THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 7, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 10:31 a.m. [ET] to consider 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 morning, honourable senators. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I am David Arnot, a senator from Saskatchewan and chair of the committee.
I now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Housakos: Senator Housakos, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre J. Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 Territory, Alberta.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 Territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 Territory. There is nobody left in the territory; we’re all here.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Good morning. Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we’re meeting to continue clause-by-clause consideration for Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).
We’re joined by officials from the Department of Justice Canada, to assist us in our examination should members have any technical questions about the bill. We’re very thankful to have with us this morning Owen Ripley, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector; Samantha Reynolds, Legal Counsel, Youth Criminal Justice Division, Family Law and Youth Justice Section; Lise-Anne Wheeler, Counsel, Youth Criminal Justice Division, Family Law and Youth Justice Section.
I want to thank the committee again for the constructive discussion and deliberation we had yesterday. Senators, we are scheduled to meet until 1:30 today to complete clause-by-clause consideration. I want to thank members for their attention and cooperation as we proceed through these discussions.
I would like to move with some urgency on some of these issues in order to complete the work that we have to do by 1:30. It would be nice if we were finished in advance of that.
I will remind you that we adjourned yesterday after agreeing to carry clause 58, on division. We will now resume debate this morning at clause 58.1 and on Senator Prosper’s amendment. Senator Prosper, the floor is yours.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, chair. I move:
That Bill C-14 be amended in clause 58.1, on page 29,
(a) by replacing line 22 with the following:
“recidivism by accused at large on release orders, rates of detention in custody before trial and”;
(b) by adding the following after line 27:
“(3) In preparing the report, the Minister must
(a) consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection and the criminal justice system; and
(b) to the greatest extent feasible, coordinate the collection of data with Statistics Canada.”.
Colleagues, I’m going to reference the CCLA submission of March 16:
Bill C-14 is not the result of a careful and deliberate evidence-based proposal to address perceived shortcomings in the bail system. As the Minister of Justice has put it, “It is not as though there is an effective national data set that will demonstrate conclusively that certain changes will or will not have a desired impact.”
I think it is fair to say, colleagues, that a lot rests in appropriate data and having that data in a timely manner. We all know how good data informs good policy, and good policy informs good law.
I do not believe this threshold is too heavy at all. It places a requirement to consult individuals — this is in consultation, as we all know, within a section 35 context. It is more or less allowing the appropriate people to talk to people who are versed in data and collecting data, and who have intimate knowledge of the criminal justice system.
Given the weight of the issues that we’re dealing with, and dealing with bail provisions within the Criminal Code isn’t a new endeavour for us. It has been done before, as we know, through previous legislation. Undoubtedly, we may be back here again talking about bail reform.
It would be good to have good data sets to inform good policy and good legislation to help us make the appropriate decisions that we all need to keep people safe and to address the real issues before us.
That’s my amendment. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Prosper. We will move to debate.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you. I’m happy to report to Senator Prosper that the government is supportive of the amendment to paragraph (a) to add the rates of detention in custody before trial release orders.
I will ask Senator Prosper if he will agree to delete the second part — which is adding that subsection (3), which calls for the ministers, in preparing their report, “to consult with individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection expertise in data and the criminal justice system,” and “to the greatest extent feasible, coordinate the collection of data with Statistics Canada,” — for the following reasons. First, Statistics Canada is an independent agency, so we should not be trying to interfere. We could ask them to collect data; if they collect it and provide the data, that’s one thing. The analysis has to be done based on the report. It is a report from the minister, and this is very vague to say that they will consult with individuals. One might wonder how many individuals and how many organizations. That will be up to the minister to decide, but at the end of the day, that may result in expenses and also in delay. This is really the part where the minister shall come up with the report and should be free to decide with the officials the analysis of the report.
So to summarize, the government is supportive of the first part of the amendment, but not (b). Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, chair. I want to say that I support any efforts that we can make to improve the quality and the quantity of the data, but I think it goes further than that. I would disagree with the comments of Senator Dalphond with respect to (b). I think it puts some onus on the minister to move the needle on this issue of data collection instead of just simply coming here and complaining about the lack of a national data set. Somebody needs to take ownership of this problem, and the best person to take ownership of this problem is the Minister of Justice. I think that rather than suggesting that we delete (b), I think we should keep it. There are enough broad concepts in there that it does not tie the minister’s hands, except for the idea that somebody has got to get on with solving this problem and not just come here and complain about it. Those are my comments, chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll be brief, since a number of my points have already been made.
I support this amendment in full. For one thing, we’ve really struggled with the lack of rates of detention in custody before trial. This has really made our lives complicated during all the committee meetings. I believe that paragraph (a) is broad enough. It says that people must be consulted to ensure that the minister doesn’t work in a silo. Obviously, the governments run this risk, so they will consult the people of their choice. They don’t need to consult the entire population. In that sense, I think that this amendment is sound.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thanks very much. I believe that the first part could be fine. But the second part (b), “in preparing the report, the minister must consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection and the criminal justice system; and then, to the greatest extent feasible, coordinate the collection of data with Statistics Canada.” I am not sure if this needed to be in legislation because I would hope, for the (a) part, that they are already doing that. I don’t think it is necessary. It is fairly redundant, and when we are already having these kinds of major amendments made to the Criminal Code, we should try to make it as streamlined as possible. I don’t think that that part of it really adds anything that would not already be done.
Senator Dalphond: May I ask the officials maybe to explain how it works for the collection of data by the provinces.
Owen Ripley, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice Canada: Thanks very much, senator, for the question. I would say a better understanding of trends in the criminal justice system is a priority for the department and for the minister. In response to some of the comments Senator Tannas made, we are very seized with the fact that there are currently gaps in our understanding of what is going on. I think you heard that at the beginning of the study, and you heard that from colleagues at Statistics Canada. There are two groups of works currently underway that are a priority for the minister, the department and me. The first is looking at criminal justice indicators that indicate the overall health of the criminal justice system. Some of those data points we have — crime severity index, crime indexes, those kinds of things — but there are some big gaps in that. Overrepresentation being one of them, data on criminal justice system delays being another, so work is underway right now with my team in consultation with the provinces and the territories to agree the data points that we should be collecting. Let’s get to a point where we can all measure the impact of initiatives on the criminal justice system. That’s the first tranche.
The second tranche relates specifically to bail. There has been intensive work underway with the provinces and territories over the last year and a bit. We have developed — again our colleagues at Statistics Canada shared this with you — a methodology to ensure that we would have consistent data reporting on a national scale. We have mapped each province and territory in terms of where they are at in terms of their ability to provide that data, and work is underway in the provinces and territories to move us to a place where we could have national bail data, and the minister actually is financially supporting the work in the provinces and territories. We have recently approved a number of contribution agreements at the department to support that work.
We do work hand in hand with Statistics Canada. In terms of the amendment that is on the table — as senators are aware, this section of the act was added in the House of Commons. There are things that are provided for in that report that we do not currently have data for, so we should be eyes open about that. Again, part of this exercise is getting to a place where we can report on that data. The addition of recidivism is another one where right now we do not have national data, for example, on that. Pretrial rates of detention, yes.
I think that the second part of the amendment, the effect of that, is to add a process obligation on the minister in terms of tabling that annual report. The way that the department currently sees what the House of Commons has done is a requirement for the minister to provide, on an annual basis, basically a factual description of how the bail system is working. That factual description, that data, and those indicators then provide the ability for other stakeholders and for civil society to comment on it and debate the direction things are going in. Right now, from that department’s perspective, it is really focused on that factual understanding of what is going on, and our team at the Department of Justice Canada — we have a strong research and stats team — and the team at Statistics Canada — assuming we can get to a place where the provinces and territories can provide that data — would be well placed to do that kind of report. I would leave it from a process perspective for others to do the commentary and analysis of that data and, again, what it shows or doesn’t show.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ripley.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Senator Prosper, for bringing forward this amendment, and Senator Tannas, I appreciated your intervention. I would agree. When the minister came here, he was very clear. “We have some data in Canada, but it’s not great, to be honest” was his quote. So anything that assists the minister in doing his job to get the information when the provinces and territories come to him and are demanding the fourth tranche of reviews to the bail provisions — we’re in the third one without the data — he will be able to push back and say, “I need this data. It is in the legislation.” I strongly support this amendment and hope that we can call the question.
The Chair: Senator Tannas. I just wanted to acknowledge Senator Oudar after you.
Senator Tannas: After me. Great.
I did not hear anything in your answer that said that what is being asked here would somehow prevent what the minister and your intentions now are to fix this problem. Maybe we could suggest that once you have the problem fixed in a budget implementation act, you could get rid of these words and declare that it is fixed. But until it is fixed, — I think what you have run into here is frustration from Parliamentarians across both houses. We have some improvements on the expression of frustration in the House of Commons.
Am I wrong in saying that there is something in here that would really impede the minister’s ability to get on with making this report?
Mr. Ripley: Senator, the only thing that I would ask the committee to consider — and, ultimately, we are in your hands — is the obligation to consult. There are lots of folks who have very strong opinions on what the data says. What I was trying to communicate is that, from the department’s perspective and understanding what the House of Commons has done, the objective of the report is to provide that factual understanding of what is taking place; it is not to opine on whether it is going in the right direction.
So, the only note of caution I would ask the committee to consider — again, we are in your wise hands — is that when you have that obligation to consult others, in my experience, stakeholders are going to generally want to know if the data is going in the right direction; whereas, again, I think the core objective of the report is to just paint a portrait of what is going on and then leave it for others to opine on whether it is the right direction.
