The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C‑14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing)
Sean Fraser Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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;
(a.1) provide that a person must not be named as surety if the person was convictedof an indictable offence within ten years prior to a release order, except in certain circumstances;
(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, certain offences in the commission of which violence was allegedly used and that would constitute the accused's third or subsequent such indictable offence 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 cancelled, provide for circumstances in which they can be cancelled and allow for the review, by the court of appeal, of decisions to cancel such documents;
(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, mischief to property offences and assaults against public transit employees;
(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 Department of Justice Act to provide that the Minister must prepare an annual report on the state of judicial interim release in Canada.
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 or involving the use or trafficking of a firearm;
(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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-14s:
The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C‑14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing)
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, six months ago I was standing in this very place, literally pleading with Conservative Party members to allow passage of Bill C‑14, recognizing just how popular this legislation was and the support it had. I literally was begging, saying we would sit until midnight and extend the sitting, how nice it would be to see this bill actually pass before Christmas, yet, once again, here we stand waiting for the Conservative Party to recognize just how important this legislation is and that it needs to pass.
I am afraid that without this tool being used, it would be the intention of the Conservative Party to continue to postpone and never let this bill pass. Could the minister comment?
Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionBail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, my priority is the residents of Winnipeg North. I know, in the last election, a commitment was made to deal with the issue of crime. The Prime Minister made it a part of our election platform.
This is something we have taken very seriously. We have brought forward a number of pieces of legislation to protect our communities and make them safer. I am tired of the Conservatives filibustering on all these crime initiatives. Bill C‑14 deals with bail reform and has wide support from many different stakeholders, virtually all stakeholders. I understand even the Conservatives might support it.
How important is it for us to be able to get our crime agenda through? After all, it was in the election platform.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Minister of Justice says we have a very small window to push through legislation, that is entirely due to the government's decision to adjourn two days early. I wish the government had come to me and asked how I would feel about staying later this summer to properly study bills and not push through the destruction of pesticide regulations in an omnibus budget bill.
I know it is not the minister's problem, but we are being pushed to the last minute and told we could not debate something as important as the Senate amendments to Bill C‑14. I opposed Bill C‑14. It was never passed unanimously, contrary to what the Liberal deputy House leader said. It was on division because members like me, who are not in a recognized party, cannot even stand up and scream “no” when they decide to vote on division.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister was concerned that the House might adjourn on Friday, June 19 without having passed Bill C-14. There are still five sitting days left next week, and I was really under the impression that Bill C-14 would pass following the normal process by June 19. I am having a hard time understanding this time allocation motion.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the amendments returned to us by the Senate are relatively simple to deal with. Like my Conservative colleague earlier, I was of the impression that the House would likely pass this bill fairly quickly once it returned from the Senate.
I wonder what message the government is sending by imposing time allocation on a bill on which there otherwise seems to be consensus. What does that say about the government's way of doing things? When the government decides to impose closure, even on bills for which there is a consensus, it seems to me that this sends a very bad message.
Can the minister tell me if discussions on passing Bill C-14 were stalling? I really do not get that impression. Imposing time allocation at this point in time seems all the more unjustified, to me.
Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionBail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I know the provisions of Bill C-14 have great utility for the people of Canada right now. They have suffered for a decade or more under Liberal rule and a system that allows repeat offenders out on bail to wreak havoc in communities. What I do not think is acceptable is the lack of transparency and the use of routine, normal negotiations to get this bill through the House expeditiously. I find the concept of closure anti-democratic, and the lack of transparency is absolutely against the interests of Canadians.
Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionBail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
Central Nova Nova Scotia
Liberal
Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the Bill; and
That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the said stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Karim Bardeesy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and the concern of the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley. I want to acknowledge the deeply troubling circumstances that have prompted this debate and, I think rightly, his concern.
The seizure of a significant quantity of fentanyl near Swift Current is a stark reminder of the lethal impact this drug is having on communities across Canada. I have seen it even in my riding in west Toronto. I recognize the anguish and anger that people in Canada feel when organized crime exploits communities and fuels violence.
