Bail and Sentencing Reform Bill

Moved second reading of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).

He said: Honourable senators, as sponsor, it is my responsibility to introduce, at second reading, Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing). These are the two key elements of the bill.

Although this bill contains 62 clauses to amend the Criminal Code, they mainly concern two important stages of criminal trials: the first at the very beginning, namely the release on bail of an accused, and the second at the very end, namely the sentencing of a person found guilty.

The purpose of the proposed amendments is to improve public safety by targeting three groups of offenders: repeat offenders, persons involved in organized crime and persons who commit violent offences.

My presentation is divided into three parts. The first part concerns fact-based information offering a brief summary of the context surrounding the proposed amendments. The second part focuses on proposed amendments to the post-arrest release process. Lastly, the third and final part concerns the proposed sentencing-related additions.

Like most of you, I believe that policy choices in criminal law should rest more on a factual basis than on the public mood of the day.

Over the years, this chamber — and more often its Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee — has noticed the paucity of data on many aspects of the criminal justice system. This is due, in part, to a lack of uniform data collection by the police, courts and other law enforcement authorities, all of which are part of the daily administration of criminal law justice, which rests with the provinces and territories.

Unfortunately, this is still the case. However, it remains possible to access a substantial amount of data relevant to this bill.

The first source is the annual reports from StatCan on police‑reported crimes. These reports show that the rate of reported crimes increased by 12% from 2014 to 2024. Fortunately, the latest report, released in July 2025, indicates a decrease in this rate of approximately 4% in 2024 compared to 2023. Finally, the report shows that the rate of youth aged 12 to 17 charged across Canada did increase.

Of greater interest to us today is another report published by StatCan called the Crime Severity Index. This index is based on a combination of the volume of police-reported crimes and the relative severity of the crimes, leading to two sub-indexes: the violent offences index and the non-violent offences index.

Overall, the Crime Severity Index was down 4% in 2024, the first decrease since the pandemic. However, data by province for 2024 indicates that the Crime Severity Index increased in Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Northwest Territories, so there are also regional trends.

The significant national decrease resulted from a drop of 6% of the non-violent crime index, following a 9% increase from 2021 to 2023, while the violent crime index was down merely 1%, following an increase of 15% over the previous three years. Put differently, non-violent crimes seem to have gone down significantly, but not violent crimes.

There are also interesting trends to signal for both categories of crime. For example, amongst non-violent crimes, the rates of breaking and entering and motor vehicle theft declined substantially in 2024 thanks to the efforts and coordination by all levels of government, while the rate of shoplifting and theft below $5,000 has continued to rise since 2022.

Statistics Canada reports show that 182,361 shoplifting complaints were made to police in 2024. This represents a 14% increase over 2023, and the fourth consecutive annual increase in this type of crime.

In 2024, Peel Regional Police in Ontario reported 8,505 shoplifting cases, for a 30.7% increase over 2023.

Statistics published on the Vancouver Police Department website show that two types of crime — theft and possession of stolen property — have been on the rise since 2021. The Montreal police website has similar statistics.

In fact, shoplifting increased by 67% nationally between 2014 and 2024. According to the Retail Council of Canada, shoplifting-related losses rose from $5 billion to $9 billion between 2018 and 2024. The Council adds that this increase is attributable to several factors, including a decline in police intervention, the ease of reselling stolen goods on social media and the involvement of organized crime, which operates within highly sophisticated shoplifting networks. In Ontario, pharmacies have been systematically targeted for theft, with the stolen goods being resold in shopping centres. They are small items that the police do not bother with, but it is all part of these networks, which is why the police are interested in the networks.

In 2024, targeted police operations led to the arrest of more than 1,000 people in Canada, many of them repeat offenders, and dismantled resale networks.

Among violent crimes, the Statistics Canada report indicates that the national homicide rate went down in 2024 for the second year in a row. However, 28 more women were killed in 2024, compared to 34 fewer men. It was also noted that in 2024, 42% of women killed were killed by a spouse or intimate partner, compared to 32% in 2023. The report also mentions that the victimization rate is higher among Indigenous people than non‑Indigenous people, and that more than one-third of homicide victims are racialized.

