THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 22, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
My name is David Arnot. I am a senator from Saskatchewan and the chair of this committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Clement: Welcome. Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. Welcome. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning. I am Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Welcome. Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we’re meeting to continue our study of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome Shakir Rahim, Director, Criminal Justice Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada; and Paul Wilson, appearing as an individual by video conference from Saskatoon.
Thank you for joining us here today. We traditionally ask that witnesses give some opening remarks. I ask that the witnesses restrict their remarks to five minutes each, as we have many senators waiting to ask questions. I will ask Ms. Latimer, who is familiar with this process, to commence.
Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada: Thank you, senators. It is wonderful to be back before the committee representing the John Howard Society of Canada. We are pleased to appear to share our concerns about Bill C-14 and about pretrial detention and release in Canada generally.
As a national charity committed to just, effective and humane criminal justice and corrections in Canada, John Howard Societies from all provinces have identified Canada’s pretrial detention and release system as a serious problem. A resolution was passed in 2025 calling for a comprehensive overhaul of the laws, policies and practices relating to bail and remand.
The Department of Justice’s own research identified the bail system as broken in 2015, and conditions have worsened since then.
An indicator used by international human rights bodies and academics to assess the functionality of a country’s bail system is the percentage of the overall prison population that is in pretrial detention. High proportions of prisoners in pretrial detention indicate systemic flaws in the justice system, including the following: the undermining of the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail; delays in criminal justice processing inconsistent with the right to a speedy trial, resulting in prolonged pretrial periods; overcrowding and inhumane conditions of confinement; socio-economic inequality, which disfavours the poor and marginalized, and in this country, it’s a lot of Indigenous people, poor people, Black people and people addicted to substances; the criminogenic effect, increasing crime and undermining public safety objectives; the distortion of judicial outcomes, with coercive influence increasing the likelihood of false guilty pleas; and the fiscal burden on the country, as overuse of remand is much more costly than alternatives and effective community-based bail programs.
About one third of the global prison population are pretrial detainees. In Canada, a First World country, nearly half of our prisoners or 46.6% are in pretrial detention. This compares poorly to countries with similar justice systems. It is nearly double the proportion in the U.S., which sits at 25.5%, and it is more than double the proportion in England and Wales, which is at 20.2%. Canada’s high proportion of prisoners on remand is a serious indictment of our justice system that should not be ignored.
Bill C-14 does not address the fundamental problems in the bail system and will make them worse. It is bad criminal justice policy in that it will not achieve its stated public safety ends. Its underlying premise that tougher penalties and more people remanded into custody will reduce crime is false. And it is bad law reform in that it undermines fundamental justice principles, like the presumption of innocence, the right to reasonable bail and the onus on the state to prove its case against an individual.
Many witnesses have spoken to the specific shortcomings of Bill C-14 and some — such as my colleague from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA — have proposed amendments. The John Howard Society of Canada supports those amendments but recognizes that they will just make the ride more comfortable on a vessel that is heading in the wrong direction.
In conclusion, if there is a political imperative to pass Bill C-14, we urge: First, acceptance of the CCLA amendments. Second, a request to the House of Commons committee that it hear experts on the Charter compliance of Bill C-14. The Department of Justice Charter compliance statement is not enough given the department’s track record of law reforms having been subsequently struck down by the courts. Third, an amendment that requires a comprehensive review of the laws, policies, practices and programs associated with Canada’s pretrial detention and remand system within a specified time. If the comprehensive review has not been completed within the specified time, the reverse onus provisions of Bill C-14 should be repealed.
It has been more than 50 years since the last major reform of bail law in Canada. Bill C-14 does not address many significant issues and concerns about bail and pretrial detention. What is required is more than tinkering, but rather a more comprehensive, evidence-based approach to bail law reform that includes rethinking some long-standing provisions. It should also reflect the reality that, in many respects, bail law is not too lenient; it is too harsh.
Thank you very much. I look forward to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Latimer. Mr. Wilson, would you like to make some opening remarks?
Paul Wilson, as an individual: Sure. Honourable senators and chair, my name is Paul Wilson. I’m not a lawyer, so forgive me if I mess this up. I don’t know your legal language.
I am a man who saved a life because that’s what I thought we were supposed to do. I called for help and did CPR. A life was saved, and I lost years of my own life for it and years of my kids’ lives, friends and family, et cetera. I sat on remand for nine months waiting for trial, and I was on trial for nine months. I was convicted.
I fired my legal aid representative because he wasn’t looking out for my best interests. I was told I would be self-representing, so I studied the law as much as I could, especially the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act. The way I understood it, we are supposed to save lives, and that’s what I did. I sat on remand for 18 months. I was convicted and sentenced to eight years. I appealed and was acquitted after three years. I still did three years in prison for saving a life. The Crown appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, so I still had to worry about it for another two years until they upheld my acquittal in October 2025.
Just before I was released, my brother died. I didn’t get to attend his funeral. I had to watch it online. No one called 911 until after he was dead. No one was charged, and I was sitting there doing eight years for saving a life.
My dad and brother still don’t even have headstones. My brother died in 2023. My dad died in 2001. All I’m asking is for you to not let those years mean nothing. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. We will now hear from Mr. Rahim.
Shakir Rahim, Director, Criminal Justice Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Good afternoon, and thank you for the invitation to testify today.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA, echoes the concerns raised by witnesses about the record percentage of people in pretrial detention, the unconscionable conditions in some prisons and the tenuous connection between the denial of bail and the overall crime rate.
My focus today will be on the CCLA’s proposed amendments to the legislation, which are outlined in our written brief. I will highlight four of those suggested amendments in my oral remarks.
First, we suggest strengthening the new bail reporting requirement under the Department of Justice Act. This is on page 13 of our brief. Process-wise, we recommend that in preparing the report, the Minister of Justice be required to consult with individuals and organizations that have expertise on data collection and the criminal justice system. NGOs, academics and others have important contributions to make that will strengthen the analysis and reliability of data that is collected on the bail system.
We also suggest that data collection be coordinated with Statistics Canada. Given its non-partisan role and expertise, this would strengthen the annual report’s objectivity and credibility. And as you’ve just heard, we suggest that rates of pretrial detention be explicitly included as a data point given their concerning rise.
Our second suggested amendment is to remove the new reverse onus for the offence of break and enter. This is on page 7 of our brief. According to reliable data from the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey published by Statistics Canada, the rate of breaking and entering in 2024 was one third lower than a decade ago and 75% lower than its peak in 1998. Unlike some of the other new reverse onus provisions, break and enter does not require physical violence or criminal organization involvement. Like the other new reverse onus provisions that apply to offences, it will apply to people with no criminal record and no prior bail violation.
Given the nature of the offence, this reverse onus is particularly likely to capture individuals who commit an offence because of socio-economic or substance use challenges. There is a strong disconnect between the profile of repeat and violent offenders said to be the target of this legislation and the nature of this reverse onus provision.
Third, we suggest that judicial oversight be retained over the release of information identifying a young person under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, or YCJA. This is on page 10 of our brief.
As drafted, a court would not review an instance where the police release the identity of a young person pursuant to the provision and remove it within 24 hours. Our suggested amendment would permit the police to proceed without an order but only where a court indicates it cannot make a decision in the time requested after an application is filed. It would also preserve the possibility of judicial review after the fact, and this would be an important check on the exercise of this new power.
Fourth, we suggest an amendment that clarifies the application of section 515(13.1) of the Criminal Code. This provision was proposed by this committee to Bill C-48 in 2023. The purpose was to strengthen the application of section 493.2, which requires a justice to take into consideration the circumstances of Indigenous accused and others who belong to a vulnerable group. Section 515(13.1) requires a justice to always make a determination about whether section 493.2 applies on the record. However, justices have not been doing so in our review of the case law. The suggested amendment simply clarifies that a determination on the record is required in every decision.
Finally, we support any amendment to remove or narrow the prohibition on sureties with a criminal record. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for your opening remarks.
Senator Batters: I want to start with Mr. Wilson, who is testifying from Saskatoon today. I appreciate you being part of this committee meeting today because this is a very important perspective we’re hearing from you. You are someone who, unfortunately, spent 18 months on remand for an offence of which you were eventually acquitted, and it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. So we very much appreciate your perspective today.
Your case shows us how an error at the very beginning of an investigation can have enormous consequences for an individual. You talked about the consequences for your family members who passed away while you were in jail, and you didn’t get to attend their funerals, which is absolutely heartbreaking.
You spent about 18 months in custody before you were eventually acquitted, and then you had the uncertainty after that point. Of the 18 months of pretrial detention that you spent, concretely what do you think the most lasting impacts on your life have been? You spoke about those funerals that you were not able to attend and those types of things. But could you give us a little bit more detail about that? Thank you.
Mr. Wilson: Mostly, I lost years of my kids’ lives. I witnessed a couple of riots in prison. I spent three years inside: 18 months on remand, and then I was sentenced and did another 18 months until my appeal went through. What bothers me the most about it is the loss of my kids’ lives and the loss of my family. I missed out on a lot.
Senator Batters: Yes. How old were your kids when this first happened and then later when it was finally over for you?
Mr. Wilson: My boy was nine years old. I got out when he was 12 or 13 years old. My girl was around five years old.
Senator Batters: Was she just a little girl?
Mr. Wilson: Yes. I lost three years of her life.
Senator Batters: Those are years in which they change so much.
Mr. Wilson: I can’t get that back.
Senator Batters: They change so much on a monthly basis, let alone that long of a time frame. Thank you very much for providing us with that information.
