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.

[Matthew Taylor]

Indeed, public confidence in the administration of justice is the tertiary ground for bail. It was one of the main policy drivers for Bill C-48, so it is something the courts would look at.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I'll take it. Thank you.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

You were in the room when I asked the minister a question about stricter bail conditions. I asked whether Bill C-48 and Bill C-75 were the best we could do or whether we could write a stricter law that would pass constitutional scrutiny in court, perhaps using the section 1 test under Oakes. Is that possible, or is this already the best we can do?

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

We have already done a number of things. As I said, in the 43rd Parliament, we passed Bill C‑3, which requires that new judges receive training on sexual assault. In the current Parliament, we have also passed Bill S-12; that bill restored the National Sex Offender Registry, which focuses particularly on predators who attack women.

We have also twice made changes to bail. This affects victims of intimate partner violence. It involves Bill C-75, which was passed in an earlier Parliament, and Bill C-48, which was passed during the current Parliament. So we have done a number of things.

What bothers me a bit, and concerns me, is that on the provinces' part, we see situations where victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault are not able to be heard by a judge and argue their case, to make the accused answer for their acts, because the provinces are not investing enough money, and this results in unreasonable delays. A number of articles have been written recently about the problem in this regard in Ontario.

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

We imposed stricter bail conditions through Bill C-48, which is important. That dealt with seriously violent, repeat offenders. Whether it's being applied and implemented in an appropriate manner by justices of the peace, who do not require any legal training in the province of Ontario, is a question that I think every Canadian should be asking, particularly every Ontarian.

I'm glad you brought up the Constitution, Mr. Van Popta. I don't think it helps to support Canadians' confidence in our institutions, the judiciary or our legal system when the response to this need for investment is simply to say that we should contemplate invoking the notwithstanding clause to override charter rights. That's exactly what has come out of the mouth of your leader, unfortunately. That, to me, is problematic for somebody who professes to be establishing freedoms, as opposed to overriding freedoms.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee.

I'll be presenting today key items from the 2024-25 supplementary estimates (B) for the Department of Justice. This funding will make a real difference for people in this country who interact with our justice system, including victims. These items fit into our government's broader plan to increase affordability, provide social supports and create a better Canada.

Access to justice is a top priority of mine. To this end, I've put considerable time and effort into filling judicial vacancies. I've appointed 178 judges since I became minister. During my first year alone, I appointed 137 judges. The previous annual record was 107. Right now more than 96% of the judicial positions across the country are filled.

A robust legal aid system is another key pillar of access to justice. I believe legal aid provides fair representation. It ensures the smooth functioning of the court process and ensures that cases are heard in a timely manner. This year's supplementary estimates (B) provide $80 million for criminal legal aid for provinces and territories and $71.6 million for immigration and refugee legal aid services. This funding will pave the way for greater access to justice for indigenous persons, for individuals from Black and other racialized communities and for those with mental health issues, all of whom are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

If these supplementary estimates do not pass in Parliament, this critical support will be jeopardized. That needs to be understood by all committee members. Justice will not be served and people will suffer, particularly victims of crime. I know there are colleagues at this table who care about these issues, but I also know that some people may be instructed to oppose these measures.

To my Bloc and NDP colleagues, I think we know how some members will vote on these measures, including the official opposition. I'm looking to you to ensure that the estimates are able to come to a vote and pass.

I would like to point out other areas in which the supplementary estimates provide essential support for Canadians.

This will support the provision of legal advice and information to individuals who have been sexually harassed in their workplace. Sexual harassment is a scourge that disproportionately affects women. Statistics Canada tells us that one woman in four and one man in six have reported being victims of sexualized and inappropriate conduct in the workplace.

We also know that a large majority of incidents are not reported, which means that the real figures are probably higher. The $10.3 million in funding provided in these estimates would help to support people going through a traumatic time, in particular if they do not have the resources to pay for legal representation or if they are unaware of their rights.

The legal aid program would support access to free legal information and advice to anyone who believes they have been sexually harassed in the workplace. This is very important funding.

The official opposition asserts that they care about addressing gender-based violence. They are often very performative about it, but I expect that, yet again, they will follow their leader's instructions and vote against supporting victims of gender-based violence.

This funding dovetails with a concerted effort from our government to support women and curb sexual assault and gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is an epidemic in this country and it must stop.

