Justice Committee on March 20th, 2023

[Bronwyn Eyre]

That's an interesting question. From the federal perspective, in terms of Bill C-75.... Bill C-75 is very broad. There are a number of aspects that it touches on. In terms of the concerns and focus that we raised at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting, it was—as I've said a number of times repeatedly—more around the issue of repeat violent offenders as it relates to section 493.1 and the principle of restraint.

Bill C-75, as members will know, did also.... A part of its purpose was to address Jordan and the Jordan principle and, as you say, the adjournment pattern. I understand that. That's also a factor.

There are many factors in this discussion, many things to consider and many balances to weigh. That's certainly clear when it comes to bail and consideration of bail.

Our main focus, as provinces, was with repeat violent offenders, offences with weapons and random attacks, which are absolutely on the rise, and addressing them through the prism of Bill C-75, which is a very recent bill, and the effects it has had in that narrow area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Van Popta.

Next, we'll go to Mrs. Brière for four minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank and say hello to all the witnesses with us this afternoon.

Ms. Boulet, in the first hour of this meeting, we learned that all the tools were already in place, that legislative changes may not be necessary, that our judges are appointed after going through a thorough process and they are highly qualified, and that defence counsel are prepared to challenge bail hearings related to the presumption of innocence for individuals who have committed serious crimes.

Do you share these views?

[Marie-Pier Boulet]

Are you referring to the view that we are prepared to challenge releases for serious crimes?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

I'm talking about the view that all the tools are in place and that we don't necessarily need to make legislative changes.

[Marie-Pier Boulet]

Particularly with respect to section 515 of the Criminal Code, all the reasoning is indeed in place for judges to rule on a case-by-case basis. At the end of the day, it will always be case by case, even when there is no reverse onus or when the onus is on the Crown. It is standard for an exit plan—a life plan—to still be presented to the judge. Everything is in place to rule later on the efficiency and sufficiency of the process within that framework. The legislative aspect is covered.

With respect to release for serious crimes, when we say that we will be prepared to challenge them, it's about wanting to always have access to the possibility of interim release. We understand that, in those cases, there is quite an uphill battle. It's important to know the current law well, because it already provides for a reverse onus.

Regarding former Bill C‑75, we did not at all feel that there was a wave of sudden releases in cases of serious crimes. Instead, the result was to eliminate unnecessary bail hearings where it was clear that the person could be released on conditions. It cleaned up the process and freed up more time to deal with more serious cases, such as serious crimes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you. Do you know what is considered in determining whether an accused is entitled to release? For example, how is the dangerousness of the accused assessed?

[Marie-Pier Boulet]

The criminal record will inform the assessment of dangerousness in a very objective way. The person's criminal history will be one of the factors considered, as well as the nature of the crime, the circumstances surrounding the crime, the use of a firearm and therefore access to weapons, or the person's associates. In fact, the list can be endless, since the prosecutor could use his or her imagination and make suggestions to the judge of what should be considered in assessing the dangerousness of the person.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

We heard Ms. Latimer speak briefly about the impact that detention, no matter how short, has on a person's life. I would like to hear from you on that.

[Marie-Pier Boulet]

Practically speaking, interim release actually prevents us from doing our job well. As defence counsel, representing an accused is the first step toward a guilty verdict for us and for that person. Even the prosecutor will have a totally different approach with us, knowing that he or she now has that person's freedom in their hands, which makes us vulnerable in working toward our objectives.

Excluding the more serious categories of crime where there is no expectation other than pretrial detention, discouragement is what we are seeing now from the people involved. It is clear to me that some people plead guilty even though they are not, because of the psychological consequences of remand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Brière.

Thank you to all of the witnesses, once again, for taking the time to contribute to this bail system report. We look forward to seeing you guys again sometime for further studies.

That concludes today, and we will now adjourn.