Justice Committee on March 22nd, 2023

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

Okay. Thank you.

The Attorney General of British Columbia has amended his directive to Crown counsel and is specifically telling them to no longer seek detention, even if a fit sentence upon conviction would include incarceration. It used to be that they were to seek detention, and they are now reversing that.

Do you have a comment on that?

[Matthew Taylor]

Yes. From what I've reviewed in terms of the guidance that is reflected in the new directive from the Attorney General of British Columbia, it is really to try to reinforce some core principles that exist in the bail system.

In terms of the specific point that you raised, sir, about the seriousness of the offence and the likelihood of a carceral sentence if convicted, that's built into the system already, so that's very much a reflection of what the law already tells prosecutors.

Of course, what the law says and how it's implemented are two different things. By developing these guidelines and policies, provincial attorneys general help to ensure that the law operates as it's intended.

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

Good.

I want to pivot to the reverse onus and possible amendments to the Criminal Code. This is what the premiers are asking for, particularly relating to firearm offences and repeat violent offenders.

A couple of days ago, we had a witness here who is a criminal defence lawyer. He said that whether or not there is a reverse onus, it's not going to make a lot of difference to the way he practises law because it is, effectively, a reverse onus in any event. I'm going to quote you, Mr. Taylor. You were here the other day and you said, “These reverse onuses reflect Parliament's intention to make it more difficult for an accused to obtain release in certain situations that align with the grounds of detention”.

My question is to what extent bail judges respect Parliament's intention as set out in implementing a reverse onus. How seriously do they take it? Does it make a difference?

[Matthew Taylor]

That's a tough one to answer, but the quote sounded nice. I know we're out of time. I would just say that any law reform in this space, if it provides for a new reverse onus, would very much reinforce Parliament's belief that these offences should be treated in a particular way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Van Popta.

Next we have Ms. Brière for six minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, witnesses. I will ask my question in French.

Mr. Dakalbab, we've heard a number of witnesses who weren't necessarily criticizing the principle of bail but who highlighted concerns with release conditions.

As we've also heard and seen, in a number of cases, offenders have committed crimes while out on bail.

The federal framework to reduce recidivism was announced in 2022, with the engagement process beginning in February 2023.

Can you please tell us the purpose of the framework and the stakeholder consultations?

Which stakeholders are you consulting?

Besides the framework, what measures has the department taken to address recidivism?

[Talal Dakalbab, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Crime Prevention Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you for your question.

The framework was indeed released in 2022. Minister Mendicino spoke about the framework's priority areas, health, housing, education and support networks.

I worked in corrections and the parole system for over a decade. In developing the framework, we consulted extensively to really pinpoint the problem we wanted to address. Those stakeholders included community partners and representatives of the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society and other such organizations.

The program the minister announced yesterday is one of the initiatives identified in the first framework. The framework was designed to allow for nimble approaches to address the issue of recidivism through federally funded initiatives and programs. The Government of Canada committed to following up on the priority areas laid out in the framework. By June, we will report back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on the pillars through which we will begin taking more concrete actions.

We are currently engaged in consultations and research to come up with a concrete proposal for the minister, which will eventually be tabled in Parliament.

I'm glad that you made such a clear distinction between the conditional release system and the bail system. It's true that they are similar, in that they have successful outcomes in the majority of cases. According to our data, the conditional release recidivism rate is less than 1% for violent crimes. That means the success rate is pretty high and is comparable to that of the bail system.

Nevertheless, they are two completely different systems with different sets of requirements.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Who are you consulting, and who are the stakeholders?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I don't have the list with me, but I can tell you that we are consulting with academics, not-for-profit organizations, as well as indigenous and Black communities, which are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

I can send you the list, if you like.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dakalbab.

Ms. Efford, the minister said that you needed more resources to strengthen your capacity to monitor offenders. In another committee meeting, we learned about other methods that were successful in the area of conditional release, methods we could apply to our system.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Chief Superintendent Sue Efford, Director General, National Criminal Operations, Contract and Indigenous Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I just want to ensure that I understand the question. Is it a question around resourcing on behalf of the RCMP and how we would effectively use that? Yes. Thank you.

