Debates of March 23rd, 2026

Auditor General of Canada

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 7(5) of the Auditor General Act, the spring 2026 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The House resumed from November 7, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Jail Not Bail Act

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-242, the Conservative bill on Canada's bail system.

I want to begin with something that unites every member of this House. Regardless of party affiliation, Canadians deserve to feel safe and be safe in their communities. They deserve to walk their streets, send their children to school and go about their daily lives with confidence that the justice system is there to protect them. They deserve a system that holds repeat violent offenders accountable, that supports a victim and that functions effectively on the ground, not just in theory but in real practice.

The reality is that good intentions are not enough.

The question before us is not whether we strengthen bail. The question is whether we do it in a way that is effective, constitutional and actually implementable. On that question, Bill C-242 falls short, while our government's bill, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, delivers. Let me be clear: Bill C-14 already achieves the objective that Bill C-242 aims to achieve. The difference is that our bill does so in a constitutional way.

It would introduce over 80 targeted reforms to the Criminal Code. It was developed in collaboration with provinces, territories, police leaders, victims, survivors and justice system experts. Most importantly, it has the support of all 10 premiers in this country, across party lines. That matters, because when it comes to bail, the provinces administer justice. They run the courts, they hire prosecutors and they oversee policing resources, so when all 10 premiers tell us that Bill C-14 strikes the right balance, we should listen.

Compare that to Bill C-242. How does it differ? It has a series of changes that do not really consider the operational realities of our justice system. It would duplicate measures that already exist in Bill C-14, which is now being studied at the Senate. Where it goes in a different way, it does so in ways that raise serious constitutional concerns and practical risks.

Let us start with one of the central proposals, the so-called removal of the principle of restraint. Bill C-242 proposes to eliminate it from the Criminal Code. On its face, that might sound appealing, but it is fundamentally flawed. Unlike some claims from the opposition, the principle of restraint does not come from the Criminal Code alone. It comes from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Antic. That means it is binding law under our common-law system. Even if we deleted it from the statute, it would continue to apply, so Bill C-242 would not actually change the law, but create confusion and risk clogging up the courts, as lawyers argue over a principle that still exists but is no longer clearly codified.

Our approach through Bill C-14 is far more effective. We clarify the principle of restraint. We make explicit that it does not mean automatic release. We make it clear that detention is appropriate where public safety is at risk. That is how we strengthen the law, instead of pretending we can erase binding Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Let us talk about repeat violent offenders, because that is where Canadians expect action. Bill C-242 would create a broad category of major offences and apply reverse onus provisions to these offences. Bill C-14 takes a different path. It would target the real problem by introducing reverse onus provisions for specific high-risk offences identified by police, provinces and municipalities, such as violent auto theft linked to organized crime, human trafficking, assault involving strangulation or extortion involving violence. This means that for these categories of offences, the starting point becomes detention, and it would be up to the accused to prove why they should be released on bail, rather than on the Crown to have to meet this high threshold.

Let us consider court capacity. Bill C-242 proposes that more accused persons must go through a judge for a bail hearing, removing the ability of the police to release individuals in a broader range of cases. It would also require that only judges grant bail in many situations. What would that mean in practice? It would mean more hearings, more delays, more pressure on already overburdened provincial courts, more strain on prosecutors and police resources and, most importantly, fewer guilty pleas. Provinces have been clear that they do not have the capacity for this kind of reform. Bill C-14 recognizes that reality and would maintain the existing framework while clearly guiding peace officers and the courts so that individuals who pose a real risk are not released.

Let me now turn to one of the most troubling aspects of Bill C-242, which is its treatment of non-citizens. The bill proposes mandatory passport surrender and distinct bail conditions based solely on citizenship status, but we are not the United States. In Canada, the charter guarantees “equality before the law”. Creating different bail rules for non-citizens risks violating these protections. It would open the door to legal challenges that could strike down these provisions entirely.

There is another concern here as well, one that goes beyond legal principles and speaks to who we are as a country. We must be very careful not to send the message that people who are not born in Canada are somehow more likely to be a threat to public safety. That is simply not true, and it risks unfairly stigmatizing entire communities that contribute every day to the strength of this country. Public safety is not advanced by dividing Canadians or by casting suspicion on newcomers. It is advanced by targeting real risks by focusing on behaviours, rather than identity. That is the standard Canadians expect from us, and it is one we must uphold.

This brings us to the broader contrast. Bill C-14 is the product of collaboration. Bill C-14 reflects input from the provinces, police, victim groups and experts, and it would deliver targeted reforms that are practical, constitutional and ready to implement. Bill C-242, in contrast, reflects a different approach. It is broad where it should be precise, it is rigid where it should allow judicial discretion, and in key areas, it proposes measures that legal experts, civil liberty organizations and constitutional lawyers would immediately flag as problematic.

