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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot in the news everywhere about how many crimes are committed every day, and the majority of them are committed by repeat offenders, people released from prison within 15 days who go out on the streets again and start attacking people. I hear about it in Edmonton every day. Toronto is also a great example.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. This legislation represents a significant effort to strengthen public safety and ensure that Canada's justice system works as it should: firm, fair and focused on protecting people.

In my riding of Surrey Centre, we have seen first-hand how crime can shake a community's sense of safety. I have spoken with families, business owners and community leaders who have been directly targeted by extortion and intimidation. Some have received threatening calls demanding money. Others have seen shots fired at their homes and businesses, or had their livelihoods put at risk because they refused to pay. Some may have even been murdered for failing to pay.

These are not abstract crimes; they are real acts of fear and coercion that are leaving long-lasting damage. They rob people of their peace of mind and the freedom to live and work without intimidation, and they erode trust in the system when those responsible are seen walking the streets soon after being arrested.

Canadians want communities to be safe. When those expectations are not met, they expect their government to respond. That is why this bill matters. The bail and sentencing reform act is about restoring confidence that our justice system will protect the innocent, support victims and hold offenders fully accountable. It is also about restoring confidence that the federal government is listening to the concerns of Canadians and responding with concrete action.

Bill C-14 would introduce more than 80 clauses of targeted reforms to make bail laws stricter and sentencing tougher for repeat and violent offenders, while safeguarding the rights guaranteed under the charter. These proposed reforms reflect months of government consultation with provinces and territories, mayors, law enforcement, victims' advocates and community organizations, all united in the shared goal of keeping Canadians safe.

While this bill covers a range of reforms, I want to focus my remarks in a few areas that matter deeply to me and to the people I represent, particularly those dealing with bail, violent crime and the growing problem of extortion and organized crime. I will talk first about Bill C-14's aim to strengthen the bail system.

Across the country, too many tragic and violent crimes have been committed by individuals who were already out on bail. There is growing concern that the bail system is not working as it should when it comes to repeat and violent offenders. This bill aims to address that problem and make bail decisions more responsive to public safety.

It would offer clarity to police and courts about how to apply the principle of restraint and would make clear that it does not require release in every case. Detention is justified when it is necessary to protect public safety. The legislation would also strengthen the guidance given to courts when assessing bail, ensuring that decisions take full account of risks to public safety and the circumstances of the alleged offence. Most importantly, Bill C-14 would introduce several new reverse onus provisions for crimes such as organized auto theft, home invasion, human trafficking, sexual assault involving choking or strangulation, and, critically, extortion involving violence.

Typically, when prosecutors want to detain an accused person while they await trial, they bear the onus or burden of demonstrating to the court that the accused should not be released on bail. The reverse onus would shift this burden from the prosecution to the accused, creating a presumption in favour of keeping the accused in custody unless they can show to the court that they should not be denied bail. In other words, it would be up to the accused to demonstrate why they should be released and not the other way around. By shifting the burden in these cases, the law would help ensure that individuals who repeatedly endanger others remain in custody unless it is truly safe to release them.

I will turn next to how this legislation would help address the growing threat of extortion and organized crime.

In my riding of Surrey Centre, this issue is deeply personal. The Surrey Police Service has reported 65 extortion cases so far this year, with 35 of them involving gunfire. These numbers are alarming, and behind each one are people and families living in fear and uncertainty as a result. When fear like this takes hold, it can damage livelihoods and the sense of safety that communities deserve and depend on. For example, I have heard from business owners who feel targeted simply for working hard and succeeding. No one should ever have to look over their shoulder just for building a successful business.

Bill C-14 would give our justice system stronger tools to respond, making it more difficult for an accused charged with extortion involving threatened or attempted violence to secure their release on bail. It would require the courts to consider the number of and seriousness of outstanding charges accumulated while out on bail, and it would expand weapons prohibitions at the bail stage to include those accused of extortion and organized crime. Importantly, it would also require courts to consider imposing tougher conditions like curfews, no-contact orders and clear geographic restrictions when bail is granted to help prevent further intimidation while cases are before the courts.

These proposals would complement other actions to tackle organized crime and extortion, most notably the recent listing of the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist entity. This equips law enforcement and prosecutors with stronger tools to investigate, disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal networks that traffic in fear and violence. Together, these measures would help ensure that my constituents in Surrey Centre, and Canadians across the country, can live and work without fear or coercion.