Finally, the Montreal police website indicates that between 2023 and 2024, the number of cases of assault, sexual assault and other crimes against persons was on the rise, unfortunately.

Extortion, a violent crime that involves obtaining property through coercion, also remains a problem. Despite a 10% decline in 2024, the rate of this crime was four times higher in 2024 than in 2014, reaching 13,140 cases reported to the police nationwide. This type of crime is not always reported to the police. In addition, it appears that organized crime is increasingly involved in this type of crime.

On June 16, 2025, the Peel Regional Police in Ontario, which serve an area that includes the cities of Brampton and Mississauga, announced that it had conducted an investigation with other police forces and had successfully dismantled a criminal ring that was defrauding vehicle insurers and extorting small towing companies. The investigation managed to recover over $4 million in property, firearms and ammunition. Police arrested 18 individuals, almost half of them having been released on bail while awaiting trial.

In B.C., it was reported that violent extortion crimes increased from 370 in 2014 to 3,216 in 2024. This represents an increase of over 500% in 10 years. In 2025, this crime remained a major issue in British Columbia. In response, on September 17, 2025, the B.C. government announced a special task force of 40 police officers led by the RCMP to coordinate efforts in targeting organized crime activity involved in extortion-related threats, especially against the South Asian community.

It is in this context that the provinces and territories have asked the Minister of Justice and the Government of Canada to adopt measures targeting organized crime, recidivists and violent offenders.

In fact, Bill C-14 is now one of the top priorities arising from the First Ministers’ Meeting held in Ottawa on January 29, 2026. They spoke about international trade and the sovereignty of Canada. They spoke about the barriers between provinces that are coming down. They concluded that Bill C-14 was a top priority for them.

Their call is supported by the National Police Federation as well as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, an organization that is dear to our colleague Senator Forest. It is also supported by the data I have just reviewed, which shows that organized crime, recidivism and violent offenders continue to pose a serious risk to Canadians, especially in certain communities.

Of course, for the proposed amendments to be effective without creating further delay in an already overtaxed justice system, the provinces must dedicate the required additional resources. This includes hiring more Crown attorneys, appointing more justices of the peace, improving access to more courtrooms and staff, proper oversight to ensure compliance with conditions imposed on bail, additional capacity in provincial jails to end overcrowding, the involvement of social workers, access to mental illness support and other resources to address the root cause of many of these offences.

With all that said about the context, today we are called to focus on Bill C-14, mindful that it is one piece of a much larger puzzle within the criminal justice system.

I will now move to Bill C-14’s proposed amendments to the bail stage of the criminal process. Bail decisions are among the most challenging aspects of the criminal justice system for judges. Decisions are made early in the process, often under significant time pressure and in relation to individuals who are presumed innocent yet, in some cases, may pose serious risks to the security of the community if released or try to escape the country to avoid a trial.

Furthermore, the judge must take into consideration the recognized rights of a person charged with an offence under section 11(e) of the Charter “not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.”

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, this provision protects “. . . both the right not to be denied bail without just cause and the right to bail on reasonable terms . . .” and conditions.

Section 11(e) entrenches the presumption of innocence at the bail stage and safeguards the liberty of accused persons.

In fact, in matters of bail, as in all other aspects of criminal proceedings, the principle of restraint must govern. Prisons should generally be an option of last resort. Police officers and judges should seek the least intrusive measures that will achieve the overall purpose of bail.

The ladder principle, which is an important bail principle premised on restraint, “. . . requires that the form of release imposed on an accused be no more onerous than necessary . . . .”

If the officer is of the view that bail should be denied, the accused must be brought rapidly before a judge or a justice of the peace, who will be guided by the principle of restraint.

Bill C-14 proposes statutory guidance to address concerns that the principle of restraint has sometimes been misunderstood as favouring release over public protection or the preservation of public confidence in the administration of justice, leading to uneven application across the country. That’s why the bill proposes a statutory framework of analysis.