Canadians expect better. They expect us to do the hard work of getting this right.

Let me say this directly to my colleagues opposite. If the goal is truly to strengthen bail and protect communities, then the path forward is clear. Bill C-14 is already before the Senate. It has the support of every single premier in this country, from the NDP premier in B.C. to the Conservative premiers in Alberta and Ontario and the nationalist premier in Quebec to the Liberal premier in New Brunswick, so why not deliver real tools to provinces and law enforcement, instead of advancing a bill that would duplicate what already exists and introduce unnecessary risks?

We all want safer communities and a justice system that works, but we must be honest about what will achieve that goal. Bill C-14 would strengthen bail in a way that is targeted, practical and constitutional. It reflects collaboration, not division. It would deliver results, not rhetoric. Bill C-242 would not meet those standards.

For those reasons, I urge all members of this House to support the serious and responsible work already undertaken in Bill C-14. I further call on my Conservative colleagues to press their Conservative colleagues at the Senate to expedite its passage so that law enforcement can begin using the tools they have clearly said they need to protect Canadians.

Notice of Motion at Report Stage

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, so I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, Special Order or usual practice of the House, in relation to the report stage of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), Motion No. 1, standing in the names of the Members for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, Brampton West and Elgin—St. Thomas—London South on today's Notice Paper, be replaced with the following:

“That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting the Short Title.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Jail Not Bail Act

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my regard to my colleagues on this Monday morning. I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-242 regarding interim release. I read the bill and examined it very closely. In short, this bill seeks to do 12 different things. Let us start with the first one.

First, it is important to remember that the bill seeks to replace the principle of restraint in section 493.‍1 of the Criminal Code with the principle of protection of the public. The Criminal Code currently provides for the principle of restraint, which is as follows:

493.1 In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances, including conditions that are reasonably practicable for the accused to comply with, while taking into account [other] grounds....

The bill aims to replace this principle with what is called the principle of public safety and protection, which the bill describes as follows:

493.1 In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the protection and safety of the public.

The wording in this part of the bill seems to be somewhat misleading. It seems to suggest that the principle of restraint does not ensure the protection of the public. However, when considering the legal implications of this provision, it appears that it would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly section 11(d) of the charter. It calls into question the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Certain circumstances call for the use of reverse onus. I have used this myself, in Bill C‑290, a bill I introduced in the previous Parliament that aimed to protect whistle-blowers. It is meant to be used in situations where it is impossible for a victim to prove their case. However, in this case, it seems fairly unacceptable to us.

Second, the bill proposes to do the following:

(b) add the protection of the public as a consideration

However, this does not mean that existing legislation and the government's proposals do not take public safety into account.

Third, the bill proposes to do the following:

(c) add several violent indictable offences...for the determination of judicial interim release.

Fourth, the bill seeks to prohibit release or allow additional restrictions within the judicial system for a very specific list of offences. Accordingly, the bill is proposing to do the following:

(d) create a list of major offences, composed of violent reverse-onus offences;

That is problematic in itself. As I said, the burden of proof can be reversed under certain circumstances, but depending on the circumstances, it could make it impossible for victims to provide evidence, and that seems problematic.

Fifth, the bill proposes to do the following:

(e) prevent those charged with a major offence from being released after arrest

This would significantly restrict the discretion and decision-making power of judges in various courts. Currently, the Criminal Code provides that the only offences for which the accused cannot be released are treason, intimidating Parliament, mutiny, sedition, piracy and murder. The Conservatives want to add a whole list of other offences to this.

This does not mean that the accused is automatically released when other offences are committed but, once again, it would remove a great deal of discretion from the courts, which are in a position to assess the evidence before making such a decision. Furthermore, this would mean that a person charged with the offences listed could not be released, whether arrested with or without a warrant.

Sixth, the bill proposes to do the following:

(f) require that only a superior court judge may determine, on a reverse-onus basis [which I mentioned earlier], whether to permit the interim release of an accused if the accused was charged with a major offence while they were on release in respect of another major offence and if they were convicted of a major offence in the last ten years;

This simply seeks to make it so that only superior court judges can authorize release on bail. Once again, this complicates the justice system's operation because, as we all know, criminal cases are not heard exclusively by superior courts. The Court of Quebec also hears them. Obviously, there are access to justice issues and backlog issues, and we are by no means certain that adding this constraint will necessarily serve the interests of justice. As we can see, we are not only dealing with principles here, but also with the operation of our justice system.

Seventh, the bill proposes to do the following:

g) provide for the expiry of the interim release of an accused upon their conviction of an indictable offence while they await sentencing;

This is not uncommon for legal decisions. We cannot assume that judges are not already doing the very things included in this bill as they deem appropriate.

