“I want the House to reject the Senate changes to this bill. People who were convicted of serious crimes in the last 10 years should not be allowed to supervise someone out on bail. The Senate added a loophole that lets judges pick them anyway. We need strict bail rules to protect our communities from repeat criminals.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour to rise today to represent the people of Bow River, and the river keeps flowing. I rise to speak to Bill C‑14 and to the Senate amendments that have been returned to the House. Before addressing those amendments themselves, I want to return to my maiden speech, which was not much more than a year ago. I came to Ottawa because I was tired of watching common‑sense Canadians feel like nobody was listening to them. I came here because farmers and families, teachers and nurses, doctors, mechanics, oil field workers, seniors and residents across Bow River told me they were worried about the direction of this country. They were worried about a government that seemed increasingly disconnected from everyday realities. They were worried about public safety, and they were tired of hearing the same stories over and over again. Just this year, a man from Okotoks was charged after police found more than 500,000 images and videos of child sexual abuse material in his home. Investigators described it as one of the largest collections they had ever encountered and involved tens of thousands of victims. Following his arrest, he was released on bail, which sparked outrage and concern throughout the community. The RCMP warned the public against retaliation, threats and vigilante actions. A criminologist from Mount Royal University, Kelly Sundberg, said that stricter bail conditions could help the community feel at ease. I need to mention that after years of Liberal judicial appointments, the Liberals have established a culture in the judiciary to defer to the perpetrator. This is maybe not deliberate by every judge. It is maybe not a grand scheme, but it is a culture that has insidiously infected our judiciary and that has resulted in deference to the perpetrator. Where does this leave victims? Where does this leave the public when they are worried about crime? The crime wave that is sweeping across this country, which we have been enduring for years, is sometimes bringing our communities to its knees. The people I represent do not believe public safety should be controversial. They do not believe accountability should be controversial. They certainly do not believe that protecting victims should take a back seat to protecting criminals. That is why Bill C‑14 matters. This bill is really important. The original purpose of Bill C‑14 was straightforward. It was intended to strengthen Canada’s bail system and restore confidence to a justice system that many Canadians believe has become far too lenient toward repeat offenders and violent offenders. The intent was to ensure that meaningful safeguards were in place when accused persons were released into our communities. I just spoke about how our communities feel and how they feel unsafe. These safeguards are what Canadians expected from Parliament when it began studying this legislation. Unfortunately, we are here today because the Senate has chosen to weaken one of those safeguards. Before turning to the amendment itself, Canadians and parliamentarians need to understand the broader context. Throughout this Parliament, Liberals repeatedly stood in the way of common-sense criminal justice reforms. They voted down Bill C‑220. They voted down Bill C‑242. They voted down Bill C‑246. These were not half measures, but substantive legislative proposals designed to address real and growing public safety concerns facing Canadians. Bill C‑242, the jail not bail act, would have strengthened Canada’s bail system for repeat violent offenders. Canadians have watched too many tragic cases unfold, where dangerous individuals repeatedly cycle through the justice system and are released back into communities despite extensive criminal records. The principle behind that legislation was simple: Public safety should come first. The Liberals voted it down. Bill C‑246 would have strengthened sentencing provisions for serious sexual offences and recognized the profound and lasting harm that these crimes inflict on victims. Victims deserve confidence that the offenders will face consequences that reflect the severity of their crimes. The Liberals voted it down. Bill C-220 represented another serious effort to strengthen accountability within our justice system and restore public confidence in a system that too many Canadians believe is failing to protect them. It would have amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences resulting in sentences of six months or more inadmissible to Canada and subject to removal. It sought to close loopholes that allowed serious offenders to avoid removal proceedings through lengthy appeals and technicalities. We have heard time and time again in this place, in question period and in debate, just a small sampling of the examples from across the country where this is happening in real time. The consequences for our communities are palpable, real, tragic and avoidable. The Liberals voted it down. Additionally, the Liberals just voted down Bill C-232, which dealt with blocking transfers of dangerous offenders who pose a risk to public safety, like Paul Bernardo, to medium- or low-security prisons, ensuring they remain in maximum-security prisons. When Parliament finally had an opportunity to study Bill C-14, the Liberals repeatedly blocked progress there as well. If we think back to December, they prevented the justice committee from studying this legislation not once, not twice, but 18 separate times. If the government was so anxious to get this legislation enacted and have it receive royal assent, it had every opportunity at innumerable times to progress it through the parliamentary process. It would be in force today, and we would not be having this debate in the House. I cannot help but think what the impact is in communities because we, the Liberal government, delay. If we had been permitted to do this work earlier, we would be much further along in the process. I would like to share some stories from my home, from where I live, remarks on the impact of crime and the impact of repeat offenders. At home, it is now commonplace to hear about copper theft. It may seem like a fringe or a fad, a petty theft kind of circumstance, but the impact to communities and, in this particular case, farmers is significant and massive. Petty criminals will go and raid an irrigation pivot for less than $100 of copper, sometimes less than $50 of copper, but the cost to get that equipment repaired is tens of thousands of dollars. More importantly, that machine is not available when the crops need water. It impairs the farmer’s ability to grow food. It makes the farmer feel vulnerable. He does not know what kind of bad actor he is going to run into when he is out in the field, checking the equipment and doing the work, growing the food for Canadians. I have visited multiple RCMP detachments across my riding. I make a point to visit them. Every time I have a chance to visit a community, I stop by the detachment. I speak to the sergeant in charge and to the constables. I ask them what they worry about. I ask them what problems they see. Habitually, it is the repeat offenders who have been kicked out on bail, who have not been rehabilitated and who keep coming back into the system. They deplete RCMP resources in these areas that are, using the words of the constables, “police deserts”. There is a 40-minute or an hour to two-hour response time. That is what the detachment staff tell us. I know this from personal experience. I had bad actors out in the middle of the field in the middle of the night, and it was four hours before the RCMP were able to get there, to get to us. My neighbours and I were alert all night long, in the middle of the night, in the winter, vigilant to make sure nothing bad was going to