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]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Employment.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Brooklin.

I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which is a landmark piece of legislation that responds to the urgent call for safer communities and a justice system that reflects the seriousness of violent and repeat offending.

For too long, Canadians have been frustrated as individuals charged with serious crimes are released on bail only to reoffend. They have seen sentences that fail to match the seriousness of such offences as home invasion, human trafficking and violent assault. Bill C-14 changes that. It delivers over 80 targeted amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act, making bail harder to get for repeat and violent offenders and ensuring that sentences are tougher and more consistent with public expectations.

The first pillar of the bill addresses a weakness in our justice system: bail provisions that have not kept pace with the realities of violent crime and organized criminal activity. Bill C-14 makes it clear that the principle of restraint does not mean automatic release. Courts would now have explicit direction that detention is justified when public safety is at risk. We are also clarifying the ladder principle, ensuring that it would not apply to offences subject to a reverse onus.

In plain terms, for certain serious crimes, the accused would have to demonstrate why they should be granted bail. The legislation introduces new reverse onus provisions for some of the most dangerous offences threatening our communities today: organized auto theft, break and enter of a home, human trafficking and smuggling, sexual assault and violent extortion. For repeat offenders, the reverse onus will apply between conviction and sentencing, closing a loophole that has allowed individuals to reoffend while awaiting judgment.

Bill C-14 would also strengthen the grounds for detention, requiring courts to consider the number and seriousness of outstanding charges when deciding whether release would undermine confidence in the justice system. This is about restoring public trust and ensuring that those who pose the greatest risk are not back on our streets. Moreover, the bill would direct courts to scrutinize bail plans more rigorously, ensuring they are credible and enforceable. It expands conditions of release, including weapons prohibitions for those accused of extortion and organized crime offences, and it encourages stricter conditions, such as curfews and geographic restrictions, for high-risk offences.

These changes respond directly to what Canadians have been asking for: a bail system that prioritizes public safety and victim protection.

The second pillar of Bill C-14 ensures that sentencing reflects the seriousness of the offence and strengthens deterrence. Canadians expect that those who commit violent crimes will face real consequences. The bill delivers on that expectation.

First, it introduces new aggravating factors for sentencing, including offences committed against first responders, repeat violent offenders with prior convictions within five years, organized retail theft and crimes interfering with essential infrastructure, such as copper theft.

Second, Bill C-14 would allow for consecutive sentences in cases as the combination of offences demands. For example, a sentence for extortion must be served consecutively to a sentence for arson; a sentence for violent or organized crime-related auto theft must be consecutive to a sentence for breaking and entering of a home. Judges would also be required to consider imposing consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders, ensuring accountability for those who repeatedly harm our communities.

The bill clarifies sentencing objectives, directing courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence for second and subsequent convictions for violent offences, auto theft, break and enter, and organized crime-related offences. This is a clear message that serious crimes deserve serious consequences.

Other important reforms include increasing the maximum penalty for contempt of court; ending house arrest for serious sexual offences, including those against children; reinstating mandatory driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm; modernizing enforcement of federal fines by allowing provinces to suspend licences until payment is made. These measures would strengthen the integrity of our justice system and protect Canadians from those who repeatedly disregard the law.

Furthermore, we are strengthening the Youth Criminal Justice Act by expanding the availability of custodial sentences. Under these reforms, offences that cause bodily harm would now be clearly recognized as violent offences, ensuring greater accountability for serious crimes and better protection for communities.

Crime rates have risen over the past few years, with notable increases in homicides, sexual assaults, extortion and violent firearms offences. Offenders with multiple prior convictions remain far more likely to reoffend, and they often do so while on bail.

Extortion is a major concern in my riding, and this legislation cracks down on extortion by making bail harder to get and sentences tougher, as well as by ensuring that those who use fear and intimidation face real consequences. It would do so in two ways: by tightening bail laws and by strengthening sentencing for extortion-related offences. The bill would also require consecutive sentences for extortion and arson, ensuring offenders serve one sentence after another rather than all at once.

Communities across Canada have demanded action, and Bill C-14 answers that call. The legislation is not about slogans or political theatre. It is about real, enforceable tools that courts, police and prosecutors can use to keep Canadians safe. It is about restoring confidence in a justice system that too often feels disconnected from the realities of crime in our neighbourhoods.

Bill C-14 was built through collaboration with provinces, territories, law enforcement and victims' advocates. It is charter-compliant and legally sound. It would close loopholes, strengthen accountability and ensure that public safety is paramount.

Canadians deserve a justice system that protects them, not one that leaves them vulnerable to repeat and violent offenders. Bill C-14 delivers that protection. It would make bail harder to get for those who pose the greatest risk, and it would ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-14 and move it forward without delay. Every Canadian deserves to feel safe in their home, in their community and in their daily life.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 still allows serious offenders, such as those who commit robbery, trafficking and firearms-related crimes, to use the option of house arrest.