This is why we passed laws requiring training for judges on sexual assault and intimate partner violence. I worked on it at this very committee. That was Bill C-3, which we called the Rona Ambrose law, from the 43rd Parliament.

We also strengthened the national sex offender registry with Bill S-12 in this Parliament and reformed publication ban laws to empower victims to tell their own stories. We toughened bail laws for intimate partner violence offenders in Bill C-75 and Bill C-48. We funded women's shelters and crisis hotlines so that victims are supported in their time of need. We will continue to do everything we can to end sexual harassment and gender-based violence in Canada. I'm proud that this funding will contribute to this very important goal.

The online harms act will concretely tackle online sexual violence. For the first time, we are mandating that online platforms do their part to keep people in Canada, especially children, safe online. We are ensuring that child sexual exploitation material and non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes, are subject to a takedown order. Online platforms will no longer get a free pass for hosting vile content. Women and girls across Canada are being intimidated and harassed online. We've seen children pass by suicide because of online abuse.

Enough is clearly enough. In our increasingly online world, we do not have time to spare. We need to act intentionally. We need to pass Bill C-63.

I would now like to address another subject that is important to Canadians: protecting tenants. We know that housing is one of the main sources of stress for Canadians right now, and this is particularly true for tenants.

Rising rents, renovictions and the lack of opportunities when it comes to housing availability are pushing tenants to leave their communities. Tenants also face unique challenges when it comes to making sure that their housing is properly maintained and their landlord obeys provincial laws.

Tenants' rights and legal services organizations can help tenants work things out and overcome complex problems. Tenants facing threats to the security of their housing can feel especially powerless and alone.

This is why in budget 2024 our government proposed an investment of $50 million over five years to establish what we call a new tenant protection fund. Our government has made substantial advancements in housing. We know everyone deserves an affordable place to call home. Our housing accelerator fund is making a real difference in communities across Canada. It is very unfortunate that Conservative members of Parliament have been barred by their leader from accessing these funds for their communities. That's unfair, and it's certainly not leadership. The tenant protection fund is just one of many elements of these supplementary estimates that will go towards building more housing.

Other items include $135 million for the Canada housing benefit to provide low- and moderate-income renters the ability to make ends meet. We're putting $99 million into the rapid acquisition of shelter space and deeply affordable housing. We're devoting $27 million to co-op housing development—a great way to increase affordable options for families. We will continue showing up for Canadians by rapidly building the housing we need.

I'd like to speak about one last item, which is new funding of $4.9 million through the estimates for victims and survivors of hate crimes. This funding is part of Canada's action plan on combatting hate. The action plan represents Canada's first-ever comprehensive, cross-government effort to combat hate.

Budget 2024 announced $29 million over six years, starting this year, to enhance or establish financial assistance and compensation programs for victims of hate-motivated crime. The funding would also help raise awareness in the judiciary about the unique dynamics of hate crime, and support the development and delivery of specialized training for Crown prosecutors on this very topic. We've seen an alarming rise in hate crimes in Canada. Horrible incidents of anti-Semitism have skyrocketed. Hate against the queer community is up. People don't feel safe in their own neighbourhoods. It is unacceptable and un-Canadian. We need to stamp out hatred in our communities and ensure perpetrators are held to account.

Bill C-63 is a key part of our plan to stop hatred in Canada. I was very proud to stand alongside the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and others when I introduced Bill C-63 in February of this year. I share the disappointment of many Canadians that this bill has been stalled in the House of Commons by partisan games. Bill C-63 creates tougher penalties for hate crimes and ensures there are mechanisms to hold people accountable for online hate that would not be acceptable in the off-line world. I am proud of this legislation, and I hope to see it progress soon.

Madam Chair and committee members, the appropriations requested through the supplementary estimates (B) are part of our government's larger vision of support, rather than cuts, for Canadians. I am committed to creating a justice system that is accessible, fair and efficient. I work every day towards achieving this goal. I hope all members of this committee will work to ensure this important funding flows to Canadians.

Thank you very much.

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

To Ms. Taylor's family, I would express deep sorrow and sympathy in terms of the fact that Cileana is no longer with us. I think that's a horrific crime, and it's a tragedy that shouldn't be happening in our society.

What I would also say is that we've been working very hard to try to address violence against women, particularly indigenous women. That's why we launched the MMIWG inquiry, and that's why we have the calls for justice that we're working to implement.

