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, indeed, Bill C-14 retains the principle of restraint, which has been at the centre of the problems in the administration of criminal justice in the last decade. It is at the heart of the public's loss of confidence in the administration of justice. I think that is a very important principle.

I am sure our amendments at committee are going to focus on the secondary and tertiary grounds, public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are tired of watching the same headlines play out every week: another violent crime committed by someone who never should have been released in the first place. They see the revolving door of justice spinning faster than ever and have the right to ask why their safety no longer seems to matter. That is why we are here today to debate Bill C-14, the government's latest attempt to clean up the mess it created years ago through soft-on-crime policies.

Let us not forget how we got here. In 2019, the Liberals passed Bill C-75, which enshrined in law the principle of restraint. It directed police and judges to release offenders at the earliest reasonable opportunity under the least onerous conditions. That single change and that Liberal ideology opened the floodgates to the catch-and-release system we now have in our justice system. Then came Bill C-5, which gutted mandatory minimum sentences and made house arrest available for serious crimes like sexual assault and drug trafficking. When crime inevitably spiked, the government tried to paper over this damage with Bill C-48, a bill it sold as tough on bail but that barely scratched the surface with a handful of new reverse-onus offences and no real change to the culture of automatic release.

The result has been devastating. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearm crime is up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assault is up 76% and homicide is up 29%. Those are not just numbers. Each one represents a victim, a family and a community that has been forever changed. Let us not forget the names behind those statistics. Bailey McCourt was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail for assaulting her. Savannah Kulla, a 29-year-old mother of four, was gunned down in Brampton by a man who had already been released on bail. These tragedies are not anomalies. They are the predictable outcome of policies that put ideology ahead of safety.

After a decade of denial, the Liberals introduced Bill C-14, which admits, finally, that their reforms have failed. The bill tweaks the Criminal Code to clarify that restraint would not require release when detention is necessary to protect the public. It adds a few more reverse-onus offences, such as violent auto theft, break and enter and human trafficking, and it slightly tightens conditional sentences for youth custody rules.

While Conservatives welcome any movement in the right direction, let us be clear. Bill C-14 is not the bold reform Canadians deserve. This bill keeps the principle of restraint that caused the crisis in the first place. It does not restore the mandatory minimum sentences that were stripped away with Bill C-5. It does not presume detention for repeat violent offenders. It simply shifts the burden of proof. It still allows house arrest for robbery, trafficking and firearm crimes. Its so-called guidance to judges remains optional, not mandatory. Canadians do not want more guidance. They want guarantees that violent repeat criminals will not be back on the streets to terrorize their communities.

Our Conservative plan, the jail not bail act brought forward by my colleague from Oxford, would deliver those guarantees. It would replace the principle of restraint with a public safety primary clause, making the safety of the public in our communities the governing principle in bail. It would presume detention, not release, for serious violent crimes, such as sexual assault, human trafficking, armed robbery and home invasion. It would restore mandatory minimums for firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping and other serious offences. It would ban house arrest for robbery, gun and trafficking crimes. It would require judges to consider every prior conviction, any outstanding charge and any pattern of offending while on bail. It would bar criminal sureties and enforce surety obligations so that bail means accountability, not just paperwork. It would raise the risk threshold from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonably foreseeable” because, if it is reasonably foreseeable that someone will reoffend, they should not be released.

The Liberals call Bill C-14 a comprehensive reform. I call it an admission of guilt and an admission that Conservative warnings were right all along. They copied our ideas because the evidence left them no choice. They copied them only halfway, because political optics still matter more to them than public safety. They talk about compassion for victims, but every piece of legislation they have passed since 2015 has sided with offenders. They cannot be pro-victim and pro-offender at the same time.

Communities across my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain know this reality all too well. People used to leave their doors unlocked, and now they lock their vehicles, barns and shops every night. Farmers are losing quads or trucks to organized theft rings. Small business owners are watching thieves walk in, clean out the shelves and walk out, only to see those same offenders released the next day.

