Justice Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

My working instructions are incorrect, so I apologize, colleagues.

It indicates that clause 23 be amended by adding after line 32, on page 9, the following:

(xii.1) that is an offence in the commission of which violence was allegedly used and that would constitute the accused’s third or subsequent indictable offence in the commission of which violence was used,

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Are there no other comments? Okay.

(Amendment agreed to)

We're now on to CPC-7.1, which is Mr. Lawton's.

I just received it. Does everybody have a hard copy of that?

All right, it's been distributed.

Mr. Lawton.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Chair, this one is fairly self-evident. We do need to understand and the Criminal Code already considers the interactions between it and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This would add, after line 36 on page 9, the following:

(9.1) Subsection 515(6) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):

(a.1) with an indictable offence, other than an offence listed in section 469, and, if the accused is a foreign national within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a conviction would make them inadmissible to Canada under section 34, 35, 36 or 37 of that Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I tend to be sympathetic to this amendment, but we also just got it at the last minute and it's very hard to assess. It's not Mr. Lawton's fault. It came out of testimony that just happened on Monday, where I tended to agree with the witness. I am concerned because I haven't had a chance to validate whether there would be charter issues here.

Can I ask the officials, maybe Mr. Taylor, whether there is a charter concern with doing it this way. Is there a different way that it could be done from what is being intended? What would the end effect be of adopting 7.1, let's say, without amending it, but as it is?

[Matthew Taylor]

We will do our best to answer that question. We also have not had a lot of time to reflect on it.

You will all know that a reverse onus is a departure from charter-protected rights to reasonable bail—not to be detained without just cause—so we're automatically into a space where charter rights come into play. That said, the Supreme Court has upheld reverse onuses in certain circumstances. I would point you to a departmental resource that is publicly available, Charterpedia. It contains a lot of useful information on this provision, section 11(e), the right to reasonable bail.

I think it's important in your deliberations on this to reflect on the purpose behind the proposed amendment and whether that purpose is linked to furthering the objectives of the bail system. Again, when we think about the objectives of the bail system, they are to manage risk posed by accused persons, having regard to the grounds for detention—those being to manage flight risk, for public safety reasons or to promote confidence in the administration of justice.

I think it would be important to understand the purpose behind the proposed amendment and whether the purpose of that amendment is linked to those enumerated grounds for detention. Where that link can be more closely established, I think that is where, based on the jurisprudence, an amendment of this nature would be less likely to run afoul of charter-protected rights.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm a lawyer, and that was very deep legalese. Maybe some of my colleagues understood a little bit better than I did.

I understand that there's a charter risk, but I want to understand this: Is it because you're lumping an entire category of people into one class without, for example, making a distinction between refugees who might be here and who perhaps would be different from somebody who's on a student visa, who's on a work permit or who's simply a visitor to Canada?

[Matthew Taylor]

I'm sorry for my last answer, if it was—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

No, it's late. If you could dumb it down a little bit for us, that would be great.

[Matthew Taylor]

I think that is a fair comment. I think one has to ask themselves whether the mere fact of somebody being a foreign national charged with a specific type of offence is necessarily evidence to demonstrate that the individual in all cases poses a flight risk or public safety concern, or that their release would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Can I ask one more question? Let me take the example of a student foreign national from the United States, or a group of tourists from the United States, causing a public disturbance in Montreal for being drunk and disorderly. They went to the strip clubs on Saint Catherine Street and got drunk afterwards or whatever. But they're Americans. They could easily go back to the United States, theoretically, across the border.

How would that impact? If we adopted this, does that rise to the class of offence that would fall here? I'm just trying to see at what level you hit this.

[Matthew Taylor]

Thanks for the example.

There are two points, I would say. First, as I understand the motion, it is limited, in its class of alleged offending, to indictable offences. It would have to be more serious offences.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Let's say it's more serious than drunk and disorderly. Let's say it's assault. Let's say they got into a bar fight.