Senator Tannas: Would it be easier if, in (a), it said, “consult individuals and organizations with specific expertise in data collection”? I understand what you mean: The minister does not want to hear how everybody feels about it in advance. The objective is to get —
Mr. Ripley: And it will be an annual obligation. We are also asking the committee to keep in mind that this will be an obligation that will fall to the minister and the department on an annual basis to write that report. To the extent that the committee does see it as wise to include the obligation to consult, as well, we will have to put a process in place — it will be a legislative obligation that means something, so the department will have to work with the minister to put in place a process to meet that obligation.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
I might want to reserve the opportunity to put forward a subamendment.
The Chair: Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I won’t repeat everything said. I agree with the comments made. I think that you touched on this, Mr. Ripley. In order to fully understand the state of affairs, I believe that it’s necessary to consult. I fully support the amendment to paragraph (a).
I would like to address a comment made by Senator Dalphond regarding the independence of Statistics Canada and about not needing to meddle in their processes, in particular in paragraph 3(b). I’m referring to this paragraph of the Statistics Act, which states that they must, and I quote: “collaborate with departments of government in the collection, compilation and publication of statistical information . . .”. If coordinating all this can cause problems, I think that we need to stick to the provisions of the Statistics Act and talk about collaboration.
Then, paragraph 3(d) states that Statistics Canada must, and I quote: “promote the avoidance of duplication in the information collected by departments . . .”. I believe that this falls right in line with the mission of the department and Statistics Canada. To take into account Statistics Canada’s independence, we could easily talk about a form of collaboration rather than coordination. We would probably achieve the same goal that Senator Prosper is pursuing — I hope so, anyway — while respecting everyone’s jurisdictions and statements.
I also support the amendment, but with a slight modification to comply with the Statistics Act.
Senator Saint-Germain: I support only the first part of this amendment. I’m concerned about the logistics of this bill should we decide to adopt the second part. The information provided there concerns the details of a consultation that, at most — and even then — should be covered by the regulations. This applies in particular to paragraph (3)(a), which states as follows:
consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection and the criminal justice system;
This is both vague and detailed.
Granted, we’ve heard from a number of experts and practitioners about the lack of reliable data. However, I think that this constitutes an excessive demonstration of our frustration with the data as a whole. I would personally propose an amendment to Senator Prosper’s amendment so that only paragraph (a) could be voted on.
[English]
The Chair: All right. There is potential for two subamendments.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, colleagues, for all your suggestions and comments.
I just want to go back to your comments, Mr. Ripley, particularly your dialogue with Senator Tannas.
I want to be accurate in terms of certain reservations for adopting, more specifically, the (b) part of the amendment. When we are looking at words like “consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection and within the criminal justice system,” you are viewing that as a process obligation. It is all right to report factually, but when you get into interpretation in terms of what the data means, that’s another thing.
I thought the intent of the language here is to be something at the front end. It only makes sense that if you are getting into two tranches of research, one being overrepresentation, then, at least at the front end, you talk to relevant groups and organizations to get their perspectives on that, in addition to whatever other avenues — provinces, things of that nature — to frame it out in a way to ensure you collect the appropriate data.
Do you see anything with this language, maybe through the word “consult,” that suggests that these individuals or organizations with this expertise have an active role with the interpretation of data, or do you think it could stand independently through the word “consult” that they are just considered at the front end of this endeavour?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, Senator Prosper.
I agree with you that part of doing a good job on policy and research is to consult and incorporate those perspectives into how we approach a problem. There is a lot of engagement already taking place, for example, in relation to the lack of data and the overrepresentation context.
The note of caution I am sounding, though, is that, at the end of the day, the committee is considering an annual obligation on the minister to table a report, which, again, would be accompanied by a legislative obligation to do a consultation. As someone who has to operationalize that for the minister, if this were to pass, I will have to sit down with my team and say, “We now have to support the minister in tabling this report in Parliament every year. It includes this obligation to consult.” That will require us every year to basically do something that, from our perspective, meets that threshold of consulting with the list of individuals or organizations here.
There has to be meaning to that process.
And we will have to do that every year.
To your point, there will be value in that from ensuring that we are collecting the right data.
The note of caution I would sound, though, is that stakeholders will often want to move past what the core obligation is to talk about what it means and seek to insert that into the report. We’ll have to manage those expectations because the legislative obligation is pretty clear about the points of data that it should indicate. It’s not the minister opining whether it’s going in the right direction; that is left to others.
We’re integrating a process where the department will have to manage those expectations and that process on an annual basis. Again, I leave it to your wisdom about that, but that is an added process to this tabling of the report that will have to have meaning and support behind it.
Senator Prosper: What I get from that is that the basic core element is talking to the relevant people and it being meaningful. Okay. If that’s the threshold, then I don’t think it’s a bad one.
Thank you.
The Chair: Right now, it seems there might be a subamendment to paragraph (3)(a), and it seems there might be a motion to strike all of subsection (3). I’m probably going to ask Senator Tannas if he wants to make a subamendment and add in the word “specific” with “specific expertise.” So between the words “with” and “expertise,” “specific” would be added in. Is that true, Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: In listening to the exchange and understanding what Mr. Ripley has said about having to do this annually, I would like to propose two changes. One is to insert the word “specific” between “with” and “expertise,” and to remove the word “and” and insert the word “in the criminal justice system.”
The Chair: Okay. Can we treat that as just one subamendment with those two changes?
Senator Tannas: [Technical difficulties]
The Chair: So there is a subamendment proposed by Senator Tannas. Colleagues, is there more debate?
Senator Dalphond: Not debate, but just a comment. I understand that the official sees the annual reporting to be an obligation; they have to do it. It is going to add a factor. They are not opposed to consulting people before or after the fact in the process during the year, but this is going to add something specific before the report is released.
But I understand that the subamendment of Senator Tannas will restrict involvement. It has to be about data collection, specifically, and not about all stakeholders that want to see something about the criminal law system.
I think this addresses part of the concerns I had, because I think it’s more specific and not necessarily related to the criminal law system; it’s about analyzing and processing data. Maybe this is something that is a good thing as long as we have the budget maybe to hire these people who sometimes come with expertise and a bill.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Clement, did you want to make an intervention?
Senator Clement: Not at this point, no.
Senator Saint-Germain: I got my answer is in the last comments of Senator Dalphond. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Very briefly, to me, none of that still takes away from the fact that it is just completely redundant. Of course, that would be done. We don’t need to put that in the Criminal Code.
Senator Prosper: I just want to add that I don’t think it’s completely a given with paragraph (3)(b) that things are automatically coordinated with Statistics Canada; I don’t think it’s a given. I just want to add that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We’re at a point, then, of debate on the subamendment of Senator Tannas. We’re adding the word “specific” between “with” and “expertise,” and taking out the word “and” and adding in the word, “in.” There are two changes: it’s one subamendment. This has to be in writing, so we’ll have to suspend, but we’ll do that shortly. Then, I believe, we’ll have another amendment from Senator Saint-Germain, which would expunge all of (3) from the proposed amendment. We’ll proceed in that order.
Does anyone have any questions about that? All right. We’ll now suspend for preparation of the amendment in writing. Everyone has before them the subamendment moved by Senator Tannas. Are there any questions about that? It’s adding in the word “specific” after “with” and “and the criminal” is expunged and replaced with “in the criminal,” in the English version. Are you ready for the question?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the subamendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: We’ll have a recorded vote. If you are in favour of the subamendment, it’s yes. And if you’re not, it’s no.
Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?
Senator Oudar: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator K. Wells?
Senator K. Wells: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 9; nays 5; abstentions, 0.
The Chair: Therefore, the subamendment is adopted.
Now we have before us a second subamendment. It is proposed by Senator Saint-Germain, and it removes all of (b), which contains (3) (a) and (3) (b) from the proposed amendment. Are there any questions about what we’re voting on? This would expunge all of 3, which includes (3) (a) and (b). Yes, if you’re in favour of expunging, and no if you’re not in favour of expunging. Any questions by anyone? Should we go do a recorded vote? Ready for the question? Are you in favour of the subamendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I can’t determine it. I would like to have a recorded vote.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?
Senator Oudar: Abstention.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator K. Wells?
Senator K. Wells: No.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 5; nays, 8; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
We are back on the main amendment of Senator Prosper’s to amend the bill pursuant to the amendments that we’ve just dealt with.
Are senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: It’s carried on division. We now move to clauses 59 and 60.
Are those clauses carried?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: Division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Any questions?
Are clauses 61 to 69 carried?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
An Hon. Senator: On division
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clause 70 carry?
Senator Simons: Chair, there is an amendment.
The Chair: There is an amendment put forward by Senator Simons. Please read the amendment you are proposing and then speak to it on debate.
Senator Simons: Yes. This will take a bit of time to read out, so my apologies. With respect, Senator Dalphond, I would like to read the amendment into the record.
I move:
That Bill C-14 be amended in clause 70, on page 33, by replacing lines 35 to 37 with the following:
“(4.2) If a peace officer publishes information under subsection (4.1), the peace officer shall, as soon as reasonably practicable and, in any event, no later than 24 hours after the publication,
(a) make an application under subsection (4) if the publication continues to be required; or
(b) make an ex parte application under subsection (4.3) if the publication of the information has ceased.
(4.3) An application under paragraph (4.2)(b) shall be made to the youth justice court for the purpose of determining whether the criteria set out in subsection (4.1) were met at the time of the publication. On the application, the youth justice court shall make a declaration that the criteria were met or that they were not met.
(4.4) If the youth justice court determines that the criteria set out in subsection (4.1) were not met, it shall state the reasons for that determination on the record.
(4.5) For greater certainty, on an application under subsection (4.3), the youth justice court may allow a peace officer a reasonable time to provide additional affidavit evidence for the purpose of enabling the court to make the determination required under that subsection.”.