Second, Bill C-14 proposes to add categories of offenders to the existing ones for which the accused has the burden to convince the judge that he or she be released on bail. These situations are called reverse onuses.

In our criminal system, the onus to convince a judge generally rests on the Crown. This means that when an accused is brought before a court, it is generally up to the Crown to convince the presiding judge that the accused should not be released on bail.

However, it is now well-settled law that the onus can be reversed and put on the shoulders of an accused in a narrow set of circumstances in order to promote the proper functioning of the bail system. The Supreme Court has already upheld reverse onuses, for example, in the case of an accused charged with drug trafficking, an offence that is very often tied to organized crime and where offenders thus have access to the means to flee the country.

The court has also upheld the reverse onus that applies when an accused person, already released on charges of an indictable offence, is then charged with another indictable offence.

In a more recent case, a trial court in B.C. — the Supreme Court of British Columbia — upheld the reverse onus that applies where an accused is on release and then returns to the court on charges of breaching their undertaking, summons or release order.

A reverse onus, for example, also applies when an individual is charged with violence against an intimate partner and has a prior conviction involving intimate partner violence. We did that in Bill C-75. These accused are then presumed to be a risk to the victim if released.

Bill C-14 proposes to extend the reverse onus for serious crimes such as human trafficking, organized or violent auto theft, violent extortion and assault or sexual assault involving choking or strangulation. These crimes are associated with either a propensity to use violence by the accused or participation in organized crime. These characteristics are associated with a risk to public safety if the accused is released on bail.

For example, assaults and sexual assaults involving strangulation constitute a known risk factor for escalating violence or fatal violence against women leading to femicide.

For those offences that represent a heightened danger for victims and communities, the bill proposes to shift to the accused the onus to show the judge that detention is not necessary. This means that where a reverse onus applies, the starting point is a presumption of detention.

The existing reverse onus provision for accused persons who have a relevant prior conviction for violence with a weapon and are then charged with a similar serious offence will be expanded from 5 years to 10 years.

The bill also reinforces the quality of decision making regarding bail by emphasizing the need for the accused to show cause “. . . by clearly demonstrating that their proposed release plan addresses the risks posed by the accused . . . .”

Incidentally, it must be made clear that it is not the intent of the minister, the government or Parliament to impose upon the accused a higher threshold than the balance of probabilities, which is the applicable standard of proof, contrary to what was asserted in some briefs presented at the other place opposing that provision.

In addition, these amendments direct judges to scrutinize whether a proposed plan meaningfully addresses the risks posed by the accused, including risks to specific victims or the public more broadly.

These two requirements, the proposal of a plan and the obligation of the judge to scrutinize it carefully, respond to concerns that release plans have, in some cases, lacked sufficient structure, supervision or enforceability to prevent breaches or reoffending.

This being said, a reverse onus and the need for the accused to clearly demonstrate a credible and reliable release plan do not mandate or predetermine detention as the outcome. It is to be clearly understood that it will continue to be the presiding judge who will make the decision as to whether detention is justified or decide on the form and terms of the release on bail.

A third set of amendments, more technical, proposes several efficiency measures that address long-standing practical challenges identified by police, prosecutors, defence counsel and judges. I won’t elaborate much on them, except one measure that concerns the bail review scheme provided in the Criminal Code. The existing bail review scheme is complex and has been interpreted differently by courts across the country. Under the current law, it is unclear whether a judge can review the bail decisions of another judge of the same court. In some provinces, you have to appeal, even to the Supreme Court.

Bill C-14 would clarify that bail review decisions are reviewable by a judge of the same court so that neither the accused nor the Crown would be required to seek review before a Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, the Criminal Code is silent on this issue.

