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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do hope there are more consultations with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, with the BC Civil Liberties Association, with indigenous groups and with women’s groups, because it is those groups that are not feeling heard with how this bill was tabled. I do hope there will be more work done to hear from those most marginalized communities.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

The Liberal government's complacency has numbed not only itself but the country. When leaders stop reacting to lawlessness, Canadians stop believing it will ever end.

In Richmond Centre—Marpole and beyond, I hear it every week: one more violent act, one less ounce of faith. People, and even the officers sworn to protect them, no longer believe their struggle matters. When a community stops expecting accountability, lawlessness becomes the norm. This is not alarmism. It is observation. It is what happens when a justice system meant to serve public safety instead offers repeat violent offenders the benefit of the doubt again and again.

Individuals with multiple prior convictions and individuals with active conditions, who are known to law enforcement, are released often within hours of their arrest only to offend again. Some of them rob. Some assault. Some kill. How did we let this become normal? The answer lies in a string of decisions made here in this chamber.

Six years ago, the Liberals passed Bill C-75, which put into legislation what they called the principle of restraint. This principle made release the default. It instructed police and judges to prioritize letting accused individuals go early and with minimal conditions. The intent, we are told, was fairness, equity and efficiency. The reality has been chaos.

Bill C-75 shifted the weight of our legal system away from public safety and toward procedural leniency. It was not reform. It was retreat. It took a system already struggling to keep up with repeat offenders and made it harder for police, Crown prosecutors and judges to do their jobs.

Do not take my word for it. Look at the numbers in British Columbia, where there were nearly 4,800 bail hearings in just over a year. Detention was sought in less than a quarter of them. Even in cases involving serious violence, detention was ordered less than half the time. The consequences were predictable and tragic.

In the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, we have seen a rise in violent assaults, break-ins and attacks on law enforcement. Officers report rearresting the same individuals multiple times in a matter of weeks. Frontline morale is eroding. Many feel like they are working in circles, handcuffed to the criminals they repeatedly arrest and to the system they are forced to comply with. Our communities, families, small businesses and seniors are the ones left to deal with the fallout.

This is not a local issue. It is a national one. Police chiefs, mayors, premiers and victims' rights groups from across Canada have said the same thing many times, which is that the system is too slow, too soft and too disjointed to protect the people it is supposed to serve. What makes it worse is that for years, these warnings were met without a care.

The Liberal government had opportunity after opportunity to course correct. Instead, it offered half measures, like Bill C-48, which tinkered with language but did not attempt to touch the core issue. With Bill C-14, we finally see an acknowledgement that the current approach is not working, that reverse-onus bail provisions are necessary for serious and repeat offenders, that conditional sentences or house arrest for crimes like sexual assault are a gross misplacement of compassion and that sentencing needs to reflect the gravity and frequency of violent crimes.

This bill contains good elements. Conservatives welcome those changes, but let us be honest: This is not a product of vision. It is a reaction, one that is long overdue.

For four years, Conservatives have been raising the alarm. We have introduced a private member's bill to strengthen bail. We have stood with victims' families, spoken with law enforcement and warned the House that, without reform, the system will continue to fail. Those warnings were brushed aside, and while the government hesitated, Canadians suffered.

Yes, we support Bill C-14, but it is the floor, not the ceiling. Conservatives will be pressing for critical amendments.

First, we must fully repeal the principle of restraint as outlined in Bill C-75. It is too vague. It gives too much weight to factors that have nothing to do with risk to the public. Judges must be empowered to detain individuals who pose a threat, not be told to default to release.

Second, we must restore mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent offences. The repeal of these sentences under Bill C-5 sent the wrong message: that even the most dangerous crimes might not result in jail time. That approach undermines deterrence and betrays victims.

Third, we need to implement a broader presumption of detention for individuals with violent criminal histories. The public has a right to be protected from those who have repeatedly shown disregard for the law and for human life.

Fourth, we must ensure proper support for provincial systems that bear the brunt of these changes. Without investments in Crown capacity, corrections and law enforcement, stricter laws will not translate into better outcomes. This cannot be legislation without resources.

Finally, we need transparency. Canadians should know how often bail is granted, how often conditions are breached and how often violent crimes are committed by those already out on release. This information must be reported and made public. Only then can we hold the system accountable.

This is not about being tough for the sake of being tough. It is about being serious about protecting the innocent, serious about consequences for the guilty and serious about restoring public faith in a system that too many now see as broken. Justice must be firm, fair and focused. It must prioritize the safety of communities over the convenience of repeat offenders. It must send a clear message that if people endanger others, if they repeatedly violate the law, the consequences will be certain and swift. The bill before us is an opportunity to start sending that message again, but only if we are willing to finish the work.

The people of Richmond Centre—Marpole do not want more promises; they want action. They want to know that when a dangerous individual is arrested, the justice system will act to keep them and others safe. They want a government that puts victims first.