Eighth, the bill proposes to do the following:

h) prohibit those who have been convicted of an indictable offence in the last ten years from being named as a surety;

That is fine. Nine, the bill proposes to do the following:

i) require that a justice assessing judicial interim release consider whether or not an accused is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident and, if not, whether they may attempt to leave the country;

We know that judges can already deny bail if they determine that the accused really does represent a flight risk. In fact, bail is not granted in many cases. Subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code already sets out three cases in which an accused person may be denied bail. They are as follows:

(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court...b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public...and (c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including (i) the apparent strength of the prosecution's case, (ii) the gravity of the offence, (iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence...and (iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment

The Criminal Code already takes that into account. Tenth, the bill proposes to do the following:

(j) make it a condition that those who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents deposit their passports in order to be released

Judges can already order the deposit of passports under subsection 515(4) of the Criminal Code, and from what I am told, this happens fairly frequently. That section reads:

When making an order under subsection (2), the justice may direct the accused to comply with one or more of the following conditions specified in the order:...(f) deposit all their passports as specified in the order;

I do not want to say that the bill is pointless, but some aspects of it are clearly redundant. The Bloc Québécois will obviously be voting against Bill C-242, not because it is completely inappropriate, but because we believe that we must be very careful about reversing the burden of proof and calling into question the presumption of innocence. Although we believe that some reforms need to be made to the Criminal Code, we do not think that this bill is the best way of going about that. Before I close, I would just like to point out two things.

First, there is the issue of judicial discretion. People need to trust the justice system and they need to trust judges. Of course, mistakes happen. Of course, sometimes, things go too far. Of course, sometimes judges make headline-worthy mistakes. However, for the most part, judges are the ones who see all the evidence and they are best able to make these decisions, and in most cases, the system works relatively well.

Then there is the issue of judicial resources. As I said earlier, restricting certain decisions to the superior courts can compromise the way the legal system operates. There is an issue with court resources. There are also issues with the appointment of judges, the number of judges, access to justice and the appointment of clerks. Resources are needed. For years, the Bloc Québécois—especially my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who has repeatedly raised the issue—has called for more resources to be transferred to the provinces, which are responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code. It is easy for us to pass legislation in the House, but provinces have to enforce it. Again, I think the federal Parliament should acknowledge this fact and ensure that while the House debates possible amendments to the Criminal Code, resources are transferred to the provinces as soon as possible so that these additional resources can be used to enforce existing legislation more swiftly, which would strengthen public confidence in the system.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in the chamber and to speak on behalf of my constituents, the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. Crime is one of the most serious concerns facing my riding today, with Kelowna also represented by a Liberal member, sadly becoming ground zero for the consequences of failed Liberal bail policies.

Before I speak directly to the jail not bail act, I think it is important to remind the House how we got to this place. In 2018, for purely ideological reasons, the former Trudeau Liberal government passed Bill C-75, amending the Criminal Code and fundamentally reshaping Canada's bail system. Although there were several changes, the guiding principle was very clear: Release should be the default position at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions possible. In that decision lies the heart of what Canadians now recognize as a catch-and-release justice system.

The results have been devastating. Between 2015 and 2022, violent crimes increased dramatically. The number of murders rose, gang-related homicides surged and violent gun crime more than doubled. These are not abstract statistics I speak of. They represent real victims, real families and real communities, our communities, paying the price. It became so serious that every provincial premier, regardless of their political stripe, jointly wrote to the federal government, demanding bail reform. That alone should have been a wake-up call to the seriousness of the problem, yet here we are in 2026 still debating how to clean up a mess that was created eight years ago by the former Liberal majority government.

Last week in Kelowna, a prolific career criminal, someone who had 67 criminal convictions, was once again released on bail. Can any member of the House guess what happened next? We all know the answer: This individual was released back into the very community he has repeatedly victimized, despite an extensive record that clearly demonstrated a pattern of reoffending. The situation became so serious that the RCMP took the unprecedented step of issuing a public warning upon his release. This is not normal. This is not normal policing. This is what happens when law enforcement is forced to manage risk created by bad legislation.

Out of respect for families affected by violent crime, I will not be retelling individual stories in this debate. We all have these stories. We all know the damage that has been done to our communities over and over, and the real damage to families and their lives.

I do want to just take a moment to acknowledge the terrific work of my colleague the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and the families, particularly in Kelowna, whose advocacy has given rise to what we now know as Bailey's law. This brings me to the legislation before us today.

Before I go further, I should say that I thank the member for Oxford for his leadership on this issue and for bringing forward the jail not bail legislation, which squarely puts public safety back at the centre of bail decision. I thank the member for his contributions. I thank him for the time he spends away from his family, educating Canadians on the problems created by the previous government, and for the solutions being proposed by him as a member of Parliament, a Conservative member who believes strongly that this country and our streets can be safe again.