These changes aim to bring clarity to the bail review scheme and to ensure that it operates more consistently and predictably nationwide.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the House committee added an amendment requiring the Minister of Justice to table an annual report on the state of bail in Canada. This report will include information on bail outcomes, data on the accessibility of bail and disparities between different groups. Hopefully, the provinces will provide the necessary information, and, over time, consistent reporting will help build a clearer national picture of how bail operates and where improvements may be required.

Better bail data would support improved decision making at every stage of the process. For police, it could inform release decisions and risk assessments. For courts, it could shed light on the effectiveness of particular conditions or release plans. For governments, it could enable more informed policy development, resource allocation and evaluation of whether legislative reforms are achieving their objectives. Importantly, it would also allow justice partners to identify emerging issues earlier.

Before concluding my remarks on bail, I want to say that the minister and the government are mindful of the overrepresentation of Indigenous people and Black people in the criminal justice system, including as victims and survivors of crime. This is a known issue with Canada’s criminal justice system. The reverse onus provisions, though targeting very specific subgroups of offenders, might result in more overrepresentation of these groups, as acknowledged in the Gender-based Analysis Plus associated with the bill. It is, therefore, an issue that should be monitored by the government and covered in the minister’s annual report.

The minister also reminded me that the government is investing in programs addressing systemic discrimination and overrepresentation, including Canada’s Black Justice Strategy, which plans investments of $67.5 million over two years, with $23.6 million starting in 2025-26 for the Department of Justice. Investment will also be made in Canada’s Indigenous Justice Strategy, which identifies priority actions to address systemic discrimination and overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system.

The minister also referred to parts of Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), which includes a new crime called coercive control, which is very important in the matter of control of women by intimate partners. That bill is known by its short title, “Protecting Victims Act.” It is currently going through the committee stage in the other place. It will directly address some of the issues I just mentioned by emphasizing that particular attention must be paid to the needs of Indigenous persons and Black persons in relation to restorative justice.

Finally, I want to draw your attention to section 493.2 of the Criminal Code, which requires a peace officer, justice or judge to give particular attention to the circumstances of an accused person who is Indigenous or who belongs to a vulnerable and overrepresented population when making a bail decision. This obligation is complemented by section 515(13.1), a Senate amendment to the former bill on bail reform that requires judges to include in the record a statement that sets out whether and how they have applied the requirements of the previous sections to give particular attention to the circumstances of the accused who belong to Indigenous or overrepresented groups.

I will now turn to my third and last point, sentencing. Bill C-14 proposes targeted amendments designed to ensure that sentences better reflect the seriousness of certain forms of offending and the harm caused to victims and communities. These amendments provide clearer statutory direction in circumstances where denunciation, deterrence and accountability are particularly important.

The proposed changes can be divided into three categories: additions to the list of aggravating factors found at section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, broadening the scope for consecutive sentences and excluding conditional sentence orders for certain serious offences.

Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the purpose and principles of sentencing. Section 718.1 states the fundamental principle of proportionality, which is that a sentence must always be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. These sections are not amended.

As for section 718.2 — which is amended — entitled “Other sentencing principles,” it imposes on a judge the obligation to consider whether a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The provision explicitly sets out what constitutes aggravating factors.

As the Supreme Court of Canada described in R. v. Nasogaluak, mitigating and aggravating factors, after consideration of the other sentencing objectives, which are the big principles, will “. . . push the sentence up or down the scale of appropriate sentences for similar offences.” The weight of such factors is decided in each case based on the facts before the court.

The bill proposes to add as an aggravating factor the fact that the offence was committed against a person who was providing services as a first responder. I think Senator Housakos previously introduced a similar bill. Violence against first responders not only endangers their personal safety but also undermines the ability of emergency services to function effectively and protect communities. By requiring courts to treat assaults on first responders acting in the course of their duties as aggravating factors, Bill C-14 reinforces the importance of safeguarding those who serve on the front lines of public safety.

The bill, amongst other factors, also proposes to add as another aggravating factor offences committed with the use of violence against another person by an offender who was convicted of a similar offence within the previous five years. That addition targets repeat violent offenders.

