Bill C-35 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that the accused will be required to demonstrate, when charged with certain serious offences involving firearms or other regulated weapons, that pre-trial detention is not justified in their case and to introduce additional factors relating to firearm offences that the courts must take into account in deciding whether an accused should be released or detained pending trial.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

What we will do for the committee is provide you with the complete set of speaking notes and so forth following the presentation. Once they're available in both official languages we'll provide them to you.

In this slide you can see, by offence type, the percent resulting in a conviction. Where the Bill C-35 offence was the most serious, the overall conviction rate was 31%. You see it listed by offence type within the slide, but the overall was 31%.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

We are on slide 7. If we look at only those cases where we had a Bill C-35 charge as the most serious offence, we saw that the overall conviction rate was 31%. According to our courts data, we found that 84% of these convicted cases, where the Bill C-35 charge was the most serious offence, had a guilty plea. This was lower than the overall 90% of guilty pleas for convicted cases.

[Lynn Barr-Telford, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada]

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today to present data for your consideration with respect to Bill C-35, reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences.

Let me begin by outlining where we can and cannot provide data relevant to this bill. We cannot provide data on the granting of bail—for example, how often bail was granted when an accused was charged with a firearm-related offence. We also cannot identify where an offence was committed by an accused on bail.

What we can provide is information on the number of police-reported incidents where the offence involved a firearm and to which this bill specifically applies.

We can present national data for three offence types under consideration: robbery, discharging a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm, and weapons trafficking. We can also present information on kidnapping, extortion, attempted murder, and sexual assault levels 2 and 3 from a subset of police services representing just over 60% of the national volume of crime. As well, we can provide data from our courts statistics program on the processing of cases involving firearm-related offences. Finally, we can look at the use of pretrial detention with our Correctional Service data. For any data, the limitations are noted in the footnotes on the slides.

If you turn to slide 2, for the three offence types with national coverage of police-reported incidents, we see that in 2005 there were just over 3,500 robberies with a firearm. Of these, 1,117 were cleared by the laying of a charge by police. There were 252 police reported incidents of discharge of a firearm with intent, and 111 were cleared by way of charge. In addition, as a group, there were 147 weapons trafficking offences, which in our data set include Criminal Code sections 99, 100, 101, 103, and 104.

On slide 3, with respect to the other offences covered by Bill C-35, we have information on the number of incidents involving a firearm from a sample of police services representing 62% of the national caseload; thus this chart may underrepresent the total number of such incidents.

Kidnapping includes forceable confinement and hostage-taking. There were 258 such incidents reported in 2005, and 134 of these were cleared by way of charge. We also know that based on this sample of police services, with respect to Bill C-35 offences, robbery with a firearm makes up the large majority of such offences, about 80%. This is the largest offence by volume on the list.

Turning to slide 4, we also know that the rate of robbery with a firearm has been dropping over the past decade. It's down about 50%. In total, there were almost 29,000 robberies in 2005. The robbery rate was 3% higher than in 2004; however, this was about 15% lower than a decade ago and 25% lower than the 1991 peak.

Over half of the robberies reported to police in 2005 were committed without a weapon. Firearms were used in 12% of robberies in 2005, while just under one third involved another type of weapon.

If we turn to our courts data for 10 jurisdictions, where we can identify a firearm offence, we can look at the processing of offences identified in Bill C-35. For 2003-04, we found that 871 cases, representing 1,633 charges with an offence identified in Bill C-35, were disposed of in adult criminal courts. These 871 cases include cases where multiple charges have been laid, and at least one of these charges was for a C-35 offence. It may not, however, be classified as the most serious offence. So while it may be labelled on the graph as a drug-trafficking case, there is within this case a Bill C-35 charge.

Given what we saw on our police-reported data, it is not surprising to find that robbery accounts for over 40% of BillC-35 cases disposed of in 2003-04. Weapons trafficking represented 15% of Bill C-35 cases. In approximately two-thirds of the cases—563 of the 871—a Bill C-35 charge was the most serious offence in the case.

