Bail and Sentencing Reform Bill

Moved third 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), as amended.

He said: Honourable senators, my task today as the bill’s sponsor is to kick off the third 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).

Later today, once this step is completed, the other place will be informed of the amendments proposed by the Senate, and it will then be up to the government to suggest whether MPs should accept them in whole or in part.

There are four parts to my presentation. First, I will summarize the bill’s two main components. Second, I will speak to the context brought to light in committee. Third, I will look at the principal amendments to the Criminal Code that address this context. Lastly, I will make a few comments about the four amendments adopted by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Although it contains 62 clauses amending the Criminal Code, this bill primarily concerns, as its title suggests, two major stages of the criminal trial process. The first takes place at the very start—determining whether to release the person who has been charged — while the second occurs at the very end — sentencing persons found guilty of certain offences.

The purpose of these amendments is to improve public safety and protect victims from three categories of offenders: repeat offenders, people with ties to organized crime and violent criminals.

I now move to the second part of my speech.

Canadians from every region of this country, in our largest cities and our smallest communities, have raised concerns about violent crimes committed by repeat offenders, auto theft with violence or home invasions, murders of women by violent partners, the rise of violent extortion, et cetera.

Provincial attorneys general and premiers belonging to different political parties across the country have been urging the federal government to step in and adopt measures to address violent offenders, repeat offenders and organized crime.

Their calls for action rest on many hard facts that I referred to in my speech at second reading. They include data gathered annually by Statistics Canada to establish its Crime Severity Index, which takes into account the volume and severity of crimes reported to the police. Between 2014 and 2024, this index increased from 66.9 to 77.9.

What’s more, the Violent Crime Severity Index — reflecting violent crimes — increased in that period from 70.7 to 99.9, and that includes a jump of 15% between 2020 and 2023.

During the study at the Legal Committee, we heard more evidence in support of Bill C-14, which I will now summarize.

Police officers and municipal leaders complained about a bail system that has become ineffective. Those of you who are more familiar with the bail system will know that release pending trial is made under various conditions. It can include the commitment of a person to supervise an accused to ensure that they attend court and comply with their bail conditions. Such a person is called a surety. An effective surety must be willing to call the police if an accused person is about to breach or has breached their conditions.

The President of the Toronto Police Association said at the committee:

Sureties are such a problem. I’ll be frank, the system is kind of a joke, and sureties do not take it serious, period.

Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Carrique, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, told us about a new tool put in place by 32 Ontario police services called the Bail Compliance Dashboard to provide a centralized database on bail conditions that is accessible to all Ontario police officers. He reported that, between 2023 and 2025, over 54,000 charges were laid by Ontario Provincial Police officers against 9,710 offenders on bail, which included 7,540 charges for violent crimes committed while on bail.

In May 2023, the Winnipeg Police Service, jointly with the RCMP, launched a unit focused on compliance with conditions imposed on individuals on bail, probation or parole. In 2024 and 2025, bail breaches were the most common violation reported by that unit. Winnipeg Mayor Scott Gillingham, when speaking about these breaches, said:

Those were not petty crimes; they were violent offences. . . . So, there is a statistical pattern in our community of people on bail or court conditions repeating violent offences . . . .

He also stated that “. . . 20% of all arrestees were arrested more than once by the same unit.”

That summarizes some of the testimony about bail and our current bail system.

The Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime told the committee that he supports the objective of Bill C-14. According to data collected by his office, between 2018 and 2025, at least 52 women and girls were killed while a protection order was in place or the accused was on bail.

The representative of the London Abused Women’s Centre told us that, according to the Training Institute on Strangulation Prevention, women who are strangled by their partners and survive are 750% more likely to be the victim of an attempted femicide at a later time and are 800% more likely to be killed by their partner in a subsequent assault.

Human trafficking also remains a pressing national concern, as we heard earlier this week during the second reading of Bill S-235, sponsored by Senator Ataullahjan.

According to data from StatCan:

. . . there were more than twice as many human trafficking cases and three times as many charges completed in 2023/2024 compared with 2013/2014.

We heard comments about home invasions that have shaken too many families’ sense of security, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, or GTA. Earlier this month, the CBC reported that there have been “45 home invasions, including attempts, across the city” between January and May, and that this crime was up 22% this year compared to the same period last year.