happen. It turned out that the individual was wanted on a Canada-wide warrant and from Winnipeg. He had been on the lam for more than a year and had been in and out of the justice system again and again. These are not petty crimes. These are crimes and activities that tug at the fabric of the communities that hold Canadians together. Also, these long wait times do not impact just the community at large but sworn members themselves. They fear they are going to miss a call when something bad happens. They are stretched too thin because they are consistently dealing with repeat people. They cannot be in the community where they need to be when they want to be there because they are busy dealing with failures of the justice system. We cannot let this stand. It is my hope that we do not. I think of the impact on farmers, small towns and rural communities, whether it is pickup trucks, cars and vehicles parked in front of the local co-op that are stolen in broad daylight or a spree of 14 vehicles, in a town that only has 150 residents, stolen over the course of a day and a half because the perpetrators are out on bail and looking for a joyride. It is irresponsible of the government to allow this to happen. It is because of these realities that Canadians expect Parliament to strengthen public safety. We need to strengthen these measures, not weaken them. These measures were debated in the House, and the House of Commons gave clear direction as to what the expectations were prior to sending the bill to the Senate. That is precisely what the amendment before us would do. It concerns sureties. For the Canadians watching at home, a surety is not someone who simply signs paperwork. They play a critical role in the bail system. They are expected to supervise the accused, to encourage compliance with bail conditions, to report violations and to help ensure the accused attends court and does not pose a danger to the public. These are serious responsibilities. Being a surety is a privilege, not a right. That is why the House adopted a simple and common-sense rule: If someone has been convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years, they are not eligible. They have not earned back the trust of society to stand as the caretaker of someone who is in the system. The principle is straightforward. If a person has recently demonstrated a serious disregard for the law, they should not be entrusted with supervising another individual accused of breaking the law. Most Canadians would consider that common sense. The House agreed. Parliament agreed. However, the Senate has now chosen to weaken the rule. I cannot understand why. The Senate amendment would create an exception that allows judges to approve individuals with recent indictable convictions as sureties if the judge believes no other surety is available and that doing so would be in the interests of justice. This is a loophole we could drive a bus through. This exception swallows the rule whole, like Jonah and the whale. Jonah escaped, but I am not sure we will. The original provision was clear that a recent indictable conviction would mean an individual is not eligible. It was simple. The Senate amendment would change that standard: eligible whenever no better option could be found. Public safety and the public perception of safety demands better than that. That notion transforms the prohibition into a guideline, which then, with the judicial culture we have today, makes it optional, an exception, if the judge feels like it. When safeguards become optional, they are no longer safeguards. We were deliberate in the provisions that were put in the bill sent from this place, and they were debated vigorously. Canadians should ask a simple question. Parliament determined that a recent indictable conviction makes someone unsuitable to supervise an accused person, so why does that person suddenly become suitable simply because there are no other alternatives? Well, it is because there usually are alternatives, but the accused person does not like them. The answer is that they do not have to like them. The standard has simply been lowered. The Senate presents a false choice. It suggests that if an accused person cannot find an eligible surety, then detention becomes the only option, but that is not so. It is simply not true. Canadian courts already possess numerous tools within the bail system. Courts can require financial pledges, impose cash deposits and set a number of other conditions in order to ensure that the public remains safe. The answer is not lowering the standard that Parliament deliberately established but maintaining confidence in the integrity of the system. The public demands it, and our honour demands that we deliver that to the public. Polling cited during the Senate debate found that 72% of Ontarians supported limitations on who may act as a surety, 71% supported cash bail for violent and repeat offenders and two-thirds believed that Canada’s bail system was not strict enough. Canadians are clearly asking for stronger safeguards, not weaker ones. The Senate amendment would also undermine accountability. Sureties are expected to supervise accused persons, report breaches, encourage compliance and ensure attendance in court. Those responsibilities require trustworthiness. Canadians expect the person carrying out these responsibilities to have demonstrated respect for the law and, if they have lost it previously, that they have earned it back adequately. It is not an unreasonable expectation. It is common sense. The Senate amendment relies heavily on the phrase “the interests of justice”. That sounds reasonable, but it is vague. When I spoke earlier about judicial culture, that is the thin edge of the wedge allowing the system to accommodate unreasonably. Different judges may interpret it differently. Different courts may apply it differently. This place deliberately established a clear rule, and clarity to the judiciary is required to meet the expectations of Parliament. The Senate is replacing certainty with discretion, and therein lies the loophole. Canadians deserve clear standards, consistency and confidence that public safety measures will actually be applied. Bill C-14 was introduced because Canadians have lost confidence in the bail system. They have watched violent crime increase, repeat offenders cycle through the system and governments talk about public safety while failing to deliver meaningful reform. The House provision would help restore confidence. The Senate amendment would weaken that confidence. The Senate has argued that some marginalized communities may face difficulties. We should absolutely recognize the challenges faced in some communities, but compassion cannot come at the expense of public safety. The purpose is not merely to find someone willing to sign a form but to find someone capable of providing meaningful supervision and accountability. If finding a surety is difficult, the answer cannot be lowering the standards. The amendment focuses almost entirely on the circumstances of the accused, but what about victims, families and communities? The threads of the fabric of our communities are at risk. What about law-abiding Canadians who expect the justice system to prioritize their safety? Victims deserve meaningful safeguards before accused persons are released into their communities. Weakening those safeguards does not strengthen confidence in the justice system. It weakens it. This debate ultimately comes down to a simple question: When public safety and convenience come into conflict, which side should Parliament choose? Conservatives believe the answer is clear, and it is that recent indictable offenders should not supervise accused persons released on bail. The Senate amendment abandons that principle and replaces it with a loophole. Bill C-14 was supposed to strengthen bail, and the Senate amendments would weaken it. For that reason, and for the countless Canadians who expect Parliament to put public safety first, Conservatives cannot support these amendments, and we hope the government will reject them as well.”

