Justice Committee on March 6th, 2023

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister. It's always a pleasure to have you here.

You were right when you said earlier that there was no easy answer to such a complex issue. I'm especially concerned about protecting victims and keeping them safe, as well as all Canadians.

I'd like to discuss a few aspects. First, can you tell us what former Bill C‑75 did and how it brought the law in line with Supreme Court jurisprudence? Second, in response to an honourable member, you said it was important to remember that we were working in the context of the charter. Lastly, we haven't talked much about the presumption of innocence.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you for your question.

As I said, Bill C‑75 was the product of extensive co‑operation between the federal government and the provinces and territories. We brought together the best ideas out there for reforming the criminal justice system, including the bail system. Thanks to the bill, we were able to establish the framework for a number of Supreme Court decisions relating to bail. In that sense, the bill did not alter the foundation—the architecture, if you will—of the system or the most important rules and regulations. What it did was provide clarity around the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

We also had to address the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black people in the justice system, especially in regard to minor offences. That includes administration of justice offences such as an individual missing a meeting or a hearing because of distance. We adjusted the requirements and conditions to match the real problems. The provinces and territories welcomed the reforms at the time.

Obviously, some of the situations that have been mentioned pose a challenge. We are prepared to take another look at the whole thing to see what we can do to make the legislation better.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you. What do you say to someone who argues that Bill C‑75 weakened the bail system?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

That is simply not true. As I said, we established a framework for the principles set out by the Supreme Court, especially for serious crimes involving firearms. The reverse onus already applied to those cases, and we applied it to intimate partner violence offences as well. For serious cases, it was hard for the accused to be granted bail before the reforms, and now it's even harder.

I think the legislation brought positive and worthwhile change. Now we are trying to figure out whether we can make it better.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

What is the government doing to address intimate partner violence and protect victims from violent partners?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Former Bill C‑75 introduced a reverse onus provision to help victims and make it harder for accused to access bail.

We were looking into other options as well, so we also provided more clarity around certain definitions of sexual violence in former Bill C‑51. In addition, through former Bill C‑3, we ensured that judges would receive better training on how to deal with matters involving intimate partner violence and sexual assault.

We fully support victims all over the country through our programming, and we remain open to making further changes to address intimate partner violence. I know that one of the members here today put forward a bill on coercive control, and I announced publicly my support for the bill. It's also very important to define offences in a way that is understandable to the victims in those situations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Madame Brière.

Next, we'll go to two two-and-a-half-minute rounds, beginning with Monsieur Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two and a half minutes, Minister.

First off, I fully support the principle of giving judges some latitude. I have confidence in our justice system. I'm very glad that we've already passed provisions to improve the training judges receive on various aspects. It's like apple pie. Who can be against that?

The fact remains, however, that Parliament is sending messages to the courts. In applying provisions of the law, judges rely on what lawmakers have said and written on the subject. You know as well as I do that judges have to interpret legislative instruments all the time.

As I said earlier, we are in an era when the government is relaxing certain rules. The passage of Bill C‑5 brought with it the elimination of minimum sentences for serious crimes such as discharging a firearm with intent. Minimum sentences for sexual assault offences were also eliminated. The message that sends the courts is a bit counterproductive, in my eyes.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to reinstate minimum sentences for those offences? That could eliminate conditional sentencing and sentences served at home for accused in sexual assault cases, while giving judges the discretion to depart from mandatory minimum sentences in exceptional circumstances. Courts would have to explain what those exceptional circumstances were and why the sentence departed from minimum sentencing principles. That would avoid conditional sentencing, reassure the public and send the courts a clear message: lawmakers take these offences very seriously.

Wouldn't that also improve things in relation to parole, helping judges gain a better understanding of the scope of the offences committed?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you for your questions.

A judge is never required to hand down a minimum sentence. They can go to the other end of the spectrum. It's the same for—

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

A judge can't hand down anything less than a minimum sentence, Minister.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

No, but they can go in the other direction.

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

Yes, but that's not what we are talking about.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

No, but it needs to be understood.

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

I only have a few seconds left, Minister.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

It's serious. The changes we made capture offences involving hunting weapons. There were no changes to offences involving prohibited weapons or organized crime. That message is crystal clear, and with Bill C‑21, we are even increasing maximum sentences for firearms offences involving organized crime. It's only a small number of offences involving hunting weapons.

I think the message is pretty clear. Serious crimes deserve serious consequences, and that option is always available to judges.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Lametti.

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

Mr. Garrison, you have two and a half minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for his expression of support for my private member's bill, Bill C-202, on coercive and controlling behaviour. I've also been working very closely with the member for Victoria, Laurel Collins. Our commitment, as New Democrats, is that we will get this bill before this Parliament soon, one way or the other. I thank you for mentioning that.

I want to return to the issue of bail hearings directly. One of the things I hear anecdotally is that, often, those who are asked to make the decisions don't have the full information in front of them. Section 518 of the Criminal Code allows prosecutors to present evidence about previous offences and other relevant circumstances, but it doesn't require presentation of that kind of evidence.

