voted in favour of Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory minimum penalties for human trafficking and for all Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences, which now opens up the availability of conditional sentences, also known as house arrest. This is patently absurd, as the majority of those offences are often conducted in the offender's home.

Communities also absorb costs from organized theft, from gang violence and from sexual exploitation. Victim services offices, police and shelters respond to all of them. The bill draws an arbitrary line that cannot be justified in principle or in policy. If it is fairness we want, this approach would achieve the opposite.

Now let us talk about how restitution would actually work in a courtroom. To issue one of the new restitution orders, a judge would need clear proof that a specific organization suffered a measurable loss because of a particular offender. That is an extremely high bar. Let us consider an overdose, for example. Which trafficker's case caused the hospital's expense for treatment or for overtime staffing?

These are broad social costs that accumulate across dozens of incidents and multiple offenders; we cannot effectively trace them to one person's conviction. Even if we could, community organizations would have to present detailed financial records, such as expense sheets, invoices, staff hours and supply logs to show that their loss was “readily ascertainable”, which is language in the member's bill. Most shelters and non-profits simply do not have the existing accounting systems to generate that kind of documentation.

Instead of helping, the provision would drag them into court, wasting scarce time and resources. Suppose a court somehow gets through all of that and issues an order for tens of thousands of dollars. Then what would happen? The reality is that most offenders in trafficking and drug cases have no money, assets or ability to pay restitution.

Many are already facing lengthy custodial sentences. These restitution orders would sit, uncollected, symbolic, unenforceable and meaningless to the organizations they were meant to help. It creates the illusion of accountability, justice on paper but not in practice.

Our courts are under enormous pressure. Sentencing hearings are complex enough. Judges must weigh aggravating factors, review the evidence and consider pre-sentence reports. The bill would graft a new financial hearing on to that process. Judges would have to review expense records and hear testimony about causation and costs. Prosecutors would have to gather accounting evidence and call witnesses. Defence counsel, of course, would be entitled to challenge every figure and witness. We would end up with longer hearings, more adjournments and a greater backlog. The people waiting for justice would wait even longer, all for restitution orders that, in most cases, will never be collected.

The administrative burden does not stop with the courts. Shelters, treatment centres and first-responder agencies would need to track and document every cost tied to specific offences. That means new record-keeping systems, new paperwork and, probably, new staff to manage it.

Perhaps the most concerning effect of Bill C-238 is the false expectation it would create. It suggests to communities that offenders will somehow pay back the social costs of crime. That is simply not realistic. We all want accountability, but accountability means consequences that can actually be enforced. It means restitution that can actually be paid. The bill would offer neither.

We owe it to Canadians to be honest. The way to help frontline services is not through theoretical restitution orders. It is through real, predictive funding and effective enforcement against the people who cause the harm in the first place.

What is a better approach? Conservatives believe in accountability that works. That also means real consequences. That is why every member on this side of the House voted against the repeal of Bill C-5. We believe in laws that can be enforced and that deliver real outcomes for victims and communities.

If the goal is to strengthen support for frontline organizations, there are better, proven ways to do it. These include investing directly in victim services and treatment programs instead of routing support through uncollectible court orders, as well as ensuring stronger enforcement against organized trafficking networks so that the real criminals, the ones profiting from misery, face meaningful sentences.

That is often the most difficult aspect of policing. They are always trying to get the larger fish in the pond, those who are organizing the street traffickers. It is always a give-and-take, with law enforcement trying to find those who actually organize the criminal enterprise.

We need to modernize restitution enforcement so that when courts do issue orders, they are actually collected. Right now, with a restitution order ordered by the court, victims have a process, but it is through the civil courts. It is often faced with uncertainty, lengthy delays and costs, again, trying to squeeze that orange for a drop of juice from an individual who likely has absolutely zero assets and zero means to pay. We need to support first responders and community staff with dedicated mental health funding. These are practical, targeted solutions that deliver results, not rhetoric.

The principle behind the bill is sincere, but sincerity alone does not make sound policy. At its core, it is unenforceable and burdensome. It asks courts to do the impossible, and it risks diverting energy and resources away from the very real victims and communities it seeks to help.

