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

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I am pleased to stand on behalf of my constituents in the great riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, as I always am, but in particular I am pleased to speak to a bill of such importance to not only my community but also communities across the country.

Bill C-14 is the result of an overwhelming effort from our Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, the Department of Justice and the government. They spent the last six months travelling across the country to meet with stakeholders in the court system, the law enforcement community, lawyers and the Crown attorney. This is the product of that hard work.

We have seen the response from members of the law enforcement community and from the justice system at large who have come out supporting this bill overwhelmingly. I am going to keep asking the opposition whether its members will do the same. I find it very ironic, frankly, that the Conservatives opposite spend so much time asking for something and then complain about it when they get it, which is what we are dealing with on Bill C-14.

I will talk about two or three major issues.

One issue is an unfortunate piece in all of this, which is the rhetoric. This matter is non-partisan, as a number of my colleagues said earlier today. Unfortunately, it is wrought with members of Parliament trying to score political points on an issue and in an area for which they should be doing the exact opposite. Just this week, at the justice committee, we had a number of witnesses, who were called by the Conservatives, I might add, and this is a point that must be remembered. One of those witnesses asked that there, please, be no politics and no sound bites. There is the rhetoric, the rhyming, the “bail not jail” and the “catch and release”. All of these catchy phrases serve no purpose other than to undermine the integrity of our justice system and strike fear in the hearts of the public, when it should not be doing that. I am asking the Conservatives to stop, and this is an opportunity for them to make that change.

The speaker before me referred to my city of Toronto as “Gotham City”. I do not know. Maybe he still watches Batman, but it is just embarrassing when these guys get up to say ridiculous things like that. It does not get to the heart of what we are talking about. It creates an impression that is entirely false.

The other thing I want to address is that, every single time these discussions take place in that manner, it suggests that some members in the chamber are less concerned about keeping our communities safe than others, which is absolute, utter nonsense. To any member who wants to look me in the face, either here or out in the hallway, to tell me that I do not care about the safety of my community and the residents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, let us go outside and do it right now, because that is absolutely false. They know it is false, yet they continue to do it over and over again. It is completely unacceptable.

Let us talk about an example. Bill C-75, the bill that the Conservatives constantly talk about as the piece of legislation that somehow undermined the integrity of the justice system, did the exact opposite. It strengthened the laws for intimate partner violence. When they talk about Bill C-75, they fail to mention that.

I have talked to frontline officers in the city of Toronto in 22 Division, and I am very proud of its membership. I work with them on a regular basis. I support them every way I can, and they know that. Bill C-75 codified a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada called the principle of restraint. If members go to section 493 of the Criminal Code, they can read the provisions. Nowhere in that section does it say that courts are to do what the Conservatives suggests they do, which is to release multiple-offending criminals out on the street. It is an absolute falsehood, and they need to stop.

The witness the previous speaker spoke to appeared before committee last night. He is a renowned criminal lawyer in the city of Toronto, who has been practising for decades. His evidence was that the principle of restraint is nothing new. All they did was codify it. I have been making the same arguments on behalf of my clients in courtrooms for decades. Nothing has changed. It is a red herring. Those are my words, not his, but he agreed with me. They need to stop. I would encourage them to actually go read the bill, to go read that section.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage members to take some time to read it. Having said that, this bill does enhance the provisions in that section of the Criminal Code.

[An hon. member]

Jail not bail, buddy. Jail not bail.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there we go. There is the rhyming. It is very productive.

Bill C-14 creates a regime that is going to help our frontline police officers. It is going to help our Crown attorneys, and it is going to make sure they are properly informed on what the principle of restraint actually means so it can be applied properly. When I speak with those frontline officers, unfortunately, the rhetoric of the world permeates their environment as well. What this new legislation would do is explain what the principle of restraint is. It would enhance the provisions of Bill C-75, and it is going to make an existing set of bail laws, which are already very good, better. They are good, because another Conservative witness came before the committee just this week and said that the existing bail laws in Canada right now are very good. The issue is enforcement, which takes me to my next point.

We are constantly being accused by the members opposite of trying to blame the provinces. We are not blaming the provinces; we are trying to teach the members of the opposition some civics. There are jurisdictional boundaries that the federal government has to follow, the province has to follow and municipalities have to follow. We are responsible for amending the Criminal Code. The provinces, which in my case is Ontario, are responsible for funding the court system, hiring Crown attorneys, building jails, and making sure there is the capacity to do what it has to do. Right now, it does not, and every witness who has come before the committee has agreed with that. The problem is that, if we do not work in conjunction with the provinces, or they do not work in conjunction with us, the problem could potentially become more problematic, because the weight of the new laws on a system that is already overburdened could create a whole new set of problems it is not prepared to deal with.