Some of the bail matters that you mentioned have actually been dealt with in Bill C-75 and in Bill C-48, where we implemented reverse onus on bail for people who commit intimate partner violence. We accentuated that in Bill C-48.

What I would say to you is the same thing that I've been saying repeatedly to many different provincial actors. What I want to know—and I'm sure you want to know as well, Ms. Ferreri—are the circumstances in which that individual was released on bail—at least twice, by your account. What were those circumstances? Did the Crown contest the bail? I would like to know that. If the bail was granted above the Crown's objections, did they appeal the bail through what's called a bail review? Was bail granted because there was no detention facility ready to take that person?

What Canadians need to understand is that—

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

Madam Chair, we put reverse onus for bail for intimate partner violence, which assists indigenous women. That was Bill C-75 and Bill C-48.

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

This isn't the first time the TPA has raised alarms, Minister.

In the House today, you proudly stated that you delivered bail reform. The premiers of the provinces and territories and the presidents of police associations across this country unanimously claim that Bill C-48 is an abject failure.

Instead of blaming provincially appointed judges and justices of the peace, when will you finally toughen up our bail regime to keep our communities safe?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, here we are, five weeks in, and we are still debating the Liberal government's refusal to produce documents relating to the latest scandal, the green slush fund scandal, as ordered by Parliament on June 10. This is the third time that I am rising to speak on this issue, so I want to take a slightly different approach. I want to talk about the legal principle of subsequent remedial measures, in the law, of evidence.

That rule says that evidence of a defendant or a possible defendant in a civil case effecting repairs to some obstacle that injured a person in order to avoid future similar injuries is not admissible in the court of law. The principle behind that is that we do not want to disincentivize people from actually making repairs to prevent future injuries. The example that is often given is when a homeowner repairs the steps up to the front door on which the postal delivery person was seriously injured the day before. Is doing the repair effectively an admission of liability? The answer is yes, probably, but here is the point. That evidence is not admissible in a court of law for the basic public policy principle that I stated before.

How does that apply to the current case relating to the green slush fund? A little bit of background is in order. The Auditor General revealed some shocking findings in her June 2024 report, which was tabled in Parliament on June 6, I believe, about how the Liberal government had turned SDTC, a federally governed and owned business, into a green slush fund for Liberal insiders.

Here are some of her findings. She found that SDTC gave out the following in taxpayer dollars: $58 million to 10 ineligible projects without even ensuring that contribution agreements were in place and the terms met. On some of them, the applicants could not even demonstrate the development of green technology or any environmental benefit at all. The purpose of SDTC was just ignored. There were $334 million and over 186 cases where there were clear conflicts of interest. This is board members at SDTC voting for each other's applicant grants, clearly a conflict of interest.

One of the whistle-blowers had this to say:

Just as I was always confident that the Auditor General would confirm the financial mismanagement at SDTC, I remain equally confident that the RCMP will substantiate the criminal activities that occurred within the organization.

This is very serious, not just mismanagement, but allegations from a credible source that there is criminal activity under way. Where there is smoke, there is fire. We, the opposition, did what we are supposed to do, which was to hold the government to account. Back in June, the Conservative Party put forward a motion in the House of Commons shortly after we received the Auditor General's report. That order reads, in part:

That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 30 days of the adoption of this order, the following documents....

There was then a long list of documents that had to be produced.

The Conservative motion passed on June 10 with the help of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. I thank them very much. It was only the Liberal members of Parliament who voted against it, because they were worried. They did not like it. They did not like the order. Over the summer months, they just ignored it. They delivered some of the documents but clearly not all.

When we got back here in September, things got ugly pretty quickly. Our House leader, the opposition House leader, on the first day back, rose on a question of privilege “concerning the failure of the government to comply with the order that the House adopted on Monday, June 10.”

That was presented to the Speaker, and the Speaker agreed with us, confirming that the Prime Minister's Office and all relevant government departments had not fully complied, but that they must comply with this order made in June for unredacted documents. At the time, the Speaker said, “The Chair cannot come to any other conclusion but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established.” In parliamentary terms, that is a serious allegation. There was a breach of privilege and that should have embarrassed the government.

It is pretty clear and easy to understand what the Speaker meant, so why are we still here, five weeks later, debating this question of privilege? The answer is simple. The Liberal government is still not complying with it. Why not? We do not know. The government has raised some smokescreens and innuendo, but it has not come clean to say why it is not complying. As long as that goes on, the longer this fiasco drags on, the more suspicious we become that perhaps the aforementioned whistle-blower is right that there was criminal activity going on here.

