44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 30, 2023 10:00AM
moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members. I am very pleased with the progress of Bill C‑48 in both Houses, and I am happy to be speaking to it again here.
This bill will strengthen our bail laws so they continue to protect our communities and maintain public confidence when it comes to violent repeat offenders and weapons offences.
I will start by briefly reiterating the bill's intent. I will then describe the amendments proposed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Lastly, I will lay out the government's position on these amendments.
This bill demonstrates our government's commitment to public safety and my commitment to public safety. We will always fight to ensure that our communities are protected from violent crime. Families have been forever changed because of senseless killings.
I want to take this moment to express my sincere sympathies to victims of violence and their loved ones. A 16-year-old, Gabriel Magalhaes, was fatally stabbed at a subway station in my own riding of Parkdale—High Park. This terrible act should never have occurred. We need to do address crime, as well as what causes crime, to stop future violence from occurring.
Bill C-48 is the culmination of extensive collaboration with provinces and territories, with which I have been working very closely. All 13 premiers came together and called for bail reform. We responded to this call and went even further in Bill C-48.
In addition to the premiers, Bill C-48 has received support from municipal leaders, police groups and victims' organizations right across the country, from coast to coast to coast. I am pleased to see such incredibly widespread support for a measure that would ensure Canadians can live free from fear of violence.
I am also grateful for the discussions we have had with national indigenous organizations on the topic of bail reform. Their views help us better understand how we can keep indigenous communities, and all communities, safe. I look forward to continuing my collaboration with representatives of these important organizations.
I also want to take a moment to acknowledge and recognize that members from all parties passed Bill C-48 unanimously in the House back on the first day of the fall session, on September 18. It was clear then that all of us recognized the importance of these measures. I am very hopeful that we can maintain the same unanimity of purpose today.
Public safety is paramount. It is fundamentally why all of us were elected to this chamber. Every member of this chamber wants the communities that we represent to be free from violence. I thank my colleagues for their support to date and I hope I can count on it today and going forward.
On this side of the House, we also commit to maintaining public safety while looking also at tackling the root causes of criminality. We need more mental health resources so that people in crisis do not resort to violence. I say this on a day when we have just launched the 988 suicide helpline. We need social services to help offenders reintegrate safely into their communities after serving their time. We need treatment options for those struggling with addiction so that they do not get mired in conflict. Investing in long-term solutions to crime is a core belief of mine and of our Liberal government.
Too often, I have heard fearmongering for political gain from people in this chamber. We need solutions; we do not need finger pointing. We need investments in long-term safety. We need evidence-based legislation. I challenge my colleagues to join me in supporting community investments so we can stop crime at its root.
I will now discuss the substantive changes proposed in Bill C-48. Canadians expect laws that both keep them safe and respect the rights enshrined in the charter. In Bill C-48, I believe we have struck that balance.
Bill C-48 is a targeted approach to stopping repeat violent offenders. The bill proposes amendments to the reverse onus bail provisions in the Criminal Code to make it more onerous for certain accused persons to receive bail. A reverse onus does simply this. It shifts the burden of proof at a bail hearing from the Crown to the accused. This means that there is a presumption that the accused will be detained unless they can demonstrate to the court that they should be released because they do not pose a significant risk to public safety, are not a flight risk or that their release would not undermine the confidence of the public.
What Bill C-48 would do is add a reverse onus provision to ensure greater scrutiny of cases involving repeat violent offending with weapons. For this reverse onus to apply, the accused must, one, be charged with a violence offence involving the use of a weapon. Two, they must have been convicted in the last five years of a violent offence involving the use of a weapon. Three, both the offence charged and the past offence must have a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more. This threefold criteria would encourage courts to focus their attention on those who present a higher risk of reoffending at the bail stage of criminal proceedings.
Second, four firearms offences would be added to the reverse onus provisions that currently exist. This proposal has the broad support of law enforcement agencies right across this country, from literally every province and territory. It would implement the call from all 13 premiers of three different political stripes to add a reverse onus for the offence of possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. What we would be adding to the premiers' request is unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking or entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm. Anyone involved in those offences would be subject to the same reverse onus.
This bill would also clarify the meaning of a prohibition order at the bail stage. A reverse onus at bail currently applies to accused persons charged with offences involving firearms or other weapons where they are subject to a weapons prohibition order. This bill would make absolutely clear that a prohibition order includes a bail condition prohibiting an accused from being in possession of firearms or other weapons.
The other changes proposed by Bill C-48 relate to considerations that courts must make in their bail decisions. This bill would require bail courts to consider if the accused person's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence regardless of whether the accused is subject to a reverse onus.