Canadians have had enough of revolving-door bail, enough of tragic headlines and enough of policies that offer more exit ramps to offenders than pathways to accountability. Let this be the moment we choose differently. Let us send Bill C-14 to committee for further scrutiny. Let us strengthen it, and let us restore the most basic promise any justice system can make to its people: that their safety matters.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree on this side of the aisle that we do need changes and improvements, which is why we are introducing this bill. However, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press this week, Crown attorneys are desperately overloaded and understaffed. Many people are out on bail, not because of insufficient provisions in the law but because they do not have enough Crown attorneys to give them timely bail hearings, which is necessary for the denial of bail.

Does the hon. member not agree that the federal government cannot solve this alone and that we need better participation from the provincial governments?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague on the other side listened to my speech carefully. I did mention that we cannot change the system through legislation only. We cannot just use promises to change the system. We can make things work better only if the system is being supported with an implementation plan and with resources. That is why I pointed out that we have to give more capacity to Crown prosecutors, to law enforcement and to the people who are out in the community protecting us.

Legislative change is important, but there has to be capacity building with it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. I heard him talk about the issue of sentencing. We know that, in the judicial process, judges are responsible for sentencing. They have the flexibility they need to apply a sentence that fits the crime.

Does my colleague's current emphasis on sentencing and wanting to pass legislation reflect his belief, namely that judges are not doing their job properly?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have suggested, the people in law enforcement are trying to do the best job they can. However, the present system has their hands tied. The bail system right now is catch-and-release. Prosecutors, as well as judges, are being told they have to release the accused at the earliest possible moment and with the least restrictions. With those kinds of restrictions, how can the judges and the prosecutors do their job?

What we have also observed in Bill C-14 is that it is silent on those serious crimes that deserve mandatory sentencing. There are two issues: One is the bail system, and the other is that there are no mandatory sentences for serious crimes, such as those committed by drug kingpins.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was incredible, very insightful and very heartfelt. When I was an MLA in B.C., starting in 2017, we were arguing the same points to the B.C. government. The B.C. government was blaming the federal government, and now we hear the federal government saying that we need more co-operation. It is a back-and-forth blame game.

Could we have gotten ahead of this if, four years ago, the federal government had listened to Conservatives' recommendations?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that we have a system in which the federal government's being ignorant or being incapable of dealing with the issue creates a problem. The problem becomes too big, and the government tries to blame other people. When it cannot blame other people for the consequences, it then tries to do as little as it can to improve the system.

This has been going on for years. As I mentioned in my speech, the Conservatives have warned the House many times that the current system, and the previous provisions as passed by the federal government, were not working. I think we are seeing the consequences today.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to encapsulate the bill, I would say that it is far too little and far too late. It is not an act of leadership; it is an act of desperation. It is a half-hearted political band-aid from a government caught red-handed presiding over a public safety crisis of its own making.

For nearly a decade, the Liberals have gambled with the safety of Canadians. They have told us that their modern bail system would be fairer, more compassionate and more enlightened. Well, it has been none of those things. Their ideology has unleashed chaos on our streets, fear in our neighbourhoods and heartbreak in our families.

All 10 premiers, every single one of them, have begged the Prime Minister to fix his broken bail system. Every police chief and every frontline officer who has spoken out has warned the Liberal government that its bail policies are handcuffing police and setting criminals free. Every ordinary Canadian knows, because they can see and feel it, that violent crime has exploded under the Liberal government.

Since the Liberals have come into power, violent crime is up 55%; extortion has skyrocketed 330% across our nation and is closer to 600%, at 582%, in British Columbia; and sexual assaults are up 75%. In British Columbia, the number of sexual violations against children has quadrupled.

These are not abstract numbers; these are shattered lives, broken families and terrified communities. Behind each of those statistics is a name, a face and a story: for example, Bailey McCourt, brutally murdered by her ex-husband, who had been released on bail after an assault conviction; or Savannah Kulla-Davies, a 29-year-old mother of four who was shot and killed in Brampton. Her killer was out on bail. When will the government understand that its compassion for criminals has become cruelty toward victims?

Bill C-14 is not a solution; it is a confession. It is the government's finally admitting that its so-called reforms are a disaster. The Liberals talk about adjusting and clarifying, but no; the bill is a watered down imitation of the Conservative plan the Liberals voted against time after time. They ridiculed it, then they quietly copied it when Canadians demanded action. They are trying to clean up their own mess with a mop made of Liberal spin.

Let us remember how we got here. Bill C-75, the Liberal law that enshrined the so-called principle of restraint, told judges to release first and ask questions later. Then there is Bill C-5, the law that scrapped mandatory minimums for gun crimes and sexual offences and brought back house arrest for criminals who should be behind bars.

This has meant that convicted sexual offenders have served sentences in their own living room, that a child pornographer in British Columbia got an 18-month house arrest, and that a man who tried to pay for sex with a 15-year-old girl received a three-month term house arrest because a longer sentence might have delayed his citizenship. In 2022, nearly one-third of homicides were committed by people already out on some form of release, whether bail, probation or house arrest.