I want to get back to my original comments about the principle of subsequent remedial measures. Such evidence, as I said, is generally not admissible in a court of law. Did the Liberals actually take remedial action to try to fix SDTC after they claimed they were as surprised as the rest of us were that this corruption and mismanagement was going on? The answer is no, they did not do anything. As a matter of fact, they just wound up SDTC. There was so much corruption, so much smoke, so much contamination that even the Liberals were embarrassed by it. Rather than trying to fix it, they just wound it up altogether.

Now we are really suspicious, along with Canadians. What are the Liberals hiding? What was going on at STDC? Why are we not getting the documents? Canadians want to know. What does the Prime Minister's Office know? What is in those documents that the Liberals are refusing to produce? What are they hiding? Was there criminal activity? Can we recover some of the taxpayer money, $400 million altogether? Canadians deserve to know.

The total amount of money, as I said, was $400 million. What could we do with that money? We could do a lot of good, positive things, as the previous speaker, my colleague from Banff—Airdrie, just said. It could certainly help veterans and parents. It could help people who have been going to food banks who cannot afford groceries in these high inflationary times. Four hundred million dollars goes a long way to solve many problems. It could have been much better used than having it distributed by Liberal insiders among themselves.

I would like to compare this to the scandal of some years ago, the sponsorship scandal that brought down the previous Liberal government. That was only $40 million. This is 10 times as large. This is very significant and taxpayers, I think, need to understand what is going on here.

Things were not always corrupt at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It had a great reputation at one time. It was created by an act of Parliament back in the Liberal days of former prime minister Jean Chrétien to promote investing in green technology, a laudable goal. It continued its work under former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper and likely it would still be thriving today if the current Prime Minister had just resisted getting his fingerprints all over it. However, he just could not resist the temptation of putting his own friends in there. He and his industry minister at the time, Navdeep Bains, could not resist putting their own close friends in charge.

They fired the old board and put in their own friends. Many of them owned businesses that were applicants or potential applicants for grants under this program. Maybe somebody could have raised a red flag to say there was a lot of potential for conflict of interest, but that did not seem to concern anybody on the government side of the House. The result was that the Liberal-appointed board created an environment where conflicts of interest became the norm. Conflicts of interest were tolerated; they were managed.

In that orchestrated manner, these Liberal-appointed board members were able to, nicely, award grants to each other. This is the way it went: “Hey, you vote for my project, and I'll vote for your project.” That is what the whistle-blower told us. That is what the Auditor General uncovered. The Liberals broke SDTC, as they have broken so much else in Canada. I just want to raise a couple of examples.

Recent statistics from Statistics Canada about crime in Canada are really quite shocking. During nine years of the Liberal government, violent crime has increased by 50%. Homicides are up 28%. Sexual assaults are up by 75%. Gang violence has nearly doubled, and auto theft is up by 46%. Extortion is up by an astonishing 357%. Recently, the Liberal government has been forced to admit that 256 people were killed in 2022 by criminals who were out on bail or other forms of release.

This all happened under the Prime Minister's watch, with his Bill C-5, which eliminated many of the mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes, and Bill C-75, the catch-and-release bill that puts accused people out on bail on the least restrictive conditions possible. Canadians are concerned.

This is what our police are saying about the Liberals and how they have been mismanaging criminal law responsibilities and, specifically, their record on gun crime. The Toronto Police Association had this to say, speaking to the Prime Minister: “Criminals did not get your message. Our communities are experiencing a 45% increase in shootings and a 62% increase in gun-related homicides compared to...last year. What difference does your handgun ban make when 85% of guns seized by our members can be sourced to the United States?”

The Vancouver Police Union had this to say about the Prime Minister's record on managing gun crime: “Guessing he’s not aware of the ongoing gang war here in B.C. which is putting both our members and public at risk on a daily basis.”

The Surrey Police Union, right next door to my community of Langley, says, “The federal handgun freeze fails to address the real issue: the surge of illegal firearms coming across our borders and ending up in the hands of violent criminals.”

It is not just the police who are concerned about the drastic rise of crime in our streets and our cities. I heard from a group of CEOs and other directors of a group of downtown business improvement associations from across British Columbia. I am familiar with the work that business improvement associations do because I sat on the board of the Downtown Surrey BIA for a few years before I was elected to Parliament. That is where my law office was, so I am very familiar with the area and very familiar with the work the BIA does. I was happy to meet with this group to hear their concerns and their solutions to some of Canada's toughest problems.