“People in my area worry that repeat criminals are getting released without proper supervision. This amendment ruins the whole point of the bill to fix that. The government waited too long to address this problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the almost conciliatory tone of the member across the way. He was being nice, which is refreshing. An hon. member: I am sure you will get to answering the question soon. David Bexte: Mr. Speaker, at some point, I will answer the question far better than a Liberal government will answer a question. I have spoken with members across my riding, and they are so concerned about the repeat offenders who are going to get out. If they are unsupervised or supervised by someone who has not earned the trust of society, then the problems are not being solved. The root cause and the root problem here is that the amendment undermines the entire premise of the bill. The Liberal government had 11 years to work on this and fix it. I have already talked about December last year and all the work that was done in committee to advance this. It is rich that the government is urgently getting to it now.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“People are losing trust in our judges. Parliament needs to write clearer laws so judges cannot use loopholes to avoid doing what we decided they must do.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the accommodation by the member down the way in giving me time to make sure I clearly understood her question. It goes, I guess, to the root of the problem, in that there is a concern about the public trust in the judiciary, the judgment of our judges. It is a separate arm of government. We have to have an independent judiciary, but it is equally incumbent on the Parliament of Canada to have absolutely clear legislation as to what we expect judges to do. It is the ambiguity in the loophole that brings into question the problem. That brings into question judges having the latitude to interpret things that Parliament has already decided must happen. In those cases, we need to tighten up the legislation.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The Senate changed this bill, and the government should reject that change. In my riding, repeat criminals keep getting out on bail and robbing farmers. The Senate's change creates a loophole that makes it too easy for these offenders to get bail even if no one stands up for them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for getting to the crux of the challenges with bail reform and the fact that, when this bill went through the House, it was supported completely. The issue around sureties was discussed and an amendment was unanimously agreed to by all parties in this chamber before it went to the Senate. I do find it somewhat hypocritical of the government to not reject this amendment, like the other amendments that have come back from the Senate on this bill. As the member indicated, it creates vagueness. I know the member referred to rural crime. I have the same challenge in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, where the same repeat offenders, who are robbing our farmers and our rural people, are getting back out on bail. That is why we need bail reform so badly after 11 years of the Liberal government. I am now concerned that, with this loophole in the bill, these people, who do have to convince the judge, will have the ability to get back out when they should be spending time in jail if they cannot find somebody to cover for them or to be their surety.”

