Debates of Feb. 13th, 2026

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There are nine motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-14.

Motion No. 1 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 2 to 9 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 2 to 9 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

,

seconded by the member for Nunavut, moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-14, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 28 with the following:

“Criminal Code, as enacted by sections 8, 9, 11, 37 and 40, apply only with respect to an offence”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 76.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 77.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-14, in Clause 78, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 36 with the following:

“Act, as enacted by sections 60 to 62, 68, 73”

She said: Mr. Speaker, at the moment, all I would like to say in terms of debate is that I am grateful to have the [Technical difficulty—Editor] submitted, and I look forward to voting on them, but I will be unable to participate in debate at the moment due to circumstances [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We seem to have lost the member's last few words.

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac is rising on a point of order.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely do not know the answer to this. What is the practice with regard to an hon. member who is virtual, not visible to us but merely heard? Is it in order for that person to participate in the debate or not?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The ruling is that the person's face must be visible on the camera. The camera was on, and the member was visible. It may not have popped up on the screen, but the member was visible and she did have the proper headset, which is very important for our friends in the interpretation booth.

The member has passed on her time, so we will resume debate with the hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-14 at report stage and to urge members of the House to support the bill as it stands.

This legislation is not abstract; it is grounded in what Canadians are experiencing in their communities. Over the past several years, we have heard consistent and clear calls for action from across this country. Premiers, mayors, police chiefs, prosecutors and frontline workers have all told Parliament that repeat violent crime is having a real impact on public safety and on confidence in our justice system. They have asked us to act responsibly, not recklessly. They have asked for solutions that are practical, focused and capable of making a difference on the ground.

Bill C-14 is the result of listening to those voices and responding in a serious way. This is a bill about balance, and it recognizes that public safety and fairness are not competing values but complementary ones. Canadians want a justice system that protects their rights, and they also want a system that responds effectively when patterns of violence or serious criminal behaviour emerge.

Bill C-14 would strengthen bail rules and target circumstances involving repeat violent offending, clarify when detention should be more strongly considered, and strengthen sentencing responses for serious crimes that undermine public safety and confidence in the system. It would do all of that while preserving judicial discretion and respect for the charter.

That careful balance is one of the reasons this bill has received support from provincial and municipal partners. These are leaders who are responsible for keeping communities safe. They are the ones responding to calls from residents, supporting police services and working with prosecutors and courts. Their message to us has been consistent: Targeted reform is needed, and it is needed now.

At committee, members from all parties engaged seriously with the bill. Amendments were proposed and debated. Officials were present to provide expertise. Where changes improved the bill, they were adopted. That process strengthened the legislation and ensured that it would work as intended.

The bill before us at report stage reflects that collaboration and that work. At this point in the legislative process, we face an important choice. We can move forward with a bill that has been carefully crafted, studied and improved, or we can reopen and weaken key provisions that are central to its purpose.

The report stage amendments before us would take us in the latter direction. Some of these amendments would remove or dilute provisions designed to address repeat violent offending. Others would roll back sentencing and bail measures that partners across the country told us were necessary to restore confidence in the system. Still others would undo compromises reached after thoughtful discussion at committee.

This is not what Canadians asked for. Canadians asked us to act. They asked us to strengthen public safety in a way that is responsible and durable. They asked us to do the hard work of governing, not to delay or dilute action at the final stage.

Bill C-14 would not overreach. It would not replace judgment with ideology. It would respect the role of judges and the independence of the courts but would also recognize that Parliament has a role to play in setting clear expectations where experience shows that clearer direction is needed.

That is why this bill matters. It would send a clear message that repeat violent behaviour will be taken seriously. It would reinforce that court orders must be respected and strengthen the tools available to address serious criminal conduct while preserving fairness and proportionality. Just as importantly, it would demonstrate that governments can work collaboratively across jurisdictions and party lines to address complex issues. It reflects input from provinces and territories, from law enforcement and from experts. It shows what can be achieved when we focus on outcomes rather than slogans.

Weakening this bill at report stage would undermine that work. It would create uncertainty at a moment when clarity is needed. It would send the wrong signal to communities that have been asking for leadership and follow-through.

Public safety is not a partisan issue; it is a shared responsibility. Bill C-14 reflects that understanding and is thoughtful, measured and responsive to the realities Canadians are facing. The House has done important work on this bill. Now is the time to see it through.

I urge all members to support Bill C-14 at report stage and allow this legislation to move forward so that these reforms can make a real difference in communities across the country.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I agree that public safety is not a partisan issue, and it was noticeable that this point was highlighted in my hon. friend's speech.

