Hon. Brent Cotter moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Thank you, Your Honour.

I rise to speak to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’s seventeenth report on its study of Bill C-48.

To assist in your recollection of this bill, it is referred to as An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

I’ll say more about the bill in a few moments. To give you a sense of the central thrust of the bill, it is to increase the number of offences in the Criminal Code for which, when a person is charged, he or she faces a so-called reverse onus, such that it rests with the accused person to persuade the judge or justice of the peace on a balance of probabilities that they should be released on bail. For these offences, it transfers the “burden of proof,” in legal language, onto the accused in order to get released pending trial.

First, I’ll provide a bit of context. As a general rule, people who are accused of crimes are let out on bail. The presumption is for release, but the Criminal Code provides three situations where a person can be detained: to ensure attendance in court, for the protection of the public and any victim and, third, to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. Usually, it is for the prosecution to establish that one of these situations or conditions for denial of bail exists or is met.

However, for some offences, the Criminal Code has established what is referred to as a reverse onus; that is, it is for the accused person to make the case that he or she should be released. The legal language is that the onus, or burden of justifying release, rests not with the prosecution but the person accused of the crime. This reverse-onus approach for offences, where it has been applied, has been held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

As I say, Bill C-48 will add a series of offences to this category of reverse-onus situations for bail. The categories are generally in the following range: a range of offences associated with the use of a firearm. This is the thrust of clause 1(2), 1(3) and part of what’s referred to as 1(4) of the bill, as well as offences associated with intimate partner violence where the accused person had been previously granted a discharge for a similar offence.

To assist in your understanding of this dimension of the bill — and it’s important, and also the subject of an amendment — a discharge is an outcome in a court where a person has admitted guilt or been convicted of guilt, but the sanction imposed by the judge is to discharge the person of the offence, either absolutely or on conditions. Once the conditions are met, while the record is maintained, the conviction is essentially not recorded against them — generally thought to be at the low end of sanctions for criminal offences.

Now, Bill C-48 came to us in a slightly unusual way. It was introduced in the other place on May 16, 2023. It had been the subject of periodic debate in late spring of 2023. The subject matter of Bill C-48 had been discussed among federal, provincial and territorial justice and public safety ministers prior to its introduction. The bill was supported by the provinces and territories, as well as police leadership in the country.

As many of you will have observed, over the past number of months there has been a good deal of attention paid to occasional events where a person out on bail, or out from custody on an analogous basis, is alleged to have committed a very serious crime, often a crime of violence, with tragic consequences for the victims. The sentiment around these events motivated expeditious action respecting Bill C-48.

On September 18 of this year — that is, approximately a month ago — the bill received second reading, Committee of the Whole consideration and third reading in the other place all in one day, and was adopted unanimously — and I emphasize this — without reference to the Justice Committee there. Unlike nearly all bills of this type, it received no committee study prior to its adoption in the House.

This conveyed two messages to our chamber: first, obviously one of urgency with respect to the consideration of this bill in the Senate; second, given the absence of the study in the other chamber, there was a compelling argument that the bill received meaningful, timely consideration when it was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Thursday, September 21 of this year.

In this case, the bill required sober first thought, if I may say so, and that is what it received in our committee.

Your committee held four meetings and heard from 26 witnesses, including the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada, officials from the Department of Justice, the Attorney General of British Columbia, police and legal associations, advocacy groups, academics and experts, Indigenous representatives and other stakeholders.

The committee also received nine written submissions.

I would like to briefly highlight aspects of what we heard at the committee and indicate the three places where the committee adopted amendments to the bill.

I anticipate colleagues will expand on these comments and provide perspective. I will also briefly say a bit about observations adopted by the committee.

Comments here then fall into four general categories aligned with your committee’s report.

First, many witnesses underlined the importance of collecting comprehensive and accurate data on bail in Canada to better understand and address the problems plaguing the bail system, a point we heard from nearly every witness, and to analyze the impact of legislation like Bill C-48, particularly on groups already overrepresented in the justice system.

The fact of the matter is that data collection regarding bail is the responsibility of the provinces and territories and not prioritized in the gathering of justice statistics and information. Many witnesses, however, underscored that federal legislation like this bill must be evidence-based and grounded in comprehensive, empirical data. I think it’s fair to say that the empirical basis for the adoption of this bill is weak.

As one of the observations notes, it’s critical that we know more about the bail system generally and exactly what effects, positive and negative, amendments like this to the bail system ultimately produce.

The second point concerns public safety. Witnesses expressed divergent views on the necessity, usefulness and impacts of the measures produced and proposed by this bill with regard to public safety.