In the GTA, surveillance cameras have recently recorded masked young offenders violently attempting to break into dwelling houses using baseball bats and other instruments, mindful that scared families were behind the doors, resisting their entry and calling for help. In some GTA areas, residents have decided to hire private security agencies to protect their houses and families.

We have also heard of surges in extortion, and Statistics Canada data reveals that the police-reported extortion rate was four times higher in 2024 than it was in 2014. The rates are even higher in British Columbia.

Although motor vehicle theft is declining in Canada due to efforts such as the National Action Plan on Combatting Auto Theft, there are reports of an increasing number of violent attempts to steal cars.

In August 2024, the York Regional Police reported that the number of carjackings in the region had increased by 106% compared to 2023 and a 400% jump compared to 2019.

Équité Association, which tackles insurance fraud, published their 2025 Auto Theft Trend Report in February of this year. It states that Canadians continue to bear auto theft losses of “$900 million annually in claims costs, which continues to be funneled into organized crime.”

In this context, we have a responsibility to respond diligently to the calls from the premiers, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the police associations, the chiefs of police, groups for abused women and victims of crime and other organizations to amend the Criminal Code in connection with some aspects of the bail process and the determination of sentences for certain categories of offenders.

Before ending my remarks on the context and evidence presented at committee, I want to comment on some data used by opponents to Bill C-14. They made a great case about the fact that in Ontario prisons, the number of individuals on remand now represents about 80% of the inmates, while that proportion was only 40% in 2000. When I asked them if the increase in the percentage of beds in provincial prisons occupied by persons on remand had something to do with an increase in the population in Ontario without a corresponding increase in prison bed capacity, they could not answer.

Fortunately, StatCan provided not only the sheer number of persons on remand but also calculated the proportion per 100,000 population in Canada and in each province and territory.

In 2019-20, there were 51 persons per 100,000 on remand in Canada and 59 in 2023-24. This represents an increase of 8 people per 100,000, an overall rise of less than 15%. By sex, the numbers for men varied from 94 to 109 per 100,000 adult males, while for women it varied from 9 to 11. In Ontario, for the same period, the numbers for men varied from 96 to 115 and for women from 9 to 11.

StatCan explained that their counts of individuals on remand are a snapshot based on jail registers on the relevant day and include individuals serving a provincial sentence while awaiting trial on other charges. In other words, the number of individuals on remand is likely inflated by repeat offenders awaiting trial for new offences.

Also of interest is the fact that provincial and territorial numbers vary a lot. The provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia have a significantly lower number of people on remand per 100,000 compared to the national average, while the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan hold more than double the national average on remand. The Northwest Territories’ number is three times the national average, while in Nunavut it is close to six times the national average. These disturbing variations may be indicative of the overrepresentation of some groups in these provinces and territories, a point that deserves to be further analyzed.

When considering these figures about the number of people on remand at a given time, it is also important to remember that this captures anyone there at that moment, regardless of the duration of the stay. Data from the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics, which is part of StatCan, in 2019 revealed that:

For adults released from remand, three-quarters (75%) were held for one month or less while just over half (50%) were held for one week or less.

At the committee, we also learned about specific data on bail published on the website of the Ontario Court of Justice. For all Ontario Court of Justice cases that have a bail outcome, the vast majority result in release orders, consistently ranging from 92% to 95% between 2018 and 2025. For the individuals who are granted release, the average time spent in the bail phase in the past five years has averaged around six days.

Research undertaken by Professor Nicole Myers, who appeared before the committee, shows us that when appearing before a justice of the peace or a judge, 74% of bail appearances, she observed, were adjourned, with about 60% of those adjournments being requested by defence counsel or the accused. That’s normal. It takes a few days if you have one or two adjournments.

Opponents of the bill also referred to the fact that StatCan reports over the last 10 years indicated that roughly 30% to 50% of criminal files are either stayed or withdrawn. Based on that, they seem to conclude that many innocent people are held on remand until their charges go away.

