Bill C-75 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) re-enact the victim surcharge regime and provide the court with the discretion to waive a victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that the victim surcharge would cause the offender undue hardship or would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.
Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Chief Davis, Chief Montour and Superintendent Lecky for your attendance today. This is an extremely important topic. We are trying to produce a report, so the House of Commons can effect change. It's near and dear to my heart, given my previous career.

I'm going to try to split my time as equitably as possible. I will start my time with you, Chief Davis.

We've heard from the Minister of Justice—also known as the Attorney General, or Canada's chief lawyer and prosecutor—who made, in my opinion, some pretty inflammatory comments that could only come from an academic. That's his background—academia. He taught law. He did not practise law in the trenches. We have a couple of prosecutors on this Conservative team right now. I want to separate theory and academia from reality.

Some topics, or some lines the minister has used, are as follows. He said that our bail system is sound and strong; that there's a law that already tells us that, if the accused is a threat to public safety, they should not be released on bail; that it's erroneous to attribute recent events such as the killing of the OPP officer to Bill C-75; that Bill C-75 made it harder to receive bail; and that individuals are not supposed to get bail if they fall within the enumerated classes under section 515 of a flight risk, a danger to the community and where the administration of justice will be brought into disrepute, known as the tertiary grounds.

That's theory. Let's talk about reality. What do you say?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

The spirit of Bill C-75 is that those conditions should not be imposed. There shouldn't be anything there that is not in any way linked to the crime or those other standards like recidivism, public safety, etc.

We need to keep working at the mise en oeuvre, the implementation of the bill.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Former Bill C‑75 introduced a reverse onus provision to help victims and make it harder for accused to access bail.

We were looking into other options as well, so we also provided more clarity around certain definitions of sexual violence in former Bill C‑51. In addition, through former Bill C‑3, we ensured that judges would receive better training on how to deal with matters involving intimate partner violence and sexual assault.

We fully support victims all over the country through our programming, and we remain open to making further changes to address intimate partner violence. I know that one of the members here today put forward a bill on coercive control, and I announced publicly my support for the bill. It's also very important to define offences in a way that is understandable to the victims in those situations.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you. What do you say to someone who argues that Bill C‑75 weakened the bail system?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you for your question.

As I said, Bill C‑75 was the product of extensive co‑operation between the federal government and the provinces and territories. We brought together the best ideas out there for reforming the criminal justice system, including the bail system. Thanks to the bill, we were able to establish the framework for a number of Supreme Court decisions relating to bail. In that sense, the bill did not alter the foundation—the architecture, if you will—of the system or the most important rules and regulations. What it did was provide clarity around the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

We also had to address the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black people in the justice system, especially in regard to minor offences. That includes administration of justice offences such as an individual missing a meeting or a hearing because of distance. We adjusted the requirements and conditions to match the real problems. The provinces and territories welcomed the reforms at the time.

Obviously, some of the situations that have been mentioned pose a challenge. We are prepared to take another look at the whole thing to see what we can do to make the legislation better.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Right, but when it comes to serious offences, we can agree that since Bill C-75 and in the last five or six years—seven or eight years, really—more people are getting out on bail for serious offences.

Would you agree with that?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

No, in terms of serious offences, Bill C-75 didn't change anything. It made it harder for people in cases of intimate partner violence.

What Bill C-75 tried to do was.... In the case of administration of justice offences, like missing a bail hearing, those kinds of minor offences were meant to not be a larger point of entry into the criminal justice system.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Okay. Are you saying then that fewer people should have been getting bail based on Bill C-75? Is that your position?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here. It's always a pleasure to have you here.

Do I have it right that your testimony before committee today is that you believe that Bill C-75 made it harder for people to get bail? Do I have that correct?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I think we need to continue trying to implement Bill C-75. Part of Bill C-75 was precisely to make sure that bail conditions were linked to the goals that we had in the system of keeping Canadians safe and preventing recidivism. We need to continue in that light.

We also tried to make sure that the so-called administration of justice offences didn't become a reason for someone to enter into the revolving door of the bail system and the carceral system in a way that in no way protected the safety of people. It did have an impact on indigenous and other racialized Canadians in that regard.

It's going through with the reforms in Bill C-75 as the first step and then re-evaluating and seeing where we are.

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

One of the things that Bill C-75 did was try to establish a better link between conditions for bail and the actual offences.

One of the things we see quite often is that bail conditions lead to an offence because of that breach that brings people into the system ever more tightly each time this happens. Quite often still, abstinence from drugs or alcohol is listed as a condition for bail, and we know that people with addictions can't possibly meet that condition. How do you think we might be able to address that problem in that Bill C-75 started down that road?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

My apologies for interrupting, Minister. I realize it's not polite, but you know how this works. We have a very limited amount of time.

I gather, then, that you agree with me: the provinces, including Quebec, and the territories must administer the justice system with the utmost respect for the Criminal Code and its provisions.

You said that former Bill C‑75 was the product of co‑operation with the provinces and territories. That's well and good, but it's still a federal responsibility. Your government introduced Bill C‑75 and carries the weight of the Criminal Code in its entirety. I assume the code reflects what your government believes to be the best rules for administering criminal justice.

Am I wrong?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Yes, absolutely. The federal government has that responsibility, but obviously it's not a responsibility that we carry out alone. As I mentioned, former Bill C‑75 was the product of co‑operation with the provinces and territories, and so was the bill we passed to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the rules of criminal procedure.

We are going to continue on that path. It's also important to consider the resources that the provinces have to do the work. Clearly, we are open—

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I don't accept that. Bill C-75 basically enshrined a number of Supreme Court of Canada decisions, which were already the law before that came into account. Bill C-75 added additional reverse onuses in the case of intimate partner violence, again helping victims in that regard.

The experts will tell you that the best thing in terms of helping the bail system is to help the overall efficiency of the criminal justice system. The primary function of Bill C-75 was to make the whole criminal justice system more efficient. It hasn't had time to do its work yet. We're still working. We've had a pandemic in the meantime.

It doesn't mean that Bill C-75 can't be improved. That's why we're here now. Fundamentally, it is a good piece of legislation. It made it harder to get bail and didn't change any of the fundamental underlying premises for bail that the Supreme Court had laid out.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Minister, in 2019 you described the bail reform bill, Bill C-75 as “an outstanding piece of legislation that goes a long way toward improving the efficiency, fairness and speed...of our criminal justice system.”

You mentioned some of the stats. If we believe Statistics Canada—and I do— violent crime was up and gang-related murders were up in that time. In the last five years, Ontario police have seen a 72% increase in cases of serious violence involving accused persons reoffending while on release for a previous serious offence.

Minister, they lay the blame at the feet of your government and Bill C-75, which has made it more difficult to keep individuals and repeat violent offenders behind bars while they're awaiting trial. Do you accept the criticism that's coming unanimously from every premier in this country? They say that the Criminal Code changes that your government brought in had a negative impact on public safety.