I would now like to ask the Canadian Civil Liberties Association a question. In your brief, you stated in part of it that Bill C-14 will concern “non-violent offenders” or those “presumed to be on their first offence.” Yet Bill C-14 does expand the reverse onus and adds scenarios that are explicitly tied in many cases to serious violence, including alleged strangulation, suffocation, choking and alleged extortion with violence. Why are you claiming in that portion that Bill C-14 will mostly target non-violent offenders when the text specifically targets those specific types of situations where there is a major physical risk to a victim?
Mr. Rahim: I would have to revisit the precise text you are referring to, but I will put our position on the record to ensure that there is clarity.
It is true that of the new offence-specific reverse onus provisions, none have the requirement of a person having a prior criminal conviction or having a prior violation of a pretrial release order. So it will apply to alleged first-time offenders. Some of the new offence-specific reverse onus provisions, as you correctly note, apply to allegations of violence, but some do not, like the break and enter provision that I referenced today. I think it’s fair to say that there are provisions that are targeted at allegations of violence but also many that do not have that as a required component of the offence that is targeted.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Wilson, I will ask you a few more questions. First of all, I’m very sorry for what happened to you. I want to know what you think about the judicial system because of what happened to you. What is your opinion?
Mr. Wilson: I don’t know. As an example, my dad was murdered in 2001, and the guy who did it was sentenced to seven years. So I never really had much faith in the justice system to begin with. But then after this, it showed me that it’s not about real justice. It’s about prior record and prior opinions. It was mostly my record that brought about this whole situation. We should have been protected by the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act. I called to save that girl’s life. I saved her life, but then the police just showed up and did whatever they wanted.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What kind of record did you have, if I may ask and if that is not indiscreet?
Mr. Wilson: Before that? I had some driving, property and weapons offences, but there was never violence or weapons being used or anything like that. I had them on me.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: How was it day to day in prison for you? I’m thinking in particular of the 18 months you spent before you could defend yourself at trial.
Mr. Wilson: Well, it was stressful. Every time I went to court, I was hoping that they would see the bigger picture. I was trying to save this girl’s life. I just kept going to court and kept getting basically railroaded. It all had to do with my previous record.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I understand. Thank you very much for talking to me. I wish you good luck for the years to come.
Mr. Wilson: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to all our witnesses. I want to start with Mr. Rahim.
Most of my questions up until this point have dealt with the bail provisions of the bill. But now I want to dive into things that are not just around bail. One of my concerns is that there are parts of the bill — amending section 742.1, for example — that talk about offences of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose. It doesn’t define what those offences are. It occurs to me that this language is quite vague and might accidentally capture things that were not intended to be captured. I see Ms. Latimer is thinking about this question, too, even before I ask it.
Would the legislation be strengthened if we amended it to include a list of specific sexual offences — the more heinous ones — so that things on the continuum at this end are captured and at that end are not?
Mr. Rahim: Yes, I think so. And I think there could be two benefits of that: The first, as you say, is drawing a spectrum in terms of the severity of the offence we are talking about. The second is avoiding unnecessary or protracted litigation about the meaning of the section.
Particularly, as well, there is likely case law that provides some definitional content about what is of a sexual purpose or nature, which would be helpful for the purpose of crafting a narrower provision as well.
Senator Simons: Ms. Latimer, did you want to —
Ms. Latimer: I absolutely agree with my colleague here.
Senator Simons: I was a journalist for many years before I joined the Senate. I’m concerned about the issue of publishing the name of a young offender in a case of urgent emergency without judicial approval.
One of the things that concerns me is — as I understand it from the Department of Justice when they were here — this would allow the name to be on a police department website, but in theory, it would not allow a legitimate mainstream media organization to share that information. But it would leave open the door for all kinds of bloggers, tweeters and posters to take that information and not necessarily take it down after that young offender or that suspect is taken into custody.
I wonder if you can comment on the potential consequences of allowing police to name young offenders on their own authority without judicial review.
Mr. Rahim: I think that is a fair observation to make. Simply because there may be a non-publication order does not mean that the name will remain contained to just the police website, especially in this era of social media.
I would also note that the Youth Criminal Justice Act applies to individuals as young as 12 years old. And the reason this provision is there is because of the unique stigma that can occur — particularly if a young person might be acquitted — because of the association with a criminal charge.
I note that to my knowledge, the department has not offered an analysis of the cases that have led to the need for this provision. I think there is, first, an issue about the empirical foundation for requiring this and whether we have to remove it altogether. But then even if we accept the premise that there has to be a lower threshold, then you have to remove judicial review entirely. Our amendment seeks to strike a balance between that.
Just briefly, I would also note the prohibition on the publication of information identifying the person does not affect the police’s ability to warn the public or to say people need to get out of a particular area or to do all kinds of important public safety things. It really is about that identifying information.
Senator Simons: I struggle with the Department of Justice’s testimony because they said to me, “No, we wouldn’t let the CBC put out a picture or let a news organization put it on their website.” So then I said, “Well, then what’s the purpose of the exercise, except to allow bad actors to access that information?”
Ms. Latimer: I think it is an overreach. It has little to do with bail and sentencing, which is the purpose of the legislative reforms.
And the notion that this would somehow be necessary to stop a mass casualty-type incident — as the minister portrayed it — seems entirely far-fetched.
It is not the type of crime that you have a 17-year-old committing or those younger than 17 years old committing. And it would be adequate to say that the type of crime you would worry about —
Senator Simons: A school shooting.
Ms. Latimer: A school shooting. For example, you say there is a 14-year-old with a gun heading toward a school, so everybody must take shelter. You don’t need to identify. It doesn’t make any difference if it’s Billy Jones or someone else. The information that goes out is more than adequate.
I don’t see the need for this amendment at all. It does undercut some pretty important protections around protecting the ability of young people to overcome past harms.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for being here. I appreciate your knowledge. Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for being here as well. I’m sorry that you had to go through all of that.
Mr. Rahim, I wonder if I could come back to the question my colleague was asking you about with respect to young people and that conversation. You spoke about instances where the judiciary could not make a decision in the time allotted and that language. What would that look like?
Mr. Rahim: What that would look like is the police would submit their application and say, “We need a decision within the hour or within two hours in order to achieve this public safety objective.” If the court comes back and says, “We don’t have someone who can hear that application in that period of time,” then the police can go ahead.
But the amendment still retains some review process for that. Afterwards, let’s say the court gets to it in 12 hours. They can say, “Hey, we looked at this, and this information doesn’t need to be out, or it can be out.” And they can make a determination at that time.
Even if the whole incident has passed, at least the court can say, “Okay, this met the statutory criteria or not.” As it stands, as long as that information is removed within 24 hours, a court never oversees that process at all.
For context, the reason we mention this, too, is courts have to frequently deal with fast-moving applications, and they have procedures and mechanisms to do that. So it’s building off what we know is the court’s capability to respond in that way for certain time-pressing issues.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. I appreciate that. The hour or the two hours may be a point of discussion or debate around whether that is speedy enough or if that defeats the concern of exigent circumstances.
To move on, would you find value if there were a review process post-event? If I could present it this way: If police were to act on exigent circumstances and release the name of a young person, their image and so on, then once that event is over, post-24 hours, there could be a review process put in place to determine and make certain proper procedures were followed and ensure the issues that led to having that sense of exigent circumstances were satisfied?
Mr. Rahim: I think that would be an improvement on what is presently in the legislation. Of course, you could also still retain the ability for the court to weigh in at some point.
Even if your view is that we still need to get it out by police order in the first hour, then right away an application should be submitted as early as possible. A court can still weigh in before the 24-hour period has elapsed.
I think any tweaks like that would at least strengthen the important role of court oversight here.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. If I could put this to both of you or whomever feels called to answer: One of the struggles we’ve had with this — and the government and other witnesses have spoken to this — is a lack of data around all of this.
Drawing a conclusion around those conditions has been difficult. We did hear from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and Commissioner Tom Carrique who shared that from 2023 to 2025 in the Toronto area, over 9,700 folks were charged with offences while out on bail, and of the charges laid, 7,540 were violent crime charges.
Does that align with what you understand? And how would you respond to that? I was speaking to some of my colleagues yesterday from the Metro Vancouver area, and they shared similar concerns.
Ms. Latimer: That is police-based data. To me, it’s relatively new. I did listen to his testimony and did hear it, but I think the absence of verified data is the reason why we need a comprehensive review and overhaul.
If it is the case that so many people are committing violent offences, what do they mean by “violent”? There’s a large bandwidth as to what might be considered in that. And these are police charges, not convictions, so it’s hard to know what we’re talking about.
There is no doubt that one of the reasons for detaining someone is to ensure that a violent offence is not perpetrated. However, it needs to be based on pretty solid risk prediction information. As other witnesses have said, you are never 100% sure about those. But it needs to be looked at. All of that needs to be looked at very seriously.
Mr. Rahim: I think some important contextual information would be helpful to understand how we translate that kind of information into policy. What were those original bail decisions for? Were they for a prior violent offence, or were they the kind of routine decision where it would be entirely appropriate for someone to be released? With respect to the new offences, how many ultimately resulted in a conviction? That’s part of the reason we propose the data-specific amendments we do. Because that will ensure that once this report is being generated, you are less likely to have a situation where the report comes out and everyone says it is the wrong data or it’s not right, et cetera. Instead, there has actually been a process at the outset so that there can be some widespread sector confidence in the information that is now being relied upon to create policy.
Senator Dhillon: I have a very short question just to follow up. In the data that you provided, are you able to distinguish how long those individuals were in jail and/or remand?
