Thank you very much, minister, for being with us here today.

We heard quite ringing denunciations of this bill from quite respectable witnesses in our meeting yesterday. They said that it’s being implemented in a rush, without data, and that the system is already increasingly revoking bail, moving up to an average of 70% across Canada in 2022 and as high as 79% in Ontario last year. They also said that increasing jail terms in remand will put more vulnerable people in tough situations and will encourage people to plead guilty, although statistically almost half of those charged wouldn’t be convicted.

As you’ve said in answer to Senator Batters, the system is already under great pressure, and this is a very targeted piece. My question is this: The bill calls for a review of these provisions in five years by the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to justice. Would you agree with some witnesses’ suggestions that we should do more than just review these targeted — some would say Band-Aid — provisions and look at a more comprehensive review of the bail system, which is amongst the most complicated and convoluted provisions in the Criminal Code?

Letter from the chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses.

Ms. Latimer, you made it clear that you believe that the bail system needs to be reviewed. You said we need a complete evidence-based comprehensive view of the bail system, but you also spoke about a review of the bail system by the House of Commons. Is it still necessary that one be done?

Are you recommending, then, that the review, which I believe you said should take place — was it you or another witness? — on the second or third anniversary, not the fifth, should incorporate a comprehensive review of the bail system rather than just focusing on this very narrow amendment to the bail provisions?

You also said that you weren’t comfortable with the House of Commons dealing with these provisions. You said the bill had blown through the House of Commons. Would you be recommending, then — and I hope this doesn’t sound self-serving — that perhaps the appropriate Senate committee should also undertake this review of these provisions and perhaps the more comprehensive review you’re recommending?

My experience with reviews of legislation is that when it says the fifth anniversary, it means that it starts in six or seven years. I’m wondering what your thoughts were in recommending that the review happen on the second or third year.

Actually that recommendation came from LEAF, so I wonder if Ms. Owens would have a comment on why you recommend the second or third anniversary rather than the fifth.

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

I was once a legal aid lawyer, along with my colleague and I think probably Senator Jaffer as well. Mr. Field, my question is to you. You talked about the disproportionate effect this bill will have on legal aid clients and legal aid systems, and you also noted that recent moves to add funding for police and prosecutors will exacerbate that situation. I know that it’s costs shared across the country, but could you give us an idea of what the trend has been for legal aid funding from the federal government in Canada? We heard some comments from the minister that there had been an increase in legal aid funding in recent years, but if we’re going to be making observations about the burden on legal aid, it would be helpful to have some concrete information on those trends.

Could you provide the details you mentioned to the committee through the clerk, please?

I mean for the whole country, if you have that through the association, please.