Canadians also expect that sentences will reflect the seriousness of the crime committed and the harm done to victims. I would like to highlight a few elements of this bill that would strengthen accountability once offenders are convicted. Bill C-14 would amend the Criminal Code to include significant sentencing reforms to make penalties tougher for repeat violent offenders, including extortion and crimes that endanger public safety. It would require consecutive sentences for certain combinations of offences, as when extortion is committed alongside arson or when a violent auto theft is linked with the breaking and entering of a home. Each act would be treated as a separate harm deserving of its own consequence. These measures would make sure sentences send a clear message: Those who commit acts of violence or intimidation will face consequences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes.

Bill C-14 represents a balanced and responsive path forward. It is the product of co-operation across multiple levels of government, engagement with frontline responders and listening to the concerns of Canadians, and it reflects the federal government's commitment to doing its part. For those measures to have their full effect, they must be matched with strong implementation at every level, from the provincial administration of justice to local law enforcement in communities across the country.

Keeping Canadians safe requires all partners to work together to uphold their shared responsibilities. In my riding of Surrey Centre and across the country, families, small business owners and community leaders have been clear that they want safer streets, stronger accountability and real consequences for those who commit violent crimes. This bill would help deliver exactly that.

I urge members to give it their full support.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are tired of the spin. The government's Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 turned our justice system into a revolving door: catch, release, repeat. Since then, violent crime is up 41%. In my own riding, I sat across from small business owners this weekend who are terrified of extortion, and from families afraid to walk home at night. Add to that record-high immigration levels with no proper vetting, and our neighbours are being shot at while they sleep in their homes. We are watching communities buckle under the pressure.

Please tell me this: After years of failure, why did the Liberals not support the Conservatives' jail not bail bill when they had the chance to fix it?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share a lot of the same concerns as my hon. colleague, whose riding is adjacent to mine. Yes, there is a lot of concern among business owners and families, but the bill that the member opposite is speaking about was more about slogans. It was not charter-compliant and did not have the consultation of the provinces and territories, the attorneys general, the solicitors general, the municipal police forces, victims or the average Canadians and business owners who are reporting these crimes.

Bill C-14 was done with the consultation of municipal police forces, the provinces and territories, solicitors general, attorneys general and members of the public. This is a charter-compliant, victim-focused bill, and that is why we are supporting it.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill seeks to restrict the principle of restraint, or at least set guidelines for it.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about the reasons for these restrictions.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this concept of restraint came from a Supreme Court ruling in 2017 showing why it should be done. What I have seen is that the concept of restraint has not been equally implemented across Canada.

Take, for example, the extortion cases I have seen. I have met victims of extortion in Ontario and Alberta as well as British Columbia. The same bail provisions via the Criminal Code are implemented in all three jurisdictions. However, I would commend the training and ability of the Alberta prosecution in terms of any of those. Nine were charged with extortion there, and nine never received bail. Out of the nine, six have been convicted and three are awaiting trial and sentencing. However, in other jurisdictions, the same restraint was not implemented in the same, effective way.

I think clarity on restraint is very important. We need to have it. It is asked for by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, how that restraint is implemented requires proper training for our prosecution offices, as well as training for those judges.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of extortion because it has been a very serious one.

The member made reference to arson with extortion and how serious an offence that is. Yesterday, I was at the airport. I had someone approach me and share a social media post of some individuals walking into a store, pouring gas all over the place and lighting it on fire. It was an extortion case. These are very serious.

The member made reference to the fact that it is great the bail reform law will, in good part, deal with issues like this, but we need to have the co-operation and efforts of the different jurisdictions, whether it is the provinces, municipalities or law enforcement agencies. We all need to step up to the plate. The bail reform legislation we are introducing today is one of the ways in which the federal government is stepping up to the plate.

Could the member provide his thoughts as to why it is important that all levels of government step up to the plate?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is imperative that all three levels do. We have to remember that, in Canada, it is the local, municipally governed police or the RCMP in that jurisdiction that have to do the investigation and catch the culprits. It is the provinces that have to press the charges and control the prosecution. They must make their efforts and we must make the laws.

