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

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member from the area of Ottawa about the importance of Bill C-48 for him and his constituents.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation brings a lot of peace of mind for families and communities, especially for the victims of violent crimes.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I do believe that if you seek unanimous consent you will find it in this House for the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practices of the House, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment today, C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is obviously wonderful to rise after the unanimous consent motion was passed here in this House of Commons on a very important bill for all Canadians, including the wonderful residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

This past summer, I met with many of the York Region police officers in my area, including the deputy chief of police. It was clear how important bail reform is to our police officers and our policing authorities. I have a sibling who has been a member of a police agency in Canada for over 25 years. I have heard a number of times from him how important bail reform was to him and his colleagues. Therefore, I am so glad that unanimous consent was received with respect to Bill C-48. I have a few comments.

It is wonderful to see all my colleagues here. With respect to the member of Parliament for Etobicoke—Lakeshore who usually sits in front of me, I wish to acknowledge his appointment as the parliamentary secretary. He is a great friend and has been a great friend for decades and I was very happy to see his appointment as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code, bail reform. It proposes targeting amendments to the bail regime with the aim of enhancing community safety and reinforcing confidence in the administration of justice. Canadians have spoken and we have listened. All parliamentarians have listened.

Crime is a serious concern for communities across this nation and it must be addressed. That is why the Liberal approach is to pair legislative reform like Bill C-48 with programs that stop crime at its roots. We want to both hold criminals to account and prevent crime from happening in our communities in the first place.

At the onset, I want to highlight the positive reactions we have seen to Bill C-48 from law enforcement agencies.

The president of the Canadian Police Association called to say it is “common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised”.

The president of the Toronto Police Association said that “the introduction of Bill C- 48, and the clear message being sent by the government that public safety remains a top priority, will help victims of crime, as well as all Canadians know serious, repeat violent offenders can and will be held accountable for their actions”.

The Saskatoon Police Service deputy chief of police said, “It is encouraging to see the voices of the community and the policing community across Canada are being heard.”

Members need not just take my word for it. They can take the word of those law enforcement experts. Bill C-48 is an excellent piece of legislation that would make positive change in our communities and, yes, keep our communities safer. I hope that the members opposite will help us pass this bill as soon as possible.

In essence, the proposed amendments in Bill C-48 would make it more difficult for those engaged in repeat violent offending to get bail. In order to accomplish this objective, the bill proposes, among other important amendments, to, first, create a reverse onus to target serious repeat violent offending involving the use of a weapon; make certain firearms offences subject to reverse onus at bail; and broaden existing reverse onus to target repeat offenders of intimate partner violence, or IPV. This point number three is very important as intimate partner violence usually means that women are being impacted by their partners. We as a government, since day one, have been working on these issues to ensure all citizens feel safe, especially women, in their homes, in their neighbourhoods and on the streets and I applaud this.

Before elaborating on the proposed amendments, I am going to take a moment to situate these reforms within the existing bail regime. As members know, bail is when a person charged with a criminal offence is released from custody while awaiting their trial or the outcome of their case. Accused persons are presumed innocent until they have been found guilty of the offence charged and have a constitutional right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. This is why typically the prosecutor bears the burden of showing why the accused person should be denied bail and detained in custody. The prosecutor must show that the detention of the accused person is necessary to ensure their attendance in court, for the protection or safety of the public including a victim or witnesses, or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. A reverse onus shifts the burden from the prosecutor to the accused person. It requires them to show why pretrial detention is not justified. This is an exception to the general rule and reflects Parliament's intention that it be more difficult to obtain bail in certain circumstances or for certain kinds of serious offences.

Through these reverse onuses, Parliament signals the importance of considering certain offences by accused persons differently at bail to advance the critical purposes of the bail system including the protection of public safety and maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.

Bill C-48 would create a new reverse onus for accused persons charged with an offence that is punishable by at least 10 years of imprisonment, which involves violence and the use of a weapon if the accused was previously convicted in the last five years of an offence for the same criteria. In addition, the bill would make certain firearms offences also subject to reverse onus at bail. These offences are unlawful possession of a loaded, prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking and entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm. These amendments are the product of significant collaboration among federal, provincial and territorial engagement, collaboration and co-operation. For instance, the offence of unlawful possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm is proposed to be added to the list of offences that will be subject to a reverse onus at the request of all the province and territories outlined in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada.

