Evidence of meeting #17 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
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I'm suggest we pose that question to the officials.
Peter Grbac Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In Bill C-14 there was an inadvertent error that removed the onus or the reverse onus that was originally in the Criminal Code. What this amendment seeks to do is to reintroduce the reverse onus for any new indictable offence committed while on bail.
Conservative
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
To be clear, it would also expand the first part. That remains in place.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
We're not going to run into charter issues here because we're coupling non-reverse onus offences with reverse onus offences? We should not, right?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What I can say is the original onus that applies in the Criminal Code would be reinstated. To my knowledge, I'm not aware of any charter issues related to that.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I appreciate Ms. Lattanzio's explanation. I mean no disrespect to Ms. Lattanzio, but Mr. Grbac's explanation is far easier to understand.
Let me put this into perspective. Tell me if I'm wrong. In practical terms, when a section 524 issue comes up in the course of a bail hearing.... I used to routinely ask for a section 524 arrest, firstly. Secondly, I would put it on the record that I was seeking the cancellation of all previous releases that would be applicable to that jurisdiction. If I had resources and time, and I knew there were outstanding charges in other jurisdictions, I would have them transferred in if I had the ability to delay that bail hearing.
Am I correct that if we agree to the passage of this government amendment, it is not going to change the status quo that I just described to you? It then triggers a reverse onus provision on the accused immediately once a section 524 opposition is declared. Does that still remain the case?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, that is my understanding. That would remain in place.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Grbac, I just want to make sure that I understand this correctly. You said this was an error in the way Bill C‑14 was drafted. Who noticed that error? Did it come from your department or did it come from someone on the ministry side of things?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It was in the process of drafting that the error was noticed.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Chair, just for clarification, if G-5 passes—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We'll go back to G‑1. We'll go back to the order we're in. We'll go back to the future.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That takes us back to G‑1.
Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
This motion is a technical change that is consequential to G‑5, as stated previously, which amended clause 29 of Bill C‑14. This change is needed to ensure that there is a correct cross-reference to proposed subsection 524(6.2). The change would ensure that someone who is summoned to attend for fingerprinting is aware of the bail consequences of not complying with the summons.
We're just cleaning up the language in the law.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Just to clarify, that basically means you're telling the person that if they breach their bail conditions, it could lead to detention. Is that right?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That is correct. It's effectively putting them on notice.