As you will perhaps remember, I had a lot of concerns about this clause. Initially, my recommendation was going to be that we simply vote down this clause, but after a lot of thought and consultation, especially with Senator Dhillon, I have come up with something that I hope will be more amenable to the group.
I don’t want to belabour the debate here, but you may recall from our earlier rounds of testimony, in my time as a journalist, I have seen firsthand how the publication of a young person’s information in a situation like this can destroy their prospects for a normal future. Now in the present day, with social media, that problem is worse.
Let’s recall what clause 70 is about. This allows police, without a court order from a judge, to release the name, the photograph and identifying information of a suspected young offender. This is not somebody who has been convicted of a crime, necessarily, but somebody for whom the police are searching. That person can be as young as 12 years old. Imagine the consequences if you are 12, 13, 15 or 17 and the police release your name and photograph. Even if they take it down promptly, that name and photograph will be out on the internet forever. The Crown has very little power to stop malicious actors or even people who believe they are well intentioned from spreading that information on TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit or any social media platform, many of which are really beyond the reach of Canadian law.
What we have now in Canada is a system where if you want to release that name, you have to go to court and get an emergency order from a judge to do so. The change to this legislation would allow the police to do that without a court order.
As I said, my first reaction was, no, that’s a very bad plan, but after speaking at length with Senator Dhillon, hearing his experience as a police officer and listening to the other testimony, I think we can imagine there are dire, exigent circumstances might suggest that releasing a name would be in the public interest, but we need to have some guardrails around that so that the police do not develop a practice of releasing such names willy-nilly.
This legislation opens a new door to how young persons are treated under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and even with the best of intentions, I fear it is possible that the police will make mistakes. We need to ensure we have guardrails and, as I said, that we have some kind of accountability after the fact.
This amendment proposes to inject a measure of judicial accountability into the system. I’m not proposing anything that would slow down the ability of police to act quickly in a case, for example, where they have a credible tip that a young person is on the way to a school to commit a spree shooting. We have heard that creating that kind of break would defeat the whole purpose of this legislation, and as Senator Dalphond has reminded us, I’m not trying to propose anything that is contrary to the scope of the legislation.
The bill, as it now stands, puts a 24-hour cap on the authority given to police to publish a young person’s information, after which they do have to obtain a court order to keep doing so. I listened with great interest to the mechanism that Senator Dhillon suggested several times during our meetings: There ought to be some sort of after-action requirement for review, even in cases where the publication was withdrawn prior to a court order being necessary. I believe this should happen after every case so police can learn from these incidents and strive to always improve their decision making. I think that is a value that speaks for itself.
With this amendment, I am proposing a modification of the requirement to seek a court order for publication beyond 24 hours so that it would apply in every case where a police officer makes a publication under this authority. This authorization also proposes several risks to say a young person, particularly given that it relates to a person under suspicion rather than one charged with or convicted of an offence. The risk of error by police in this provision is real, and the harm caused to young people by an erroneous or unnecessary publication is likely to be extremely serious.
This would require that police can act on their own authority, but they have to go before a judge afterward to explain why they did. This would include a requirement for ex parte judicial oversight of the police decision to publish, even if the police catch the young person and take it down in less than 24 hours. If the publication is withdrawn before the application is made to the court, the court may grant the police additional time to provide comprehensive information for the purpose of an after‑action review.
I have to say my office worked incredibly closely with Senator Dhillon’s office to craft this amendment. This is not the original version that we had, but after consultation with Senator Dhillon and his staff, we adapted the amendment, with a lot of input from them, to allow that police could have time afterward so that they do not have to rush in to get an ex parte order. They would have time to prepare a history of why this happened.
I’m very open to your questions on this.
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Simons said she closely consulted with Senator Dhillon. However, Senator Dhillon has asked me to place the following on the record, which are his concerns:
While I fully support accountability, youth privacy and a meaningful post-event review process, I am concerned that this amendment does not properly reflect the spirit and purpose of the legislation. The bill already contains an important safeguard by requiring police to seek judicial authorization if publication is required beyond the initial 24‑hour period. That is the fail-safe. The purpose of the provision is to allow police to act with great haste in truly exigent circumstances where they have met the threshold of reasonable grounds to believe that a young person poses an imminent risk of serious bodily harm and where immediate publication may be necessary to protect the public or locate the young person. Requiring police to return to court within that same emergency window, even when the publication has ceased, risks diverting attention and resources away from the urgent operational response.
I do support a post-event review and have submitted an observation recommending such a review, not a further judicial authorization process. That review could be conducted by an independent investigative office, such as the model that exists in British Columbia, or, where such a body does not exist, by another independent entity capable of reviewing the circumstances, providing feedback, addressing shortcomings and identifying best practices that can be applied by police agencies across the country.
So, in Senator Dhillon’s view, this approach preserves accountability without weakening the urgent public safety objective the bill is designed to achieve.
Senator Batters: I do oppose this amendment. I was also going to point to Senator Dhillon’s observation that he thought was the appropriate framework to have an accountability mechanism, not an amendment, but through an observation to relay that.
I do believe that this does change — even if less than it used to change it — a fairly major part of this bill that the government has put forward to try to fix this very serious circumstance. Let’s remember, after all, that in these types of situations, they have to act extremely quickly, and we’re dealing with things like trying to catch a murderer, either someone who is on the loose or someone who is about to potentially put a lot of lives in danger.
I just point to a few of the witnesses that we heard about this issue. First of all, Justice Minister Sean Fraser, when he spoke about this, he said:
On the issue of identifying information about youth offenders, there are safeguards in place. First and foremost, this is only for urgent situations.
Minister Fraser went on to say:
Getting information about an offender in a given set of circumstances that might save lives is something that I believe is important, though I think it will be rarely used in the context of a youth offender.
He pointed to other safeguards as well. And then he added:
But these are the kinds of things that we wanted to put in place to offer maximum protection and only allow this unique change in the law in circumstances where there is an urgent risk for serious harm to befall the public as a result of an emergency playing out in real time.
We also heard from the Commissioner of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who spoke in favour of this part as well to say: “This measured, time-limited authority will save critical time and enhance public safety during rapidly evolving investigations.”
Then as well one of the Justice officials, Claire Farid, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Family Law and Youth Justice Policy Section, and what she said to our committee was:
What I would say about the amendment in Bill C-14, which is intended to apply in very exceptional cases, is that a number of conditions have been set out to ensure that it is very, very few and specific cases where it could be applied.
The youth had to have already committed or is thought to be about to commit an indictable offence, and the situation has to be urgent.
In response to a question from Senator Simons, Ms. Farid went on to state:
The only people who are permitted under this provision to publish are the police, and there is a general prohibition in section 138 of the act that creates an offence for publication contrary to the act. It should be noted that it is possible for a youth’s identity to be published with a court order currently, so this does happen. We understand that once the publication period is completed, police must work to remove all of the references on their websites. Even if somebody has shared the link to their website, you will no longer be able to obtain that information. If they do become aware that someone else has published that information, they will work to ensure that they take it down.
For these reasons, I think that this is an important aspect of Bill C-14. Though I’m the critic of this bill, I certainly support this aspect of it, and I don’t support the amendment of Senator Simons, which would take away significant ability to use it effectively.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: May I ask a question first? Would you accept a question?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: You propose that two types of application, one which is already covered — if the publication continues, it is already in the bill.
Senator Simons: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: The other thing is if it is an ex post facto application and you say make an ex parte application, what do you mean by making an ex parte application?
Senator Simons: Well, what I mean is, in this hypothetical, the information has come down.
Senator Dalphond: And ceased to be published.
Senator Simons: Yes. So you have to ensure that any application you make is private, since you don’t want to re‑release the name of the young person. So the idea would be that you would come back to the court to say that these were the reasons.
Senator Dalphond: But you say ex parte who is appearing before the judge?
Senator Simons: I would guess the police.
Senator Dalphond: The police officer?
Senator Simons: Well, not necessarily, the officer, but, yes, the decision maker or the lawyer for the police. Because —
Senator Dalphond: Thank you. That answers my question.
The government’s position is to oppose this amendment, but before I summarize the government’s position, which will certainly be repetitive from what Senator Batters said, an ex parte application is that no other party is present in the room except the police officer. So that puts the judge in a very uncomfortable position, but you do it in a prior authorization. That is often the case.
But here the person being protected is the youth, apparently, so the youth is not even called to explain why he feels that this application should not have been done. So then the judge has to explain why he thinks that it was okay or not; for greater certainty, he may ask for further affidavits. He has to write a judgment, ex parte, about whether what happened was right or not or was maybe legal or illegal, and this will be used in court, in civil court, to proceed to seek damages. That will be all kinds of things. This is contrary to the rule of justice that we do not decide things that affect parties without hearing the parties.
I think we’re putting ourselves in more trouble than the system requires here. It is going to take, of course, judicial resources that are already scarce to do a kind of academic exercise with the police officer and say, “Why did you do that? And why did you feel that 12 hours would be enough? Whom did you talk to?” Yes, okay, well, I think that maybe you should — this is a kind of thing that judges do not really like.
So the government’s position is that this amendment is redundant in part because it is already covered. Senator Batters has certainly explained very accurately what the status is: no third party can publish information. It would be a criminal act, and they will be sued.
And the lack of judicial resources, I don’t have to repeat that. I think we should, unfortunately, say no to this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: My question is for the Justice officials in the room. We heard a lot from witnesses about the concerns with the section on privacy legislation, so I’m wondering if you could speak to how you have come to believe that this is compliant with existing legislation.
Mr. Ripley: Thanks very much for the question, senator. I do have our experts here if you want to dive deeper, but what is contemplated here is an exceptional circumstance allowing a police officer to publish identifying information in urgent circumstances. I think that is well understood, which is currently not permitted. Right now, as Senator Simons outlined, you would have to go and get the judicial order. That does risk losing time in these emergency situations.