Justice should be swift, fair and effective. It should focus on outcomes that can be delivered, not aspirations that cannot. We owe it to Canadians to pursue policies that make communities safer and victims stronger. We should not have more paperwork, longer trials and promises we cannot keep. For all of these reasons, regrettably, I cannot support the bill.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our colleague from Sudbury for encouraging us to reflect on the matter of compensation for victims of crime. We must, of course, fight against crime, which we already strive to do in various ways with various bills, but we also have a responsibility to look after victims.

Let us be clear that the Bloc Québécois is in agreement with holding drug traffickers and pimps accountable. Does that mean, however, that the approach proposed by our colleague is the right one? The member for Sudbury is a parliamentarian whom I greatly respect and appreciate, but with all due respect, I believe this is the wrong approach.

Firstly, the bill would in theory allow for a legal entity to be compensated. This is inconsistent with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which states that “an individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence” can receive restitution. However, the bill tabled by our colleague from Sudbury provides that the beneficiary of such restitution could be a community organization, or in other words, a legal entity, which would conflict with the bill of rights.

In my humble opinion, we have to be careful on this point and prevent confusion. This could also lead to another outcome, as my colleague from Drummond pointed out a few minutes ago, an outcome that we would say is undesirable. Real victims, such as the victims of pimps, would be competing against community organizations that provide services to the victims of pimps to get restitution orders. Honestly, I do not think community organizations would spend much time fighting that sort of battle, but it would still be a real problem.

Real victims must be compensated. Community organizations should be funded according to their needs. Processes already exist for that funding. These include, for example, victim surcharges. As we know, anyone facing a conviction in recent years always has a fine and surcharge imposed. While we may often wonder what purpose surcharges serve, they are redistributed to the provinces to fund the various victim assistance services and programs. Organizations that help victims of crime are therefore funded through victim surcharges. The direct victims themselves may be entitled to restitution, and this is already provided for in the Criminal Code.

Moreover, victims can file a claim for a whole range of damages. The Civil Code already contains a compensation regime, a civil liability regime for damages suffered by victims. This applies equally to victims of criminal acts and victims of civil torts or unintentional torts. Victims can already initiate civil proceedings for suffering, emotional distress and material damage. If a community organization has suffered this type of damage because of a crime, it could sue the person responsible for the crime in civil court and obtain compensation. Similarly, the victim of a pimp can also sue the pimp, not only by filing a criminal complaint, but also by filing a civil suit to obtain compensation.

In light of that, it is evident that there are systems in place that allow for adequate compensation for all these individuals. There is already a system in place. The real issue is that there is a problem with this system, a recurring problem with federal government programs in general: underfunding.

When it comes to health care funding in Canada, which has been a recurring topic in this chamber, we know that the federal government has gradually reduced its commitment year after year. Originally, in the 1960s, the federal government was supposed to fund 50%. Today, we are fortunate if it reaches 25%.

The reduction in health care funding is reflected across many public services. We often talk about infrastructure programs, but they have slowed down, as well. We have a housing crisis, which provinces and municipalities are tackling, but the federal government appears too slow to act. Meanwhile, the situation is becoming increasingly urgent.

We talk about providing support for individuals who have fallen prey to pimps, drug traffickers, and other such criminals. Obviously, we are not insensitive to such situations, and we agree that victims should receive assistance. Nevertheless, I think we need to proceed cautiously and align our requests with current programs to ensure individuals are not left without clear avenues for support.

Right now, victims can seek help from organizations. These organizations can apply for grants, perhaps primarily through the federal victim surcharge program. Victims can also pursue restitution through the courts once a criminal is sentenced. All these individuals can still initiate civil proceedings to seek compensation for current or future harm. That strikes me as being more than sufficient.

We do agree, however, that the amounts are not sufficient. Perpetrators of these crimes are not fully held to account or made to answer for their actions. We would like to see greater accountability from them, and they should provide more compensation for their victims. There will always be an issue with debtor solvency in these cases. Is it possible to secure compensation from those responsible for these crimes? That remains to be seen, but that is another issue.

Turning to the compensation processes and the sources of compensation, I respectfully submit that the sources are there and they are working. We must avoid confusion among Canadians, as this could jeopardize fair compensation for victims.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois fully supports the notion of making those who commit crimes accountable. The Bloc is fully in favour of holding hearings within an expedited timeline to secure their conviction.

I have not talked about these time limits, but that is another flaw in our justice system. The time to trial even prompted the Supreme Court to introduce time limits in the Jordan decision. We are still unable to meet these time limits. That is a major issue and it will have to be dealt with at some point

While we agree with what has been said, unfortunately, we cannot support the bill introduced by our colleague from Sudbury.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to my colleague from Sudbury's private member's bill. I listened to her comments, and I must compliment her on her homework, consultation and identifying an opportunity to have a positive impact for our communities.