Mr. Rahim: All the data we have provided is sourced from Statistics Canada. Going to a granular level and saying, “Here’s how long this person or that person was in remand” is not possible right now, to our knowledge, on a national scale.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all the witnesses. Mr. Wilson, Senator Batters and I were on this committee when the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act was passed. It is horrifying to hear that what some folks were worried about has happened in your situation, so I join my colleagues in saying I am very sorry to hear this. If you are not in touch with someone about pursuing that unjust conviction, then the man’s office you’re in now knows how to get hold of me.
Ms. Latimer and Mr. Rahim, there are a couple of things in the bill that have not really been discussed so far. I’m concerned about the consecutive sentencing provisions and the way the aggravating circumstances provisions both seem to be targeted at lengthening sentences, which would contribute to the over-incarceration of young people, Indigenous people, racialized people and other marginalized groups. I’m curious how you think those should be dealt with.
I’m going to ask my second question now in case I run out of time. This is for Ms. Latimer in particular, although I’m happy to have Mr. Rahim’s comments as well. The definition of “violent offence” will effectively restrict courts from looking at individualized contexts and crafting meaningful sentences, particularly for youth, where that is such a focus. However, I would say the application of section 718.2(e) for Indigenous folks would also be challenged, as well as the application of cultural assessments that are increasingly being used by courts. I’m curious what your thoughts are on those changes.
I was struck that in the province where Mr. Wilson is, regarding the last time I was involved in a case out there, 98% of the young women and girls in custody were Indigenous. I was advised by StatCan that it is 95% to 100% for Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the three northern territories. Based on those numbers, what would you speculate these provisions are likely to mean in terms of pretrial detention for those young people?
Ms. Latimer: I think the numbers in pretrial detention are going to go up. I think the duration of time that people are spending in pretrial detention is going to go up because there will be more people heading in that direction and contesting it because of the reverse onus provisions.
In terms of the first two questions regarding consecutive sentencing, the John Howard Society of Canada would be opposed to the provision on mandatory consecutive sentencing. Anything that detracts from the ability of the judge to impose a sentence that is proportionate to the circumstances and the degree of responsibility of the prisoner or offender whom he or she is looking at presents a problem to us.
As for the aggravating factors, I’m very confused about what the implications are for those. For example, it is an aggravating factor if you commit theft for the purposes of resale. Most of the drug-addicted people I know are stealing chicken breasts from the local grocery store in order to resell them to buy drugs. That’s not the group you would think you would want to have aggravating circumstances applied to, so I think it is over-broad. They are not going to hit just the purely commercially motivated crime by what they are doing. I think it needs to be addressed and corrected.
Mr. Rahim: I will briefly add a few matters to the consecutive sentencing point. One is that, right now, nothing prevents a justice from imposing concurrent sentences for this group of offences. The issue we have is that it removes discretion, so when it is appropriate to impose concurrent sentences, a judge is no longer able to do so.
I would also note, again, to my knowledge, the department did not present a sentencing table or a review of sentences to say why current discretion is a problem and that it is leading to issues in terms of the proportionality of sentences or the gravity of offences. I think that is another concern: the lack of empirical foundation.
Finally, I know this issue came up previously before this committee. One suggestion was the totality principle in the Criminal Code could address situations where otherwise the stack of concurrent sentences would be too long. I would just point out that this is going to lead to distortion in the sentencing process because now a judge will be forced to impose consecutive sentences that are actually shorter than what might be proportionate or appropriate in order to abide by the totality principle. I think it creates unnecessary uncertainty and maybe litigation down the road for these offences.
Senator Clement: Thank you all for being here.
Mr. Wilson, thank you for your testimony and, in particular, for your responses to questions from Senator Batters and Senator Miville-Dechêne. Thank you for speaking of your son and your daughter and your brother and your father. I sometimes feel disconnected from the work I do here and how it affects people, so thank you for reminding me of the connection between policy-making and the impact on people’s lives. Thank you.
Ms. Latimer, thank you for your comments about agreeing with the amendments of the CCLA because I’m going to engage with Mr. Rahim on those. Thank you for remarking that it’s been 50 years since we have done a comprehensive review.
Ms. Latimer: It’s 71 years.
Senator Clement: It’s 50 years for the Criminal Code in its entirety. The world has changed since last week, so it seems wild that we are tinkering and not acknowledging the reckoning we have gone through as a country around, for example, systemic racism. I appreciate you have always been consistent about saying that.
Mr. Rahim, I was thrilled when the minister was here and said, “I’m going to be open to listening to amendments.” I want to talk to you about amendments because there are a couple of particular interest to me, and I want to be able to propose them to the committee at some point, I hope. They have to do with the data. That’s Amendment 7 and then Amendment 8.
In Amendment 7, you want to add to the report that the minister has to provide. How long have we been talking about data in the context of criminal reform? How is what you are suggesting going to be helpful? Could you lean into that? Because we have been talking about data for a long time. We don’t have it, so if you could talk about that and then just lean into what your proposals are going to do.
The other is your Amendment 8, which is to have judges get on the record by saying they have considered the circumstances of Indigenous people and those from other vulnerable groups. I was here for that discussion. I proposed that amendment. I was thrilled when it was passed, and I am heartbroken to hear that you’ve been watching the cases and it hasn’t taken.
Could you explain how you know that, what kind of work you do around that and how this change is going to make a difference?
Mr. Rahim: Certainly. With respect to data, it was actually in 1976 when the first reverse onus provision was put into force, where a question was then asked of the Minister of Justice — it was either the House or Senate committee that was responsible — about data on the bill, and they were unable to provide it. That has been the case to date.
Constantly, when a Minister of Justice comes before this committee or another, the refrain is, “We’re talking to the provinces. This is important. We recognize we have to do this.” Then the next minister will say the same thing, and the next minister will say another variant of that.
We’re very encouraged by this new annual report requirement. It is a step in the right direction, but in our view, it’s important to ensure it doesn’t become a partisan exercise or simply an exercise for supporting the policy objectives of the government of the day, regardless of where that government falls. By including these provisions of bringing in a broader sector of participants to provide input on the data and putting in a role for a non-partisan agency that’s well respected, we hope it will actually function to bring the kind of objective, reliable data necessary to bring policy to the fore instead of going in some other direction.
As to your other question, it’s quite straightforward to see where justices are not mentioning this provision. The intent of the provision was that we’re making justices make that determination in every case. There are many cases where someone is vulnerable, but it’s not brought up by anyone in the courtroom, or the fact that they do belong to a vulnerable group that is overrepresented is not brought up, so we wanted to centre attention around that. But if you look at really any reported bail decision from Bill C-48 onward, you don’t see that kind of statement on the record. Whereas, for some of the other statements that are required, such as “I’ve taken into consideration the safety of the community,” et cetera, which were also put in by Bill C-48, there is greater uptake of that.
In our view, this is a modest amendment. All it does is it ensures that the intent of the provision is reflected in practice.
Senator Clement: Why do you think one is taken up and one is not? I’m pushing back on that amendment because I heard that the last time I made this amendment, it was said it could be performative or a checklist. How do we make it not that? Why was there uptake on community public safety as opposed to people’s circumstances?
Mr. Rahim: Certainly. Well, I think part of it is that sometimes when there is a new provision added to the code, it takes some time for everyone to get up to speed on what it means and what it requires.
In one or two cases where we did see the provision cited — for example, in an appeal out in the Yukon — it was actually referred to positively in the sense that the judge said a message was sent about considering overrepresented groups and the importance of this information on the record.
We see the potential for it to serve its purpose. Really, this is just ensuring that there is no uncertainty at all about what the provision requires. Will it work for sure? Of course, we don’t know that, and I think it is relatively modest in nature, but the more we can do to address the overrepresentation of these groups, the better, in our view.
Senator Clement: On the data reporting, you specifically want pretrial detention information, right?
Mr. Rahim: That’s correct. Right now, the statutory language talks about the accessibility of judicial interim release. Our view is that given the rate of pretrial detention as one of the core points at issue in terms of the broader debate, it should be explicitly included, as other points are in the language, as it stands, on recidivism, for example.
Senator Clement: Good. Thank you very much to all three of you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you to all three of you, and a special thank you to Mr. Wilson. Your testimony took courage; we can imagine how difficult this testimony is for you, because it makes you relive extremely unfortunate events. You have been unjustly deprived of freedom and contact with your loved ones. Your testimony is all the more appreciated by all committee members; you didn’t testify for nothing. You’re a clear example that when there are errors in the criminal justice, the consequences are, above all, human, and even more dramatic. Thank you very much.
Ms. Latimer and Mr. Rahim, we all know there are parole conditions addressed in this bill that have led to violent crimes in the past at the time of parole. In your own terms in talking about this bill, you both talked about an abuse, an excess or the risk of going too far. Clearly, there are risks to be managed.
I totally understand your concern about people falsely remanded; I share your concern. But I’d like to talk about the flip side and ask you how your amendments will also impact risk management for victims, the prevention of recidivism and the commission of violent crimes during a parole period.
[English]
Ms. Latimer: I think the data is pretty clear that if somebody can be safely managed in the community — and there are lots of programs that are available in some jurisdictions, like bail supervision and verification programs, which allow people who may not have been able to come up with a surety to be supervised in the community when they would otherwise have been detained in custody, and those programs are very successful. I think there is a whole raft of alternatives to just straight release or detention.