If you turn to slide 6, also from our courts data, we see that the overall conviction rate for cases with a Bill C-35 charge is 40%. This is significantly lower than the 58% overall conviction rate for all federal statute offences in 2003-04 and lower than the overall conviction rate of 48% for crimes against the person offences. One possible reason for this, as we've seen in our data, is that an accused person is less likely to plead guilty to a more serious charge and/or one that carries a mandatory minimum sentence, which we know applies for a number of the Bill C-35 offences.

Once a Bill C-35 case is found guilty, 77% of these cases result in a term of imprisonment. The average length of custody for these cases was 1,101 days. This reflects the average sentence imposed on the most serious offence in the case. Overall, the average case processing time for cases with a Bill C-35 charge was 221 days, which is almost the same as the average for all federal statute offences in 2003-04.

If you turn to the next slide—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, we are going to be considering Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences.

As witnesses this afternoon, from Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, we have Mrs. Lynn Barr-Telford, the director; Mr. John Turner, the chief of the policing services program; and Mr. Craig Grimes, project manager for the courts program.

I understand you have one opening statement. Who's going to do it?

Go ahead please, Ms. Barr-Telford.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to be back in front of you.

I'm pleased to see Mr. Rick Dykstra, one of my colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula and now a member of this committee. It's nice to see him here. I know of his dedication to justice issues, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, I've learned over the years that any time you get up to speak, if you're going to start recognizing people in a crowd, then you should have the names written down in advance so that you don't miss anyone. I missed someone yesterday. I was at the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week symposium in Ottawa, and when I got up to introduce the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime, I recognized my colleagues Stockwell Day, Dean Allison, and Laurie Hawn. I didn't see Ms. Jennings in the audience, and I apologize to her for that.

I actually noticed you, Ms. Jennings, as I was walking off the podium, when I saw you in the second or third row. That's not something I would do; I would certainly acknowledge all my colleagues in the House of Commons. In future, I'll revert to my usual procedure, which is to write down the names of the people I'm going to acknowledge—or not do it at all.

In any case, I'm glad to see you here, and I'm glad you were at the meeting yesterday.

It is a pleasure for me to meet with the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to discuss the main estimates for the Department of Justice.

And I'm pleased to have my colleagues joining me here today—and you have introduced them, Mr. Chairman.

You would know, Mr. Chairman, as well that not only am I Minister of Justice and Attorney General, but my portfolio also includes the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Minister of Justice, of course, is also responsible for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, created last December by the Federal Accountability Act to enshrine in legislation the notion of prosecutorial independence.

I'll speak more about that in a moment, but first of all, I want to say that the work of the Department of Justice focuses on ensuring that Canada is a just and law-abiding society, with an accessible, efficient, and fair system of justice, providing high-quality legal services and counsel to the government and to client departments and agencies, and promoting respect for the rule of law.

Within this broad context, the department has a specific priority to develop legislation and policy that address crime more effectively and increase the confidence of Canadians in the judicial system. Ultimately this will promote safer communities for all Canadians and have a very real impact on their lives.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased with the progress that our government has made on the priorities of Canadians, particularly in the realm of tackling crime. My predecessor, Minister Toews, was placed in charge of an ambitious legislative agenda. I have now taken on the challenge of that agenda and will continue to work diligently to guide the legislation through the House and of course will work with this committee.

One overarching priority has guided our government's work over the past 14 months, and that is safer communities for all Canadians. Part of that priority is tackling crime. From the beginning of our mandate, we have been committed to stronger laws that deal with gangs, guns, and drugs; ensuring serious consequences for serious crimes; and ensuring that our communities are safe from crime. That commitment has not wavered.

We also believe that Canada's justice system must adapt to the needs of the 21st century so that it can remain in step with changes in technology and an increasingly sophisticated population. In these endeavours, I've been working closely with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, to deliver on that promise to tackle crime.