I want to point my friend to the issue of mandatory minimums for the most heinous crimes. We know that when those are eroded, the public feels that judges are taking the law into their own hands and are not punishing strictly for the most heinous crimes. What message does that send to society?

Also, the fact that so many of these mandatory minimums have been upheld means the public may see this as eroding things that are necessary, which the court has already ruled on. I would like my friend to elaborate on that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 would not erode any mandatory minimums. This is an issue that has been litigated. In our democracy, we have independent institutions such as our judiciary, the Supreme Court, which has forced this Parliament to act. In a previous Parliament we had acted, but that does not mean that mandatory minimums do not still exist within the Criminal Code for specific crimes. We have mandatory minimums in many instances, but this bill does not touch that area.

I am wondering why the member is implying something, because I believe it is a bit misleading and could cause people to think that we have somehow eroded those minimums in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am pleased to see that Bill C-14 is before the House. In fact, I argued back in December that there was no reason Bill C-14 should not pass the House of Commons and the Senate before the end of the year.

In the last election, the Prime Minister and ministers came with an election platform based on crime and looking at ways we could bring in legislation. The Conservative member just made reference to mandatory minimums. Bill C-16 reinstates mandatory minimums.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on the package of crime legislation we have brought forward based on the election platform. We have seen a lot of frustration due to filibustering from the Conservative Party. It is time that we passed not only Bill C-14 but also the other aspects of legislation.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good point. Bill C-16 is legislation that is currently in the committee process, and it does reinstate mandatory minimums in cases of sexual assault. It is very important that when we talk about protecting our children, we make sure that our systems are in place in order to do so. That is just one thing that is addressed in Bill C-16.

In this bill, it is so important to recognize that it addresses organized auto theft, break and enter of homes, human trafficking and smuggling, assault, sexual assault, violent extortion and many other things, including retail crime and repeat violent offenders. It is very important that we address these issues and get this bill passed from the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, another piece of legislation is Bill C-2, on lawful access. We hear a lot about the importance of fighting extortion. When I think of Bill C-2, this is a very powerful bill that would enable us to bring in lawful access, which would give more tools to our law enforcement agencies.

I wonder if the minister would provide her thoughts on why it is so critically important that we not forget about Bill C-2 and that we also see that legislation pass.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important and that is why we brought that bill back in June. It has been very disappointing to see that there has not been any co-operation from the opposition parties. We would have expected some from the Conservatives, in particular, who claim to be the party of law and order, yet they are not allowing police the tools they need to tackle modern-day crime. This is so important in the cases of child exploitation, sextortion and extortion that are happening in so many communities across Canada.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, last year when I was nominated to be a Conservative candidate, I had an interesting conversation with Ches Crosbie. Mr. Crosbie asked me a tough question. He asked me, out of the four Conservative platform pillars, which one I thought would be the most important to my constituents. I took a moment and I thought real long and hard. Axe the tax, stop the crime, build the homes and fix the budget are all very important issues, but in my rural riding, where people have to travel long distances for work, drive large SUVs to handle our terrible roads and use pickup trucks to do their daily tasks, I figured axing the tax would be one of the biggest concerns in rural Newfoundland. Boy, was I wrong.

It did not take long for me to realize that stopping crime was one of the biggest issues facing rural Newfoundland and Labrador. While rural Newfoundland is not riddled with extortion like we see in many parts of Canada, families, people and business owners are living in fear. Over the summer, communities in Conception Bay North were devastated by forest fires that swept through their communities. Families, seniors and people all along that shore had to leave their homes to find a place to stay. Unfortunately, many of them lost their homes and have yet to return.

However, that was not the first fire they experienced. That was the 13th fire in less than three months. Multiple people in that community reported the fire previously as potential arson. Unfortunately, nothing was done. Even during the fires, I was told that people were sneaking in to the evacuated zones and breaking into homes. Imagine that: thieves brazen enough to steal from the people who are suffering the most.

Now, even while the community tries to rebuild, crime is rampant. I am being told that truckloads of two-by-fours are being stolen. Tools are being stolen. This is on a regular basis. They are not one-time events, but happening repeatedly. People from the area are calling and begging me, and actually begging all of us, all of us parliamentarians, to work together to solve this problem. Not only do they ask for increased policing, but they also ask for increased bail reform. Even everyday Canadians know that all these crimes are being committed over and over by the same people, and that the heart of the problem is in the justice system. They are desperate for change. They have even taken it upon themselves to circulate petitions to call for change, a petition that I will be glad to present here in the House of Commons at a later date.