It is a challenge to assess the risks being posed by an individual, but what studies are pretty clear on is that if somebody is detained in pretrial detention with a similar offence pattern as someone who is released into the community, they are more likely to be victimizing and committing crimes after their period.
Pretrial detention — I’m sure Mr. Wilson will be able to tell you this — is a very stressful, violent and crowded place where people are not nice to one another. You come out, and often you head to a shelter because you’ve lost your home. All of these things are criminogenic and more conducive to people heading toward criminality than before.
I think if you are trying to reduce victimization, you need to worry about the corollary of the person who is going out and committing an offence while they are released on bail, as well as looking at those who are committing offences because they were detained in remand. I think there is a balance to be had there, and an overall review would help to strike that balance more clearly.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you. I have a follow-up question on the issue of programs you’re talking about — successful programs, and I agree with you. However, are there enough resources to continue developing these programs and offer them everywhere? I also understand the management of the reintegration system itself is deficient and that the amendments to the act won’t solve that part of the problem.
[English]
Ms. Latimer: In a nutshell, no, they are not adequate resources to maintain, and they’re not available in all jurisdictions. I am happy to supply a report that the John Howard Society of Ontario did on the bail verification programs in that province. You’ll see they’re quite effective in helping to maintain people outside of custody while they are awaiting their trials.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you. Mr. Rahim, would you like to add anything on the same subject?
[English]
Mr. Rahim: Yes. I will briefly say that the public safety objective that you speak about is important. It is one that the CCLA shares. The issue is that we’re not making policy with evidence that would lead to those outcomes. That’s why the data piece is so important. It can allow us to look and perhaps say it is this kind of offence, this kind of condition and this kind of plan that leads to this kind of risk level or this kind of outcome. Then policy can be designed to attenuate those specific risks, but the kind of categorical approaches to, for example, the offence-specific reverse onus provisions that we see here does not necessarily mean that we will see a reduction in the risk and that we will see it for the right population.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you very much to all three of you.
[English]
Senator Dalphond: Ms. Latimer, can you tell us more about the fact that 46% are in pretrial detention in Canada compared to 25.5% in the U.S. and 20.2% in the U.K.?
Ms. Latimer: That material was taken from the World Prison Brief in 2025, which is done by the University of London. They maintain that. One of the factors that they look at is the rate of a country’s pretrial detention as part of its overall prison population.
Canada’s proportion is very high at 46.6%, and this was 2023 data. So it may well be higher than that now because it has been increasing. If you compare it to other countries, we do not compare well to developed First World countries. We over-incarcerate in pretrial detention. It speaks to some systemic problems.
Senator Dalphond: Could you send these documents to the clerk?
Ms. Latimer: Sure.
Senator Dalphond: It can be done by email. Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Rahim. You say that consecutive sentences will cause distortion in the application of the sentencing process, but I wonder if the principle of totality will apply to consecutive sentences. I say that because the Criminal Code says that the principle of totality is the second-most important principle. In 2020, the Supreme Court in Friesen said that the judge must first determine the proper sentence for each of the convictions and then look at the totality of it. That’s where the principle of totality applies, and it will reduce accordingly. So there would be a line of reasoning that the judge would have to explain.
Why is this not satisfactory?
Mr. Rahim: Where the challenge could come into play is that perhaps the justice is of the view that a particular quantum of sentence is appropriate, let’s say for three offences, and if the sentence were imposed concurrently, that would be the quantum that’s applied. If we’re now in the territory of consecutive sentencing, and the totality principle now requires a lower sentence, maybe in order to comply with these concurrent requirements, they actually have to lower the length of the sentence they would have otherwise imposed if they had the discretion to decide concurrently or consecutively. That’s where the issue comes into play. It is whether that ultimate sentence imposed actually reflects what would otherwise be the calculation of a fit sentence.
Senator Dalphond: Yes, but the court says it has to be in two steps. You do not play with the sentence. You must say what the proper sentence is: five years for this, three years for that and then the whole thing becomes eight years. Then you look at the principle of totality according to the circumstances and the blameworthiness, and you say, “This is too much; he doesn’t deserve eight years.” So you bring it down to six years. But it will be clear that the recommended time for that offence was five years and the other one was three years. Overall, it would not be eight years though. The process will have to be explained.
Mr. Rahim: In our respectful submission, is it possible that one could go through these steps and arrive at a proportionate sentence? We don’t say it is not possible, but it adds a layer of complexity and challenge that, in our view, is not necessary. You could achieve the outcome in a more coherent fashion by determining whether a sentence should be imposed concurrently or consecutively. But I would also go back to our initial point, which is that in the first place, when we talk about removing the discretion, there should be a policy rationale provided. In our view, we have not seen that provided by the department to make this change.
Senator Dalphond: It’s for a social deterrence purpose. The next question is why you think it would be more effective to add the second obligation to the judge to say, “I did consider the factors of the Gladue decision and specific groups.” It is already the law. It says “shall” in its decision. So if the judges are not doing it, why then do we need another provision to say, “You shall do” twice? We should just remind the judges that these are the obligations. I’m not sure it is more effective to say it twice than to say it once.
Mr. Rahim: One of the challenges might be that the provision has not been taken to mean that the actual determination has to occur in every case, but rather where the provision is raised in a courtroom, there must be reasons by the justice that explain how section 493.2 applies. One of the ways this could be improved beyond, for example, the language that we propose here is clarification that there is not a requirement that a party raise section 493.2 applying in order for the justice to still have that requirement to make the determination. The benefit of that potentially could be that it is the judge who raises the point to everybody in the room, saying, “Look, we have a person before us where section 493.2 may be live. Can you provide submissions?” So it recognizes that the issue of not recognizing these circumstances is not simply a fault of judges or anything like that but of all of us in the criminal justice system, and it will ensure more proactive consideration of section 493.2.
Senator Dalphond: According to you, are most of the judgments published, or are they just rendered and you find them in the file but you don’t find them anywhere else?
Mr. Rahim: In a review of, for example, even the published decisions on CanLII, Westlaw or Quicklaw, there have been perhaps hundreds of such decisions since Bill C-48. We found that only one or two actually made that proactive determination about the application of section 493.2. From our view, it is very clear that the intent of the provision is not being reflected in even the published decisions that we have.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
The Chair: Once again, I want to thank our witnesses for sharing their experiences and answering our questions. On behalf of our committee, I also want to once again express our sincere thanks to you, Mr. Wilson, for taking the time to appear before us today and for telling us your story, as painful as it is to you, I’m sure. But your lived experience has been really communicated very compellingly, and it is very helpful to us, so we thank you for your help in this regard.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can we ask Mr. Wilson if he wants to say a few words to conclude?
The Chair: Okay. Is there anything else that you would like to say, Mr. Wilson, before we leave this issue? We will give you a chance to make one final statement.
Mr. Wilson: When people are remanded or held in custody and are then acquitted, there should be a way to compensate them for that. It’s not that it really can be compensated for, but there should be a way to make it simpler to show people who were wronged by the system that the system did them wrong and that they are going to do something about it. There should be a way to fix it.
The Chair: That’s a very important point. I’m glad you concluded with that remark. It is about apologies, but it is certainly about redressing compensation.
Mr. Wilson: Yes.
The Chair: Monetary compensation is something that should be examined alongside the issues that we’re dealing with here.
Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. You’ve really helped us out. I’m glad you were able to add that extra idea for us to consider.
Senators, we will now move to the next panel. We are continuing our study of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.
For our second panel, we are pleased to welcome Jonathan Rudin, Special Projects Director, Aboriginal Legal Services; Victoria S.B. Perrie, Vice-President, Indigenous Bar Association, who is with us by video conference; Madeleine Redfern, Chief Executive Officer, Native Women’s Association of Canada; and Darlene Bowen, Board Member and Secretary, Native Women’s Association of Canada.
We will open with five-minute introductions and context setting first from Aboriginal Legal Services, then from the Indigenous Bar Association and then from the Native Women’s Association of Canada. I will ask Mr. Rudin to please commence.
Jonathan Rudin, Special Projects Director, Aboriginal Legal Services: I want to thank the committee for the invitation to provide our perspective on Bill C-14.
At the outset, I have to note that while Aboriginal Legal Services is our English name, our Anishinaabemowin name is Gaa Kina Gwii Waabamaa Debwewin, which translates as “all those who seek the truth.”
In our submissions today, I will address three aspects of the proposed bill: the amendments regarding access to bail, some of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and some of the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, or YCJA. I will start with bail.
In 2019, Bill C-75 codified the existing jurisprudence on bail. The significance of that bill was discussed by the Supreme Court in R. v. Antic in 2020. Bill C-75 and Antic did not lead to any reduction in the number of people detained pending trial. Indeed, all evidence points to the fact that there are more people than ever in custody in Canada awaiting trial.
At the moment, over 75% of those in provincial and territorial custody in Canada have not been convicted of a crime; they are just awaiting trial. And there are very real consequences to these very troubling figures.
In Ontario, where Aboriginal Legal Services does most of its work, jails are significantly overcrowded. The reason for this overcrowding is the unprecedented number of people who have been denied bail. Over 82% of those in provincial custody in Ontario are on remand. Judges have described the conditions those people face in jail as — these are all from separate cases — “shocking,” “unacceptable,” “close to unconscionable,” “regressive,” “contrary to the minimum standards established by the United Nations,” “inexcusable” and “oppressive.”
One of the consequences of wildly overcrowded jails is that people plead guilty to charges when they are innocent. In 2018, the federal and provincial heads of prosecution issued a report entitled Innocence at Stake: The Need for Continued Vigilance to Prevent Wrongful Convictions in Canada. In that report, they highlighted denial of bail as having a significant impact on Indigenous people entering false guilty pleas.
