Evidence of meeting #15 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-14.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, but I don't believe that's an answer to my question.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
We'll have to wait until we have that opportunity. Thank you, Rhéal.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Fortin, the good news is that you'll get another opportunity in just a few minutes.
Mr. Baber, we'll start the five-minute round with you.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Welcome, Attorney General.
One of the big failures of Liberal Bill C-75 is that it created a diversionary regime for offences involving failures to comply with court orders, so offences such as failure to appear, breach of undertaking or even breach of bail conditions may often go unpunished. Basically, Bill C-75 allows Crowns to divert or to remove those offences from the docket. This has been a spectacular failure.
Why is this not addressed in Bill C-14?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
From a philosophical point of view, there are dangerous people who need to be incarcerated because they pose a public safety risk. The circumstances surrounding an administrative charge can vary significantly. In some instances, particularly when you're dealing with low-income Canadians, there may be somebody who missed a court date because they had no access to child care, or there was no public transportation and they couldn't afford a car. I don't want somebody in those circumstances to necessarily be incarcerated when they don't pose a public safety threat.
If there are people who are violent repeat offenders who are also acting in contempt of court, there are increased penalties included in Bill C-14, which is a better way, in my view, to deal with that.
Making sure we don't use too blunt an instrument to incarcerate people who pose no public safety threat but, through life circumstances over which they have no control, find themselves before the court in these kinds of proceedings.... This is an important thing that we need to allow courts to deal with.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Attorney General, our committee heard from Mr. and Mrs. Best, the parents of Kellie Verwey, 28 years old, who was killed in a car crash last January by a drunk driver. At the time of this tragic incident, there was a warrant for his arrest for breaching bail conditions. In fact, that was not the first but the second time that he was wanted for breach of bail. He had already breached before. The mom, Meechelle Best, said to us that Kellie's death was completely avoidable.
Let's talk about that as a philosophical issue. What would you say to Kellie's parents about why Bill C-14 does not go far enough to punish those who breach bail conditions?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I would say, first of all, that there is no tragedy that can compare to someone losing their child. There is no answer you can give in the Criminal Code that will bring someone back to life. It is a pain that too many people in this country have felt personally and know deeply.
My understanding of that case is that the person was actually released on Crown consent, so I don't understand that it was a shortcoming of these specific rules but perhaps of how things played out in that particular instance.
If there are dangerous people who are also breaching bail conditions, that is absolutely something the court should be considering. Making sure we're dealing with people who pose a public safety risk is precisely the kind of thing I believe Bill C-14 will do. It's not going to bring back someone's loved ones, but it does have the potential to prevent further loss of life in the future.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Attorney General, I'm especially concerned that there may be no real consequence for those who breach bail conditions. If someone breaches bail and commits a violent offence, I believe they should be detained almost every single time instead of the revolving door that we currently have.
I want to move to young offenders. The new prevalence of young offenders, especially in gang violence in Toronto, is very troubling, but there is no sentencing reform in Bill C-14 with respect to young offenders. You close a loophole clarifying what violence is for purposes of custody, but the bill still does not increase sentences. For second-degree murder, for instance, the Youth Criminal Justice Act limits custodial sentences to four years. They often wait for one to two years, get two for one in pre-custody time, and then by the time they're sentenced, they're sentenced to a year or no time at all, and then they come out and terrorize our community.
Why doesn't Bill C-14 increase sentences for young offenders?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I think there are some questions that we need to study and identify the correct responses to. It may be very appropriate to bring those questions to this committee for deep study.
The process of engagement that we undertook identified certain reforms that disproportionately fell into the category of those that apply to adults. We weren't necessarily hearing the same level of feedback when it came to youth criminal justice, though there are some elements that we touched on in Bill C-14.
One particular piece we heard, subsequent to the development of Bill C-14, was the need to ensure that we're targeting people who would recruit young people into crime. Monsieur Fortin was one of the people who first raised this issue with me, and it is present in Bill C-16. Therefore, this committee will have an opportunity to consider that particular issue.
However, if the committee wants to advance further work on youth criminal justice, I would welcome a study that benefits from deep engagement with, and the expertise of, Canadians who spent their careers identifying solutions in this space.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Baber.
We will now go over to Ms. Dhillon for five minutes.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, thank you and your team for being here.
To be clear and set the record straight, can you confirm that people convicted of sexual assault aren't eligible to serve their sentences under house arrest?
Can you briefly explain how the Criminal Code appropriately limits the use of conditional sentences for these serious offences?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Crimes of a sexual nature are heinous. We must ensure that sentences reflect the serious nature of those offences.
