Justice Committee on Jan. 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We resume the meeting now. Thank you, everybody.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses for the second hour. Madame Moore and Mr. Taylor are staying with us for the complete meeting, so thank you for that.

Now we're being joined, from the Department of Justice, by Joanna Wells, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; and Samantha Reynolds, counsel, youth criminal justice division. Thank you for joining us this afternoon.

I now turn, for the first round of six minutes, to Ms. Kronis.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for coming today. It's always a real treat to have the depth of legal knowledge that we have when the group of you come to this committee.

I want to start by framing the questions that I'm going to ask. Since Bill C-75, the principle of restraint really has become the dominant lens through which bail decisions are made. While the Criminal Code has always permitted detention on public safety and confidence grounds, the statutory emphasis on restraint has really shifted judicial culture toward release as the default outcome over the last number of years, particularly in Crown onus cases.

I think what we see with Bill C-14 is that the government has admitted that this approach just isn't working. At the same time, while Bill C-14 attempts to recalibrate the culture by stating that restraint doesn't require release, it leaves section 493.1 intact and unaltered, which means that it still prioritizes or appears to prioritize, from a legislative perspective, release first and conditions second.

Given that judges already have clear authority, under subsection 515(10), to detain, and that this legal authority already exists, I'm wondering whether you could talk about what concrete changes we can expect to see in day-to-day bail outcomes, in terms of what Canadians can expect from the bill.

[Chelsea Moore, Team Lead and Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

One change that is fairly new to the Criminal Code is that the bail provisions will make clear that the principle that release ought to be the starting point at bail won't actually apply in a reverse onus situation. This proposal has the objectives of reinforcing the presumption of detention in reverse onus hearings and trying to give more teeth to the reverse onus bail hearing. In addition, there's a proposal in Bill C-14 that would make clear that the latter principle doesn't apply to people in a reverse onus situation, and it will clarify the burden of the accused at the reverse onus hearing, so I think—

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Can I ask a bit about the practical...? You're still talking about the theory. I want to know what the practical difference is. I asked the minister what category of offender will now be detained who wouldn't have been detained under existing law. I want to know how this is actually going to change things. What will defence counsel have to do differently? Who will stay in jail who wouldn't be in jail now? Can you give us some concrete examples?

[Chelsea Moore]

No one can automatically be denied bail, and we can't guarantee that certain provisions are going to result in the detention of anyone, because judges will always have discretion at the bail stage of proceedings, to be consistent with the charter—

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

However, more than that, section 493.1 is still in place, and so it's still the basis of their decision-making. What is new? What is different? What is going to change?

[Chelsea Moore]

The objectives are to ensure that there's more scrutiny given to bail release plans, particularly for people who are in a reverse onus, and that stronger bail plans will have to go before the court in a reverse onus hearing before someone is released on bail.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

So it is marginal.

[Chelsea Moore]

I wouldn't say “marginal”, no.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Well, what makes it not...? The bail plans are already supposed to be there. This is the job of counsel. It sounds like what you're saying is that counsel will have to do a better job. What is going to be different?

[Chelsea Moore]

The hope is that more scrutiny will be given to bail decisions and that more information will also be before the court. There are a number of amendments in the bill that will ensure the court has more information. You have to remember that bail hearings often happen 24 to 48 hours after someone is arrested, so there is limited information, but I think the code can draw courts' attention to certain risk factors that are important to consider.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

With all due respect, hope is not a strategy, which is what you started the last answer with. We are in exigent situations: 24 to 48 hours. What new information is there? What is going to change? I'm genuinely interested in knowing what will be different, other than more paperwork.

[Chelsea Moore]

I'm not sure there will be more paperwork. I think, as I said, that there is going to be more pressure—

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

A stronger bail plan is, presumably, more paperwork.

Genuinely, other than signalling some hope that things are going to change, what new tools do judges have? What tools have been taken away in the context of the underlying provision not changing?

[Chelsea Moore]

There's also going to be an expansion of the grounds for detention, which is quite significant. The tertiary ground will be expanded so that courts are looking at outstanding charges and determining whether confidence in the administration of justice will be undermined.