I found it remarkable that this is what these community organizations are asking for. Number one is to invest in mental health, addictions and homelessness support across Canada. Indeed, homelessness is a problem right across Canada, but particularly so in our downtown cores. I am thinking of the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, which at one time was a beautiful place but is not anymore because of homelessness, crime and chaos.

The second ask is this, from the community organizers of our downtown cores: to ensure Canada's downtowns and main streets are safe and inclusive spaces by initiating a systematic review across the country concerning the bail system and implementing further changes to the system by reforming Bill C-48, which is a bill that went through the House not too long ago that took a small step in the direction of bail reform. They are saying it needs to be extended, not just for serious repeat violent offenders but also for theft offenders.

They are saying we need to stop the easy bail practices that have become the norm in Canada with the introduction of Bill C-75. The Vancouver Police Department talks about the same 40 individuals having negative interactions with the police 6,000 times in one year; that is every second day for 40 people. Imagine what the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver would look like if those 40 people were not on our streets. This is the message we are getting from community organizers.

The third thing they are asking for is to incentivize local entrepreneurs and commercial entities to form businesses in downtowns and on main streets. This is what they are asking for: give people shelter, keep repeat thieves off the streets, and create an environment where businesses and entrepreneurs come flocking back to the downtown core. This is what ordinary Canadian citizens want.

People are reporting that they feel less safe on our streets. Those fears are now being supported by evidence from Statistics Canada and from credible and, I would say, non-partisan organizations like police unions and business improvement associations.

The Attorney General should meet with people like that instead of just left-leaning law professors from Liberal-friendly law schools who teach their criminal law courses from a pro-accused perspective instead of from a pro-victim perspective. Our Attorney General would benefit, indeed, all of Canada would benefit, if he and the Prime Minister would listen to the concerns of ordinary Canadian citizens.

These are the things we should be talking about, or would be talking about if the Liberal government would just comply with the order so we could get down to business again. We should be talking about stopping the crime, building homes, implementing a fair and competitive tax regime by axing the tax, and fixing the Liberals' out-of-control, never-ending, inflation-producing deficit budgets.

Until the Liberals come to their senses and comply with the order, I guess we are just going to remain in this holding pattern. Here is a better idea: The Prime Minister could walk to the Governor General's house and acknowledge what everybody knows, that he has lost the confidence of this House and that the 44th Parliament should be dissolved and we should call an election. I spoke to many people when in my home community last week for Remembrance Day, as well as in the neighbouring community of Cloverdale—Langley City, where there is a by-election going on because the Liberal member of Parliament resigned.

I am hearing from people on the street that they are very anxious and eager to have a general election. They are happy with a by-election, but they want a general election. They want to stop the corruption, they want to fix what the Liberals have broken and they want a government that is going to have common-sense solutions.

Canadians deserve a government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Canadians deserve a government that does not play favourites for Liberal insiders but creates an environment where non-insiders can work and get ahead. They deserve a Canada that delivers on its promise to all who call it home: that hard work earns a powerful paycheque and pension, and buys affordable groceries and affordable homes on safe streets, in beautiful neighbourhoods, where anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything.

This is all achievable, but first, we need to have a general election and a common-sense Conservative government that will start working seriously on these issues that concern ordinary Canadians.

Public Safety and National Security

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member for Winnipeg North was not listening to my remarks. I was talking about Bill C-75, which was passed by the Liberals with support from the NDP in 2019. That is what caused all of the mayhem that police are now having to deal with. The member is talking about Bill C-48. Bill C-48 was a seven-page bill in contrast to Bill C-75 that was 200 pages. It was a measly effort for the Liberals to say they were doing something about bail. That passed well over a year ago and it obviously has done nothing to help.

In fact, if the member does not believe me, as he is saying I am spreading misinformation, let us hear from the Toronto Police. I will just conclude on this. The Toronto Police Association, which represents 8,000 police officers, said, “ Our communities are experiencing a 45% increase in shootings and a 62% increase in gun-related homicides compared to this time last year. What difference does your handgun ban make when 85% of guns seized by our members can be sourced to the United States?” It continued with, “Your statement is out of touch and offensive to victims of crime and police officers everywhere.” That is what the police say to the Liberal government.