In the wake of recent tragic incidents of violence involving individuals on pretrial release, several witnesses noted the importance of preserving public safety and confidence in the Canadian criminal justice system by ensuring that accused individuals are detained when that detention is justified to ensure public safety.

The committee heard testimony explaining that the bill includes targeted measures intended to respond to concerns raised by law enforcement across the country, and specific requests to expand reverse onus provisions to include select offences were received from 13 provincial and territorial premiers, including a co-signed letter in January of this year.

In contrast, some witnesses questioned the potential effectiveness of the proposed amendments, arguing that prosecutors could already argue for the detention of an accused when it is justified, including for reasons of public safety.

Some witnesses stated that the bill would not lead to a reduction of violent crime — as it does not address the root causes of violent crime — and investments in so many areas that could assist were critical.

This brings us to the first amendment to the bill adopted by the committee. Some witnesses recommended the removal of one of the provisions in the bill that would expand the reverse onus provision to apply to an accused who has received an absolute or conditional discharge for a previous conviction involving intimate partner violence. That is one of the provisions that would be a reverse onus provision in the initial bill. The witnesses argued that it would inappropriately target and criminalize survivors of intimate partner violence, as there is often a significant overlap between perpetrators and survivors of intimate partner violence. In some respects, this tends to scoop up relatively vulnerable people in this net, who are captured by the reverse onus clause. Others, including provincial and territorial governments, supported the bill in its existing form as a means to protect survivors of intimate partner violence.

The committee considered and adopted an amendment on this point to remove the reverse onus clause in these discharge and intimate partner violence cases. This was done on division, although I think that’s only technically the correct way of saying it. Senator Batters pointed out to me that, in fact, there was a roll call vote on this, and the vote was 8 to 5.

Third, the report summarizes what the committee heard in relation to the impact of Bill C-48 on Indigenous, racialized and marginalized communities. Some witnesses were concerned that the adoption of the bill would lead to prolonged litigation in bail court, increased demands on the legal aid system, longer bail delays and increased times in detention, exacerbating existing delays in the bail system. Several witnesses warned that these adverse effects would be visited disproportionately upon Indigenous, racialized and marginalized groups who are already overrepresented in the justice system, and already disadvantaged in obtaining release on bail.

All of this led the committee to consider and adopt an amendment proposed, in this case, by Senator Clement. This amendment requires additional consideration of the circumstances of vulnerable persons in judges’ and justices’ decisions respecting bail. The committee amended clause 1 of Bill C-48 to require that a justice presiding over a bail hearing state in the record of proceedings how they went about considering whether a person fell into one of the categories of people in section 493.2 that deserved special consideration — Indigenous or otherwise vulnerable people — and, if such a person is identified, how the justice applied his or her mind to that question of pretrial release.

My fourth and nearly last comment relates to the contemplated five-year review of the impact of Bill C-48. Strangely, as was noted here and at committee, clause 2 of this bill contemplates a five-year review by the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the House of Commons — period; full stop. Perhaps this was an oversight. It’s not the most critical point to be decided because the Senate would have the authority to initiate a study without any legislative blessing from the other place. Nevertheless, the committee expressed its view, noting the oversight, and introduced and adopted an amendment unanimously, as I recall, to Bill C-48 that a directive for a Senate committee — most likely the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee — be included in the clause 2 provision, which is the five-year review provision.

Finally, I will highlight four themes in the committee’s observations.

The first point is one that I’ve made already about the need for a comprehensive database reform of Canada’s bail system. It’s frustratingly fragmented and not a priority, but when you’re the one who has to sit in jail waiting for your trial, it’s pretty darn important.

The second point is regarding gender-based violence and violence against women: There is an observation to the effect that the vulnerabilities surrounding gender-based violence — and the need for a comprehensive response to these concerns — need to be a broad and general priority, as has been noted in previous reports.

The third point is an observation that this is an ideal topic for the Law Commission of Canada to consider in its review of the criminal law. The Criminal Code has been amended in a piecemeal way — sometimes by this chamber — for decades, and, no doubt, there are cumbersome, repetitive or inconsistent provisions that need comprehensive reform.

The final theme is the need for Gender-based Analysis Plus. I think it’s fair to say that the committee continues to experience frustration with the government in that it does not provide timely information regarding gender-based analysis. That was also the case with this bill. We received that information only days before clause-by-clause consideration, and I think it’s fair to say that the committee was disappointed not to receive that information prior to hearing the minister testify. In order to study a government bill in a serious and comprehensive way, the committee requires timely access to this analysis. The result in this observation is that the committee urges the federal government to provide Gender-based Analysis Plus information in a timely way when the bill is referred to the committee. Failing to do this, the committee may delay consideration of a bill until the committee receives this information.