I truly appreciate that we have a member who recognizes that it would be advantageous, not only in her own constituency but in constituencies across all regions of our country, to have legislation of this nature passed into law. I compliment her for using this bill, one of the very few private members' bills that will have a chance to pass in the House of Commons, to raise such an important issue.

The Conservatives' responses to the legislation are very interesting. I must say I am a little surprised. I anticipated that they would be more inclined to see the legislation go to committee, at the very least. That is quite disappointing because if we look at what the legislation is proposing, it is about restitution and the offender paying back. I amplify how important it is that we get restitution going to the individual victim. It is our first priority.

There are crimes taking place in our communities that are very damaging, whether they be against a non-profit association or a group. We have thousands of non-profit organizations throughout the country. Many of them contribute endless volunteer hours for the purpose of making our communities safer. That is one of the reasons I do not understand the responses to the bill.

When it comes to private members' bills, limited resources are given to private members. Legislation often requires some form of an amendment to build on it or make it stronger, and we often see that at the committee stage. I believe the member for Sudbury is open to improving the legislation if it means we can make it stronger. We can take a look at restitution and the impact it can have, not only on a victim, but, going beyond a victim, on our community non-profits in particular and communities in general.

I had the opportunity during the 1990s to sit on a justice committee. Toward the tail end of that process, we were afforded the opportunity not only to punish a young offender, but also to look at restitution with the victims. Even though I did not do very many cases myself, as the chair of the justice committee, I had the opportunity to do a couple of them. Through that process, I witnessed that when the victims are sitting with the offender, it is possible to come up with a form of restitution that provides a fair disposition in which the victim has more of a direct say.

It is this principle that I am talking about today: restitution orders better reflecting the impact a particular crime has on our communities.

It would be obvious to state that when one is before a court and the judge is in a position to make a judicial decision, the first consideration is given to the direct victim. Even though there are certain allowances within the Criminal Code to go beyond that, we do not necessarily see them being acted on for a number of different reasons. That is where Bill C-238 would come into play. It would not only recognize the victim; it would go beyond the immediate victim to ask, “What about the community? Should a judge not give it consideration in certain situations?” I believe the answer to that is yes.

The bill would provide a sense of what a community is. It would provide some clarity on the definition of a community. It would give tangible examples, such as shelters, of what a community could be. We have warming centres in many of our major cities throughout the country, and even in smaller, rural communities.

I think of the work that many communities put into something like the Siloam Mission or the Bear Clan Patrol. There are local residents' associations and the many different community facilities we have, such as community centres, indoor ice rinks, basketball courts and the infrastructure with community supports around it.

I think of the individuals the legislation would highlight: human trafficker and drug offenders. These are serious issues that are having profoundly negative impacts on our communities. The member for Sudbury made reference to the number of people who have been negatively impacted. Tens of thousands of individuals have died. Imagine the harm drug traffickers are causing in our communities. This bill would raise the level of accountability so that there are better consequences for the crimes being committed. Ultimately, many of the crimes are against communities, and the impact they have on a community can be very severe.

In Winnipeg, we have some very serious issues with gangs. There are powerful drug lords, if I can put it that way, in our communities. When they go up against the courts, the judge could recognize, through this legislation, that there is a strong argument to be made for restitution to the community. The drug lords could receive additional conditions that would see them having to pay the community they have so negatively impacted.

I believe this legislation should go to committee. I hope the Conservative Party will reconsider its position on the legislation and recognize the value of the victim, as well as the value of our communities and the thousands of people who support them.

I thank the member for bringing forward this legislation.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-238. This bill would amend section 738 of the Criminal Code so that courts could make offenders pay back community organizations, like shelters, emergency services and victim support groups, that have faced rising costs because of human trafficking and serious drug offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This is a worthy idea, and I applaud the member for grappling with it.

These organizations deal with the damage caused by crime every single day. They are the ones that respond to overdoses, find safe beds for victims and support survivors through trauma in my community and across Canada. When crime rises, their workload rises and costs go up. I am certain that the intent behind this bill is to recognize that reality and help these organizations be better funded as a result, but good intentions do not always make good law.