This bill also addresses concerns about the use of bear spray and blade weapons expressed by some jurisdictions and is consistent with the recommendations of key stakeholders, including police organizations. These amendments also complement the federal government's ongoing efforts toward gun control and reducing gun violence. All 13 premiers and law enforcement groups across this country support Bill C-48. If Conservatives care more about the public safety of Canadians than about petty political games, they will help us pass this bill today.

[Ron Liepert]

We did. You did update it.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I know. I would now like to turn to Bill C-75, which has been the subject of much debate recently. My thanks to the hon. member from Calgary.

Hon. members may recall that the former Bill C-75 made the most recent set of amendments to the bail regime, amendments that were informed by extensive consultation with the provinces and territories and that were debated and voted on in Parliament.

The former Bill C-75 did not change the law on bail. It codified binding Supreme Court of Canada decisions and sought to reduce the number of accused persons in pretrial custody for low level, non-violent offences. It also enacted a reverse onus for accused persons charged with an offence and involving intimate partner violence if they have a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner. This amendment effectively made it harder for those accused of repeat intimate partner violence, or IPV, to obtain bail. This bill would again strengthen this reverse onus by ensuring that it applies not only to previously convicted persons, but also to those previously discharged of an IPV-related offence. Offenders who are discharged of an offence are found guilty but are not convicted, in appropriate circumstances, in order to avoid the implications of having a criminal conviction. Again, it is so important that intimate partner violence be reduced in Canada. We know that every year countless numbers of women are killed by their partners and we must put a stop to it with all the tools we have available. Through Bill C-48, we are acting on that.

I am going to take a moment to remind hon. members of the systemic discrimination inherent in Canada's criminal justice system. In developing Bill C-48, the federal government was mindful of the potential impacts on indigenous people, Black persons and members of all vulnerable groups, such as accused persons facing mental health or substance abuse challenges who are already overrepresented in pretrial custody. That is why this bill proposes targeted amendments to the bail regime and addresses violent offending specifically.

Any reform to the current bail regime must seek to promote community safety and reinforce public confidence in Canada's bail system, while also considering and attenuating any potential disproportionate or negative impacts on these groups.

Ministers of justice and public safety across the country have agreed that both legislative and non-legislative action is required to ensure that our bail system operates as intended. We know from key stakeholders that enhancing public safety requires non-legislative solutions such as improving reintegration programming, allocating our resources to community-based bail supervision and enforcing bail conditions. I am pleased to see that all levels of government are stepping up to take action within their respective areas of responsibility.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that Bill C-48 as a direct action taken at the federal level strikes the appropriate balance in promoting community safety, reinforcing public confidence in how Canada's bail system deals with repeat violent offenders and in respecting the Charter of Rights. I am glad to see that all members have come together to pass this bill with unanimous consent.

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

Madam Speaker, the member left out of his remarks that, under the government over the past eight years, we have seen the reversal of a decades-long trend of lower rates of crime and lower rates of incarceration. We have also seen the emergence of chronic, repeat violent offenders running amok in Canadian cities and burdening local police, who repeatedly arrest the same people. They arrest them over and over again. This bill is, in part, damage control; it is undoing what the government did in its first Parliament.

Will the member take this opportunity to admit that the Liberals' approach has been wrong and that they will be reversing the approach that got us to this point?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a government, we have collaborated and acted in unison with provinces, territories and police organizations to come up with a bill, Bill C-48, that is charter compliant. It also brings in a number of provisions to make sure that our streets, our communities and our families feel safe. We want them to know that they are safe, the law is on their side and they can enjoy their livelihoods and their families. Kids can be in their communities, and their families will know they are safe.

We have three daughters at home and lots of kids in our neighbourhood. We understand the issue of property crime. We want to make sure that all Canadians feel safe in their communities, and this bill is one large step in that direction. It is great to see that unanimous consent was received from all parties regarding Bill C-48.

[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.

Obviously, this bill will be passing with unanimous consent, but I would like to get my hon. colleague's thoughts on something. Yes, we did pass this with unanimous consent, but I feel as though Conservatives were ready to do that from the get-go. However, it took the Liberal government 246 days to table the legislation after the premiers wrote their letter.

