THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 26, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 10:31 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable colleagues. I declare open this standing committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. My name is David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan and chair of this committee. I’m going to ask members to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned land of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Senator Dhillon: Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we’re meeting to continue our study of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).
We’re pleased to welcome, by video conference today, two witnesses in the first panel, Thomas Carrique, Commissioner of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP; and Tom Stamatakis, President of the Canadian Police Association. We welcome both witnesses here today. Thank you for joining us and helping us in our study of this bill.
We’ll begin with opening remarks before we move to questions from the senators. We’ll start with Mr. Carrique, followed by Mr. Stamatakis. The floor is yours for five minutes or so each. We’d like you to keep to that timeline if possible.
Thomas Carrique, Commissioner, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Thank you, chair and committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
The enactment of Bill C-48 was an important milestone toward bail reform. It is evident that our work to ensure the safety of our communities is not done. There have been many egregious examples of repeat and violent offenders out on bail who commit additional offences. As Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, or OPP, I can provide some insightful statistics.
Between 2023 and 2025, 9,710 offenders were charged by the OPP with an offence while they were on bail. Of the 9,710 offenders who reoffended while out on bail, there were over 54,000 charges laid by OPP officers. Of those, 7,540 were violent crime charges.
To break down these statistics even further, there were 4,277 assault charges, 879 sexual assault charges, 146 robbery charges, 7 charges laid for attempted murder and even 10 homicide charges laid against offenders who were out on bail for other offences. This is just in OPP jurisdiction.
Once we factor in similar occurrences from major cities and communities across the country, it is clear that violent offenders continue to victimize Canadians while released on bail. When the public sees individuals who have been released on bail, or who have prior related convictions, continuing to commit new offences, we see public confidence in the justice system diminish and concerns over public safety intensify.
For context, in Ontario, there are currently more than 2,700 violent offenders charged with firearms-related offences who are on bail and being monitored by 32 police services via our province’s Bail Compliance Dashboard.
Combined with stronger sentencing that prioritizes denunciation and deterrence to combat violent and organized crime, legislative changes regarding stricter bail conditions for specific violent crimes and repeat offenders are necessary to mitigate serious crime and maintain public trust.
The CACP welcomes the amendments providing guidance to the application of the principle of restraint, closer scrutiny of release plans and the addition of consideration of random or unprovoked violence when determining release.
The amendments to reverse onus provisions of the Criminal Code recognize the serious harms to society perpetrated by those involved in organized crime, extortion, trafficking and certain serious, repeat violent crimes.
The bill must introduce clarity on the burden of proof for certain reverse onus bail hearings and provide direction on how to apply the reverse onus provisions. It is the CACP’s position that the burden of proof in these cases should require clear and convincing evidence before the accused person may be released. This standard falls between a balance of probabilities and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The CACP is also requesting the strengthening of the estreatment process to require specific information from a proposed surety, and a limit to the judicial discretion to order the forfeiture of a lesser amount than the amount pledged. A more rigid forfeiture process compels accused persons to comply with their conditions. A surety is only effective if the consequence of a breach is meaningful.
In addition to the proposed amendments to bail and sentencing in Bill C-14, the CACP also supports the proposed amendment to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which would permit police to publish identifying information about a young person without a court order in urgent situations when the individual is at large and poses an imminent risk to public safety.
This measured, time-limited authority will save critical time and enhance public safety during rapidly evolving investigations. Notwithstanding this support, the CACP does have concerns regarding other proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Specifically, the amendments seeking to create and restrict access to non-charge investigative records.
Bill C-14 subjects these records to much stricter treatment than any other category of record and fails to properly account for the nature of police investigations or the important uses of certain police records and information. These amendments would hinder investigations, restrict the ability to meet disclosure obligations in criminal proceedings and prevent information-sharing with courts, child protection agencies and other key partners.
We, therefore, recommend that these amendments be withdrawn and replaced with a more balanced approach.
