Bill C-48

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create a reverse onus provision for any person charged with a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon who has been convicted, within the last five years, of a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon;
(b) add certain firearms offences to the existing reverse onus provisions;
(c) expand the reverse onus provision for offences involving intimate partner violence to ensure that it applies to an accused person who has been previously discharged for such an offence;
(d) require the court to consider if an accused person has any previous convictions involving violence and to include in the record a statement that the safety and security of the community was considered; and
(e) require the court to include in the record a statement setting out how the court determined whether the accused is Aboriginal or belongs to a vulnerable population and, if so, how the particular circumstances of the accused were considered.
This enactment also makes further clarifications and provides for a parliamentary review of the provisions it enacts or amends to commence on the fifth anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent, or as soon as feasible after that anniversary.

Criminal Code

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend on his appointment as parliamentary secretary. I know he worked as a lawyer for many years in Toronto. Some of the statistics that were presented earlier oftentimes conflate a number of different things when it comes to bail. Could he tell us today what kind of consensus existed to bring forward this bill from the police services, the premiers and justice ministers across the country?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who was my predecessor in this role, for the question. He has big shoes that I have to fill, and I want to thank him for everything he did in setting the stage for me.

We have heard today from some of the members opposite about how long it took, 246 days, to get this piece of legislation to now pass. However, if we want a piece of legislation to pass in its proper form, that is going to be accepted and work properly, we need to do proper consultation, which this government did. We met with police chiefs, premiers and ministers of justice across the country. I have had deputy chiefs of police in my office from Toronto, Peel and other regions in the GTA. I asked them point-blank: “If there is something in this bill that you do not like, tell me; give it to me straight.” They all said that they support the bill. However, the only reason we got it into the position that it is in today is through the consultation that my colleague referred to, which is why I am so proud that we were able to succeed and get this passed today. I want to thank members opposite again for their co-operation.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask my friend across the way a question. It gives me a little bit of hope that there are some atoms bouncing around in the heads over there to see a member like him get promoted.

However, if we want to reduce the rhetoric, we should be focused on facts. How many criminals would the bill actually impact?

It looks like very few people will be caught by the bill. The truth is that the bill does not go far enough. Most folks in provinces, including those who wrote the initial letters, have said that the bill does not go far enough to address the issues with bail.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, as for atoms, I know the member is particularly fond of them.

However, it is an impossible question to answer. All I can say is that we need to continue to work with all of the communities I mentioned earlier to keep moving forward. If there are further measures that need to be taken to make our communities safe, we will do it.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today in support of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code, otherwise known as bail reform.

It looks like my intervention is going to come after the unanimous motion that was tabled by the Conservatives and passed by all members of this House. First of all, let me congratulate all parties and all members of the House for passing this bill and getting it to the Senate. It is my desire to see the Senate pass it in an expedited manner as well.

Since the passing of the motion a bit earlier today, a lot of focus has been shifted toward how inadequate Bill C-75 was. It was not a perfect bill, but I can say that it is not as bad as some of my colleagues across the aisle are making it out to be. I think it might not be a bad idea for the sake of Canadians, now that they are reassured that the amendments in Bill C-48 are going to pass, to spend a bit of time trying to understand not only what Bill C-75 was and what some of the challenges were, but also the regime in the bill, which needs a bit of demystification.

I want to start by noting that Canada's bail regime works well, not in all cases but in most cases. However, the government has recognized the growing concerns relating to repeat violent offending and offending involving the use of firearms and other weapons resulting from the recent and horrific acts of violence committed by some individuals while out on bail. This has to do with members of our community: repeat offenders who are out on bail. That issue has to be addressed, and Bill C-48 is addressing it.

Naturally, all Canadians deserve to feel safe where they live and work, during their commute and in the duties they attend to every day of their lives. That is why we have identified problems and are trying to deal with them. The federal government has introduced Bill C-48 in order to address these concerns, promote community safety and reinforce public confidence in the administration of justice.

I am not going to spend a lot of time on the details of Bill C-48, although that was my intent, but I will briefly touch on them. The bill proposes reforms to create a new reverse onus to target repeat offending involving a weapon, add additional firearms offences to the existing reverse onus provisions, broaden the reverse onus targeting repeat offenders of intimate partner violence, clarify what constitutes a prohibition order in an existing reverse onus for offences involving a weapon and require the courts to consider an accused person's history of conviction for violence, and community safety and security concerns, when making any bail decisions.