The observations that were made by others; however, if at the end of that 24-hour period, the police officer does not come forward and seek authorization to continue to publish that information, that information must be removed; otherwise, you are committing an offence under section 138 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The police officer would be committing a criminal offence if it continued to be published, and any other person who continued to publish that identifying information, because they had seen initially the police report in that 24-hour period, they would be committing an offence under section 138 under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The core of your question is we are providing a very limited exception here with basically authorization of this amendment was to be passed with an understanding that if it were to go past the 24-hour mark, you would need judicial authorization to continue to do so. And any information left up after that period would potentially give rise to criminal liability under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Senator K. Wells: I think the minister gave maybe the example of an active school shooter situation. I guess that would be one extreme scenario. Would there be others that were contemplated?
Mr. Ripley: It would be any situation where, again, you would have to meet the threshold of you believe it is an indictable offence, that the young person is in imminent danger to the public, and basically, that the publication could help assist in identifying or locating that individual. So, yes, a school shooting could be one example, but there would be other situations where, again, you might fear that that youth was targeting a particular individual, family member, whatever the situation may be. But again, it is very exceptional.
The reason the government has brought forward this amendment is because it had heard from law enforcement about the concern that, in those kinds of situations, there is not time to get to a judge and seek a court order, and that time is really of the essence in those situations. That’s why the government is proposing this in a very limited, exceptional way.
Senator K. Wells: Two more quick questions, if I may. Would you envision this if a youth were reported to be harming themselves and couldn’t be located by parents or concerned family members?
Mr. Ripley: As currently drafted, senator, it would have to meet the threshold of being an imminent danger to the public. So I think if the fact situation were solely one about self-harm, it would not meet that threshold.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you for that.
Then my last question: In the drafting of this, are you able to tell us if you consulted with youth organizations directly about the privacy concerns and the extraordinary measures proposed here?
Lise-Anne Wheeler, Counsel, Youth Criminal Justice Division, Family Law and Youth Justice Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you for the question. Youth organizations were not consulted specifically, but the government consulted quite a bit with law enforcement.
Senator K. Wells: I would see that as a major absence and really calls into question whether we could support this or not without those organizations that represent these vulnerable young people being at the table, considering what we have heard here at committee. It is imperative that young people be consulted about these kinds of changes, particularly as these are really concerning privacy considerations. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you. I have a question for the officials as well, because I’m not up to date on the most recent data. For the first 10 years the Youth Criminal Justice Act, or YCJ, was in effect, every time there was a breach of the current privacy concerns, there were no prosecutions. What is the data now? How many prosecutions have there been for breaches of privacy?
Ms. Wheeler: Very few reported decisions on section 138.
Senator Pate: Very few. How many?
Ms. Wheeler: I don’t believe I have the specific numbers, but very few are reported.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that. I was not trying to trap you. I was trying to get more current.
There have been frequent breaches to these provisions over the years. Part of the reason I ask the question is there were a number of breaches that caused harm to young people that were reported, and the question was asked of the Department of Justice Canada, at the time: How many prosecutions? And it is largely up to the individual young person to then pursue this. So I speak in support of this amendment that is proposed by Senator Simons.
I would point out that although the sponsor has indicated it will take up government resources, this entire bill will take up a tonne of government resources to have new bail provisions. To have something that the minister and the officials have said is rarely used — to have this mechanism to look at it after the fact to ensure the Charter has been applied in an appropriate way, I think, is an excellent addition. So thank you, Senator Simons, for making this. I will vote in favour of the amendment.
Senator Simons: I’m glad of the opportunity to address some of the questions and concerns that have been raised around the table.
Senator Batters has said that what we don’t want to do is have legislation that would make it harder for police to do this. There is nothing in my proposed amendment that would add friction at the top. So if you have an exigent circumstance, we have seen terrible cases where a young person has killed family members and then taken that weapon and headed to the schools. To be able to alert people in a time of crisis like that, I understand the value in that. But we have also seen cases — egregious cases — where young people have been named and identified in cases that were not that exigent, where the police determined it was necessary nonetheless.
I spoke earlier about the case I had covered in Edmonton, where a young girl who was HIV-positive and her name, HIV status and picture were released to the public. She was charged with aggravated sexual assault — charges that, in the end, disappeared. Her name and photograph were left online over a long weekend because the police said they did not have the staff to come in and take them down. And that was with a court order.
I wonder if we ought not to just take a minute to think about what we need to do to just have some guidelines and some guardrails. What I hoped that people would like about this amendment is that it requires a police officer to make an ex parte application to the court as soon as is reasonably practical but in any case not later than 24 hours after publication. This allows the police some flexibility within that 24-hour period to wait until they have the information and the evidence they would need to bring before a court. This is largely no different from what the bill currently requires except that the police must do so even if the publication has ceased before 24 hours have passed.
Where the application is made after the publication has been withdrawn, subsection 4.3 under this amendment would apply. This directs a youth justice court to review whether the criteria for publication under subsection 4.1 were met and to make a declaration in the affirmative or the negative.
Now, Senator Dalphond has asked why this would be done ex parte. That is because that is the standard practice of this kind of legislation. Any publication order made under subsection 4 is already required to be ex parte. This is following the same approach that is already in the act.
So what this would deal with is it would allow the police to have a set of guidelines for future cases. We have heard that, in the chaos of a serious or exigent circumstance, it would be challenging for police to make a comprehensive application before the court. That is what Senator Dhillon explained to me. This is especially concerning in the case of an after-action review where the situation has hopefully been resolved, or at least the publication is no longer necessary. Here, since there is no longer a need to press the police to make a full submission to the court as quickly as possible, we have ensured that they can be granted extra time.
Somebody had raised the issue of — I think this was Senator Saint-Germain reading from Senator Dhillon’s notes — you are asking the police to do something in the middle of a crisis. Indeed, we are not. In a case of exigent circumstances, one would hope that the young person has been apprehended, perhaps before that 24-hour window. But the question is: What happens if the police fail to take the information down?
As Senator Pate notes and in her questions — I would like to ask Ms. Wheeler: Has there ever been a successful prosecution of a third party for the release of information about a young offender? Has anybody ever successfully sued Reddit, Facebook or a Substack blogger?
Samantha Reynolds, Legal Counsel, Youth Criminal Justice Division, Family Law and Youth Justice Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you, senator, for the question. I will jump in. We do not have the case handy, but there is a section 130 breach of law enforcement that does exist on the record. As my colleague mentioned, they are rare. Often, what we see in the case law — and there are not a lot of reported cases in this area, admittedly — is that where a young person’s privacy interests under Part 6, or the records provisions, where there has been a breach, these are often challenged in the context of section 8 of the Charter. Charter arguments are raised, and a Charter remedy could be fashioned in those types of cases. That’s often where it is dealt with as opposed to necessarily finding that the police committed an offence under section 138 —
Senator Simons: That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about the police committing an offence. I’m asking: Has a third party who has published information — because, as I understand this clause, only the police can publish the information. What I am saying to you is that it is not enough to take down a link. In 2026, it is very easy to screen capture and share on a multitude of platforms. What I’m asking — and we know this has happened in the past and it will go on happening — is, has there ever been a case where a mainstream journalism organization, a blogger, a Facebook poster, or a Reddit commentator has failed to take down the information and been charged with republishing this information after the time that the police took it down?
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you for the follow-up question. Are you asking about the current law? Under 110 (4), in the context of the current law, police can seek a court order and then publish the information. Are you asking afterward if it’s not taken down by a media organization or the police if we have any case law showing that there’s a breach there?
Senator Simons: Not the police. It is illegal to take this information and publish it after a takedown. I worked in the media for 30 years. In the old days, if you put the picture online and then the media organization took it down. A media organization could be properly prosecuted if it didn’t.
Has there ever been a successful prosecution of somebody who has republished this information on X, on Reddit, on Facebook, on TikTok, on any platform? That is what I am concerned about. If the police can release this information without court order and without any after-action review, the potential for more young people to have their privacy fundamentally violated in this way will increase significantly. What I’m asking is do we have a mechanism that is functional to punish people who republish that information?
I don’t think this is a difficult question. It may be a difficult answer.
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you, senator. I think it does raise some complexities. Thank you for sharing those views because I think they are important, especially when it comes to the context of youth privacy. The Youth Criminal Justice Act does vigorously protect youth privacy, and these extraordinary circumstances are difficult when those competing interests of public safety and youth privacy are coming up against each other.
In terms of whether we are aware of cases or prosecutions or issues post a 10 (4) publication, I don’t think we have a lot in that area. What we do hear anecdotally, and this may not be helpful, is that there are a lot of efforts by law enforcement to scrub that information and do reach outs to ensure that if they are aware of any information that is posted online, that they do those reach outs to give caution and a warning to alert the individual or the organization to remove it. Anecdotally in our work, we do hear that, generally, there is a lot of compliance with part 6 when it comes to individuals and organizations and the media. I think this is a piece where maybe awareness and training and an understanding of how the new law is intended to function, the scope of it. It would be something new, but in terms of how 10 (4) currently works, I don’t think we hear a lot of issues, but that’s also because 10 (4) publications are done in fairly rare circumstances.
I don’t know if that’s helpful.
Senator Simons: I think that is clarifying. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much. As I look at this amendment further, I’m not sure I understand what the purpose of having the police make an ex parte application under this amendment if the publication of the information has ceased, which is what 4.2 (b) says, because the publication would have ceased at that point. Then there is a thing about determining whether the criteria had been met in the past or if they had not been met, and maybe the purpose that Senator Simons desires is to make sure that, if it was not appropriate, that all information gets taken down as soon as possible. But there would already be that requirement for police to do that. So I don’t really understand what the purpose of having that additional layer of an ex parte application after the publication has ceased. You’re assuming, then, I guess, that the young person has been located or possibly arrested or whatever, but I don’t understand what the reason for an ex parte application would be at that point.