Evidence before the committee indicated that there is a whole “host of reasons” for staying or withdrawing charges, to use the words of the representative of the British Columbia Crown Counsel Association. This includes cases where the Crown takes over the file from the police and decides to drop the charges, cases where the victims refuse to testify by the time of the trial, cases stayed because of excess delays and cases where alternative measures are agreed upon between the Crown and the accused. It is then not possible to affirm that all the accused in those cases were innocent. The refusal of a victim to testify does not mean that the accused was innocent, as those who are more familiar with domestic violence know.

As for cases with access to alternative measures, the accused must generally take responsibility and acknowledge the commission of the offence.

I will now move on to the third part of my remarks, which involves presenting the main amendments that will be made to the Criminal Code.

I would like to remind senators from the outset that these amendments seek to crack down on organized crime and repeat or violent offending while upholding the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system, which are fairness, proportionality and restraint. They are in no way intended to override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In other words, Bill C-14 responds to the premiers’ calls for action on the bail system in a careful, balanced and targeted way. The reverse onus on an accused person to show that their release will not constitute a risk to the victim or public safety is imposed only in those cases associated with organized crime and repeat or violent offending. In these cases, the criminal justice system will remain guided by its fundamental principles and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including section 11(e), the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.

As I mentioned before about the Ontario Court of Justice, 92% to 95% of the cases that have a bail outcome result in release orders.

In passing, it is to be remembered that the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged years ago in Pearson that the reverse onus is justified for certain offences such as trafficking in narcotics. The court said:

. . . trafficking in narcotics occurs systematically, usually within a highly sophisticated commercial setting. It is often a business and a way of life. It is highly lucrative, creating huge incentives for an offender to continue criminal behaviour even after arrest and release on bail. In these circumstances, the normal process of arrest and bail will normally not be effective in bringing an end to criminal behaviour.

The court concluded that, in such a case, the reverse onus was fully justified under the Charter.

In my view, similar reasoning should apply to human trafficking — if it applies to trafficking drugs, I think that it’s even more serious for human trafficking — organized car thefts and violent extortion, which are all related to organized crime.

The reverse onus also appears justified in cases where release pending trial represents serious security risks to the victim or the community.

I was in Quebec City a few weeks ago, and I attended a lunch at a conference attended by 30 or 40 judges. Sitting next to me was a judge in charge of the criminal division of the provincial court. We discussed these things during lunch. I must tell you that he was very supportive of this obligation to impose on those who are associated with profiles that involve this type of risk, and he was not concerned about Charter challenges on that part.

The reverse onus also appears justified when release pending trial represents serious risks to the victims or the community. This is the case for those charged with assault or sexual assault involving choking, suffocation and strangulation, breaking and entering into a dwelling or where the accused has prior convictions for offences involving violence or weapons.

These targeted additions to the reverse onus provisions mean that it will be on the accused person to show why their release is appropriate “. . . by clearly demonstrating that their proposed release plan addresses the risks posed by . . .” them to the victim, the public or the administration of justice.

As has been made clear in this chamber and at committee as well, Bill C-14 does not change the applicable standard of proof. At a bail hearing, that will remain on the balance of probabilities.

I know that the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association had expressed concerns about that. I want them to feel reassured today. The minister said in the other place that the intent of Parliament is not to establish a different intermediate level of evidence required from the person who has the burden of showing that he or she will not be a risk to the public or to the victim. It will remain on a balance of probabilities, as usual.

Rather, the intent of this specific language is to clarify the quality of the information that needs to be put before justices of the peace or judges to ensure that the accused poses no unmitigated risk of absconding or causing harm to a complainant or the community. It also ensures that justices of the peace or judges carefully scrutinize the bail plans of these categories of accused.

Furthermore, Bill C-14 does not abrogate the principle of restraint in matters of bail; rather, it clarifies that it must be applied in a manner consistent with public safety. This will guide decision makers, including police officers. Many people don’t appear before a judge. They will be accused, go to a police station and will be let go on an undertaking. Only a small group will be brought before a justice of the peace to decide whether they should remain on remand or not.

The principle of restraint, as I just mentioned, will continue to apply. This will guide decision makers and address concerns that the principle of restraint has sometimes been misunderstood as favouring release over public protection.

Statutory guidance will also contribute to a more even and fair application of the law across the country.