The numbers tell the story clearly. In Souris—Moose Mountain, violent crime has increased from about 3,500 incidents in 2015 to nearly 4,700 incidents in 2024, a staggering 34% jump. This is not an abstract statistic. Those are hundreds of real families in our rural communities that have been victimized, that have lost their sense of safety and that are asking when the system will finally put law-abiding citizens first.

Every time an offender is released without consequence, confidence in the justice system erodes a little more. That is why our message is simple: Scrap Liberal bail. Canadians deserve more than half measures. They deserve to live without fear in their homes, on their farms, in their shops and on their streets. They deserve a justice system that puts their safety first, not the comfort of repeat offenders.

The government has had 10 years to get this right. Instead, it has chosen ideology over evidence, leniency over law, and rhetoric over results. Conservatives will support sending Bill C-14 to committee, but we will fight for real amendments to eliminate the principle of restraint entirely, to presume detention for major and repeat violent offences, to restore mandatory minimums and to turn judicial suggestions into judicial obligations. Only then can we begin to undo the damage caused by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5.

Canadians have lost faith in their justice system, and they have every right to. We owe it to victims like Bailey McCourt and Savannah Kulla, and to every Canadian who wonders whether their government still values their safety, to make this right.

The Conservative position is clear: Public safety comes first, justice means accountability and no violent repeat offender should walk free while innocent Canadians live in fear. That is why we will continue to press the government to strengthen Bill C-14 or step aside and let Conservatives fix the system for good. Canadians do not want tougher laws. They want safer communities. Only a Conservative government will deliver both.

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

Madam Speaker, that is where the member is wrong.

I believe what we have seen is a prime minister who is committed to making our communities safer. We have seen that through the demonstration of two ministers being charged with bringing forward the bail reform legislation we are debating today.

This is not something we just came up with overnight. This is something that had a great deal of consultation, working with different stakeholders. Our judicial system is a shared responsibility. We worked with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and Canadians as a whole. I believe we have delivered first-class legislation that will assist in making our communities safer. I say “assist” because it also involves provinces, municipalities, law enforcement and stakeholders coming to the table.

I am pleased the member indicated he supports the legislation going to committee. It is a relief to hear that.

The question I have for the member is specific. Does he share the same ambition that I have to deliver bail reform legislation, a law, before the end of the year? Would he not agree that this is a goal we should strive to achieve?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member's assessment, but the legislation should have Conservative amendments.

I came from the business world. In the business world, we manage our budgets and our companies by results. I want to take a look at some of the results in the member's home city of Winnipeg since the Liberal bail laws were put in place. There were 24 previous violent offences like shootings and carjackings by someone out on probation. There was a murder while someone was out on bail with 16 arrests, nine violent convictions and 15 breaches. There was a fatal stabbing while someone was out on bail with 11 previous convictions like possession of firearms. I could go on with this list. The results speak for themselves.

We need laws that protect our citizens and put victims first, not offenders.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, today being October 30, 2025, allow me to acknowledge a historic moment in Quebec's history. Thirty years ago today, the Lower St. Lawrence said yes: yes to the country of Quebec, yes to liberty, yes to pride. It very courageously said yes. That same conviction is still very much alive today among the people in my region. We want to be masters of our own destiny because Quebec's independence is the logical next step in our history, our language, our culture, our identity, our very existence.

My question for my colleague is this. We know that the Conservative Party wanted to implement reforms in an attempt to improve certain aspects of security. At the same time, it wanted to challenge a fundamental principle of justice, namely the presumption of innocence. I would like my colleague to explain how he sees a fundamental need versus a fundamental right in our society. What is he proposing today with regard to this bill introduced by the government?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, although I fundamentally disagree with the premise of that question, I will comment on how we are not talking about first-time offences here. We are talking about repeat offenders who have committed violent crimes over and over again.