We are doing our part. We ask that the provinces and municipalities do theirs.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the Liberals have lost control of crime. Let us look at their track record. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%. Firearms crime is up 130%. Extortion skyrocketed and is up 330%. Sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%.

They have introduced Bill C-14. It takes in some of the Conservatives' suggestions, but I feel that the bill still falls short in some areas. It does not remove the principle of restraint, which prioritizes criminals over victims. It does not restore mandatory minimum sentences, which were repealed by Bill C-5. Conditional sentence order limits do not go far enough. For example, robbery, gun and trafficking offences can still access house arrest.

Let us start with the principle of restraint. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-75, it weakened our courts' ability to keep violent repeat offenders behind bars because it directed them to release the accused persons at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. Bill C-14 stops short of repealing this. Although it confirms that restraint does not require release, it still leaves the door open to allow violent criminals to get bail.

Bill C-75, which introduced the principle of restraint, was the Liberals' attempt at bail reform. The fact that we are standing here talking about it means that it failed. Bill C-14 is only going halfway to removing it. The bill would still direct our courts to release criminals under the least onerous conditions necessary when they do order bail. What Canadians need are safe streets they can walk down and safe homes they can sleep in. The only way we can restore that is by completely removing this weak Liberal bail policy. Bill C-75 was the Liberals' attempt at bail reform, and we can now agree that it completely failed. We should be scrapping the principle of restraint entirely and replacing it with a clause that prioritizes public safety or just gets rid of it completely.

Bill C-14 also stops halfway to solving the issue of mandatory minimums. It would include consecutive sentences and aggravating factors, but it leaves those up to judicial discretion. Most importantly, it would not reinstate mandatory minimums. Criminals charged with firearm, sexual and repeat violent offences should be afraid of committing crimes because they would receive a mandatory minimum sentence. This creates accountability and puts fear into criminals. Instead, criminals are not deterred by weak Liberal policies.

Just to name a few, Bill C-5 repealed the following mandatory minimums. Discharging a firearm with intent had a mandatory minimum of four years. Discharging a firearm with recklessness had four years. Robbery with a firearm had four years. Extortion with a firearm had four years. Why should those have been repealed? It makes absolutely no sense.

Here are some examples of how weak Liberal bail policies impact our communities. In the House, we heard about Bailey McCourt, a young mother of two daughters who was killed by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. Recently, another young mother of four, Savannah Kulla, was killed by her former partner in Brampton while he was out on bail. Earlier this year, Hamilton police had to release a statement after a man convicted of several sexual assaults was released on bail. In 2022, this man dragged a woman into the woods, gagged her, tied her hands behind her back and proceeded to assault her. In 2023, he entered the home of a 74-year-old woman and assaulted her for over an hour. In February of this year, he was released on bail pending his trial. Hamilton police released a statement with his picture to warn people because they believed he remained a threat to the community, obviously.

Bill C-14 gives us half measures instead of complete solutions. I heard from Canadians over the course of the election that they want to be safe at home and out on the streets. However, after 10 years of Liberal government, they do not feel safe in their own neighbourhoods, and rightfully so when we have criminals like those I just described being released back on our streets within hours.

For 10 years, the Conservatives have been advocating for, and presenting, solutions to the weak bail system. At every turn, the Liberals have voted against us. Our plan to restore safe streets is common sense.

We want to repeal the principle of restraint and replace it with a public safety primacy clause. This would put the public and community safety as the governing principle, putting Canadians, not criminals, first. We also want to restore mandatory minimum sentences for firearms crimes, sexual assaults, kidnapping, human trafficking and other serious violent crime. It sounds very reasonable to me.

We want to restore CSO ineligibility, in order to exclude robbery, firearms offences, trafficking and chronic violent offenders. Conditional sentence orders allow an offender to serve their sentence in the community under strict conditions like house arrest or curfew. There is no reason someone who commits human trafficking should be able to serve their time in the comfort of their own home and in our neighbourhoods. It makes absolutely zero sense.

Conservatives already proposed extending reverse onus on major crimes and making any attack on first responders a major offence, in the jail not bail act of one of my colleagues, which the Liberals voted against.

The Liberals are starting to see what their destructive policies have done to our communities, which is why they have started taking Conservative suggestions on bail reform, but their proposed solution, Bill C-14, would not patch up all the holes they have made. The Conservatives have listened to Canadians and have already come forward with a plan that would completely patch up the holes the Liberals have made in our bail system.