We have introduced legislation on a number of fronts. For example, Bill C-35 proposes to shift the onus to the person accused of serious gun crimes to explain why they should not be denied bail. And Bill C-18 intends to strengthen our national DNA data bank and help our police forces identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent.

I am pleased to say that with the support of all parties in the House we brought into force Bill Bill C-19, which creates new offences that target street racing specifically. These new offences recognize street racing for what it is, a reckless and dangerous act that too often kills. With our new legislation, people who treat our public streets as race tracks will be dealt with more seriously.

We also passed legislation, introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Jim Flaherty, to strengthen the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. These changes will help ensure that Canada continues to be a global leader in combatting organized crime and terrorist financing.

We are also committed to better meet the needs of victims of crime in areas where the federal government is responsible. Our government has listened and responded to victims of crime, giving them the respect they deserve. We have established the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Just yesterday, I was pleased to name Steve Sullivan as the first federal ombudsman. This office will be an independent resource for victims who have concerns about areas for which the federal government is responsible, including the federal correction system. Mr. Sullivan will work at arm's length from the government so that victims will be more confident that their views are being heard.

We also recently provided $52 million in funding over the next four years to boost programs, services, and funding for victims of crime, including: enhancing financial assistance to victims to travel to sentencing hearings to deliver victim impact statements, as well as to National Parole Board hearings; increasing funding for services in the north, where rates of victimization are much higher than in the rest of Canada; and providing limited emergency financial assistance for Canadians who become victims of serious violent crimes while abroad.

However, Mr. Chairman, the government also recognizes that it is equally important to prevent criminal behaviour before it has a chance to take root. We are addressing the root causes of crime by supporting community programs with effective social programs and sound economic policies.

In support of these goals, Budget 2007 commits $64 million over the next two years to create a national anti-drug strategy. This investment builds on ongoing annual funding for current programs and initiatives. This government is determined to sever these links by implementing a coherent, comprehensive national strategy against drugs. Although some details of the strategy remain to be worked out, I can say that it will focus on preventing drug use, treating drug addiction, and combatting drug production and distribution. Together, these three action plans will form an integrated, focused, and balanced approach to reducing the supply and demand for illicit drugs as well as the crime associated with them, leading to healthier individuals and safer communities. The strategy will address all illegal drugs, including marijuana, and will include a national awareness campaigned aimed at young people.

To succeed over the long term, I believe we must educate young people about the real risks associated with drug use, such as the dangers to mental and physical health, potential legal consequences, and impacts on career and travel options. It will also spur communities into action and engage local leaders in preventing the harm caused by illegal drugs.

Our government is also providing $20 million over two years to support community-based programs that provide youth at risk with positive opportunities and help them make good choices. And we will continue to work with the provinces, municipalities, police, and community leaders in areas threatened by gun and gang violence to support programs that reach out to young people.

We've also continued the drug treatment court program, which is an important initiative of the Department of Justice. In conjunction with Health Canada, my department has been instrumental in expanding the concept of drug treatment courts beyond the initial pilot program in Toronto to several communities across Canada. Our government supports the use of drug treatment courts because they help reduce criminal behaviour and drug use while holding offenders accountable for their actions.

We've also made changes to improve and strengthen the justice system. Last November, my predecessor implemented changes to the judicial advisory committees. These changes have broadened the base of stakeholders who will contribute to their discussion and assessment of competence and excellence required for federally appointed judges.

More specifically, we've included members of the law enforcement community, a community no less implicated in the administration of justice than lawyers and judges. These new members contribute another perspective on the competent and qualified individuals recommended to me for appointment to the bench. And we have moved expeditiously to fill vacancies in federal and provincial courts. To date, we have appointed 84 federal judges. I think this is an impressive record, given that the coming into force of Bill C-17 on December 14, 2006, provided federally appointed judges with new options for electing supernumerary status, which created even more vacancies. However, I must emphasize that we will not sacrifice the quality of our appointments in the interest of speed. These appointments will continue to be based on merit and legal excellence.