To start, the RCMP uses its existing resources by distributing them throughout the force in accordance with the established priorities. Under the police service agreements, the RCMP will work closely with local jurisdictions to set priorities and establish adequate resourcing requirements to assist and meet policing goals.

I'd just like to point out as well that although we cover 75% of the geographic mass of Canada, we're responsible for policing between 22% and 25% of the population, which is mostly rural.

What I can say is that the RCMP will endeavour to enforce the law to the greatest extent possible in line with its mandate and in accordance with the priorities that have been identified.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

How can we help you to reinforce your capacity?

[Talal Dakalbab]

If it's all right with you, I can partly answer that.

I am the minister's co-lead for RCMP contract policing services, so I work on RCMP contracting with my colleagues across the country every single day. In my role, I also work with Quebec and Ontario.

In our experience, the most positive measure is to fund police capacity—whether in the RCMP or other organizations—so that better evidence can be provided to the courts. It's very important to provide judges with the information before they make a bail decision. For example, Ontario used federal funding for that purpose, and that's what we are trying to do under the police service agreements between the RCMP and the provinces and territories.

It also means teams have more resources available so they can put more effort into finding individuals who breached the conditions of their release and are free illegally.

Those are two concrete ways we can help. That said, as you mentioned earlier, recruiting people is difficult. It's a common refrain of police services, but I wanted to support what my colleague said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Brière.

Next we'll go to Monsieur Fortin for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dakalbab, Ms. Efford and Mr. Taylor, for being with us.

My question is for you, Mr. Dakalbab, and it has to do with a subject I raised with the minister earlier. With the passage of former Bill C‑5, mandatory minimum sentences were eliminated in certain cases. I won't go on about the need for minimum sentences. I believe in judicial discretion, but in some cases, the fact remains: doing away with minimum sentences sends a message. Lawmakers don't talk for the sake of talking. In certain cases, when handing down sentences, the courts were influenced by the fact that mandatory minimum sentences had been eliminated.

How do we avoid giving the impression that the parameters for assessing the seriousness of those crimes are less stringent? We don't want the courts to think that when deciding whether to grant an accused conditional release.

[Talal Dakalbab]

As far as I know, the courts usually take into account the maximum sentence as well.

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

Yes, but that hasn't changed, so it really makes no difference. The maximum sentence is still the same. What has changed in the judge's mind is that they have more discretion to impose, not stricter sentences, but more lenient ones. The judge can hand down less than the minimum sentence that was in place previously, whether it was six months, a year, two years or whatever the case may have been. That still sends a signal from lawmakers to the judge who is hearing the case. It could suggest that the requirements have been relaxed, that lawmakers are less stringent than they were before.

What can we, as lawmakers, do tocounter that negative effect and avoid giving the impression that we no longer consider certain offences to be serious, offences such as discharging a firearm with intent and sexual assault?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I'm going to come back to what I said initially.

Bill C‑21 provides for a maximum penalty of 14 years, the harshest penalty after a life sentence.

I think that sends a pretty clear message about how serious the crime is.

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

Of course, but you'll agree with me that that hasn't changed.

[Talal Dakalbab]

It hasn't changed yet.

It could be a clear message—

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

All right.

What has changed, however, is that the minimum sentence has been eliminated.

I gather from your remarks that you don't think it's had any impact on the courts' decisions.

Is that correct?

[Talal Dakalbab]

To be honest, I don't have the data I would need to answer that.

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

I see.

Let's say it had an impact. Do you think there's anything we could do to counter that impact?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I'm going to come back to the minister's point about the importance of prevention.

A look at correctional systems around the world—Canada is reputed for being a global leader, by the way—reveals that the successful ones place the most emphasis on prevention, as opposed to intervention.

It's necessary to invest in crime prevention or to identify adequate supports when it comes to employment, health, substance abuse and mental health. Addressing those issues appropriately does more than arresting people and putting them in prison.

I truly believe that is the best way to prevent the serious crimes we are currently seeing.

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

Thank you, Mr. Dakalbab.