On sentencing, Bill C-14 mandates consecutive sentences in defined circumstances, such as when certain serious offences are committed in tandem; for example, where extortion is committed alongside arson or where breaking and entering a place is committed alongside violent or criminal organization-related motor vehicle theft. By imposing consecutive sentences for each of those offences — for example, one for extortion and one for arson — the combined punishment is more meaningfully recognized.

However, it is important to remember that even where Bill C-14 mandates consecutive sentences, like some other parts of the Criminal Code, the principle of totality, pursuant to section 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code, will still apply, meaning that the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.

At committee, officials from the department explained that where a consecutive sentence is mandated, the combined sentence is clearly intended to be longer or more serious, but judges are still able to reduce the ultimate sentence based on the principle of totality. The intent is to deter only.

Sentences, after all, must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This is the “fundamental principle,” as it’s called in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code. It is the principle of proportionality, which judges will continue to apply and will be obliged to apply.

The Charter, too, continues to apply. Section 12 protects against laws that will impose a cruel and unusual or grossly disproportionate punishment. The changes in this bill will function alongside these important existing principles.

The bill will also expand statutory aggravating factors to address repeat violent offending, crimes against first responders and transit workers, retail theft and offences that impact essential infrastructure and may jeopardize important services to the population.

Finally, Bill C-14 also amends the Criminal Code to restrict the availability of conditional sentence orders, which are sometimes described as house arrest, for the more serious sexual offences — those prosecuted by way of indictment — including offences against children.

As I explained at second reading, the bill also proposes changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act in relation to access and retention rules for certain youth records, the publication of identifying information in certain urgent circumstances and the definition of a “violent offence.”

Bill C-14 also amends the National Defence Act to increase penalties for contempt offences in the military justice context, which we heard about yesterday, that parallel those added in the Criminal Code for contempt offences in the civil system.

Now let’s move on to the fourth and final part of my speech: the amendments that were debated for about six hours by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

First, I am pleased that the committee rejected all of the amendments that sought to undermine the principles of the bill adopted at second reading. The proposal to remove all but one of the new reverse onus offences would have undermined the very purpose of the bill. Such an amendment would have been ruled out of order by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Perhaps the time has come for our committees to adopt a similar mechanism.

However, it is the four amendments that were added to the bill as a result of the adoption of the report that are important today and going forward.

I moved one of those amendments at the government’s request. It essentially seeks to defer the coming into force of the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that have to do with retaining and providing access to certain police records.

Some provincial police authorities now believe that it will be impossible for them to implement clauses 71 and 72 of the bill within 30 days of Royal Assent. The amendment therefore defers the coming into force of these two provisions until a later date, which will be set by a Governor-in-Council decision or by order in council. However, the rest of the bill will still come into force 30 days after Royal Assent, either at the end of June or the beginning of July.

What this amendment, which recently became necessary, means in practice is that we will have to refer the bill back to the House of Commons. As a result, the other three amendments will not further delay the legislative process.

As for their content, I suggest that we leave it up to the government to decide whether or not to recommend that the House of Commons agree to them either in whole or in part.

However, I will summarize them for you and comment on them briefly.

One of these three amendments relates to who can legally be named a surety. Bill C-14, as amended by the House of Commons at the suggestion of the Conservative Party, prohibits any individual who has been convicted of an indictable offence — not a summary offence but an indictable offence — within the last 10 years from acting as a surety. This seems to respond to the concerns expressed by the Toronto Police Service, which I referred to in my speech.

The amendment adopted by the Senate committee does not modify the Conservative amendment but, instead, only adds a limited safety valve. It allows a judge or justice of the peace discretion to name a person as a surety, notwithstanding such a conviction, only where the judge is satisfied that no other suitable surety is available in the community and that doing so would be in the interests of justice.

Of course, the person would only be named a surety if they are viewed as capable of providing the required supervision. To ensure transparency in such an exceptional situation, the judge would have to state on the record the reasons for the decision.

Representatives from Nunavut Legal Aid, the Indigenous Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association urged us to consider such a safety valve.