Our jail not bail act covers everything I have just talked about. It would put victims first and focus on public safety instead of on how short we can make a criminal's sentence. It would create a major offences category that would trigger a detention-first posture for the following charges: firearms offences, sexual offences, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, breaking and entering into dwellings, robbery, extortion, arson and assault. This sounds very good to me.

The jail not bail act would make it mandatory for judges to consider the full criminal history of the accused and would introduce the 10-year look-back rule, meaning that if someone has been convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years and is charged with another major offence while on bail, they would be barred from receiving bail again.

These all sound like common-sense policies, but under the Liberal government, common sense has disappeared and been replaced with weak policies that allow bail for violent criminals. We cannot prioritize the victim and the offender at the same time.

For too long, the government has been prioritizing the criminal, and our public safety has declined as a result. Our cities have been taken over by violent repeat criminals, released time and time again. The Liberals are admitting their prior policies have failed Canadians when it comes to safety, because they acknowledge a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index since 2014 and increases in homicide, sexual assault and extortion offences.

Bill C-14 attempts to fix the consequences of the Liberals' past Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which weakened the bill system, but they are keeping the same language framework, the same language that puts priority on releasing the criminal. Conservatives would make sure the bill before us would actually scrap the weak Liberal policies in favour of public and community safety.

Our country hit absolute rock bottom this weekend when the Supreme Court ruled there will be no mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who access or possess child sexual abuse content, in other words, content that includes children being raped. Yes, I was heard clearly: The new Supreme Court ruling, after 10 years of the Liberal government, has removed mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who access or possess child sexual abuse content.

The Liberals have been creating the kind of culture in Canada for the past decade where even a mandatory minimum jail sentence for accessing or possessing child sexual abuse content is viewed as unconstitutional.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite if he will be supporting this bill that really would reform the justice act to put in place harsher sentences when it comes to bail reform. I also want to know if the Conservatives will help pass the legislation.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the past week has been very difficult for me, as a father.

We heard something that, yes, is a Supreme Court ruling, but after 10 years of weak Liberal policy, this is what we have come to. This is a low point in the Canadian judicial system.

Will the Liberals be using the notwithstanding clause? Will the Prime Minister simply even comment on what happened on Friday? That is what I and every Canadian, especially the parents out there, would like to know.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals take a lot of flack.

I would agree that the government is quite often clumsy and imperfect. There may even be some incompetence in certain areas. However, the Conservatives are claiming that a Supreme Court ruling is due to the policies of the government that has been in power for the past 10 years. I would remind my colleague that the Supreme Court assesses the constitutional validity of legislation.

If we want to be credible when debating such a serious issue, no one should be making up ridiculous theories for partisan purposes.

My question for my colleague is this. Bill C-14 does not go nearly as far as the Conservatives would like. The Conservatives want to take a much more aggressive approach to justice and parole. Bill C-14 does move things forward somewhat. It does improve certain things. Even the Bloc Québécois can find some positive things in the bill.

Does my colleague not agree that we should start by sending this bill to committee and improving it as much as possible? Then, well, we will see what happens after that.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, the bill proposes some things, but not enough.

We are here debating it because Liberal bail reform, in the form of Bill C-75, which the Liberals introduced many years ago, has completely failed. In my opinion, the bill before us does not even go halfway. Bill C-75 should be repealed completely.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's intervention today was great. He has attended many events across the community and has been to town halls. I see him interacting with people in Hamilton and across the GTA.

What is the member hearing from parents and seniors when it comes to crime? What is happening on the ground? If the member could share some of those stories with us today, it would be appreciated.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I have attended a lot of town halls, and I will be having my own shortly.

People have had enough. We have heard some very sad stories. We have heard stories of things that could have been prevented. We have heard of lives lost. We are hearing that Canadians are completely fed up. Record numbers of people are coming out to town halls, which, I would like to point out, are not partisan events. People are coming looking for answers. They are asking us why these things are happening to them, to someone they know or to their child.

We keep pointing back to Bill C-75 and to the failed Liberal justice system. After 10 years, I find it heard to believe that members on the other side are absolutely not listening to Canadians when they are speaking, loud and clear, to every member of the House.