Bill C-14, Bail and Sentencing Reform Act · now law Where it stands
The law changes bail and sentencing rules in the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the National Defence Act. It places the burden on people accused of certain violent offences, car theft, or home break-ins to show why they should be released on bail. It also adds new aggravating factors for sentencing repeat violent offenders and those who target first responders, and restricts conditional sentences for sexual assault. The law makes other changes to youth justice rules and military justice.
3 statements
“I want to know why the Liberals support criminals instead of victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, why is it that Liberals always seem to support criminals rather than supporting victims’ rights?”
Mr. Speaker, why is it that Liberals always seem to support criminals rather than supporting victims’ rights?
“This change to the bill was supposed to apply only to Indigenous offenders in remote areas. Instead, the Senate wrote it to apply to everyone. Why did the government support changing it to apply to everyone?”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Senate amendment that the government supports, my understanding was that the focus was to provide some special consideration for indigenous offenders in remote areas who may not have the resources and the swath of friends and family to act as sureties. My understanding was that there was supposed to be a specific carve-out. However, the language that came from the Senate is of general application, making no reference to indigenous offenders specifically. Why was there a change to make that more general, and why is the government now supporting it when there was an intention to carve out a specific exception for indigenous offenders?”
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Senate amendment that the government supports, my understanding was that the focus was to provide some special consideration for indigenous offenders in remote areas who may not have the resources and the swath of friends and family to act as sureties. My understanding was that there was supposed to be a specific carve-out. However, the language that came from the Senate is of general application, making no reference to indigenous offenders specifically. Why was there a change to make that more general, and why is the government now supporting it when there was an intention to carve out a specific exception for indigenous offenders?
“Conservatives will not support the Senate change to this bill. We all agreed that someone convicted of a serious crime in the last 10 years cannot vouch for someone on bail. Now the Senate wants to let judges ignore that rule. I want to know why the government is changing its mind.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can inform the parliamentary secretary that the Conservatives will never support the government’s position in supporting the Senate amendment. I reject the premise of her entire speech, with all due respect. She claims that the Senate amendment would do nothing to alter the circumstances by which the government agreed unanimously to the Conservative amendment that a person convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years could not act as a surety. Now the Senate wants to give discretion to all judges, without any independent verification that any accused across this country cannot find someone who does not possess a clean record or something outside of 10 years. In those circumstances, why is the government backtracking on the position we all agreed to?”
Mr. Speaker, I can inform the parliamentary secretary that the Conservatives will never support the government’s position in supporting the Senate amendment. I reject the premise of her entire speech, with all due respect. She claims that the Senate amendment would do nothing to alter the circumstances by which the government agreed unanimously to the Conservative amendment that a person convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years could not act as a surety. Now the Senate wants to give discretion to all judges, without any independent verification that any accused across this country cannot find someone who does not possess a clean record or something outside of 10 years. In those circumstances, why is the government backtracking on the position we all agreed to?