As organized crime is evolving, our legislative frameworks need to address emerging forms of advanced, online and globalized crimes while protecting our communities. We have been doing this with a series of pieces of legislation through reforms designed to enhance community safety and increase confidence in the criminal justice system. Our proposed reforms aim to strengthen bail and sentencing for violent repeat offending, improve protections for victims and modernize lawful access and other Criminal Code tools to better address serious and organized crime.
We have been part of the debate in this House on Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. The hon. member referred to criminals who are out on bail. That is a central part of our government's efforts to improve community safety and keep criminals off the street. We campaigned on this in the election campaign. Our proposed reforms would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen bail and sentencing responses to serious and organized crime, including those connected to the production and trafficking of illicit drugs. The bill would make bail more difficult to obtain in certain cases, including for individuals involved in organized crime, through a very important new measure, new reverse onus provisions, something the party on the other side has been calling for. This is a critical step forward. In these situations, detention would be the starting point, and the onus would be on the accused to demonstrate why they should be released. Reforms would also require police and courts to place greater weight on public safety, victims' needs and witnesses when making bail decisions, and would mandate closer scrutiny of bail plans, including in cases involving random or unprovoked violence, again, making bail harder to get. Bill C-14 would also create tougher sentencing provisions for organized crime offences, ensuring that sentences better reflect the serious harms caused by the illicit drug trade, while discouraging others from participating in these activities.
We also have Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which would further strengthen the Criminal Code so that dangerous offenders are held to account and victims are better protected. Notably, it would create a new offence for recruiting youth into crime, directly targeting the way organized crime draws young people specifically into drug trafficking and other serious offences.
Finally, a subject of great interest to the House, Bill C-22, the lawful access act, would modernize Canada's lawful access framework so law enforcement has the tools it needs to investigate serious organized crime networks, including those that drive the fentanyl trade.
Taken together, these measures, the strongest set of criminal justice bills proposed by the party on this side of the House in generations, demonstrate a very strong commitment to public safety by dismantling organized crime and addressing the significant harms caused by drug-related offending in communities across Canada.
Bill C-14—Notice of Time Allocation MotionBail and Sentencing Reform ActPrivate Members' Business
Central Nova Nova Scotia
Liberal
Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, we are clearly entering the home stretch before we head back to our ridings to spend a little more time with our constituents. When Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day rolls around, I think people, especially those from la belle province, want to go home and be with their loved ones. I hope that will be the case, both for the deputy House leader of the official opposition and for myself. In the meantime, we have a lot of work to do.
I point this out as gently as I can to my esteemed colleague, but we were intrigued the other day when the Conservatives voted to extend sitting hours until midnight. I want to emphasize that it was until midnight. We thought we were going to work together and do things for Canadians, but three hours later, shortly after dinnertime, the Conservatives voted to adjourn the House. This contradiction puzzled us and left us a bit skeptical about their willingness to work. We shall see how things play out over the next few days.
This afternoon, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, followed by debate on the Senate amendment relating to Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 12, which relates to the proceedings on Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. After question period, we will proceed to debate on the Senate amendments made to Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, followed by second reading debate of Bill C-27, the final self-government agreement for the Tlegohli Got’ine act.
As for next week, on Monday we will resume consideration of Government Business No. 12, followed by consideration of Bill C-9, the combatting hate act.
Next Tuesday's meeting will be dedicated to the consideration of Government Business No. 11 concerning proceedings on Bill C-26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply.
Other priority bills next week will be Bill C-27, the final self-government agreement for the Tlegohli Got'ine act; Bill C-29, the financial crimes agency act; and Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act.
As members can see, we are planning to race to the finish line, and we are optimistic that the Conservatives and all opposition party members will work with us and with Canadians to achieve great things.
Jennifer McKelvie Liberal Ajax, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am happy my colleague brought up transit workers. I know that as a Toronto MP, he is very committed to ensuring the safety of the TTC.
I would like to point out that as acting mayor in 2023, I worked with Toronto council to call on the federal government to make bail harder to obtain for repeat violent offenders, and we are delivering that today with Bill C‑14. In addition, I worked with the Amalgamated Transit Union as a member of the TTC commission to advocate for stricter sentencing so that when the victim of the offence is a public transit operator or any other transit worker, we consider that an aggravating factor. Bill C‑14 would expand the federal Criminal Code to protect transit workers in all different disciplines. The Amalgamated Transit Union said, “Bill C‑14 delivers long-fought victory for every ATU Canada transit worker”. It also said, “For the first time, the Criminal Code of Canada recognizes that every transit worker, not just operators behind the wheel, deserves the full protection of the law.”