It is our submission that no steps should be taken to make it more difficult for people to get bail until we see the percentage of people in custody awaiting trial decline below 40% of the total jail population. Once that happens, it may be appropriate to enact measures that would see more people detained, but now is not the time to make an unconscionable situation even worse.
With respect to the amendments to the Criminal Code, there are three sections that cause us concern. First is the amendment that would make it an aggravating factor if the underlying offence “. . . interfered with the access to or functioning of an essential infrastructure . . . .” We are concerned that this could target Indigenous people who are trying to get governments to listen to their concerns over incursions into their lands. Blockades are never a first step, but for Indigenous people without access to other means, it can be the only step that leads to anyone listening to their valid concerns.
Second, the bill would make it an aggravating circumstance for theft-related offences if the accused possessed “. . . with intent to sell or barter the stolen property or to fraudulently return it to a retail merchant.” We see why this may be relevant for sentencing people who stole huge quantities of maple syrup or butter because in those cases, the scale of the operation is evident. For many of the individuals we work with who are dealing with addictions and other traumas, they are sometimes stealing and selling goods for survival. This does not excuse their behaviour. They have committed a crime, but treating this as an aggravating factor that could lead to even harsher sentences runs against the very spirit of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gladue and Ipeelee.
Third, we are concerned with the changes eliminating or restricting access to conditional sentences for sexual assault offences which, for the most part, are already punished by jail. Since the conditional sentence regime was expanded by Bill C-5 in 2022, there have been a few cases where an Indigenous person has received a conditional sentence for sexual assault under particularly unique circumstances. What is especially problematic with these amendments is that, in some cases, they allow for the possibility of a conditional sentence if the offence is prosecuted summarily but not if it is prosecuted by indictment. The concern is that this turns the Crown into the judge. Bill C-5 was explicitly intended to address the mass incarceration of Indigenous people. This amendment will only serve to make things worse.
Finally, with regard to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, we have a concern regarding the expansion of access to records including extrajudicial measures and records of investigations. This would allow police to make important decisions on whether to lay charges on incomplete and potentially misleading information. We know that if this happens, it will be Indigenous youth who will be particularly negatively impacted by this amendment.
In sum, we fail to see the pressing need for these amendments, but we certainly see the negative impacts it would have on Indigenous people who become enmeshed in the system. We urge caution and restraint. This bill represents a step backwards — a step we do not need to take.
Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you. Now we will hear from Ms. Perrie from the Indigenous Bar Association by video conference.
Victoria S.B. Perrie, Vice-President, Indigenous Bar Association: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am speaking to you today on behalf of the Indigenous Bar Association, or IBA, which is a national organization of Indigenous legal professionals across Canada.
The IBA shares the objective of improving public safety. However, we have serious concerns that Bill C-14, as currently drafted, will exacerbate the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in pretrial detention and sentencing outcomes while raising significant constitutional and systemic issues.
I will briefly highlight three areas of concern and propose some targeted amendments.
First is the expansion of pre-emptive policing and bail restrictions. Bill C-14 expands police powers to arrest without a warrant based on a belief that an individual is about to contravene a condition. This is a significant shift toward pre-emptive detention. It risks undermining the Supreme Court’s framework in Antic and the constitutional protection under section 11(e) of the Charter which, of course, guarantees that bail not be denied without just cause.
In practice, these provisions will disproportionately affect Indigenous people who are already over-policed and more likely to be subject to multiple bail conditions — conditions that increase the likelihood of breach and redetention.
Further, the bill mandates or strongly encourages weapons prohibitions at the bail stage. For many Indigenous Peoples, particularly those in northern and remote communities, firearms are not recreational. They are essential for sustenance hunting and the exercise of constitutionally protected section 35 rights, as well as for protection from wildlife. Imposing such restrictions on legally innocent individuals without individualized consideration risks unjustifiable infringement of those rights.
The IBA recommends removing the “about to contravene” standard for warrantless arrest and clarifying that bail conditions must not unjustifiably infringe section 35 rights consistent with Gladue principles and existing judicial obligations.
Second is over-broad sentencing provisions and risks to Indigenous land defenders. The bill introduces new aggravating factors relating to interference with essential infrastructure. While aimed, I imagine, as a public safety measure, this language is broad and risks capturing constitutionally protected conduct, including peaceful protests and Indigenous land defence. Indigenous Peoples have a long history of engaging in lawful advocacy to protect their lands and rights.
Without clear limits, this provision may expose such individuals to enhanced criminal penalties. The IBA recommends clarifying that this aggravating factor does not apply to conduct protected under section 2(b), section 2(c) or section 35 of the Constitution.
Third is the erosion of judicial discretion and community-based justice. Bill C-14 restricts who can act as a surety and limits the use of conditional sentences. These challenges fail to reflect the realities of many Indigenous communities, particularly those in remote regions where formal supervision programs do not exist and community members are often the only viable support system.
Disqualifying individuals with prior records from acting as sureties will, in practice, result in the automatic detention of many Indigenous accused persons, not because they pose a risk but because they lack access to state-recognized forms of supervision. This raises serious concerns under section 7 and section 11(e) of the Charter and runs contrary to the Supreme Court’s direction in Gladue and Ipeelee, which require courts to consider alternatives to incarceration that are responsive to Indigenous circumstances.
We recommend restoring judicial discretion to approve appropriate sureties and preserving the availability of conditional sentences where safe and appropriate, including the use of Indigenous-led restorative justice processes.
Honourable senators, the IBA does not oppose bail reform. We oppose reforms that are constitutionally vulnerable and will disproportionately harm Indigenous people without demonstrable improvements to public safety.
True safety is not achieved through expanded pretrial detention or reduced judicial discretion. It is achieved through fair, proportionate and culturally informed justice. We urge this committee to amend Bill C-14 to ensure it complies with constitutional protections, respects Indigenous rights and does not further entrench systemic inequality within Canada’s justice system. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Now we will hear from the Native Women’s Association of Canada.
Darlene Bowen, Board Member and Secretary, Native Women’s Association of Canada: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Darlene Bowen, and I am Anishinaabe Algonquin from the unceded territory of the Timiskaming First Nation.
I am here on behalf of the Native Women’s Association of Canada to speak to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).
To begin, I want to acknowledge that Bill C-14 represents a significant step in Canada’s efforts to address public safety and gender-based violence. We recognize the government’s intent to strengthen protections for communities and respond to serious harms. However, this legislation, as currently drafted, raises serious concerns for Indigenous women in Canada.
Bill C-14 introduces sweeping changes to bail and sentencing regimes, and it does so without adequately addressing the well-documented issue of overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples, especially Indigenous women, in Canada’s justice system. Indigenous women already face disproportionate rates of criminalization, victimization and incarceration.
Despite making up only 4% of Canada’s female population, Indigenous women account for 50% of the federal female prison population and as high as 85% of the prison populations in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with the total Indigenous offender population increasing by 40% in the last decade.
The vast majority of women in Canadian prisons are there due to circumstances deeply intertwined with poverty, violence and trauma rather than posing a risk to public safety.
Experts highlight that criminalized women often lack access to housing, employment and mental health support, leading to the criminalization of survival. This is especially true for Indigenous women.
Without clear and intentional consideration of Indigenous women’s lived realities, this legislation risks reinforcing rather than reducing these disparities.
A central concern is the insufficient integration of Gladue principles throughout the proposed changes. As the committee is aware, Gladue principles require courts to consider the unique systemic factors and historical background that affect Indigenous Peoples in the justice system. This includes the ongoing impacts of colonialism, the legacy of residential schools, intergenerational trauma and systemic discrimination.
These considerations are not optional and must be used to achieve a balance of understanding and equality in bail and sentencing decisions.
Currently, the proposed changes to Bill C-14 do not reach far enough to ensure that these principles are consistently and meaningfully applied, particularly for Indigenous women who experience these factors in distinct and multi-faceted ways.
Moreover, we are concerned that changes to bail provisions may result in increased pretrial detention for Indigenous women. We know that even short periods of detention can have devastating effects on their lives, including the loss of housing, separation from children and an increased vulnerability to violence.
Although we are offering our review of Bill C-14, we want to be clear that our concerns about this legislation do not diminish the dire urgency when addressing gender-based violence. It is well established that Indigenous women, in all their diversity, continue to experience disproportionately high rates of violence in Canada.
It has repeatedly been documented that Indigenous women are overrepresented in intimate partner homicides, accounting for 26%, which is six times higher than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Sexual assault is 43% higher, and intimate partner violence is 17%.
Bill C-14 marks an important acknowledgement of this reality by strengthening bail and sentencing requirements in situations involving violence. However, public safety cannot be achieved through measures that deepen systemic inequities. True safety for Indigenous women requires an approach that is intersectional, distinctions-based and grounded in the lived experiences of those most affected.
In closing, we urge the committee to carefully consider the unintended consequences of Bill C-14. Without targeted amendments, this legislation risks accentuating the very harms it seeks to address.
Chi-meegwetch.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now hear from senators. Questions and answers will be limited to three minutes each due to time constraints.
Senator Batters: Thank you. I will start by asking questions to the Native Women’s Association of Canada, but thank you all for being here to help us with this study.
In your opening remarks, you spoke and outlined some percentages and statistics about Indigenous women as far as offender statistics. I’m certain this is also a very high percentage: What is the percentage of victims of violent crime who are Indigenous women?
Ms. Bowen: Sorry, I missed the question.
