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

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with the member for Rivière-du-Nord on the justice committee in the last Parliament.

He is talking about who is going to be tougher on crime, the Liberals or the Conservatives. He was on the committee when we received a letter from 13 premiers asking for bail reform. Bill C-48 was the response, and he was involved in that debate. It did not go far enough, and now we have Bill C-14.

Clearly there is a public perception that the administration of justice is being brought into disrepute by overly lax bail laws. Does the member agree that something needs to be toughened up in that area?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can confirm that working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was a true pleasure. I consider him a man of integrity and intelligence. Working with him is always enjoyable.

To answer his question, yes, we have seen the letter signed by all 13 premiers. Yes, it was a concern to us. I was concerned about the situation myself.

However, my remarks relate to the fact that both we and the premiers lack sufficient data on this specific issue. The only data we have tells us that 72% of inmates are awaiting trial. Personally, I think that number is huge. Now, is more data needed? Maybe, maybe not. We will have to study that carefully in committee.

I would like to turn that question back to my colleague. He can ask one of his colleagues to answer if he does not have another turn to speak. I would like to know whether the Conservatives are going to vote in favour of Bill C‑14. Even if the bill does not go as far as theirs, it is a step in that direction. Will they flatly oppose Bill C‑14? I really do not know.

Yes, we need to tackle this problem. Even if we ultimately determine that there is no problem, if the public and the premiers are concerned, then it is our job to address those concerns, check the facts and suggest solutions.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his highly enlightening speech.

There is something I do not understand. What is causing the growing number of crimes committed by repeat offenders? Something about that perplexes me. Could it be that the causes go deeper than the parole system alone? Should we be looking somewhere else?

My colleague is an expert. I would appreciate it if he could enlighten us on that.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I quite like. He is a true friend, someone I have known for a few years and with whom I enjoy chatting.

Are more crimes really being committed by repeat offenders? That is an excellent question. Unfortunately, I cannot say I am an expert on this, because I do not have the answer. The experts I have spoken with also hesitate to say for sure.

First, what is recidivism? When someone convicted of a crime violates their release conditions, is that considered a repeat offence? They did not commit the same crime again. They committed a new offence by failing to comply with their conditions. The various offences really need to be untangled before any conclusions can be drawn.

First, data needs to be collected. Second, that data needs to be analyzed. Third, a study needs to be done by experts such as criminologists and legal experts. They will be able to tell us what the real problem is and propose things to solve it.

Proposed regulations are being developed right now for a problem that I do not think we fully understand.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier, I posed a question to the Conservative shadow minister with regard to the legislation. Here we have before us the long-anticipated bail reform legislation. It was a commitment given to Canadians by the Prime Minister coming out of the last election.

Given the spectrum of support from the many different stakeholders, would the member not agree that the House should seriously look at the opportunity to have this legislation pass throughout the system before the end of the year? Does he believe that is doable?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, it is not up to me to decide that, and I can say that we are currently very busy at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are studying two issues at the same time and have extended our working hours.

We usually meet for two hours twice a week. Now we are meeting for three hours twice a week and we are studying the bail and sentencing issues concurrently. That is kind of what bills C‑14 and C‑9 are about. We are studying both at the same time. Are we going to add Bill C‑14? I would like to because it is important. However, when are we going to do that? Do we have access to meeting rooms? Do we have interpreters?

There are a number of practical questions that I cannot answer. In any case, it is not up to me to decide whether we should fast-track Bill C‑14. However, I do believe that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and I will leave it to those responsible for managing the business of the House to decide the pace at which we proceed with Bill C‑14.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my very humble colleague. He is a lawyer, as members know, and he has some authority or reputation when he talks about a bill that is closely related to his former duties.

I want to ask him the following question. What possible explanation is there for the fact that we now have a huge number of inmates awaiting trial? Is there a delay in appointing judges? Is someone dragging their feet? What could be causing this situation?

From what I understand, Bill C‑14 may also lead to an increase in the number of people in jail. We do not disagree with that, but why are our prisons currently overcrowded with people awaiting the outcome of their trial?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague. It is always a pleasure to work with her.