On the other hand, officials from the Department of Justice stated that a surety is not mandatory for a release order and that a justice or judge may grant bail on other conditions, and often do so. Furthermore, subsection 515(2.03) of the Criminal Code, which requires bail courts to exercise restraint before imposing a surety condition, could continue to apply.

Another amendment would require the justice of the peace to inquire, on the record, if section 493.2 of the Criminal Code applies when not raised by the parties. Section 493.2 requires police and courts to give particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous accused persons and of accused persons who are members of vulnerable populations that are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

This is completed by subsection 515(13.1), which requires a judge to include in the record a statement that sets out how and whether section 493.2 applies. That amendment was adopted by the Senate on the proposal of Senator Bernadette Clement. Subsection 515(13.1) only came into force in January 2024 as a result of the Senate amendment.

At the committee stage, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA, reported that it had found only three cases where subsection 515(13.1) was cited, leading it to believe that this added provision was not being complied with. I heard this inference, which seems fragile. For example, the president of the Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association and a retired judge from the Ontario Court of Justice both testified at committee that section 493.2 is considered and applied. Furthermore, we were reminded at committee that most bail decisions are not reported and are, therefore, not easily accessible.

The last amendment would require the Minister of Justice to include, among the data to be reported in the annual report required by the bill, information on pretrial detention rates. In other words, it adds to the content of the prescribed statutory report, which could be quite useful.

In addition, the amendment would require the minister to consult individuals and organizations with specific expertise in data collection in the criminal justice system and, to the greatest extent possible, to coordinate the collection of data with Statistics Canada.

That second part of the amendment appears to be prescriptive about the way the Department of Justice should operate. Many members of the committee expressed concerns about such a degree of intrusion in the department’s operations.

Honourable senators, the time has come for me to conclude. One theme that has clearly emerged through both the House of Commons and Senate studies of this bill is the importance of better data collection on many aspects of the administration of the criminal justice system by the provinces and territories and easier access to all relevant information for all stakeholders, especially police and prosecutors.

Unfortunately, Canada currently lacks a centralized data repository addressing how bail operates across jurisdictions, and data collection practices and standards vary significantly from province to province. This makes it difficult to identify trends or measure disparities in a consistent and reliable manner.

Achieving consistent, high-quality data will require coordinated efforts across jurisdictions, including common standards and a shared commitment to transparency. However, I believe this is an investment worth pursuing.

A pan-Canadian bail compliance dashboard is also needed to assist in the enforcement and observance of bail conditions across Canada and to better protect communities and complainants. That said, Bill C-14 is only one piece of a much larger puzzle within the criminal justice system.

At the committee stage, witnesses emphasized that this legislation alone cannot ensure public safety, as effective implementation depends on adequate resources across policing, prosecution, defence and legal aid, court capacity, bail supervision, victim services, mental health and addictions treatment, housing and community supports.

But the time has come for us to complete our piece of the puzzle and to send this bill back to the House of Commons for final consideration.

Thank you for your attention.

Would Senator Dalphond take a question?

With pleasure.

You referred to the amendments that were passed at committee. You, first of all, described your own, which you said was initiated by the government.

There were three others; two of them — Senator Prosper’s amendment and Senator Clement’s amendment — passed the committee by one vote. Can you remind me? I believe you voted against both of those amendments. Did the Government Representative who was there at the time — Senator Moreau, I believe, was there for one meeting, and Senator LaBoucane-Benson for the second meeting, perhaps — also vote against those amendments?

As I said in the speech, at the beginning and at the end, I leave it to the government to make the proper suggestions to the House of Commons. I know that they know about these amendments.

I know that these things are negotiated through regular channels between all the parties in the House of Commons. I know this process will be engaged; if it is not yet engaged, it will be engaged soon.

As I said, some of these amendments bring some plus value to the bill, maybe some less. I expect the House will agree to some and maybe dismiss some.

That may well be. I wanted the facts of what happened at committee, because you didn’t mention it in your speech.

Did you vote against both of those amendments? Did the Government Representative’s Office senator vote against both of those amendments at committee?

Yes. The results, I have them with me. You asked the question yesterday to Senator Arnot, and he didn’t have the results. Some of these amendments were carried 8 to 7, 9 to 6 and things like that. I have all the results. They were on division, no doubt about that. I was amongst those who voted against.