Senator Dhillon, with his significant experience in law enforcement, I think he would have a very good assessment of what would be needed in this type of urgent situation, but I also wanted to point to this part of the actual bill, in furtherance of what Senator Wells was asking about and the types of situations that this could apply to. And it is absolutely required. The first part that must be proven here to use this situation is that (a), “The young person has committed or is likely to commit an indictable offence” and everything else about the urgency follows that. If they can’t satisfy the indictable offence part, then none of the rest of it matters because it is an “and,” not an “or.” Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.
Senator Clement: I was listening to your exchange with Senator Wells, and you said you hadn’t consulted with youth organizations. Did you consult with digital media or media organizations when preparing this bill?
Mr. Ripley: Not to my recollection, senator. The major consultations that were done in advance of Bill C-14 were with provinces and territories. The minister and the department also engaged in a series of round-table discussions with various constituencies, which included law enforcement, civil society organizations, and folks representing Indigenous organizations. My recollection, though, is that there was not specific participation from media and digital media organizations in that.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Mr. Ripley. The reason I asked that question is we did receive briefs on this. The Criminal Lawyers’ Association is categorically against this section of the bill. They say police have no obligation to consider the impact on the young person’s eventual rehabilitation and reintegration when publishing their identity or to take into account that, in the age of the internet, information that enters the public domain can never be fully removed from it.
That’s the reason I ask the question. We are in the age of the internet and beyond, and you can’t easily remove this information.
The other brief we have is from the International Bureau for Children’s Rights, and they are categorically against the section in this bill because it is a breach of the convention of the rights for children.
Those two things I find compelling, and I’ll add this: Senator Simons’s amendment is a compromise. It is after the fact, and what that does is that helps to keep the focus on privacy. It happens; it’s an emergency, but afterward, we have to take the time to consider what has happened. The more that we consider what has happened, the more we can deal with the age of the internet. In addition, the more we consult with digital media up front when we’re legislating, the better it is to move forward and deal with the anti-internet.
I strongly support this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Simons. I think this is probably the last word because we’re ready for the question.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence. I wanted to remind everybody that 3 (b) (iii) sets out the principles of the bill and states the youth criminal justice system must:
. . . enhance procedural protections to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected.
As this is drafted, there are no procedural protections for youth, and there are no direct consequences if a publication turns out not to have been justified. This amendment puts in place some needed guardrails and procedural protections, and if someone says well, if the police are wrong, they’re committing an offence, it is not reasonable to suggest that the police might charge the police for acting improperly when the police thought they were doing the right thing in the first place.
This gives the responsibility to the court to say, “All right, you did this without a court order. Let’s see if you were justified in doing so.” Otherwise, what is the countervail to police defaulting to this?
As I said, I have personally covered stories where names were released in circumstances that were not exigent, in circumstances where a teenage sexual assault victim was charged with aggravated sexual assault because she had unprotected sex while her HIV viral load was nothing, and that girl’s name and face are still out there. It is impossible in this day and age to get that information back. While I don’t want this amendment to impede the right and the power of police to release a name in an exigent emergency circumstance, I do want them to take a beat. I do want them to remember that they will be required afterward to explain to a judge why they took that action.
I think that is not an unreasonable condition to put on this new power because, otherwise, we are granting the police an extraordinary new power without judicial oversight. This, as I say, does not go as far as my initial impulse, which was to ask for the deletion of this section, but simply says there needs to be a reckoning afterward before a judge so that a court can decide whether this was a legitimate use of an extraordinary new police power, one that puts the lives of children at potential risk. Because we’re not just talking about reputational damage —
The Chair: Senator Simons, you made those arguments before. I think we have a pretty clear understanding of what the issue is.
Senator Batters: I have to comment on one small part of what Senator Simons just said to make sure no one has a misperception about this.
If police break the law, the police are charged with breaking the law. There should be no doubt about that. We are in Canada, a rule-of-law country. That happens. It doesn’t matter if they have alternate processes for ensuring an independent review, but it does happen.
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to insist on Senator Dhillon’s views because he is the only one around this table who has law‑enforcement expertise in this context, and what he wanted me to say on his behalf is that the purpose of the provision is to allow the police to react with great haste in truly exigent circumstances where they have met the threshold of reasonable grounds to believe that a young person poses an imminent risk of serious bodily harm and where an immediate publication may be necessary to protect the public or locate the young person.
On Senator Simons’ amendment, his view is that requiring police to return to court within that same emergency window, even when the publication has ceased, risks diverting attention and resources away from the urgent operational responses.
This is why he supports a post-event review and has submitted an observation to that end. I think it’s important that we keep this in mind.
The Chair: All right. Are senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the nays have it. Do you want a recorded vote?
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?
Senator Oudar: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator K. Wells?
Senator K. Wells: Abstain.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 4; nays, 9; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Senators, shall clause 70 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Senators, shall clauses 71 to 80 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On Division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall 81 to 83 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 84 carry?
There are two proposed amendments: one from Senator Dalphond and one from Senator Pate.
Senator Dalphond: Maybe we should start with Senator Pate’s amendment, because I think if it were to be adopted, it would render my amendment unnecessary.
The Chair: Do you prefer to have Senator Pate —
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Pate, please speak to your amendment. Outline the amendment and speak on debate, please.
Senator Pate: I move:
That Bill C-14 be amended in the heading before clause 84 and in clause 84, on page 39, by replacing the heading and lines 25 to 27 with the following:
“Report and Coming into Force
84 (1) The Minister of Justice must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a report setting out
(a) the empirical data and evidence underlying the measures enacted by this Act;
(b) an assessment, based on that empirical data and evidence, of the anticipated impact of those measures on crime prevention; and
(c) an analysis of the anticipated impact of those measures on rates of persons in custody on remand or serving a sentence, including with respect to groups that are overrepresented or marginalized, including Indigenous peoples, racialized persons, women, youth, individuals experiencing homelessness, individuals living in poverty, and individuals living with addictions or mental health issues.
(2) The provisions of this Act come into force in accordance with the following:
(a) the Governor in Council may, by order, establish the text of a resolution providing for the coming into force of the provisions of this Act;
(b) a resolution referred to in paragraph (a) may be introduced in either House of Parliament only after the report referred to in subsection (1) has been tabled in that House and after a committee of that House has studied that report;
(c) a motion for the adoption of the resolution may be debated in both Houses of Parliament but may not be amended, and at the conclusion of the debate, the Speaker of each House shall immediately put every question necessary to determine whether or not the motion is concurred in; and
(d) the provisions of this Act come into force on the day provided for in the resolution, if the resolution has been adopted by both Houses of Parliament.”.
Colleagues, the rationale for this is that this amendment aims to address a concern repeatedly raised by witnesses, that Bill C-14 is legislating without data.
Despite the bill being the third to propose harsher bail conditions in recent years and the minister acknowledging that he had no empirical evidence that the bill could meet its stated goal of preventing crime, the data shows, instead, that these approaches undermine public safety. They lock up people who are marginalized and at greater risk of experiencing violence, exploitation and recruitment.
Bill C-14 will mean that people leave, even after short stays in prison, worse off with severed ties to income, housing and supports, increasing their risks of victimization and criminalization. Witnesses who made this point included legal, criminological and human rights experts, like Dr. Anthony Doob, Dr. Nicole Myers, Dr. Danardo Jones, Professor Debra Parkes and Professor Justin Piché, as well as those working with those who have been criminalized and experienced violence, including the John Howard Society, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic and Aboriginal Legal Services.
Witnesses made clear that their concerns about government approaches to bail policy are deep, long-standing and systemic. Not issues that could be addressed through targeted amendments to specific clauses.
Many accordingly proposed creative and novel responses. Dr. Doob, former chair of the ministerial advisory of implementation of correctional legislation, noted his concerns about the lack of account and scrutiny with respect to the impact of this bill, noting that parliamentary reviews of the kind included in this legislation are too rarely carried out. He suggested that if the review did not occur, we should include a mechanism in this legislation to repeal its key provisions.
Jonathan Rudin of Aboriginal Legal Services, noting the mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples awaiting trial in overcrowded and inhumane conditions, suggested that measures in this bill should not come into force:
. . . 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.
What this amendment proposes is straightforward. The federal government has not yet provided evidence to demonstrate that these measures will have the impact that they promise. This measure would require the government to provide that evidentiary basis as soon as possible and then require public debate in our chamber and the other place, informed by this missing evidence, before the bill comes into force.
Regarding the timeline, Statistics Canada’s written response to the committee indicates that they are already at work on developing some of the data:
Statistics Canada does not currently have the data to support or deny this statement —
— whether increased use of pretrial detention will reduce crime was the question —
— however, we are currently working with provinces, territories and federal partners to collect the data that will allow the analysis of repeat violent offending while on bail.
Bill C-14 will, in all likelihood, undermine Charter-protected rights. It will put people, in all likelihood, Indigenous people, Black Canadians and others who are the most marginalized, in prison in ways that witnesses testified risk increasing victimization and criminalization.
Canadians deserve to know what, precisely, Bill C-14 means for their communities, and we need evidence and transparency. Thank you, colleagues.
Senator Dalphond: I will ask officials to maybe, in a few minutes, summarize the origin of that bill — how it came about that the Department of Justice Department Canada decided to focus on bail adjustments and the issue of consecutive sentences.
Mr. Ripley: Thank you for the question, senator. I will endeavour to be brief.