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague a question in my capacity as vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The committee is concerned about homelessness and is currently conducting a study on the subject.
One of the issues raised by the Bloc Québécois regarding Bill C‑14 has to do with the provision making it an aggravating factor to commit assault against a public transit driver. I have a great deal of respect for public transit drivers. That said, the attacks they are subjected to are often related to mental health issues and even homelessness.
The Bloc Québécois believes that, rather than creating aggravating factors, it would have been better for the government to invest in health care to take care of these people and truly protect drivers. That would have been much more effective than simply adding aggravating factors, which may not really help the drivers.
What does my colleague think?
Jennifer McKelvie Liberal Ajax, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Senate heard from witnesses, and we feel its amendment is reasonable and fair and addresses some of the concerns it heard.
We have heard loud and clear from municipal leaders, police chiefs, transit workers, victims advocates, business owners and communities that we need to strengthen Canada's bail system, we need to toughen sentences for serious and violent crimes, we need to modernize the youth criminal justice system and we need to strengthen military justice. We feel that Bill C‑14 would do all of that.
Jennifer McKelvie LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker I am pleased to rise to speak to the message from the Senate concerning Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.
Today's debate is not about whether Bill C-14 should proceed. Both chambers of Parliament have now spent considerable time studying this legislation. The House of Commons debated it, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied it, witnesses testified, amendments were proposed and considered, and the Senate has now completed its review. The question before us today is how we should respond to the amendments proposed by the Senate.
As I will outline, I believe the House is thoughtful. The recommendations from the Senate are thoughtful. They are measured and entirely consistent with the objectives of Bill C-14. Before discussing the specific amendments, however, it is worth reflecting on why Parliament embarked on this work in the first place.
Over the last number of years, Canadians from every region of the country have raised concerns about public safety. Those concerns have come from municipal leaders. They have come from premiers. They have come from police chiefs. They have come from transit workers. They have come from victims advocates. They have come from business owners. They have come from families who have experienced the impacts of crime in their communities. In community after community, including in my community of Ajax, Canadians have told us that the status quo is not acceptable. They have told us that organized crime is becoming more sophisticated. They have told us that violent extortion is becoming more common. They have told us that human trafficking continues to devastate lives. They have told us that repeat violent offending remains a serious concern. They have told us that assaults against frontline workers continue to occur far too frequently. These concerns are not isolated to one province or one city. They are national concerns.
In recent years, we have seen a dramatic increase in extortion offences across Canada. Businesses have been targeted. Families have been threatened. Communities have been shaken. Law enforcement agencies have repeatedly warned Parliament about the growing sophistication of organized criminal networks, as well as the challenges of combatting them.
Canadians are calling for bail reform, and with this bill, we will deliver.
We have heard concerns from municipal leaders. Mayors across the country have called for stronger tools to address public safety challenges in their communities. In 2023, as the acting mayor of the City of Toronto, I joined in that advocacy. Provincial and territorial governments have repeatedly called on the federal government to review the criminal law framework and ensure that serious violent offending is met with an effective response. Police associations and police leaders have echoed those calls. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has repeatedly raised concerns about repeat violent offending and organized criminal activity. Provincial police associations have called for reforms that strengthen public confidence in the judicial system while maintaining respect for constitutional rights and judicial independence.
Bill C-14 is Parliament's response to those concerns. The legislation takes a targeted and measured approach. It would strengthen bail provisions for certain serious offences. It would respond to repeat violent offending. It would create stronger sentencing measures for extortion and arson committed for criminal purposes. It would strengthen protections related to human trafficking. The bill includes measures aimed at improving public safety while maintaining judicial discretion and preserving charter protections.
Importantly, Bill C-14 is not the product of a single political party acting alone. Throughout the legislative process, members from different parties have contributed to the bill. Amendments were proposed. Suggestions were considered. Improvements were made. The result is stronger legislation. That collaborative approach continued in the Senate. The Senate heard testimony from a wide range of witnesses. It reviewed the legislation carefully. It proposed amendments where senators believed refinements were warranted. The House now has an opportunity to consider those amendments.