While what this bill seeks to create sounds wonderful in theory, as a former litigator and adjudicator, I can tell members that, in practice, all this law would deliver is more legal complexity, higher costs, more parties with standing to intervene in cases and, ultimately, longer delays in a criminal justice system that is already stretched well beyond its limits. I truly appreciate that this bill recognizes that the costs of crime do not stop with the direct victim. When traffickers exploit vulnerable people or drug dealers poison our streets with fentanyl, we all suffer. Our hospitals, our shelters, our police, our paramedics and our families are all left to deal with the aftermath, and this aftermath is one we see and deal with every day in Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Under the current law, judges can already order restitution when losses are clear and can be easily proven. For example, if someone breaks a window or steals property and the offender is caught, the loss can be connected to the offender, the cost can be easily quantified and the offender can be ordered to pay it back to the victim. What Bill C-238 would do is cast a wider net, allowing community organizations and others to claim their costs, reflecting the real costs to society of those crimes. That is what it would do in theory.

In the case of a broken window or theft of property, the costs could be the expenses of the local neighbourhood watch and community associations or the costs to the municipality of increased police patrols in that neighbourhood. In the case of drug trafficking, the costs could include the increased costs of medical care, harm reduction supplies, security equipment, counselling for staff and so on. I genuinely appreciate and support these goals, but causation is a problem.

If a community organization wants to recover its costs from an offender, causation requires it to link those specific costs to the specific offender by showing that, but for the offender's crime, the organization would not have had that cost. The idea is that we should not make one person pay for another person's crime, or make one person, no matter how bad we might think they are, pay for something the organization would still have had to pay for if the crime had not been committed. Restitution works really well for direct victims, but by casting this broadly, the problems would mount until they become insurmountable.

Take a shelter that helps victims of trafficking. It has rent, utilities, salaries, security costs, food costs and counselling costs. How do we tie those costs to a single trafficker's actions? What percentage is this one responsible for, as opposed to that one? Think about a hospital that treats overdose victims. How does a judge decide how much of an emergency room's budget is related to or how many doses of naloxone were used because of one particular dealer's drugs?

The bill tries to help by listing examples of eligible costs, but that would not solve the problem. The issue is not defining what the costs are; it is proving that those costs were caused by a specific offence committed by a specific offender. That comes at the sentencing phase, which could be years after the arrest.

Pulling that evidence together means a mountain of paperwork that would eat at the valuable time of frontline workers and ultimately hurt the very communities the bill seeks to help. It also means more time in court. The bill would turn sentencing hearings into mini-civil trials in which defence lawyers and prosecutors bicker back and forth over spreadsheets and receipts, arguing about which costs count and which costs do not. Documents would need a witness to put them into evidence, diverting more resources from the community organizations we are trying to help. In the end, expert witnesses, consultants and lawyers will be the only ones who make any money.

This brings me to enforceability. Restitution is not meant to be a fine or a punishment. It is meant to put victims in the position they would have been in but for the offence. It is not linked to crime in general. It is linked to a specific crime and a specific offender. However, the costs that community organizations face are linked to crime in general, and most criminals do not have regular bank accounts that courts can garnishee.

What would happen if an organization successfully cleared the causation hurdle? The court would issue a restitution order that will almost certainly never be collected, as my colleagues who have also spoken to the bill have explained. The organization would look well funded on paper and may cease to be eligible for grants because, in theory, it has a judgment it can collect on. It would usually have 10 years to collect on that judgment even though it will realistically never see the money. That does not help anyone.

Unrealistic restitution orders feel great on judgment day. They sound good, and they create the kind of hope that the hon. member sponsoring the bill spoke about in her remarks. However, that hope is almost certain to be false hope, embodying the illusion of accountability without the reality of it.

What should we do? Conservatives believe strongly in victim-centred justice. We believe offenders should be held accountable for the harm they cause. We believe in supporting the people and organizations that keep our communities safe. We also believe that there are better ways to achieve this than what the bill is trying to do. We believe in mandatory minimum sentences for the offenders who traffic in drugs and create havoc in our communities. We would try fentanyl dealers as murderers.

We could strengthen our asset forfeiture laws so that the proceeds of trafficking and drug crimes are seized and directed more directly to community recovery programs. We could work with the provinces to expand funding for victim services and trauma counselling. We could provide stable, predictable funding to frontline organizations so that they can plan ahead and deliver services without worrying about whether they will get restitution from a convicted offender who may not have any money.