Can my colleague comment on what appears to be a discrepancy between words and action?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo back here in Ottawa. Our families have known each other for approximately six decades, if I am not mistaken.

As a government, we are always taking action to protect the citizens of this country, as well as to ensure that our streets are safe and our families are even safer. That is a very important priority for all 338 members of Parliament here. Our citizens sent us here to ensure that we do the right thing. Bill C-48 is a great piece of legislation that will keep Canadians even safer.

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

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I am standing up in the House since my appointment, I want to thank the Prime Minister for the faith he has in me. I want to assure all Canadians that I will be working very hard for them each and every day.

My friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge gave a really good speech, and I want to congratulate him for that. I know the member opposite just asked a question about timing. My recollection of what happened was that this bill was tabled months ago, well before we rose, and there was an opportunity to pass it. We pleaded with the Conservatives to get it passed. I appreciate the gesture today. Now that it is passed, I want to make sure that the Senate is able to pass this without any delays on the part of caucus members from the party opposite in the Senate.

Can my friend elaborate on how we can ensure that this law comes into effect as soon as possible?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on his appointment; it is well-deserved.

We want to see the Senate deal with this bill effectively and efficiently, as all 338 members in this House did by providing unanimous consent for it. We would like to see the same thing done in the Senate as expeditiously as possible.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to split my time with the hon. opposition whip.

I know that we are at the point where we are going to pass this legislation, but I must put on the record that we do not believe that this is enough.

I will start with this question: How did we get here? After eight years of the Liberal government, we often ask this. The problem is almost always worse, and the answers are never satisfactory. The Liberals allocate blame to everyone and everything else. They are always claiming that it is outside of the government's control. The excuses are near endless, and either the policy prescriptions are absent in their entirety or they lack basic common sense.

Are crime rates up, or do we just think they are up when everything is actually fine? The justice minister in the Liberal government believes that Canadians simply think it is worse, even though crime is, in fact, getting worse. He basically says that it is all in their head.

Let us play back the tape, because two days after the new justice minister replaced the last one, he actually said this when asked if the country was less safe than it was before: “I think that empirically it's unlikely.... But I think there's a sense coming out of the pandemic that people’s safety is more in jeopardy.” That is a direct quote.

The reason people believe that safety is in jeopardy is because of the very fact that this country is less safe, and this is backed up by empirical evidence. The overall crime severity index was up 4.3% from 2021-2022, while the violent crime severity index was up 4.6% compared to the year earlier. Since the Liberals took office in 2015, the violent crime severity index has gone up 30%. Youth crime has risen by 17.8% in a single year.

The evidence is not hard to find. These numbers are from Stats Canada. They are the government's own statistics. In fact, Stats Canada said that the overall crime rate may be resuming an upward trend that was interrupted by the pandemic because of lockdowns and other government measures. This is what the latest data indicates. Somebody should let the minister know.

In Toronto, major crime is up this year by more than 20% since last year. Their cops are saying that; it is not us. That means more assaults, thefts, sexual violence and break and enters. Last year, I documented some of what was happening on Toronto's public transit. Public transit used to be an option for many in my community, until those who could do so simply opted out; those who cannot opt out have reason to feel unsafe, because what is happening on public transit in Toronto is unacceptable.

Here is a review from the last full year on record for the very city that the new justice minister represents. I will start with February 9 of last year. A TTC employee was randomly stabbed at Dupont station while just trying to do his job. One week later, a TTC bus driver was stabbed at Keele and Lawrence. Just over a month after that, a TTC operator was assaulted by six people in a swarming attack. In April, a man was shot dead on the TTC, this time at Sherbourne station, and 12 days later, another man was randomly stabbed at St. George station. That same month, a woman narrowly survived after being pushed onto the tracks. Less than a month later, a 12-year-old girl was sexually assaulted while riding a bus. Then in June, we all read the horrible story of a woman who was set on fire at a subway station. She later succumbed to her injuries.

This violence is already unconscionable, and we are only halfway through last year. In July, a man was assaulted while two men committed robbery at Don Mills station. The next month, a woman was the victim of a random assault at Sheppard-Yonge station. In October, a man fell asleep on the TTC and was assaulted and robbed. Just a few days later, a woman was stalked when she got off a bus in Scarborough; she was sexually assaulted. Then in December, things started to get worse.