In addition, Bill C-48 would add a further requirement that bail courts expressly consider the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence when making a bail order, in addition to the safety and security of any victim who is involved. This would ensure that specific concerns from smaller municipalities, indigenous communities and racialized or marginalized communities are taken into consideration at the bail hearing. That directly responds to what we heard, particularly from small communities in Canada's north, including small indigenous communities in the north, which wanted their needs reflected and views heard at such bail hearings.
Let me now turn to two changes the Senate is proposing to make to this bill.
The first proposal of the Senate relates to an amendment that would require a statement in the record of proceedings as to how a justice or justice of the peace considered section 493.2 of the Criminal Code. This section states that, when making a decision relating to bail, courts shall give particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous accused and accused who belong to a vulnerable population that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system and that is disadvantaged in obtaining bail.
This is a mandatory provision that requires courts to turn their minds to these circumstances anytime they make a bail decision. What the Senate is doing is doubling down on that provision and emphasizing its importance. In terms of the overrepresentation of Black Canadians and indigenous persons in the criminal justice system, overrepresentation is a critical problem and I welcome this amendment.
The provision being cited by the Senate was originally enacted in 2019. Since then, many cases on the application of this provision have developed guidance for bail courts. It is clear from these cases that failing to adequately consider section 493.2 is an error of law that is a reviewable error. That said, the Senate heard from some witnesses that section 493.2 is not always considered and not always applied consistently despite there being a requirement to do so.
What the proposed amendment from the Senate would do is ensure that bail courts are fulfilling their obligations to consider these particular circumstances in every applicable case and recording that they have done so. This amendment would also be consistent with the preamble of Bill C-48, which currently reiterates “the need to consider the particular circumstances of accused persons, including those from populations that face disadvantages at the bail stage and are overrepresented in the criminal justice system”. In light of this, the government and I support this amendment and invite all members of this House to vote in favour of it.
Tackling the overincarceration of Black, indigenous and marginalized Canadians remains a fundamental priority for me and the government. We cannot accept a status quo in which marginalized groups are disproportionally incarcerated on account of systemic factors, including systemic racism and discrimination. To date, we have made progress on addressing this problem, including by removing multiple mandatory minimum penalties in the form of Bill C-5, which has already passed in the House.
There is always more work to do. I am proud of the work we have done on implementing assessments of the impact of race and culture and relaunching the anti-racism action plan, as well as the work that is ongoing on the Black justice strategy and the indigenous justice strategy. This is all fundamental to the work that will continue to be done to address systemic inequalities in the justice system.
The second amendment adopted by the Senate specified that this legislation be referred to a standing committee of the Senate for review at a future date. The effect of this amendment is that both the House of Commons and the Senate would be required to review the legislation five years after the act receives royal assent. I support this change as well.
I am encouraged by the speed at which we were able to reach a consensus in the House of Commons last time we studied this bill on September 18. I would suggest that we do the same so that the bill can be passed as soon as possible.
I would like to conclude by pointing out that bail is a responsibility shared by the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Every level of government has a role to play to make sure that our bail system works as intended. The government is doing its part, but non-legislative changes such as access to permanent housing and mental health and addiction support services are also key elements in improving our bail system.
I commend the work recently done in these areas, and I will continue to collaborate with all levels of government to make sure that the objectives of the bail system are achieved. I also undertake to make sure that we collect accurate and complete data on the bail system in Canada, and I will continue to work with our partners to that end.
Data sharing is essential for monitoring our bail system and ensuring it functions properly. I call upon provinces and territories to collect and share enhanced bail data. This will allow us to make evidence-based changes to bail law in the future.
2042 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 4:13:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read from a news article from this summer with respect to a shooting that happened in Toronto. It outlines that, in 2019, this person was previously sentenced for aggravated assault and weapons dangerous for an altercation with another man in 2018. He was acquitted of a charge of attempted murder. He also acknowledged in the article that he had a long rap sheet of previous issues, including a lifetime weapons prohibition, yet this individual is still out on bail for two other altercations that he had in 2022 and 2021. This summer, while out on the street, he shot and killed somebody.
What is this bill going to do to make sure that this man gets jail and not bail?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for outlining that important situation. It reflects the needs and concerns of communities right around this country, particularly with respect to firearms.
What I would identify for him is that we have firearms legislation that is currently in the Senate: Bill C-21 is geared toward promoting community safety.
I would also refer him to the specific provisions asked for by Conservative, Liberal and NDP premiers right around the country about ensuring that bail is not provided when people have violated the rules relating to having a loaded, prohibited or restricted firearm. We have added to those and have actually gone further than what was asked for by the premiers to include those who break and enter to steal a firearm, use robbery to steal a firearm or make an automatic firearm.