On the opposite end of my riding, they are having the same issue. The Town of Carmanville invited me to a regional event where people from neighbouring communities voiced their significant concerns about crime in the area. Parents in the meeting told me they were worried about letting their kids walk down the road to their friends' house nearby because of the increased number of intoxicated drivers due to the excessive amount of drugs in the area.

What makes the situation worse is that the town of Carmanville and the area feel completely abandoned. Their police station is empty. They have one police station and three RCMP homes that are maintained and heated but are completely empty. Quite frankly, they are abandoned. During the lost Liberal decade, their police station has become completely eroded of personnel, but why? Why is it so hard for the government to secure police officers?

When I chat with officers, a common theme comes up: Crime is up, but morale is down. Police are so frustrated with the justice system and their constant game of cat and mouse that they retire as soon as they can, eager to leave the force and oftentimes even having to go on sick leave due to the mental health strain this crime cycle creates. Imagine them getting up every day, putting on a uniform and holstering a gun, not knowing if they will return to see their families that evening and risking their lives just for the criminals they catch to get a slap on the wrist and a get-out-of-jail-free card.

This massive increase in crime has even changed the fabric of our Newfoundland culture. Homeowners in the safest communities are locking their doors, not just at nighttime but even during the day while they are in their own homes. This was not unheard of 10 years ago, but in some communities, it may have even been considered rude and unfriendly to do so.

Parents are more and more fearful of letting their children play in nearby parks and playgrounds. Cultural activities like mummering and even trick-or-treating are rapidly eroding as the risks become higher and higher. Cabin owners leave their properties not knowing what they will come back to, with break and enter becoming the norm. This is all due to 10 years of Liberal failed policies.

When I saw and heard of crime rates going up and heard of these violent crimes, I always thought it was a sign of the times, that it was the way the world is. I figured that our culture must be producing more criminals. Once I got to Ottawa, I learned what was really behind this change. It did not happen because of a whim or because of changes on TV. It happened because the Liberal government introduced the principle of restraint.

This principle instructed judges, who preside over thousands of bail applications, to release accused criminals at the earliest opportunity and with the least restrictive restrictions. Conservatives feel that this is the core of the problem. Unfortunately, Liberals have decided to keep this language pertaining to the principle of restraint in the bill, keeping their soft-on-crime, hug-a-thug mentality.

Additionally, the bill fails to get tough enough on conditional sentencing orders. Criminals who are involved in robbery, gun and trafficking offences are still able to access house arrest. Over and over again, at doors and meetings across my riding, I hear that people are sick and tired of these criminals getting arrested and getting nothing but a soft slap on the wrist. There is even a joke. People say that the criminals get home before the police are off duty. Crime should not be a joking matter. We need to get serious about it.

Firstly, we need to get rid of this idea that criminals should get the least amount of punishment allocated by the law. If judges, courts and prosecutors feel that these criminals deserve more time, they should get more time. Conservatives want to repeal the principle of restraint and replace it with the principle of prioritizing community and public safety, as set out in our private member's bill, the jail not bail act.

Conservatives want to restore mandatory minimums for kidnapping, human trafficking, extortion, arson and other serious violent crimes. When we speed, we know the consequences. There is a fine we must pay. It is a minimum, not an amount that we can negotiate. Why should human trafficking, one of the most horrendous crimes imaginable, not have the same idea instead of minimum consequences?

Let us talk about bail reform. “Jail not bail” is something that Conservatives have chanted alone for years. It was not until election time that the Liberals were pressured by the public to do something and said they would consider bail reform. Unfortunately, the bill misses key aspects at the core of the problem.

Conservatives know that judges and courts need to consider the full criminal history and outstanding charges of criminals. Many Canadians, including myself, are shocked that this is not already mandated. Conservatives want to do exactly that. If we were in government, we would mandate courts to consider the full criminal history of the accused. It is just common sense.

Here is the most unbelievable part. Right now, sometimes, when someone is out on bail, they may need surety, someone who supervises them, someone to vouch for them, who will ensure that they will be back for court and that they will behave while on bail, yet, right now, the guarantor, the supervisor, could have been convicted in the past. Conservatives want to make sure that these criminals out on bail are not being supervised by other criminals.

Conservatives want to require courts to enforce guarantor obligations and ensure that they do not have an indictable conviction. Additionally, Conservatives want to give the courts the power to make non-residents surrender their passports in situations they feel are appropriate, reducing the chances of the accused skipping bail and continuing criminal activity in other countries.

