Bill C-14

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) provide direction to peace officers, justices and judges when they apply the principle of restraint;
(b) require a justice, before making a release order or a detention order in respect of an accused, to consider whether the accused is charged with an offence in the commission of which random and unprovoked violence was used or attempted;
(c) require a justice to impose a condition prohibiting the possession of a firearm or other weapon, and to consider imposing other conditions, when making a release order in respect of an accused charged with the offence of extortion or any offence involving a criminal organization;
(d) require a justice to consider imposing certain conditions when making a release order in respect of an accused charged with an offence of motor vehicle theft or with the offence of breaking and entering a dwelling-house;
(e) create a reverse onus provision for any accused charged with the offence of motor vehicle theft involving violence, motor vehicle theft for a criminal organization, extortion involving violence, breaking and entering a dwelling-house, certain offences related to trafficking in persons or human smuggling or certain offences in which an accused is alleged to have choked, suffocated or strangled a complainant;
(f) expand the reverse onus provision to any person charged with a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon who has been previously convicted, within 10 years, of a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon;
(g) add the number or gravity of any outstanding charges against an accused as circumstances that a justice is to consider in assessing whether the detention of the accused is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice;
(h) expand the circumstances in which the release documents that an accused is subject to may be canceled;
(i) create a reverse onus provision for any person who has been found guilty of certain offences if the prosecutor applies to vacate that person’s interim release order;
(j) create new aggravating factors to address repeat violent offending, offences against first responders, retail theft and theft and mischief to property offences;
(k) add new consecutive sentence provisions for repeat violent offences, motor vehicle theft offences and breaking and entering offences, and extortion and arson offences;
(l) require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence of repeat motor vehicle theft offences, repeat breaking and entering offences and organized crime offences;
(m) restrict the possibility of imposing conditional sentence orders for sexual assault, and offences of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose that involves a victim under 18 years of age;
(n) restore the availability of driving prohibitions for the offences of manslaughter and criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death; and
(o) improve the administration of justice as it relates to sentencing by increasing the penalty for contempt, enhancing the fine enforcement regime and expanding the availability of remote appearances in the mental disorder regime.
It also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to, among other things,
(a) clarify the definition of “violent offence” to mean, among other things, an offence in the commission of which a young person causes bodily harm;
(b) provide that the time a young person is unlawfully at large does not count towards time served for a youth custody and supervision order;
(c) enable police officers to publish identifying information about a young person in urgent situations where there is an imminent danger to public safety;
(d) clarify the process for the detention and release of young persons who are remanded for an alleged breach of a condition of their youth custody sentence while awaiting a review by the youth justice court;
(e) set out a period of access for records of extrajudicial measures, other than extrajudicial sanctions, and clarify the rules for records of investigations kept by police that did not result in a charge or extrajudicial measures; and
(f) make several technical sentencing amendments.
It also amends the National Defence Act to, among other things,
(a) improve the administration of military justice as it relates to sentencing by increasing the penalty for contempt;
(b) require courts martial to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence of offences involving criminal organizations; and
(c) create new aggravating circumstances to address repeat violent offending, offences against first responders, stealing for commercial purposes and certain property offences.
Finally, the enactment also includes transitional provisions and coordinating amendments.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. There is a lot of back-and-forth in that exchange. Let us try to keep the heckles to a minimum.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not even know where to start with the member opposite, but I would point out that the bill is an admission of Liberal failure. We are calling for the repeal of Liberal bail law. We are calling for jail, not bail for repeat offenders.

We have heard from communities across this country. One example is the city of Vancouver, where 43 individuals caused 1,100 police interactions in one year. It is not that we have a lot of criminals in this country, but the criminals we do have are prolific because the Liberals keep letting them out on bail. What does the member have to say about that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I say that it is grossly exaggerated in terms of how the Conservatives often approach crime-related issues. It appears that they are more concerned about partisan political shots, as well as slogans like “jail as opposed to bail” in order to raise money, than they are about the interests of Canadians. We saw that in the type of question we just had.

At the end of the day, the responsibility for the types of things the member just made reference to is not just on Ottawa. Provinces need to step up, and municipalities need to step up. We need to work together. Obviously, we need to put Canadians' interests ahead of political—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Winnipeg North for doing such a great job getting our Conservative colleagues all worked up. It happens every time: As soon as he gets up to give a speech, emotions run high in the opposition benches. It livens things up a bit in the House of Commons, and we should be grateful to him for that, even if we do not always agree with what he says.

As we have been saying all morning, I think we all agree on the principle of Bill C‑14. We also agree that it needs to go to committee so that we can improve it and discuss certain points that concern us.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the idea, as I said, but we have made some suggestions for reducing crime in Quebec and Canada in order to make neighbourhoods safer. Crime is not committed only by petty criminals. We also have to think about criminal organizations.

