Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I'm trying to explain the process of how we time this, because it's not one we've dealt with in a long time.

Mr. Van Popta, you have two and a half minutes. I believe you are next.

[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?

[Matthew Taylor]

I think Parliament always has scope to act in the dialogue with the courts, informed by the charter.

The Supreme Court has said that the denial of bail is permitted where it is done on the basis of just cause. You know what the Criminal Code articulates as just cause. Mr. Brock spoke about them already: public safety concerns and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Could another ground for just cause be developed? Yes, it could. Our role as departmental officials would be to support the government if that was government legislation and advise on the constitutional and broader policy implications associated with it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for that answer.

In your opinion, will the courts look at the current circumstances of society, for example? I raised in an earlier question that only 50% of Canadians have confidence in our criminal justice system. Is that a consideration that judges would look at when deciding whether or not Parliament trying to be stricter on something passes constitutional scrutiny?

[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]

That's all for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you so much.

I'm not sure who is taking the next two and a half minutes. I know we're a bit out of the norm today.

Please proceed, Mr. Maloney.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'll pick up on something we spoke about earlier.

Just to be clear, bail hearings, bail applications and bail reviews in the courts in Ontario are handled completely by Crown attorneys who are hired by the provincial government. We established that earlier. The federal government doesn't have the ability—it's not within their jurisdictional lane—to hire more Crown attorneys to create more capacity so that have the ability to process more bail hearings.

Just so we're clear, is that an accurate statement?

[Matthew Taylor]

That's correct. The overwhelming majority of bail hearings are conducted by provincial prosecutors. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada is responsible for federal prosecutions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, for example, but that is generally correct.

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

The same applies, then, to the physical facilities as well. The federal government just doesn't have the jurisdictional ability to go in and solve the capacity issue in the province, does it?

[Matthew Taylor]

That's correct, and that's why we talk about shared jurisdiction.

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

All the federal government can do is make amendments to the Criminal Code, which are then applied to bail hearings, for example.

What we saw in the media today was that not only are the structural capacity deficiencies you see in the province of Ontario causing a problem with respect to bail hearings, but they're now resulting in diminished sentences. People who have been tried will have their sentences reduced because they were subject to awful conditions in provincial detention centres. The only way to address that issue is to address the capacity issue with Crown attorneys and the provincial detention centres.

[Matthew Taylor]

That's correct, and it's a critical piece in the administration of justice and improving efficiencies.

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

Thank you.

I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you for that.

Go ahead, Monsieur Fortin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Sargent, I understand what was said, and my respected colleague Mr. Maloney has explained that this falls under provincial jurisdiction, not federal. I am glad to hear that, because we in the Bloc Québécois fight often, if not daily, to have Quebec's powers respected.

That said, there are still things to be done, because your 2024‑25 departmental plan states that only half of Canadians believe that the justice system is fair to all people, when the minister had set a target of 70%, if I am not mistaken. You cannot manage the administration of justice in the courts that are under federal jurisdiction, I agree. The fact remains, however, that you can appoint judges. We have seen that there are delays. What other measures do you think can be taken?

How do you plan to increase Canadians confidence in the justice system in order to raise it to more than 50%, which is actually a bit pathetic, in my opinion, with all due respect?

[Laurie Sargent, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indigenous Rights and Relations Portfolio, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

I am simply going to underscore what we have already said, which is that the meetings between the federal government and the provinces and territories are the main venues for the ministers to discuss these challenges together, challenges that are actually shared—

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

Does your departmental plan consist simply of organizing meetings?

[Laurie Sargent]

We devise solutions in terms of legislation or programs and we need to discuss these things together. Sometimes, the federal government enacts laws but the provinces may not have the resources to implement them. We must therefore absolutely coordinate our efforts.

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

Why is there no departmental plan for that?

[Laurie Sargent]

I think in part, precisely—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Please answer briefly.

[Laurie Sargent]

—investments in legal aid and in the criminal justice system are going to help a bit in solving the problems in the entire system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Ms. Sargent and Mr. Fortin.

Mr. MacGregor, the floor is yours.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask the officials about the supplementary estimates being earmarked for the Law Commission of Canada. You have proposed authorities to date of around $4.6 million, and these supplementary estimates are going to provide an additional $735,000.

I know the Law Commission provides very important research that can help guide public policy, but I was very interested in the research project they're doing on prison law. The other committee I sit on is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Of course, we're very familiar with the Correctional Service of Canada and the Office of the Correctional Investigator.

I would like to know, in practical terms, how the Department of Justice thinks this research is going to be used. What are your hoped-for outcomes? Are you working hand in glove with the Department of Public Safety on the research you will receive from the Law Commission of Canada? I'm curious about that, because I wear both hats at two different committees.