Additionally, in the interests of accountability we have created the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and have now begun the process of selecting a permanent director. Candidates will be assessed by a committee, with representation from each political party, the senior public service, and the legal profession. As Attorney General, I will make a choice from among three candidates, and that choice will be referred for approval to a committee of Parliament.

By establishing this office as an entity separate from the Department of Justice, our government has it made absolutely clear that criminal prosecutions are independent from political influence.

At this point, I must clear up two misconceptions.

First of all, this action does not suggest that the government believes federal prosecutors were unduly influenced in the past. As my predecessor Minister Toews has said:

We are not here to correct a problem that has already occurred; we are here to prevent problems from arising in the future.

Second, it's simply incorrect to state, as has been reported, that creating this office has cost the taxpayers an additional $98 million. The truth is this figure represents the budget of the former Federal Prosecution Service, which was a division of the Department of Justice. After the transfer, the budget for the department decreased.

The key driver in creating this office is to be as cost neutral as possible. It is in fact an investment that will benefit Canadians and increase their confidence in the justice system.

Mr. Chairman, although our government has been making great strides in improving our justice system, there is still a great deal left to accomplish.

There are still nine bills in Parliament for which I am responsible as Minister of Justice and which I am committed to bringing into force.

We introduced Bill C-9 to restrict the use of conditional sentences to ensure that people who commit serious crimes will serve their time behind bars, not in the community.

We introduced Bill C-10 to impose escalating mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun-related crimes. This legislation outlines clear consequences for gun crimes: prison sentences that are in keeping with the gravity of the offence.

As I mentioned, Bill C-10 seeks to increase the minimum penalty for gun crimes. This matter will soon be discussed in Parliament, and I hope that bill will be restored to the way it was prior to being amended.

Our legislative priorities also include Bill C-27, which will ensure tougher sentences and more effective management of dangerous offenders, including imposing stricter conditions on repeat offenders to keep such criminals from offending again. Bill C-27 responds to concerns that repeat and violent sexual predators are not being properly sentenced or managed once released into the community by strengthening the dangerous offender provisions and sections 810.1 and 810.2, the peace bond provisions, of the Criminal Code. No one will be automatically designated a dangerous offender upon third conviction, and that's another misconception, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to clear up. Crown prosecutors may or may not elect to seek dangerous offender status. In those cases where the Crown elects to proceed, the offender will be given the opportunity to explain why they should not be designated as dangerous, and judges will determine whether the offender should be designated as a dangerous offender.

We are also working to strengthen the laws against alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired driving. Bill C-32 will ensure that drug-impaired drivers face similar testing to that which drunk drivers now face. It will give police better tools to detect and investigate drug- and alcohol-impaired driving, and it will increase penalties.

Bill C-22, which this committee recently considered and supported, will better protect youth against adult sexual predators, including against such predators on the Internet, by raising the age of sexual consent from 14 years to 16 years. I believe there is a broad consensus among Canadians that raising the age of protection is the right thing to do. We know it is strongly supported by many who work with youth or advocate on their behalf. I know there's a great deal of support across different levels of government, and indeed across the political spectrum.

This law would also bring Canada in line with many other developed countries throughout the world. It's time to get serious in dealing with the crimes of adult sexual predators and it's time to take a realistic and respectful approach to protecting our young people.

Beyond the legislative agenda is our role as the lead department on the national anti-drug strategy, as announced in Budget 2007. The Department of Justice has traditionally had a role in supporting the development of drug policy, and until recently played an integral part in the prosecution of drug offences. It also has responsibility for the youth justice policy development, including the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

As mentioned previously, along with preventing illicit drug use and treating dependency, this strategy will also crack down on gangs and combat illicit drug production such as grow-ops and methamphetamine labs.

I will work hard to ensure that the government's tackling crime agenda progresses through Parliament in my role as justice minister and Attorney General, so that we can all enjoy safer streets and more secure communities.