Finally, the CACP welcomes the sentencing amendments to the Criminal Code that require the court to consider repeat violent offences, organized crime and whether the offence was committed against a first responder or health care provider.
In closing, the CACP applauds the government for recognizing the serious impact of organized crime and chronic and violent offenders within our communities — and for advancing legislative change that prioritizes public safety and protects Canadians from preventable harm.
I welcome any questions the committee may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Carrique.
Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear today.
I am here on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, representing more than 60,000 front-line police personnel serving communities across Canada. Our perspective is national in scope but grounded in day-to-day policing realities. I would like to begin with the legislation itself.
From a front-line policing perspective, the Canadian Police Association supports Bill C-14 because it addresses a very specific and well-documented challenge within our justice system: the disproportionate impact of a relatively small group of repeat violent offenders.
Our members encounter this reality every day. They arrest individuals who pose a clear risk to public safety only to see them released back into the community in short order, often with conditions that are breached and inconsistently enforced. This cycle places a strain on police resources, increases risks to communities and contributes to a growing perception that the system is not functioning as intended.
Bill C-14 introduces targeted and measured reforms that better align bail and sentencing practices with these realities. In our view, these are proportionate changes that respect the Charter while strengthening accountability and public safety.
We recognize that concerns have been raised about the potential impacts of this legislation, including questions about evidence, proportionality and the effects on vulnerable populations. These are important considerations, and they deserve careful attention. However, it’s equally important to acknowledge that the current system is producing outcomes that are increasingly difficult to defend.
Statistics Canada has documented a steady decline in Canadians’ trust and confidence in the justice system and the courts. That erosion of confidence has real consequences. It affects victims, communities and the front-line officers tasked with upholding the law. Confidence is foundational to the legitimacy of the system, and right now, that confidence is under strain.
The concept of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute is often debated in legal terms, but it also has a real‑world dimension. When repeat violent offenders cycle rapidly through the system without meaningful consequences, public confidence is eroded and that too risks bringing the system into disrepute. Bill C-14 must be understood in that context.
It is also important to recognize the level of consensus behind this legislation. Premiers from across the country, representing different political parties and regions, have called for meaningful bail reform. Municipal governments have echoed those calls. All major federal parties made specific commitments on bail reform during the last federal election, just one year ago. That kind of alignment across orders of government and political perspectives is rare, and it reflects both the urgency and the credibility of the issue.
From our perspective, this is not about broad or indiscriminate changes; it is about ensuring that repeat and violent offenders are subject to appropriate and consistent consequences, while maintaining a system that remains fair and proportionate.
The Senate plays a critical role in providing sober second thought, and we respect that role. At the same time, we would encourage this committee to move expeditiously in its consideration of Bill C-14. This issue has been extensively studied. It has been the subject of national discussion and clear commitments across political lines.
From a front-line perspective, the need for action is immediate. Further delay risks perpetuating a cycle that continues to undermine public confidence.
Our members are doing their jobs. They are identifying and arresting high-risk offenders. What they need is a system that consistently reinforces those efforts with timely and meaningful accountability.
Parliament has recognized the problem. There is consensus on the need to act. From our perspective, the remaining question is not whether reform is necessary, but whether we will deliver it in a timely way. Bill C-14 represents a practical and necessary step in that direction.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stamatakis. Thank you both for your opening remarks.
We’ll now turn to committee members for questions and discussion.
Senator Batters: Thanks to both of you for being here and for all the important work that you do every day to keep Canadians safe.
I’d like to start with Mr. Stamatakis.
In Bill C-14, even where release is granted, the law does still district bail decision makers toward imposing the “. . . least onerous conditions . . .” possible. From a law enforcement perspective, are you concerned that this directive continues to unnecessarily complicate the work of police and the courts by anchoring decisions in the presumption of starting with the least onerous option rather than allowing decision makers to impose, from the very beginning, whatever conditions are necessary to protect the public, victims and witnesses?