The first amendment before us today concerns sureties. As members know, the House adopted an amendment that would prohibit a person convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years from acting as a surety. The Senate amendment would maintain that prohibition while allowing a court to exercise limited discretion in exceptional circumstances when no other surety is available and when doing so would be in the interest of justice.
The government supports this amendment. It is important to understand why. The objective of the original House amendment remains intact. Individuals convicted of indictable offences would remain prohibited from acting as sureties. The Senate amendment would not remove that prohibition. It would not undermine that prohibition. It would not create a broad exception. Instead, it would create a narrow exception that may be used only when specific conditions are met.
During the Senate study, witnesses raised concerns about how an absolute prohibition might operate in certain remote, rural and northern communities. In some communities, particularly in Canada's north, the pool of potential sureties can be extremely limited. The Senate heard testimony suggesting that an inflexible rule could create practical difficulties in circumstances where no other surety exists. The amendment would recognize those realities while maintaining the overall objective adopted by the House. It would preserve the rule while allowing courts to address exceptional circumstances. There would be reasonable balance.
The second amendment concerns bail reporting. Members will recall that the House adopted an amendment requiring annual reporting respecting bail data. The Senate proposed expanding that reporting framework by including information related to rates of detention before trial. The government supports that proposal. Good public policy depends on good information. Parliamentarians should have access to meaningful data. Canadians should have confidence that decisions are informed by evidence. Including information regarding pretrial detention could help provide a more complete picture of how the bail system operates across the country.
At the same time, the Senate amendment would also require the minister to consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection in the criminal justice system, including Statistics Canada. The government proposes modifying this portion of the Senate amendment. The reason is straightforward. The minister already possesses the ability to engage with experts, stakeholders and partners as required. Nothing in the legislation would prevent that engagement. Indeed, effective policy development routinely involves collaboration with experts and partners. However, creating a statutory consultation requirement is unnecessary and could reduce flexibility in the preparation of future reports. For that reason, the government proposes retaining the reporting enhancements while removing the mandatory consultation requirement.
The third amendment concerns proposed subsection 515(13.2). The government respectfully disagrees with this amendment. The amendment would require a justice to ask on the record whether section 493.2 applies, even when neither party raises the issue. The objective behind the amendment is understandable. However, existing law already addresses the issue. Parliament previously enacted subsection 515(13.1), which requires courts to state on the record how section 493.2 was considered in making a bail decision. As a practical matter, compliance with that provision already requires consideration. The proposed amendment, therefore, would duplicate obligations that already exist. It would not create a new protection or right, and it would not alter the legal analysis requirements at bail. For those reasons, the government believes the amendment is unnecessary, and respectfully disagrees with it.
The final amendment concerns the coming into force of provisions related to youth records. The government supports this amendment. Implementation matters. When Parliament enacts significant changes, justice system partners, police services, prosecutors and provincial and territorial partners require time to prepare. The amendment would provide flexibility to ensure that these provisions are implemented effectively and reasonably.
When we step back and look at the amendments as a whole, an important point becomes clear. None of these amendments would alter the fundamental objectives of Bill C-14. None of them would change the core public safety measures contained the legislation or Parliament's commitment to addressing serious violent crime, organized crime, extortion or human trafficking.
Canadians are looking to Parliament for action. They are looking for results. Police leaders have called for action. Provincial governments have called for action. Municipal leaders have called for action. Victims advocates have called for action. Community organizations have called for action. Canadians expect us to respond. Bill C-14 represents an important step forward. It would provide stronger tools to address violent offending, strengthen responses to extortion and organized criminal activity and enhance protections for communities, and it would do so while respecting judicial discretion, constitutional protections and the fundamental principles of our justice system.
The Senate has completed its work. The House now has the opportunity to complete its work. We can accept some of these amendments and improve this bill. We propose a targeted modification where appropriate. We respectfully reject an amendment that would be unnecessary because the existing law already accomplishes its objective.
We encourage all members of the House to support the motion before us so that Bill C-14 may proceed without delay and Canadians can benefit from these important reforms.