These solutions would make a real difference. These solutions would ensure that the money actually reached the people doing the work without having to prove direct causation related to a specific case, without the need for participation in litigation and without creating an additional burden on our already overtaxed criminal justice system.

I have no doubt that the member who brought forward the bill did so out of a genuine desire to make the system better. My colleagues and I share that desire, but, as legislators, we have a duty to pass laws that are workable. Bill C-238 is not a workable law. It creates false hope, complexity and cost without achieving its goals. Unfortunately, it would not help victims. It would not help fund community organizations. It would mostly benefit consultants, accountants and the professional expert witness class while adding cost and workload to our already overburdened courts.

For those reasons, but with real respect and appreciation for the intentions with which the bill was crafted, regrettably, we will not be supporting Bill C-238. I would be happy to sit down with the member any time and work on better solutions.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-238.

First of all, I want to acknowledge and congratulate the new mayors and municipal councillors who were just elected in my magnificent riding of Drummond. I also want to give a special shout-out to Drummondville's new mayor, Jean-François Houle, who is a trained lawyer. One of the challenges awaiting him is to calm public fears about community safety, a concern shared by residents in many Quebec cities. Although Drummondville is by no means a city where people feel unsafe, this concern exists nonetheless. It is going to be a challenge for all of Quebec's elected municipal officials.

We talk a lot about safety, and it is frequently covered in political news, yet little is said about victims. What I like about Bill C-238 is that it finally opens up a conversation about what victims go through after experiencing a crime. Victim compensation programs already exist in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. These programs are generally managed by the provinces. Quebec has its CAVACs, or crime victims assistance centres, to help victims, as their name implies. These organizations are subsidized.

Bill C-238 proposes that organizations should now also receive compensation that is generally reserved for victims. I do not think that the judge, in their ruling, will double or triple the compensation intended for the victim. I think the judge will have to make a choice, if such a bill is accepted. No extra money will be put on the table by the people convicted of the acts in question. This puts victims in competition with the organizations that help and support them. It is a bit of a strange bill. It is a bit odd. We can sense the good intentions behind it. We know, of course, that there are no bad intentions behind this bill introduced by the member for Sudbury. However, this misjudged bill could ultimately cause harm to the victims.

In 2021, Quebec reviewed the law that established the crime victims assistance fund, which provides financial support to organizations such as CAVACs. A new law was passed in 2021, and it broadened the definition of “victim” to include more people who are victims of crime. While there are direct victims, there are also people around them who suffer serious consequences as a result of a criminal act. There is now no time limit for filing claims for sexual violence, domestic violence or violence suffered during childhood. Several improvements have been made to facilitate victims' access to compensation. Victims are top of mind. They are the ones who need empathy. They are the ones who need the support of the community, society and organizations.

This bill proposes that organizations also be eligible for the restitution ordered to be paid to the victims. Does this not seem like an odd situation? It is a situation where victims will be shortchanged because the funds granted in the ruling will likely be split so that both the organizations and the victims can get a little bit. This idea seems misjudged to me, even bizarre.

Earlier, I heard the Conservative member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith say, at the end of her speech, that she did not see how her party would be able to support Bill C‑238. Things do not look good for the bill, because, as my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord said earlier, the Bloc Québécois does not intend to support this bill either, because it is not clear and because, once again, the federal government is trying to get involved in something that is already working fairly well. It may need improvement, but it is not through a bill—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the hon. member because the time provided for debate has expired. The hon. member will have four minutes to conclude his remarks when this bill is back before the House.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 30 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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, after a decade of passing laws to make life easier for criminals, the Liberal government has suddenly realized it created a problem. From its rare attempt to face reality, we have Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.

Conservatives have been pointing out for years that the Liberal approach to crime has the opposite effect of what the Liberals intended. Criminals did not realize the error of their ways. Instead of being thankful for generous bail and sentencing reforms that returned them to the street, they took their unexpected freedom as an opportunity to commit another crime or more crimes. Liberal bail reforms brought more crime, not less, and many Canadians began to live in fear as the Liberal revolving-door policies put criminals back on the streets to reoffend, no matter how serious the alleged crime.