Mr. Stamatakis: The imposition of release conditions is a problem if those conditions aren’t effective and consistently enforced. That is a challenge that we see every day as our members do their work in communities across the country.
I think the bill, while emphasizing the least onerous approach, provides some flexibility, particularly with specific offences and also with the addition of the additional reverse onus offences.
We’re hoping that, with the most serious and violent repeat offenders, these provisions will provide some relief. Of course, the provinces also have a responsibility to build the capacity to be able to manage bail release effectively.
Senator Batters: You just mentioned the reverse onus part. After reviewing Bill C-14, which serious violent offences or which repeat-offender types of profiles do you think remain outside of the reverse onus categories and, therefore, are still treated under the regular bail regime?
Mr. Stamatakis: The addition of people who commit random violence will give the police the tools to be able to bring these people before a judge, with our partners in the Crown, to make the argument to keep these people detained.
I think the addition of break and enter, the issues we’ve been faced with around auto theft, home invasions — these are all appropriate offences to add. I think that they will allow the police to more effectively make the case, with our partners at the Crown, to keep these people detained.
Again, the provinces have to do their part in how they’re directing our criminal justice partners in terms of how they manage these issues.
I think this is a step in the right direction. I’m hopeful that it is passed into law quickly so that we can start to see the difference.
Senator Batters: Right. I agree with you. It’s a step in the right direction.
We just need to make sure that, if there are any gaps. If, after your testimony today, you think of some particular gaps in that regime, or other serious types of violent offences that you think would be best included, please get back to our committee about that.
As both of you will recall, with Bill C-5, the Liberal government widely expanded the ability of convicted criminals to receive house arrest as their potential sentence.
Bill C-14 doesn’t take away the ability to get house arrest for some of those offences, but there do still remain many serious offences that could continue to be eligible for house arrest, and those would include human trafficking, robbery and weapons trafficking.
The Liberal government opposed, in the House of Commons committee, a Conservative amendment that would have stopped house arrest for those types of serious crimes.
Mr. Stamatakis, particularly in dealing with things like human trafficking and robbery, the argument that we’ve heard from the government is those would just be available for summary conviction offences. However, they’re still criminal convictions for those very serious offences.
Do you think that those are offences that house arrest should be allowed for, or would you say that house arrest should not be allowed for any of those types of offences?
Mr. Stamatakis: I think sentencing is a serious issue in this country, particularly when it comes to chronic violent offenders. The challenge that we have is a capacity issue.
So, while I would take the view that house arrest is not appropriate for some of those offences that you have mentioned — human trafficking-related offences or anything to do with victimizing people where there’s violence involved. The reality is, though, we don’t have enough capacity in the system, which is part of what undermines, I think, how people are sentenced when they’re committing these kinds of crimes. I think this is one piece of it.
The other piece is how we build capacity in the system so that we can create a system where there is the right measure of accountability and consequence that emphasizes deterring people from committing these kinds of offences and emphasizes the principle of denunciation.
House arrest, in my view, should be used in certain circumstances, but, for sure, when we’re talking about repeat violent offenders, I don’t think it’s an appropriate sentence at all.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to continue talking about the issue raised by Senator Batters regarding serving a sentence in the community.
Do you think that people charged with or convicted of human trafficking offences should be able to serve their sentences in the community?
[English]
Mr. Stamatakis: I think sentencing is challenging. The issue with focusing on having people serve sentences in the community is that this in and of itself could be causing harm to that community. I think these are issues that need to be considered carefully. You may be sentencing someone to serve their sentence in the community, but that may inadvertently cause other harms or expose victims to further harm. I think that’s a complicated issue and needs to be considered carefully. In my view, it should not be the first approach without considering the broader impact on that community.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What does Mr. Carrique think?
[English]
Mr. Carrique: I’m sorry, senator. I was having problems with the translation. I missed the first part of the question. Was it regarding the appropriateness of sentences being served in the community?
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, especially when it comes to people convicted of human trafficking offences.
