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

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, 2025, following extensive consultation, the Government of Canada introduced legislation with more than 80 provisions to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-14. I would like to take some time to more specifically outline the proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In the interest of time, I will use the acronym YCJA moving forward.

The YCJA is the federal law that governs Canada's youth criminal justice system. It applies to youth aged 12 to 17 who come in contact with the criminal justice system. The YCJA recognizes that young persons must be held accountable for criminal acts, although not in the same way as an adult. I know this first-hand as I was a youth worker for two decades. Society benefits when the greatest possible number of youth who come into contact with the criminal justice system are rehabilitated and supported to become productive members of the community.

Since the YCJA came into force in 2003, police have reported that youth crime statistics in Canada have been on a general downward trend. For example, measures of police-reported youth crime decreased by about 31% from 2014 to 2024. This shows that, overall, the YCJA works well.

However, the YCJA has not been amended for many years. Legislative changes are needed to ensure the public is well protected while promoting the rehabilitation of youth. This is why we are proposing targeted amendments to the YCJA in Bill C-14. These amendments are intended to improve the administration of the youth criminal justice system and further support the continued and successful implementation of the YCJA by the provinces and territories. Provinces and territories are primarily responsible for enforcing and implementing the YCJA. This includes investigating and prosecuting most offences, managing youth justice courts and youth custodial facilities, and providing programming and services for youth.

I will provide an overview of the amendments. First, to address a lack of clarity in the law, the bill proposes to amend the definition of violent offences. This is a key amendment to the legislation as the definition plays an important role in the type of sentences that can be imposed on a young person. This includes which offences are eligible for custody. This amendment would allow youth courts to better assess what constitutes a violent offence when a young person causes bodily harm. It would also provide them with greater flexibility to impose custodial sentences when it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Second, while many aspects of criminal procedures are similar in the youth and adult criminal justice systems, the YCJA establishes special procedures to ensure that young people are treated fairly and to promote their rehabilitation. For example, as a general rule, the privacy of young offenders, and young victims and witnesses in the youth justice system, is protected through publication bans on their identity. The privacy of young persons takes into account their age-based vulnerability and the need to protect them from the harmful impacts of publication of their information. This is to maximize their chances of rehabilitation and promote long-term public safety.

At present, in certain circumstances, the police can seek a court order to request the authority to publish the identity of youth. The proposed amendments to the YCJA would provide an additional tool for police to publish identifying information about a young person without prior court authorization. This would be in narrow circumstances, in urgent situations where the young person poses an imminent danger to the safety of the public and a court order cannot be obtained within a reasonable time. For example, when there is an active shooter in a public area and they need to be apprehended quickly to protect the public, this would apply.

Another way the YCJA protects the privacy of young persons is by limiting access to their records. The act allows certain persons listed in the act to have access to certain youth records for specific periods of time. However, the law does not currently address access to two types of records, those for cases where one has been diverted from the court system and those for files related to police investigations where there has been no charge or diversion. These amendments are important, as the YCJA encourages the use of measures outside of the formal court system for less serious offences. These measures are often the most appropriate and effective way to respond to youth offending and include options such as police warnings and referrals to community-based programming. The proposed amendments would allow certain individuals to access these records for a period of two years. These amendments would bring clarity to an area of the law where there has been litigation and emphasizes the importance of youth privacy rights.

The bill also includes a number of technical adjustments to sentencing to support provinces and territories in administering youth sentences more effectively. Many of the proposed amendments would also align the YCJA with the Criminal Code in ways that would bring greater clarity to the sentencing provisions applying to youth. For example, the amendments would make clear that any time a youth spends unlawfully at large would not count toward their term of a custodial sentence. For example, the amendment would also clarify that certain probation orders should be served after a deferred custody and supervision order. A deferred custody order is similar to a conditional sentence in the adult system.

Additionally, the amendments would add certain sentences to the existing list of sentences that can be transferred and enforced in different provinces and territories.

The bill would also make a technical amendment in cases where it is alleged that a young person has breached a condition of their sentence while under supervision in the community and the conditional supervision has been suspended.

This would allow the young person to apply for bail pending a decision by the youth court on the breach. The court would then need to determine if bail is appropriate in the circumstances. These amendments echo what is currently being done in practice and align with the Criminal Code.

As I mentioned earlier, the primary objective of the YCJA remains the protection of the public. The proposed amendments would not change this fundamental objective of the youth criminal justice system, which is distinct from the adult criminal justice system and is based on the accountability of young people, their rehabilitation and the prevention of recidivism. This includes referral to community programs or organizations that help them address the underlying causes of the offending behaviour. The federal government continues to support provinces, territories and community organizations in the delivery of youth justice services focused on the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth involved in the criminal justice system.

