Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Since 2015, the government has been delivering real, concrete action on climate change that cuts pollution, creates jobs and promotes a healthy environment. The government regularly makes announcements as to programs and plans in place.

Yesterday at the summit, I’m advised that Minister Guilbeault announced that Canada will exceed its target of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by at least 75% from 2012 levels by 2030. The government remains committed to making important investments and taking necessary action to fight the climate crisis and build a better future for our country.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for bringing this troubling case to our attention. It is troubling not only for the individual and his family, but also for democratic freedom. I was advised that Global Affairs Canada is aware of the situation and of the individual’s detention in Algeria. As I’m sure you’ll understand, senator, for reasons of confidentiality, no more information can be shared at this time.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for highlighting the challenges that still face Ukrainian refugees here — and, indeed, too many immigrants who have come here and are still waiting for final resolution of their applications. The government has put resources in place — and will continue to put resources in place — and is working diligently to address the backlog to which you refer.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Government leader, many Ukrainians believed us when Canada offered refuge, work and a welcoming embrace. I think the unanimous motion here today reinforces that early promise.

However, those with everything in order, with documents submitted, who have paid their own way here, are still waiting months for work visas, stuck in limbo. Their calls are not answered, their employers’ calls are not answered and I cannot get any answers on their behalf.

People need a place to live. People need to eat. They need work. They need an income. Not being able to work makes it impossible to stay or to go.

When will you put the people and resources in place to end the backlog? In my community, Ukrainians came to work in agriculture; now harvest is almost done.

How long should people fleeing death have to wait? Why is the government unwilling to do what it promised it would do and provide proper refuge for Ukrainians?

Hon. Mary Coyle: I have a question for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, yesterday, before the Climate Ambition Summit at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, Steven Guilbeault, tweeted that “Canada is among the ‘movers and doers’ in the battle against climate change.”

To me, this tweet implies that Canada is playing a significant leadership role in the fight against climate change.

Senator Gold, could you update this chamber on any important announcements made at the Climate Ambition Summit in relation to accelerating the efforts to reach Canada’s own net-zero commitments, as well as anything new and significant in terms of support from Canada and other historic polluters for the Global South in achieving their net-zero goals?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, Senator Housakos. The fact is, government has not put in place a tax. It has simply invited the leaders of the five largest grocery chains to come back with a plan that they develop. That plan will be evaluated for its credibility and efficiency.

At the very least, one can say this, though, that the Government of Canada is using the leverage it has within its areas of jurisdiction, unlike the threats that Mr. Poilievre has made to attack and punish municipalities in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Leader, here’s another government disaster, the new passport, which cost $284 million — a cost overrun of $123 million. This is yet another example — among dozens, if not hundreds — of this government’s incompetence.

Moreover, the new passport deteriorates in wet weather. After a few weeks, the corners curl up. The old passport easily lasted 10 years; the Trudeau government’s is worn out after only two months. Senator Gold, how do you explain the astronomical cost of designing a new passport of such poor quality?

Hon. Brian Francis: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Last July, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples issued a report about Indigenous peoples in Canada. Among a number of recommendations, Mr. Cali Tzay specifically called on Canada to implement the recommendations of the Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, including repealing section 6(2) of the Indian Act, also known as the “second-generation cut-off.”

Is the Government of Canada finally going to end the discrimination against First Nations women and their descendants in the registration provisions of the Indian Act? Or will it simply continue to take a reactive approach in response to court decisions?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, I was happy yesterday to hear you acknowledge the struggles being faced by Canadians, especially when it comes to the soaring cost of food and housing prices.

Also yesterday, incidentally, I was even happier to see the Honourable Pierre Poilievre introduce a bill called “Building Homes Not Bureaucracy.” While your government says it will drop the GST on construction of rental properties, conversely, you are threatening an extra tax to supposedly somehow combat the soaring food inflation Canadians are dealing with because of your fiscal mismanagement.