Senator Batters: What is the percentage of victims of violent crime who are Indigenous women?
Ms. Bowen: I don’t have that number right off the top of my head, but we can provide it to you.
Senator Batters: That would be very helpful. Thank you.
We often hear about the overrepresentation of Indigenous people and women in custody, but we hear less often about Indigenous victims of crime who also, of course, want the justice system to protect them in concrete ways.
I know your organization is sensitive to violence against Indigenous women, including intimate partner violence. Bill C-14 does tighten access to conditional sentences for certain sexual offences, but there are still a number of exclusions that depend on the mode of prosecution — for example, indictment as opposed to summary proceedings.
I wonder if you agree with that particular distinction, or do you think it gives the impression of a door left open for community-based sentences for crimes that are still very serious crimes for those victims who too often are Indigenous women?
Madeleine Redfern, Chief Executive Officer, Native Women’s Association of Canada: I think it’s important that it be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Community justice or restorative justice plays an important role; however, it is seriously under-resourced in most of our northern and Indigenous communities.
The distinction between the two different approaches can often vary depending on even what the Crown has chosen to proceed with.
In some cases, they choose a path that expedites their process rather than actually achieving one that either the victim or the community actually prefers. There is little or no process for consultation with the community. Having worked at the Crown’s office and having had these discussions within the context of a particular case, often they are very unfamiliar — especially in rural and remote communities — as to how to proceed. And it will be based on either their own experience, their own bias or their own preference for cost and time.
And, therefore, anything that is outside of the community or restorative justice is going to be framed very much on the individual bias of the Crown prosecutor and/or the office of those who are working within there.
I don’t know if that answers your question, but that is my experience, having worked at the Crown’s office in Nunavut.
Senator Batters: Thank you. I wanted to ask a question to the Indigenous Bar Association witness. In your opening remarks, you mentioned your concerns about the surety provision, which is an amendment to this bill. It was a House of Commons committee amendment where it would take away — and it was taken from an MP’s private member’s bill — the ability to be a surety as someone who guarantees the bail situation for an accused. But the only limitation is it would take away that ability if the person wanting to be the surety was convicted of an indictable offence. That’s the only limitation that this particular amendment puts on it.
You are not happy with that amendment. To me, it seems like quite a reasonable amendment. It’s not all convictions; it has to be an indictable offence conviction.
I’d like you to explain a little more why you don’t think that should be an appropriate condition for a surety, because I think Canadians would be quite surprised to hear that this would currently be allowed.
Ms. Perrie: Thank you for the question. These cases must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Where we have a blanket suggestion that an individual who, at any point in their life, has been convicted of an indictable offence should, at this point in their life, not be eligible to supervise an individual on bail does not take into consideration the rehabilitative effects that going through the system following an indictment could have on an individual.
The proposed amendment casts a wide net for all individuals, not considering any progress they may have made in their lives. It doesn’t assess that individual surety as to who they are today.
It could be the circumstances — under the present suggested wording — where an individual committed an indictable offence 50 years ago but since then has served their time, has been extremely engaged in rehabilitative programming and has completely reformed their life. This suggested wording completely eliminates that person from being a surety to someone, who perhaps could actually be a good role model for someone involved in the justice system. It could be someone who has learned their lesson and taken the time to reform themselves and chosen a better path. I think the wording needs to be specifically looked at, and discretion needs to be provided to the judge who is hearing submissions on that specific individual’s circumstances when deciding if they should or should not be granted the ability to be a surety.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you to all the witnesses.
My question is for the Native Women’s Association of Canada.
Thank you for being here and telling us about the different conflicting aspects of the plight of women. Indigenous women are overrepresented in prisons, and they are overrepresented as victims of sexual assault. This is probably a very difficult problem to solve.
I want to ask you about the changes to Bill C-14 regarding parole. For this bill, it was determined there would be no parole for those convicted of a serious sexual offence, that is sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, sexual assault and any sexual offence involving a victim under the age of 18.
What do you think of this very important amendment? In a way, it could reassure women and girls who are victims of these crimes that their assailant won’t get out of prison too quickly. However, looking at this from a community standpoint, there may be alternatives. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that. On the face of it, I think it increases the safety of these women who have been assaulted. What do you think?
[English]
Ms. Redfern: Thank you for the question.
The issue I would have is any time we make presumptions. I would agree with Ms. Perrie inasmuch as we need to be able to give the judges the discretion to hear everything on a case-by-case and fact-by-fact basis.
The way that you framed it — and I understand and appreciate that, absolutely, girls and women involved in crimes of a sexual nature want to be safe from their accused. However, we do see instances where sometimes it could be the sharing of, let’s say, pictures between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. That is sexual by nature.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That wouldn’t be covered. We’re talking about serious sexual offences.
[English]
Ms. Redfern: Again, what I would say is that those facts are to be determined in court through the representation of the lawyers making presumptive assertions as to what is known to be heinous or not heinous, yet not before the court where the facts are actually determined by the judges themselves. I would agree with my learned friend who has said that we need to be cautious about giving the police and/or others the presumptive ability to decide where bail is appropriate or not appropriate, as well as remand and/or even sentencing because that has been predetermined before the actual court case and the facts and the law have been presented to the judge in making the appropriate determination.
What I would also want to maybe remind the committee of is that some of these bail determinations are not actually done before a judge in rural and remote communities; they are done by a justice of the peace who may or may not have the legal education and legal experience. They may be a very good person within the community, but they don’t actually have the sophistication and the education to make the appropriate judgment. Now you are stating the legislation without the balance of the facts being presented and must now impose remand. I just caution against that.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You’re right to be cautious. At the same time, I’m talking about parole, so after the verdict of guilt and sentencing. After a sexual assault, should this man — in general, the assailants are men — remain in prison rather than being on parole? That’s the question.
[English]
Ms. Redfern: I don’t know if it is a translation issue.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m talking here at the level of conditional release.
Ms. Redfern: Okay. I misunderstood.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m really interested to know: For serious sexual crimes, there will not be conditional sentencing. For sexual aggression, for example, and aggression toward somebody under the age of 18, those types of condemnations would not permit a conditional sentence.
I’m wondering if you are relieved about this change in the law or not. They are women who have been — I’m sorry. It is difficult for me in English because it is very technical, but you understand it.
Ms. Redfern: I understand it now. I had completely misunderstood. My apologies.
It means that we don’t trust the judges when we decide that legislators, through mandatory sentencing or mandatory determinations, must do something outside of the case-by-case and fact-by-fact analysis. This is why we are trying to have a measured approach because, without a doubt, there are times where serious consequences are absolutely warranted.
What I’m suggesting is that judges being presented the facts and the law should know when it is absolutely appropriate for the strongest decisions for the most heinous and the most egregious assaults on individuals.
Do we have the evidence before this committee to say that judges get it so significantly wrong so much of the time that legislators must impose these mandatory minimums in their decisions because we don’t trust them?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Ms. Redfern: I apologize for misunderstanding earlier.
Senator Simons: I have questions for Mr. Rudin and Ms. Perrie.
I also serve on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. We just finished a big study about the theft of copper wire. I embraced the parts of the law that said there would be aggravating circumstances for the sale or stripping of copper wire, which puts our telecommunications systems at risk. At the same time, I recognize that same clause could be used to have an impact on people who might commit light sabotage of pipelines, power lines and rail lines.
How do we strike a balance? I think there is legitimate public interest in saying that damaging critical infrastructure is worse than just theft under $5,000 for stealing copper wire. How do we strike the right balance between doing that and protecting the right of environmental and Indigenous activists to protest?
Mr. Rudin: I think we already have it. Defences in the Criminal Code have wide ranges of sentences. If somebody is doing anything in regard to blocking infrastructure, you have lots of opportunities to charge them with a range of offences, and there are maximum and minimum sentences. Judges can consider those things.
The difficulty comes in when you say this is going to be aggravating, and then you are suddenly immediately asking the judge to treat this more seriously and to give it a higher sentence. It is already there. I think this is part of the issue with many of these amendments. We already have the tools in the Criminal Code currently.
As Madeleine Redfern has said a number of times, what this is trying to do, in many ways, is prevent judges from actually considering the facts of a particular case in determining what is right and, instead, trying to assume beforehand that legislators — with the greatest respect — always know what’s best. What happens is that, on the ground, we see miscarriages of justice in communities when these kinds of broad statements are made.
Senator Simons: Ms. Perrie, are you concerned that this might lead to more arrests or just to higher sentences afterwards?
Ms. Perrie: We’ve seen some very concerning media and reports with respect to the files that were kept on Indigenous land protectors. It has been quite a big headline in the news recently. So I don’t think that this is something that we should simply ignore. Your direct question was about how we deal with this to make it a more serious note. I think my recommendation directly spoke to that. My recommendation was that we clarify that an aggravating factor does not apply to conduct protected under section 2(b), section 2(c) or section 35 of the Constitution.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Batters: I was just looking up the provision about the surety having to be convicted of an indictable offence, and according to this amendment, it would have to be within 10 years before the day on which the release order is made. So it could not be a 50-year situation. That’s on page 8 of the copy of the bill that I have.
Ms. Perrie: I appreciate that clarification, although it doesn’t change the submissions that I have made to this committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Perrie.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of you. Thank you for the work you do all of the time. One of the issues that has come up a few times, although not yet today, is as follows: Besides this, what else would address some of the issues that the provinces have come to the federal government with? It strikes me that this is now the third time we have reformed bail at the same time as people are calling for housing, mental health and addictions supports. We are not seeing those resources put in place, and it is the very same people who need those resources. Well, is it the same people? Who will be most impacted? That’s my question.