If that does not bring the Liberals and the administration of justice into disrepute, I do not know what does.

What do the Liberals do now? They bring in Bill C-14, a timid half measure that tinkers around the edges. Yes, it would narrow the principle of restraint and expand reverse onus provisions, which are steps Conservatives have been demanding for years. However, it would not repeal Bill C-75 or Bill C-5, the twin pillars of the government's soft-on-crime experiment.

The bill would not restore mandatory minimums for gun offences, sex offences and repeat violent crimes. It would not create true presumption of detention for dangerous offenders, and it would still tell judges to impose the least onerous conditions possible when granting bail. Tell that to the family of Bailey McCourt and to the children of Savannah Kulla.

Here is the core of the problem. Conservatives believe in due process and the presumption of innocence, but due process does not mean a revolving door. If an accused person can be released, that is fine. However, we must give judges the power to impose strict bail conditions when necessary.

Strict bail is fair, it is safe and it saves money compared to unnecessary incarceration, but the government's ideology ties judges' hands. It says to either grant bail on the easiest terms imaginable or deny it entirely. That is absurd. Half-baked legislation creates half-safe communities.

Conservatives are not asking for a right turn; we are demanding a U-turn. We are all on the Liberal bus, careening down a dangerous road. The provinces are shouting, the police are shouting and Canadians are shouting, “Turn around.” The Liberals just smile, tap the brakes and pretend they have changed direction, while the cliffs keep coming closer. Conservatives will not sit silently in the back seat while the government drives safety over the edge.

The government loves to say it is investing in safety, but the Minister of Public Safety says he is not responsible for hiring RCMP or CBSA officers. If he is not responsible, then who is? Is it the tooth fairy? Canadians deserve a government that takes responsibility, not one that points fingers and shrugs.

Yes, Conservatives will work to strengthen Bill C-14 as much as we can. We will push for real reforms, not window dressing. We will demand that Liberal bail be scrapped once and for all. However, let me be crystal clear: Until the Liberals make public safety their top priority, until they put victims ahead of violent repeat offenders and until they make justice mean something again, Canadians will not be safe.

Liberal leniency has become Liberal lawlessness, and the only way to stop it, the only way to make our streets safe again, is with a Conservative government that believes in law, order and accountability. This is not about politics; it is about every parent who does not feel safe walking their child to school, every woman afraid to take the bus at night and every senior locking their door in broad daylight because they no longer recognize their neighbourhood.

Canadians deserve better, victims deserve better and Conservatives will never stop fighting for them. It is time to scrap Liberal bail, restore common sense and make Canada safe again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the previous speaker's making reference to the fact that the bill needs to go to committee. Even the member opposite, although he has lots of concerns about the bill from his perspective, appears to be saying that in principle he is supportive of it.

The Prime Minister, as an election platform promise, established bringing in substantial bail reform to Canadians. That is what Bill C-14 is all about. There has been a great deal of effort and a phenomenal amount of support from all the different stakeholders behind Bill C-14. As I am sure the member will agree, our constituents want bail reform. I want it, the Prime Minister wants it, and every Liberal MP wants it.

The Conservatives are going to make their determination. Would the member agree that we should pass the legislation before the end of the year?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we support measures within the bill and will want to bring in other motions and amendments when it goes to committee. That is essential because, as it is, it is very watered down.

Conservatives believe that public safety is paramount. We believe the principle of restraint must be repealed and replaced by a public safety primacy clause and that mandatory minimums must be restored for firearms and sexual offences, as well as repeat violent offences, because we do not see that. House arrest must be barred for robbery, trafficking and violent crimes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague earlier. He was talking about the ideology of the Liberals, who have unleashed fear in our streets. Those are my colleague's words.

I think we need to be careful with ideology. If we engage in alarmist rhetoric, we could needlessly elicit fear in people and end up with laws ill-suited to the public's needs. Sometimes I get the impression that my Conservative colleagues' assertions in this regard are a bit far-fetched.

I have one fairly simple question for my colleague. The bill contains an item that is problematic for us: the reverse onus. In some cases, the reverse onus would even apply to auto theft under the bill.

Does auto theft really require a reverse onus for pre-trial custody or remand? I think not.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am no judge, but I certainly know that there is an unbelievable number of car thefts. We see it at the ports. Cars leave from the port of Montreal and other ports and go straight to Africa. What is happening? Not much is happening. The situation remains unchanged

As Conservatives, we believe that legal principles and control measures are needed to put an end to all this. That is not happening right now under the justice system that the Liberals have set up. Crime is rising at an alarming rate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. It is important that we make a commitment to pass the legislation before the end of the year.

Again, I would ask the member to provide his thoughts. Does he believe his constituents would like to see the bail reform law in place before the end of the year?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, they would like to see changes in our communities. Despite all of these measures, I am not convinced of how much change there is going to be. Yes, there is going to be some. We need a lot more teeth because we have had 10 years of chaos and crime on our streets under the Liberal government. The government has had somewhat of a deathbed conversion, but I have to question its sincerity.