[English]
Mr. Carrique: As President Stamatakis has said, I would oppose that. That is a high-risk offence where these perpetrators victimize the most vulnerable in our communities. Allowing those sentences to be served out in the community puts them in a position to continue to victimize our most vulnerable, so I absolutely oppose that type of sentencing.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to talk about the bail issue. I want to hear your thoughts on this topic.
I read that one of the problems that this bill fails to address concerns the lack of knowledge about all the past crimes. Can we really dig into the accused person’s past to find out their history? Are there issues caused by divisions between the various levels of government and the cities?
[English]
Mr. Carrique: I don’t think there are too many divisions between the various levels of policing or government. Whenever there’s a criminal conviction, it is registered on a system referred to as the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, and that information is available to the courts.
Bill C-14 provides further direction into looking at a criminal history, for example, previous convictions for similar offences, violent offences and the use of weapons. I believe Bill C-14 addresses that and prioritizes reviewing and considering an offender’s criminal history.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Now let’s talk about the burden of proof. I would like to hear your point of view as a police officer, because it seems hard to imagine.
How can an accused person satisfy the burden of proof to obtain bail when they don’t necessarily have the resources or legal knowledge to defend themselves?
[English]
Mr. Carrique: All accused persons under the Charter are entitled to be represented by counsel, and counsel would represent that accused person to provide the necessary information and evidence for the justice to make an appropriate decision. We are asking for clarity as it relates to bail and to reverse onus provisions and that there be a clear understanding that it is a threshold of clear and convincing evidence that the accused party will not continue to endanger citizens. They will appear at court. That needs to be a very clear threshold, not beyond a reasonable doubt, which is too high of a standard, but clear and convincing.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Stamatakis?
Mr. Stamatakis: No, I agree. I think the bill also provides further direction with respect to that so that if there is consideration for bail, there’s a clear plan. As Commissioner Carrique mentioned, there is a reasonable expectation that this person will abide by whatever that plan is. I think the bill gives good direction with regard to that.
The Chair: We have a number of senators on the list, so I’m going to have to keep everyone to four minutes for each question and its answer.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to our witnesses. My question is for both Mr. Stamatakis and Mr. Carrique.
We had a discussion with the panel of witnesses about the availability of hard data, which is fragmented and limited in scope. Minister Sean Fraser pointed out the value of qualitative data based on the experiences of people on the front line.
I’d like to ask you both about your experiences and the experiences of officers you represent and/or data you may have. More specifically, I wish to ask if your organizations collect and disaggregate data by Indigenous identity on the following questions: Who are the repeat violent offenders cycling through the bail system? Who are the individuals who reoffend while on bail? Who are the victims of these offences?
Maybe we’ll start with you, Mr. Stamatakis, and then we’ll move to you, Mr. Carrique.
Mr. Stamatakis: The collection of data has been an issue historically. In the police sector — and you heard Commissioner Carrique cite some statistics that he’s gathered within his own organization — I think we’re starting to do a better job of collecting the type of data you talked about. I think data is critically important, and services are tracking that type of information now more than they have in the past.
In terms of who’s committing these offences, these are broader systemic issues that need to be more carefully examined and better responded to. We have a system where we have people cycling through because we’re not giving them appropriate mental health supports. We’re not giving them appropriate supports with respect to dealing with addictions and issues like that. These are the people who are most often committing these violent offences with these underlying issues, and these are the people who are cycling through.
In terms of who they’re victimizing, they’re often victimizing other vulnerable people in similar situations as well as other citizens who are going about their daily lives. For example, my home service is in Vancouver. You’ve got people who are randomly being assaulted by people who are struggling with all kinds of underlying issues, so the people being victimized are just going about their daily lives and getting randomly assaulted. We have businesses that are being chronically broken into and stolen from and on and on. It is a significant issue, and we have to do a better job of actually capturing the data so we know how to target the problem. Those types of information are being collected now in a more effective way.