For years, Conservatives have been calling on the Liberal government to repeal Bill C-75, which passed in 2019. The legislation created a catch-and-release system in which repeat and violent offenders are routinely freed pending trial. To make matters worse, in 2022, Bill C-5 further weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and repermitting house arrest for serious offences, including sexual assault. In 2023, when they realized that they had maybe gone too far, the Liberals introduced Bill C-48, but this was insufficient in terms of dealing with the problem they had created. The bill included only a handful of new offences to be considered in a reverse onus position. It did not do anything to make it harder for repeat offenders to get bail. That has been the problem: People accused of violent crimes are turned loose to reoffend.

I think every member here understands that this is a problem. In my home city of Edmonton, time and time again, we hear stories about people arrested for violent crimes who are released on bail and immediately reoffend. For example, on July 17, Edmonton police arrested a man and charged him with attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of stolen property, two counts of driving while prohibited, breach of release order, possession of a weapon dangerous to the public, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, failure to stop after an accident and theft of a motor vehicle. The accused criminal had been previously arrested for other crimes and released on bail on July 4. Did he learn from the lenient bail conditions? No, he took the opportunity to go on a crime spree

That is not the first time this sort of incident took place. In 2023, an Edmonton public transit rider was attacked and killed by a man with a history of violence who was on bail at the time, supposedly under house arrest and subject to a court order to stay away from transit property. A life was snuffed out by someone who should have been in custody. A loving father was taken from his family because of a misguided belief that violent offenders could be trusted not to reoffend.

By bringing forth this legislation, the Liberals are admitting that their criminal justice reforms have failed. Since 2014, there has been a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index, along with increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences. Conservatives warned everyone about the consequences of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 for years.

Bill C-14, the bill we are dealing with today, is a clear vindication of Conservative criticisms, but it does not go far enough. The legislation amends the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act and National Defence Act to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release, particularly in cases in which detention is necessary to protect the public, victims or witnesses and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

It would expand reverse onus offences such as violent auto theft, break and enter, human trafficking and extortion, and would direct courts to weigh the number and gravity of outstanding charges when determining bail. The bill would add new aggravating factors, would mandate certain consecutive sentences, would restrict house arrest for sexual offences and would strengthen youth custody and disclosure powers.

While the bill moves closer to the Conservative approach on bail and sentencing, it would not repeal the principle of restraint or restore mandatory minimum sentences. It is essentially a half-hearted effort that the Liberals are offering, hoping that Canadians will be happy with at least some improvements to the justice system without admitting that the need for change is due to Liberal mismanagement.

Consecutive sentences and aggravating factors are useful but are still subject to judicial discretion. As Bill C-14 does not reinstate mandatory minimums, outcomes would remain uneven and uncertain. House arrest would still be a possibility for those convicted of robbery, drug trafficking and firearms offences, not that the Liberals understand anything about who is committing firearms offences. One would think that, having realized the Conservatives were right about how disastrous Liberal justice system reforms have been, they would come to understand the problems with their firearms policies. They need to admit that law-abiding gun owners are not criminals and stop persecuting them.

Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Liberal Prime Minister is repeating his predecessor’s mistake and taking hunting rifles and shotguns from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people. After 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, it has never been easier for violent criminals to obtain a gun. The government has failed to fix the border disorder that lets in almost all of the illegal firearms used in gun crimes. Violent gun crime has increased 116% since 2015.

On May 1, 2020, Justin Trudeau announced a ban on assault-style firearms and promised to “implement a buy-back program as soon as possible to safely remove these firearms and to introduce legislation as early as possible”. We all know how that has worked out.

It has been five years since that announcement, and all the government has managed to do is a pilot project. Planning to spend $750 million on confiscating legally acquired and owned firearms will not reduce gun crime. Just so my friends opposite know, criminals do not register their guns.

Banning hunting rifles or target-shooting pistols does nothing to reduce crime and is virtue signalling at its best. Spending three-quarters of $1 billion on a gun confiscation program is a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. However, given the government spent $54 million on the ArriveCAN app, which should have cost $80,000, I guess money does not matter to it.

Violent gun crime is on the rise because of the catch-and-release bail system the Liberals created with Bill C-75, but also because they reduced penalties for at least nine gun crimes through Bill C-5. When will they realize that?

Bill C-14, which we are considering today, is a good start, but only a half measure. If they were serious about reforming our justice system and ending their catch-and-release bail policies, they would repeal Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that I disagree with a number of things the member put on the record this morning. The bail reform legislation was an election commitment given by the Prime Minister. It was part of the platform. After the election, extensive consultations were done with mayors, premiers and many other different stakeholders and law enforcement agencies. This legislation has widespread support. It was a commitment made to Canadians.

