Justice Committee on March 22nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Good afternoon. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 55 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I'd like to give a special welcome to the students of the University of Ottawa law school and Professor Martha Jackman in the back. Welcome. Hopefully we will have an entertaining session for you, and you won't be disappointed. You have a minister, experts, department officials and the RCMP here, so I'm sure you'll have a full and wholesome session.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on January 30, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on Canada's bail system.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. I won't go into details, as I don't see anybody other than those who have already been on these, like the analysts, who are on Zoom.

I will remind anybody who's here, either listening in the back or at the stand, that you can turn your earpiece to floor, English or French audio, so that your interpretation services are accurate.

For the first hour, we are resuming our study on Canada's bail system.

We have the pleasure of having with us the Honourable Marco Mendicino, Minister of Public Safety. Minister Mendicino is accompanied by officials. We have Matthew Taylor from the Department of Justice. Talal Dakalbab is from the Department of Public Safety. He is a senior assistant deputy minister. From the RCMP, we have Chief Superintendent Sue Efford, director general of national crime operations in contract and indigenous policing.

We welcome you, Minister, and are glad that you're here.

The floor is yours. You have 10 minutes.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Good afternoon.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, honourable members, thank you for inviting me today.

I am here to discuss Canada's bail system, an issue that has generated growing public interest in recent months.

I want to commend the committee for studying this issue. It is an important one. It is vital to our public safety. It is also very emotional subject matter, particularly for the families of those who have been impacted by violent crime and for offenders who are attempting to pursue their paths toward reform and reintegration. On both sides of the equation, it is terribly important that we undertake this study in a constructive and civil way, and I want to commend each of you for the work and the energy that you are putting into it.

As we know all too well, the consequences of violent crime in our communities cannot be overstated. We owe it to all Canadians to take concrete action to address and reduce crime, so that all Canadians can be safe.

This begins with smart policy and investments in our law enforcement, as well as upstream social supports for those who are most vulnerable and at risk. Ensuring that Canada's criminal justice system prioritizes rehabilitation and safe reintegration goes hand in hand with all of those efforts.

As Minister of Public Safety, I am responsible for Correctional Service Canada, and thus the agency in charge of the rehabilitation of offenders and their safe re-entry into the community.

As such, this issue is at the core of my mandate. We know that addressing the issue of repeat violent offenders is a very complex one, but it is essential.

It begins with taking a hard look at achieving rehabilitation and safe reintegration. Reintegration comes with its own unique set of challenges, which, if left unaddressed, will increase the likelihood of someone reoffending and, by extension, causing harm, grief and loss.

That's why, in June 2022, I tabled the federal framework to reduce recidivism. It was to break the cycle of reoffending, to support rehabilitation and to make our communities safer for everyone. The framework is an important step toward identifying factors that lead people to reoffend and determining how to overcome those challenges to support the safest reintegration into their respective communities.

Developed in consultation with a variety of stakeholders, the framework lays out five priority areas essential to reintegration. They are housing, education, employment, health and positive support networks.

By June 2023, we will have an implementation plan to ensure that the supports are sustained over time.

This framework is an important step, but we know there is no one magic solution to addressing repeat violent offenders. Addressing the root causes of crime is also crucial to its success, and in this vein, Mr. Chair, we have made concrete investments in terms of the social determinants that can often lead to a life of crime.

Since 2015 we have focused on the social causes of crime with programs like the $250-million building safer communities fund, so that we can tackle gun crime and support community-led projects. This is in addition to the over $40 million provided annually through the national crime prevention strategy, which invests in community-based efforts that prevent youth involvement in crime and help to address the risk factors that have been known to lead to criminal activity.

More recently, I announced $5.79 million in funding under the crime prevention action fund for 902 ManUp’s Black empowerment initiative, in Halifax.

This funding will help empower young Black people across Nova Scotia to make the right choices by giving them a strong foundation in education and in the pursuit of their career, and by reducing barriers to the types of services and supports they need, as led by the community itself.

Since 2018, the gun and gang violence action fund has also provided funding to provinces and territories to increase community resources and to get guns and gun violence off our streets.

In Ontario, for example, this funding has been used to funnel additional resources to local law enforcement, prosecutors and community partners to reduce illegal gun and gang violence. This is in addition to the over $450 million that we've allocated to the CBSA in the last two years alone to reinforce our borders and stop the illegal flow of guns into our country.

We realize, of course, that some individuals go on to reoffend, and that's why we provide annual funding to our provincial and territorial counterparts, helping to build their capacity to identify and monitor high-risk violent offenders, and equip them with better tools for prosecution and conviction.