I want to use two examples and see if you think those have changed. Ms. Redfern, the last time I was up North, police were trying to help women escape violence, and there was no room in the shelter, so they were put in jail. One of the issues that the person running that jail said was that just putting them in that jail means there is a greater likelihood that next time they will be coming and they will be charged with something. I want comments on that.
Mr. Rudin — well, all of you — when I was up in Pikangikum in the fall, the community was talking about this issue of people having records and not being able to provide support. On the day I was there, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent flying in the whole legal system, including the accused, and there was a 16-bed or 20-bed bail facility in that community that they couldn’t staff because they could not hire people with records. So not only was there a resource that could not be used that would impact the situation, but presumably, under these provisions, they might also not be able to get sureties as well. Can you comment on how usual that is? Is it just an anomalous situation where I happened to have those experiences in those visits?
Ms. Redfern: I remember many decades ago, Senator Pate, when you and I were in Iqaluit, and we raised the concern about building the first women’s jail in Nunavut, because if you build it, you will fill it. I do know and I would agree that there is a troubling issue of not just putting Indigenous women but also Indigenous men in jail, even short-term remand in a jail cell just overnight, because the shelters are full. It does happen.
With the high turnover of RCMP staff in the North, the challenge, of course, is that if someone has been incarcerated even for their safety — protecting them from possibly minus 40-degree weather, a domestic violence situation or an unsafe home situation and there is no alternative — there is always the bias and perception that you must have done something wrong to have been remanded, even if it was done for good intention. As they say, “Hell is paved with good intentions.” There is always that stigma. They are now in the record. It may not say in the notes: “Only put in jail or remand for the night so that they didn’t die from hypothermia or a domestic violence situation because the shelter was full.” That notation does not usually accompany it. As such, every single time they see that they were remanded and charges were not laid or whatever it may be, it will be used against them.
Mr. Rudin: The other point I would make is that one of the challenges with the Canadian legal system is that the Criminal Code is national, but implementation is provincial. When people are denied bail, they don’t go to the pen; they go to the local jails. Compared to most fly-in communities, Pikangikum has bail beds, but most don’t have those beds. They are flown out and are stuck in Timmins. I’ll pick up on Ms. Bowen’s point: Immediately, if a woman wants to be with her children, she’s going to plead guilty. People will do whatever they can to get out of jail.
We need to be realistic about what happens here. We see it every day. Ask any lawyer who is in court every day. Innocent people are going to jail every day. It is not someone being charged with murder who shouldn’t have been convicted. It is not your previous witness. It is people charged with minor offences and denied bail who say, “I can’t wait for a trial to sort this out because I will be in jail longer than my sentence will be. So I will take any deal the Crown offers.” Taking that situation, which is the situation we’re in now, and making it worse will just lead to more and more false guilty pleas.
Ms. Perrie: I echo what Mr. Rudin just said. When I’m not in my role as Vice-President of the Indigenous Bar Association, of course, I am a lawyer in Nunavut. It’s my experience that, every day, clients ask to plead guilty to matters so that they can get out of jail. That increases future overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system because, as we know, the step principle applies to sentences.
If that individual has pled guilty to this offence, then for their next offence if they are to plead guilty then, they will have a higher sentence. To directly address the question that Senator Pate asked, it is: Who is most impacted? Of course, we are here today, on this panel, largely speaking about Indigenous folks. I would like to zero in on a subset of Indigenous folks, which are the Two-Spirit, trans and gender-diverse communities. Those individuals in those communities face similarly acute and often heightened vulnerabilities within the pretrial detention context.
These individuals are disproportionately affected by factors that directly impede their ability to secure release. When detained, they are at a significantly increased risk of violence, isolation and placement in facilities that do not align with their gender identity, all while remaining legally innocent. Expanding detention through broader reverse onus provisions and more restrictive bail conditions will predictably intensify those harms, raising serious concerns about fairness, safety and the equitable administration of justice.
Senator Clement: Thank you to all of you. I had similar questions as Senator Simons and Senator Pate, but I have another one.
Mr. Rudin, thank you for leaning into the issue of Indigenous people entering false guilty pleas. We all needed to hear that again. Thank you also for the infrastructure piece. Thanks for leaning into that as well. The way that we are talking about infrastructure in this country right now raises concerns about what that will mean for Indigenous land defenders, so thank you for providing clarity.
I will engage only, though, with Ms. Perrie. I want to talk about true community safety. You said it. Ms. Bowen said it as well. We are not talking about that enough. What does that mean?
What we are talking about is people being afraid and that this reform will somehow make people feel less afraid in the community and that we will be stricter, harder, stronger or more powerful. Do you know what I mean? We are using all those words, but when you say “true community safety,” what do you mean?
Ms. Perrie: True community safety?
Senator Clement: True safety. You used the words “true safety” as opposed to, I think, the safety that we’re talking about in this bill or that we’re promising will happen with this bill.
Ms. Perrie: Thank you. Yes, I did say that true safety isn’t achieved through expanded pretrial detention. It is achieved through fair, proportionate and culturally informed justice.
To that point, I would suggest to this committee that for individuals who present a demonstrable risk, detention is already available and appropriate in some of those circumstances. The issue is that broadening these reverse onus and other enforcement powers doesn’t target only those individuals; it widens the net and increases detention for lower-risk accused as well.
While the IBA supports reforms that are evidence-based, constitutionally sound and responsive to community realities — particularly like restoring judicial discretion and ensuring realistic bail conditions — we need to consider safety within the entire system. We need to look at it as a full system in addressing what drives recidivism in this country.
Senator Clement: What drives recidivism? What do you mean when you say that?
Ms. Perrie: Well, for starters, I would suggest that there are a significant number of resources being used right now, such as in this committee room, and the significant debate that has happened over these provisions, yet in Nunavut, we still have no residential treatment facility programs.
When we’re talking about drivers of recidivism, we mean the lack of accessible programming for our men, our boys and our individuals who are relatives who have issues with addictions. What we’re doing right now in this committee meeting and in the review of this bill is we’re talking about putting sanctions on the back end once people have been brought into the system. What we’re not seeing is that same effort being put in on the front end of the system to stop recidivism before it happens.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Ms. Perrie.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you to all of you for attending today.
Ms. Perrie, you expressed concerns about essential infrastructure, I think. Here, we are not making an offence specific to that. It is already in the code. What we are saying here is that they would be aggravating circumstances. Is that what you are referring to?
Ms. Perrie: I will respond the way I think I understand the question, so please advise if it is incorrect.
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Ms. Perrie: Thank you.
Yes, I am concerned about the addition of essential infrastructure being an aggravating factor. Of course, there are some situations, such as those that the other senator brought forward with respect to the safety of public phone lines and what have you. What this does, in effect, is it puts a greater risk of criminalization of Indigenous land defenders by categorizing what could be a peaceful protest as an aggravating factor. That can serve to make it more difficult for many people who are exercising a lawful right —
Senator Dalphond: Let me interrupt. What you have there is an aggravating factor during the sentencing process. You have to be charged first and then found guilty. The three offences that you can be charged with are theft, robbery or mischief. Peaceful demonstration or preventing access to a road is not mischief, robbery or theft.
It is related to three specific offences. We are not creating a new offence. We are just saying for these three offences, if it were done for the purpose of targeting essential infrastructure, like stealing parts of essential infrastructure, then it becomes an aggravating factor in the sentencing process.
I understand your concerns, but maybe your concerns can be addressed because this is very limited in scope. It is related to robbery, theft and mischief.
Ms. Perrie: Thank you for narrowing my focus.
With respect to mischief, that is a charge that peaceful protesters quite regularly do receive. With respect to theft, I understand that your specific concern — and to go to the other senator’s comment — is with respect to copper wire. Outside of those specific circumstances, theft can — in terms of a theft charge in relation to essential infrastructure, we can think about it, in this case, as stripping copper wire. That can also encompass a situation where the RCMP or other enforcement agencies come into an area where there is a peaceful protest regarding essential infrastructure and a theft perhaps occurs that’s not directly related to that essential infrastructure, as in a piece of copper wire, but perhaps relates to an object that those enforcement personnel bring into that environment.
That can create a situation where there is theft and mischief arising out of those exact circumstances. I understand it’s nuanced, and it really depends from situation to situation. That’s why I think we can trust the judges who have been appointed in this country to assess on a case-by-case basis and apply a sentence that is deserved in due course.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to all of the witnesses on this panel. We really appreciate your attendance here today, both by video conference and in person, and we really appreciate your participation. Your contributions to this study have been valuable and will inform and shape the committee’s work in the coming weeks.
If there are any further comments you wish to make to amplify or augment any of the things you’ve said, you can provide them in writing to the clerk, which will be helpful to us. It will be distributed to all senators on the committee. Thank you for your attendance here today.
Colleagues, we are still in session. I will raise a couple of issues.
Senators, before we adjourn, I wish to take a few minutes to discuss the note that I shared with members of the committee on Monday regarding an interim report. The purpose here is for the committee to prepare a comprehensive and substantive interim report on the subject matter of Part 4 of Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure. Really, it is the privacy issues surrounding the Canada Elections Act.
Given the breadth of evidence received during this study, including the mounting concerns related to the adequacy, uniformity and enforcement of the newly enacted privacy regime for the federal political parties, an interim report would provide the committee with an opportunity to further elaborate on its findings beyond those set out in its fourth report, particularly in light of the limited time available for this study and with respect to the exchange of messages between the House of Commons and the Senate.