There is no doubt that ensuring that we get tough with firearms and those who use firearms to commit crimes is part and parcel of keeping our communities safe. This bill will help do that by ensuring those types of people do not get bail, as will Bill C-21.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 4:16:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois member for his important question. We are trying to find that balance, as he pointed out. That is in fact the responsibility of every government when it comes to constitutional rights.
What I will stress is that this is indeed a delicate balance. If we promote reverse onus in the context of bail, we need to always respect paragraph 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the right to reasonable bail.
The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that the burden of proof can be reversed in certain specific contexts. In our opinion, this bill follows the Supreme Court of Canada’s instructions and advice. We respect the individual’s right to bail, as well as the collective right to be protected against violent crime.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 4:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to see this bill back before the House fairly quickly, with Senate amendments, which I think help improve the bill.
We can make the legislative changes around bail, but there is a concern about public disorder and low-level offenders. We know that one of the reasons people who might be on bail for low-level offences reoffend is that they lack access to mental health programs, adequate income and a lot of the things that would help them overcome the problems that lead them into conflict with their neighbours, friends, family and the legal system.
Will there also be a commitment from the government to provide the funding we need to help support people being a success when they are on bail?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 4:18:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his work on the justice committee and for his dedication to this cause, as well as the dedication of the B.C. NDP government, in terms of promoting this.
With respect to the issue that he has raised, I would say that he is absolutely accurate. One cannot be addressing one facet without addressing some of the complementary features. I would point him to a couple of things.
First, in terms of the commitments we have made financially, in terms of health care supports throughout the country and in terms of the $190-billion 10-year deal that was struck by our government with various provinces, in that accord, we targeted certain sectors or certain categories of health care treatment, including mental health.
Second, I would also underscore that we have put money into the system to help with guns and gangs. That guns and gangs portion or envelope of money, which totals over $700 million over the last four years, is being used by law enforcement personnel around the country to ensure that the bail provisions we are putting forward are coupled with the tools necessary for law enforcement to ensure that they are keeping communities safe on the ground.
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 4:57:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the Liberal member of Parliament from British Columbia wants to know what is happening in small and medium-sized cities, we have had a Liberal government for eight years that has passed soft-on-crime legislation that has put repeat violent offenders on the streets, over and over again, and we are seeing skyrocketing crime rates. The Liberals broke the bail system; that is why the bill is before us. The Liberals are admitting that the bail reforms they made are broken and are not working. However, they are not going far enough. The Liberals need a little more humility.
Here is the thing. This is the problem with the member from British Columbia. I cited the Vancouver Police Union and the Union of B.C. Municipalities that talked about exactly that for repeat violent offenders, but the member goes on and blames everybody else but the Liberal government. Liberals have been in power for eight years. Crime went down before they came into office, and since they have been there, it has only gone up.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:01:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know that Canadians are less safe. I see that in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country. We know that this crime wave has been created by bail reform changes that happened with Bill C-75. We now have a revolving door of criminals in Canada.
As you mentioned in your intervention, this would fix some of the issues, but not all of them. It certainly would not bring it back to the level that it was before the government made the changes. Could you comment on the fact that it would not be going back to the same level and would not actually fix a lot of the crime issues we are seeing with bail?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:02:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if I had a piece of advice, and I try to give some constructive advice and commentary around here once in a while, I would encourage every member of Parliament, every member of the House, regardless of party, to spend a little time on the front lines.
I have had the honour of serving here in the House for four years. One of the most impactful things I am able to do a couple of times a year is a ride-along on a Friday or Saturday night from eight o'clock until about two or three in the morning. One morning, I was out until about 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. I have done it with the OPP in SDG and with the Cornwall Police Service.
I want to build on what my colleague just said: The bill does not go far enough with respect to the changes the government is proposing. All any member of Parliament needs to do is spend a night or two on the front lines, at least, each year. Talk to frontline law enforcement. They will tell us the demoralizing aspect, the demoralizing environment, that is being created with the bail reform under Bill C-75, and now with only this partial fix. They would tell us, I think, the intention, the message or the morale with respect to criminals. They know they are getting out all the time. They know the revolving door. MPs need to spend more time on the front lines. I think all Canadians would benefit from it.
262 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:04:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last summer, the leader of the Conservative Party made it very clear that he wanted the session to reconvene, and he made a commitment that the Conservative Party is so much wanting to see the bail reform that it would be prepared to pass it through the entire system in one day.
We had a delay because of Conservative senators, but, at the end of the day, we have an opportunity to actually pass legislation. Does the member believe there is any sense of commitment from the Conservative Party today to actually see the bill passed, given the wide spectrum of support out there and the commitment his leader gave a few months ago to pass the bill as quickly as possible?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:16:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I intend to be very brief this afternoon because the bill we have before us was supported unanimously by the House and has had some useful amendments made by the Senate, which I now hear that everyone in the House is prepared to support.