Again, one of the suggested reforms is that we amend the Criminal Code to require in every bail hearing that the judge has in front of them information about previous offences by the person who's seeking bail. Is that the kind of thing the government would be prepared to consider in reforming the bail system?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

It certainly would be. Anything that helps a better decision to be taken, particularly when the security of the public is at risk.... Another thing that I'd also be interested in is whether there's a role for victims to play in the determination of bail in the evidence that's tendered.

Again, what we are trying to do is to keep an open mind to positive reforms that can be made in order to keep the public safe, to prevent recidivism and to protect victims and communities, but also to not incarcerate someone who doesn't present any of those risks to society.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Again, we have, certainly in my community, lots of anecdotal evidence about conditions still being imposed like a curfew, not being in certain parts of town or not associating with certain people, which sets conditions, in particular for those who are homeless or with mental health issues, that they can't possibly meet.

I have a staff member who was formerly a case support worker for someone whose mental health problems literally didn't allow them to tell time correctly, yet they were forced to report at a certain time every day. We still have those kinds of conditions being imposed, which lead to further involvement in the justice system.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

The spirit of Bill C-75 is that those conditions should not be imposed. There shouldn't be anything there that is not in any way linked to the crime or those other standards like recidivism, public safety, etc.

We need to keep working at the mise en oeuvre, the implementation of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Thank you, Mr. Lametti and Mr. Taylor, for coming. Once again, it's always a pleasure to have you.

We'll now suspend for a minute or two while we get our next witnesses. I believe that one is online and two are in the back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

We are back to continue the study on Canada's bail system.

I would like to welcome Chief Superintendent Sydney Lecky, commanding officer of G Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think you're joining us by video conference out of beautiful British Columbia. No, I'm sorry—you're in the Northwest Territories. That's my bad. I was a little excited that it was British Columbia, but that's E Division. You're G Division.

We have the chief of the Brantford Police Service, Robert Davis. Thank you for coming.

We also have the chief of the Six Nations Police Service, Darren Montour. Welcome.

We're all glad to have you here. You each have five minutes, followed by the usual round of questions.

I'll begin with Chief Superintendent Lecky, the commanding officer from the Northwest Territories.

[Chief Superintendent Sydney Lecky, Commanding Officer, G Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, good afternoon.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee today along with my law enforcement colleagues as you study Canada's bail system.

I am Chief Superintendent Syd Lecky, a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and commanding officer of G Division in the Northwest Territories. As a member of the Peskotomuhkati Nation, I would like to acknowledge that I join you today from Chief Drygeese territory of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation.

I have been in my current role since October 2022, prior to which I was the officer in charge of the Kamloops RCMP detachment with responsibility for policing services to the city of Kamloops but also a large rural area including three first nations communities.

The RCMP is supportive of a balanced approach to bail reform that considers community and officer safety, overrepresentation of racialized people in prisons and the rights of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I am here today to share some of the impacts on our communities that highlight the need for bail reform to address not only public but the officer safety risks caused by releasing violent and repeat offenders in our communities on bail while awaiting trial.

The RCMP is all too familiar with the incidents and the risks chronic violent offenders can have to public and officer safety. In the past decade, the RCMP has seen the murder of Constable David Wynn and, more recently, Constable Shaelyn Yang by chronic violent offenders.

Information obtained from one of our 11 divisions that provide frontline policing found that of the 91 homicides in that division in the past three years, 48% of the individuals accused were subject to police- or court-imposed conditions.

Just over a week ago, a member was shot at during a police traffic stop and exchanged gunfire with the suspect. The accused had been released two weeks prior on a $1,500 cash bail with a condition not to possess a weapon. The outstanding charges included violent crime and four firearms offences.

While not to diminish from the focus on violent crime, it is the effect of what is commonly referred to as low level or property crime that has been the most impactful to citizens in many of our communities.

Having met with mayors, first nations councils, business improvement associations and community groups, they express a feeling of lawlessness. They regularly question why offenders are being arrested and released multiple times only to reoffend. The term “catch and release” is often used to describe the cycle. The prevailing message is that what has been considered low-level crime for some is not for many who are victimized repeatedly. This is often at significant expense to the business community, which expresses anger and feels let down.

This repeated cycle of arrest and release has had a significant impact on many involved in the justice system, adding workloads to police, clerical staff and all participants who would handle the volumes of documentation that follow. Many of these policing costs are borne by the community.

I have also observed that the administration of justice charges that accompany repeat offenders are seldom prosecuted when recommended by police. These include breaches of undertaking, breaches of probation and failure to appear charges. These are key grounds allowed for in the Criminal Code to show cause for detention. In one city, 50% of failure to comply with undertaking charges have been stayed, withdrawn or dismissed in the past three years.

As highlighted in recommendations from different police associations, bail reform offers opportunities to consider tightening the rules on the use of sureties, expanding the use of reverse onus conditions for offenders and expanding the use of electronic monitoring where practical.

Under the police service agreements, the RCMP provides frontline policing for about 22% of Canada’s population in about 75% of Canada’s geographic land mass. This includes policing services for many of our indigenous communities. With this in mind, the RCMP would welcome a holistic, trauma-informed approach to bail reform. From experience, it is often our indigenous and marginalized community members who are most at risk from violent offenders, often in remote and isolated communities.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.