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.

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].

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

Again, we will ask the questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean, a riding that borders mine.

Bill C-14 needs to do three things. It needs to protect Canadian communities and protect victims, which it does. It also needs to protect the independence and impartiality of judges, which it does. The third thing it needs to do is ensure that Canadians have confidence in the justice system. This is about ensuring that the administration of justice is not brought into disrepute. I would argue that it fulfills these three objectives. It was important that it did so.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, I agree in principle. As I was saying, we are voting in favour of the bill. However, if we are going to have confidence in the administration of justice, then we also need to have confidence in the bill and we would have benefited from more time to review it properly.

It may be a bit pretentious of the government to say that the bills it introduces are perfect from the get-go. This may be a denial of the role of parliamentarians, which is to ensure that bills reflect the views of the population as a whole. The parties we represent have opposing views in some cases and similar views in others. I think we missed a great opportunity to boost public confidence if we had been able to do a more thorough job from the outset.

Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to acknowledge my hon. colleague's concerns and frustrations over the way the bill has gotten here. The fact is that the Liberal government refused to make this a priority last fall. The position Parliament is now facing with the lack of debate is because of the partisan factors in place, which I acknowledge.

However, I want to ask the member more about why the bill is so important.

Over the last decade, crime has gone through the roof across this country and in my own riding, especially among repeat violent offenders. Bail reform is needed because of past Liberal bills that weakened our justice system and bail regime.

Is the member hearing about these challenges with repeat violent offenders in her own riding, from law enforcement and constituents?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question raises many issues, but I would like to circle back to what I said earlier.

The objectives of this bill, as my colleague from La Prairie—Atateken clearly described, were to improve public confidence in the justice system and to strike a balance between various existing rights, including the public's right to feel safe and the accused's right, despite everything, to have a fair hearing and be presumed innocent. This delicate balance is often very difficult to achieve, so we would have been justified in taking the time to thoroughly analyze the bill with help from experts in the field.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in my speech, it is wishful thinking to believe that the law can do everything. We cannot solve all the world's problems with legislation alone. It would have been beneficial to hear from more people in the field explaining the vital role that rehabilitation and prevention have in crime reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on the thoroughness of her presentation. She has done her research and knows what she is talking about. She studied law herself, so it is interesting to hear from someone who knows the subject so well.

My question is perhaps more for her in her capacity as the Bloc Québécois House leader. I understand that currently, in the House, the government is trying to convince the public that our desire to debate bills, because we want to improve them, means that we are filibustering. That irritates me to no end. It seems to me that our job is to improve and enhance legislation.

Could my colleague comment on that?

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is true that both the government side and the official opposition side sometimes tend to equate the time spent studying a bill with wasted time. In some cases, they seem to see them as one and the same. If we spend a lot of time studying a bill, that is seen as filibustering. However, the reason we spend a lot of time studying matters like Bill C-15, which is about 630 pages long, is clearly that it involves a lot of work—all the more reason to refer it to several committees. Should that be considered filibustering? I do not think so.

Similarly, when the Conservatives debate a Bloc Québécois amendment on hate speech over several sittings, maybe we could call them out for filibustering, although it is not something I think we should do systematically. To say that the time we spend debating something in the House is filibustering is a bit of an insult to the work of parliamentarians.

Uqaqtittiji, I am very pleased to speak to the bill, and I am also very pleased to have seconded the amendments submitted by the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, because I believe we share values. The bill required so much work, and her amendments can address so many of the flaws in the current iteration of Bill C-14.

I thank the Criminal Lawyers' Association for its work. In a submission it made, it said, “There is a bail crisis in Canada. But it is a crisis of detention, not release.”

Bill C-14 is not the answer Canadians need. It is a knee-jerk reaction to sensational headlines and high-profile incidents involving repeat violent offenders. Working hand in hand, Conservatives and Liberals rushed the bill through committee, holding only three meetings, while ignoring the voices of experts and the people most affected.

The Prime Minister claims to represent Liberal leadership, yet he openly supports and advances Conservative policies. Over two-thirds of Canadians did not vote for a Conservative government, but this is the agenda now being forced on Canadians.

The NDP is firmly opposed to Bill C-14. As the NDP critic for both justice and indigenous affairs, I am opposed to the bill because it would fail Canadians. Instead of making communities safer, it would cause great injustice, deepen inequality and trample on fundamental rights. Canadians deserve a better way forward.

By relying on tough-on-crime talking points, the government hopes to satisfy public pressure, but real issues are overlooked. People struggling with poverty, mental health and addiction would be pushed further into the system. The bill offers nothing in the way of treatment, rehabilitation or prevention. The bill would put more innocent people behind bars for longer, sometimes for months, before any trial. The cost would be paid by families and communities when people lose their housing, their job or even custody of their children, all before they have been found guilty of a crime.