How does that work, Senator Gold? How does adding a new tax, which will be passed on to consumers, help to lower the cost of food for Canadians, who will have to choose between eating and heating during these winter months?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The government has been working with Canadian Bank Note Company Limited on the design, development and distribution of the next generation of passports. This was necessary to ensure that our passports are secure in a world that is increasingly vulnerable to technological attacks. Thanks to advances in technology, these passports will be secure. That was the objective of the design and decisions surrounding the new passport.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, just a couple of months after this chamber acquiesced to the government on a bill that the opposition warned would have the opposite of the desired effect — we warned that instead of saving media, Bill C-18 would be its death knell, especially for local and smaller outlets — and despite those warnings, the Online News Act was passed, and here we are, Senator Gold.

Facebook wasted no time carrying through on its threat, a threat you and your government scoffed at. As promised, they are out of the news business in this country. Google looks poised to follow very soon.

How is that working out for us, Senator Gold? This week we heard about Torstar Corporation shutting down its Metroland Media Group publications, and they won’t even pay severance to those who lost their jobs. What does your government have to say about how well Bill C-18 is doing with regard to saving media in this country?

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to the order adopted December 7, 2021, I would like to inform the Senate that Question Period with the Honourable Mark Holland, P.C., M.P., Minister of Health, will take place on Tuesday, September 26, 2023, at 5 p.m.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, and, again, I do regret that the answers that were requested have not yet been forthcoming. I’ll certainly follow up and make every effort to get those answers.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved second reading of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform). This bill would strengthen Canada’s bail laws and address public safety and public confidence concerns in relation to repeat violent offending, intimate partner violence and offences involving firearms and other weapons.

[Translation]

The bail system ensures that people accused of criminal offenses appear in court to face the charges against them. In theory, the most foolproof way to achieve this would be to simply detain a person from the moment of arrest until trial. However, there remains a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system: The presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This principle is enshrined in section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the same section that protects the right, and I quote:

Thus, any measures that limit access to bail or increase the likelihood of pretrial detention must be taken with caution and restraint, in a targeted manner and for compelling reasons.

The government — with considerable input from the provinces, territories, Indigenous organizations and other partners — developed Bill C-48 with those considerations in mind.

Therefore, the bill is narrowly focused on repeat violent offenders, for the compelling reason of protecting Canadian communities.

[English]

Currently, bail can be denied for three reasons: first, to ensure the accused’s attendance in court; second, to protect the public; and, finally, to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

When deciding whether to grant bail or what bail conditions to impose, courts are required to:

. . . give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances.

For the most part, justice ministers across Canada agree that these guidelines serve us well and that the bail system functions properly in most cases. However, concerns have been raised that the current system should be recalibrated to better protect public safety. This concern was notably raised last January in a letter to the Prime Minister from all provincial and territorial premiers and has been the subject of many discussions between various levels of government.

This is an area of shared jurisdiction. Laws regarding bail are set out by the federal government in the Criminal Code but are generally implemented by the provinces and territories.

At recent meetings between federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers, everyone took responsibility and agreed to do their part. For the provinces and territories, this means improving the implementation of existing laws, making better use of existing legal tools and collecting better data related to bail. Federally, it means contemplating legislative changes — namely, those contained in Bill C-48.

This legislation would do the following five things: enact a new reverse onus for repeat violent offending involving weapons; add certain firearm offences to the list of provisions that trigger a reverse onus; expand the current intimate partner violence reverse onus; clarify the meaning of “prohibition order” in an existing reverse onus provision; and, finally, add new considerations and requirements for courts.

I’ll start by discussing the concept of reverse onus before delving into each of these in more detail. In most cases, the default presumption is that the accused will be released pending trial, and the onus is on the prosecution to show why bail should be denied. When the onus is reversed, it means the initial presumption is detention pending trial, and it’s up to the accused to show why they should be released.

Currently, a reverse onus exists for murder and attempted murder, as well as certain offences involving drug and weapons trafficking, firearms, terrorism and intimate partner violence. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of narrowly tailored reverse onus provisions, notably in the case of R. v. Pearson in 1992. Crucially, even with a reverse onus in place, the court retains the full discretion to grant or deny bail, or to impose conditions as it may see fit.

As I outlined a moment ago, the first new reverse onus provision created by Bill C-48 would deal with repeat violent offending involving weapons. It would apply only where the following conditions are met: First, the alleged offence must involve the use, attempted use or threat of violence involving a weapon; second, the offence must be punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or more; and third, the accused must have been convicted of another weapons offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years or more in the preceding five years.