We have seen examples of violent crimes in communities across our nation. I think colleagues across the aisle raised this to the next level, but the fact is that those offences are happening. I mourn for the families who have lost loved ones through these senseless acts, and I want to assure them that our government cares deeply, not only for them but about protecting public safety. We stand with all Canadians on issues of public safety and their and their families' security. After all, we know that Canada is known as a country of democracy where public safety is at the forefront.

What do safer communities and safety look like? True safety requires both holding criminals to account and attacking crime at its roots to prevent violence from occurring in the first place.

I was glad to hear some of our NDP colleagues actually talk about some of the root causes and how we can address some of them. That was welcome news to me.

Our government believes fervently in both objectives. We will not sensationalize violence. We will not use catchy slogans to argue for draconian measures, and we will lead with evidence-based policies that make a real difference.

My remarks today, as I said, will focus on the core principles that underpin the law of bail in Canada, on clarifying the impact of the former bill, Bill C-75 and on our bail regime, with a very light touch on Bill C-48.

Accused persons are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty of the offence charged, and they have a constitutional right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. I highlight "reasonable bail". As such, they must be released on bail unless their detention in custody is required in order to ensure their attendance in court; for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim or witness of the offence; or to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. There are fundamentals in place. I just highlighted the conditions that need to be considered when an individual is requesting bail, and these conditions are reviewed by the judge.

Accused persons who are released on bail may be subject to release conditions linked to the accused's risk related to the three statutory grounds for the detention I just mentioned. For example, the court can impose, and I emphasize this, any reasonable condition that it considers desirable or necessary to ensure the safety and security of any victims or witnesses to the offence. The point here is that the law is there and the court is empowered through the law to be able to consider the safety and the security of the victim and the witnesses and also assess the risk.

Such conditions could include that the accused remain in a specified territorial jurisdiction, abstain from communicating with any victim or witness to the offence, abstain from going to a specific place or geographical area, or deposit their passport as specified in the order. Once again, as we see, the guidelines are clear. The tools have been given to our justice system to be able to find that fine balance between doing the right thing and ensuring that we protect the community.

I will close by referring to some of the decisions that were made in the past. In the St-Cloud decision from 2015, the Supreme Court emphasized that, in Canadian law, the release of an accused person is the cardinal rule and detention is the exception. In its 2017 decision in Antic and its 2020 decision in Zora, the Supreme Court held that for most alleged crimes there should be release on bail at the earliest reasonable opportunity, with minimal conditions.

I am bringing up these three cases because we are trying to say that although Bill C-75 was not a perfect solution, and hence we have Bill C-48, we will see that fine balance, that it protects the rights of individuals in the Charter and that it allows them to benefit from the opportunity of receiving bail if they are a first-time offender and the crime is not extensive. However, all of the tools are provided to the justice system and to the bail law to ensure that repeat offenders can be punished.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I noted in his speech that toward the end the member did acknowledge that there were shortcomings in Bill C-75, and it was refreshing, because that is about as close as we have come today to hearing that the necessity of Bill C-48 is in large part due to the disaster that the government has been on criminal justice since it came into force. I congratulate him on his candour and thank him for it.

I would ask if he would go a step further and admit that Bill C-75 was a mistake.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for showing candour and acknowledging the candour I have shown. However, let us remember what the focus of Bill C-75 and the focus of Bill C-48 are. They are to ensure that we keep Canadians safe. They are to ensure that we put the right legislation in place. Naturally, no legislation is perfect, and we have to make sure that as time comes and as evidence presents itself, we amend the existing laws to ensure that we continue to keep Canadians safe and ensure that our laws are representative of the facts of the day and are strong in protecting Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts in terms of the degree to which the Conservatives might try to simplify things. I will point to some contrasts. For example, we think of judicial independence through our courts, the process of our crowns and so forth, and the role that provinces, territories and indigenous communities play in terms of the whole legal process. Is it fair to say that it is not quite as simple as it is portrayed, but that when we take a look at Bill C-48 all of the stakeholders I just listed are very supportive of Bill C-48?