Canada's current bail system is already one of the strictest in the world. In fact, 76% of people charged are now denied bail, up from 22% in 1978. More than 60% of people in provincial institutions are waiting for trial. One-third of the people detained before trial are never convicted of any crime; they sit in crowded jails without access to addiction or mental health programs. Indigenous people are drastically overrepresented in these numbers. Although they make up only 5% of Canada's population, about 30% of federal inmates are indigenous.

People who are experiencing poverty, homelessness, addiction or mental health challenges simply cannot meet the conditions for bail. They do not have a phone. They do not have stable housing or work, and they may not have friends or relatives to vouch for them. These are the people who would pay the price for the proposed policy.

Last year, the Department of Justice cut 264 jobs. In the fall budget, the Prime Minister mandated the reduction of justice department operations by an additional 15%. We know that reduction means more cuts are coming. These departmental cuts will affect supports for low-income Canadians, such as legal aid, bail support programs and community clinics.

The bill in its current form would narrow the principle of restraint, which would make it easier to keep people in detention. It would expand reverse onus by forcing an accused person to prove why they should get bail, instead of the Crown having to prove why they should not, weakening the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It would toughen sentences, amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and make sweeping changes that would further tax an already overburdened system.

These are not evidence-based reforms. There is no clear data on how many people out on bail reoffend. We do not even collect standardized data on bail decisions. Rushing the bill through when experts and civil liberties groups ask for better information is not responsible law-making.

We already have evidence of programs that do work. The John Howard Society has supervised bail programs in Ontario communities that have success rates of over 90%, for a fraction of the cost of jail. These programs link people to addiction services, mental health services and social services, and they help people on bail meet the conditions set by the court. This is safer, less costly and more humane.

What we need are real investments in community-based supervision available across Canada. We need prevention and rehabilitation programs to tackle the root causes of crime, including poverty, trauma, systemic racism and colonial practices. We need national standards for data collection and risk assessment.

Debate in Parliament is supposed to serve Canadians and strengthen democracy, but on the bill before us, the Liberals and Conservatives are shutting out progressive voices like those of the NDP. They are refusing to listen to the experts who have studied Canada's criminal justice system. Instead they are moving quickly, relying on fear and political pressure rather than reason, evidence and open debate.

This approach leads to bad law and weakens democracy itself. When Parliament ignores the people advocating for civil liberties, the rights of indigenous peoples, and evidence-based solutions, we all lose. Democracy cannot thrive when important debate is suppressed and the government ignores the expertise of the people working on the front lines. Canadians deserve a criminal justice system rooted in fairness and facts, not political theatre. We need real solutions backed by evidence.

The NDP calls on the government to stop, listen and consult, especially with people who are experts and people who are most impacted by these laws. Democracy is best served when many voices are heard, not just one. That is why a stronger progressive presence in Parliament matters. When New Democrats speak up, critical issues like evidence-based justice, civil liberties and the rights of indigenous and marginalized people are not ignored. Canadians did not ask for a Conservative agenda, but that is what we are getting when Liberals and Conservatives rush bills like Bill C-14.

Mr. Speaker, although I agree with some parts of the member's intervention, I also think that prevention is a very important part of solving the criminal situation we have in the country. Rehabilitation upon conviction is also very important because one day people will be released, and we want to make sure they are released with a plan and with the ability to work.

Data is also a concern I have shared. We have been asking the provinces to share bail data with the federal government to strengthen our decision-making, but they have been unable to do so. That is something I plan to work on.

Would the member not agree that repeat violent offenders being released back out are a public safety risk, and that—

The hon. member for Nunavut.

Uqaqtittiji, the fact that the member has stated that the government has not had data to develop the bill confirms what I have been saying: The bill was not based on evidence.

I agree that we need to make sure we have better prevention programs. The best way to do that is to make sure we do not keep more people in jail, which the bill intends to. That is what we need to focus on. As the Criminal Lawyers' Association has said, there is a crisis, but it is in detention not on release.

Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague from Nunavut was well thought out, but while I respect a lot of what she had to say, I do disagree with a couple of things. One is that I wish we actually had a Conservative agenda being brought forward by the government. The member also talks about a lack of evidence. Daily in the newspaper we see stories of victims of repeat violent offenders and victims of domestic violence from repeat violent offenders who are put in jail and are immediately brought back out. I think there is evidence of the failure of Bill C-75.

What would be the NPD solution to repeat violent offenders being let back out, abusing women and children and committing crimes against everyday Canadians?

Uqaqtittiji, the sensationalism that the media shares is creating fear that is not necessary, and the focus needs to be on addressing violent offenders.

I hope that with the way the bill is, it would not be overgeneralizing the people who would be most impacted. We have heard that bail works right now and that people who are violent offenders are kept in, and that is what the target needs to be of the bill. That is not what it is at this point.

Mr. Speaker, does the member agree that removing conditional sentencing, allowing an offender, a repeat, violent, domestic abuser, back onto the streets, is uncalled for? The amendment would remove that provision.

Uqaqtittiji, the bill required so much work that it was hard to support it right away. I very much appreciate the amendments that were tabled by the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands.