Justice Committee on Jan. 28th, 2026

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here.

Earlier, I spoke with the minister about release plans, which is a new concept. I was wondering where that came from. I suspect that the release plan is an idea aimed at making the accused more involved in their parole, which, as such, could be valid.

I'd like to hear your opinion on that and know where that idea came from. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, but I'd like an explanation behind telling the accused that, because of section 515 of the Criminal Code, we have to detain them unless they can prove, through a release plan, that it's a good idea to release them. I summarized the idea in my own words.

What can you tell me about that?

[Chelsea Moore]

Thank you very much for your question.

Every time an accused appears in court for an offence and the matter of bail comes up, the following question gets asked: Can the accused be released safely? The key question is always what plan will be presented before the court to ensure that the accused no longer poses a risk to public safety or a flight risk.

This is already a practice used in court when it comes to bail. However, when it comes to reverse onus, it's unclear what's expected of the accused. As was said earlier, the provinces and territories have raised many concerns about reverse onus, something they find inadequate because not enough is being asked of the accused to convince the court that they should be released.

For that reason, Bill C‑14 will clearly establish that it's absolutely necessary for the accused to show that the plan presented to the court will reduce the risks.

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

It won't just be a reverse onus, then.

For example, the judge won't ask the accused person—whether they're a man or a woman—to prove that they will appear in court the next time they have to, to prove to the judge that they won't reoffend.

The judge won't necessarily have to intervene like that. If I understand the concept, and correct me if I'm wrong, the onus will be on the accused. It will be up to them to establish that, to be proactive and tell the judge what they're proposing to guarantee that they aren't a danger to public safety, that they will be present at their own trial and so on. That's more or less the idea.

Can you confirm whether I'm right?

[Chelsea Moore]

Yes, that's exactly it.

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

Do you have an idea of what should be included in the release plan?

[Chelsea Moore]

It really depends on the situation. Each case involves different risks depending on the offence. For example, the plan could indicate whether the accused lives with their parents, whether people are available to supervise them or whether their phone needs to be taken away. It's important to know what conditions should be imposed on the accused to mitigate the risks.

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

Those would be the usual conditions but in a plan. I understand.

Does the concept of requesting a release plan exist elsewhere in Canada, in any given province?

[Chelsea Moore]

It exists. We see this practice in bail hearings. It's a practice across Canada right now.

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

The accused submits a plan—

[Chelsea Moore]

They submit a plan to show the court that they can be supervised or that they can—

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

Does that work?

Do we believe that there's less recidivism when the accused acts on their own and is proactive in submitting such a plan?

[Chelsea Moore]

It depends on the plan, but I would say, yes, the idea being that if there's a conversation that's a bit more focused on the plan, it's possible to mitigate the risks associated with the accused in question.

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

Okay.

I was talking about statistics with the minister earlier. If I understood correctly, we don't have any statistics on recidivism and rehabilitation.

Do you have anything on that? Is that coming? Do you have any idea what can be done with that?

To be clear, I'm talking about data collection. We know that about three-quarters of inmates are currently awaiting trial. We don't really know what happens with them. They have their trial; they're released.

Did the time spent in custody help them rehabilitate or not? What's the percentage of recidivism or rehabilitation within our penitentiary system?

[Chelsea Moore]

One second please. Thank you.

Unfortunately, there isn't any national data available at this time. The provinces and territories are responsible for data collection. However, a number of them don't provide data—

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

What about our federal penitentiaries?

[Chelsea Moore]

Yes, we have national statistics on penitentiaries. However, when it comes to data on accused individuals who breach their bail conditions, it's the provinces and territories that manage those types of statistics. They're the ones with that information.

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

Can we have a—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin. That's your time.

Mr. Baber, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I want to go back to Ms. Moore to follow up on the line of questioning by my friend Ms. Kronis.

You've already tried this. In Bill C-48, you created various reverse onus offences. What you seem to be doing in Bill C-14 is expanding the list of reverse onus offences where the accused has to prove that it's up to them to get bail, as opposed to the Crown having to prove it. You may try to restrain the principle of restraint, which directs judges to put mind to the earliest release possible, but nothing is being done about the ladder principle, which basically directs the court to consider the least onerous circumstances and the earliest circumstances under which an accused would be granted bail.

What, in effect, are we doing here, then?

[Chelsea Moore]

The ladder principle is actually about the financial conditions that attach to an accused when they're released on bail. Every time you go up a rung of the ladder...the top of the ladder is cash bail. It provides that the Crown has to justify why you're doing that. This bill would actually provide an exception to the ladder principle to say that the ladder principle doesn't apply to reverse onus provisions.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

The challenge, especially when it comes to cash bails, is that Crowns are very hesitant to insist on serious cash bails, especially for folks without means.

We also know that this is often a problem with sureties. In fact, there was some discussion about the fact that we need to re-evaluate the way that sureties are able to place a bond as opposed to placing hard cash. This is something that is also absent from this legislation.

I think Ms. Kronis is correct in saying that not much is going to change. We're going to be back here again and again until we decide that the ladder principle is going to be repealed, and that is something that every police association in the country is calling for.

Why is the Liberal government failing to repeal the principle of restraint and the ladder principle?

[Chelsea Moore]

Just to be clear, there is a provision in the bill that would impact sureties. It's an estreatment provision that ensures that all the information that sureties provide about their financial assets will go to the court to ensure that those assets can be taken if an accused breaches bail and an estreatment process is started. I just wanted to clarify that.

In terms of repealing the principle of restraint—

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

You have to disclose the assets; it doesn't mean that those assets are going to be taken. It's not as if you're placing them as collateral. I have to correct you there, Ms. Moore.

[Chelsea Moore]

Yes. The goal is that it will be easier to take assets if they know where those assets are. That was an ask from provinces and territories to help them with—

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

You know that never happens.