Mr. Carrique: Thank you, senator. I agree wholeheartedly with President Stamatakis. This has been a vulnerable point for us, having qualitative data that we can rely upon. Improvements have been made. In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are working with Statistics Canada to ensure race-based data is collected, and we will be in a better position as we move forward to have a clear, evidence-based picture on who offenders are and who victims are.
Qualitatively, what I can tell you is that a lot of times it’s members of one’s own community who are victimized by offenders. That is something, as community leaders, individuals need to really reflect on and think hard about because we have an obligation to protect victims within our own communities and prevent them from being victimized.
I did mention, in my opening comments, a number of statistics. I would ask you to give very serious consideration to the fact that, in a two-year period, we arrested over 9,700 offenders out on bail. Most astonishing and completely unacceptable were 879 charges for sexual assault and 10 charges for murder. This is preventable if we do a better job with bail and sentencing.
My last point, from a qualitative standpoint, is this: In December 2022, I had an officer murdered by an offender who was out on bail who never should have been released if there were appropriate decision-making relating the rink to public safety. As Mr. Stamatakis has said, I think the time is now for us all to come together and make meaningful change that corrects the trajectory of violent crime across this country. The crime severity index has increased by 41% from 2014 to 2024, and we have an opportunity to reverse that trajectory. That time is now.
Senator Prosper: Thank you for your service.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for your service and for what you do. I have two questions, commissioner. You mentioned, in your initial statement, some areas that CACP would like to see reversed, amendments that you spoke about. Would you just go through them briefly for us, please?
Mr. Carrique: Absolutely. I would be happy to provide a document in writing that goes into much more detail. Essentially, it’s the portions that are proposed to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act related to the sharing and retention of information where charges are not laid against a young person who is investigated. That can be problematic in ensuring a young person gets a proper defence when that information is not disclosed. If they were a suspect and not charged but somebody else was, it prohibits us from meeting our provincial responsibilities in legislation to advise of a child in need of protection. There are all sorts of inherent risks with this that we feel, as written, do not serve their intended purpose, and we propose it be withdrawn and looked at further.
Senator Dhillon: I will take you up on that offer: If you will provide us with those details, and also some of the reasons for them, that would be helpful.
I support all of this, and I think there’s a lot of support for the work that’s been done in this area. We’re working through some of the issues coming up for discussion and, as you raised, there are amendments you would like to see addressed.
One area that I have started to ask questions about is the issue around clause 70 of Bill C-14, which allows, in urgent situations, releasing the name of a young person without judicial authorization. While I agree with it in principle, and I understand the reasons for it and that certain circumstances call for us to act to respond in instances where public safety is threatened, I wonder if I can get both your opinions and thoughts on whether you see value on having an independent review of those decisions post-event. That way, there would be a measure of accountability on the criteria that we would use. I expect that police associations and CACP would encourage this and that there would be a policy put around this, a criteria-based approach and a strong framework. Having said that, I know, Tom, you also shared that there is an erosion of public confidence in the entire system. Do you see value in having an independent office review that decision and that act, post-event, to ensure that we have done our part in keeping with the spirit of that legislation and that power?
Mr. Stamatakis: I wouldn’t be opposed to some kind of a process. I think, though, we need to acknowledge there are processes in place. For example, I would expect there would be clear guidelines and rules around how this would happen, including provincial training regulations and standards with respect to what the expectations on police would be. Of course, if the information were ever released in those exigent circumstances and there were some issues with it, every province now has some type of independent oversight of policing, where that organization in each province — they’re all slightly different — could step in and conduct that kind of a review. I think the mechanisms are there. If there were a need for something totally different, it wouldn’t concern me at all, but I think we should look at existing systems that we have first because we may be able to accomplish that goal using those systems.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Tom. Commissioner?