The only thing that will prevent this legislation from becoming law is the Conservative Party. We could pass it before the end of the year. Does the member feel in any way that he owes it to his constituents to get the bail reform legislation passed before the end of the year?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows well that we need Canadians to be safe, first and foremost. In order for Canadians to be safe, the government cannot be light on criminals, as it has been through Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

I said in my speech that this bill, Bill C-14, is a good start. The Conservatives want it to be stronger. We want criminals to understand they cannot just get a freebie every time they do something stupid like attack or kill someone or commit any criminal offence against any Canadian. This is the Conservative Party's aim. We need strong legislation to make sure criminals stay behind bars and are not set free on the streets to recommit crimes again and again.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned that it is important to have strong legislation, rules and laws as long as we give judges the opportunity to make an assessment.

Think about a criminal who has stolen a car for the first time versus one who has committed acts of physical violence against other people or even caused death. I think we can agree that those are two very different things.

It would be nice if we could conduct an in-depth study of this bill in committee. I am wondering whether my colleague would be willing to accept the Bloc Québécois's amendments.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, if anyone should accept any amendments, it should be the government, not the Conservatives.

When it comes to the bill going to committee, it is very important for any bill of this importance to go to committee to be examined by all parties. This is the way we do things. I hope the committee will be able to study this bill well to make sure we can present to Canadians, once and for all, a strong justice system that will really protect them, their families and our streets.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on a couple of things. I very quickly looked at a few numbers. Since Bill C-75 passed, there were 182 murders committed by people out on bail in 2019, 198 in 2020, 171 in 2021, 256 in 2022 and 267 in 2023. We do not have numbers for 2024 and 2025. This does not include intimate partner violence abuse and child abuse by criminals who were out on bail.

A member opposite said that we have all these organizations supporting this bill and asked why we cannot support it. Why does my colleague think the members opposite did not support our motion to quickly pass Bill C-242, the bail not jail bill, when all of those same organizations urged them to support it?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot in the news everywhere about how many crimes are committed every day, and the majority of them are committed by repeat offenders, people released from prison within 15 days who go out on the streets again and start attacking people. I hear about it in Edmonton every day. Toronto is also a great example.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. This legislation represents a significant effort to strengthen public safety and ensure that Canada's justice system works as it should: firm, fair and focused on protecting people.

In my riding of Surrey Centre, we have seen first-hand how crime can shake a community's sense of safety. I have spoken with families, business owners and community leaders who have been directly targeted by extortion and intimidation. Some have received threatening calls demanding money. Others have seen shots fired at their homes and businesses, or had their livelihoods put at risk because they refused to pay. Some may have even been murdered for failing to pay.

These are not abstract crimes; they are real acts of fear and coercion that are leaving long-lasting damage. They rob people of their peace of mind and the freedom to live and work without intimidation, and they erode trust in the system when those responsible are seen walking the streets soon after being arrested.

Canadians want communities to be safe. When those expectations are not met, they expect their government to respond. That is why this bill matters. The bail and sentencing reform act is about restoring confidence that our justice system will protect the innocent, support victims and hold offenders fully accountable. It is also about restoring confidence that the federal government is listening to the concerns of Canadians and responding with concrete action.

Bill C-14 would introduce more than 80 clauses of targeted reforms to make bail laws stricter and sentencing tougher for repeat and violent offenders, while safeguarding the rights guaranteed under the charter. These proposed reforms reflect months of government consultation with provinces and territories, mayors, law enforcement, victims' advocates and community organizations, all united in the shared goal of keeping Canadians safe.

While this bill covers a range of reforms, I want to focus my remarks in a few areas that matter deeply to me and to the people I represent, particularly those dealing with bail, violent crime and the growing problem of extortion and organized crime. I will talk first about Bill C-14's aim to strengthen the bail system.

Across the country, too many tragic and violent crimes have been committed by individuals who were already out on bail. There is growing concern that the bail system is not working as it should when it comes to repeat and violent offenders. This bill aims to address that problem and make bail decisions more responsive to public safety.

It would offer clarity to police and courts about how to apply the principle of restraint and would make clear that it does not require release in every case. Detention is justified when it is necessary to protect public safety. The legislation would also strengthen the guidance given to courts when assessing bail, ensuring that decisions take full account of risks to public safety and the circumstances of the alleged offence. Most importantly, Bill C-14 would introduce several new reverse onus provisions for crimes such as organized auto theft, home invasion, human trafficking, sexual assault involving choking or strangulation, and, critically, extortion involving violence.