Canadians are asking us to work together. Although we do not believe that the bill does enough, we are proud of the inputs and additions that Conservatives made to the bill during the process. We will continue to advocate for stricter penalties, for more policing and for a justice system that protects the community, not criminals.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election, under a year ago, Canada's new Prime Minister made a commitment, an election platform, to deal with crime. Before the House of Commons, over the last number of months, we have seen a series of bills that deal with making our communities safer. Bill C-14, which we are debating today, should have passed at the end of 2025. It did not pass because of the filibustering of the Conservative Party of Canada. There is a series of legislative bills that need to be passed, yet the Conservative Party is more motivated to raise money in its own self-interest than to pass this suite of laws.

My question to the member is this: Will he not take it as notice that Canadians want the legislative suite of bills to be passed, not just Bill C-14—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government for 10 years has been soft on crime. It was not until the public put the government on notice that it decided to pretend to do something about it and came out with this bill. The member across the way said it wanted to have it done by Christmas, yet it put the controversial bill, Bill C-9, in front of it to try to take away the religious rights of people across this country. It is obstructing getting this through, so I am frustrated. This needs to keep going.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker. I thank my hon. friend for his passionate speech. My heart goes out to the members in his community who faced violent criminals while going through a catastrophe. It is endemic. It is an example of how our criminal justice system has failed us. When we look at Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, we see a culture of releasing violent offenders. It is no wonder 60% of Canadians feel that crime is rising in their community and that they are not safe.

How does my friend think this bill is going to solve that problem, if at all, and restore the confidence of the public?

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, repeat offending is something that happens over and over. When we go into communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, oftentimes if we ask who the troublemaker is, everyone points their finger at the same house. The police know who it is, the community knows who it is, but unfortunately, the justice system is not prepared to handle the situation.

There are some small things in here that go in the right direction and would fix some of that stuff, but they are not as big as what the Conservatives want. However, we are definitely working with the Liberals to try to make that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague on how we got to the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

As a result of a mutual agreement between the Liberals and the Conservatives, only two sittings were held where we could hear from witnesses, followed by one sitting for a clause-by-clause study. Due to the Conservatives' filibuster, in part, of Bill C-9, it was a way forward to get to Bill C-14.

Does the Conservative member think that having only two sittings to hear from witnesses is enough for such a substantial bill?

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can see the frustration in having more stuff to propose. The Conservatives wanted to make sure we got this passed very quickly. We felt it was a step in the right direction, and that Canadians wanted it and wanted it rapidly.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that impassioned speech, and I appreciated his bringing light to the issue through a wonderful Christmas float this year, putting the Grinch in jail properly.

I want to highlight what he said, because I have seen it in my rural communities too. The social fabric of our community is changing because people are petrified. We are seeing violent carjackers. We are seeing rural crime rising.

Could you talk a bit more about the impact on rural communities, in particular?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Again, we will ask the questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, rural Canada and rural Newfoundland were the safest places in the world, places where nobody locked their doors and everybody trusted each other. There was a fabric there. I talked about that a bit in my speech. That is lost. It is heartbreaking that people growing up in small communities now have to live in fear, not just for themselves but for their children and their families. It is very sad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by referring back to the response I received from the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas when I asked him how we came to be debating Bill C-14 at the report stage today.

As mentioned, there has been a lot of talk about Bill C-9 in committee but, unfortunately, nothing has come of it because the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment that sought to remove the religious exception as an excuse for promoting hatred. This frustrated the Conservatives, to use my colleague's wording, and as a result, we wasted a lot of time on this bill.

As also mentioned, Bill C-14 was a bill that the public wanted, that the Conservatives wanted, and that the Liberals wanted. Bill C-14 had to be passed quickly, which is why the two parties reached an agreement to speed up the process of getting it passed. I would say that this is where the problem lies. Corners were cut for political purposes, and I find that more than unfortunate.

This bill is important, not to mention substantial. At 40 pages long, it contains 84 clauses pertaining to both the Criminal Code and the YCJA, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Some of the amendments, those that cleared up legal uncertainties and filled in gaps, were entirely welcome. Others, however, touched on crucial aspects of criminal law, including the presumption of innocence.

Following an agreement between the Liberals and the Conservatives, we ended up finding a way to set aside the debate of Bill C-9 on hate speech in order to discuss Bill C-14 at lightning speed. We ended up studying this hefty bill in committee, where we heard from witnesses during just two two-hour sessions. After that, we conducted a clause-by-clause study that took just one sitting. From 5 p.m. until about midnight we got through the whole thing in one go, because that was all the time we had. The decision had been made that it would be a short study.