The problem we have, that she rightly raised, is the following. There are people serving intermittent sentences on weekends who are being told to go home because there is no more room. We can increase the number of inmates, but how are we going to deal with this in practical terms? I do not know. As I said earlier, we have a problem with underfunding of the justice system, and we will have to address it at some point.

Currently, there is a shortage of special education teachers in schools, a shortage of doctors, and a shortage of nurses in hospitals. Infrastructure is falling apart. There is not enough money. Funding will have to be aligned with mandates. I think we need federal money to strengthen the judicial system. It is true that we are short on judges, but we are also short on court clerks, bailiffs, and courtrooms. It all goes hand in hand. This needs to be taken seriously.

I have already suggested to the Minister of Justice that he set himself a six-month time limit for filling judicial vacancies. Six months seems reasonable to me. If he says that nine months or three months is better, I am all ears. At some point, we might have to set maximum time limits for filling vacancies. It may be necessary to appoint new judges and transfer funds to the provinces and to Quebec in order to manage the justice system properly.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I am here today to speak about the bail and sentencing reform act, one of the most comprehensive updates to Canada's bail and sentencing laws in decades. Since 2014, crime in Canada has risen by 12%, and our violent crime severity index is now 41% higher than it was a decade ago. While 2024 saw a modest 4% decrease, people in Canada remain deeply concerned, and rightfully so. They see increases in homicides, sexual assaults, extortion, child sexual offending and violent firearms offences. They see repeat offenders cycling through our system, breaching conditions and reoffending, too often with tragic consequences. The reasons for these increases are many and complex. Criminal law reform can play an important role in addressing these disturbing trends.

People in Canada expect their communities to be safe. They expect a justice system that protects victims, supports those on the front lines and holds repeat and violent offenders to account. They expect all levels of government to take steps to ensure that these things happen.

The federal government is playing its part. The bail and sentencing reform act introduces over 80 clauses of targeted reforms to strengthen both our bail and sentencing regimes to respond to this reality.

The bill is the result of extensive engagement with provinces and territories, police, prosecutors, victims' advocates, indigenous partners and community organizations. Through these discussions, it became clear that one of the most urgent areas of reform was the bail system, particularly for cases involving repeat and violent offenders.

I will first turn to the proposed bail reforms. Over the past several years, people in Canada have seen too many headlines about violent crimes committed by individuals who are already out on bail, sometimes with a long history of prior offences. Police, mayors and victims' advocates have all told us that the bail system is not working as it should in these cases. The bail and sentencing reform act would address these criticisms head on.

First, it would make bail stricter and harder to get for repeat and violent offenders. The bill would create new reverse onus provisions, meaning that it would be up to the accused to demonstrate why they should be released, and not the other way around. In particular, the bail would create new reverse onuses for violent and organized crime-related auto theft, break and enters of a home, trafficking in persons, human smuggling, assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocation or strangulation, and extortion involving violence. This is intended to help ensure that those who pose the greatest risk to public safety remain in custody until it is proven that they can be safely released.

The bill would offer clarity to police and courts regarding how to apply the principle of restraint. This includes clarifying that the principle does not, in fact, require release, and that the accused should not be released if their detention is justified, including for the protection and safety of the public. At the bail stage, courts would be required to consider key risk factors, such as whether the allegations involve random or unprovoked violence, and the number or seriousness of the outstanding charges that the accused has accumulated while on bail. They would also have to impose weapons prohibitions at bail for those accused of extortion and organized crime, unless it is not required for public safety reasons.

Importantly, in reverse onus cases, the accused would have to present a credible and reliable bail plan. Courts would need to closely scrutinize the plan before granting bail.

These reforms are about protecting the public and ensuring accountability for those who repeatedly show disregard for the law and the safety of others in a way that balances the charter rights of those accused of criminal offending.

Making bail stricter is only part of the solution. Our sentencing laws need to better reflect the gravity of violent crimes and the harm done to victims and communities. The bill therefore proposes significant sentencing reforms to make penalties tougher for repeat and violent offending, including car theft, extortion and crimes that endanger public safety. For example, the act would require consecutive sentences when violent auto theft is committed with a break and enter, or when extortion is committed with arson. This means that offenders would serve one sentence after another rather than serving them at the same time. This may result in longer penalties' being imposed.