Mr. Chair, smart policy on guns is also an essential policy and part of this plan. We have made historic strides in combatting gun violence through our recent firearms legislation. In 2020, our government banned over 1,500 models of assault-style weapons, and last year we expanded background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Bill C-21, which is currently being studied by Parliament at committee, will increase maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years for firearms-related offences and include new charges for altering the magazine or cartridge of a gun to exceed its lawful capacity. This is about tackling violent crime and preventing senseless tragic deaths.

We know that no single initiative can solve the complex problem that is gun violence. This bill is merely one facet of our comprehensive approach.

This legislative session, we agreed to strengthen public safety through the Criminal Code, with amendments targeting violent offenders and serious offences committed with firearms. I know this committee has also been seized with legislation that includes Bill C-75 and Bill C-71, and, as I said, our colleagues at the Standing Committee on Public Safety are also studying Bill C-21.

When it comes to bail reform, Mr. Chair, we are listening to Canadians; we are listening to the law enforcement community, and we are listening to victims and survivors.

I am working closely with the justice minister, Mr. Lametti, as well as with our provincial and territorial partners, to carefully examine how the bail system is structured and ensure that it takes into account the safety of all Canadians.

As you know, Mr. Chair, we recently met with our federal, provincial and territorial colleagues to talk about the ways in which we can make certain modifications to the bail system so that we can address specifically the challenges around repeat violent offenders who have used either firearms or other weapons. We have committed to undertaking this work within this legislative session, one in which we will work in close collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners as well as with all the members of this committee and all parliamentarians.

Mr. Chair, I am very much looking forward to the questions and comments from your committee. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Minister Mendicino.

We'll now go to our first round of questions. We'll begin with Mr. Moore for six minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your appearance here today.

Minister, all 13 premiers rarely agree on anything, yet we have unanimity among all premiers in this country that your government's approach on crime is failing.

When your colleague, the Minister of Justice, appeared here to discuss this bail study that we're undertaking, he said, “I don't accept that,” when confronted with the claim made by all the premiers that Bill C-75, which changed the law when it comes to bail in this country.... Also, all the police testimony that we've heard has suggested that Bill C-75 has made it easier for criminals who should be behind bars to get bail and be back out on the street. The revolving door that has been put in place by this has caused great concern and has led to great tragedy in this country.

It shouldn't take a tragedy, Minister, for a government to look at the obvious consequence of misguided legislation and accept responsibility for it.

Minister Lametti said, “I don't accept that.” I'll ask you the same question. Do you accept the criticism from 13 premiers and from law enforcement that says that Bill C-75 went too far and that the bail system has to be strengthened?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I accept that there have been far too many tragedies in our communities. One of the most difficult aspects of the job I do as Minister of Public Safety is to grieve with families who have lost loved ones to gun violence and other violent crime. It is because of those tragedies that we must continue to find ways to work together to improve and strengthen our system. This is why Minister Lametti and I recently chaired and facilitated a conversation on the heels of the letter that you mentioned from the premiers of all 13 jurisdictions in Canada, so that we could have a candid discussion on how we might amend the Criminal Code to address the specific issue of repeat violent offenders who have used either guns or other weapons to visit upon communities and individuals violence and harm, which then leads to grief.

As you heard me say in my introductory remarks, that was a very productive and constructive meeting. At the conclusion of it, we were able to issue a joint press statement in which the federal government agreed to look at the Criminal Code to make certain amendments to the bail system so that we could be sure that we would both, one, protect communities from future harm by offenders or those charged with serious violent offences and, two, promote the successful reintegration of those individuals safely back into our communities.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Minister.

I guess it's two very different things. I don't think there's anyone around this table who wouldn't accept that the tragic deaths that have taken place are just that: unacceptable.

What we need to hear is an acceptance of some of the criticism of the revolving-door justice system, including the criticism around Bill C-75. In fact, it would appear that your government's moving in exactly the wrong direction when it comes to firearms. Bill C-75 has made it easier for repeat offenders to get bail.

The Toronto police were here, and they provided this committee with testimony that said that there are individuals in Toronto who have been arrested on a firearms offence, receive bail, while on bail are arrested on a firearms offence and then receive bail again. Do you think in Canada that it's ever acceptable for someone who is on bail for a firearms offence to be arrested for a firearms offence and then get bail again? Is this what you're committed to addressing?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Moore, obviously I share the concern that you do, that individuals who pose a serious to our communities, including through gun violence, should not be casually or easily released. That's one of the reasons we have committed to taking a look at the bail system.