The member talks about the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence should be that people make mistakes. We have compassion and we all believe that everyone should have a fair trial and a fair crack at the judicial system, but when it has been abused over and over again by repeat criminals committing violent offences, our whole system needs to be looked at again. That is why the Conservative jail not bail act would address the very issues the member is talking about.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the John Howard Society recently called on Ontario to expand its bail system and make it stronger. The society has a 96% success rate in ensuring that bail conditions are met.

I wonder if the member agrees that the work of community-based supervision programs, like the 17 programs across Canada, should be expanded.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my other answer, I am a very results-based person. If something is proven to work, I am sure the Conservatives would be very happy to take a look at it and work with it.

I could defer to my colleagues, the shadow minister for justice or the member for York Centre, who have a lot more experience in this field than I do. We are compassionate and we want the best for Canada. If there are ways we can make that happen by working with other parties, we will do it.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.

It is an honour to rise today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to speak on behalf and in support of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. It is the most significant modernization of Canada's bail and sentencing laws in a generation.

This bill is about one thing above all else: keeping Canadians safe in their homes, safe on their streets and safe in their communities. It would do two critical things. First, it would strengthen our bail system to ensure that violent and repeat offenders are kept off our streets. Second, it would modernize sentences to ensure that the punishment truly fits the crime.

On bail reform, this bill would deliver exactly what Canadians elected us to do in the last election. We would tighten bail provisions so that the system is no longer a revolving door for violent offenders. The message is clear: The principle of restraint does not mean automatic release. For the first time, courts would have to consider random or unprovoked violence when making bail decisions. They would also have to consider the number and seriousness of outstanding charges, because Canadians know that someone facing 10 charges should not be treated the same as somebody facing one.

For serious crimes, such as organized crime, home invasions and sexual assault, this bill would change the starting point. Through new reverse onus provisions, it would be on the accused to show why they deserve to be released, not on the Crown to prove why they should be detained. This stronger threshold would ensure that those charged with violent or high-impact offences face a tougher path to bail. On top of that, we would direct courts to carefully scrutinize the bail plan of the accused to ensure that it is both credible and reliable before any release is granted.

That is how we keep dangerous offenders behind bars. That is how we restore Canada's confidence in our justice system.

Let us contrast that with what the Conservatives are proposing in their so-called jail, not bail plan. It was not written by legal experts, inspired by victim advocates or made in consultation with police officers. It was written by a career politician who lost a national election and his own seat, and who now wants to sound tough without showing any real seriousness.

It is a slogan, not a solution. It is unconstitutional and reckless. It would hand provinces a legal disaster that sees dangerous offenders back on the street the moment the law is struck down, just as six Harper-era laws were struck down, one by one, by the Supreme Court of Canada during the Conservatives' time in government. Their plan would tie judges' hands, trample on the charter and make a mockery of the rule of law. It would do more for political fundraising emails than it would for community safety. Canadians deserve laws made in Canada, not bumper-sticker slogans imported from south of the border.

I will go back to Bill C-14 and its second pillar, which is sentencing reform. Bill C-14 would add new aggravating factors for crimes against first responders, for repeat violent offenders, for organized retail theft and for offences that threaten our critical infrastructure, like copper. It would allow consecutive sentences for serious crimes, like auto theft, arson, extortion and breaking and entering.

Let me be clear that if a person commits a crime or is a repeat offender, they should and would face multiple consequences, full stop. We are clarifying sentence objectives to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for repeat violent and organized crime because Canadians are tired of seeing serious criminals walk away with light sentences.

We have worked closely with the Government of Quebec on restricting access to house arrest for sexual offences, including those committed against children. This reform has been welcomed by police forces across Quebec.

I sincerely hope that my Conservative colleagues from Quebec will have the courage to stand up, go against the party line and vote in favour of what they were elected to do, which is to keep their communities safe. I also invite the Bloc Québécois to join us in defending our Quebec values, namely firmness, justice, and the protection of victims.