The legislation reflects the concerns being raised in our communities by police and by provincial leaders across the country, and it puts forward a clear, principled alternative to the status quo. Canadians have heard a lot about government attempts to fix bail laws, including Bill C-14. While some amendments are welcome and have been pushed by our caucus as supportable, I want to acknowledge that on this bill, we have tried to work in good faith with the government. Despite Bill C-14's solutions, the fundamental problem remains untouched, and that is the principle of restraint. It still exists.

The principle, enshrined by the Liberal majority in 2017, continues to prioritize release over detention, even for repeat and violent offenders. It is the philosophical core of catch-and-release, and it is precisely why incremental changes since that time, whether they be Bill C-48 in the previous Parliament or Bill C-14 in the current Parliament, will not fix the problem. That is why the jail not bail act is necessary. Unlike Liberal half measures, the jail not bail act would confront the problem head-on.

First, it would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint, making public safety the primary consideration in bail decisions, not an afterthought and not one factor among many but the guiding principle that judges must take into consideration.

Second, it would introduce a new major offences category, applying reverse onus bail to the most serious crimes: firearms offences, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and serious assaults. These are crimes where the burden should rest squarely on the accused to justify their release.

Third, the jail not bail act would strengthen bail decisions by requiring judges to consider the accused's full criminal history, not just the offence that is immediately before the court. It would also prevent individuals convicted of a major offence within the last 10 years who are already out on bail and who are charged again from being released yet again. Importantly, it would toughen the legal standard itself, replacing the vague threshold of substantial likelihood with a more realistic and protective test of what is reasonably foreseeable.

The bill would also close loopholes by prohibiting anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as a guarantor. Someone who has done a crime should not be able to be a guarantor for another. This would require meaningful enforcement of guarantor responsibilities. The bill would also require non-residents to surrender passports where appropriate.

These are not radical ideas. They are common-sense protections that put victims and our communities ahead of repeat offenders.

Recently I met with the City of Kelowna, along with the member for Oxford and the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, to discuss this issue. Representatives presented documents in which their executive summary stated very clearly that federal bail reforms have prioritized release over detention, even for chronic offenders. Their conclusion was clear: Kelowna supports presumptive detention and stricter bail conditions for chronic offenders.

I want to say that I stand with the City of Kelowna on these points, and I believe that most Canadians do. In fact, we held a town hall to discuss how we can stop crime in our neighbourhoods. We visited community leaders like those from the Uptown Rutland Business Association. We walked the streets with them to hear their concerns about criminality and public disorder. It became abundantly clear at our town hall that citizens in places like Kelowna and throughout the Central Okanagan are fed up. They want to know that when police charge and when people are prosecuted, people are held accountable and not simply released, only to harm families and communities again and again.

The jail not bail act would answer that question by doing what the government has refused to do: put public safety first, clearly, consistently and without apology backing up our RCMP officers, who work so hard to stop the crime, only to have those individuals released, while they are stuck with the paperwork and are arguing for more resources to deal with them.

I want to conclude by acknowledging the many members on all sides of the House who care about justice and public safety. I respect the work that the member for Oxford has done on the legislation, and I ask that all hon. members support the jail not bail act.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about the issues of crime and safety in our communities. I thought the parliamentary secretary who spoke prior to me spoke exceptionally well about why what is being proposed is, in fact, not necessarily to the benefit of public safety.

However, I will give the Conservatives credit to the extent that they can encapsulate an issue, turn it into a bumper sticker and ultimately make money on it through social media and spreading what I would suggest is misinformation. They are using it as a fundraising tool. I give them full credit. They are really good at doing that when it comes to the crime file.

What about the reality of it? The member who spoke before me talked about public safety. Let there be absolutely no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that the Government of Canada, every Liberal member of Parliament, understands the issue of community safety. We all want our communities to be safe and for people to feel safe in the communities in which they live. We want people to realize that there are consequences to crime. If someone commits a crime, there will be a consequence.

We have a system in Canada that ensures a high sense of co-operation between the different levels of government. The Conservatives have brought forward legislation. If there were a question and answer period for the presentations being made today, I would have asked to what degree have the Conservatives gained the support of the different premiers, mayors and councillors in bringing forward this particular legislation. To what degree are they looking at the judicial system as something that is independent from government? I think these are valid questions, and I believe the Conservatives need to be truthful and open with Canadians.

The federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution. If someone were to listen to what the speakers from the Conservative Party are saying, they would begin to believe that it is the Conservatives' ace in the hole and that they would have absolutely no reservations in using it. No matter what legislation the Conservatives bring forward, even if it were to be ruled as being unconstitutional and against the charter, the charter that provides rights to every Canadian, the Conservatives would be very comfortable overriding those rights.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives have made it very clear that, under their current leadership, there is no reservation whatsoever. They are saying that they would use the notwithstanding clause to get what they want because what they want is not necessarily in the public's best interest. It is to satisfy the far right.

