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 (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I give the hon. member a reminder that I cannot agree or disagree with anything.

I ask the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to answer the question.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not asking you to agree or disagree with anything, but I appreciate the guidance for the House, in general.

I am not familiar with the article in the Winnipeg Free Press mentioned by the member for Winnipeg West. Yes, there are challenges at the provincial level, but we need to set the guidance in Bill C-14 to make the conditions correct so that provinces can deal with it. The Liberals have had 10 years to work on and fix this. They have not done that. At all levels, we need to make Canadians able to feel safe on the streets so they can enjoy a safe life.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, Ponoka—Didsbury is a great riding in rural central Alberta. It is almost as close to the north end of Calgary as it is to the south end of Edmonton, with some of the finest, hardest-working and noblest people we could ever find, and honest, law-abiding citizens. There are lots of farmers, businesses and all-around good people. It is a pleasure for me to rise on their behalf today to give a speech that I am going to entitle “We told them so”.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-14, a bill introduced by the Liberal government to fix a problem that it, essentially, created. When the Conservative government left power in 2015, Canada had the lowest total crime rate since 1969, and that was not simply a coincidence. Conservatives understand that the justice system is not a toy for the use of social engineering. It is, in fact, an important tool for restraining the liberties of those who threaten public safety, especially when they are likely to reoffend. In other words, Conservatives believe public safety to be the paramount consideration in whether somebody's civil liberties should be restrained.

Victims of crime deserve a voice, and the actions of criminals should have real-world consequences. Unfortunately, the last 10 years of Liberal rule have seen all the progress made under the Harper administration completely erased. During these years, the current Liberal government and the ones before it waged an ideological crusade against those who uphold Canada's laws. Of the Liberals' soft-on-crime bills, none are more egregious than Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Bill C-75 eased bail provisions and legislated the principle of restraint for police and courts, ensuring that criminals would be released at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. This is, essentially, the open door to the catch-and-release system we see today. I am a conservationist at heart and an angler. I know that catch and release can sometimes be a good thing. When it comes to justice, though, catch and release is poor public policy and comes at enormous costs for certain Canadians.

Bill C-5, for its part, removed the mandatory minimum sentences on 14 different Criminal Code offences, even some minimum sentences that were put in place by none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau. These were common-sense penalties for dangerous offences and included using a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence. It also included possession of a firearm or weapon while knowing that the possession is unauthorized. We all know criminals do not get gun licences and do not register their guns. Why on earth would we take away minimum penalties for people who knowingly do that?

Regarding possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, I do not know why people would not go to jail for that. Every law-abiding gun owner knows they would not have to suffer those consequences because they follow the rules, but criminals do not follow the rules. Regarding possession of a weapon obtained in the commission of an offence, if someone steals somebody's guns, they do not get to go to jail. As a matter of fact, someone would probably get in more trouble for having their guns stolen from them than the person who actually stole the guns in the first place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Could we see to the noise in the corridors, please? It is very disturbing.

Thank you.

The hon. member.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, what I was saying is very important. If the Liberals had listened over these 10 years, we would not have the problems we have right now, but it is clear they do not like to listen.

When it comes to weapons trafficking, excluding firearms and some ammunition, one does not have to go to jail if one trafficks in weapons. Possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, that is, when a person carries them across the border or sells them; and importing or exporting firearms or ammunition without a permit, all related to organized crime and the smuggling trade, are things for which the Liberals erased minimum sentences.

Discharging a firearm with intent or recklessly is a problem. If someone discharges a firearm recklessly or with the intent to hurt somebody, they should go to jail. All hunters and farmers know this, and we are very careful. Gun control means muzzle control to a law-abiding gun owner but not to a criminal. However, if someone is a Liberal, why would they let common sense get in the way of ideological agendas? Of course they would remove that provision.

Robbery with a firearm must be a lot of fun for the victim. If a person is robbing somebody at gunpoint, under the previous or current Liberal laws of this country, they do not have to fear going to jail. As a matter of fact, they are probably going to be able to serve their sentence from their couch.

Extortion with a firearm is up by over 350% in Canada. In some communities it is up by over 500%. It was not like that until Bill C-5 was passed. The bill even permitted conditional sentences, allowing house arrest for serious offences such as sexual assault. Imagine a person's sexually assaulting somebody and being able to serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home.

The Liberal government has been one of the most divisive governments in Canada's history over the last 10 years. Somehow the one thing it was able to do was unite all 13 premiers with respect to its approach on crime. The 13 premiers, one for each province and territory, wrote to the previous prime minister in 2023, saying that he had it completely wrong. The most unifying thing the Liberals have actually done is galvanize the whole country in saying that they had it wrong.

Since 2015, there has been a staggering increase of lawlessness across Canada. Violent crime is up 55%, and firearms crimes are up by over 130%. These are crimes committed with illegal guns; they are not committed by hunters like me or by sport shooters but by criminals who get guns illegally. Extortion is up by over 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%. It is no wonder a recent Léger poll shows that over half of Canadians no longer feel safe in their own home.

I would like to know this: Will the government apologize to all the victims of crime for all the abuse and the murders, to the people who are suffering as a result of the decisions the MPs on the other side have made?