I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts in terms of it not just being the federal government that is responsible.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, like all my colleagues, I had the opportunity to talk to my chief of police and hear from many of my constituents. The beauty of this bill, aside from the fact that it is amending and the fact that it is really focusing on repeat offenders and strengthening the bill is the fact that it had unanimous support. Why it has unanimous support and why it took some time, as I know the number of 200-some days was shown, is that this was collaborative and fact-based, and that we talked to all provinces, all chiefs of police and all stakeholders. This is what signifies Bill C-48, and that is why our colleagues across the aisle agreed with us and unanimously passed it.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard for several hours now from the Liberal bench, the NDP and the Bloc how Bill C-48 is going to be an answer to improving community safety from coast to coast. As a former practising Crown attorney who has run thousands of bail hearings dealing with the individuals who we have read about and seen on television committing heinous crimes across this country who are already facing reverse onus scenarios and still getting released, how on earth does the member reconcile Bill C-48 by adding four new reverse onus provisions? How is that, in the face of what happens day in and day out in our courts, going to make Canada safer?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that it would, because there was a gap and through consultation and through the agreements across all the provinces and territories and all the chiefs of police we agreed that this is the logical next step to take. Is this the end solution to all the crimes? It is absolutely not, but this is a good step forward, and I am sure that as we roll out the new bill, Bill C-48, it will highlight other opportunities for us to be able to enhance and strengthen the bill. I look forward to working with all members of this House to further strengthen any bills that come to this House that protect Canadians and their trust in their government.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brantford—Brant. I will keep my remarks somewhat short so that I can hear all that he has to say, which I always appreciate.

First of all, I want to welcome everybody back to the House as we continue our role in supporting our constituents. I am especially proud to be able to speak on behalf of the wonderful residents of Red Deer—Mountain View, many of whom I have had the privilege of reconnecting with this summer.

This summer, we all heard messages regarding things like housing affordability, but one of the other main messages that resonated with Canadians has been the message of safety. On this first day back in this fall session, we finally have a bill in front of us that speaks, even though in a somewhat fleeting fashion, to the issue of bail reform. The concept of bail reform is important. The reality is that there is much more to do in the reformation of our criminal justice system if Canadians are to truly feel safe in their homes and within their communities.

As we have heard multiple times today, the fact that 40 criminals in Vancouver have been charged 6,000 times baffles the minds of Canadians. Not only does this make a mockery of the bail system, but it ties up precious resources of both the courts and our law enforcement agencies. This precious time and money could truly be used to expedite trials, put more officers on the street to protect the public and, if these offenders were actually put in jail, make our streets safer, not just for the general public but for the unfortunate people living on our streets who also deserve our full attention. I also believe it is high time that governments respect the job that our law enforcement officers do and then ensure that those arrested are dealt with swiftly, that their hearings are done in a timely fashion and that appropriate penalties are meted out.

The Conservative leader has a strong message as to how we should work toward making our communities safer. “Jail not bail” is more than a catchphrase. It speaks to taking violent repeat offenders off the streets. It speaks to the enforcement of the rampant gun smuggling that has made many cities a war zone and it speaks to recognizing that these criminals have one thing in common: They hurt our fellow Canadians.

To this end, the Liberal government has introduced legislation that mirrors our concerns about serious repeat offenders. The question is: Can it be trusted to see this through to its logical conclusion? There must be more than just comforting words if this legislation is to have any meaning.

In conclusion, the point is that if we deal early with the real bad actors and mete out the appropriate punishment as required by the Canadian Criminal Code, two things are accomplished. First, it keeps criminals off the streets and disrupts those who organize to terrorize our communities and, second, it tells other would-be hooligans that we will not be tolerating this type of behaviour and their unruly actions will have consequences.

We have given the Liberals that opportunity by unanimous consent on Bill C-48, and I am hopeful that this legislation can make a real difference for the safety of all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to see the House come together and recognize the valuable contributions that Bill C-48 would make to Canadians. It would make our communities safer places to be. We know that because of the types of support at the many different levels that I referenced earlier. I would like to emphasize that law enforcement officers are also in support of the legislation.

Would the member across the way not agree that by working with law enforcement agencies and provincial and territorial jurisdictions, we have before us sound legislation that would, in fact, make our communities safer?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the Conservative caucus had done back in 2017 was have a rural crime task force talk to thousands of Albertans through multiple meetings. Then the report that it had developed was brought to the House of Commons. We managed to get it into Motion No. 167, which was introduced by the member for Lakeland, which called on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study the issue of rural crime in Canada.

I will not go into all of the details, but that was an opportunity we had when we spoke to law enforcement to try to make changes to the judicial system. Some of those also dealt with things that needed to be done as far as bail was concerned.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

One thing my colleague has highlighted is the vast nature of the problem we are dealing with when it comes to crime. Whether it be Bill C-5 or Bill C-75 in the former Parliament, the Liberals have really made a mess of the situation. When I think of Bill C-5 and other ways the Liberals have dropped the ball here, I am thinking about sex offenders who are able to serve their sentences on house arrest and serious firearms offenders who, again, can get house arrest. I wonder if my hon. colleague can tell us where he thinks we should go next, especially when we think about how much work there is to be done.