The last Conservative member said, “put public safety first”. That is exactly what the government has done. If we were to contrast the bumper sticker bills on crime provided by the Conservatives, we would see that this bill has a lot of similarities with Bill C-14. It deals with issues such as the principle of restraint. First and foremost, it deals with the issue of public safety. When we look at Bill C-14, we will find that it has virtually unanimous support coming from all regions of the country. I should not say “unanimous”, but we are getting close to it.

Every premier, law enforcement agencies and many stakeholders have recognized that Bill C-14 is the way to go. There are 80 targeted reforms within it, many of which have been incorporated into Bill C-242, the bill we are debating today. That is a substantial change.

I remember standing in this very same spot, back in November and December, challenging the Conservative Party to pass Bill C-14. It was the only political entity in the country back then that wanted to postpone its passage. All one needs to do is reflect on the amount of filibustering the Conservatives were doing back then. No matter how much we shamed them, they did not respond to the public interest.

The principle of restraint does not mean an automatic release. Public safety has been and will continue to be taken into consideration before release. Bill C-14 would help to address that. It would provide a bit more detail on that issue. The Conservatives believe that they would ultimately have control, through the notwithstanding clause, to dictate what judges hand out. I think that is a very dangerous path.

That is why I challenge members of the Conservative party who will be speaking, particularly the mover of the legislation, to give a clear indication of which premiers are supporting the legislation they are proposing. What major city mayors, or mayors in general, are in support of this legislation, Bill C-242? I can say that the New Democrats, the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives, even the Saskatchewan Party, see the true value of legitimate bail reform, something the Prime Minister committed to for Canadians in the last federal election. We understand the need for bail reform. We do not question that. Where we differ is that we have done our homework on the issue, and our first priority is the people of Canada and providing good, sound public policy for the different stakeholders who are lining up in support of Bill C-14, which is currently at the Senate. Hopefully, it will be out of the Senate soon so we can implement it into law.

The good news is that the government has not just ended this with Bill C-14. There is also other substantial legislation to deal with things, such as femicide. I think of Bill C-16 and the reinstatement of mandatory minimums. These are the types of things that are before the House.

Under the new Prime Minister and new government, which were elected less than a year ago, we have brought forward a suite of legislative amendments to do what the last member of the Conservative Party said, which was to put public safety first. That is what every member of the Liberal caucus strives to do through supporting substantial legislation, in consultation, that would not be an assault against the judicial system. When I say the judicial system, I am talking about stakeholders, first ministers, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and so much more.

[An hon. member]

What about victims?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course there are the victims. That is who we are talking about. They are our primary motivation.

I appreciate the heckle, but at the end of the day—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We have to move on.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge has the floor.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, at second reading. It was put forward by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Oxford, and I am proud to have seconded the legislation.

I just listened to the Liberal government's narrative of our perspective on crime, and it is an alternative universe. This bill, the jail not bail act, was announced in Woodbridge last September, in my riding, where the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member from Oxford and I, along with other colleagues, were joined by the families of victims. The members of these families were crying in our arms. They had felt the pain of a failed Liberal bail system and the constant consequences of inaction.

The location of this announcement was not a coincidence. Woodbridge was chosen because the people who live there know this problem first-hand. They do not live in the abstract where politicians debate theories of justice. They live in the real world, the here and now, and they live with the consequences of the broken bail system and constant Liberal inaction.

I want to start in Vaughan because I feel similar to what the member for Kelowna is feeling. Vaughan feels like ground zero to many in our community for the issue of crime in this country. Now, according to York Regional Police, in the latest full-year report on crime statistics for 2024, my community recorded 16,407 criminal offences, the highest of any municipality in York region. We recorded 749 break and enters, 1,996 assaults, 274 reported sexual violations and 167 robberies. All of this was in a single year.

The stats highlight the numbers; however, there is a reality that members of the House need to realize. The reality is that, just last week, in the early hours of March 17, armed suspects forced their way into a home on Carrville Woods Circle in Vaughan. The homeowner, to protect his family, discharged a legally owned firearm. Two suspects are still at large. The family at home did nothing wrong. They had no choice, and they had no warning.

Some weeks before that, a man was shot dead outside a business at Weston Road and Rowntree Dairy Road in the middle of the afternoon. In February, a Thornhill residence was struck by gunfire. On another evening, shots were fired at a home on Allison Ann Way. In the early hours of a cold January morning, a man was shot near Martin Grove Road. A gun was seized after a commercial break-in at a Vaughan business. Another investigation linked one suspect to nine separate break and enters across Vaughan and Markham. This is what daily life has become in my riding.