I know, and the member opposite knows, that communities are struggling with ongoing extortion demands and killings in the community. How would he justify the continuing loopholes in Bill C-14?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Edmonton should know that when it comes to the reverse onus, this bill addresses that, and people who commit serious crimes will stay behind bars. Also, consecutive sentences will address the issues that are important in his riding. I have travelled to his riding. This is also happening in my riding and across Canada.

The hon. member should not play politics and should not turn this into drama theatre. He should support this bill and make sure that Canadians across Alberta, across British Columbia and across Canada feel safe in their communities.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I asked one of the member's colleagues to give us the facts that the government is working from to call for an amendment to the Criminal Code's bail provisions. I did not really get an answer earlier. We were told that some people were complaining.

I will give the government another opportunity, through the member, to explain to us the current problem with the bail system. What is stopping a judge from denying bail and keeping an accused in prison to protect the public?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member two examples from British Columbia. One is the Kelowna example. It is very clear that the person was out on bail when he committed the offence of murder. The other example is an offender from Manitoba who was out on bail, went to White Rock and committed a murder there. These are the types of cases bringing people in my constituency to tell me that we have to reform bail laws to make sure that the onus is on the offender, not the Crown, to prove they should not be kept behind bars.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, even before I was part of the House, I knew this was a very important issue for the hon. member and his constituents. He has raised it many times.

What parts of this bill, when it is implemented, will ease the minds of his constituents when he goes back and talks to them about it?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his support in caucus and for bringing issues forward.

The major issue facing my constituents and British Columbians right now is extortion. It is the key concern in my riding and across Canada. This legislation would crack down on extortionists by making bail harder to get. Once someone commits the crime of extortion, they should stay behind bars.

The second issue is consecutive sentencing. For example, if arson or a firearm is used during extortion, the sentences for those offences should be consecutive, not served side by side.

Those are the two issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am having tremendous difficulty listening to the Liberals pat themselves on the back like they have done something amazing for Canada. Under their watch, we have seen chaos and crime. The member talked about extortion in B.C., which has seen a 400% to 500% increase.

Will the member not recognize that the Liberal Party, which he has been a member of for many years, has been absolutely sleepwalking this entire time?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I knew the member when he was part of the provincial assembly in B.C., and he was sleeping all the time while crimes were being committed. Policing is a provincial responsibility, but he did nothing then, and he is doing nothing constructive right now, just making this a political circus.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-14, an act that proposes long-awaited reforms to Canada's bail and sentencing framework.

At the outset, let me just say that Conservatives welcome this legislation. We have been calling for meaningful bail reform for years at this point. We have stood alongside police associations, provincial governments and victims' advocates to push for stricter bail legislation and stricter sentencing laws.

The government's decision to bring this bail law forward is in many ways an acknowledgement that the system is not working as it should and that public safety should once again become the paramount guiding principle of our justice system. While we welcome this step, and it is a step in the right direction, we also recognize that it does not go far enough.

I am also pleased to see that the government has admitted, in its own news release regarding the bill just last Thursday, that there is a direct correlation between the rise in crime and the Liberal government taking office. The news release stated that while crime was down between 1998 and 2014, it went up between 2014 and 2024.

This admission comes after years of Liberal politician after Liberal politician claiming that crime is in fact going down. There have been mailers sent out by Liberal MPs, who for years have been trying to convince the public that rising crime is in their heads. Some former members of this House would cherry-pick certain periods to suggest to their constituents that crime is not actually the problem they think it is.

I, for one, am happy that the Liberal government has finally highlighted the fact that the best way to examine the trend of increasing crime is not to pick one short period for the purposes of political messaging, but to look at it over a long period of time, to recognize the trend and course correct.

As I have stated before time after time in this House, people in Vaughan—Woodbridge do not feel safe in their homes and in their own community. Our community was never like this before, and it would not be like this today had the Liberal government chosen to act sooner.

In York Region, in 2025, as of September 30, there have been 60 shootings. This is more than double the occurrences to date from 2021, 2022 and 2023. For years, all major stakeholders were largely ignored by the Liberal government, and many of its members still sit in this House today. Premiers, mayors, police chiefs and victims were all ignored for years. Why? Why has it taken so long for the Liberals to act?

I am happy that the Liberals have woken up and have taken many of our ideas, but they need to go further. I implore them to take all of our ideas, please, because behind these numbers are heartbreaking stories of families shattered, communities shaken and victims left wondering why individuals known to be violent were released back on their streets.

How did we get here? It stems largely from legislative and cultural shifts following the introduction of the principle of restraint in Bill C-75 in 2019. Section 493.1 of the Criminal Code directs that an accused be released at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it has too often meant that repeat violent offenders are released despite a clear risk to public safety.

Police, prosecutors and victims have seen the consequences first-hand. Bailey McCourt was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. A young mother of four, Savannah Kulla, was shot and killed at a Brampton strip mall, with her killer having been released on bail. I have heard the Liberals blame this on the Supreme Court of Canada, but the fact remains the Liberals were never told to change the law.