Mr. Carrique: Thank you, senator. I concur with Tom’s comments. I believe there are processes and systems in place to ensure accountability to capture lessons learned. I acknowledge in the amendments, it’s for a limited 24-hour period, which I think is very important, and I would hope that every province across this country would implement training for officers, as well as ensure that only those trained would be able to make those decisions, that those decisions would be documented and that there would be procedures around definitions that assist with making those critical decisions.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you both.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to our witnesses. I want to pick up from something Senator Batters said that prompted a thought from me. In paragraph 515(3)(a.1), it mandates that a court consider the random and unprovoked nature of a violent offence when considering interim release. The two existing factors the court must consider involve the use of violence and prior convictions. There’s a clear case in which public safety would obviously favour not granting bail. But if you make the randomness and unprovoked nature of the attack an aggravating factor, what does that mean for people who allegedly commit offences that have a clear reason or premeditation or provocation, like domestic assaults, which are a huge part of the problem of assault and homicide in this country? Doesn’t this make it easier for somebody who commits an act in a premeditated fashion or with provocation to get bail than somebody whose actions are random and might well be motivated by a mental health problem?
Mr. Carrique: I think this closes a gap, as opposed to weakening previous decisions, as it relates to offenders who commit intimate partner violence, which is obviously a relationship-based offence. That is currently covered under the legislation, and particular attention must be paid to the second principle of bail, which is to protect the public, including victims of and witnesses to the offence. Where there was a gap, where it was unprovoked and a stranger attack, that could be perceived and presented, in some cases, as a one-off. One could say, “This offender doesn’t present an ongoing danger. There were other circumstances and factors that led to this.” I feel, from my operational experience, that it has made it very difficult to detain those offenders in custody, and this causes the judiciary to have to consider that as an aggravating factor as opposed to a mitigating factor.
Mr. Stamatakis: I agree with Commissioner Carrique. I see it exactly as he described it, and it’s about closing this gap that existed with those kinds of offences that we started to see more of.
Senator Simons: In Edmonton in the past couple of years, we’ve had some terrible incidents of people who have been released on bail and reoffended very violently, committing homicides. In most of those cases, what seems to have been a real problem is that those people were released without a proper release plan. They were released back to living rough on the street or to a surety who wasn’t equipped to maintain them.
How big a problem is it, not just that we’re granting bail, but that we’re granting bail without consideration for what happens to the person who has been released?
Mr. Stamatakis: That’s one of the aspects of this bill that, from our perspective, is going to make a difference — this requirement that those release plans be carefully considered so that they can be effective because that has been one of the problems. It’s releasing people without an appropriate plan or releasing people with a plan that puts them right back into the situation that they were in. That probably led to the commission of different offences. There is also the reliance on sureties that were never in a position to supervise the person being released on bail or to hold that person accountable, and the sureties themselves are not accountable in terms of whatever the commitment is that they make. That has been a very big part of why this has become such a big issue.
Mr. Carrique: I agree wholeheartedly again. You may have noted in my opening comments that CACP is encouraging further work to be done on the estreatment process, specifically around sureties. I can’t think of many times in my policing career when I’ve actually seen a surety have to forfeit a deposit without cash. It is absolutely necessary to ensure sureties take responsibility for accused persons. They are supposed to monitor and supervise. Without that, there are no consequences, and seldom will there be compliance if there are no consequences.
Senator K. Wells: My question for the commissioner.
The statistics you mentioned in your opening statement went by fairly quickly, so I’m hoping you can send those to us and include with them the sources and parameters — I think you mentioned a two-year date range — just to give us a sense of how those statistics are collected.
This next bit you may know already, but if not, I invite you to send this with the statistical breakdown: You mentioned those out on bail and what proportion of those individuals are involved in violent offences while they’re out on bail versus breaches of conditions or administration of justice. I am just looking for a further breakdown of those stats.
Mr. Carrique: I will certainly send the statistics I referred to. I can give you approximate figures in terms of what we call administrative offences for failing to comply or failing to appear. In 2025, the OPP arrested 9,200 offenders on bench warrants, which means they were on some form of release and failed to attend court. We laid over 25,000 charges for failing to comply.