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

Yes, Clayton, it's multi-level, but in your introductory remarks and in your comments to Ms. Dancho, you never mentioned that it was multi-level.

Bill C-48, the bail reform bill we passed, was passed unanimously by all parties. It was supported by all provinces. But in your testimony, you never mentioned that. You just said “federal government”. You never mentioned the province. You never mentioned that the JPs and the Crown prosecutors are appointed by the province. You never mentioned that the jails are run by the province. You never mentioned the reverse-onus provision. You never mentioned that jails are full.

You never mentioned that a gentleman was killed in a detention centre in the city of Toronto while awaiting trial. The conditions.... Judges have stated that they won't send individuals who should not be allowed to be out on bail to these detention centres run by the Province of Ontario.

You didn't mention any of that stuff. You threw it on our lap, when you know—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, someone just said “corrupt”. It could be, but if the Liberals will not come forward to tell otherwise, to show their work and to show the RCMP that they have dealt with the House order, then we are left to wonder. That is on them; it is not on us as members.

I know we have had many days of debate on this, and it is unfortunate because there are lots of things we could be debating, like housing, affordability and crime. Bill C-48 has been a massive failure. People are still getting out on bail, committing crimes and hurting families, not just in B.C. but right across the country. There is so much we could be doing, but we cannot argue those things until we resolve this.

I really push the government members, the ones who are listening right now. This does not just fall on the Prime Minister. It falls on you. Tomorrow, you will have a caucus and if you do not put pressure on the Prime Minister in those areas, to say, “I want us to be able—”

Criminal Code

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am also here to speak to Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act regarding interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders.

Bill S-205 proposes amendments to the bail and peace bond provisions of the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act to address intimate partner violence, a cause that all of us in the House should be seized with. I will start by thanking the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their work on the bill. The committee looked carefully at Bill S-205 and identified ways to strengthen it while maintaining the original spirit of the legislation. I also want to recognize the contributions and expertise of the witnesses, all of whom shared their diverse perspectives, which were often of a deeply personal nature.

Bill S-205 has two main components, bail and peace bonds, and I will touch on each of these in turn, starting with bail. Bill S-205, as passed by the Senate, proposed four changes to the Criminal Code related to bail. First, the bill would have required a justice, before making a bail order for an offence involving intimate partner violence, to ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused had been consulted about their safety and security needs.

The committee voted in favour of removing this proposal because it would have been duplicative of existing bail provisions. Moreover, it could have had the unintended consequence of endangering victims. Under this proposal, victims could have had details about their safety needs revealed to an audience, potentially including the accused, in court. This goes against protecting their security. Victim support services are better positioned to discuss safety and security needs with the victim in a more private setting, without the accused present.

Second, Bill S-205 would have required bail courts to consider imposing a condition that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device, for any offence charged, at the request of the Crown. This provision was removed from the bill because, under section 515 of the Criminal Code, it is already possible to impose electronic monitoring. Explicitly adding it as an optional condition could result in it being routinely imposed, even where it is not warranted. Most importantly, this provision was removed because it runs counter to the approach of Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act regarding violence against an intimate partner, which received royal assent on April 27, 2023.

Bill C-233 ensures that electronic monitoring is specifically considered as a bail condition in cases of intimate partner violence. This tailored approach is crucial. It signals to judges that intimate partner violence is a crime for which electronic monitoring may be especially successful in protecting victims. If we had extended this condition to all offences, intimate partner violence would no longer be singled out for special consideration from judges. Our government supports the tailored approach of Bill C-233 to best protect women and other victims of intimate partner violence.

Third, Bill S-205 proposed amending the reverse onus bail provisions in section 515 of the Criminal Code. A reverse onus is where the accused must demonstrate that they should be released instead of the burden of proof being on the prosecutor to demonstrate that they should be detained. The proposed change would expand the existing intimate partner violence reverse onus for bail to apply not only to accused individuals who were previously convicted but also to those who were previously discharged on an intimate partner violence offence. This amendment remains in the bill and is identical to a change our government made in Bill C-48, which passed last year after receiving unanimous support in the House.

Finally, Bill S-205 would require the justice to ask the prosecutor if the victim has been informed of their right to have a copy of the bail order after a decision on bail has been made. I support this measure to improve transparency in the justice system and enhance victims' access to information.

