Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm very pleased to be here. This bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to establish a reverse onus in the case of bail hearings for firearm-related and other regulated weapons offences.
The issue of providing a reverse onus for bail hearings for certain serious firearms offences is one of the government's criminal justice priorities. In my view, the legislative reforms proposed in Bill C-35 are appropriately tailored to the concern that has been expressed by many Canadians recently about the release from custody of individuals accused of serious gun crimes, who pose a threat to public safety.
Bill C-35 proposes a reverse onus for eight serious offences when committed with a firearm. They are the following: attempted murder, robbery, discharging a firearm with criminal intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, and extortion.
A reverse onus is also proposed for any indictable offence that involves a firearm or other regulated weapon if committed while the accused is under a weapons prohibition order. These indictable offences are not limited to those that involve the actual use of a firearm or weapon. Furthermore, a reverse onus is proposed for the offences of firearm trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and firearm smuggling.
Bill C-35 contains another amendment, which is not a reverse onus proposal. It provides that the courts give consideration to the fact that a firearm was allegedly used in the commission of the offence, to decide whether or not the accused should be kept in custody, in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
Finally, it proposes that the court also consider whether the accused faces a minimum term of imprisonment of three years or more for a firearm-related offence.
The presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied bail without just cause are both constitutionally protected rights in our criminal justice system. Bail, however, can be denied in certain circumstances, and the Criminal Code provides specific grounds upon which the courts are justified in keeping someone in custody before their trial. Bail can be denied when detention is necessary to ensure that the accused does not flee justice, to protect the public--for example, if there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will reoffend if released--or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
Normally, the Crown is the party that must show just cause for keeping the accused in custody before trial. However, in certain specific cases, the onus is on the accused to show that there is no justification for keeping him in custody.
The protection of the right to not be denied reasonable bail without just cause has led to a few important constitutional challenges, which were brought to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision.
It's worth noting that our Supreme Court has maintained that constitutional validity of certain circumstances triggering a reverse onus on bail. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that this special bail rule is necessary to combat the pre-trial recidivism and absconding problems by requiring the accused to demonstrate that those risks will not arise.
It should be noted that there is unfortunately very little research available in Canada and elsewhere on the rate of reoffending by people out on bail. This is the case for offences in general and therefore also with respect to firearms offences specifically.
To date, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics has not gathered such data. Some police services gather statistics on whether a person newly arrested was previously under some form of supervision order; that is, whether they were on bail, prohibition, parole, or subject to a peace bond. I believe the data the department has on this issue was provided, as it had been requested during the technical briefing shortly after the introduction of this bill.
It's important to note, however, that the approach taken with several of the proposals in Bill C-35 is consistent with the principles that underlie the current bail regime. The reform proposed in Bill C-35 builds on the existing reverse onus scheme to specifically include certain serious firearms offences.
I think Bill C-35 is not only a very sensible and focused piece of legislation, but it also reflects much of the guidance provided by the Supreme Court on the bail regime. Bill C-35 takes a very similar approach to the bail regime that already exists, but it focuses on the current gun crime problem, particularly as it relates to serious firearms offences or offenders who ignore court orders not to possess weapons. It also recognizes that firearm trafficking and smuggling operations are similar in nature to drug trafficking and smuggling, in the sense that such illicit activities form part of a larger organized crime setting.
I hope the committee, after studying Bill C-35, will agree that this bill will improve the state of law and therefore greater protect Canadians from the threat of firearm violence.
Officials from my department and I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. In that regard, I am pleased to have with me Julie Besner as well as Catherine Kane, both from the Department of Justice.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me those opening comments.
