Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I will be relatively brief in my comments on the amendments proposed by the Senate. Let us not forget that we are actually debating the Senate’s proposed amendments today, as opposed to the substance of Bill C-14, since we have already debated it in the House and it was passed on division. I will nevertheless take the liberty of making a few comments on the substance of the bill, but only very briefly. The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to improve the bill. Some were adopted, for example the fact that, in the Youth Criminal Justice Act or what was known as the Young Offenders Act, the use of a firearm was added to the definition of violent offence. This made the courts’ work easier because, otherwise, it was always up to the Crown, on a case-by-case basis, to prove that an offence committed with a firearm was in fact a violent offence. We finally corrected something that seemed obvious. It was also at the suggestion of the Bloc Québécois that the government included in the bill the obligation for parliamentarians to review the legislation after five years of its coming into force, which we think is an excellent thing, especially in a context where aspects of the legislation deal with the issue of the presumption of innocence. We pointed out at the time that we were less in agreement with the idea that certain offences should be increased or that consecutive sentences should be handed down for offences that did not necessarily involve violence. These measures seemed designed to address a political issue rather than a legal one. For example, I am thinking of the issue of auto theft. We know, as recent history has shown, that consecutive sentences or longer sentences for auto theft are not the way to solve the problem. Rather, we can solve the problem by investing in border security. That is why we have recently seen a drop in the number of auto thefts. Among the changes set out in Bill C‑14, there were some we considered acceptable and others we did not like. All things being equal, we felt that the bill still had more benefits than drawbacks, and so we decided that we would vote for it if the bill were put to a vote at third reading. It was passed on division and went to the Senate. That is how we ended up debating Senate amendments today. As far as our position on the amendments go, I am about to spoil the surprise. We agree with the government’s position on the Senate’s amendments, accepting some and rejecting others. I will briefly run through them. The Senate had a few concerns, a few fears, particularly about the disproportionate impact of incarceration on certain marginalized groups, such as indigenous people, racialized people, youth, and individuals experiencing homelessness. Allow me to go over the proposed amendments. Bill C-14, as drafted, automatically prohibited anyone convicted of an indictable offence within the past 10 years from acting as a surety. We just discussed this during questions and comments. The government accepts the less stringent amendment proposed by the Senate, and so do we. It allows a judge some discretion in situations where no one else could act as a surety for an accused. For example, a newcomer may not necessarily have family here. In our view, there are still sufficient safeguards in place. The judge must explain how it would serve the interests of justice for a person who has been convicted of an indictable offence in the past to act as a surety. The judge must explain this and must enter the reasons into the record. In exceptional cases, this allows a judge to let someone who has been convicted of an indictable offence act as a surety. We believe this strikes an appropriate balance. Take, for example, a person who has previously been convicted of vandalism. I would remind the House that there are major and minor offences. Should someone who once committed an act of vandalism be prevented from being named as surety? If it has been less than 10 years and the person committed a truly serious crime, then surely they would still be in prison, which would immediately disqualify them, so that seemed to be an appropriate balance to us. There is also the matter of whether we should add an obligation for judges to systematically ask defendants whether they belong to any of the groups mentioned in section 493.2 of the Criminal Code, namely racialized or minority groups, and to include that information in the court record. The government rejected the Senate amendment in that regard. We agree with the government. The amendment makes it mandatory to ask the question, when we know that judges are already required to include in the record the fact that they took those criteria into consideration. In my opinion, and this is why we oppose the amendment, we should not force a judge’s hand when it comes to how they comply with this obligation to ensure that the person is not part of a targeted group. That gives judges some discretion because it is not always necessarily relevant, appropriate or reasonable to ask a person whether they are part of a targeted group. We will leave it up to the judge to decide how to meet that obligation in each case, since they are required to indicate in the court record that they took those factors into consideration. I know that the Senate heard testimony that the obligation to document that the criteria had been considered was not always being met. This section has only been around for two years, since 2024. Since it is already not being complied with, I respectfully suggest that, rather than creating a new section, we should instead ensure that the section that was created two years ago is complied with and that judges are more careful about including a statement that they have properly taken this obligation into consideration in the record. There are also amendments about an annual report on interim release. It is not an amendment, since it already existed in Bill C‑14, but the Senate wants to improve it in various ways. One of the proposed changes is to add the rates of detention in custody before trial to this report. The government agrees with the amendment, and the Bloc Québécois supports it as well. Having real, accurate statistics will help us gain a better understanding of the reality of preventive detention and will probably help better inform future debates on this issue. However, one of the amendments proposed by the Senate is a requirement to consult Statistics Canada and experts in data collection when preparing the annual report. We believe that this amendment might be a little too restrictive. The courts and the minister already have the option of consulting Statistics Canada and engaging with various experts, but making this mandatory might remove some flexibility in how things are documented. It might be more rigid than necessary. We therefore agree with the government that the amendment should not be adopted. Another Senate amendment would change the implementation date for all the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, particularly regarding the confidentiality of records. A certain degree of flexibility is required to implement these changes. By allowing a certain period of time to do so, we ensure that it will be done properly. The amendment delaying the coming into force date is therefore entirely justified and appropriate. The government supports it, and we support it as well. I think I have finished walking us through the Senate’s amendments, the government’s position and our position. Some of the amendments do indeed improve Bill C‑14, and we support them. We share the government’s position on them. The rejected amendments are not necessarily bad, but they are already addressed, to a certain extent, by existing Criminal Code provisions. Strengthening them further might take away some of the flexibility that is required in criminal matters. I did not mean to needlessly belabour my observations on the amendments. In closing, I would say that we agree with the government’s response to the Senate concerning the amendments it accepts and those it rejects.