I would argue that this is a shameful way of doing things, because it kind of invalidates the whole purpose of the role of MPs, which is to do a good job as legislators, in favour of something that is much more political and partisan. Both sides were determined to come out ahead. They wanted to be able to say that Bill C-14 has been passed, and too bad if we did it quickly, too bad if we cut corners, too bad if we have to redo the work later because we overlooked certain aspects, and even too bad if the Supreme Court eventually has to review certain provisions because we did not have time to analyze them properly and, more importantly, to properly discuss them with the people on the ground who will be applying them on a daily basis.

There are several aspects of the bill that affect what lawyers, Crown prosecutors and criminal defence attorneys do every day. I find it very unfortunate that more time was not taken to hear from them to find out whether they had any additional recommendations that could have been implemented to improve the bill. In some cases, this could perhaps have been done unanimously in committee. Some recommendations would probably have been very interesting to hear, but we did not have that opportunity because everything was done so quickly.

Nevertheless, I would like to make another point. When it comes to criminal law, we sometimes tend to fall back on wishful thinking, imagining that everything can be done through legislation and that this will solve problems that should really be solved through prevention or rehabilitation measures, which generally require more funding, more money. We are content to pass cosmetic legislation, which only gives the public a false sense of security.

I will give a very basic example. Increasing a sentence from 10 years to 15 years for a given crime will not necessarily reduce the incidence of that crime. Before committing a crime, no one considers the fact that the sentence is now 15 years in prison when it used to be 10, and then decides not to commit the crime because 10 years would have been fine but 15 years is too long. We might have a tendency at times to think that everything can be solved through legislation.

That being said, Bill C-14 is not all bad. We are voting in favour of it. We managed to improve it through amendments. One of those amendments addresses something that is at the heart of our new daily reality, namely the issue of firearms. Unfortunately, in recent years there has been a rise in gun crimes, particularly among young people. They are getting younger and younger and this is happening earlier and earlier in the continuum of violence whether the crimes are committed with firearms or the individual is in possession of firearms.

One of the Bloc Québécois's proposed amendments was accepted. It sought to broaden the definition of violent offence in the YCJA to include when an act is committed with a firearm. This has a major advantage in court. The problem we had before this inclusion was that a judge could not, in a case involving an offence committed with a firearm, order the detention of a young person unless the Crown prosecutor pleaded an exceptional provision. It was therefore necessary to plead an exception in order to have a youth detained for committing a crime with a firearm. By including firearms in the definition of violent offences, we are opening the door for judges to have greater discretion in ordering the detention of youth. This is a provision that will have a real and tangible impact on the ground and will be useful. We are very pleased that the Bloc Québécois amendment was adopted.

Another amendment that was adopted called for the bill to be reviewed in five years. This was done so a committee could review the implementation of the bill and any issues that may have arisen. The committee could then make recommendations on new provisions or amendments in light of the rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that are being amended by the bill, particularly, as I was saying, the presumption of innocence, since there is a reverse onus in certain cases for certain crimes. We believe it is important to have an obligation to review the bill again and within a relatively short period of time. The five-year review of the bill is a very welcome idea.

However, I want to come back to what I was saying earlier, which is that a little more time would probably have been useful. Some people may have held back from tabling amendments that might have seemed minor in order to focus on the major amendments, knowing that the deadline was quite short and that we might not have been able to study them for lack of time.

I will give an example that may rather trivial but that could have been discussed had there been more time. It again has to do with the YCJA. One of the legislative gaps in the YCJA had to do with the retention period for youth records. There were already provisions stipulating that, in the event of an absolute discharge, for example, a young person's record had to be kept for one year. The record is no longer retained after one year. After an acquittal or the dismissal of a charge, the record is kept for two months. However, there was no time frame for retaining records in cases where no charges were laid. The retention time for records was established by case law, and there seemed to be some ambiguity in that regard. Bill C-14 corrected this by stipulating that the retention period would be two years, but this still creates problems. The record is kept for two years if no charges are laid, but the legislation also already provides for a retention period of two years if an extrajudicial measure is imposed on the young person. The retention period is also two years if no charges are laid at the end of the investigation, so we have the same retention period for very different situations. If we had had more time, we could have discussed whether to review these retention periods so that a retention period might be 90 days in one case, one year in another and two years in a third case.

Because of time constraints, we were unable to have this discussion on issues that may seem trivial but that actually do fill in some legal gaps. Once again, I find it so unfortunate that parliamentarians were forced to work against extremely tight deadlines for purely partisan reasons, given that both sides of the House wanted to pass Bill C-14 quickly.

Unfortunately, some corners may have been cut a bit.