The short of it is that there are a few concerning trends taking place in Canada right now. One is that there are challenges with respect to Canadians’ confidence in the criminal justice system and whether it is responsive to increased crime. We have seen an increase in crime since 2014. The general trend was that crime has been on a downward trajectory since the early 1990s, and then, as in 2014, it started to tick back up again. You have seen certain spikes in certain types of violent crime as well as certain types of other crimes, like fraud and other things. So you are seeing spikes in certain types of crime.
The minister heard very clearly from provincial and territorial partners, as well as other stakeholders, that repeat and violent offending is very top-of-mind in terms of the bail system not being appropriately calibrated in terms of risk assessment on repeat and/or violent offending.
The genesis of a lot of the proposed amendments with respect to the bail provisions is to ensure that judges are appropriately equipped to do that risk assessment and to ensure they are assessing whether there is a risk to public safety when considering whether to release someone on bail.
That is, in short, the genesis of the bill.
Senator Dalphond: Just to complete the presentation of what led to the department dealing with that issue, there was a meeting of ministers of justice and attorneys general across the country. Then the premiers met with the Prime Minister in January, and after they left that conference, they asked for certain priorities of the government. One of them was to deal, as soon as possible, with the bail issues — what some people call the revolving door — and also consecutive sentences and conditional sentence offences.
The bill came about as a result of these requests from the provinces and the premiers.
We heard witnesses here, including the Minister of Justice and, I think, even the Deputy Premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Justice of Manitoba, and both NDP governments, both urging us to pass the bill as soon as possible. We have heard from the Mayor of Winnipeg. We also heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities — all urging us to pass this bill as soon as possible.
We heard from the Associations of Police Chiefs of Canada, who explained, on behalf of the police chiefs, that repeat offenders were becoming a major problem, requiring a lot of police resources.
We heard from associations of police officers from across Canada that were telling us that the bail conditions and the easiness of getting some bail release, especially for repeat offenders and violent offenders, were pressing issues. We heard from people from a women’s centre in London. They said that there was a real need to have the reverse onus of violent, intimate partners and making sure they are not released and go back and kill their intimate partners, primarily women, because these people have — I forgot exactly the percentage — increased chances of being killed than ordinary people by their violent partners. Those people do not want to wait. We should not wait for another femicide to happen because we are delaying the implementation of this bill.
We have heard from the police associations, national police associations and other associations. We heard from Toronto police officers — the largest city in the country. They link with things, and they say that the bail system is a joke, not taken seriously, and that they keep arresting the same people that are released so that repeat offenders must stay in jail.
I understand that some people don’t believe jail, like Professor Piché, is necessary in society. So that’s interesting. But there are other people — certainly most of the witnesses we heard. I won’t quote all of them, but there were more than 1 — more than 10 — that told us there was an urgency to implement this legislation and keep behind bars those who are violent and repeat offenders.
Of course, the government does not support this amendment, and I ask you that we proceed to a vote. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Particularly given the fact that this would cause considerable delay to this bill and the good provisions that are in this bill coming into effect — the provisions that are so necessary for the public to have confidence in the justice system because so often they do not. There are so many cases where we see on the news — and I’ve said this before — where you see a serious crime has occurred, and then they say the accused was out on bail at the time. Another serious crime occurs? The accused was out on bail at the time of the offence.
The public views all of this as a total joke. We have justice ministers united across the country, calling for this. A few years ago, the government made a very minimal attempt to improve some portions of the bail situation, but this does somewhat more.
I view that it’s not enough still, but we certainly can’t afford to wait for further than what has existed now. We need to start getting the public to have confidence in the criminal justice system. We need to make sure that people who are charged with serious crimes are actually in the appropriate place, not, potentially, out on the streets committing more crimes.
For those major reasons, that’s why I cannot support this.
The Chair: Are senators ready for the question? Not yet.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Mr. Ripley, for providing the rationale for why it was provided. That did not include any information or any material about the data that’s been available on the success of the past bail reforms.
What evidence do you have available? Also, what education efforts are you taking to address those issues?
Mr. Ripley: Thanks very much, senator. As has been highlighted, there are real gaps, particularly, in the bail context, assessing questions around repeat and violent offending. There is limited data — other than the general trends that I referenced — about the impact of former Bill C-48, for example.
As I highlighted in an earlier exchange, the department is working really hard to address some of those. The goal is to get to a place where, next time we are here, hopefully, there is a better data set coming from certain jurisdictions to be able to assess the link between recidivism, repeat and violent offending when someone is on interim release, for example.
Senator Pate: Thank you for that. In some jurisdictions, including previously in this country, when the public was misinformed on the basis for the issues, the role of government often was for education. Have any of those measures been taken, and have the judges been requesting any of that?
Mr. Ripley: When you say “education,” specifically what kind of legal education do you have in mind?
Senator Pate: Based on the data that exists. My understanding is that there have been significant concerns about the conditions of confinement in bail raised by the judiciary as well. I’m curious as to how much of that material is being used to educate those who are coming to you requesting further reforms without yet having the data.
Mr. Ripley: When Minister Fraser was here, he also alluded to this. Those conversations with the provinces and territories are very active, and in those jurisdictions where there are constraints with respect to remand facilities, the federal government is very actively indicating to those jurisdictions that if there are downstream effects of this that increase the number of folks held in pretrial detention, that is a responsibility that you have to take seriously, particularly those jurisdictions that are facing real space constraints. They have heard that message. Obviously, I cannot speak for all of them, but the minister has been very clear about their obligation to make sure that the space is there and that, obviously, you are not running into Charter concerns with respect to the conditions of those facilities.
Senator Pate: I’m ready for the question.
Senator Clement: I will be brief.
I was speaking to Senator Moncion yesterday, and she asked, “Is the level of debate around the LCJC table always this solid?” I said, “Yes, and it is an honour for me to sit here with you and to participate in these debates.”
It is also heartbreaking for me, personally, because the people that I represent don’t take up enough space in terms of consideration.
I am no longer a baby senator. I’m five years in. I was here for Bill C-48, and I heard the statistics. We have two decades of statistics confirming the overrepresentation of the people that I represent, and we have all these other gaps around everything else. I understand why Senator Pate has been so specific in this amendment: Give us the specific information. You have not done so, and we continue to legislate without it. I just want to be on the record as supporting this amendment as well.
The Chair: Are the senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment? Clerk, can we have a recorded vote, please?
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?
Senator Oudar: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator K. Wells?
Senator K. Wells: No.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 4; nays, 10; abstentions, 0.
The Chair: This motion is defeated. We also have another motion regarding clause 84. Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: It will be brief. I move the following amendment:
That Bill C-14 be amended in clause 84, on page 39,
(a) by replacing line 25 with the following:
“30th day after royal assent
84 (1) Sections 2 to 55, 59 to 70, 73, 74 and 79 to 81 come into”;
(b) by adding the following after line 27:
“Order in council
(2) Sections 71 and 72 come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”.
[Translation]
Clauses 71 and 72 concern youth records in the youth justice system. Since the introduction of the bill and now that everyone is getting ready for it to come into force, the feedback — particularly in Ontario — suggests that, in terms of the use of records, the two-year limit could create some difficulties for young offenders or young people who have been investigated. The information sharing would be limited. The system needs some adjustments to ensure that the information sharing can take place effectively.
The proposal calls for these record sharing and access provisions to be deferred to the date set by the Governor-in-Council once all the provinces report their readiness to implement the required records management system. They’re currently unable to do so.
Remember also that the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense and the County of Carleton Law Association, which have been brought up a number of times in two days, asked for defence lawyers to receive access within a framework that remains to be defined.
Some issues must be settled in the weeks and months ahead. As a result, the proposal is to remove these clauses from the implementation of the rest of the bill — that will be adopted quickly — as soon as we complete the adoption of the report, proceed to third reading in the Senate — quickly, I hope — and a message is sent to the House of Commons. I expect a quick response from the House of Commons and an equally quick Royal Assent, perhaps even from the current Governor General and not the next one.
Under the circumstances, everyone wants the bill to come into force as quickly as possible. However, it won’t be possible for clauses 71 and 72 to come into force within 30 days of Royal Assent in some provinces. That’s it.
[English]
The Chair: Is there any debate?
Senator Batters: Since I may have missed a little part of that, perhaps I could start out by clarifying something. It the young offender-related provisions that are being pulled out of the regular framework of coming into effect at a certain point, and that is going to be, instead, fixed by an order of the Governor-in-Council. That’s because of evidence that came to light; is that the reason for that being pulled out? This is obviously a government amendment, so I just wondered what’s the reason for requiring the amendment. Is it because of new evidence that maybe we heard at our committee or something that came to light just recently? I might have missed it with the translation. Sorry.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you. This is especially the case in Ontario, where there were technical problems with the use and restriction of the use and access to these files might be problematic.
Senator Batters: All right. I wanted to make a brief point. This is a government amendment. We would obviously expect that the government would accept their own amendment, but it is being brought forward, obviously, by the sponsor of the bill, who is not officially with the government.
I also wanted it noted for the record that this bill will be getting amended even if the government decided not to accept other amendments; they would obviously accept their own, so they would need to deal with that in their process. I wanted to just make the point. There has been some media commentary — usually, it is some anonymous, senior government source who has been criticizing the Senate and this committee for taking its time, as they say, on Bill C-14. We have only been studying this bill for several weeks, and, of course, there have been mandated weeks where we’re back home in our ridings during that timeframe, and that’s not something that we can control.
We have been dealing with this on a rigorous basis, but at the same time dealing with it as we are having extended meetings to deal with clause by clause. Note that I, as the critic of the bill, did not bring any of these amendments. We have been dealing with it in a rigorous basis, and despite anonymous government sources — who I got to think did not come from the Senate but probably elsewhere — we have been dealing with it on a very effective basis and ensuring that sober second thought is happening.
