Mr. Brock.
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.
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.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
The purpose of this amendment is to direct judges and JPs to make that announcement during the course of a ruling. Is that what I'm hearing?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No. This would be an amendment or a cross-reference for an appearance for fingerprinting. It would ensure that an accused who receives a summons to attend for fingerprinting is aware that they could have their bail revoked under section 524 and could be detained if they fail to comply with the summons.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
This would be a requirement of the police service, then, and the arresting officer.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Fingerprinting is not done at the courthouse. Is that right? It's done at the police station.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
This would be an additional onus on police officers.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
My understanding is it would just be an update to advise them, so it's in the form.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Why is it in a form? Is it an oral direction or in the form itself?
February 4th, 2026 / 9:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It would be in the summons itself. It would update the language that's in the summons.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 12 agreed to)
We're now dealing with new clause 12.1, which takes us to CPC-3.
I made the observation, in the course of preparing for this, that there are some similarities between this and CPC-9 and CPC-10. The major difference I'd like to highlight is that CPC-3 defines “major offence”. If for some reason CPC-3 doesn't carry, then major offence isn't defined, and you have CPC-9 and CPC-10.
I just wanted to flag that for you.
Mr. Brock, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
The intent, colleagues, behind this inclusion is to try to bridge the language and the intent behind Arpan Khanna's jail not bail private member's bill, Bill C-242. The language in jail not bail was to create an automatic detention for circumstances involving those charged with major offences or those who have a record within the preceding so many years of a major offence.
I appreciate the chair's clarification that whether or not CPC-3 passes, it will have implications on other parts of our amendments. It creates a definition of what a major offence is. A major offence is an offence other than a section 469 offence. A section 469 offence creates a presumption of detention the moment someone is under arrest, such as for murder or treason. That person does not have the ability to conduct a bail hearing at the provincial court level, but rather has to proceed to the superior court level should that person wish to conduct a hearing. It triggers a presumption of detention. We want the same application of that triggering to happen for those who are charged with, or who had been previously convicted of, major offences—major offences as defined by punishable by life; convictions of 10 years or more, or more than five years if it involves violence; and someone was harmed or could have been harmed.
As the chair has pointed out, this definition is used later by amendments CPC-6 and CPC-7 to trigger different specific bail rules.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While I understand our Conservative colleagues' intention, and it is valid in some respects, the Bloc Québécois still thinks it should be left at the discretion of the court.
We don't think automatic detention is necessary from an administration of justice perspective. Regardless of the seriousness of their crime, offenders will face a judge, and it'll be for the judge to decide whether to impose preventative detention, for example, or to set the sentence. The Criminal Code provides minimum sentences for some cases. However, we're talking about creating an automatic detention provision for certain crimes. It removes the court's ability to tailor the sentencing and the judicial process on a case-by-case basis.
Unfortunately for our Conservative colleagues, we will be voting against this amendment.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I thank Monsieur Fortin for his intervention, but I want to be abundantly clear that nowhere in my explanation, nowhere behind the intent of this amendment, does it speak to automatic detention. There is no such thing as automatic detention in the Criminal Code. We are not seeking automatic detention.
My explanation of what happens under section 469 is there is a presumption of detention. It does not preclude an offender from making a bail application; it just can't be done at the lower level, the provincial level, because there is no jurisdiction for a section 469 offence. The hearing itself must be conducted in superior court. The rationale behind this, as I've indicated numerous times at committee and in the House, is we have a significant problem with serious violent offenders who often fall within this category of potentially facing imprisonment of 10 years or more, or more than five years if it involves violence and someone was harmed or could have been harmed.
A further rationale is the problem we have in the lower courts. The court system right now across Canada is still playing catch-up because of the significant delays and problems we had during the pandemic and the justice system's response to the pandemic. We have a problem with lack of resources, a lack of courtrooms, a lack of judges and a lack of JPs. What I have been gaining by way of evidence on my town hall tours across this country, anecdotally talking to police services, talking to Crowns, talking to defence counsel, is that because of the significant delays in the justice system, there are JPs who are actually putting time limits on the ability for contested bail hearings to occur. As strange as that may sound to you, it's counterproductive. It denies the prosecutor the opportunity of making a fulsome argument. There are examples in Canada where contested bail hearings, section 524 bail hearings which we have discussed, have been limited to 30 minutes. I've had situations where it takes me 30 minutes, if not longer, simply to read out occurrence reports, outstanding charges and dissect a criminal record.
What we want to do, and the whole focus has been.... I think the government would agree with me that the public, the police, the premiers and the mayors are not concerned about the vast majority of individuals charged with criminal offences, the first-timers, the second-timers, the third-timers, who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, make bad decisions and get caught up with peers. They go through the system. They learn from the system. They get rehabilitated from the system. We're not talking about that class of individual. We're talking about that small class of violent repeat offenders. We've heard witnesses, particularly in policing, indicate at this committee that they know exactly who these rounders are. They know them by name. They know their criminal past. They know where they live. They know it's simply a matter of time before they commit further offences again.
Again, the intent behind this was to ensure that we had a process that separated those violent repeat offenders, took them out of the general provincial stream, which is overtaxed and overburdened, and placed them in the superior court stream. The only way we could do that, apart from amending section 469 to include a major offence, would be to create a separate category of major offence considerations to give that same impact.