Because a strong Canada means strong and safe communities, and a justice system that works for everyone, I will be supporting Bill C-14 and encourage all members of Parliament to support the bill, as it would improve the youth criminal justice system. We will continue to collaborate with provinces and territories to address the causes of youth crime. Today's young people are tomorrow's adults.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction. However, the administration of justice is largely Quebec's responsibility. We know that there are already problems, particularly around the fiscal imbalance. Additional transfers are needed, including for health care.

Can my hon. colleague acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance and explain how Quebec would handle the additional costs related to this bill? Will the federal government commit to transferring money to cover the additional costs that provinces will incur? If so, how much?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the time of the election, at every home we went to, this is what we heard. Our Prime Minister, Mark Carney, promised, at that time, that we would invest into the criminal system. That is throughout the country. Quebec is also included in that. Provinces will get their share. The implementation of these changes relies on the provinces. They will have to come up with, within their means, how they could impose these changes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will just remind the member not to use the proper names of members of the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many thoughts the member has shared with us this afternoon on such an important piece of legislation, legislation that was a commitment made by the Prime Minister and Liberal members in the last election. It is great to see we have Bill C-14 before us today, and I am very hopeful we will actually see it become law before the end of the year.

I know the member has a very full understanding of youth and the impact youth have on our communities, especially related to concerns with respect to crime and so forth. I am wondering if she can just share her thoughts about youth justice, if she is comfortable with that.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like I said, I was a youth worker for 20 years in the city of Toronto, day in and day out, dealing with youth offenders and trying to put them into programs that would rehabilitate them. Most times, we look at why they turned to crime and what is needed in the community for these rehabilitation purposes. As we see auto thefts, home invasions and jewellery heists increase and youth are involved in this, I really feel the amendment to the bail system will actually alleviate these problems, because they are working with adults who are not coming in front and are using the youth to do these deeds. As such, from my experience, when the bail system gets these changes in, and I hope the opposition will help us do this when Bill C-14 comes again, we would definitely see a reduced rate of youth crimes in the community.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going through times where youth unemployment is at a record-high number.

Does she agree with me that making youth employment a priority on the Liberal side would have an impact on crime when it comes to youth?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, definitely, the economy does impact crime in general, and youth are no different. The budget that is coming in is an austerity budget that is supposed to create a lot of jobs, and youth jobs are included in that. I hope the member opposite will vote yes for our budget this time to help alleviate crime as well.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the good people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay to speak to the legislation before us, Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

Today, the House debates the very urgent and serious subject of Canada's broken bail laws. The member opposite just spoke about Bill C-14 alleviating problems. Let there be no mistake about who broke these bail laws. The Liberal government broke them. The government's bill today is to amend its own laws that broke our bail system. Conservatives have continually spoken across our country of the disastrous catch-and-release, revolving-door policy that the Liberal government used to turn our bail system into what we have today.

In my riding, I think of a notorious case in Penticton, where a local Toyota dealership was set on fire a couple of years ago. This week, the same arsonist was charged in a second case for aggravated assault. He was intimidating the witness for his first trial, and he kicked the victim in the face with a steel-toed boot. This continues on and on in a community that used to be considered incredibly safe and in communities across Canada.

I am also in the process of surveying my own constituents on public safety matters and have received many responses from constituents. The number one issue across my riding, and I believe across Canada, is safety.

A constituent in Oliver named Angela wrote, “There is a repeat offender that lives a block away from my house who is a known drug dealer, who is also well known for break and entries/theft. He’s sent to jail at least once a year and let out the next day. He’s on probation but it doesn’t stop him. How is this protecting the community if he’s constantly released. This isn’t fishing, why the catch and release? Why would he stop if he never has to face any consequences.”

Angela is right: Catch and release is a failure to uphold public safety and Canadians' rights. It also does nothing to reform the behaviour of offenders if they do not face any consequences. These days, even the Liberal government now acknowledges a 41% increase in the violent crime severity index in the last decade, as well as increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences. It is in its own press releases.

Without Conservatives, the Liberal government would still be proceeding with the disastrous past policies outlined in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which prioritized repeat violent offenders instead of victims, with too often deadly consequences.

Residents in my region of the Okanagan were shocked by the failure of our bail system to protect the public and victims in the case of Bailey McCourt. Bailey was a young woman, a mother and a survivor of intimate partner violence. This past summer, her former partner was convicted of abusing her. However, within hours of that sentencing, he had left the courtroom, tracked her down in broad daylight and murdered her in public with a hammer. With Bailey at that time was one of her friends, who survived but was left with serious physical and mental traumas that she will now have to live with for the rest of her life.

I know the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and I have been in contact with both families, and they are clear in their cause that the government must change our laws to protect victims of intimate partner violence so this never happens again.

The McCourt family said in a joint statement:

Bailey deserved to live her life free from fear and violence. She sought help from a system that was supposed to protect her, yet that system repeatedly failed to take the necessary actions to keep her safe. This is not just a tragedy, it is a preventable injustice.