But, at the same time, we are doing it in a quick and expeditious way as we can simply by the fact that the House of Commons has had three meetings on it and the Senate has a few more meetings than that. That is actually our role to make sure that legislation is being properly scrutinized.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters. I would like to comment on the issue that Senator Batters has raised as well. I want to commend the committee for the good work that it has done.
We had a minister who came before us and asked us to put forward any reasonable amendments that would improve the bill. I believe we have done that. We’re not finished in any way. But we did have the bill for roughly 30 days. We also had a break week.
We had eight panels of witnesses, and we restricted the number of panels in order to get to clause by clause quickly. For instance, we did not hear from the Elizabeth Fry Society, even though they wanted to appear and were unable to. They did put in a brief this morning, I believe, and it was not translated, so it has not been circulated.
I believe the committee has demonstrated very good work. I think Senator Clement mentioned that. It is a very good debate, thoroughly understood and, therefore, in complete coherence with the role we are to play in this Senate.
I digress. Are we ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Carried. Shall clause 84, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Colleagues, shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the Law Clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes resulting from the amendments adopted by the committee in both official languages, including updating cross-references and renumbering of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? The answer is yes?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: We will now move to the matter of discussing the proposed observations.
In regard to the discussion on the proposed observations, I think it is fair to say that there is some repetitiveness in the observations collectively. There is some overlapping. I propose to go through the observations and ask a question. Is there any strong objection to any of the proposed observations?
The reason I am doing that, I am hoping that we can pool a number of observations and allow the analysts to provide a screening for the repetitiveness and the overlapping such that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure could okay those observations.
That’s what I am proposing as to how to deal with this. Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: I do have a strong objection to one of the observations; the one dealing with victims, observation No. 4.
I don’t think it is necessary, and I just think that it also diminishes what a number of victims came to this committee and told us by making it somewhat seem like these are the things that victims are worried about. While some victims may be worried about some of those things, I think, for the most part, victims are concerned generally about keeping perpetrators in jail and not getting victimized again. So I would suggest that is the one that I had a stronger reaction to.
The Chair: One out of 24?
Senator Batters: Well, that’s the main one.
The Chair: Well, I want this to go as expeditiously as possible. I’m not going to contest that. I withdraw No. 4 from mine.
Now, with Senator Dhillon, is there any strong objection to anything in Senator Dhillon’s? I’m seeing that there is not.
Senator Saint-Germain: [Technical difficulties]
The Chair: I agree, Senator Saint-Germain. It is well done.
So Senator Dhillon’s observation is accepted.
Senator Oudar, again, it is a very strongly crafted observation. Does anyone have any strong objections? Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: In No. 1, saying that the committee recommends that the Government of Canada develop a national strategy to combat organized crime — I, personally, would say, the government needs to toughen the laws, never mind strategy. I mean, they are the government.
Developing national strategies is something that oftentimes senators or MPs bring forward in a private member’s bill because they do not have the powers of the government. The government has the power to toughen their laws to combat organized crime.
Frankly, sometimes in some previous bills, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, they have weakened laws. I guess that’s why they need a strategy now to actually combat organized crime, because some of the laws that they have put forward before getting rid of mandatory minimums or easier house arrest or easier bail have led to that problem. I frankly do not think the Government of Canada needs a national strategy or to spend time on that. They need to toughen their laws.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I would like to echo the comments made by Peter German, president and executive director of the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform.
On April 29, he told the committee that he really thought that Canada should develop a national strategy to deal with organized crime writ large. He also said that Canada is now seen as a patsy compared to other countries. He compared us to Australia, which we could learn from. That was his suggestion in response to my questions.
I agree with Senator Batters. I also prefer legislation. However, instead of having nothing, I believe that Canada must adopt a national strategy quickly, in the meantime, like other countries around the world.
[English]
The Chair: This observation was made based on direct testimony from one of the witnesses. I am looking for consensus.
Recognizing Senator Batters’ comments, is there agreement that this observation, the way it’s currently worded, without amendment, be adopted by the committee? I am seeing there is a consensus on that, so I will accept that the committee accepts Senator Oudar’s amendments.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: On division. Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: I think I understand that it’s a national strategy that encompasses all the provinces and the federal government. We’re not saying that we don’t fight against organized crime. We fight against organized crime.
What I think Senator Oudar wants to point out is a kind of larger national strategy, a bit like what was done with the theft of cars. Is that what you meant, Senator Oudar?
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: With all due respect for the powers of the government, we don’t need to tell them how to develop the strategy. In my opinion, the government will have full discretion to decide how to develop the strategy. By the way, I reworded my paragraph a few times to try to show as much respect as possible for the powers of the government and to give it the objective, but not the means. As legislators, it isn’t our job to tell the government how to develop its strategy.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification. I see no other comments, so we will leave that. Your observations have been adopted.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Mr. Chair, I’m sorry. With regard to my second observation, I believe that, when the analysts try to pool the observations, they will probably group Senator Dhillon’s observations with mine. The observations are similar. In his observations, Senator Dhillon didn’t mention 5G coverage. A number of witnesses felt that it was important to make amendments relating to 5G technology. I don’t mind getting grouped together with the observations and the point of agreement. However, we mustn’t forget 5G technology. He didn’t mention it, and I think that it’s important for the police services.
[English]
The Chair: I think it’s important that there is some repetitiveness and some overlap, but there are some distinctions, and those distinctions will remain and are important.
Now we are on Senator Pate’s observations. Are there any serious objections to any of Senator Pate’s observations?
Senator Batters: In the third part of this, about the upstream and preventive measures, I see this word being used a lot of times recently about “upstream investments.” I don’t know what that means, so maybe we can get an explanation.
Also, I object to the fact of talking about numerous witnesses referencing data linking to an increased risk of victimization and criminalization. “Linking harsher approaches to bail and sentencing to increased risk of victimization and criminalization,” is what this sentence says, because people who are watching obviously don’t have this document.
At the same time, numerous witnesses spoke on the other side of that. If we’re going to point out one part of it, then either we don’t point it out, or we indicate that there were thoughts on both sides of those different things.
In terms of my main objection, I really don’t think we should include this lengthy, comprehensive Criminal Code reform part on the second page. This committee has put forward that same observation almost without amendment in any way for the last several years on almost every bill that the committee has studied and included observations on. Clearly, the government is ignoring that observation if they haven’t done anything with it yet.
Also, we have included the reference to the Law Commission of Canada on all of these observations, so if they are still not doing a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code of Canada, I guess they don’t want to.
This committee has written to the Law Commission of Canada asking them to do this. Again, I think it’s enough. It has been several years that this observation has gone forward. We don’t have to put it in every time. If it hasn’t made any difference over five years or more, then it’s not going to, and we don’t need to have pages and pages of observations for this bill.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that perspective, Senator Batters.
I note that the minister, when he was here, talked about the need for upstream investments, so I used his language. He talked about that being another pillar of this approach, so I feel quite strongly that this phrase needs to be in here. It means preventive measures like income, housing, social supports, mental health supports and addiction supports. I’m happy to spell that out more if people prefer.
It also reflects the evidence of a number of witnesses. We did not get any of these amendments into the bill itself, and it strikes me as incredibly important that we have that observation.
I agree. It’s frustrating that we keep putting in the reform of the Criminal Code, but we are also referring in that repeatedly to our own report, the 2017 report, and I feel quite strongly it’s important to keep reminding the government that that review has still not been undertaken. There is widespread agreement that it needs to happen, as evidenced by your own comments, that we have made that recommendation for a number of years.
Senator Simons: This is the time when I give my Roman history lesson again and say, in the immortal words of Cato the Elder, “Carthage must be destroyed.”
We’ve talked about this. Senator Batters is correct; we keep putting it in, and it is performative and absurd, but I think that’s why we should do it as a form of recognition of the absurdity of the exercise.
Senator Batters: Just on that, if the Senate Legal Committee becomes part of a performative exercise that has existed now for several years, we used to be more than that, so I don’t think we should continue to put it in. If people want to make reference to it, they can give a speech about this bill and reference that.
Obviously, the 2017 report was important. I often talk about it in speeches that I make, but we don’t need to continue to put the same observation in that adds half a page of observations to what is already probably going to be lengthy pages of observations.
Observations also used to be extremely targeted, very short, not pages about every element, particularly one that, if the government hasn’t done it, then I think there are more appropriate ways to bring this to their attention than the same observation over and over. I certainly do not support including it once again.
Senator Dalphond: I won’t speak on that point, though on the lack of the first paragraph of these observations. Certainly, I understand that better data could be available, but the title is “lack of data.” It seems to say that there was no data to rely on, which is a bit inaccurate, if not to say more.
So my suggestion would be that the first line reads:
The committee has reported in the past about the need for data to substantiate bail policy, including relating to the reverse onuses.
I am certainly not comfortable with the second sentence. I would delete it. The sentence reads:
The committee notes with concern that, despite known barriers to evidence-based reform, the federal government did not provide data to substantiate . . . .
This is inaccurate. This is untrue.
Then the third sentence:
The committee urges the government to work with the provinces and territories . . . .
I have no problem with that. That’s what the government wants to do, and I certainly agree with this.
But the second sentence I suggest be deleted, and the first sentence be nuanced to express the fact that better data could be made available.
Senator Pate: I’ll start with Senator Dalphond’s comment. The minister himself said that there was inadequate data. So I would —
Senator Dalphond: [Technical difficulties]
Senator Pate: There is not data to support. We heard from the officials today that there isn’t data to support that successive reforms to the bill have resulted in a safer situation or a reduction in recidivism.
I’m happy to soften, say, that there is inadequate data, but there certainly has not been data presented here to support that.