On Monday afternoon, we had a Crown attorney from British Columbia who agreed with that. We have had members of the law enforcement community who agree with that. We have had defence lawyers who agree with that. Everybody who is in the system agrees with that, because they understand it. This is not a case of pointing fingers and assigning blame. It is a case of people accepting responsibility for their own actions and what they can do. This is what this piece of legislation does.

If the Province of Ontario, in my case, is prepared to work with us, it needs to adopt these laws. In the riding of the justice critic for the Conservatives, there was a decision released just yesterday, or just this week, by a local judge who said, and I am sure he has probably appeared before him, that the system is broken because the jails are over capacity. We cannot even put people in there. The system is under such duress.

Building jails is the responsibility of the provincial government because it is the justices of the peace and the provincial governments that are responsible for this. In fact, this judge, and I would encourage the members opposite to go read the decision, increased the sentence so he could put them in a federal jail because there is capacity. The province is under-funding the system.

We talked about Bill C-48. Bill C-48 was adopted unanimously in the House. It is a positive piece of legislation. It helped the system. It strengthened the system, but we do not have any data on that, because data collection is also the responsibility of the provincial government. We need them to work with the federal government, the municipalities and the police forces so we can get this data, and any changes that need to be made at the provincial level can be done.

This is something that has been admitted by all of the witnesses who appear before the committee as well. To see the effectiveness of these laws, we need the co-operation of the provincial governments. They need to do their part and step up so we can make the system better as a whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke about principles of restraint, but he failed to mention Jonny, my daughter's boyfriend, who was stabbed to death by a violent repeat offender out on five different charges on bail, including attempted murder, all because of Bill C-75. Way to go.

Will Bill C-14, a bill that admits Bill C-75 was a failure, prevent cases like that of Jonny from happening? If not, will he admit it is a weak bill and needs improvement?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say how sorry I am. The heart of every member of the House, as I said earlier, goes out to people like that. I want to live in a world where that is not going to happen, just like the member does, and just like Jonny did. However, using these examples to suggest that the entirety of the system is broken is, with respect, unfair and a mis-characterization.

I am not familiar with the details of the case, so I cannot comment on it. The criminal should not have been out on bail. However, I would like to know what the circumstances were in the bail court, how many bail hearings there were that day, what the training of the justice of the peace was and what the Crown attorney's responsibilities were that day, because this is where the system is really under duress and is breaking down. We have to prevent situations like that from occurring ever again.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for his speech. I work with that member on various issues, including those related to Tibet, but we are dealing with something else today.

As my colleague knows, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑14 and wants to refer it to committee. However, we are apprehensive. We will propose amendments in committee. There will be discussions and hard work. The bill may be amended in committee.

Our fear is what will happen when the bill returns here from committee. If it is amended, but the Liberals do not like the amendments, they might use the House of Commons to cancel the amendments to the bill made in committee. That is what happened with Bill C‑3. That scares me because, if they can do that, then what is the point of working in committee?

Can my colleague assure us that the committee's work on Bill C‑14 will be respected?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also enjoy working with the hon. member on important issues like Tibet. His question was an excellent one.

We are prepared to work with all parties at committee to make sure the bill would be adopted in a fashion best suited for Canadians. We are open to amendments; we are always open to amendments. That is what the committee process is for. We respect the process of committees, and we respect the process of the House. The ultimate goal of course is to get the bill passed as quickly as possible, and that includes getting it through committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a very important point about data. I heard about that quite a bit this summer. Just the other day, a Conservative member was yelling out at me, asking how many people have been released on bail this year. I said we do not know, because that is not information the federal government has, nor do we know what types of crimes those people who end up being released more often have committed. Several times we have asked the premiers of the provinces to provide this information so we can make the best informed decisions for public safety in our country.

I would like to hear more from the member about how data could provide us with better informed decision-making at the federal level.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. It gets to the nub of the issue, because without data we cannot make further enhancements and the provinces cannot make further enhancements.

As I was saying in my previous response, we need to know the circumstances in which offences are subject to criminals' being released: how busy the courts are, what the workloads are for the Crown attorney and what the capacity is in the court system. This is the data we need as a country. The federal government can play a role in aggregating data, but the data comes from the provinces. It is as simple as that because they control the system. Without that data, further steps become more and more challenging, so I want to thank the member for the question. This is an issue we need to keep pushing forward.

A witness who actually was the commissioner of the OPP came to committee and talked about getting that data, because he said that Bill C-48 was a good bill but that we do not know how good because we do not have the provinces collecting the data.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to address what I believe is a major issue, one that has been talked about at great length.