It is a broken system and a preventable injustice. Too many Canadians have lost their lives to a violent repeat offender who should never have been free to kill, harm or traumatize again. Our bail system has failed them. All Canadians should support the McCourt family's calls to fix our federal laws, which we know the Prime Minister has seen because it was given to him in a letter by Premier Eby this past summer. Does the legislation before us match what the McCourt family is calling for? Unfortunately, it does not.

I will again quote the McCourt family:

We are deeply concerned about the lack of clarity surrounding reverse onus provisions as there are simply not enough details outlining what hurdles an accused must meet in order to be released.... The ambiguity in these measures risks undermining public confidence and safety.

For those without a law degree, reverse onus is a legal provision that shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the defendant. While this legislation makes some shifts in this category that would help to deny bail to repeat violent offenders, it would not go as far as we need it to. Stronger restrictions should make these offences ineligible for bail all together and prevent automatic release.

This legislation would also not repeal the disastrous Bill C-5 or Bill C-75. It merely tinkers with them. It was the Liberal government that brought in the principle of restraint, which caused judges to provide bail to even repeat violent offenders. Judges were required to apply the least onerous conditions to many criminals charged with violent offences. While this legislation now confirms that restraint does not require release, it would still provide a pathway to release and still retain the directive to apply the least onerous conditions. There is still much risk of release for violent offenders.

There is also nothing in this legislation that would return Canada's criminal justice system to the principle of mandatory minimums to ensure consistent sentencing outcomes for serious crimes. Violent offences committed with firearms, the mass production of deadly hard drugs and sexual violence should come with consistent sentencing. A predictable and fair justice system is one that Canadians can have much more confidence in.

Lastly, house arrest would remain an allowable sentence for those convicted of armed robbery and drug trafficking. This is particularly wrong because the victims of these crimes are often living in the same neighbourhoods as their assailants. It is an insult to public safety to say assailants should be able to serve their sentences in the same neighbourhoods as their victims.

In speaking with the public safety officials in my community, they tell me the Okanagan Correctional Centre is only 20% full. I think it would be better if convicted criminals were placed there than left in their communities on house arrest. The RCMP in our communities are losing faith in the system.

Lastly, I will mention that Conservatives also have Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, which I seconded, to address the serious issue of intimate partner violence, which the McCourt family wishes to be known as Bailey's law. I am proud to support the law and would call on all members of the House to support Bailey's law as well so that we can pass it as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about how important bail reform is. I have mentioned on numerous occasions today a commitment that was made to Canadians in the last election. It would appear that all political entities in the House want to see some form of bail reform take place. We have a golden opportunity to have something in place before the end of this year. A lot of that is going to depend on the Conservative Party. Is the Conservative Party prepared to allow the legislation to see its way through? That includes going to committee, where there will be good, healthy discussions and, no doubt, a number of different amendments proposed.

I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts on how important it is that we provide Canadians with new bail legislation before the end of the year.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the bill is an attempt by the Liberals to fix the bail laws they took 10 years to break. Of course we are going to work on the bill. Of course we are going to do everything we can to make Canadians safer. I just wish this had been brought forward sooner, and that is what my constituents are saying. It is not fair that for the past 10 years they have been made to feel unsafe in their own neighbourhoods.

Yes, we do look forward to talking about the bill in committee and to making sure it would actually make our communities safer and is not just talk.

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

Mr. Speaker, what tool is missing from the Criminal Code that judges can use to keep potentially dangerous individuals in remand until their trial?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, judges are obviously missing multiple tools. In the city I live in, there are people who commit a crime, go to jail, walk out of jail the next day and then throw a brick into a car window. They are sent back to jail, spend the night, get back out and throw a brick through a window again.

It happens continually, and a lot of the time, judges, who are completely exhausted, are blamed, but they just do not have the tools to keep the criminals in jail. As I said, the Okanagan Correctional Centre is 20% full right now, and there are prolific offenders wandering our streets. We need to make sure judges have the tools they need to keep criminals behind bars.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the frustration victims feel when the same offenders are released again and again, as well as the terrible tragedies that are happening from it. Could she share more on how the revolving door justice system erodes public confidence, overwhelms our police forces and puts victims at greater risk?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been an exhausting 10 years for communities across Canada. People of all ages cannot even go into a grocery store without wondering whether they are going to be approached by a criminal or be a witness to shoplifting. What are they supposed to do? They do not feel safe in their own neighbourhood. RCMP officers are being overworked and are becoming exhausted. They are doing everything they can to keep us safe, but they are not given the tools to do that.

We need to make sure the people in our communities across Canada feel safe. I look forward to strengthening the bill so it is not just talk. By the way, we are also going to need to put the genie back in the bottle, because it has been 10 years of Liberal bail not jail, so I am sure it is going to take a while.