Another aggravating factor is stealing material that belongs to necessary infrastructure, and it is specifically targeting the theft of copper from telecommunications companies — a crime which is unfortunately on the rise. It has severe consequences, like breaking down the communication network for the time of repair.

The second category of amendments imposes mandatory consecutive sentences in connection with the following categories of offences, despite the fact that both offences committed arise from the same event or series of events: One refers to a combination of an arson offence and an extortion offence. That could be a case where a criminal sets fire or threatens to set fire to a store if the owner does not pay a certain amount of money. That would be considered two separate offences and would lead to consecutive sentences. The same will apply to offences that are accompanied by violence or are committed for the benefit of organized crime, specifically in the case of motor vehicle theft, or a combination of violent and organized crime offences of motor vehicle theft, as well as breaking and entering.

The bill would also require courts to consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders who have a previous conviction for a similar offence within the preceding five years. This ensures that each offence is fully recognized at sentencing and the totality of the harm caused is reflected in the sentence imposed.

Such amendments, however, do not detract from a court’s statutory requirement under section 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code to consider, where consecutive sentences are imposed, whether the combined sentence is unduly long or harsh. Of course, the principle of proportionality also continues to apply, as well as the right not to be subjected to any cruel or unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter such that the sentence ordered must not be grossly disproportionate to an otherwise fit and proportionate sentence.

I now move to the third category of proposed amendments on sentencing, which excludes — at the request of the provinces and territories — the availability of conditional sentence orders, known as CSOs or house arrest, for serious sexual offences. The bill also proposes to exclude conditional sentence orders where the Crown proceeds by indictment in cases of sexual assault and sexual offences exploiting children or persons with a disability. This will ensure that sentences for the most serious sexual offences are served in custodial settings that reflect the gravity of the harm involved, the need for denunciation and the importance of public confidence in the justice system.

In addition to the above modifications, Bill C-14 also restores the availability of driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm caused by driving a car, which unfortunately was deleted in the previous iteration of amendments to the Criminal Code. The bill requires courts to prioritize denunciations and deterrence when sentencing those convicted of certain offences.

Incidentally, for these serious sexual offences, courts prioritize imprisonment to deter. And it’s rare that a conditional sentence order would be made in the case of serious sexual offences. The amendment will foreclose the courts — in the rare cases where it could be done — from making a conditional sentence order.

Before I conclude, I need to mention that the bill includes targeted amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Before time runs out, I wish to highlight three changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

First, the bill aims to clarify the definition of “violent offence” by specifying that it includes all offences where bodily harm is caused. As drafted in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it says that a violent offence “. . . includes as an element the causing of bodily harm . . . .” This meaning was very unclear for some judges, so the phrase “as an element” will be removed. If the offence results in bodily harm, it will be considered a violent offence. The term “violent offence” will also be clarified to include young persons committing an offence involving the use or trafficking of a firearm.

Second, the bill proposes to allow the police to publish the identity of a young person without a court order for a maximum period of 24 hours in an urgent situation where there is imminent danger to public safety and where a court order could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained. We are now talking about the recent event in B.C. Under the current law, the police could not identify the offender as things were progressing. Currently, police can publish the identity of a young person only further to a court authorization and for a maximum period of five days. In exceptional circumstances, when there is urgency and you cannot reach any judge, then you will be allowed to proceed without judicial authorization only because the safety of the community is at risk.

Third, an amendment will allow the police to access records of extrajudicial measures, other than extrajudicial sanctions, during a two-year period to assist in investigation. Essentially, it is unclear if the police can have access to the records of an investigation that was concluded without a charge when it involved a young person. This would allow access within a period of two years. There is no period mentioned now in the law, so somehow the access could be unlimited. That access will now be limited to two years, but it will be clarified that police can have access.

I know that in some briefs, defence lawyers are arguing they should also have access. This is an issue that will be considered, I suppose, at the committee stage.

While these amendments address violent offending by youth, the proposed amendments do not affect the Youth Criminal Justice Act’s emphasis on rehabilitation, reintegration and proportionality, recognizing the distinct principles that should apply in the youth justice context.