This proposed interim report would be approximately 15 to 20 pages in length, prepared under our general order of reference, and it would reflect the evidence already received. It is based on the evidence that we heard, with the aim of presenting it to the Senate prior to the end of this session in June.
It’s rare that this committee has a chance to commence studies and complete studies, as you know. We also know that Bill C-25 has been introduced in the other place, but if you look at Bill C-25, it doesn’t really address any of the issues that were raised by the witnesses whom we heard during our study of Part 4 of Bill C-4.
I’m now asking the senators to discuss this issue because I would like the senators to agree that we commence a study, as it has been framed.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, chair, for this initiative. I only have one question. Since this interim report is related to a government bill, will its preparation and our study and our work on it have precedence over additional or other government bills?
The Chair: Well, I know that we will be giving instructions to the analysts. They will be preparing this. I discussed it with them. It will not take any additional time of the committee. It will be prepared. We will just see the draft before we complete it.
Senator Saint-Germain: So it won’t have precedence over any other government bill that we may receive?
The Chair: No. To be quite frank, it may well be prepared during the break weeks in May by the analysts. We will see. Yes, it is thanks to the analysts in many ways.
Senator Batters: Yes, that was certainly my understanding that it would not take precedence over government business.
We have this bill right now, and I think we have another one referred to us, and we could have a further one after that.
But just to confirm, this is intended to be a summary of the facts and evidence that was heard dealing with Part 4 of Bill C-4. That is what it is intended to be.
This committee may well get to study Bill C-25, so we probably shouldn’t make any comments about what is or is not included in that bill before we’ve actually had a chance to study it.
The Chair: That’s probably wise advice. Thank you, Senator Batters. Regarding your assessment of the quality of the evidence, yes, that’s the way we intend it. There will be no additional evidence called. It is a summary of the evidence related to the issues. Basically, it will be an amplification of the report that we’ve already done.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We’ve already discussed the possibility of a report. I wasn’t too keen on that, because we’ve already made our voices heard in the Senate and the House of Commons. I wonder if, considering the answers we’ve received, we really need to reopen the debate to end up repeating in a 15-page report what’s already been said. I think the work’s already been done. I question the need to do it again, even if I don’t totally disagree. I absolutely support what we have done. It’s clear Part 4 had major privacy issues, but we’ve already said that. What’s the point of saying it again in the current context?
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you for asking that question because I actually think this goes a bit to the heart of the role of committees. We studied it. We didn’t have the ability to actually directly influence, and that procedural piece was a big part of the hindrance of the issues not getting dealt with. It may have been overturned in the other place anyway.
I’m very appreciative of the staff being willing to do this during the non-sitting weeks. I think it is really important to get that information out.
As we know, oftentimes judges and others are looking at the record and the reports of committees on these issues. It’s pretty clear this issue will come up, at least in the public, so having something on record, I think, is really important beyond the evidence.
Senator Dalphond: You called it an “interim report,” so that means something else will follow? I would rather call it a “summary of evidence” heard on Part 4 of Bill C-4, but I guess an interim report is calling for a follow-up.
The Chair: It is called an “interim report” because it is done under the general order of reference we already have. Senator Batters advises that this has been done in the past and, I think, fairly regularly but not so much recently.
Senator Batters: Actually, chair, what I said is that we used to frequently do a significant summary of evidence when we reported a bill, as part of the actual bill’s report, not later. But this would be done, I guess, after the fact.
Senator Dalphond: That’s the point of my question. It’s after the fact or ex post facto, where we are doing an interim report after a final report — a special report.
Senator Clement: I won’t speak to what you call it; I am okay. I wanted to respond to the question from Senator Miville-Dechêne.
Our study of Part 4 was remarkable as a committee. What happened happened in the chamber and then beyond. It is personally disappointing, but after that, there were so many questions — to me anyway — by civil society and by Canadians generally saying, “What happened? Why did it happen so quickly? What are we talking about?”
I think having the analysts give us this report will be helpful in terms of satisfying some questions that Canadians are still having about this, while showing that we’re following up on that remarkable work that we did as a committee with all of that testimony. So I certainly approve of this effort. Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, if there is no other discussion, I know the interpreters have to leave in eight minutes.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs draft an interim report, under its general order of reference, based on the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished by the committee on the subject matter of Part 4 of Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, during the First Session of the Forty-fifth Parliament? Is it agreed or disagreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any other comments?
Senator Saint-Germain: If I may, respectfully, can we try to see what can be done with the title? Because I share Senator Dalphond’s concerns. It could be an ad hoc report or special report. Or find something that will speak to what it is.
The Chair: It is essentially privacy issues inside the current Canada Elections Act. It is not really Part 4 of Bill C-4. It’s the privacy issues relating to the Canada Elections Act.
Okay. That is recorded as agreed.
I have one other issue I want to raise. Later this evening, after you leave, the steering committee will be discussing options for possibly accelerating the clause-by-clause process of Bill C-14. That is because of the time limits we have. The chair needs to report this bill no later than May 6, as I understand it, and the reason is that it has to be dealt with by the Senate in the chamber to receive the report and, perhaps, move to third reading.
I am advised by Senator Dalphond that should the report be made to the chamber on the next first available day, which would be Tuesday, May 26, it could put in jeopardy the ability of the report to go, perhaps with amendments, back over to the House of Commons and then their response back to the Senate. That’s predicated on an understanding that I had that the House of Commons would adjourn for the summer session on Friday, June 5.
An Hon. Senator: What?
The Chair: This is published. However, there are two weeks that are available to the House of Commons as an option, but according to the calendar, they intend to leave on June 5, so this is a predicament.
Senator Pate: Like the Honourable Senator Tannas said, their lack of planning is not our emergency.
The Chair: I wanted to let you know that we are studying that. I don’t know how the steering committee will deal with the issue, but that’s what we have.
Senator Batters: I wanted to make the point that, first of all, I would be stunned if that were actually correct about the House of Commons adjourning for the summer. It is not a prorogation. I have not heard that.
Also, there is no actual fixed timeline that this committee needs to report Bill C-14. It is an informal thing at this point. The government’s wishes about it are not a formal timeline. I think it is most important that we do this in a good fashion and with adherence to all of these different things, including the requirements that we all have, both in the chamber and with other committees. We will discuss it at steering. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Dalphond, do you want to make any comments? You have raised this issue.
Senator Dalphond: Briefly.
I don’t see anything special about June 5 on the House of Commons calendar, except that the week after, they can have extended sittings. That being said, we have a problem because we don’t sit for two weeks right in the middle of May.
I hear that if we have a report with amendments and observations and if we wrap it up in the morning of Thursday, May 7, then it won’t be possible for the clerk and the committee staff to table it in the Senate Chamber that day. This means that it will be tabled on May 26. If it is a report with amendments, we have to vote on the report’s amendments, and we cannot move to third reading before the following day. If people start talking about the content of the report or the bill, we may end up still debating the bill at the end of May.
We know what is happening in June. I don’t know how long they will sit, but let’s say they sit until Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. They’ll have to deal with more than this bill because everybody will be rushing and packing the schedule to get rid of many bills at the same time. I think those were some concerns: Why put ourselves in a corner if we can avoid it? If we wrap it up on May 6 and table it on May 7 — if that is manageable — then that will give enough time, I think, for our able staff to have a report ready by May 7, but there are two weeks there, which is a huge gap that we’re facing.
The Chair: Do you have any comment about how much time is required?
Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: It depends on how many amendments there are. If it is a bill with amendments, it gets more complicated.
Senator Batters: I’m looking at the House of Commons calendar. It clearly is sitting until June 19. I don’t know where this June 5 thing comes from. I haven’t heard anything about that. That’s what their calendar says. It has it in green as a sitting day, and the government has shown itself that they can quickly kick messages back to the Senate. That’s what they did on the last two bills, so I don’t think that would be different here, if necessary.
Senator Tannas: I just wanted to add one more element to this. I mean, colleagues, I think we’ve heard a lot of evidence on this bill, and I’m just wondering how much more value we’re going to get out of in-person testimony over the next while. I was wondering if we could ask the witnesses who are scheduled for next Thursday to submit written briefs. This is obviously for you to consider such that maybe we could do clause by clause on Thursday and move on.
The reason I am interested in this is because I’m of the understanding that decisions are being made on the next bill that changes the Criminal Code, and at the moment, there is a supposition by leadership that we’re too busy to deal with it, so they will give Bill C-9 to a committee that is not typically seized with Criminal Code issues because we’re “too busy.”
If the steering committee, in its wisdom, sees and if other members here believe that we have a good body of evidence on which we can opine and we can ask for written briefs from the last panel, then we could get ourselves in a position to at least be considered by leadership and by the Senate as being assigned a bill that, traditionally, we would and should be dealing with. That’s really it. Obviously, there are a lot of people who need to agree with that and think that this is the way to go.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas. Senator Batters wants to make a comment, and then I think that’s the last word because it will be up to the steering committee, based on what everyone said here, to try to come up with a work plan that gets us to the end of this.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to say that we do have some very important witnesses coming up from whom I think it would be a shame to just receive a written brief, including victims, police associations and that sort of thing, who will be in Ottawa anyway for their organizations’ meetings next week. It is very well timed for that, and it’s important testimony to give. I think we should continue with the work plan that we, at steering, have done. We have four hours potentially set aside for clause by clause. That is a lot. We can add more if need be, but we don’t even know if we need it right now. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your attention and the extended discussion here this evening. It leaves the responsibility on the steering committee to resolve some of these issues.
(The committee adjourned.)