I want to extend my thanks to the committee members and to the staff who supported the committee in the work on the bill, especially in the unusual circumstance where we had to be both the house of sober first thought and the house of sober second thought with respect to the bill.

Thank you.

Hon. Brent Cotter, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

SEVENTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), has, in obedience to the order of reference of September 21, 2023, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1. Clause 1, pages 2 and 3:

(a) On page 2, replace lines 28 and 29 with the following:

(b) on page 3,

(i) delete lines 1 to 7, and

(ii) add the following after line 24:

2.Clause 2, page 3: Replace lines 29 and 30 with the following:

Respectfully submitted,

BRENT COTTER

Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 2044.)

Hon. Brent Cotter: Senator Gold, thank you for your remarks and for your leadership on an important bill that is being considered by this chamber.

I’m a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, where it seems likely this bill will go, so I’ll have a decent number of opportunities to explore the bill, but I did want to ask one, what I would call, institutional question, in your capacity both as sponsor of the bill and as Leader of the Government in the Senate. You made reference to the five-year review and you used, I thought very carefully, the words “reviewed by Parliament.” But I think as you know, the bill calls for a review by the House of Commons.

I have in front of me here the clause, which is clause 2 of the bill, a review on the fifth anniversary to be carried out by a standing committee of the House of Commons.

This strikes me as not entirely respectful of this portion of Parliament, and in light of your endorsement of the confidence you have in the Senate, which I believe was part of your speech, I wonder if you could speak to what I would call an oversight. I would be interested in your view on that, especially since, as I seem to understand, the House of Commons didn’t study it at all in the first go-round.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Will you take a question, Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: Yes.

Senator Cotter: It’s a great initiative — and great research on your speech. Thanks from all of us for the work you did here. Your friend and colleague Frank Caputo is my former student; I feel bonded to this issue in a certain way. It reminds me of how old I am.

My question is as follows: I agree with you that words matter, but do you — or the sponsors of this bill in the House — have a view about their comfort level around the substance of the offence as well? You mentioned high levels of conviction in Saskatchewan in cases where charges are laid, but what’s your read on that, and whether that’s also a dimension of what might need to be considered here?

Senator Batters: Thank you very much, Senator Cotter. I was going to mention that not only is Frank Caputo a proud product of the University of Saskatchewan law school, but so is the judge, Greg Koturbash, whom I quoted in that case. I don’t know if you taught him as well — anyway, thank you. Kudos for U of S Law.

That’s the thing about private members’ bills. The most successful ones try to take a particular thing and make that change.

So perhaps there is something more to be done about the definition or what have you, but this is the particular part that Mr. Caputo and Mr. Arnold decided to go with, and I think that’s smart. Sometimes a private member’s bill can get a bit too all‑encompassing.

Perhaps that’s something to look at in the future, but this is what we’ve chosen to do right now. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Ontario), debate adjourned.)

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, the remarks this evening and throughout the day on this topic have been outstanding. Senator Gold gave one of his finest speeches, and it will be remembered here. I agree with much of it. His recitation of the history of these issues was outstanding.

This is a narrow but important issue, and a hole in the law that the Supreme Court of Canada itself acknowledges.

Let me begin by speaking about this personally. Much of my career has been skipping from issue to issue off of the tops of the waves rather than digging deeply into issues, with some exceptions, and this is one.

As a young lawyer doing legal aid work, I defended a young man with intellectual impairments who was charged with rape, as it was then called. He was extremely intoxicated, so much so that, many hours after his arrest, he blew 0.21 on the Breathalyzer — nearly three times the legal limit for driving a car. The defence was that he was too intoxicated to form the intent to commit the crime of sexual assault.

I did my best. The case went to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The legal issues were complex, or at least they were at that time, and the Court of Appeal took a year to make a decision. They upheld the young man’s conviction — rightly, in my opinion.

This got me thinking about two things. First was the role of lawyers in defending people in these situations — a topic for another day. Second was the problematic nature of the law if people who put themselves in such a state can be absolved for what they did when they were very intoxicated.

Unlike other areas of the law, I have followed the evolution of the law in this area of extreme intoxication more closely than others. I found that Senator Gold’s recounting of that law brought me back to those cases and memories of that evolution.

It brings me, in some ways, to this place and this issue today. I have a tangent that I would share, but I feel Senator Plett stole the quota of tangents for the evening, and I’m going to let this one go and start my remarks at another point.

I have immense respect for Minister Lametti. In my view, he’s doing an excellent job in a very challenging portfolio, and I greatly admire the work of his Department of Justice team. In that sense, I’m in accord with the remarks of Senator Tannas.

On Bill C-28, I think they worked diligently on short notice, under significant public and political pressure, and they did the best they could. Let me be fair to the minister and his team: They may be working on a problem that is virtually intractable. Let me try to explain.