In conclusion, Bill C-14 responds to concerns consistently raised across the country about repeat violent offending and some particular crimes that are becoming endemic, the whole in a calibrated way and remaining firmly grounded in the foundational principles of Canadian criminal and constitutional law.

Of course, Bill C-14 is only one piece of a much larger puzzle within the criminal justice system, as I mentioned before. Parliament and the provinces and territories shall remain aware of that caveat and act accordingly. Thank you very much for your attention.

Would Senator Dalphond take some questions?

With pleasure, Senator Pate.

Thank you.

Senator Dalphond, there were lots of numbers in your speech, and thank you for that. I want to remind you and ask you a question based on a little bit of history.

In January 2024, Bill C-48 came into force. It included targeted measures aimed at repeat violent offenders, particularly in the area of intimate partner violence, with reverse onus provisions. One of the issues raised — as you have raised — was that there was a large increase in the proportion of women killed by a spouse in a situation of intimate partner violence, and that was the rationale. You’ve repeated that rationale. Bill C-48 has been in effect for more than a year — in fact, two years — so that raises some questions about the correlation or the causal impact of certain bills.

In addition, there’s a significant body of evidence suggesting that harsher bail increases, rather than decreases, crime. That research has been the basis for some other changes that have been made.

I’m curious about what steps were taken to evaluate the concrete impacts of Bill C-48 in terms of crime prevention before enacting more reverse onuses. As successive ministers of justice — Minister Verani, Minister Lametti and even Minister Fraser — have pointed out, there is a paucity of data coming from provinces. You alluded to that, but you presented some data. In fact, recently, Minister Fraser said the following:

It’s not as though there’s an effective national dataset that will demonstrate conclusively that certain changes will or will not have a desired impact.

Despite these statements, the federal government has announced no new strategy, initiative or proposal to improve data collection regarding the bail system. Why not take that step first before embarking on a path that we’ve already been on for two years, which has been shown to be ineffective?

Thank you for the questions. There are many questions. They are very important and deserve to be considered.

I wonder if it’s Bill C-48 or Bill C-75 where we have intimate partner violence. Yes, we introduced that two years ago. Is it effective? To a certain extent, it’s effective, but, this unfortunate and very tragic event that happened in B.C. last year gave rise to Bailey’s law, which was introduced in the other place by an MP. It involved a mother of two who was killed by her estranged partner while he was released on bail.

The message here in the amendments is that we should take these things even more seriously. With the amendment, such a person will not only have the reverse onus but will also have to come up with a credible and reliable release plan, and the judge will have to consider that release plan seriously and comment on it.

The bill, if adopted, will impose a stricter burden on the accused, who has a reverse onus because he has already been convicted. In the case referred to, the man previously convicted of intimate partner violence offences will have to put forward a credible and reliable plan if he wants to be released, and the judge will have to consider it seriously. He, the accused, should come up with more uniformity and consider other serious matters.

With regard to the second point about the data, I not only alluded to it, but I clearly referred to it as one of the major gaps that compels us to act without a proper set of data, but we do, in fact, have some data. If the suggestion is to wait until we have more data to act, I prefer to apply the principle of prudence, saying, let’s act now and collect more data later. Let’s not wait any longer so that some of the repeated offenders or criminals can act —

I’m sorry to interrupt you, Senator Dalphond, but your time has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes to answer questions?

If the chamber is willing to give me five more minutes.

Is leave granted for 10 more minutes?

Thank you, Senator Dalphond. As a former judge and now the government sponsor of this bill, I think you’re well aware that making decisions without data can be incredibly problematic. When making decisions, there’s a saying that I’m sure you’re familiar with: Bad facts make bad law. Moreover, one individual high-profile case can result in significant challenges.

Bill C-75 also introduced measures. At every stage, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee emphasized the need for data, indicating that these decisions have yet again been made without data being provided by the provinces.