I think that historically courts tended to focus, the way they're looking at it, on whether there is a pattern of behaviour. Are there past convictions? What we've heard, and what the minister has heard also, is that there are concerns that people are being released, and then they're caught again and they're back in the system. The government thinks that ensuring that courts are taking into account factors such as outstanding charges would make a difference in this bill. Expanding the tertiary ground is one way this bill will do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Ms. Lattanzio, we'll go to you for six minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, officials, for being here this afternoon, ready and willing to answer all of our questions on this very important bill.

Canada's bail system is built on the principle of restraint, which is about how decisions are made and not about guaranteeing release. Can you explain how Bill C-14 is providing direction to the courts and police on how to apply the principle of restraint while making it clear that detention remains an option for repeat and violent offenders?

[Chelsea Moore]

The Supreme Court has interpreted the charter as requiring restraint at the bail stage, since bail is about imposing restrictions on people, on the liberty of individuals who are still presumed innocent. The changes in this bill aim to provide clear direction to police and courts in applying the principle of restraint.

For example, as I mentioned, the bill specifies that early release should not be favoured over detention when someone is in a reverse onus situation. There would be further direction provided to police to not release an accused person under certain circumstances, including for public safety. Police, when they're deciding whether or not to release or detain someone, need to look at whether there's the need to establish the identity of the accused, the need to secure or preserve evidence, the need to prevent reoffending or the need to protect the safety and security of any witness. The bill would direct police, and if any of those circumstances apply, they will have to detain an accused person. A direction will also be provided to bail courts to not release accused persons who are a flight risk, who are a danger to public safety or whose release would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

Provinces have asked for tools that work in practice and not on paper. What feedback did officials receive from provinces and justice partners during the development of Bill C-14, and how is this reflected in the final draft of this bill?

[Matthew Taylor, Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I can start in a high-level way and build on what the minister said earlier.

For the last number of years, at an officials' level, a deputy ministers' level and a ministers' level, those responsible for the criminal justice system have been collaborating on ways to strengthen the bail regime and the operation of the bail system. Part of that includes strengthening the bail laws in the Criminal Code. Part of that includes ensuring that the bail laws that are in place are being implemented as intended and being operationalized as intended. Part of that also includes working together on getting more information, more data, on bail to have a better picture of that.

The same holds true for the sentencing parts of the bill. We have been working collaboratively with PT officials to discuss ways to strengthen sentencing laws in the Criminal Code in a way that's responsive to pressing public safety concerns in Canada.

Those are the different ways in which we're engaging with the provinces. That collaboration will continue after Bill C-14. If Bill C-14 receives royal assent, we will work to support the bill's implementation. There is an ongoing, constant conversation with our partners.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

On the subject of the charter, can you explain how the bill was designed to withstand charter scrutiny and avoid the kinds of constitutional problems that have led to bail provisions being struck down in the past?

[Matthew Taylor]

Sure. Thanks for that question.

You will know that in the work we do as officials in the Department of Justice, supporting the minister and the government in the development of criminal law reform, we work very closely with colleagues in the department who have expertise on the charter. We obviously look at case law. We look at constitutional decisions. That informs the policy and the legal advice we provide to the minister.

The minister talked about his obligations under the Department of Justice Act, which are twofold. Under section 4.1, he has an obligation to table a report in Parliament when he believes a piece of legislation is inconsistent. He has not done that. As he said in his testimony, he does believe the legislation is constitutional. We also have the charter statement, which talks about how the proposed changes in a piece of legislation intersect with charter rights and the kinds of considerations that inform the overall assessment around the constitutionality of the legislation.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

One concern that has often been raised is the uneven application of bail laws across the country and across jurisdictions. How does Bill C-14 promote greater consistency in how bail is applied by the courts all across Canada?

[Chelsea Moore]

I can give two examples of this. We've heard concerns that the principle of restraint is not being applied consistently across Canada. There were concerns that people were being released even though they posed a risk to public safety, for example, under the secondary ground of detention. Bill C-14 would give more direction to courts on how to apply the principle of restraint and ensure that it's being implemented as intended consistently across Canada.

We've also heard that the reverse onus regime is not being meaningfully applied in practice and that it doesn't have enough teeth. Bill C-14 has a number of proposals, as I mentioned earlier, that would reinforce the presumption of reverse onus cases and improve screening in these cases across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Mr. Fortin, you have six minutes, sir.