On December 8 of last year, two people were randomly stabbed at High Park station, with one woman dying from her wounds. Two days after that, a TTC operator in Etobicoke was assaulted and robbed. In the same month, a woman was arrested for allegedly assaulting six different people on the subway.

In a separate string of incidents, a man allegedly sexually assaulted and exposed himself to multiple TTC riders. Toward the end of the month, an 81-year-old woman was left with a concussion after being assaulted on our city's transit system.

It is the fall of 2023, and the violence still has not abated. In fact, it has gotten worse, which is what the empirical evidence also says. It is not in anyone's head. Now, these are not all repeat violent offenders, but many are. However, my point is that the new justice minister ought to go outside, because this is happening in our own neighbourhood.

I will go back to my original questions: How did we get here? How did it get so bad?

In 2019, with Bill C-75, the Liberal government eased access to bail considerably. Bill C-75 legislated the principle of restraint concerning bail for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. The principle of restraint is a linchpin that supports a catch-and-release justice system. This is clear in the numbers and the pressure on the federal government to fix issues with the bail system. It had no options. This is where we are at now. What Conservatives said would happen at the time is happening all over the country, including in the city where the justice minister and I both come from. Repeat violent offenders became the unintended consequence of changes to the bail law in 2019, which made it difficult to hold violent offenders in pretrial custody.

First, there was pressure that came from provincial and territorial justice ministers. Then, in December 2022, as members might remember, there was the murder of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala. He was shot and killed by a 25-year-old who was out on bail. This shocked us all. The killer had a lengthy criminal record, including assaulting a peace officer, and he was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition. Then, 13 premiers sent a letter to the Prime Minister calling on the Liberals to reverse their catch-and-release policies in order to protect the public, as well as first responders. The justice committee of the House also heard witness after witness calling for changes to the bail system. Witnesses from law enforcement to victim services and municipal leaders right across the board all said the same thing. In the face of random violent attacks committed by repeat offenders out on bail, the government is now touting this long-awaited plan to address the catch-and-release justice system it has enabled and overseen until it could no longer ignore the pressure and the evidence.

The bill before us would add the reverse onus provision for just four firearms offences and for individuals previously charged with intimate partner violence facing similar charges. This is not going to reverse the disastrous course that I just talked about in our own city. I do not know how to say this nicely, but it is not going to work. The Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-48 are only a tiny step to reversing the damage that the Liberals have done in masquerading as the be-all and end-all solution to the danger and the chaos unleashed on our neighbourhoods. It is hardly a solution.

The bill is very specific about what it considers violence, but it is not specific in a helpful way. To qualify for the new reverse onus provision, the suspect has to be charged with a crime involving violence and the use of a weapon, and their record over the last year has to have the same conviction in it. Therefore, it would not apply if a person committed a crime with their hands, if a person repeated a property crime that put somebody in danger, or if a person's second crime did not use a weapon but the first one did, or vice versa. One starts to get the picture.

The system has become accustomed to immediate bail for violent offenders. If the Liberals are going to showboat about an eight-page bill that would change the structure of bail hearings, they might want to ensure that there is something that would ultimately result in a prescription for judges to make different decisions in the face of this system. There is nothing in here that would change that, so it would not end the catch-and-release policies that were initiated by Bill C-75. The bill before us would not even have restricted bail for the accused killer of Officer Greg Pierzchala, which is one of the very obvious cases that led the government to be forced into admitting failure and presenting Bill C-48. The question is this: Why not fix it?

I hope that the Liberals go back to the drawing board and actually solve for the problem, which is backed by empirical evidence in every single one of our communities right across the country. It is not in the heads of Canadians; violent crime is a problem, and these guys are not the solution.

[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 of the things my hon. colleague highlighted is the fact that what we are dealing with is really a small piece of the overall crime pie. The pie itself, and the difficulty that we are in, really lies with the Liberal Party, whether it be Bill C-75 from the last Parliament, Bill C-21 or Bill C-5. We now have sexual offenders or people who have committed serious gun crimes who can serve their sentence from the comfort of their home.

I would ask my hon. colleague this: How much further do we need to go, and is this going to help in a meaningful and significant way?