“We must not weaken this bill. Criminals take advantage of loopholes, and judges are already being too lenient without giving good reasons. Canadians need to trust our justice system.”

“Mr. Speaker, it goes again to the same thing, which is the confidence the Canadian public demands of Canada’s justice system. If there are loopholes in the system, then the bad guys will learn how to use them. They will figure out how to convince unreasonable leniency from the courts. To the Bloc member’s point, I have numerous cases of events here in Bow River and around southern Alberta where the judges just did not bother to write the reasons down. It was arbitrary. There are so many things that go into this circumstance about resources to police and resources to the judiciary that contribute to this. I grant that. However, that should not be a free pass for Parliament to water down legislation when we had already unanimously clear expectations in the legislation.”

“The people and police officers in my riding want tougher bail rules. They want to keep dangerous criminals in jail instead of releasing them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I take a directly opposed view of the circumstance. I spoke with numerous members across the riding, and unanimously they wanted tougher bail conditions without fail. The RCMP’s sworn members, in every detachment that I visited in my riding, universally wanted tougher bail conditions without loopholes and without judicial discretion because they know that the bad people need to be dealt with in the system and not unleashed on the public.”

“The Senate weakened this crime bill. I want the government to reject the Senate's changes and make the bill tougher on criminals again.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his strong speech. After years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies that drove violent crimes up, Canadians are sadly paying the price in their communities every day, as he spoke of in his speech. Conservatives improved Bill C‑14 with key amendments in the House, but the majority Liberal, Trudeau-appointed Senate has once again watered it down, prioritizing criminals’ rights over public safety. Will my colleague join me in calling on the government to reject these weakening Senate amendments and restore the strong public safety version that Conservatives helped build?”

“I agree with the member. I want the House to pass this bill as it was first written, without the change.”

“Mr. Speaker, I absolutely and unreservedly will join this member in calling for this legislation to be passed in the original form without the amendment as proposed.”

“This bill says it brings back mandatory prison sentences, but it still leaves them optional. That makes them useless.”

“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Liberals’ bill, where they say they are putting back mandatory minimum sentences, but they have this safeguard or whatever they want to call it where it is actually optional, I want to ask my colleague, the member for Bow River, is that not akin to putting seat belts in vehicles and then never requiring anybody to use them?”

“We need this bill to do what we originally wanted it to do.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a fantastic analogy that I wish I would have included in my material. We were absolutely clear on what we expected this legislation to do. We need to revert to that.”

“The Liberals caused our crime problems with their soft laws on bail and prison rules. Now they are just trying to fix the problems they made.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member speaks about the Liberal commitment to bail reform, justice reform and listening to police and constituents. Would he not agree that we are here today because of Liberal policies that are soft on crime? We are here today because of Bill C‑75, the principle of restraint and bail reform; Bill C‑5 on mandatory minimums; and Bill C‑83, the “least restrictive environment”, which allows Paul Bernardo to be in a medium-security institution. The Liberal backbench voted against my legislation, Bill C‑232, so Paul Bernardo is allowed to stay in medium security. The Liberals talk a good game, but we know, truly, who they are. Why is the member here today dictating to us about this concern when they are actually fixing the problems they created?”

“The member used to say that Liberal bail policies make our communities less safe and help criminals instead of victims. She was right, and those policies have not changed. She also used to say that members who switch parties should let their voters decide if they still want them. I want to know when she will ask her voters to elect her again.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague’s speech. She talked about unintended consequences a lot, which was a bit strange for somebody who, just months ago, told Canadians that it was the Liberals making her communities less safe and that it was their “bail not jail” policies and legislation that favoured criminals over victims. In fact, that member said that criminals are making out very well under the Liberals. She was right. These policies have not changed. The only thing that has changed is where she sits. She also said that MPs who cross the floor should go back to their constituents for a fresh mandate. If she truly believes the principles she spent years defending, including that Liberal soft-on-crime policies have made her community less safe, when is she going to go back to constituents and find out who they want to elect to represent them?”