Typically, when prosecutors want to detain an accused person while they await trial, they bear the onus or burden of demonstrating to the court that the accused should not be released on bail. The reverse onus would shift this burden from the prosecution to the accused, creating a presumption in favour of keeping the accused in custody unless they can show to the court that they should not be denied bail. In other words, it would be up to the accused to demonstrate why they should be released and not the other way around. By shifting the burden in these cases, the law would help ensure that individuals who repeatedly endanger others remain in custody unless it is truly safe to release them.

I will turn next to how this legislation would help address the growing threat of extortion and organized crime.

In my riding of Surrey Centre, this issue is deeply personal. The Surrey Police Service has reported 65 extortion cases so far this year, with 35 of them involving gunfire. These numbers are alarming, and behind each one are people and families living in fear and uncertainty as a result. When fear like this takes hold, it can damage livelihoods and the sense of safety that communities deserve and depend on. For example, I have heard from business owners who feel targeted simply for working hard and succeeding. No one should ever have to look over their shoulder just for building a successful business.

Bill C-14 would give our justice system stronger tools to respond, making it more difficult for an accused charged with extortion involving threatened or attempted violence to secure their release on bail. It would require the courts to consider the number of and seriousness of outstanding charges accumulated while out on bail, and it would expand weapons prohibitions at the bail stage to include those accused of extortion and organized crime. Importantly, it would also require courts to consider imposing tougher conditions like curfews, no-contact orders and clear geographic restrictions when bail is granted to help prevent further intimidation while cases are before the courts.

These proposals would complement other actions to tackle organized crime and extortion, most notably the recent listing of the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist entity. This equips law enforcement and prosecutors with stronger tools to investigate, disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal networks that traffic in fear and violence. Together, these measures would help ensure that my constituents in Surrey Centre, and Canadians across the country, can live and work without fear or coercion.

Canadians also expect that sentences will reflect the seriousness of the crime committed and the harm done to victims. I would like to highlight a few elements of this bill that would strengthen accountability once offenders are convicted. Bill C-14 would amend the Criminal Code to include significant sentencing reforms to make penalties tougher for repeat violent offenders, including extortion and crimes that endanger public safety. It would require consecutive sentences for certain combinations of offences, as when extortion is committed alongside arson or when a violent auto theft is linked with the breaking and entering of a home. Each act would be treated as a separate harm deserving of its own consequence. These measures would make sure sentences send a clear message: Those who commit acts of violence or intimidation will face consequences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes.

Bill C-14 represents a balanced and responsive path forward. It is the product of co-operation across multiple levels of government, engagement with frontline responders and listening to the concerns of Canadians, and it reflects the federal government's commitment to doing its part. For those measures to have their full effect, they must be matched with strong implementation at every level, from the provincial administration of justice to local law enforcement in communities across the country.

Keeping Canadians safe requires all partners to work together to uphold their shared responsibilities. In my riding of Surrey Centre and across the country, families, small business owners and community leaders have been clear that they want safer streets, stronger accountability and real consequences for those who commit violent crimes. This bill would help deliver exactly that.

I urge members to give it their full support.

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

Madam Speaker, Canadians are tired of the spin. The government's Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 turned our justice system into a revolving door: catch, release, repeat. Since then, violent crime is up 41%. In my own riding, I sat across from small business owners this weekend who are terrified of extortion, and from families afraid to walk home at night. Add to that record-high immigration levels with no proper vetting, and our neighbours are being shot at while they sleep in their homes. We are watching communities buckle under the pressure.

Please tell me this: After years of failure, why did the Liberals not support the Conservatives' jail not bail bill when they had the chance to fix it?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share a lot of the same concerns as my hon. colleague, whose riding is adjacent to mine. Yes, there is a lot of concern among business owners and families, but the bill that the member opposite is speaking about was more about slogans. It was not charter-compliant and did not have the consultation of the provinces and territories, the attorneys general, the solicitors general, the municipal police forces, victims or the average Canadians and business owners who are reporting these crimes.

Bill C-14 was done with the consultation of municipal police forces, the provinces and territories, solicitors general, attorneys general and members of the public. This is a charter-compliant, victim-focused bill, and that is why we are supporting it.