“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. We looked at a bill. The Senate looked at the bill. The House looked at the bill. Everyone agrees the bill is good. Some amendments were made. We looked at those too. The process was very thoughtful. Let's get this done and look good for the voters.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker I am pleased to rise to speak to the message from the Senate concerning Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. Today's debate is not about whether Bill C-14 should proceed. Both chambers of Parliament have now spent considerable time studying this legislation. The House of Commons debated it, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied it, witnesses testified, amendments were proposed and considered, and the Senate has now completed its review. The question before us today is how we should respond to the amendments proposed by the Senate. As I will outline, I believe the House is thoughtful. The recommendations from the Senate are thoughtful. They are measured and entirely consistent with the objectives of Bill C-14. Before discussing the specific amendments, however, it is worth reflecting on why Parliament embarked on this work in the first place. Over the last number of years, Canadians from every region of the country have raised concerns about public safety. Those concerns have come from municipal leaders. They have come from premiers. They have come from police chiefs. They have come from transit workers. They have come from victims advocates. They have come from business owners. They have come from families who have experienced the impacts of crime in their communities. In community after community, including in my community of Ajax, Canadians have told us that the status quo is not acceptable. They have told us that organized crime is becoming more sophisticated. They have told us that violent extortion is becoming more common. They have told us that human trafficking continues to devastate lives. They have told us that repeat violent offending remains a serious concern. They have told us that assaults against frontline workers continue to occur far too frequently. These concerns are not isolated to one province or one city. They are national concerns. In recent years, we have seen a dramatic increase in extortion offences across Canada. Businesses have been targeted. Families have been threatened. Communities have been shaken. Law enforcement agencies have repeatedly warned Parliament about the growing sophistication of organized criminal networks, as well as the challenges of combatting them. Canadians are calling for bail reform, and with this bill, we will deliver. We have heard concerns from municipal leaders. Mayors across the country have called for stronger tools to address public safety challenges in their communities. In 2023, as the acting mayor of the City of Toronto, I joined in that advocacy. Provincial and territorial governments have repeatedly called on the federal government to review the criminal law framework and ensure that serious violent offending is met with an effective response. Police associations and police leaders have echoed those calls. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has repeatedly raised concerns about repeat violent offending and organized criminal activity. Provincial police associations have called for reforms that strengthen public confidence in the judicial system while maintaining respect for constitutional rights and judicial independence. Bill C-14 is Parliament's response to those concerns. The legislation takes a targeted and measured approach. It would strengthen bail provisions for certain serious offences. It would respond to repeat violent offending. It would create stronger sentencing measures for extortion and arson committed for criminal purposes. It would strengthen protections related to human trafficking. The bill includes measures aimed at improving public safety while maintaining judicial discretion and preserving charter protections. Importantly, Bill C-14 is not the product of a single political party acting alone. Throughout the legislative process, members from different parties have contributed to the bill. Amendments were proposed. Suggestions were considered. Improvements were made. The result is stronger legislation. That collaborative approach continued in the Senate. The Senate heard testimony from a wide range of witnesses. It reviewed the legislation carefully. It proposed amendments where senators believed refinements were warranted. The House now has an opportunity to consider those amendments. The first amendment before us today concerns sureties. As members know, the House adopted an amendment that would prohibit a person convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years from acting as a surety. The Senate amendment would maintain that prohibition while allowing a court to exercise limited discretion in exceptional circumstances when no other surety is available and when doing so would be in the interest of justice. The government supports this amendment. It is important to understand why. The objective of the original House amendment remains intact. Individuals convicted of indictable offences would remain prohibited from acting as sureties. The Senate amendment would not remove that prohibition. It would not undermine that prohibition. It would not create a broad exception. Instead, it would create a narrow exception that may be used only when specific conditions are met. During the Senate study, witnesses raised concerns about how an absolute prohibition might operate in certain remote, rural and northern communities. In some communities, particularly in Canada's north, the pool of potential sureties can be extremely limited. The Senate heard testimony suggesting that an inflexible rule could create practical difficulties in circumstances where no other surety exists. The amendment would recognize those realities while maintaining the overall objective adopted by the House. It would preserve the rule while allowing courts to address exceptional circumstances. There would be reasonable balance. The second amendment concerns bail reporting. Members will recall that the House adopted an amendment requiring annual reporting respecting bail data. The Senate proposed expanding that reporting framework by including information related to rates of detention before trial. The government supports that proposal. Good public policy depends on good information. Parliamentarians should have access to meaningful data. Canadians should have confidence that decisions are informed by evidence. Including information regarding pretrial detention could help provide a more complete picture of how the bail system operates across the country. At the same time, the Senate amendment would also require the minister to consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection in the criminal justice system, including Statistics Canada. The government proposes modifying this portion of the Senate amendment. The reason is straightforward. The minister already possesses the ability to engage with experts, stakeholders and partners as required. Nothing in the legislation would prevent that engagement. Indeed, effective policy development routinely involves collaboration with experts and partners. However, creating a statutory consultation requirement is unnecessary and could reduce flexibility in the preparation of future reports. For that reason, the government proposes retaining the reporting enhancements while removing the mandatory consultation requirement. The third amendment concerns proposed subsection 515(13.2). The government respectfully disagrees with this amendment. The amendment would require a justice to ask on the record whether section 493.2 applies, even when neither party raises the issue. The objective behind the amendment is understandable. However, existing law already addresses the issue. Parliament previously enacted subsection 515(13.1), which requires courts to state on the record how section 493.2 was considered in making a bail decision. As a practical matter, compliance with that provision already requires consideration. The proposed amendment, therefore, would duplicate obligations that already exist. It would not create a new protection or right, and it would not alter the legal analysis requirements at bail. For those reasons, the government believes the amendment is unnecessary, and respectfully disagrees with it. The final amendment concerns the coming into force of provisions related to youth records. The government supports this amendment. Implementation matters. When Parliament enacts significant changes, justice system partners, police services, prosecutors and provincial and territorial partners require time to prepare. The amendment would provide flexibility to ensure that these provisions are implemented effectively and reasonably. When we step back and look at the amendments as a whole, an important point becomes clear. None of these amendments would alter the fundamental objectives of Bill C-14. None of them would change the core public safety measures contained the legislation or Parliament's commitment to addressing serious violent crime, organized crime, extortion or human trafficking. Canadians are looking to Parliament for action. They are looking for results. Police leaders have called for action. Provincial governments have called for action. Municipal leaders have called for action. Victims advocates have called for action. Community organizations have called for action. Canadians expect us to respond. Bill C-14 represents an important step forward. It would provide stronger tools to address violent offending, strengthen responses to extortion and organized criminal activity and enhance protections for communities, and it would do so while respecting judicial discretion, constitutional protections and the fundamental principles of our justice system. The Senate has completed its work. The House now has the opportunity to complete its work. We can accept some of these amendments and improve this bill. We propose a targeted modification where appropriate. We respectfully reject an amendment that would be unnecessary because the existing law already accomplishes its objective. We encourage all members of the House to support the motion before us so that Bill C-14 may proceed without delay and Canadians can benefit from these important reforms.
View on ourcommons.ca ↗
