Randeep Sarai

Mr. Speaker, the opposition and the member well know that these matters are decided by parole officers and judicial officers. To light fires, to fearmonger, is not the strategy. This government modified and brought back great legislation to put people behind bars who belong there and to have the proper judicial processes when they need to be released.

moved: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), the House: agrees with amendments 1(a), 2(a) and 3 made by the Senate; respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(b) because subsection 515(13.1) of the Criminal Code already requires courts to state on the record that they considered section 493.2 in making a bail decision, rendering the additional provision unnecessary; respectfully disagrees with amendment 2(b) because engagement with relevant partners and stakeholders is already permitted, and the additional statutory consultation requirement could limit flexibility in the preparation and tabling of the report. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Ajax.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the message received from the Senate concerning Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. At the outset, I would like to thank the senators for their careful study of the legislation. The Senate plays an important role in our parliamentary system. It provides sober second thought, hears from witnesses, reviews legislation clause by clause and proposes amendments where it believes improvements can be made. That is precisely what occurred with Bill C-14. After reviewing the bill, the Senate adopted four amendments. The motion before the House today proposes that we agree with two of those amendments, amend one of them and respectfully disagree with another. I believe that this approach strikes the right balance. It recognizes valuable contributions made through the Senate's review, while ensuring that the legislation would remain faithful to the objectives Parliament has pursued throughout its study of the bill. Before turning to the amendments, I think it is important to briefly remind members why Bill C-14 was introduced in the first place. Across Canada, communities have been raising concerns about public safety. Premiers, mayors, police leaders, victims' advocates and frontline organizations have all called for action to address serious violent offending, repeat offending, organized criminal activity, extortion and human trafficking. Canadians have seen a troubling rise in violent extortion targeting businesses and families. Communities have experienced growing concerns about organized crime and repeat violent offenders. Transit workers and other frontline workers have called for stronger protections. Provincial and territorial governments have repeatedly asked the federal government to review the criminal law framework to ensure that our laws respond effectively to evolving public safety challenges. Bill C-14 is that response. The legislation would strengthen the bail system for certain serious offences by expanding reverse onus provisions in carefully defined circumstances. It would create new tools to address violent repeat offending. It would strengthen sentencing provisions for serious crimes, including extortion and arson committed for criminal purposes. It would respond to the growing threat posed by organized criminal activity and human trafficking. It would improve public safety while preserving judicial discretion and maintaining consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill has been studied extensively. The House committee heard testimony from witnesses. Amendments were proposed and debated. Members from all parties contributed to its development. The Senate undertook its own review and proposed several amendments for the House's consideration. The first amendment before us relates to sureties. As members know, during the House committee study, an amendment was adopted to prohibit individuals who had been convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years from acting as surety. The Senate amendment would maintain that prohibition while providing limited judicial discretion in circumstances where no other surety is available and where the court determines that allowing the surety would be in the best interest of justice. The government supports this amendment, which would maintain the fundamental objective adopted by the House. Individuals convicted of serious offences would continue to be prohibited from serving as a surety. At the same time, it recognizes that exceptional circumstances may arise. Witnesses who appeared before the Senate raised concerns regarding the practical impact of a complete prohibition in certain remote, rural and northern communities where the pool of available sureties may be limited. The amendment provides a narrow and carefully structured mechanism that would allow courts to address those exceptional circumstances while preserving the overall intent of the provision. For that reason, we believe the Senate amendment represents a reasonable refinement and should be supported. The second amendment concerns the annual reporting requirements related to bail data. Members will recall that the House adopted an amendment requiring the Minister of Justice to table an annual report respecting bail data. The Senate amendment proposes two changes. First, it would require that the information respecting rates of detention before trial be included in that report. Second, it would require the minister to consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection and the criminal justice system, including Statistics Canada, when preparing the report. The government supports the first part of this amendment. Information relating to pretrial detention can contribute to a fuller understanding of how the bail system operates across this country. Reliable data is important. Evidence‑based policy is important. Parliamentarians would benefit by having access to meaningful information about the operation of the criminal justice system. However, the government does not support the second portion of the Senate amendment. The minister already has the ability to engage with relevant partners, experts and organizations when preparing reports and evaluating criminal justice data. Creating a specific statutory requirement is unnecessary and could reduce flexibility in how information is gathered and reports are prepared. As a result, the motion proposes an amendment that would retain the reporting component while removing the mandatory consultation requirement. I believe this approach appropriately balances accountability with operational flexibility. The third Senate amendment concerns proposed subsection 515(13.2), of the Criminal Code. This amendment would require a justice to ask on the record whether section 493.2 applies, even where neither party has raised the issue during the bail hearing. The government respectfully disagrees with this amendment. The reason is straightforward: Existing law already addresses this issue. Subsection 515(13.1) of the Criminal Code already requires courts to state on the record how section 493.2 was considered in making a bail decision. In practice, this requirement already necessitates consideration of whether section 493.2 applies. As a result, the proposed amendment would not create a new substantive obligation. Instead, it would duplicate requirements that already exist within the Criminal Code. For that reason, the government believes the amendment is unnecessary. The final amendment relates to the coming into force of provisions respecting access to youth records. The amendment would provide that these provisions come into force on a day to be fixed by the order of the Governor in Council. The government supports this amendment. The amendment reflects a practical implementation approach and would help ensure that all relevant partners have sufficient time to prepare for the coming into force of these provisions. It would not alter the policy objective adopted by Parliament. Rather, it would support effective implementation. After careful consideration, the government believes that the package before the House today strikes the right balance. It would accept Senate amendments that improve the legislation, propose a targeted modification where appropriate, and respectfully reject an amendment that is unnecessary because its objective is already achieved through existing law. Most importantly, it would preserve the core purpose of Bill C‑14. Canadians expect Parliament to respond to serious public safety concerns. They expect us to provide law enforcement and the justice system with effective tools. They expect us to address violent offending, organized crime, extortion and human trafficking. They expect us to work collaboratively and move legislation forward when consensus has largely been achieved. Bill C‑14 has now been studied by both chambers of Parliament. The House has done its work. The Senate has done its work. The amendments before us have been carefully reviewed. I encourage members to support the motion before the House so Bill C‑14 can proceed without any further delay and continue its path forward for royal assent.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the member should read the bill. The whole bill is about offenders, people who have broken criminal laws. The bill is about strengthening our bail system so there would be a reverse onus and so criminals would not get released if they are violent repeat offenders or have committed crimes like extortion. It is to enhance the sentencing on them. I think everyone knows that the Liberals are on par to creating tougher sentencing laws for those who need it.

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important. As we all know, in Surrey and places across the country, crimes like shootings and extortions have been rampant and are on the rise. This bill would help in two ways. One is the reverse onus so that those who are charged would not be given bail. Serious offenders would be kept behind bars so that others in the community can feel safe. The other would give the power to the judge to give consecutive sentences, rather than complementary, concurrent sentencing. If somebody were to be sentenced for multiple crimes, they would serve them on top of each other, with the cumulative time together. It is very important.