Why not, instead, insist that the government go back to the provinces and territories and insist on receiving that data? They’re saying this is a data-driven and data-based series of decisions. Why not prove that? In fact, the data shows just the opposite: the approach they’re taking will do exactly what you alluded to. It will result in more people, particularly marginalized groups, being jailed. It will result in more youth and others who are easier to catch being caught up in the system.

I think I’ve answered already, but I can only say that data collection is done by the provinces and territories, not by the federal government. The jurisdiction of criminal law is a federal jurisdiction; it’s a federal obligation; it’s a federal duty. The provinces and territories have come to Ottawa — attorneys general first and then the first ministers. They are all asking for these measures. They are responsible for the administration of justice within their provinces and territories. The police are asking for these measures.

The results of some arrests that were done and real facts show that, unfortunately, for example, what is being proposed for shoplifting offences is to be tough when it’s done as a part of organized crime. It’s not targeting the person who is going to a store to steal bread because he cannot afford to pay for bread. We’re talking about people who are part of an organized network. They go and steal about $300 or $400 every day. They appear before the judge, and the judge releases them sometimes without conditions. They are back on the street and then go back in. Why do they do that? It’s because they’re part of a network.

The police have arrested many of them, and they are repeat offenders. So we have to address that issue. We cannot remain silent and wait while more of that kind of crime occurs. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dalphond, for taking more questions. I’m the critic of the bill, so I have some definite questions for you on this.

First of all, section 1 of Bill C-14 sets out the short title of this bill as the “Bail and Sentencing Reform Act.”

The bill is now 39 pages long, and there are some provisions which take away some house arrest provisions and some possibilities for aggravated sentencing, but there is only one clause in that 39-page bill that would actually increase the sentence for one offence, that being, “. . . contempt of court increases from 90 days to two years less a day.”

Sadly, many Canadians now feel less safe in our society. Given this, why is the Liberal government incorrectly trying to portray to the Canadian public that a significant part of this bill involves increasing criminal sentences?

Thank you, Senator Batters. I’m looking forward to hearing your speech. Yes, I know you’re as prepared as I am.

To be exact, you said that’s only one offence that has been increased. Yes, technically speaking, you are right. But the reality is that when we change the rules for some types of offences to impose upon judges an obligation to impose consecutive sentences, we’re going to have sentences where the whole sentence for the convicted offender will be a longer sentence than he or she would have received now under the current system. Because, as you know, under the current system, normally, if it’s a series of events, the sentences run at the same time, so the longest one determines the length of imprisonment, but they don’t add to each other; they run concurrently. This will no longer be possible, so the person will be detained for a longer period.

So to say that it doesn’t change anything, I think, is not true. Well, at least it’s an imprecision in what you say. For sure, the result for all these offences is going to be longer sentences.

Certainly, those provisions are very limited, so we’ll have a chance to discuss that more at committee.

Secondly, with Bill C-5, the Liberal government widely expanded the ability of convicted criminals to receive house arrest as their sentence, and Bill C-14 — this bill — takes away the ability to get house arrest for some of those offences. But there remain many serious offences that do continue to be eligible for house arrest, and that includes human trafficking — which you actually in your speech tonight called a serious crime — robbery and weapons trafficking. Why did the Liberal government oppose the Conservative amendment at the House committee which would have stopped house arrest for those types of serious crimes?

Thank you very much for another excellent question. Again, I think all these are nuances in criminal law — as well as other fields of law, but more in criminal law — but you are referring to offences that are hybrid offences in most cases; that’s the cases you’re referring to. The person can be charged on indictment or on a summary offence.

If it’s a summary offence, it is because the Crown is of the view that it’s not a case that deserves to be treated like the most serious charge, which is through an indictment. So, if the Crown opts to go by indictment, that person will not be eligible for a conditional sentence order. However, if the Crown is of the view that what fits more is a summary conviction, of course, that would remain available. And that’s probably what fits more all the criteria that the Criminal Code provides for sentencing — the seriousness of the crime, the particular circumstances of the accused and the consequences for the victim. All these things have to be factored in.