One of the Bloc Québécois's recommendations was to create an organized crime registry and another was to facilitate the seizure of assets. We are discussing reversing the burden of proof, but that burden of proof could be reversed in relation to property obtained by crime, so as to avoid being unable to recover property obtained by crime—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I appreciate the kind words.

The Bloc party is in a very interesting position. Eventually, Bill C-14 will go to a standing committee. There is a chance that we are not going to be able to get a consensus on all issues, which means that at times there will be the need for a vote. I suspect that any political entity sitting around the committee table would play a very important role and make sure there is some balance. We would be looking for opposition parties to co-operate and look at how we could deliver the best legislation possible to serve Canadians, going out of the committee. I would encourage my friends in the Bloc to work very closely with the ministers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am saying this from the bottom of my non-partisan heart: The last exchange was unfortunate. I have been in Bill C-14 debates; the hon. Minister of Justice spoke yesterday, and there have been some really respectful exchanges. I want to mention something said yesterday by the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, himself a criminal prosecutor with lots of experience. He said that he was enjoying the fact that the Minister of Justice is open to change, and they are having good exchanges and an openness to try to find consensus.

Therefore, I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary if he thinks it is a good idea to pretend that we do not actually have reasons to work together in this place and just attack the Conservatives for rhyming. I hate the rhyming too, by the way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. Yesterday, the shadow critic was here, and there was a wonderful experience of just watching and listening and of a sense of co-operation. I then posed a question of the shadow critic. In his response, he was open-minded in terms of potentially even seeing the bill become law before the end of the year, and that was encouraging.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss the government's proposed changes to bail and sentencing in Bill C-14. In order to better understand the bill, we need to reflect on how we made it to this point, because while the Liberals are now acknowledging that bail reform is needed, they are hoping Canadians will forget that they have been in power for a decade and introduced the legislation that severely jeopardized the safety of Canadians.

Before I go on, I want to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

For years now, Canadian families, communities and neighbourhoods have witnessed the catch-and-release crime wave that has swept across our nation. The Liberals talk about the need for judicial independence, yet with Bill C-75, they took what used to be a judge's decision on granting bail, after weighing and considering previous case law, and put their thumb on the scale by codifying the principle of least restraint, which directs courts and police to release accused persons “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

For six years, the Liberals have told Canadians that they have not ruined the bail system and are not responsible for catch-and-release policies that have led to a spike in crime. Let us look at some stats from when they have been in power. From 2015 to 2023, auto theft went up 45%, extortion went up 357% and gang-related homicides went up 78%. Cars are being stolen from people's driveways while they sleep. Violent home break-ins have become so bad that police issue warnings for families to leave their keys at the door in the hopes that home invaders would not come further into the house and endanger the people living there. Mr. Speaker, talk about creating a new norm, not only of fear but of helplessness, as Canadians feel that they are left to fend for themselves.

To make matters worse, the Liberals added Bill C-5, which allowed for repermitting conditional sentence orders or house arrest for serious offences, including sexual assault. In many cases, this allows violent abusers back into the homes and communities of the people they are a danger to. It also allows for kidnappers, human traffickers and people who abduct children under 14 to be given house arrest. Letting a violent abuser back into the very home of the people they are a danger to is not compassionate, despite what the Liberals have claimed over the last several years.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister said that letting violent sexual assault abusers off on house arrest was wrong and that they intended to fix it. It took three years for the Liberal government to figure out that letting people convicted of sexual assault serve house arrest was a bad thing. No intimate partner, family or community should have to live in fear that someone who commits sexual assault could be given house arrest. While the Liberals have continued to put the rights of violent criminals ahead of those of victims, Conservatives believe in putting the rights and protections of victims first.

Members opposite me from the Liberal benches will now say that they are bringing forward positive changes and that Canadians should be satisfied. They will say that repealing the principle of restraint in Bill C-75 would not solve the problem since there is precedent set by court rulings, but what they fail to own up to is that they are the ones who created the precedent in the first place.

In Bill C-14, the Liberals are proposing a change to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release. Why would the government need to clarify that its legislation does not require violent offenders to be released unless it currently does just that? Having said that, I note that this clarification does not repeal the “least onerous conditions” set out in the Liberals' catch-and-release bail laws; rather, it still provides a pathway to release and remains the directive that is to be applied.

Let us be clear: Conservatives have been advocating for changes to the broken Liberal bail system. We have advocated for tools our judges can use to keep repeat violent offenders off the streets. We have advocated for changes so that the brave men and women who serve as first responders and police officers do not have to arrest the same repeat violent offenders over and over again.