While the Leader of the Opposition spent his summer targeting his own MP's seat to save his job, the Minister of Justice spent his summer targeting repeat violent offenders to keep Canadians safe. What did that work achieve? It achieved a national consensus, with Conservative, New Democrat and Liberal premiers alike all calling for the swift passage of Bill C-14. When every province and territory welcomes federal justice reform, it is not politics; it is partnership and leadership.

Even municipalities are on board. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities called this bill a step forward for community safety. Police associations, mayors and victim advocates are all on board with and in favour of the passage of this bill. Who would not be? At its core, there are 80 proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to strike the right balance that Canadians expect. It is strong on safety, firm on justice and faithful to the Charter of Rights and the rule of law.

Unfortunately, when Canadians from across the country are united, Conservatives try to divide them. The Conservatives have been peddling misinformation about one key element, namely, the principle of restraint. Let us be clear that whether or not it is written into the Criminal Code, the principle of restraint has always existed in our laws. It is not me saying that, but the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2017 Antic decision. This is not some Liberal invention, as the Conservatives would like Canadians to believe; it has been established by Supreme Court jurisprudence. It is the rule of law, yet the Conservative Party is now suggesting that we ignore a Supreme Court precedent or, even worse, that we use the notwithstanding clause to overrule the highest court in this country.

On this side of the House, we respect the rule of law and we will never trample on the Constitution simply because we do not like a court's decision. Quite frankly, we also do not go on podcasts and call the brave men and women of the RCMP “despicable”, as the Conservative leader did. We do not hide behind keyboards to attack Crown prosecutors for doing their jobs.

What are we doing instead? We are making it crystal clear to the courts that the principle of restraint would not mandate automatic release and that the requirement for the least onerous bail conditions would not apply to serious or violent offenders, who would now be subject to the reverse onus. That is the difference between responsible, steady leadership and the politics of division and resentment.

Canadians deserve to feel safe and be safe in their communities. We know that keeping Canadians safe requires actions from all orders of government. As many legal experts and frontline officers have emphasized at the justice committee, this work cannot be done by one level of government alone. The provinces must step up to ensure public safety. The federal government is stepping up and doing its part within its jurisdiction through this bail and sentencing reform act, but on its own, it is not enough. We are calling on the provinces and territories to do their part in ensuring that their courts and correctional facilities are well funded and that they have sufficient justices of the peace, Crown prosecutors and court staff to apply these stronger tools effectively to keep repeat and violent offenders off our streets.

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

Madam Speaker, I will highlight how disappointing it was to hear the parliamentary secretary for justice being so partisan in her attacks. I thought we were getting along so well in the spirit of collaboration. Public and community safety are not a partisan issue. They never should be. Our goal is to make this bill as strong as possible, and her attacks were absolutely not appreciated.

The title of the act is the bail and sentencing reform act, yet there is only one particular charge in this 80-paragraph bill, some 35 pages long, that would address sentencing reform. It is the question of contempt of court. Despite all the rising crime across this country, why did the parliamentary secretary for justice and the minister see fit to address only contempt of court and raise the penalty from six months to two years less one day?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, to come back to the comments that were made by the member opposite, this is not a partisan issue and it should not be. I totally agree with him.

The member also sits on the justice committee. Once this bill gets to the justice committee, I hope we will be able to work collaboratively to strengthen it by studying it and making all of the necessary recommendations and amendments to ensure that Canadians get the bill—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, they are heckling on the other side and I cannot hear myself speak. Would you please address this issue?

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

I would ask members to wait for the hon. parliamentary secretary to finish her answer to the question.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, who also sits on the justice committee, will have the opportunity to bring forward his recommendations for and amendments to this robust bill, so we can make it as complete as necessary to serve the interests of Canadians, ensuring—