When I look at the reality and at what our bill system has been doing, that connection is not hard to find. Since the Liberals took office in 2015, violent crime in Canada is up by 55%, firearm offences are up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%. These are Statistics Canada figures. They reflect a decade of policy choices that constantly prioritize the rights of the accused over the safety of the community.

In 2019, Bill C-75, the Liberals inserted what is called the “Principle of restraint” to the Criminal Code. That principle directs judges and justices of the peace to release the accused at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive conditions. My colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, a former Crown attorney, explained precisely what that means in practice, which is that it does not matter how serious the charge, how long the criminal record or how many times the accused has already breached a bail order, the law tells the court that it has to let them go.

Then in 2022, Bill C-5 repealed mandatory minimum sentences for serious firearms and violent crimes, as well as extended the availability of conditional sentences, house arrest, for offences that most Canadians would expect to end in imprisonment. The deterrent effect of the justice system was weakened at both ends, at the point of bail and again at the point of sentencing.

The Liberals have since introduced Bill C-14 and have framed it as bail reform. I want to be fair. It is better than what exists today. Conservatives worked on that committee to strengthen the bill wherever we could. We secured tighter surety rules, provisions for repeat violent offenders who re-offend on release and annual reporting requirements.

However, when we pushed for public safety to become the primary governing principle, moved to eliminate house arrest for major crimes and sought mandatory consecutive sentences for repeat human traffickers, the Liberals voted against every one of those amendments. Of course, the fundamental problem with Liberal bail is that the principle of restraint would still remain. It would be modified at the edges, but it would still there, telling the courts to default towards release. The culture of prioritizing release is perpetual in our justice system, and the Liberal bail bill, Bill C-14, would do nothing to address this.

Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, starts from a different premise entirely. It would remove the principle of restraint and replace it with a clear direction that public and community safety is the primary consideration for the justice system. It would change what judges would be asked to weigh first when someone stands before them: public safety over early release.

The bill would create a major offence category covering some of the most serious crimes we see in communities like Vaughan: firearm offences, sexual offences, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasions, robbery, extortion and arson. For anyone charged with one of these offences, the bill would establish a presumption of detention. For repeat violent offenders, the bill would heighten the risk standards. Today, courts ask whether there is a substantial likelihood that an offender would reoffend. This bill would change that to “reasonable foreseeability”, meaning whether a reasonable person looking at an accused's full criminal history, record of breaching orders and pattern of how they have moved through the system would conclude that their risk of reoffending is real.

Bill C-242 would also close gaps in our system. For example, it would bar anyone convicted of an indictable offence from serving as a guarantor. It is difficult to believe that this needs to be legislated at all, but right now in this country, someone who is an organized crime member can legally vouch for another person in bail proceedings. That would end under our bill. The bill would also require non-resident accused persons to surrender their passports.

The difference between the Liberal bill and the one before us today is that what the Liberals propose and what we are proposing is a matter of effective execution and practicality. Liberal bail reform would keep the principle of restraint. Our Conservative bill would repeal it. The Liberals want to encourage courts to consider an accused person's history. The jail not bail act would make that consideration mandatory. The Liberals do not touch surety eligibility or passport surrender. Our Conservative approach would address both. The differences are clear. The Liberals still default to release, and the Conservatives start from a principle that public safety must be the key consideration of the justice system.

The Liberals have suggested that Bill C-242 would raise constitutional concerns. It would not. In the Crown v. Lloyd decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that mandatory minimum penalties need to be narrow and targeted. The measures introduced in the jail not bail act are targeted and proportionate measures directed at a defined category of repeat violent offenders who are before the courts under serious charges. I am very confident it would be charter-compliant. I would also observe that charter compliance cuts both ways. The charter protects the rights of law-abiding Canadians and victims too, not just those who are charged with harming them. I challenge my Liberal colleagues to remember this position.

The Bloc members have also raised concerns that more detention would strain prison capacity. We agree that we must modernize our justice system, but it is important to understand that the data do not support the worry over prison capacity. As my colleague from Oxford rightly pointed out, this issue is about repeat offenders. In Kelowna, 15 individuals committed 1,500 crimes in a single year. In Vancouver, 40 people, in one year, were arrested 6,000 times. The chronic high-volume offenders this bill targets are not filling prisons and leaving. They are cycling through the system repeatedly, generating arrest after arrest, hearing after hearing and breach after breach.

When this legislation was announced, it was informed by direct consultation with police chiefs, police associations, mayors, victim advocates and families of people killed by repeat offenders who should have never been free in the first place, but under Liberal bail law they were. I urge every member to support this bill at second reading.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I offer the hon. member for Oxford five minutes for his right of reply.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians we are entrusted with something special: the duty to do what is right, not what is easy. What is right is very clear. It is right to build a criminal justice system that protects Canadians and protects the most vulnerable, that listens to the stories of victims and that recognizes the profound impact that every life lost and every family shattered truly carries.