The bill would also enact new aggravating factors at sentencing for crimes against first responders, for retail theft and for offences that impact critical infrastructure such as power stations, water systems and communications networks.

The bill would end house arrest for serious sexual assaults and child sexual offences, ensuring that custodial sentences are served in a secure setting, like jail, appropriate to the severity of the crime.

The bill would restore driving prohibitions for offences like criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death and for manslaughter. It would also improve fine enforcement to make sure that penalties are meaningful and are able to be enforced.

As all members know, the criminal justice system in Canada is a shared responsibility. I want to thank the provinces and territories, which have been strong advocates for these reforms. They have shared their on-the-ground experiences with repeat violence offending, and they have helped shape a package of measures that are practical, targeted and grounded in evidence.

The government is also working to improve the youth criminal justice system to support ongoing successful implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act by the provinces and territories. The proposed amendments are very focused in nature to clarify areas that have led to litigation and uncertainty, to assist the provinces and territories in administering sentences and to make some other technical improvements.

The bail and sentencing reform act is part of a broader modernization of Canada's justice system. In the coming months, the government has announced, it will bring forward further changes to address court delays, strengthen victims' rights and better protect people facing sexual and intimate partner violence, as well as take new steps to keep children safe from horrific crimes.

Canadians deserve to be safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. They deserve a justice system that protects the innocent, supports victims and holds offenders accountable—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will not be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North and will take the remaining 12 minutes allotted for my speech. I am sure the member for Winnipeg North will have an opportunity to address the House on this important matter as well.

The bail and sentencing reform act would deliver on that commitment. It would balance firmness with fairness. It would strengthen bail and toughen sentencing. These changes underscore that a strong Canada means strong communities and a justice system that works for everyone.

I worked very hard to make sure I could inform the creation of the bill every step of the way, along with the Minister of Justice. I am very pleased to see the final product that has come out. It has been informed by provinces and territories across this country. It has been informed by chiefs of police and by police associations. I was really pleased to see that many of them have given positive statements in regard to the bill. I would like to quote some of them.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has said, “The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police...welcomes the introduction of the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act (Bill C-14) as a landmark piece of legislation that strengthens Canada's response to repeat and violent offenders, organized crime, and threats to public safety.” We have gotten much great feedback just like this from other associations.

I heard from my own mayor, who came to Ottawa this week and was very pleased. He has been a strong advocate for bail reform for some time but also has constantly pointed out that it takes co-operation at all levels in order to be able to get the results that are needed. I will dive into that a little later.

Patrick Brown, the mayor of Brampton, says, “I welcome the Federal Government's recent announcement today on bail and sentencing reform. This is something that our police, our councils in this region have advocated for aggressively. This is a step in the right direction and shows Ottawa is listening to cities like Brampton. I hope the legislation is passed right away.”

There are similar calls from others who are calling upon the opposition to make sure we can co-operate during the process of the legislation through the House. We have heard from Premier Doug Ford as well. He said, “We're glad to see the federal government accept many of our recommendations and take a strong step in the right direction.”

There has been an uptick in violent repeat offenders in this province and in others as well. It was important to work with the premiers, to work with their attorneys general and solicitors general, to get the piece of legislation just right.

I know that the mayor of London had many concerns as well. He says, “I applaud the Government of Canada's action and London welcomes these important, positive steps toward strengthening community safety and ensuring our justice system better protects law-abiding citizens. I look forward to seeing this legislation move quickly and working with all levels of government to make our city, and communities across Canada, safer for everyone.” Yes, it is very important. I know that members from these regions are here in the House right now.

We have also heard from the mayor of Winnipeg, Scott Gillingham, who states that the “legislation looks to be a big step forward in the fight against serious crime here in Winnipeg.”

As I travelled this country through the summer, in consultation on this and other public safety measures, I heard first-hand from law enforcement and many mayors that they were dealing with different issues in different regions, so what we have tried to do in the bill is address all the different factors that have come up. Whether some areas of the country are facing a rise in auto theft and home invasions or other areas are dealing with retail theft and other organized crime, it is important to have a solution that fits and meets the demands of all the different jurisdictions. I am encouraged to see that the final piece of legislation is very strong in this area.