At the moment an accused is charged and meets the definition of a major offence, there's a presumption of detention—it's not automatic, which would be contrary to the charter—and the accused's bail hearing, should the accused decide for it to take place, would take place in a different forum, not the provincial forum. That's the intent behind the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay, I see no other hands. Shall CPC-3 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 13 carry?
(Clause 13 agreed to)
(On clause 14)
This takes us to CPC-4.
This is Mr. Brock's, but before I go to him I want to say that if CPC-4 is adopted, G-2 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:
Amendments must be proposed following the order of the text to be amended. Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.
Mr. Brock.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
This, I would state, is probably the most significant amendment being tendered by the Conservative Party of Canada. It has been the mantra and the position of our party, as I've indicated numerous times, including today, that the origin of catch-and-release—arrest, release, arrest, release—can all be traced back to the principle of restraint, which was introduced by Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government through Bill C-75 in 2019.
Justin Trudeau, his then justice ministers, other various ministers, other MPs and backbench MPs all touted the line that, “All we did was codify exactly what the Supreme Court of Canada asked us to do”, in the decision known as Antic. I have read Antic, in my professional capacity, probably a half-dozen times and, probably, another half-dozen times as a parliamentarian. Nowhere in the Antic decision by the Supreme Court of Canada did it direct the federal government, at that time, to do anything by way of amending section 493.1 of the Criminal Code. They did that on their own, and the false, negative, wrong message that Justin Trudeau and his ministers provided this country was, again, that, “We didn't do anything other than what the court asked us to do.”
Leaving that aside, the principle of restraint, at its core, summarizes that courts—including judges and justices of the peace, who hear bail hearings every single day of the year because the criminal justice system does not take a break for any statutory holidays, it runs every single day of the year.... Since the year 2019, those judges and JPs have been directed by this Liberal government, with a failed Liberal policy, to mandate the release of the accused at the earliest opportunity, on the least restrictive conditions.
I have spoken, anecdotally, with a number of current and retired judges and JPs. All have told me that their ability to exercise the appropriate discretion under subsection 515(10), as it relates to the grounds of detention—the primary, secondary and tertiary grounds—were completely offset by the principle of restraint.
This particular amendment takes the language, the positioning that the Conservative Party of Canada has, literally, taken since 2019.... Specifically, since I became a parliamentarian in 2021, and, certainly, after the election of our leader, Pierre Poilievre, we have been laser-focused on articulating our position and asking the government to repeal that portion of Bill C-75 and, essentially, to replace it with what I have heard from stakeholders: Replace that principle of restraint with the principle of community protection and safety for victims.
This replaces clause 14 with a new section 493.1, which makes public safety and security the primary consideration when applying, under subsections 515(1) and 515(2), to decide release, detention and conditions. It also instructs that this applies when those bail principles are being applied via sections 498, 499, 503 and 515, which are different release pathways that have been referenced.
This particular amendment is taken directly from Arpan Khanna, our colleague from Woodstock, in his private member's bill titled jail not bail act.
Thank you, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Brock.
We'll go to Mr. Lawton and then to Ms. Lattanzio.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to Mr. Brock and also to our colleague who is not on this committee, Mr. Khanna, for their leadership on this. When I have had conversations with members of law enforcement and other community stakeholders on criminal justice issues, they have drawn a direct line between the principle of restraint, put in the Criminal Code through Bill C-75, and the revolving-door bail system.
Whatever the intention may have been, and I will not impute motive here, judges and justices of the peace have interpreted this section in a manner that, as plain as the text is in the section, directs them to release offenders at the earliest possible opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. We heard in our study of bail generally, before this bill was referred to committee, numerous stories from law enforcement officials about how the principle of restraint was driving them towards having to rearrest the same people over and over because judges were taking their cues from this and not from the Antic decision, and were actually releasing them.
Of all the things that we can find common ground on—and as we've seen in the course of our discussions so far, we're sailing through this—this is a sticking point, in that adding a mere clarification to the principle of restraint does not acknowledge the really significant issues that stakeholders, and witnesses to this very committee, have identified.
As well, I would say that the act of removing certain offences from being subject to the principle of restraint is an admission by the government in Bill C-9 that the principle of restraint is an inherently lenient provision, or a provision that inherently and necessarily directs judges towards leniency. Otherwise, why would you need to remove certain offences from its capture?
I will therefore be very enthusiastically supporting Mr. Brock's amendment. I urge all members of this committee, if we truly want Bill C-14 to live up to the rhetoric, to not just accept “No, no, that's not what the principle of restraint means” from the justice minister. We actually need to have some concrete language that tells communities across the country that the primary consideration should always be public safety.
Thank you.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for the officials.
Can we clarify that if the principle of restraint were repealed, it would still continue to apply because of common law? Can we get on the record that, even if it were repealed, it exists in common law?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What I can advise is that the principle of restraint would continue to apply at common law, even if it were repealed from the Criminal Code. That is because the Supreme Court has interpreted the charter as requiring restraint at the bail stage, since restrictions are imposed on the liberty of individuals who are still presumed innocent, and that is in the Supreme Court decision of Zora.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Okay.
Therefore the conflict between the statutory principle of public safety and protection and the common law principle of restraint would also lead to significant confusion and likely result in litigation and delays, would it not?