What we love or value in general terms, we often hate in its specifics. Here is what I mean: First, we have a foundational principle in our criminal law of hundreds of years’ standing, reinforced by our Charter of Rights that, with rare exceptions, we only punish people for offences when they have a guilty mind or, as Senator Dalphond said in his more erudite manner, mens rea. In simpler terms, we only use the criminal law to punish people for doing a bad thing if we conclude that they intended to do the bad thing, and nearly all of us are fine with this. Senator Gold presented this in a more elegant way.

Second, in an instance like the cases that bring us here, courts have found that the person who did the bad thing had no ability to intend to do the bad thing. Hence their acquittal, and hence our problem.

Let me add a bit to this. In Brown, Sullivan and Chan, all nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada came to the same conclusion. It’s not some aberrant flight of fancy. In fact, in my view, Justice Kasirer’s decision, writing for the whole of the Supreme Court, is principled, honourable and heartfelt. He understood the significance of what he and his colleagues were deciding, and in an extraordinary effort — unusual in court decisions — offered ideas for ways forward for Parliament to fill the gap that they knew they were creating in the criminal law.

This is a classic example of what Professor Peter Hogg, perhaps Canada’s greatest constitutional lawyer — even, if I may say so, greater than the Leader of the Government in the Senate, perhaps a subject of debate on another day, I’m sure — referred to as a dialogue between the courts and the legislatures in relation to the Charter of Rights — in this case, Justice Kasirer’s dialogue; it is now our turn.

The question is: Is Bill C-28 the right parliamentary response in this dialogue? Many of us have spoken and will speak to the perceived or anticipated shortcomings of Bill C-28 as a response to what I will call self-induced criminally negligent extreme intoxification leading to harm to victims. In discussion with Minister Lametti, as Senator Plett noted, I raised one of these points myself regarding the ability to effectively prosecute the offence.

To be fair, the dilemma is difficult. We are reluctant — as Senator Gold noted — to create an offence that is limited to merely criminalizing negligent intoxification. Some have suggested, including the Supreme Court, that this provides a discount for intoxification. On the other hand, a bill like Bill C-28 honourably seeks to link the criminal negligence to the risk of harm and essentially the harm itself so that the perpetrator, if convicted, will be punished in line with the severity of the harm caused, not just the intoxication.

Here is my concern: By pursuing the very goal it seeks to achieve, Bill C-28 poses the risk that the necessary evidentiary connection, not constitutional, to that bigger offence and punishment — the linkage to that bigger guilty mind, the intention not just to become extremely intoxicated, but even objectively to risk harm — will be potentially unachievable.

Let me say a little bit more on that. Senator Gold described, rightly, that this will be an objective standard. I have no idea what the statistics are about magic mushrooms, but I want to tell you that it is almost unimaginable to me that lots of people having ingested a lot of magic mushrooms rush out and harm other people. My guess is that on all kinds of these substances the statistics are shockingly low that people take them and then engage in violence. If that is true, it powerfully undermines the argument that convictions will be achieved.

Senator Gold and I had an informal discussion about Bill C-28 yesterday. It was a rich discussion. I will not say more about the content. It was enriching for me, at least, and it made me somewhat more hopeful — but I think that I would only say “somewhat” — that the bill will be able to be effective. It brought to mind a metaphor that I shared with Senator Gold. I wasn’t going to share it today, but I quite frankly can’t resist. I believe Senator Plett left one more metaphor on the table, and I would like to use mine now.

A Nova Scotian friend told me this story about two fellows riding in a rowboat. They are going down the river. Suddenly they realize, holy cow, they are about to go over a waterfall. One of them, the leader in the boat, says to the other, “Throw out the anchor.” The second guy says, “I would, but the anchor is not attached to the boat.” The first guy says, “Throw it out anyway, it might do some good.”

I am a little bit worried that this piece of legislation, as heartfelt as it is — and I prefaced that in my remarks to Minister Lametti — may not be effective.

Where do I ultimately stand on the bill?

First, I’m satisfied that it is constitutional. I have had advice on that from others. I am completely in agreement with Senator Gold. The bill will not be struck down. It touches all the bases the Supreme Court asks it to touch, and indeed the Supreme Court invites this as one option for consideration.

Second, I would have preferred more reflection to see whether other formulations are preferable. At the same time, I am aware of the urgency of the issue. Additionally, the willingness of all elected parliamentarians to embrace the option deserves meaningful consideration. I’m appreciative that plans are in place to enable senators to study the whole terrain of extreme intoxification in criminal law, including this section of the code. On balance, with some reluctance, I will support the bill and watch attentively its effectiveness. Thank you.