Another thing the opposition often brings up, and which we have heard across the country, is how the principle of restraint is being applied. I referenced in my remarks yesterday as well that the bill would address the principle of restraint in, I feel, the most appropriate way that the House could do so, because the principle of restraint comes from a Supreme Court decision made in 2017 in the Antic case. The principle had been codified and put into legislation previously as well, but it was never intended to be used as a “get out of jail free” card.

The bill clarifies that the principle of restraint would not mean automatic release. We put parameters around it so courts can feel confident in still abiding by the Supreme Court decision but also in being able to go back to the foundational tertiary principles by which bail should be guided. One of the principal ones is public safety.

Public safety should never be compromised. Everything we do in the ministry of public safety and that I have taken on as a responsibility in my new role is to ensure that Canadians can feel safe. As a mom, this has been really important to me when I have heard the growing concern. At times it took a while, perhaps not for people on the ground but for law enforcement and governments, to look at property crime in the same way as we looked at violent crime. Those two things came to a crossroads, and we started seeing more and more property crime committed with violence.

Stories of cars being stolen, at times with kids in the back seat during the commission of a car hijacking, make me wonder as a mom. I started worrying a lot about making sure my child was out of the car before I got out of it. That is not how I want to feel nor how I want any of the people in my community to feel. The bill would take the steps needed to make sure we bring back the confidence of the public when it comes to our judicial system. That is very important to me.

There is another thing the bill would do that is very important, from what I heard from communities across this country. People have felt that there are no repercussions to committing property theft. It is really important that people understand there are repercussions in Canada, so in the bill, we clarify sentencing objectives.

The bill would require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence for second and subsequent convictions of violent auto theft, break and enters, and organized crime offences. This is a very important measure. It would bring courts back to considering safety as the main concern. It gives this direct guideline and would make it mandatory for courts to look at it.

The bill would also make it mandatory for the courts to go through a safety plan if they do choose to release an individual. The process of going through creating a plan, that exercise, is very important to better understanding whether it is an appropriate plan or not.

Along with that, an offender's history should also be looked at. It is a bit of a surprise and a shock to me that courts would not already be doing so. It is appropriate to look at an offender's past history, but what we heard from Crown counsel and others in law enforcement is that it was not always being done. The piece of legislation before us would mandate courts to do so.

I know that if the bill is passed through the House of Commons, it would have a great impact on keeping our communities safe. I would also like to mention, as I began my speech with yesterday, that we are doing our part as a federal government, but the provinces will now need to do their part as well. For example, Ontario is having over 50% of cases withdrawn or dismissed and sentences being shortened. A story recently came out about a sentence for murder that has been decreased and the person released because of the conditions of provincial jails.

It is really important that provincially appointed judges be able to make the decisions needed to keep the public safe and that they also have a place to put offenders. I now put it on the provinces to do their part to make sure that people are not released into our communities because of these provincial responsibilities that are not being met. It is very important for us to be able to get the results we need.

I am thankful for the extra opportunity to address this very important piece of legislation.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, from my review of Bill C-14, I believe that there is a partial admission by the government that it failed and that it dropped the ball when it introduced Bill C-5. It actually rolled back some of the conditional sentences, so I want to spend a bit of time talking about that.

Given that sex assault is on the rise across this country, why did the member's government see fit to claw back the eligibility of conditional sentences only where the Crown proceeds by indictment versus summary conviction, when the vast majority of sex assault prosecutions in this country are done by summary conviction? Why has the member failed victims?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, gender-based violence sexual offences have been top of mind for our government. In Bill C-75, we have strengthened our position when it comes to the justice system. We would be further strengthening it in the bill that is before us, by not allowing courts to impose conditional sentences that can be served in the community. It is important to make sure the offenders stay behind bars.

In this role, I am here trying to do my job to inform the government to take measures that would protect public safety. As I said, I take that role very seriously, and I believe the bill would address that issue and is a step in the right direction. We also have a gender-based violence bill coming out that would further strengthen our position to make sure offenders get what they deserve.