Behind every crime stat there is a name, a face and a family that will never be the same. I have met with those families. They are parents who will never see their child again. Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents and communities are now divided into before and after, all because a repeat violent offender was released in their communities over and over again. The stories stay with me: the heartbreak, the tears and the silence when we have no other words left to share with them.

We must ask ourselves how many more headlines we have to read, how many more victims will have to suffer and how many more families have to be broken before we finally take serious action in this chamber. Victims are feeling like they are the ones living on house arrest, looking over their shoulders and changing their routines, all while the criminals walk in and out of jail scot-free. Victims who have had their lives permanently changed are the ones facing life sentences. It is not the criminals; they are out on the streets, enjoying life.

As such, the jail not bail bill, which we consulted on right across this country, has one guiding principle. It is that repeat violent offenders, that small class of folks who terrorize our communities, should not be released on our streets. The bill is about restoring balance in our system. It is about restoring deterrence. The Liberals can heckle me all they want. They can sit here and heckle all they want. They have been doing that for a long time, but the bill is about restoring trust in our criminal justice system when far too many Canadians have lost faith in it.

My colleagues and I have travelled the country, coast to coast to coast. We have had over two dozen town halls. We have met with thousands of Canadians, families, victims and law enforcement. We have tens of thousands of signatures on petitions. The message we hear is very clear. It is that Canadians are terrified. They are fed up. They have anxiety. Sadly, they are hurting, but despite that pain, they still have hope that we can make the right call in this chamber and put forward solid policy ideas that could restore safe streets in our country yet again.

That is why my bill offers over a dozen clear, concrete solutions to the criminal justice system that would prioritize public safety, that would put the rights of victims first for a change and that would make our communities the thriving communities we used to have. As such, I encourage all members, with the vote coming up on Wednesday, to send a clear message to criminals that enough is enough, but also a clearer message to victims that we see them, we hear them and we stand with them.

On this side of the House, Conservatives are united. We are united in fighting for safe streets. To those Canadians watching at home, they should not lose faith or give up, but hold on, because it is in the darkest chapters we have the brightest lights shining. We will stand with the victims. We will stand with law enforcement. We will stand with every single Canadian right across this country, and we will put the rights of victims first because we know they are worth fighting for.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

This sitting is now suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:56 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-9.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting the short title.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this great House to speak to the great residents of my riding.

I rise today to speak yet once again to Bill C-9. It is a bill that has many Canadians across all faith communities deeply concerned, and for good reason. The bill was originally presented as a measure to protect places of worship, which is something every member of the House should support. Conservatives certainly do.

However, this is not the bill before us today, because in the middle of the legislative process, the Liberal government made a deliberate political decision to fundamentally change its own legislation. At the last minute, the Liberals supported an amendment to remove a long-standing religious defence from the Criminal Code. This is a defence, I might add, that has been in the code for over 50 years. They did so, regrettably and shamelessly, without consulting the faith communities directly impacted. They did so without hearing from civil liberty experts. They did so without calling one witness. They did so without allowing Parliament the time to fully study the consequences of such a significant legal change.

When those concerns were raised by religious leaders, legal experts and members of the House, the government members did not pause. They did not engage. Instead, they chose to shut down debate and force the bill through. This is why we are here today.

What makes this even more striking is that the very defence they are now trying to remove was originally put in place by their own party under Pierre Trudeau, as part of a careful and deliberate balance in Canadian law.

This religious defence was originally introduced in 1970 under the Trudeau Liberal government as part of Bill C-3. The bill created Canada's modern hate propaganda provisions. At the time, Parliament deliberately included several statutory defences, including truth, good-faith religious expression based on religious texts, public interest and lack of intent. These protections ensured that good-faith religious discussion and theological debate would never be criminalized while still addressing hate propaganda.

This defence was part of the original legislative balance when Canada created its very own hate speech laws. Removing it would be a profound shift in Canadian criminal law, one that threatens to upset the careful balance between protecting Canadians from harm and protecting their fundamental freedoms.

Parliament has occasionally removed or narrowed statutory defences, but these changes occur rarely and only with serious scrutiny. For example, in 1983, the Trudeau government removed a marital exemption that had prevented husbands from being charged with rape. This was a good move. In 1995, Parliament restricted the extreme intoxication defence following the Supreme Court's decision in Regina v. Daviault. This was another good move. In 2015, the Harper government narrowed the provocation defence to prevent misuse in honour killing cases, for a change that was much needed.

Changes to statutory defences are major legal decisions that occur infrequently and only after careful and serious debate, yet the Liberal government now wants to rush through the removal of a 50-year-old defence while simultaneously shutting down all debate.