Bill C-14 proposes tougher standards for bail in serious cases and new reverse-onus provisions for certain violent offences. These are moves in the right direction, no question. However, the principle of restraint remains. The same language that tells decision-makers, judges and justices of the peace to prioritize release under the least restrictive conditions is still very much intact. I would say that means the culture of release will persist unless Parliament goes further and unless there are amendments to Bill C-14.

Earlier this month, I was proud to jointly second my colleague from Oxford's bill, Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which addresses many of the areas in which Bill C-14 falls short. The jail not bail act would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint by offering a new directive of public and community safety as the primary consideration in bail. This would end the default of the release culture created by Bill C-75.

It would also do the following: restore mandatory minimums for firearms, sexual assaults, kidnappings, human trafficking, robbery, extortion with a firearm, arson and other serious violent crimes; mandate consideration of full criminal history and outstanding charges; and presume detention for major offences and repeat violent offenders, not just reverse onus. There are several others, which unfortunately I do not have the time to mention in my speech. However, I encourage members opposite to look at that bill intently. I encourage them to examine it and find ways in which to strengthen Bill C-14. They should take our ideas and let us work collaboratively for the benefit of all Canadians.

These changes do not undermine fairness or due process; they simply ensure that the justice system exercises caution where it is warranted and that public safety is the priority of our justice system. Public confidence in the justice system depends on visible fairness, but it also depends on safety. When a young mother is murdered by a partner who was released on bail despite prior violent charges, Canadians naturally ask us how we could allow this to happen. They are not asking for vengeance; they are asking for prevention. They are asking to feel safe in their homes and their communities.

Our police officers, Crown attorneys and victim service workers have been clear that the current framework too often ties their hands. Bill C-14 acknowledges that truth, but now we must complete the work. These bail reforms must also be accompanied by sentencing reforms that reinforce accountability.

The Liberals' Bill C-5, passed in 2022, eliminated many mandatory minimum penalties and expanded the use of conditional sentences, even for certain firearms and violent offences. In my view and the view of many practitioners across Canada, that change weakened deterrence and contributed to the perception that serious crime is met with leniency. Restoring proportionate, consistent sentencing is essential to rebuilding trust in our justice system.

Conservatives will work in good faith to ensure this bill passes as quickly as possible, with the strongest possible protections for Canadians. We are not opposing it for the sake of opposing; we are offering solutions informed by experience from police, prosecutors, victims and those who have lived with the consequences of repeat violent offences.

We also recognize that this legislation has broad support from law enforcement organizations, premiers and community leaders who are eager to see progress. The momentum should not be lost. If the government is willing to accept reasonable amendments, such as elevating public safety to the first consideration and closing the remaining gaps around repeat offenders, then we can together deliver the kind of reform that Canadians have been demanding for years.

In a country like Canada, it should never be seen as contradictory to defend both the rights of the accused and the safety of the public. The balance between those values is what defines a mature justice system.

Conservatives have been calling for action for years, not because it is politically convenient, but because it is right. If we get this right, we will not only make our laws stronger; we will make our communities safer. Let us work together to strengthen this bill so we can end the cycle of violence that has plagued our streets and restore faith in the justice system for the people of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member talking about our working together, recognizing that it is, in fact, a minority government. The Prime Minister made a commitment to genuine bail reform legislation. The only way we are going to be able to pass this legislation and give Canadians what they want is if we can get the Conservatives to make the commitment to do so.

After it goes to committee, when it comes back to the House, a majority of the members of the House will have to support any amendments brought forward. I look forward to seeing amendments coming from the Conservatives. We will see to what degree they add value to the legislation and if we can achieve that magic number of a majority to pass it.

Does the member share my belief that, with co-operation, we could get this legislation passed before Christmas?

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives would like nothing more than bail reform and sentence reform to be passed immediately. That is why we introduced our jail not bail act. We put forward the serious amendments that are needed to the bail system to facilitate the conditions that will keep repeat violent offenders in prison.

I, for one, am all for having this legislation move to committee. At committee, we hope the Liberal government and our Bloc colleagues on the committee will look very closely at our proposals and at removing the principle of restraint because we do not want to leave that loophole open for repeat offenders to end up on the streets. We want to close that loophole for good and forever.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues since earlier this evening. I know that they are well aware that there is a separation between the legislative and judicial branches, but they seem to be questioning the judges' ability to use discretion with regard to pre-trial custody.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Does he agree that a judge is able to determine whether or not pre-trial custody is appropriate? There are some examples in the bill that are quite troubling. I am thinking in particular of car theft. It seems to me that judges should be responsible for determining whether pre-trial custody is necessary for this type of crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly in the time period we have just gone through, when crime has become increasingly of concern, we are witnesses to the fact that serious repeat offenders constantly out on bail are constantly committing crimes. This is not new. We hear this from police associations, victim advocacy groups, premiers and municipal governments.

Clearly, we have to start with federal legislation, where the Criminal Code belongs, to set the culture and set the conditions to say that repeat violent offenders need to remain behind bars. To do so, we must get rid of the principle of restraint that was enshrined through Bill C-75.