The rest of the statistics that I provided earlier related to violent offences. In total, there were over 54,000 offences against offenders who were out on bail. Of those, 7,540 were for violent crimes.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you, and thank you for agreeing to send those statistics in writing to us through the clerk.
To follow up on that, as we’re looking at stricter sentencing and bail reforms for certain types of crimes, have you had conversations, for example, in Ontario with the government about correctional and remand system capacity? It seems as if we’re going to be exacerbating a significant problem that already exists. If there aren’t more dedicated resources to address that, the concern could be that judges could be doing two for one or three for one and time served in inhumane or problematic conditions, and then we’re dealing with early release again, which would be exactly what, perhaps, this bill is trying to address — just shifting the problem further down the system.
Mr. Carrique: In Ontario, we have. There are short- and long-term plans that have been undertaken by the Ministry of the Solicitor General to increase immediate access to beds and also longer-term plans for new and expanded bed access to ensure they have the capacity to deal with the trending nature of crime and incarceration. Additionally, there have been substantial investments in prosecutors, specifically prosecutors who have subject-matter expertise in bail. It’s a whole-of-system approach, as you and President Stamatakis have already highlighted.
Mr. Stamatakis: I can also add that those conversations are happening in most provinces across the country. There is a commitment at the provincial level to build that capacity because there’s a recognition that, without that, we’re going to be no further ahead. I’m hopeful the provinces will follow through and add that capacity. It is critical if this is going to make the kind of difference that we hope it will.
Senator Pate: Thank you. Following up on Senator Wells’s questions, I would be interested in more details regarding those stats, especially going back. We know that, since 1998 and the start of some of the bail reforms, we’ve actually seen a reduction of 75% in break and entry and 57% in motor vehicle theft. So, I would be interested in seeing that disaggregated data.
As recently as this morning, I had a conversation with a police officer about these very issues. One of the things that strikes me is that, when former Senator Boniface was in your position, commissioner, she and I were on a committee that looked at these kinds of issues. We talked about the fact that if we did not invest in mental health issues, addiction issues, housing and supports for folks in the community, we were likely to see the continuation of these sorts of trajectories. It’s far easier to look as if you’re doing something if you call for longer, more punitive sentences — or more difficulty in achieving judicial interim release.
We’re now in this position again. I’d be interested in whether the position of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has changed in that respect in terms of calling for more of those issues to be dealt with upfront in order to help prevent us from ending up in these situations. Your own testimony this morning was that you have seen that many of these folks, the people who are victimized and who are facing potentially being denied bail, are often from the same communities and often living in precarious situations.
I’d be curious as to what else you are recommending at this stage and how those recommendations may have changed over the past decade or two.
Mr. Carrique: At CACP, we have maintained our position that social servicing is an absolute essential part of creating safe and healthy communities, and we very actively engage in those partnerships and programs and support investing in them.
What has changed, and not for the good, is the decriminalization pilot project in British Columbia — and an apathy across this country in actually using criminal sanctions to deal with the use of drugs and victimization that stems from that use. The statistics show very strongly that the pilot project was an absolute failure, and it caused a degradation in community safety and well-being. We have adjusted our position to say that the two need to coexist. We still need to deal with enforcement and treat drug traffickers as drug traffickers, since they victimize those who have substance abuse addictions. Also, we should be turning our minds toward court-compelled care, but that is a different subject for another day, though I appreciate the opportunity to clarify our current position, senator.
Senator Pate: Thank you for that because, yes, when the decision in B.C. was to decriminalize without providing adequate resources, many of us predicted it would become a more visible issue but not necessarily one whereby the issue gets addressed. That is very much what we’ve seen as opposed to a failure of the notion of decriminalization: We’ve seen a greater exposure to the very reasons why people are anesthetizing themselves with drugs and alcohol on the street.
There are a number of folks who are concerned about drawing the conclusion that you just did, including the police officer I was speaking to this morning, who was trying to address an issue involving someone with significant mental health issues and past trauma, someone who, themselves, but for the day, would be victimized.
