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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Fortin. I apologize, but that's all your time.
Mr. Lawton, go ahead for five minutes.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Minister, we have seen the broken Liberal bail system tax police services tremendously, because they spend so much time and energy having to, in some cases, uphold unenforceable bail conditions and go after the same small number of people over and over again. This is part of why so many police services have come out, in the last few weeks, and said they want nothing to do with your government's gun confiscation scheme. Every single police service of jurisdiction in my riding—the St. Thomas Police Service, the Aylmer Police Service, the London Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police—has said that going after law-abiding gun owners is not a policing priority. Why is it a priority for your government?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Very quickly, when we're dealing with a certain class of firearms that were not designed for a civilian application but were designed to kill people, I don't believe that those particular firearms belong on our streets. The first few days have seen, now, more than 20,000 firearms returned as part of this process, which is having a positive impact.
However, I do want to turn back to the priority of the day, which is the bail and sentencing reform act. We've missed the opportunity for months. I don't want to necessarily get into the argument as to who's responsible, because we have different views on that, but we're here today, and we have an opportunity to pose questions about the motivation for the changes in the bail and sentencing reform act.
When my colleague from Public Safety comes before the appropriate committee, I would suggest the questions would be best put then.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I hope you'll tell him to do that soon. The invitation has been outstanding for many months.
The reason it is important is that police are saying that your government is not aligned with what their core priorities are, so I'll ask it in a different way. How many lives do you think will be saved by seizing firearms from lawful, vetted firearm owners in Canada?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I disagree with your characterization that police are saying their priorities are not aligned with the government's. Their priorities are embedded in the piece of legislation that is before this committee, which we're not talking about in this exchange right now.
Police have asked us to make these particular changes. We're here to advance changes on bail and sentencing. It's been informed by law enforcement, and we have an opportunity to do what they've asked us to do.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
It is relevant, Minister, because police are saying that the people causing them the greatest grief are people who are out on bail because of your reforms.
You have not acknowledged or accepted this committee's invitation to testify on your mandate and priorities in many months, so I have to ask you this now: Will you be accepting the Federal Court of Appeal's decision that your government's use of the Emergencies Act was unconstitutional, or will you be appealing it?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
As you're well aware, as a legal counsel engaged on the file on behalf of the Government of Canada, when you have a case that's recently been before the court and that's still during the appeal period, where the department is analyzing the content of the Federal Court of Appeal's decision, we're not at liberty to discuss the specifics of the file.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
You're not answering.
I yield to Mr. Baber.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Attorney General, in Bill C-48, the government already tried the reverse onus strategy, but that still resulted in catch-and-release, even for offences where bail was sought with a reverse onus.
Wouldn't Canadians be right to be concerned that even though you're expanding the list of offences to which reverse onus bail would apply, the result of this bill, Bill C-14, would be the same as that of Bill C-48, which is the revolving door in our bail system?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
My impression, until this moment, based on statements that have been made publicly by your colleagues, was that the Conservative Party of Canada has long supported the use of reverse onuses to help improve the decisions in the bail system.
I believe it has had a positive impact, to some degree, in Bill C-48, and that the changes proposed here will have a further positive impact. In addition to the reverse onuses, we're also changing how bail is operated, not just by providing clearer direction on the principle of restraint, but also in looking at the tertiary ground of bail, which is ensuring there is public confidence in the system by looking at not only the seriousness but the number of offences that a person has put in place.
To just take a step back, even if we get bail reform perfect, we also need to make investments in the front line and upstream in communities to help reduce crime over time. There is no silver bullet.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
If I may, Attorney General, while the Conservatives certainly support expanding the list of reverse onus bail offences, it doesn't mean that bail should continue to be undermined with the principle of restraint, or the ladder principle, which this legislation fails on.
I'd like to take you further and talk about the fact that Bill C-14 expands the list of reverse onus offences but doesn't clarify the burden of proof to be met in reverse onus offences. This would lead to inconsistent applications by the courts. We've heard from multiple police forces that are asking the government to clarify the burden of proof to be applied on reverse onus hearings. Why doesn't Bill C-14 do that?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Actually, it does. There are two things you mentioned that I want to address. One, you spoke to the ladder principle, which the bill makes clear does not apply in cases of reverse onus.
On the substance of the issue you've just mentioned.... This came directly from conversations with my Conservative counterpart in Ontario, Attorney General Doug Downey, who worked with us to say not only that we need to put the burden of proof on the accused in the reverse onus scenario, but specifically that they would be required to present credible information on which the court can conclude that they do not pose a public safety threat. That was the result of conversations to find the best path forward.
I think it works. I think it's going to work well, and it's been included in the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you. That's your time.
Next is Mr. Housefather for five minutes.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Minister, for being here.
I want to clarify. You're here in your capacity as Minister of Justice to defend a bill that you're putting forward as Minister of Justice of Canada. Is that correct?
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Yes, and you are not here as Attorney General, because that's a different function that you also occupy.
I also wanted to mention something, since it came up and it seemed to be a universal claim.
Police officers in my riding and across Quebec will take part in this effort to collect firearms. Not all police officers in the country are against that.
I wanted to point that out.
We were both elected in 2015, and it sounded to me a bit like there was a claim that the principle of restraint and the ladder principle somehow arrived in Canada with Bill C-75. These are both concepts long rooted in the common law tradition. Is that correct, Minister?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Certainly. Specifically, we could point to the Antic decision, for example. There's a slew of decisions that have discussed these principles at length long before Bill C-75 was introduced.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Bill C-75 wasn't even the first time they were codified. They were codified in the bail reform act in the 1990s. Is that correct?
Liberal
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Can you talk me through this? The idea of simply uprooting these principles and completely getting rid of them would probably be unconstitutional, would it not? I understand that we are limiting, for example, the ladder principle by saying that when there's a reverse onus—where the applicant has the onus to prove why they should get bail—we're eliminating the ladder principle, but you wouldn't be able to eliminate it for every single person seeking bail. Is that right, for either of these concepts?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
That's right. The answer is yes.
The key point here is that what Parliament could choose to do is remove the language from the code. However, with regard to the point you made in your previous question, the principle remains as a result of common law decisions and would continue to be interpreted in a way without the guidance of Parliament.
The correct path, if we have a sense of how bail hearings should operate and how these principles should be applied, is that we should direct the courts with the language that we put into our laws rather than delete it from our laws, knowing the underlying principle remains to be interpreted in a different manner.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I'm completely in agreement with you.
You would say that community safety is one of the absolute focuses of your portfolio right now. It's not only a focus of your portfolio but a focus of the government. Is that correct?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Absolutely. In one of the recent conversations I had with the Prime Minister, he reiterated for me and others that protecting Canadians is the number one job of the Government of Canada. This is a top priority, and it takes a back seat to no other issue.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
He reiterated those comments yesterday at Holocaust Remembrance Day when he talked about this being an absolute priority, to protect our communities and keep them safe, which is part of a suite of measures that you brought forward.
You're not going to achieve every single thing in one bill. You actually have three bills before Parliament right now—two of them before the justice committee and one of them before the House—that will all contribute to public safety. Is that correct?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
That's correct. I would take it one step further and say that criminal law reform is one important tool we must get right, but in and of itself it won't solve the problem unless we also support the people who enforce laws and the people who administer the court system, and make the upstream investment to build healthier communities and people who will be less prone to criminal lifestyles over the course of generations.