These criteria specifically target instances of repeat violent offending that is most concerning from a public safety perspective. And, as specifically requested by the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Saskatchewan, they cover all serious weapons offences, including those involving firearms, knives or bear spray, which I understand has been a particular concern in those provinces recently.

The second change proposed by Bill C-48 would expand the existing list of reverse onus provisions applying to firearm offences to include unlawful possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited or restricted firearm where ammunition is readily accessible; breaking and entering to steal a firearm; robbery to steal a firearm; and altering a firearm to make it automatic.

These offences are evidence of conduct that can significantly undermine public safety. We should note that the first of these — the unlawful possession offence — responds directly to the call of all 13 premiers, as expressed in their January letter to the Prime Minister, as well as to the call of law enforcement partners.

[Translation]

Bill C-48 would also strengthen the current provision relating to reverse onus for those accused of intimate partner violence. As many senators will remember, reverse onus was established by Bill C-75, which received Royal Assent in June 2019. It applies to those accused of intimate partner violence who have already been convicted of a similar offence, in recognition of the fact that women who report an abusive partner often expose themselves to greater risk in doing so.

Bill C-48 would expand this provision so that it applies not only to those already convicted of intimate partner violence, but also to those who have already been released for such an offence. A discharge is a finding of guilt, not a conviction; it often means that the accused can avoid a criminal record if they comply with certain conditions. This tool can be useful to judges who determine sentencing in some cases, but for risk assessment purposes, the government believes that a prior discharge for intimate partner violence should be treated like a prior conviction. In both cases, there is a finding of guilt and the accused could present a high risk to reoffend if released.

I also want to point out that this aspect of Bill C-48 is comparable to a provision of Bill S-205, sponsored by Senator Boisvenu, which was passed by the Senate in April and is currently being examined by the other place.

[English]

The fourth key proposal of Bill C-48 would clarify the meaning of “prohibition order” at the bail stage of criminal proceedings. Currently, there is a reverse onus for people charged with weapons offences who were subject to a weapons prohibition order at the time of the offence. In other words, if a court had already said you can’t have a firearm, and then you commit a weapons offence, the law takes that more seriously for the purposes of bail.

Bill C-48 would make clear that the same approach should be taken for people who commit a weapons offence while on bail — when one of their bail conditions was that they couldn’t possess a weapon. If this sounds like a technicality, frankly, it’s because it is. It’s essentially a codification of the common law understanding of a prohibition order. It’s unlikely that this will alter the law as it’s currently applied, but when it comes to criminal law — and, indeed, the Criminal Code — it’s better to be clear, so the bill makes this explicit.

The final piece of Bill C-48 relates to the approach that courts must make when deciding whether to grant bail. In 2019, Bill C-75 amended the Criminal Code to provide that before making a bail order, courts must consider any relevant factors, including the criminal record of the accused, or whether the charges involve intimate partner violence.

Bill C-48 would take that a step further by expressly requiring courts to consider whether the accused has a history of violent offending. Plus, the judge would have to state — on the record — that the safety and security of the community were considered in the decision.

At present, while this generally does form part of most judges’ decision making, the law only requires courts to consider the safety and security of an individual victim. This change would address concerns raised by some municipalities and, indeed, some Indigenous communities as well.

Let me provide you with one example: There was a case last year where a man — with a history of violent sexual offences — was supposed to be released on bail to his community of Old Crow in the Yukon, prompting pushback from the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. Ultimately, that order was revised, and he was sent to Whitehorse, but the new provision in Bill C-48 would require that these types of community-specific considerations form part of the decision-making process.

And that, honourable senators, is the content of this legislation. As I said at the outset, it’s designed to be narrowly focused, addressing safety concerns, such as those raised by the provinces and territories, while respecting Charter rights. This bill is part of a national effort — in collaboration with other levels of government — to strengthen Canada’s bail system. It’s a bill that reflects significant input from the provinces and territories.

As I mentioned earlier, provincial and territorial governments have been engaged on this file. Recently, Ontario and Manitoba announced commitments to enhance bail compliance measures, amongst other things. British Columbia has made significant investments to strengthen enforcement and improve interventions in relation to repeat violent offending.