The bill would do two things. One thing, which we have focused on, is that it would make it more difficult for serious repeat violent offenders to get bail by establishing a reverse onus. All parties here recognize we have a problem that needs to be fixed and that this bill would fix that problem. Therefore, most of the attention has gone to that aspect of the bill.
However, there is a second provision in the bill that is also quite important. Despite the rhetoric we hear from the Conservatives, over the past 30 years, the rate of pretrial detention in Canada has more than tripled. Instead of the Conservatives' version, where everybody gets out with a “get out of jail free” card, we tripled the number of people in detention. Our rate is far higher than in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Ireland or any other western European nation. That means, in the situation we have in Canada, there is a second problem with the bail system: The poor, the homeless and those suffering from substance abuse challenges or mental health issues are more likely to be denied bail and end up in custody.
What does that mean? When people are in pretrial custody, they end up in provincial institutions, which have no programming for anti-violence, anti-substance abuse or mental health. Therefore, we are warehousing the poor, the marginalized and indigenous people without giving them the supports they need in the period when they are waiting for a trial. We have to remember that over a third of those who are subject to bail conditions or kept in custody before trial are never convicted of anything. One-third of the people are innocent.
We know what happens. Pretrial detention has very serious impacts. It can lead to loss of employment, it can lead to loss of housing and it can lead to loss of custody of children, because more than 40% of those detained in Canada pretrial are held for more than one month and many are held for as long as six months. This causes a complete disruption in people's lives. It keeps them in a provincial institution, where they have no programming, and makes their conflict in the future with the legal system and society far greater.
In this bill, there is a provision that New Democrats added, which is to make judges consider community-based bail supervision programs. We know what works for those on bail. We know it does not work to ask people's mom, dad or sister to be a surety, because how do they influence the behaviour? The John Howard Society has run very successful pilot programs in Ontario whereby a person gets supervision. In other words, someone looks after their behaviour when they are on bail. Second, they get someone who helps hook them up to the services they need, including mental health and addiction services, employment services and whatever else they need. Those John Howard programs that are running in Ontario have a 90% success rate. In other words, 90% of the people show up in court to face their trial, but in the meantime they do not reoffend.
The Conservatives are talking about those who offend while they are out on bail, and yes, that happens. However, why does that happen? It is because they do not have access to the services they need and they do not have real supervision. The police do not have a mandate to do bail supervision, nor do they have the resources. We know that community-based bail supervision programs work, and this bill would require judges to consider them.
Of course, that means the federal government would have to pony up some money at the front end to get those kinds of programs running across the country. However, does it cost money? No, it does not, because it is far more expensive to keep people in detention than it is to supervise them in the community. Listen to this: The costs are about 10 times higher to detain someone than to put them into a community-based bail supervision program. That part of this bill is overlooked in the debate about legitimate concerns the public has.
If we really want to get the rate of reoffending down, we know what works. We know it is community-based bail supervision programs. We know it is devoting more money to on-demand mental health treatment. We know it is about more money for on-demand substance abuse treatment. We know it is better access to employment and education programs for those who currently lack those opportunities.
We will continue to support this bill. I think everybody will. I found it a little odd to hear a speech that essentially opposed it from the Conservatives, but I think everybody is on board. We know premiers are on board. We know police associations are on board. We know that victims' associations are on board. We know the Senate is on board. Therefore, if nobody is against this, I am going to end my speech at this point and ask us to move forward with passing this bill, which would approve the Senate amendments, this afternoon.
921 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:21:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my town of Cobourg, we recently had an incident where an individual assaulted a person who had their child there, and the individual was out on bail the same day and committed another crime. It was because of the bail reform that the NDP supported earlier, and now this is going halfway back. Is the member at all regretful for his voting record?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:22:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I first want to start by saying that I do quite often resent the implication that anyone in the House does not have sympathy for victims and what happens to them, or that anyone in the House actually supports crime and criminal activity. What I support, and my background was in criminal justice for 20 years before I came here, are things that are actually effective in addressing those problems.
We know that if someone is let out on bail now with no supervision, with no access to programming, the chances they will reoffend while they are out on bail are very high. The bill before us, and what we are calling for, would provide for community-based bail supervision programs, which would help avoid exactly the circumstances the member raised in this incident.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:23:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that, of course, her private member's bill had a poison pill in it for people like me who want to vote for things that are effective.
Does reform to the bail system cause crime? No, it does not, and reforms to the bail system in Bill C-75 did not increase the crime rate. There are lots of other very complicated factors we could look at about why that happened, but the Conservatives like to point to the headlines and not actually point to the things that really work when it comes to combatting crimes and preventing future victims.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the motion respecting Senate amendments made to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), standing on the Notice Paper be deemed adopted.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
