Justice Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

No, that's it.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Garrison, you have the floor.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We've heard a couple of times around the table today about what victims want from people. I think that if we listen carefully to our victims study, and if we look at the literature on victims, it's not always tougher sentences that victims are looking for. Certainly, in my previous work in criminal justice, it was almost always that victims were looking for the same thing to not happen to someone else.

Mr. Minister, I'd like you to talk about the two parts of this bill as they contribute to public safety through the prevention of future offences.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I think the prevention of future offences piece is critical, because it's enhancing the agency and autonomy of a victim to come forward in a manner that complies with the law and that will empower people, particularly women—if we're being frank with the statistics—to share their stories with women, other women and children, so that they can protect themselves. That's important.

I think it's also important that people feel.... If they're coming forward and entering into a criminal justice system that is sometimes fairly traumatizing just to enter into, if they feel a more welcome reception vis-à-vis their autonomy, their dignity and the ability to control their information, that can enhance reporting, which in and of itself is a good thing. It gives us a better handle on the situation, as we share the concerns about crime generally, but it also gives us a better handle on how to address the situation.

I think there are multiple reasons why this could be beneficial if it's implemented correctly. Ultimately, it's about confidence in the criminal justice system—confidence that it will be addressing the needs of victims. That is something I've heard a lot about from this committee in my previous incarnation, and that is something we need to be attentive to.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

That's great.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll end my questions there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

We will now go to Mr. Brock for four minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses in attendance.

Let me use my brief opportunity here to publicly congratulate you, Minister, on your new role. I'm looking forward to having you appear on many occasions.

I want to start off by discussing the narrative of your government, sir, and some talking points that you have used and that your predecessor, David Lametti, used to justify and sell, in my view, Bill C-48 as an important piece of legislation not only to restore public confidence in the administration of justice but also to make our communities safer.

I've heard repeatedly in the House that one of the hallmarks of Bill C-48 is that you've listened. You listened to stakeholders, you listened to premiers, and you listened to chiefs of police and presidents of police associations in forming the specific language to tighten up the reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code and to add to the reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code. However, you'll agree with me, sir, that it wasn't just additional reverse onus provisions as they relate to additional firearms offences that these stakeholders were asking for. There was actually a laundry list of other items they asked for that did not find itself in Bill C-48. Not knowing what the agenda is from your department, I don't think you're bringing forward any legislation to even contemplate encompassing the other asks.

With that being said, the provincial governments and the police associations have asked for a thorough review and reform of Canada's bail system. They asked for a definition of “serious prolific offender” or “repeat violent offender” within the confines of Bill C-48. They specifically asked that bail hearings for serious firearms offences be heard by a judge of a provincial court or a superior court as opposed to a justice of the peace, that obligations be strengthened with sureties and that there be consequences for failing obligations.

My ask of you, with the limited amount of time that I have, sir, is why this government, why your department and why you personally have ignored those significant additional measures that the stakeholders are asking for to improve community safety and to restore confidence in our justice system.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Brock, for the question.

I'd put it to you simply that no one is being ignored by me or by my department with respect to the conversation about community safety.

What I would underscore for you is that the conversation on bail reform started with a letter that came from the premiers to the Prime Minister after an FPT that occurred in October 2022. That letter had a very specific ask, and we added to that ask in terms of developing the legislation. To the one firearms offence listed there, we added another three.

You and I share the same province, the province of Ontario. Doug Ford's government and Doug Downey, as the AG, have been very complimentary in terms of what we've been doing and very supportive in terms of what we've been doing.

What I found unique about the situation is that we had the support behind that bill of all 13 leaders of the provinces and territories in this country, as well as all of the law enforcement community. That continued even as we saw it make its way through to the Senate. It's now in the Senate. David Eby's government continued to lobby for its quick passage even while it was being studied in the Senate.

I think it's important, in terms of the list you're mentioning, to also underscore—and you as a former prosecutor will know this—that when it comes to setting in place the structure and the architecture, that's the Criminal Code and that's for federal parliamentarians. When it comes to the administration of justice and things like bail enforcement, that's the responsibility of the provinces, pursuant to the administration of justice under the constitutional division of powers.