I am going to go back to the last federal election. The constituents of Winnipeg North looked to the political entities and made a decision to support certain specific policy ideas and initiatives. The Prime Minister talked a great deal about building Canada strong, about one economy and about looking at ways to expand trade beyond the United States, but the Liberals also spent a great deal of time talking about bail reform.

We understand the concerns Canadians have regarding safer communities. That is why the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament have spent a great deal of time and energy dealing with the subject. Two ministers were assigned the responsibility of bringing forward bail legislation that reflects what we were hearing at the doors. Ministers have done extensive consultations on substantial issues like extortion, violent repeat offenders, automobile theft, sexual assault and many other crimes that take place in our communities.

The legislation is not only a reflection of what Canadians have been telling Liberal members of Parliament over the last number of months; it is also a reflection of what stakeholders have been telling the government. It has widespread support throughout our nation, I would suggest. That does not mean it is absolutely perfect legislation; I do not think anyone is saying that, but I will continue to advocate that if members are serious when they talk about the need for bail reform, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we cannot deliver that to Canadians before the end of the year.

I do not know how many Conservatives I have heard talking about the importance of bail reform. They are challenging the government to bring it forward. It is here, and we are debating it. I am now going to turn the tables and tell my Conservative friends that if they want to deliver on bail reform, we have the opportunity to do just that.

I would remind all members of the House, but in particular my Conservative friends, that this is not something one political party is talking about; it is something Canadians want, and they want Parliament to deliver it. In a minority situation, that requires a whole lot more co-operation. We have demonstrated that very clearly. Now the opposition has the opportunity to show Canadians it is more than just talk on the issue and will, in fact, respond.

The end of the year is coming quickly. There is other very important legislation before the House. There is Bill C-3, which deals with citizenship, and a Superior Court order has demanded that the legislation has to pass by November 20. Bill C-4 has just come from committee and would legitimize a tax break for over 20 million Canadians. Bill C-14 is before us, and I understand that the official opposition wants and is demanding bail reform legislation, but we all know it does not take much to frustrate the legislation.

We have a budget coming up on November 4, which will also demand the time of the chamber. There are substantial things before us, and that is why I look to my friends across the way, because they will ultimately determine whether in fact we are going to be able to have bail reform before the end of the year. It is up to the Conservatives to make that determination.

Let me encourage members in the strongest way possible that if we want bail reform legislation and the opportunities to have extensive discussions at the committee level, we need the bail reform legislation to pass quickly to committee. This would not take away from democracy within the chamber; In fact I can cite what members said earlier today when I raised the issue about the end: Let us have a goal and pass the legislation, new bail laws, before the end of the year.

Today a number of Conservatives have said that, yes, that is something we can achieve. I am going to call their bluff and challenge them to allow the bill to go to committee. That would mean they could continue to discuss it if they want to once it comes back at third reading, but it would also provide for detailed discussions and debate.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that this is the second day. All she has to do is check with some of her colleagues on the private member's bill.

I do not know his riding, but a member talked about passing his private member's bill and about how substantial it is for legislative changes, which it is, and he wanted it passed unanimously that day. He was trying to speed it up, and there is a limit of two hours of debate before it goes to committee. Members cannot have it both ways.

I would be happy if debate were limited to two hours like that on the private member's bill was, but the point is that we are not saying members cannot debate the bill. The bill can debated in committee. It can be debated endlessly at third reading, but if the Conservatives are genuine and they want bail reform to pass before the end of the year, they need to allow the legislation to pass. They cannot continue to filibuster legislation.

Bill C-2 was debated for over 18 hours. The opposition members are not a bunch of dummies. They understand the optics of filibustering. They understand that if they want to deliver for Canadians on bail reform, they need to allow the legislation to go to committee. Instead of trying to politicize the issue, they need to allow the legislation to deliver for Canadians. We need to put the interests of Canadians ahead of political parties; that is what I would say to my Conservative friends across the way.

The federal government is stepping up to the plate in a real and tangible way. Stakeholders have been very clear on that. We have worked with provinces, other stakeholders and average Canadians. The legislation before us is a true reflection, and that is why it is receiving the type of support it is. It needs to go to committee.

However, it is not just the federal government that needs to step up. I will read a quote from the Winnipeg Free Press from September. It is referring to the government in Manitoba:

The NDP has spoken frequently about its commitment to safer communities. It has announced more funding for police and has supported federal efforts to tighten bail laws.

But those measures mean little if there are not enough prosecutors to move cases through the courts in a timely manner....

The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials

The point is that the federal government, the provincial government and law enforcement officers who do their job through municipalities all need to deliver for Canadians.

The Prime Minister and government have now presented substantial legislation to reform the bail system. That would have a profoundly positive impact on making our communities safer. I ask the Conservatives to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!