Mr. Chairman, our government has done more than just promise to improve Canada's system of justice to create safer communities; we have backed it up with financial resources. I am pleased to note that Budget 2007 reflects the government's commitment to building safer communities and creating a better Canada. We are cooperating on a number of initiatives.

On the new national drug strategy, which I have mentioned, we are committed to $64 million over the next two years to refocus current efforts on combatting illicit drug use and manufacturing, as well as prevention and treatment.

We renewed the aboriginal justice strategy with funding of $14.5 million over two years. This will significantly increase the number of aboriginal communities and people that have access to community justice programs. Under the strategy, aboriginal communities will take greater responsibility for the administration of justice, leading to a further reduction in crime and positive impacts at the community level.

We have allocated an additional $6 million per year to strengthen current activities on combatting the sexual exploitation and trafficking of children and to ensure that those who commit these heinous crimes are brought to justice.

In addition, for the first time in more than 10 years, the provinces and territories will have stable and predictable funding for criminal legal aid. This approach will permit jurisdictions to develop long-term strategies to support the delivery of criminal legal aid.

Budget 2007 takes important steps to prevent crime, as well as the precursors of crime, and to ensure that our corrections, intelligence, and security systems are strong.

Finally, the government recently received the House of Commons subcommittee and special Senate committee reports on the review of the Anti-terrorism Act. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of both committees for their excellent work in tackling the numerous issues they were confronted with in the course of their review.

Both committees addressed issues of great concern to the government, and we will consider these recommendations very carefully.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and your committee members for your important work. It is an honour for me to take part in this process as Canada's Minister of Justice.

However, I am acutely aware that improving Canada's system of justice is a collaborative effort. Our system is a shared responsibility with the provinces and territories, and our many programs and initiatives require collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners as well as municipalities and other government departments. Together we will continue to work to ensure that Canada's system of justice contributes to the safety and security and well-being of Canadians.

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to any questions or comments you may have.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Certainly, Monsieur Petit, the bill is designed to address problems of the type that you've set out, without getting into where gangs are a problem or where they're not a problem. Certainly when offences of the type described in Bill C-35 are committed, the public, whether they be in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, or indeed any other community within Canada, have a real right to be concerned, and they look to people like you and to this committee to try to respond to those concerns.

Quite frankly, that's why I believe this bill does have widespread support right across this country; it does address one of the concerns. Is it the only concern of the Criminal Code? No. I have other concerns with respect to the Criminal Code, and you, as a committee, are dealing with the legislation that reflects the government's concerns and the priorities that we talked about with Canadians during the last election.

Again, it's one more component of bringing our Criminal Code into line with the hopes and the aspirations of Canadians. I'm very pleased to be associated with it, and I hope all the members of this committee can take some satisfaction and some pride that we're moving ahead with these improvements.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Minister, I want to be certain that I understand everything clearly. Does Bill C-35 with its reverse onus proposal in fact address a genuine need? Legislation must ultimately meet a need and according to what Mr. Mauser told us, there was in fact a problem in 2006.

Can you apply, as I have done, the situation he is describing to cities like Montreal or Vancouver? Could Bill C-35 minimize the chances of having many people who are on probation or otherwise have been released commit offences?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

Good day, Mr. Nicholson, Ms. Kane, Ms. Besner. I have a question I'd like to ask in an effort to get some idea of where we are heading with Bill C-35. I want to be certain that everything is clearly understood. In the background material given to us by the Library of Parliament analysts, a criminologist by the name of Gary Mauser notes that according to the statistics on violent crime quoted by the Government of Canada, of the nearly 1,000 crimes committed in Toronto in 2006 with firearms or restricted weapons, nearly 40% were committed by a person out on bail, parole, temporary leave or probation. Therefore, according to law enforcement officials, 70% of the people charged with homicide in 2006 were under some kind of court order when the offence was committed.

The findings for Toronto, a city of three to four million, can also be applied to Montreal, which is grappling with the same problem, despite what everybody says. Gangs are very active in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. People are shooting at one another on street corners and we're dealing with many problems. When you collected this data, did you...

