(Deputy Chair) in the chair.

[English]

I am Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, a senator from Quebec and deputy chair of this committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.

Scott Tannas, Alberta.

David Arnot from Saskatchewan. I am sitting in for Senator Dupuis this morning.

[Translation]

Bernadette Clement from Ontario.

[English]

Kim Pate, from the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people of Ontario.

Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.

Welcome, minister. Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.

[Translation]

Honourable Senators, we are meeting to continue our study of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

For our committee’s first group of witnesses, we are pleased to welcome, via videoconference, the Honourable Niki Sharma, K.C., MLA, Attorney General of British Columbia.

Welcome, Ms. Sharma, and thank you for joining us this morning. We’ll begin the meeting with your opening remarks.

The floor is yours.

[English]

Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. I speak to you from the traditional territories of the Lkwungen speaking people including the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱sáneć people. I am pleased to be able to join you today to speak in support of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

Bill C-48 reflects B.C.’s advocacy to expand the reverse onus provisions and to hold those who commit serious repeat violent crimes accountable by making it more difficult to obtain bail. We believe that everyone deserves to feel safe in their own communities. Across Canada, communities have been raising concerns about repeat violent offending. In fact, what you have before you today is supported by Attorneys General across the country and came from the work of two FTPs and many working group meetings between prosecution services across this country.

To address the issue of community safety, I wanted to talk a bit about B.C.’s approach. We launched the Safer Communities Action Plan, a comprehensive approach to community safety. It has many layers to it, including investing in mental health and addictions and in better systems within our justice systems, like virtual bail and the repeat violent offenders’ initiative. To talk a bit about that initiative, we think this is an innovative approach to reduce repeat violent offending. We have Crown counsel working with probation officers and police officers. They have cases of the most violent offenders referred to them so they can work together across systems to help come up with a plan, get better information if they are seeking detention of the individual and address the impacts that those people are having on communities. They’ve been running for about four months now and, so far, they are showing a lot of success.

As part of the work we are doing to keep communities safe, it is our view that targeted legislative amendments are needed to address the bail regime. The proposed amendments in Bill C-48 would make it more difficult for people to get bail if they have been accused of specific firearm offences, repeated serious violent offending involving weapons and repeat intimate partner violence. The proposed amendments will also require justices to keep public safety at the forefront of their decision making, including changes to ensure that they are considering community impacts. It shifts the burden of proof onto those accused of committing serious violent offences and where the accused was previously convicted of an offence of the same criteria within the past five years. I want to make it clear that these amendments are meant to target those who commit repeat violent offences with firearms and other dangerous weapons such as knives and bear spray. They will also address the enhanced risk posed by intimate partner violence.

I believe these are very important changes. I’ve heard too many stories of vulnerable individuals who have been assaulted when a repeat violent offender is out on bail. We need to change the law to provide Crown and the courts with additional powers to detain people who pose a risk to public safety. I believe these amendments strike a balance between the rights of victims and communities and the legal and constitutional rights of accused people. These amendments also complement the work already under way to help break the cycle of repeat violent offending and build safer communities here in B.C.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to speak in support of Bill C-48 and to speak about the particular approach B.C. has taken and the leadership role we feel we are having when it comes to addressing this issue. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Thank you, Ms. Sharma, for your remarks.

I will now turn things over to senators, who will have four minutes each.

[English]

Thank you, minister, for taking the time to speak with us today. It is appreciated.

We understand that you are supportive of this initiative, but we heard many witnesses in previous panels who referred to the lack of data. Officials from the federal government also referred to the lack of data because the provinces are in charge of the administration of justice. They are the ones able to gather that data. We are also told that in the course of discussions between justice departments, Ottawa and the attorneys general of the provinces, there was an agreement that more data would be provided. Could you indicate to us if that is the case and more data will be provided? What type of data will be made available in order for us to do a thorough review in three or five years when we decide to do a review? Thank you.

Thank you for that important question.

Data is a concern. We in B.C. have been collecting data in new ways through our Crown prosecution office. They are looking at the times that they are seeking detention, so the times they are looking to assess the case and determine that this individual is a threat to public safety. They are collecting data on how many times detention is attained and how many times it is not in those instances. We’ve been doing that for the last five months. You are right that, at the last FTP meeting we had across the country, there was agreement across all provinces to work together to figure out how to streamline the type of data that we all need to be collecting to monitor this thing.

One thing interesting to me that’s happening in B.C. is the Repeat Violent Offending Intervention Initiative because there are particular cases referred to in that initiative. The Crown counsel and the police officer and the probation officer are empowered to focus on that individual who is a repeat violent offender. We are getting very specific data, obviously privacy-protected, but data about individual instances of how they ended up where they are and how the system has responded. I think we in B.C. are going to learn a lot from that. We are obviously subject to what we are able to disclose and happy to help everyone learn together.

If there is some kind of specific document that outlines what you trying to do, we would appreciate receiving a copy for the committee. Thank you.

Definitely.

Thank you, minister, for making time to meet with us today. We really appreciate it.

Minister, I am aware that B.C. has launched the Safer Communities Action Plan, part of which was developed and implemented through the Repeat Violent Offending Intervention Initiative. What exactly does early intervention in cases involving prioritized individuals do to assist Crown counsel in making informed decisions about charges, assessments and giving information to police and other bodies? What does it actually mean on the ground?

Thank you for that question.

It means first and foremost that systems are talking better to each other. No matter if the person is going from one end of the province to the other, they are able to track that particular individual, so there is better information, not only for sentencing but also for planning when it comes to that person if they are going to be released on bail.

I think that the hubs have been running in 12 areas across the province, and they are being referred to by the different systems. There are criteria to determine who fits as a repeat violent offender in that service. What we are learning after four months of that running is it helps Crown counsel have better information if they are seeking detention because the systems are working together. There is fullness of files and understanding of this individual’s trajectory through the criminal justice system and impact on communities. From our preliminary view, it is resulting in better outcomes for communities and individuals and actually assessing what’s needed to stop them from reoffending.

At this stage, we are investing in resources to make sure we are thinking about and focusing on that. All systems have to work together when we are doing this. I have to say that the Repeat Violent Offending Intervention Initiative is a holistic approach to that, thinking about what that individual needs to stop reoffending. Sometimes it is a mental health intervention. Sometimes it is medication that the person needs to be receiving that they are not receiving. Sometimes it is increased incarceration because it is determined that, after all the efforts are put in place, there is reoffending and violence. The public needs to be protected. It helps us get a better view of the trajectory of what that individual needs and what services are needed.

How will this program affect the B.C. detention centres and their overcrowding situation?

Thank you.

Minister Sharma, you used a phrase a couple of times in your opening comments about people who commit multiple violent offences. This, I think, cuts to the heart of one of my uneases about Bill C-48, which is that we’re assuming the person is guilty before trial. We’re penalizing them based on past actions which may not be germane to a criminal trial. This is somebody who has been charged with a violent offence but who has not legally committed the violent offence. I wonder how you feel, from a civil liberties perspective, about the fact that we are making bail much harder to get for people prejudicially based on past criminal action.