I also want to say to you the following. I've spent the better part of a decade working on the front lines of the criminal justice system, and I've seen with my own eyes the consequences of the revolving door that you refer to. It is a metaphor that, yes, is deeply concerning from the standpoint of public safety, but it's also the concern of this government, and I hope you as well, Mr. Moore, that there are structural and systemic challenges within our criminal justice system that have led to the overrepresentation of indigenous people and racialized people in our criminal justice system. It is those twin-pillar objectives that we are striving to accomplish in Bill C-75: to clear the criminal justice system of non-violent offenders so that we can off-ramp them to get the treatment they need and they can be successfully reintegrated into communities; and to focus instead on the serious violent offenders who do, yes, pose a risk to our communities.

I would add one last thing, Mr. Moore. Bill C-75 essentially codified a number of legal precedents that were issued by the Supreme Court of Canada, so that we could provide clear guidance to the judiciary and to all the actors within our justice system, and so that the best possible decisions are taken. Is this an ongoing conversation? Yes. That's one of the reasons I'm here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Next we'll go to Mr. Naqvi for six minutes.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Welcome, Minister. Thank you for coming back.

I'm glad that in your last comment you spoke about your frontline experience. I believe you were a Crown, and you know these systems quite well. I get a little concerned, sitting in this committee, especially as we're doing the bail study, that at times the conversation somehow morphs into how the entire bail system is broken. That's the language that's being used primarily by the opposition parties.

That's not what we're talking about in the circumstances that we're dealing with, where we know that the bail system has many aspects to it, particularly dealing with a lot of vulnerable individuals who come through the system. A lot of times they're facing bail court because of administrative charges or because bail conditions were put on them. An oft-repeated example is of somebody who has an addiction issue and is told they cannot consume alcohol. The chances are that nine times out of 10 they're going to contravene that bail condition.

In your view, as we look at this particular instance, and recently having had a meeting with the ministers of public safety and attorneys general from across the country, what's the precise nature of the problem we're dealing with and what are the kinds of issues we need to look at?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

First, I think you're quite right to highlight that in those instances in which charges are laid with regard to breaches of terms of bail that are unrelated to violent offences, we should be innovative in finding ways to ensure that, yes, there is accountability for that, but not at the expense of allowing the criminal justice system to prioritize those individuals who pose the greatest risk to community safety as a result of either having committed violent crimes or having been alleged to have committed violent crimes, including in some instances with regard to firearms.

I would say that the consensus at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting that Minister Lametti and I recently co-chaired with our colleagues was that despite having well-established principles in place to determine who gets reasonable bail and who does not, there is still a cohort of serious violent offenders, or those who have been charged with violent offences, and we may need to recalibrate some of the law to be sure that we are taking the best possible decisions around who is eligible and who is not eligible for release.

That was the consensus coming out of the federal-provincial-territorial meeting. Our commitment as a government is to work with our partners and to work with all of you to see what that legislative option might look like under the Criminal Code.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I appreciate what you're suggesting, but I just want to have it on the record that you still have to operate within a paradigm in which the discretion still lies with the person—whether that's a judge or a Justice of the Peace—who is making the determination, because at the end of the day, it will be his or her decision as to whether a person gets bail or not. Am I correct in that assertion?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Naqvi, you are absolutely correct that whatever law or amendment we come up with must be consistent with the charter, and what the charter says is that every individual is entitled to “reasonable” bail.

Now, there are some instances in which the question that is posed before a court.... You've pointed out that bail hearings are presided over by Justices of the Peace or, in some cases, judges or Superior Court judges for the most strict offences. They undertake an analysis that looks at whether or not the individual before them is a flight risk, whether or not they impose a serious and substantial risk to community safety, and whether or not it would offend the administration of justice and the public's confidence in it to release them.

On the basis of those three principles, they will make a determination as to whether an individual gets bail or is detained. Whatever we end up determining, the proposal going forward vis-à-vis bail must be consistent with those established principles and the charter.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, and that is not to mention the various Supreme Court decisions that have come out recently, in less than 10 years, that have also put some really strict parameters around the process for Justices of the Peace or judges to make the bail decisions that need to be made under the Criminal Code. You have to find ways to conform yourself within that paradigm as well.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

You are correct. That's one of the things we did in Bill C-75. We took a look at the Supreme Court jurisprudence on the specific subject matter of bail and codified those principles so that we are using the criminal law as much as possible, and so that detention and the deprivation of liberty are a last resort and we otherwise look for ways to successfully rehabilitate.