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think the support we have is a little broader than that. Across this country I think people are in support of what we are doing. I know you have your position with respect to the firearms registry. We have been very clear about the waste that we believe was incurred. We believe the whole firearms registry had less to do with fighting crime and more to do with creating bureaucracy. So we have some serious concerns with respect to that.

You ask, how can we be consistent and be against crime? Well, I think we are being consistent. Bill C-35 as well as other pieces of legislation that you presently have or have had before this committee are all part of our efforts to make our streets safer, to protect our communities, and quite frankly, to increase people's confidence in the criminal justice system. That's always a concern to me, as I think it should be to all Canadians. We want people to believe that the system works and it works to protect them.

Indeed, you would be aware that I announced several weeks ago the creation of the victims ombudsman, so that we have an individual and an office that is specifically tasked with the concerns and the issues of the victims of crime. I think you would agree with me that sometimes they are the forgotten ones in the process. I'm very comfortable that with the legislation we are moving forward on, as well as some of the other initiatives, we are directly targeting crime. But you and I will perhaps have to agree to disagree on the firearms registry.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think you've made a very good point. This has actually received widespread support. Just before the question period I was over at the Canadian Police Association meeting. The CPA is very supportive generally of the initiatives we have taken as a government and are supportive of a bill like Bill C-35. We have heard back from provincial and municipal governments, prosecutors. Indeed, in my hometown of Niagara Falls I've been stopped twice on the streets recently by police officers who just wanted to tell me that they are supportive of the initiatives, including initiatives like this. My colleague, Mr. Dykstra, would know about the Niagara Regional Police; so many of those individuals have come forward and expressed a complete support for this.

So I think there is widespread support, and I have certainly been very pleased. Quite frankly, I'm actually encouraged by the possibility that we're going to be able to move forward on this. The Liberal Party have at various times expressed support for this. Today they said they're largely in support in principle, and I hope the devil isn't in the details. I'm hoping that the way it is now we're going to move forward on that. The New Democratic Party has indicated that it is supportive of this particular legislation, and I am hoping the Bloc will see the light and will come on board with this move to improve the criminal justice system in this country. I say to them that I'm sure that when they go home and explain this to individuals in their constituencies, overwhelmingly the people will tell them this is on the right track; it's a step in the right direction.

So in the end, Mr. Moore, I'm hoping this will have the unanimous support of Parliament, because the bottom line is that this can't or shouldn't be a partisan matter. This is just improving the Criminal Code and making it better and safer for all Canadians.

[Julie Besner]

Yes.

In terms of some of the dissents in the Supreme Court rulings, specifically in Pearson—I believe Madam Justice McLaughlin was one of the dissenting justices in that decision, and she highlighted that the section should have failed because it didn't distinguish between small-time drug traffickers and large-scale drug traffickers.

With respect to Bill C-35, I can indicate to the committee that the firearms trafficking and smuggling offences targeted under Bill C-35 are the more serious offences that target that kind of activity. There are lesser included offences in the Criminal Code; for example, “unlawful transfer”, which I believe is at around section 102 or 103. There is also an equivalent “illegal importing” offence, which doesn't amount to as serious an offence as the smuggling offence.

The point I'm trying to communicate is that there are other offences that are available to address less serious breaches as criminal activity, though certainly where there is something that is of great concern to law enforcement, tools are available in the Criminal Code, and would be with a new reverse onus provision, for serious firearms traffickers and smugglers.

If you would like me to point out those offences in the code, I could. They're all in the area between sections 99 and 103.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm very pleased to be here. This bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to establish a reverse onus in the case of bail hearings for firearm-related and other regulated weapons offences.

The issue of providing a reverse onus for bail hearings for certain serious firearms offences is one of the government's criminal justice priorities. In my view, the legislative reforms proposed in Bill C-35 are appropriately tailored to the concern that has been expressed by many Canadians recently about the release from custody of individuals accused of serious gun crimes, who pose a threat to public safety.