While Bill C-14 does provide for outcomes that would prevent the overly broad catch-and-release policies that allow for repeat violent offenders to be withheld, it falls short of an actual repeal of the policy that made it possible in the first place.

For years now, together with my colleagues, I have stood in this place and shared the stories of what is happening in our communities and of the victims of the Liberals' soft-on-crime approach. Their broken bail system started six years ago. It has taken six years and too many devastating accounts for the Liberals to finally act and put forward any changes that would reverse course on their disastrous bail legislation. What is the excuse for not acting sooner?

Members should make no mistake: Conservatives have been right on this all along. We have never lost sight of the victims of violent crime or those who protect our communities.

Our first responders and police officers put their lives at risk every single day to keep us safe. Firefighters do not need to risk their lives putting out yet another fire caused by arson that is tied to an extortion investigation. Nor do our police officers, when they have to arrest the same violent offenders who are out on bail dozens of times over. Nor do our nurses and doctors, when they work to treat the sick and wounded but have been victims of violent assaults in the hospitals they work in.

To add insult to injury, the Liberals repealed mandatory minimum sentences on violent firearm offences, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and importing illegal firearms. How does it make our communities safer when we know that the people who commit offences like these do not have to serve a mandatory prison sentence? It does not.

If we remove the mandatory punishment for committing a crime, we watch the incidents of that crime increase. If we direct judges to grant the least onerous conditions for bail, which lets criminals out the same day they committed a violent crime, and we watch them continue to commit violent crimes.

That is why Conservatives put Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, before the House. While the Liberals have signalled that they will not support the bill, it is an opportunity to take action that would protect victims.

Bill C-14 was inspired by the measures put forward by Conservatives in calling on the government to change course on its disastrous bail policies. However, it is still a half measure that, after three years, refuses to acknowledge the pain caused by allowing sexual offenders to be given House arrest, while claiming to be standing up for the victims of the Liberals' own policy.

Even though the Liberals have proposed that violent sexual offenders will no longer be eligible for house arrest, they are also proposing, with the bill, that kidnappers and human traffickers will remain eligible for house arrest.

Conservatives have pushed, and will continue to push, for legislation that cracks down on crime rather than encouraging it. We disagree with the Liberal government's decision to keep the directive for judges to release offenders on the least onerous conditions, and we will seek to ensure, through amendments, that kidnappers, human traffickers and those who abduct children under 14 do not get to serve house arrest in the communities they are a danger to.

I look forward to hearing the testimony that will be provided at committee once the bill is sent there. I welcome the members opposite to ensure that they will be doing the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail reform legislation.

For a couple of days, we have been debating the bail reform legislation. We want to be very crystal clear on this particular point. At the end of the day, we have an opportunity to have bail reform legislation, which is supported in every region of the country and, most importantly, is in high demand among Canadians. We could have the legislation in law before the end of the year, passing through the different stages.

The only thing that could prevent this is the Conservative Party. Will the member provide her personal thoughts on seeing the legislation pass?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals desperately want to avoid accountability for creating the issues their disaster bail system, through catch-and-release legislation like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, has created. While they are now telling Canadians that reforms are needed and we need to get this done quickly, it took them six years to clarify that the principle of restraint does not require a release. If Bill C-75 had not let violent repeat offenders out on bail, they would not have needed to clarify it.

Conservatives want solutions, and we will work to strengthen this bill to address the areas where it falls short.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying a motion that I moved because I was worried and wanted to know whether the justice system is currently responding to the concerns of victims and survivors of violence.

In particular, I proposed a study to review section 810 of the Criminal Code. Working with the Conservatives, we finally managed to get another study added to the agenda on bail and sentencing. My colleague and I worked together on this study that is now before the committee. That said, I want to talk to my colleague about another matter.

The Bloc Québécois does indeed want to study this issue in committee. As I said, we recently introduced a motion in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Yesterday, the witnesses all told us about the criminalization of coercive control, a subject that is even more important than what we are discussing today. Survivors and victims are calling for this. What does my colleague think about that?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my response to the member opposite, we are committed to looking for solutions that will ensure violent criminals remain in jail and that they are not prematurely released back into the community to cause more crime.

This bill falls short on a number of issues. The principle of restraint, which I have spoken about, remains in place. This keeps the culture of release in place, even though tragic cases like Bailey McCourt's illustrate the very real costs of releasing known violent offenders back into the community.

I look forward to the interventions that will be made on this bill at the justice committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's response to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader about trying to make this bill better.

You said it best when you said the government has had six-plus years to get this right. The election is almost seven months removed. Why do you think the government left out such substantive pieces of reform, particularly in the areas of sentencing and bail reform? Why did it purposely leave out significant details when our opposition party has been giving it suggestion after suggestion for the last seven months?