Importantly, the provinces and territories have committed to improving data collection, because, to be frank, we need much better data on this subject. Colleagues, as you know, that is an issue we have encountered frequently, especially in the area of criminal justice, where the system is administered by so many different jurisdictions across the country. Recent federal budgets have included investments in better data collection, including disaggregated data, and the government is hopeful that the provinces’ commitments related to bail will herald a significant improvement in this space.

Colleagues, I would also note that Bill C-48 includes a provision for parliamentary review after five years. I expect Parliament will have the benefit of more comprehensive data at that time.

It is also important to note that discussions about bail reform have been held with representatives from national Indigenous organizations and other Indigenous representatives, which include the Assembly of First Nations, AFN; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the ITK; the Métis National Council, the MNC; as well as the Indigenous Bar Association; the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs; the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations in Saskatchewan and numerous others. Their input has been an important part of developing a legislative approach that will help protect Indigenous communities from violent crime, while recognizing the need to continue combatting the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system.

Colleagues, one of our roles in this chamber is to represent the regions of Canada. Bill C-48 is a piece of legislation that is supported by every province and territory. In fact, it was expressly called for by all premiers. In Bill C-48, the government has answered that call.

Repeat violent offending and offending with firearms or other weapons need to be taken seriously. Bill C-48 takes concrete action at the federal level to strengthen the bail regime and respond to public safety concerns in a manner that respects the Charter, judicial discretion and the fundamental principles of justice that define our system of justice.

The other place adopted this bill as soon as it possibly could, debating and passing it this past Monday — the very first day of its fall sitting. I ask that honourable colleagues recognize the call for quick action from the provinces and territories, and the sense of urgency shown by members of Parliament, and move Bill C-48 forward expeditiously.

With that, I thank you very much.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Housakos, do you have a question?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

This past spring, Senator Gold, you may remember that I asked you a series of questions about the secret outsourcing of the Canada Emergency Business Account, or CEBA, small business loans program to the consulting firm Accenture. I asked you questions on May 30 and June 13 that have yet to be answered, including who made the decision to keep these sole-source contracts hidden from Parliament and taxpayers, and when Minister Freeland and Minister Ng became aware that Accenture was administering the program.

Leader, what are the answers to these questions?

Could you also tell us the current total amount paid out to Accenture?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): One of the impetuses for Bill C-18 was a recognition that traditional media were really struggling in the face of changing circumstances and that the giants — two of whom you mentioned — were benefiting without contributing their fair share.

The government was always aware that the tech giants would use their market force to try to bully Canada and try to impede our ability to have them sit down and negotiate fair deals with both big and small media outlets in Canada. They are doing exactly what their nature seems to be doing, and the Government of Canada remains committed that it’s doing the right thing for Canada and will continue to do so in the face of the bullying tactics of big tech.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, if Bill C-48 on bail reform had been in place in Canada for the last five years, how many criminal offenders would have stayed in jail as opposed to being released on bail? Given what you have described, this Trudeau government bill has a very limited scope, so my guess is that the actual number of offenders this would actually apply to is tiny.

Hon. Paula Simons: Senator Gold, as a journalist, I covered some terrible incidents in which terrible crimes were committed by people who had been released on bail, so I understand the emotional and political impetus to speed this bill to passage. However, I am concerned with the speed at which things are moving, because we are dealing with an issue in which people’s fundamental liberties are at stake. As you have so eloquently explained, we have a presumption of innocence in Canada, and we only use reverse-onus provisions in very particular cases, because we have that presumption to be assumed innocent.

Given the state of our remand centres, which are not lovely places to be and are very full, and given the delays in our court system, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has raised concerns that expanding reverse-onus provisions may lead to people pleading guilty simply to speed along their passage to a less uncomfortable place than remand.

I have two questions. First, what assurances do we have that this will not have knock-on effects to make remand centres even fuller, to cause even more court backlogs and to make people take guilty pleas in order to get out of the limbo of remand? Second, given the pace at which things are moving, will the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee be allowed the latitude to conduct a proper and thorough committee study, which was not allowed for in the House?