For those who don't pose any risk and who are not violent offenders—those with mental health challenges and those with substance challenges—I think and I would hope that we can all agree that our resources should be invested in a public health approach to off-ramp. For those who do pose a serious violent threat to our communities, then yes, in some circumstances they will have to be separated from the community.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have very little time left.

Very quickly, I know that Correctional Service is also within your portfolio. Can you speak to the principles on a reintegration framework that you may have and that also ties into ensuring that individuals, once released, do not reoffend?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Yes.

First, at the core of those decisions that are undertaken independently, specifically for those who are seeking parole where it's discretionary, community safety and reintegration obviously are the two fundamental principles that are assessed. Again, that is not by elected members of the government, but rather by delegated authorities, who exercise that discretion independently and in a non-partisan way.

There are other rules that govern statutory release for those who are serving federal sentences of two years plus a day or more. There are statutory rules around how much of that sentence they must serve in a federal incarceration facility and then around transitioning them stage by stage back into the community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Naqvi.

Next is Ms. Normandin, please.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

In your opening remarks, you spoke mainly about preventing repeat offences and providing rehabilitation. You didn't mention the bail system or your examination of the system in conjunction with Mr. Lametti until the end. I thought you were somewhat evasive about your examination of the bail system, so I'd like you to talk more about that.

Let's assume that, in order to find the right solution to a problem, you have to be able to identify the problem correctly. Tell us, if you would, about what you've already identified as problems. Just to be clear, when I say problems, I don't mean the overrepresentation of indigenous populations or the release of offenders who go on to commit crimes. Those are outcomes, symptoms of the problem, if you will.

I'd like you to talk about the problems you have identified in the bail system.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you for your question.

The system has challenges, especially when it comes to resources. That's one of the reasons why the federal government is continuing to invest in supporting the good work of police services. For example, we've already invested more than $350 million to strengthen police presence in communities.

Issues with the bail system have indeed been discussed. The last time we met with our provincial and territorial partners, the focus was on violent offenders.

We are always willing to consider amendments to the Criminal Code that would strengthen the bail system. We'll see where things go.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

On that topic, a number of witnesses told us that the Criminal Code already provided the technical tools necessary for a sound bail system, especially with section 515. What's lacking is precisely the capacity or resources needed to enforce bail conditions.

Do you agree that, to do that, we need to better apply the provisions we already have, as opposed to amending the Criminal Code?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

With all due respect, I must tell you that I don't completely agree.

Resources have always been a challenge, and that's why we need to have discussions and work with our provincial and territorial partners and police services. I've spoken numerous times with police chiefs and associations wanting to convey their priorities.

Legislation and principles do, however, play a role. You brought up section 515 of the Criminal Code. That is the very provision we are looking at right now, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, in an effort to perhaps strengthen the bail system.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

If we apply the ladder principle to a case where the offender to be released is at risk of reoffending, but the idea is to avoid keeping the individual in prison, one of the options is an electronic monitoring bracelet. It could be one of the offender's release conditions. Unfortunately, we've seen cases recently where individuals under house arrest were able to break their electronic monitoring devices and leave their homes without any follow-up by police.

Isn't it those types of problems that need to be fixed quickly in order for the system to work well?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

You're right. When a device is being used and an offender breaches their release conditions, the authorities have to respond accordingly to keep the community and those close to the offender safe. The problem is more than just the technology, though.

Recidivism is a complex issue. It's important to take an in-depth look at a number of factors, including housing and access to health care, education and other programs and services that build confidence in the high-risk individual. That's the reason we created the building safer communities fund.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Quickly, I have one last question for you.

We've heard a lot of information that tends to be empirical. On one hand, we've been told that the number of people granted release who then commit crimes has gone up significantly since Bill C‑75 came into force. On the other, we've been told that it has been much harder for offenders to be granted bail since the legislation came into force.

How can the data be compiled in order to accurately reflect what's going on, so that real—not anecdotal—evidence informs decision-making?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That's another very important question.

As far as statistics, figures, data and evidence go, Mr. Lametti and I, as well as our provincial and territorial counterparts and partners all agree. We need all the available data to develop policies and new administrative tools aimed at addressing systemic issues like the overrepresentation of certain populations, indigenous and racialized individuals in particular. We need to start by examining what they experience. For decades, they have been overrepresented in the justice system.

Data and other types of evidence will help us develop a better approach, one that will reduce barriers.