Bill C-35 proposes a reverse onus for eight serious offences when committed with a firearm. They are the following: attempted murder, robbery, discharging a firearm with criminal intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, and extortion.

A reverse onus is also proposed for any indictable offence that involves a firearm or other regulated weapon if committed while the accused is under a weapons prohibition order. These indictable offences are not limited to those that involve the actual use of a firearm or weapon. Furthermore, a reverse onus is proposed for the offences of firearm trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and firearm smuggling.

Bill C-35 contains another amendment, which is not a reverse onus proposal. It provides that the courts give consideration to the fact that a firearm was allegedly used in the commission of the offence, to decide whether or not the accused should be kept in custody, in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Finally, it proposes that the court also consider whether the accused faces a minimum term of imprisonment of three years or more for a firearm-related offence.

The presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied bail without just cause are both constitutionally protected rights in our criminal justice system. Bail, however, can be denied in certain circumstances, and the Criminal Code provides specific grounds upon which the courts are justified in keeping someone in custody before their trial. Bail can be denied when detention is necessary to ensure that the accused does not flee justice, to protect the public--for example, if there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will reoffend if released--or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Normally, the Crown is the party that must show just cause for keeping the accused in custody before trial. However, in certain specific cases, the onus is on the accused to show that there is no justification for keeping him in custody.

The protection of the right to not be denied reasonable bail without just cause has led to a few important constitutional challenges, which were brought to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision.

It's worth noting that our Supreme Court has maintained that constitutional validity of certain circumstances triggering a reverse onus on bail. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that this special bail rule is necessary to combat the pre-trial recidivism and absconding problems by requiring the accused to demonstrate that those risks will not arise.

It should be noted that there is unfortunately very little research available in Canada and elsewhere on the rate of reoffending by people out on bail. This is the case for offences in general and therefore also with respect to firearms offences specifically.

To date, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics has not gathered such data. Some police services gather statistics on whether a person newly arrested was previously under some form of supervision order; that is, whether they were on bail, prohibition, parole, or subject to a peace bond. I believe the data the department has on this issue was provided, as it had been requested during the technical briefing shortly after the introduction of this bill.

It's important to note, however, that the approach taken with several of the proposals in Bill C-35 is consistent with the principles that underlie the current bail regime. The reform proposed in Bill C-35 builds on the existing reverse onus scheme to specifically include certain serious firearms offences.

I think Bill C-35 is not only a very sensible and focused piece of legislation, but it also reflects much of the guidance provided by the Supreme Court on the bail regime. Bill C-35 takes a very similar approach to the bail regime that already exists, but it focuses on the current gun crime problem, particularly as it relates to serious firearms offences or offenders who ignore court orders not to possess weapons. It also recognizes that firearm trafficking and smuggling operations are similar in nature to drug trafficking and smuggling, in the sense that such illicit activities form part of a larger organized crime setting.

I hope the committee, after studying Bill C-35, will agree that this bill will improve the state of law and therefore greater protect Canadians from the threat of firearm violence.

Officials from my department and I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. In that regard, I am pleased to have with me Julie Besner as well as Catherine Kane, both from the Department of Justice.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me those opening comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good day, everyone.

Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences). We have the pleasure today of having the Hon. Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice.

Welcome, monsieur le ministre.

Also appearing before the committee today, from the Department of Justice, Ms. Catherine Kane, Acting Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, as well as Ms. Julie Besner, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section.

Welcome, Ms. Kane and Ms. Besner.

The floor is yours, Mr. Nicholson. You can start.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

The final motion is that amendments to Bill C-35 be submitted to the clerk of the committee 48 hours prior to clause-by-clause consideration. Agreed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

I see a quorum.

On the agenda today is the legislative committee on Bill C-35, and the orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 103(3). It's an organizational meeting.

You've all received the orders of the day.

The first item on the agenda is the appointment letter of the chair by the Speaker of the House, and it's dated February 22, 2007: “Dear, Dr. Patry, pursuant to”—