Moving on to the peace bond regime, Bill S-205 would create a new peace bond focused on preventing domestic violence, which is understood as violence directed at an intimate partner or child of either partner. Peace bonds are entirely separate from criminal punishment or sentencing. They can be sought when there is a reasonable fear that a crime may occur, and they are designed to prevent crimes from taking place. The committee adopted several amendments to the peace bond proposed in Bill S-205, to strengthen the original intent of the bill.

For example, Bill S‑205 proposed that the defendant's intimate partner be allowed to apply for a recognizance to keep the peace. This approach differs from existing recognizance to keep the peace provisions in the Criminal Code, which allow a person other than a person who may be a victim of the alleged offence, such as a police officer or a family member, to apply for the recognizance on their behalf.

The committee's amendments would ensure that the new domestic violence peace bond could be brought forward by someone on behalf of a person who fears that a crime will occur, as is the current practice for other peace bond regimes. I am somewhat surprised to see amendments from my Conservative colleagues to restrict this back to only the victims. This seems counterintuitive to a victim-centric approach.

The committee also made several amendments to ensure that the duration, conditions and procedures of the new recognizance to keep the peace provision are consistent with similar existing recognizance provisions in the Criminal Code.

For example, in the new provision, the maximum duration of the recognizance to keep the peace would be 12 months, or two years if there is a prior conviction, which is consistent with recognizance to keep the peace provisions that apply to organized crime, forced marriages, serious personal injury offences and sexual offences against a minor. Similarly, the maximum term of imprisonment for failure to sign a recognizance to keep the peace would be 12 months in order to align with all other recognizance to keep the peace provisions in the Criminal Code.

Bill S-205 also proposes conditions that could be imposed on a defendant in a peace bond. The committee made several changes to the list of conditions proposed, which included removing the condition requiring the defendant to refrain from using social media.

It is important to point out that peace bond conditions are not intended to be punitive, but preventative, and they are to be tailored to a specific threat. The use of social media could be interpreted broadly by the courts to include things such as job searches or shopping for second-hand furniture. While some uses of social media may be linked to a specific threat posed by the defendant, in many cases it may not be, yet breaching the condition would still be considered a criminal offence. Moreover, defendants in a peace bond would already be prohibited from contacting in any way or stalking the person who sought the peace bond, so the social media prohibition is not necessary for protection.

Next, I will speak to the peace bond condition that would require the defendant to refrain from going to specified places, such as the home or work of the intimate partner. This is essential to ensure the safety and security of the victim and is often the main reason for seeking a peace bond order.

The committee voted to expand this condition to further prohibit the defendant from going within a specified distance of a place to allow for the imposition of a radius within which the accused would be prohibited from going. For example, the condition could provide that the defendant must not go within 500 meters of the victim's home to prevent stalking behaviour, such as sitting in a car outside the victim's residence. I would support this amendment, which would strengthen the existing protections for victims of intimate partner violence. My colleagues across the way also appear to want to repeal this amendment, which I am of the firm belief gives stronger protection to victims.

The last amendment I want to talk about was proposed as a result of an NDP motion to allow an alternative to the peace bond process when the informant or the defendant is indigenous. Under this change, the judge must determine whether it would be appropriate, instead of ordering a recognizance to keep the peace, to recommend that indigenous support services be provided if available. The purpose of this amendment is to address the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system by allowing the use of alternative justice methods for healing. I support this change.

To conclude, Bill S‑205 makes targeted but important changes to criminal law to better address domestic violence.

I urge all members to support the bill.

Online Harms Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. There is not much more I can add. It is a sad statement that my colleague had to make, but it is so apropos and is really reflective of this government's approach to protecting children and to ensuring that communities are safe.

For nine years, the government has yet to strike the appropriate balance with bills such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-48, which it proudly proclaims are going to keep Canadians safe. We have heard from numerous premiers and heads of police associations, asking what happened to the promise of Bill C-48. The Liberal government promised that we were going to see some changes. There is nothing but crickets from this government. It fails to act and it fails to protect Canadians. I would add that it is the number one responsibility of a federal government to keep Canadians safe.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that criminals have nothing to fear under the NDP-Liberal legislation. Bill C-48 has done nothing to stop the crime in our communities. Instead of listening to premiers and law enforcement, who have called for bail reform, the justice minister pretends that C-48 is a success. It is an abject failure.

When will the minister stop protecting criminals and start standing up for victims by reversing their catch-and-release policies?