The Crown will do the first screening, and the court will act accordingly. But it will be up to the Crown — the prosecutor — to decide if they go with an indictment or summary conviction. If they go with an indictment, the end result is that there is no possibility of getting a conditional sentence order.

Yes, it certainly still remains, though, a human trafficking conviction, whether it’s summary or indictable, and I actually can’t really think of an example in which I would consider human trafficking to ever not be a serious crime.

Another issue is this: You mentioned in your speech tonight what a serious crime extortion is, but Bill C-14, which was introduced by the Carney Liberal government in late October, when this scourge of extortion was already quite well known in Canada, makes only minimal mention of extortion as a crime and dealing with the consequences of that. Extortion has gone up 330% over the last 10 years, so why didn’t the government use the legislative measure of this bill, Bill C-14, to combat it in a more serious way?

I forgot: What was your first comment?

You mentioned what a serious crime extortion is. So why didn’t the government use this bill to combat it in a more serious way? It really has just a minimal mention in the bill.

Sorry, yes, the first part was about human trafficking; I remember now. Yes, human trafficking is a very serious offence, but all the participants are not necessarily committing the most serious offences. For example, a person who drives a car, and he brings in the car someone who is part of that network. That person knows more or less, but doesn’t do much — maybe that person doesn’t deserve to be charged under an indictment, but on a summary conviction. It might be somebody who was not even aware — should they have been more suspicious? Maybe not.

There are always nuances in all the types of participation that the offender is accused of. That’s why I say there are cases where a summary conviction might be most appropriate.

About arson and extortion, certainly extortion is a major issue. That’s why there are many provisions here to ensure that if you are accused of extortion and violence, or in the case of organized crime, you have a reverse onus at bail —

I’m sorry to interrupt again, Senator Dalphond. Two other senators — Senator Coyle and Senator Simons — wish to ask questions. Are you asking for five more minutes to answer those questions?

I ask for four more minutes. I think at some point it will become a cruel punishment, but so far I can take it.

Is leave granted?

The question could be directed more to Senator Moreau. Certainly, for housing, the government, in the budget, in Bill C-15, has a tremendous amount — well, not tremendous but a series of provisions about that. There is the creation of the new corporation Build Canada Homes and the fact that one third of the budget — as a matter of fact, most of the projects by Build Canada Homes will be not-for-profit projects. They will be kind of social programs. I’m glad I’m a member of the National Finance Committee, so I know about this.

Of course, this is intended to fill a niche which is not filled by the market and to support the municipalities and provinces that want to provide housing at a price which is way below the market price and to address poverty and homelessness. But this would not be automatic. It would take months and years to see the results, but I think this is one of the initiatives.

I have referred to the initiatives under the Black Justice Strategy and Indigenous programs. I think the government could maybe do more, but certainly they are not backtracking. I asked the questions, because when I refer to the minister, I’m referring to the answers he gave to me to the questions I specifically put to him because I share your concerns, and I share many of the concerns that were expressed here today.

But I believe this is part of a much larger picture, and I think the federal government is doing some work on that; maybe more can be done. Also, the provinces have to look at that too. For example, one of the main things about crime is enforcement, and there are fewer crimes when there are more police and more policing and when you know that the risk of being caught is higher than lower. The RCMP will recruit 1,000 more new officers this year, representing a budget of $1.8 billion. So there are many measures. If you look in the budget — it was a big book — there are many government measures to alleviate the pressure.

At the end of the day, the optimal situation is to address the root problems, because policing and judges are at the end of the spectrum. However, the protection of society is also an important priority for all of us living within it. We should not have problems; when we do, we must address them.

Safety is an issue for many Canadians in many communities. I refer to the data indicating that shoplifting is becoming an issue. Some small shops are shutting down because 10% of people are taking things without paying. They say there is no point in continuing because the margin is less than 10%. We have to address all these issues. This is part of the answer, but more must be done.

We are out of time.