I don't think it's appropriate for someone who commits a sexual offence to serve their sentence under house arrest. Bill C‑14, which is currently under discussion, has changed the rules to ensure that this situation won't be possible in the future.
This is extremely serious. People who commit sexual crimes, which, in my view, are posing an epidemic of gender-based violence and sexual violence across Canada, need to be met with serious penalties, not only to separate that person from potential future victims, but also to send a strong message of deterrence and denunciation. If you commit sexual crimes in Canada, the Government of Canada does not believe that house arrest is an appropriate sentence.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you, Minister.
As you know, in Quebec, there have already been five femicides. We're still just in January, and since the beginning of 2026, we've had five femicides.
Bill C-14 expands reverse onus for serious violent offences, and there's nothing more tragic, sad and preventable than intimate partner violence. Can you clearly outline which offences are captured by this expansion of Bill C-14?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Before I answer the question, it must be said that every femicide is an unacceptable tragedy. We need to change the rules to protect women. I watched the news and saw the announcement of the fifth femicide committed this month in Quebec. That is a shame and unacceptable.
Bill C‑14 changed the rules on reverse onus. I'm looking for the right word in French.
That would protect against sexual assaults where we know there is a predictive value that a further crime could be committed, and sometimes a fatal crime could be committed.
In addition to the measures that are included in Bill C-14, there are massive changes in Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. These target intimate partner violence and gender-based violence, including the creation of constructive first-degree murder charges where we would have cases of femicide, where murder is carried out in the context of a sexual offence, where murder is carried out with the motivation being hatred toward someone, including the fact that they are a woman, or where a murder is carried out following a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.
There are a number of other measures included, but I don't want to presume that I should talk out the clock on your time here.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
I think it's a very important topic, so if you can, please go ahead.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Certainly.
In addition to the femicide charges—again, getting into a separate but related bill, in my view—we also want to make changes to the criminal law that will potentially intervene before a relationship becomes violent and before violence becomes fatal. That's why establishing a stand-alone crime of coercive control is so important.
When it comes to reverse onuses, to go back to your previous question, we also have measures that apply to human smuggling and human trafficking, which can often be intertwined with some of the issues you raised. There's a lot of material to help address some of these challenges, but to the extent that the committee identifies further ways in which the criminal law can offer protection to women facing violence or prevent femicides going forward, I would welcome your feedback.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you so much.
I think I have 30 seconds.
We're talking about reverse onus. Can you please tell us how this bill would withstand charter scrutiny?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Reverse onuses exist in Canada's criminal law already. We have not changed the law so that, for every single charge, suddenly the accused faces the burden, but there are certain charges that have become a significant social problem, sometimes because of the seriousness of the crime or the likelihood of recidivism, or because they line the pockets of criminal organizations. When we're looking at reverse onuses—as examples, for home invasion, auto theft, trafficking, assaults that involve choking or strangulation—all of these touch on some of those categories that I've established.
We want to ensure that our policies do not fundamentally shift the burden in all cases but are targeted toward certain crimes for particular reasons.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.
Mr. Fortin, I go to you for two and a half minutes.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I'm confident that the rules we put in here reflect the collective thinking of law enforcement and those who have administered the justice system over many years. To the extent that this committee wishes there to be reviews, I'd be interested—if that is actually the majority view of this committee.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's possible, but I have a lot of confidence in the process we're carrying out with the experts. Those are good ideas. However, it's up to the committee to propose amendments.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
You're talking about femicides. Obviously, the subject worries all of us. We want to put an end not only to femicide, but also to violence in general. However, the issue of violent crimes between spouses is particularly worrying.
According to the data I have, those crimes are often committed out of anger. I have my doubts about this, so perhaps you can reassure me.
Will people who commit this type of crime really change their behaviour because they will receive longer sentences under the provisions of Bill C‑14?
Shouldn't we focus mainly on raising public awareness to prevent people who commit such crimes from committing others?
Isn't that the aspect we should be working on, not the sentences?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I think both aspects are important.
I'll say it just quickly in English, because we'll run out of time.
To me, it's not just denunciation through longer sentences, but also changes to the bail system when we have an underlying offence that has predictive value that may lead a person to commit a further violent and potentially fatal offence against someone going forward. Yes, denunciation and deterrence, I believe, can have an impact, and having better rules at bail can have an impact. However, to your point, the long-term solution will require investments in frontline organizations and upstream supports that will build healthier people who are not prone to violence over the course of their lives, at the same time as we change the criminal law.