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
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
(Clause 14 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 15 agreed to)
We have a new clause. It's clause 15.1.
This is CPC-5. I've looked at this provision and have given some consideration to it, and I'm going to rule it out of scope.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
We would like to challenge that. It came about during witness testimony that we heard on the bill at this committee.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Chair, with respect to scope, I appreciate that there's a nexus with immigration, but nonetheless, it's a bail condition. This is a bail bill, and it's not unusual for courts to give some due consideration to immigration status in criminal court. Just because there's an immigration element in this, that's no reason to consider it out of scope.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Baber. That's a carefully crafted legal argument.
I've made my decision based on a procedural argument, so my ruling doesn't change.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)
That takes us to G-3.
Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, the motion is a technical change that is consequential to G-5, which would amend clause 29 of Bill C-14. The change is needed to ensure that there is correct cross-reference to proposed subsection 524(6.2). These changes would ensure that the bail consequences of not attending court or not complying with conditions would be set out on the accused's appearance notice or undertaking. These consequences would include a reverse onus and possibly detention under section 524.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I'd like to ask for clarification. Does this apply to the summons itself, to the form?
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Would this be prescribed on a form that goes out to the accused?
February 4th, 2026 / 10:25 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That is correct.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 16 to 20 agreed to)
We're on new clause 20.1, which is G-4.
Go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
This motion is a technical change that is consequential to G-5, which would amend 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 the bail consequences of not complying with the summons would be set out on the summons that is issued to the accused, requiring them to attend court or to attend at another location for identification purposes, including photographing and fingerprints.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to)
(On clause 23)
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
This is an amendment that I'm very pleased to be putting forward, although I regret that it's necessary. I hoped that surety reform would have been a part of the original bill.
This amendment simply says that, “a judge, justice or court shall not name a person as surety”—so they shall not allow someone to vouch for someone as part of their bail—if that “person was convicted of an indictable offence within ten years before the day on which the release order is made.”
Simply put, this is an amendment that will prevent people who have been convicted of serious crimes from acting as sureties for others, with the hope that they will not commit crimes or otherwise violate their bail condition.
In an ideal world, you wouldn't want anyone who's ever been convicted of a serious crime to be a surety for another. We've put in a pretty reasonable measure here that was taken from the work that our colleague, Arpan Khanna, did on the jail not bail act.
This was something we heard previously before this committee. It was called for by women's advocates. Even earlier this evening, we heard from Mr. Campbell of the Toronto Police Association about how preventing convicted criminals from acting as sureties would be an important step in strengthening the bail system and hopefully strengthening bail compliance.
I would also like to cite the input from Marc Roskamp, the St. Thomas, Ontario, police chief, who has been a witness before this committee and who has also spoken about this.
It's in that spirit that I bring this amendment forward.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
To the officials, I was rather shocked to learn that we had to bring this particular amendment because, I guess naively and wrongly, I just naturally assumed that there was some law or some rule that existed that precluded an individual with a record that included indictable offences from qualifying as a surety.
Again, hearkening back to my practice days, if I knew that a surety had a criminal record, I would bring that to the attention of the presiding justice. The justice himself or herself would simply disqualify that person.
Apart from the Criminal Code, is there any other law, policy or anything that currently binds judges across this country...from qualifying a surety with a criminal record without this amendment?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can advise that in the Criminal Code, there's nothing that binds. I would point out for your consideration subsection 515.1(1), which states that before being named a surety, a person has to submit the declaration and in that declaration they would list past convictions.
In terms of the provincial and territorial levels, it would be an issue of practice. Some jurisdictions, for example, outline procedures by which a surety would come before the court. I would also note that in other jurisdictions they're developing protocols.
To answer your question, there is nothing binding.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
At an official level, representing the Department of Justice for Canada, is this amendment supportable by your standards to provide uniformity?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I certainly would do that, Mr. Brock. It would provide that consistent application. Whether it's something that Parliament wishes to adopt, then it is for Parliament to decide.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Okay.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
CPC-7 creates a reverse onus detention rule for certain major offences while on release in a prior major offence situation.
Given the defeat of my earlier amendment with respect to creating a definition section for a major offence, does this impact the ability to debate and vote on this?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
No. I just think it means there's an absence of a definition from the earlier proposed amendment. That's all.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Okay.
It adds a new 515(6)(d). What it will do is this: if the accused is charged with a major offence while already on a release order and has a conviction for a major offence in the last 10 years, then the person must be detained, unless they show cause why detention isn't justified. They must clearly demonstrate a proposed release plan that addresses the risks listed in 515(10).
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm looking at CPC-7 and it does not seem to be what Mr. Brock is reading out. CPC-7 is the third offence. I think you're looking at the wrong number maybe, or maybe I am, but one of us is.