[Matthew Taylor]

Sure. Were it an indictable offence, then yes, this would apply. I'd point out as well that there's an existing provision in the bail scheme that creates a reverse onus in relation to people who are not ordinarily resident in Canada. The ordinarily resident in Canada reverse onus is more clearly aligned to flight risk.

To your example, Mr. Housefather, about somebody who is here visiting, who is not a resident and doesn't live in Canada, that reverse onus in that circumstance would trigger—to your point—because you are concerned about a potential flight risk.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Are you saying that there actually is a provision already that relates to foreign nationals, although it would be basically hinging on flight risk? Can you can you refer me to what section of the Criminal Code that is or where it is ?

[Matthew Taylor]

It's paragraph 515(6)(a.1). It's not foreign nationals, it's people who are not ordinarily resident in Canada. It could be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident who doesn't live in Canada. Again, the policy rationale there is the link to flight risk, because they don't have a connection in terms of residence to Canada, whereas a foreign national may be a long-term resident in Canada and maybe not necessarily have a connection to another country.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Lawton.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you very much.

On the timeline, I'm sympathetic to Mr. Housefather's concerns. I think this speaks to the importance of having witness testimony. It was on Monday, with Dr. Sundberg, when this gap in the bail system came up. We very quickly tried to work with the drafters, and we're very grateful they were as swift as they were, but it does mean we lacked a couple of days to review this.

I will read from Dr. Sundberg's brief on this to speak to the question Mr. Taylor raised of intent:

This proposal reinforces fairness and legitimacy. Canada welcomes millions of immigrants and temporary residents who comply with the law and contribute to society. A narrow reverse-onus provision tied to IRPA ss. 34–37 affirms a clear principle: Canada is open and fair, but it will respond firmly and lawfully when a small subset allegedly abuses that openness to engage in serious criminality, organised crime, or security-related conduct.

I just want to be very clear about what sections we are applying this to from the IRPA. Section 34 is security, which includes terrorism, section 35 is human or international rights violations, section 36 is serious criminality—and I think that's important; it's not about drunken disorderly or speeding tickets—and 37 is organized criminality.

We do know, especially in the context of extortion, which has been ravaging Mr. Gill's community of Brampton and Surrey, a lot of the organized crime entities behind it are comprised of people, in some cases in large numbers, who are foreign nationals; flight risk is a big component. We are proposing a reverse onus provision be extended to a very narrow subset of people who do not have status in Canada, so we can detain them and uphold the fundamentals of the justice system.

I would just point out that amendment as framed specifically narrows it to those four sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to ensure that it's not being used to create a broader class that is as indiscriminate as one might be concerned about.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have some questions for the witnesses.

We've touched on this, but I'm wondering about the impact this amendment could have with respect to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the case we're talking about here is that of an accused—someone who has not yet been convicted, but who is charged with an indictable offence—who is also a foreign national within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and for whom a conviction would be grounds for inadmissibility. In other words, a person is arrested and charged with a crime other than an offence mentioned in section 469 of the Criminal Code. If the individual is a foreign national, they will be detained even if they have not yet been found guilty.

Here's my question: What effect would this amendment have?

Obviously, if the person is convicted, they would be inadmissible under the proposed wording. However, if the person is found innocent and had been detained preventively, would that have an impact on their immigration application, first of all?

Second, how would it impact their family? In many cases, these individuals come here with a spouse and children. They are foreign nationals within the meaning of the act, but they may have been here for a year or two, I don't know.

I'm wondering about the impact of this amendment. If we pass it, what impact will it have with respect to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act? Can anyone provide answers about that?

[Matthew Taylor]

Unfortunately, I don't think so. I'm not an expert on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I don't know if there would be an impact on a person accused of a crime or on their application under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

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

I don't imagine anyone else can answer that either.

[Matthew Taylor]

I will look for an answer for you and report back to the committee.

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

Yes, I'd like that.