What we've seen is that we've put money in place, including $330 million for guns and gangs enforcement, that is helping provinces do exactly that. There's some complementarity there, but in terms of my willingness to explore other options for keeping communities safe, as a guy who represents a riding in Toronto that has seen violence, particularly on the TTC, I am committed to that. It is my fundamental duty to keep Canadians safe.

Bill C-48 goes in a direction that will do just that. It's an important piece of legislation that got all-party support, which is a good thing. I think there are more areas of collaboration, and I'm willing to collaborate in those areas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much for that.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I figured that my time would be up. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

You were out of time for sure, Mr. Brock.

I'm now going to go to Mr. Housefather for four minutes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Congratulations on your appointment, Minister.

And congratulations to you too, Madam Chair, on your new role.

It is indeed a pleasure to be back once again on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, because it's one of my favourite House of Commons committees.

Mr. Minister, I want to ask you about an amendment that was made by the Senate. You voiced some discomfort with a couple of the Senate amendments or mentioned some issues with respect to them.

I have a concern about one that was made with respect to the variation or revocation of applications in proposed subsection 486.51(3). I don't expect you to remember the bill perfectly by heart, so I'll read it to you, mention what I'm concerned about and ask if you might react to it, so that we will be governed in our deliberations accordingly.

It now states:

If the court is of the opinion that varying or revoking the order that is the subject of an application referred to in subsection (2) may affect the privacy interests of any person other than the accused who is the subject of any order prohibiting the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify that person, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the order should be varied or revoked.

My concern is in reference to “the privacy interests of any person other than the accused”, which was added by the Senate. It seems to me to imply that the accused actually has some privacy interests that are being ignored by this section, but then some accused and their lawyer may argue they have privacy interests in other sections throughout the act. I don't think we want to recognize that the accused has a privacy interest in these matters.

Could you guide us on that and let me know if you or the officials share that concern about this language being introduced?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I would say to you, Mr. Housefather, it's duly noted. I think it's important to take a close reading of the legislation.

I share a concern if there's any ambiguity insofar as the target of this regime under Bill S-12 is meant to be the victims or witnesses, but to the exclusion of the accused. We are not concerned with the privacy interests of the accused here. Any Senate amendment that would purport to raise that issue is unnecessary ambiguity that doesn't conform to the objectives of the bill.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

This is just my feeling having read it. I think it creates ambiguity and doubt, because we're not talking in the rest of the bill about the privacy interests of the accused, but there we're saying this is irrespective of that. It seems to imply that there is a privacy interest.

Thank you. I'm sure my colleagues and I can discuss that among ourselves.

I appreciated Mr. Garrison's previous question asking for some numbers. I'm sure you don't have this number, but I was wondering, on average, how many people are transferred to Canada under the International Transfer of Offenders Act to serve their sentences for a criminal offence committed abroad.

That's mentioned in this act. Do we have any idea how many people this affects, those who have committed designated offences, including those in section 490.011 of the code?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

My officials advise me that we do not have that data. We could ask the Minister of Public Safety if it might be available from him or his department, and we could endeavour to provide that to you, if that material is available.

I'll say anecdotally that the provisions that relate to sex offenders on the registry and potential travel of 14 days to a different location have been very well received by our American counterparts. Attorney General Garland and Secretary Mayorkas have indicated that they are very appreciative of this effort to keep our continent safer from sexual predators.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I totally agree.

I just want to end by saying I very much appreciated your answer to Mr. Brock before about your commitment to keeping people safe, children safe and victims safe, because I think that's our commitment in all parties. I appreciate what you said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much, everyone.

That concludes our time with you, Minister. Thank you very much for sharing the information, knowledge and expertise you have with respect to this bill.

We will adjourn, but before we do, at the next meeting, the officials will be returning for the first hour, and the second hour will be with witnesses.

Thank you very much. Have a pleasant evening, everyone.