The removal of the religious defence occurred without meaningful stakeholder consultation. Religious communities across all faiths and backgrounds have raised concerns. Civil liberty organizations have raised concerns. Canadians did not ask for this amendment. Faith communities did not request this change. This was solely a political decision by the Liberal government, not a response to any demand from Canadians or stakeholders.

This amendment was not driven by Canadians, requested by faith communities or the result of calls from civil liberty organizations. In fact, the opposite is true. We have heard directly from Canadians across this country, including faith leaders, community organizations and civil liberty groups, who are deeply concerned about the direction the government is taking.

Hundreds of organizations have spoken out against Bill C-9, most notably about the removal of the religious defence. Over 350 Muslim community organizations have warned that Bill C-9, as currently drafted, would present serious harms to the civil liberties of all Canadian Muslims. They specifically pointed to the removal of the good-faith religious defence and warned that it would send a chilling effect through religious communities. More than 500 churches and Christian organizations have called on Parliament to restore explicit protections for the good-faith expression of sincerely held religious beliefs within the Criminal Code. In the greater Toronto area, 44 rabbis issued an open letter to the government, warning that removing this defence could expose faith leaders, educators and religious individuals to potential criminal liability simply for reading, teaching or discussing passages from religious texts.

This is not a narrow concern coming from one group or one perspective. We have been speaking to faith communities across this country, and there is a clear and broad consensus that this defence must be maintained. I am sure that every member of the Liberal government and party have heard loud and clear the opposition in their own communities. Despite all of this push-back, the government has chosen to double down and not listen.

We even proposed a simple and responsible solution of splitting Bill C-9. It has been done in the past when we have taken out a poisonous pill. We could immediately pass the provisions dealing with protection of places of worship, protection of cultural centres and offences dealing with obstruction and intimidation, and then study squarely the removal of the religious defence. This approach would have allowed protections for religious communities to pass immediately, yet the government refused and instead chose to ram through its controversial amendment.

The Liberals now claim that the Conservatives are obstructing, but the reality is the opposite. Committee work was already under way before the backroom deal was brokered by the justice minister and the Bloc Québécois. Amendments were being debated, and a path existed to pass protections for places of worship immediately. Instead of working with Parliament, the government chose to shut down debate and ram the bill through Parliament. The Liberals are now censoring debate on their very own censorship bill.

The Criminal Code is the most serious law Parliament writes. It governs the most serious offences and carries the most serious consequences for Canadians. Changes to it must be approached with care, scrutiny and full parliamentary debate.

Bill C-9 now contains a controversial amendment that would remove a 50-year-old statutory defence, which was originally brought forth by a Liberal government, to balance the rights to protect Canadians from hate while still safeguarding legitimate expression of religious belief. Instead of allowing Parliament to fully examine that change and allowing members of the House to debate the consequences, the Liberals have chosen to ram the amendment through to silence the debate. They even told the opposition to “put up or shut up”. Now they are shutting down debate altogether.

This is not how responsible criminal law is made or how democratic institutions are supposed to function, and it is certainly not how Parliament should be asked to amend the code. Canadians expect their Parliament to debate serious legal changes openly and transparently, legislation to be studied carefully and representatives to be allowed to do their job.

Conservatives will always stand on the side of freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the country. We will not accept a government that shuts down debate to avoid accountability. We will defend open debate, proper scrutiny of the code and the fundamental principle that Parliament must never be silenced when it comes to laws that govern Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member said that we are trying to push or rush things through, but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the misinformation constantly being pumped out of the Conservative caucus is trying to create an impression that there would be changes in our mosques, in our churches and so forth. The misleading information coming from the Conservative Party is actually quite shameful.

My question for the member opposite is this: Why does the Conservative Party continue to spread information that is just not true? The member knows full well that there would not be any impact on the services being provided in our religious facilities today.

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

Mr. Speaker, what an absolutely ridiculous preamble and a ridiculous question. It is the same approach the Liberal government took for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The Liberals said to Canadians, “You have nothing to worry about. Your charter rights are temporarily suspended, but the balance of those charter rights will be upheld.” Now we have had two decisions from the Federal Court, and the Liberals waited until the very last day to file their appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Canadians do not believe a word they have to say on not having to worry about any infringement on freedom of expression or freedom of religion. They cannot be trusted.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague say in his speech that, with the Bloc Québécois's support, the government was preventing or stifling the debate on that. The Conservatives filibustered nine meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, thereby preventing constructive debate on this sensitive issue. It is true that the Conservatives have been spreading somewhat distorted information to their base, perhaps to scare them about what Bill C-9 might do. Every time I have spoken in person with people who are concerned about this bill, they leave the conversation completely reassured about the impact, or lack thereof, it would have on their religious practices.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on this. Does he not think that if there had been an opportunity for discussion in committee, we could have made progress on some of the potentially worthwhile points being raised by the Conservatives that might have improved the bill?