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.
11 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?
Linked statement
“I want the member to explain how our bill to reform bail and fight crime helps the people in his riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that the member has been a champion not just for this bill but also for many other bills within our package of bills addressing crime, bail reform and criminal justice. Can the member speak to the importance of this with respect to his home riding?”
Mr. Speaker, I know that the member has been a champion not just for this bill but also for many other bills within our package of bills addressing crime, bail reform and criminal justice. Can the member speak to the importance of this with respect to his home riding?
“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?
“Communities support this bill to make bail and sentencing rules tougher. I want the member to explain how provinces and local police will help.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is wide support from communities for this bill to strengthen bail reform and sentencing across Canada. I wonder if the member could also talk about how the provinces and municipal police forces would also be involved and do their part.”
Mr. Speaker, there is wide support from communities for this bill to strengthen bail reform and sentencing across Canada. I wonder if the member could also talk about how the provinces and municipal police forces would also be involved and do their part.
“I want the House to accept most of the Senate's changes to our bail bill, adjust one, and reject one. People across Canada want stronger laws against violent crime and extortion. These changes improve the bill without slowing down needed reforms.”
“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.”
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.
“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?
“I want the House to pass this bill with the Senate's changes. Police, local leaders, and workers have told us we need tougher bail rules and harsher sentences for violent crimes. This bill does that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Senate heard from witnesses, and we feel its amendment is reasonable and fair and addresses some of the concerns it heard. We have heard loud and clear from municipal leaders, police chiefs, transit workers, victims advocates, business owners and communities that we need to strengthen Canada’s bail system, we need to toughen sentences for serious and violent crimes, we need to modernize the youth criminal justice system and we need to strengthen military justice. We feel that Bill C‑14 would do all of that.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 46 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, the Senate heard from witnesses, and we feel its amendment is reasonable and fair and addresses some of the concerns it heard. We have heard loud and clear from municipal leaders, police chiefs, transit workers, victims advocates, business owners and communities that we need to strengthen Canada’s bail system, we need to toughen sentences for serious and violent crimes, we need to modernize the youth criminal justice system and we need to strengthen military justice. We feel that Bill C‑14 would do all of that.
“This bill creates harsher punishments for people who attack transit drivers. Many of these attacks are linked to homelessness and mental illness. I want the government to fund health care instead of just making penalties worse. That would actually protect drivers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague a question in my capacity as vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The committee is concerned about homelessness and is currently conducting a study on the subject. One of the issues raised by the Bloc Québécois regarding Bill C‑14 has to do with the provision making it an aggravating factor to commit assault against a public transit driver. I have a great deal of respect for public transit drivers. That said, the attacks they are subjected to are often related to mental health issues and even homelessness. The Bloc Québécois believes that, rather than creating aggravating factors, it would have been better for the government to invest in health care to take care of these people and truly protect drivers. That would have been much more effective than simply adding aggravating factors, which may not really help the drivers. What does my colleague think?”
Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague a question in my capacity as vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The committee is concerned about homelessness and is currently conducting a study on the subject. One of the issues raised by the Bloc Québécois regarding Bill C‑14 has to do with the provision making it an aggravating factor to commit assault against a public transit driver. I have a great deal of respect for public transit drivers. That said, the attacks they are subjected to are often related to mental health issues and even homelessness. The Bloc Québécois believes that, rather than creating aggravating factors, it would have been better for the government to invest in health care to take care of these people and truly protect drivers. That would have been much more effective than simply adding aggravating factors, which may not really help the drivers. What does my colleague think?
“We are spending 1 billion dollars to build supportive housing for people facing homelessness, mental health issues, and addiction. I want us to pass this housing bill today.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that we need to do more to address homelessness in Canada, and that is why, with Build Canada Homes, we are investing $1 billion in supportive and transitional housing to help those who need it the most. Those are, in many cases, individuals suffering from mental health and addictions who need those wraparound supports, who want to come in off the street and improve their lives, but we need to ensure they have housing and services available to them. The good news is that we are getting closer to passing Bill C‑20 today, the Build Canada Homes act, and we look forward to working with everybody from coast to coast to coast to build that important housing that Canadians need.”
Mr. Speaker, we know that we need to do more to address homelessness in Canada, and that is why, with Build Canada Homes, we are investing $1 billion in supportive and transitional housing to help those who need it the most. Those are, in many cases, individuals suffering from mental health and addictions who need those wraparound supports, who want to come in off the street and improve their lives, but we need to ensure they have housing and services available to them. The good news is that we are getting closer to passing Bill C‑20 today, the Build Canada Homes act, and we look forward to working with everybody from coast to coast to coast to build that important housing that Canadians need.
“I want the member to name the experts advising the government on its crime and safety plans.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary’s remarks very closely. I was hoping she could touch on some of the experts who have helped advise the government on our law and order agenda, from police to members of our national security apparatus and transit workers, and everyone in between. Maybe the member could talk about some of the experts advising us.”
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary’s remarks very closely. I was hoping she could touch on some of the experts who have helped advise the government on our law and order agenda, from police to members of our national security apparatus and transit workers, and everyone in between. Maybe the member could talk about some of the experts advising us.
“I support this bill. It makes bail harder to get for repeat violent offenders. It also gives harsher punishments to people who attack any public transit worker.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy my colleague brought up transit workers. I know that as a Toronto MP, he is very committed to ensuring the safety of the TTC. I would like to point out that as acting mayor in 2023, I worked with Toronto council to call on the federal government to make bail harder to obtain for repeat violent offenders, and we are delivering that today with Bill C‑14. In addition, I worked with the Amalgamated Transit Union as a member of the TTC commission to advocate for stricter sentencing so that when the victim of the offence is a public transit operator or any other transit worker, we consider that an aggravating factor. Bill C‑14 would expand the federal Criminal Code to protect transit workers in all different disciplines. The Amalgamated Transit Union said, “Bill C‑14 delivers long-fought victory for every ATU Canada transit worker”. It also said, “For the first time, the Criminal Code of Canada recognizes that every transit worker, not just operators behind the wheel, deserves the full protection of the law.””
Mr. Speaker, I am happy my colleague brought up transit workers. I know that as a Toronto MP, he is very committed to ensuring the safety of the TTC. I would like to point out that as acting mayor in 2023, I worked with Toronto council to call on the federal government to make bail harder to obtain for repeat violent offenders, and we are delivering that today with Bill C‑14. In addition, I worked with the Amalgamated Transit Union as a member of the TTC commission to advocate for stricter sentencing so that when the victim of the offence is a public transit operator or any other transit worker, we consider that an aggravating factor. Bill C‑14 would expand the federal Criminal Code to protect transit workers in all different disciplines. The Amalgamated Transit Union said, “Bill C‑14 delivers long-fought victory for every ATU Canada transit worker”. It also said, “For the first time, the Criminal Code of Canada recognizes that every transit worker, not just operators behind the wheel, deserves the full protection of the law.”