From Senator Batters’s perspective, I’m back to I think it’s vitally important that we continue to push for the kind of review that needs to happen to the criminal law overall. I take it very seriously that it has not been picked up, and that’s the reason why I have put it in again as an observation.
The Chair: In the first sentence, better data. Would you be okay with “better data”?
Senator Pate: [Technical difficulties]
Senator Dalphond: Adequate, incomplete, whatever — you always raise the same comment that there is a lack of data, there is no data. The officials are here, and they explained to you that they started with the premise that crime was on the rise. They looked at the statistics from 2014 to 2024. They looked at the rise in violent crimes compared to other types of crimes. So you say there is no data. We cannot say that. This is untrue.
Senator Pate: The data goes in peaks and valleys. There is no clear —
Senator Dalphond: That’s your analysis. But to say there is no data — the police of Ontario came here with the dashboard, and they provided a hundred things. If you read what the commissioner just sent back to the committee, there is data. Maybe it is insufficient. Maybe they are not what you want to hear in the data, but there is data. So to make a report that gives a misleading — at least myself I do not feel comfortable with that.
Senator Pate: There is data, but there is not data to support that these are measures that will be effective in addressing the issues that this legislation has been presented as meeting. We have heard that just today again from the officials that there is no data showing that these particular approaches are going to achieve the results or that the past changes that were made, similar to these, have achieved those results. That’s that data that we are lacking.
Senator Dalphond: Yes, but no policies adopted by the government come with a set of data that guarantees a result. Everyone expects the result will be achieved. The data that supports the need to make some reforms, the data that shows the need to keep repeat offenders out of the business of the police and out of communities. So there is data.
Will that be able to achieve that, because there will be more denied bail? We’ll see in the future. But the police who testified said that — in Winnipeg, when they had this bail offender program, they saw the rates go down like this. The police of Toronto who said when we keep them inside, there is less breaking and entering into houses.
So there is some data. Again, I heard your position. It’s a very clear position. You articulated it more than three times during the study of clause by clause, and I respect your view. I don’t share it. But we have to be honest with Canadians who are listening. We have to be honest with the people who read our reports. If you want to have our reports taken seriously, they have to be reports that reflect the reality and not a different agenda.
Senator Pate: The fact that these are political responses to issues that have not been addressed dealing with homelessness, addiction and poverty that have contributed to these very issues. Otherwise, what is the explanation for 50% of the federal prison population for women being Indigenous, 10% Black and almost 35% of the male population? The fact that we are not addressing these issues in the way that will achieve the results that are being put forth in this legislation, I think, is important for the public to know and the data —
An Hon. Senator: That is not an agenda.
Senator Pate: No.
The Chair: We have heard quite a bit of debate. I’m looking for a way to find a compromise here. We have heard a lot about the lack of adequate data. That’s almost every panel. So I think that’s a fair and safe place to land.
We are insisting in these observations that data be collected, that it be done in a way that’s effective and that will better inform policy-making in the future. I’m hoping we can reach some kind of a compromise there to capture that well.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: It isn’t about statistics. It’s about the increasing overrepresentation of people. Do you want to settle the issue of the final word right away?
[English]
Did we agree on a word or an amendment to the amendment related to data? Because my point is not on this. It’s on the other point, which is the overrepresentation.
The Chair: Okay. I think the steering committee has enough —
Senator Batters: What about the word “more”? More data to substantiate bail policy for that sentence. I don’t know about the rest of it.
The Chair: More and adequate.
Senator Batters: Or just more data to substantiate means adequate, I think. I don’t know about the rest of it.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Batters: At this point, how many minutes are we going to take to debate this?
The Chair: I’m hoping to ask for an extension through to Sunday to get this done. I really want to accelerate this if we can.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to see more balance in the description of the problem situation set out by Senator Pate.
I think that, on the one hand, we’re reclassifying perpetrators as victims. Yet on the other hand, it seems that we aren’t paying enough attention to the victims. These victims are also women, Indigenous peoples, Black Canadians, young people, survivors of violence and people with disabilities, including mental health issues.
I would like to see a balance. This isn’t about having or not having a political agenda. It’s about showing that this committee cares about the victims of the people who committed these crimes.
In my opinion, this balance is lacking in the wording of this observation. I would like to see this balance restored. We don’t want revolving doors and we want better solutions. However, there are still victims who remain victims, because crimes have been committed and people are incarcerated.
[English]
The Chair: This is probably dangerous, but I think some of my observations try to capture that. Especially numbers 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. That’s my opinion.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I don’t want to speak for Senator Pate, but she also showed concern for victims at the end of her observations. I don’t know whether all the paragraphs will be deleted. However, the third paragraph did talk about victims and called on the Government of Canada to work with provinces and territories to collectively take urgent action to address violence against women and to better support victims and survivors of intimate partner violence.
I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of striking a balance. By the way, Mr. Chair, I was annoyed earlier when your comment was deleted, because I agreed with it. However, we must strike a balance between the rights of accused persons and the protection of victims, while achieving the objectives of the bill.
I wouldn’t want all Senator Pate’s comments deleted either. They included some objectives to ensure the protection of victims, which I completely agree with.
Senator Saint-Germain: This concerns another subobservation, and not the one regarding overrepresentation.
[English]
Senator Pate: The whole reason the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls involves the kinds of recommendations it does in the Calls for Justice, and the TRC’s Calls to Action recognizes that the majority of the people who end up criminalized are largely there because they’re failed by every other system, including — most are victimized first. In fact, the numbers are more than 95% of Indigenous women are first victimized, and their needs are not met.
I feel it is vital — we haven’t got it anywhere else. We don’t have the data showing that — we heard a lot of information, and there’s certainly a lot of data showing that when you increase these kinds of measures, you increase the recruitment of the most vulnerable. We’ve heard that evidence, and nowhere in the bill is there a recognition of that. At the very least, it needs to be in our observations that we recognize that reality and urge the government to do something about it.
The Chair: My observation 5 does that.
Senator Pate: Not as fully. I think it’s important to really underscore — there is a reason that overrepresentation is linked to victimization as well. It’s not accidental.
Senator Saint-Germain: May I try a solution. The last paragraph about the reform of the Criminal Code. If Senator Pate agrees, it could be put as the last paragraph of the subobservation regarding overrepresentation, and I believe that it will re‑establish a balance.
This is what I was looking for: a balance. If you agree to put it there, it would be closer to the balance that we want to find.
Senator Pate: I’m fine to put it there, provided we also have the review component in there that we can —
Senator Saint-Germain: — but it would be better, I think, more relevant to put the last paragraph under overrepresentation. But it’s your choice.
Senator Pate: I see the issue of violence against women as a broader issue as well. It’s not just overrepresentation. It’s not taken seriously. It’s why we end up with perversions of justice in terms of defences and prosecutions and the like, but if you want to move them around that way, it — I feel quite strongly this information be in our observations, all of it that’s here, though.
Senator Dalphond: I agree with Senator Pate. We have to acknowledge the fact that there is overrepresentation of specific groups. The GBA Plus analysis does recognize it. The government does recognize it and does not ignore it. That is clearly something of interest, and the report can acknowledge this — but it has to be balanced because we also speak about victims. The whole thing is a balancing act. Everybody is trying to do what would be best, but it’s difficult.
Senator Saint-Germain: — to look at finding this balance.
Senator Dalphond: I fully trust our steering committee to finish the job. Sorry, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Yes. What I wanted to say is, first of all, victims don’t want to see balance in observations that will be ignored by the government, as they have been for several years. That part of the observation about the Criminal Code reform with the victims part of it, is, verbatim, the same thing we’ve been putting in this for, what, six years? I don’t find that moving that to one other part provides balance for victims.
What would provide balance for victims is not passing laws that hurt victims and that hurt women. That is what we need to do. I feel that this committee, with such lengthy observations, is getting to the point that we are almost trying to write the report within the observations. That is not what observations are supposed to be for. It’s not supposed to be a report with all the facts and all the different things we heard jammed into observations. Observations are supposed to be short, targeted things, and not lengthy.
I can’t support, yet again, the same observation that has been ignored so many times. Not only have we shown this to the government, we have also written to the Law Commission of Canada about that. If they’re not going to do it, they’re not going to do it. We can’t force them to do it. It obviously doesn’t help to continue to say it.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I find all this too long. I wonder about the need for these observations, which have no value and which can’t force the government to do anything. I feel that the text should be much shorter. Could we leave it to the steering committee to approve the observations?
[English]
The Chair: I’m hoping that’s what will happen.
Senator Pate: I agree. I think, though, that we are in a moment — and these are cyclical moments we sometimes have politically — where there isn’t adequate data to support moves that are being made, and I feel it’s very important. There are people waiting and paying attention to this and looking at what our conclusions are about legislation. One of the few ways to do that is through our observations, where we don’t have amendments to the legislation.
The Chair: Senators, are members in agreement with having observations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, with observations, to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senators, we have 10 minutes left. I believe we don’t have anything further to discuss, but I do want to make a special note. I’d like everyone to know that this is Michaela Keenan-Pelletier’s, our analyst with the Library of Parliament, last meeting with the LCJC today, and I wanted to end on a really happy note. She will be taking an acting assignment for the next year at the end of this month. She has been with this committee for six years. I believe she has been very consistent and professional in her advice — in my experience, very intelligent, sound judgment and very practical advice — and a great help to the committee.
She will be, I believe, the in-house counsel for the Library of Parliament, but she may return to this committee after one year. We hope she gives due consideration to that option.
We thank you, Ms. Keenan-Pelletier, for all your years of service and support to the committee as an analyst. We greatly appreciate all your hard work — and I know it is hard — and your dedication.
(The committee adjourned.)