I would be very interested in any data you have that would support those conclusions. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I’ll continue to discuss the resources issue, but in terms of your resources within the police forces.
We talked about the real impact of any reform. This also largely depends on the capacity of front-line players, such as yourselves, to apply these new rules in a timely, consistent and well-informed manner. We know that you’re facing significant limitations on the ground in the form of resource shortages, excessive workloads and delays.
I would like to hear from Mr. Stamatakis first.
You spoke of quick and responsive accountability. I couldn’t agree more. To that end, what suggestions would you make to the police forces for the successful implementation of Bill C-14? What minimum conditions for training, resources and coordination should we consider for the successful implementation of Bill C-14?
[English]
Mr. Stamatakis: As I said in my opening remarks, police personnel are doing their jobs. They are enforcing Canada’s laws. They are identifying, locating and arresting repeat violent offenders. The challenge, though, is that once we arrest those repeat violent offenders, if we’re releasing them on bail right away, not sentencing appropriately, not getting to the underlying issues and — as was mentioned before — not providing appropriate treatment options once someone is arrested and incarcerated in a facility, then those issues continue.
If we arrest someone and they’re released on bail almost immediately, then we’re engaging with that person again. That person is recommitting other offences or violent offences, and we’re having to engage. That’s a drain on resources. The fact is that we can manage what this legislation is attempting to accomplish, but we need the whole system to do the work together so that we are not dealing with the same people over and over again.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Mr. Carrique, would you like to add anything?
[English]
Mr. Carrique: Thank you, senator. This proposed legislation will mitigate some of the strain on our resources. It is preparing bail packages for offenders only to get released and rearrested time and time again that is tying up our resources. It’s the 9,200 bench warrants that we had to investigate and apprehend people for, as I referred to, that are taking up our resources. It’s the investigation and prosecution of serious crimes like homicide, sex assault and robberies committed by those out on bail, or who did not receive strong enough sentences to deter further criminal activity, that is tying up our resources.
So the enactment of this legislation, if effective, will actually have the desired outcome that we’re talking about, which is taking some work away from our officers.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Tannas: My question is for Commissioner Carrique. I understand that CACP represents about 90% of the police community in Canada. Does that include the RCMP? Are they members?
Mr. Carrique: Yes, senator, they are.
Senator Tannas: You mentioned some impressive statistics in your remarks. You’ve seen that they’ve captured our interest. And a lot of that comes, I think, from successive witnesses over the years who have told us that there is not good data.
I want to suggest to you that your organization probably has an interest in this subject that doesn’t wax and wane the way it does for politicians and the public. You are also, I think, probably well qualified to draw the exact information that should be tracked over a long period of time consistently, and you have an interest in doing so.
Have you ever thought about your organization taking this on and developing the national data set consistently — starting as soon as possible? Your members are there, and they have the information. I would be curious to know if you or your organization have ever thought that maybe you’re the answer to this chronic problem of having ministers here who say, “We can’t get the data,” or say, “It’s the provinces,” and so on. So we continue to have these kinds of situations that we’re in right now. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Carrique: Thank you, senator. There are a number of police services that have very good data, but it hasn’t always been that way. There’s a collective commitment from police leaders across this country to get better at collecting, analyzing and sharing this data.
Currently, we have onboarded 32 of the 53 police services in the province of Ontario onto our Bail Compliance Dashboard, which will allow us to share data across police services and be more prepared to analyze that data and make meaningful recommendations.
Eventually, we would like to get to a position where we can onboard every police service across this country or share that platform and data set. It is something that we are working toward.
Senator Tannas: Have you ever thought of having a conversation with the justice minister, to say, rather than fooling around with the provinces and some top-down issues, they could give you the money and you could put people together and have your members assemble all this? Sometimes, I’m surprised that organizations that are national and have all the right people at the table don’t seem to want to take on problem-solving issues that are, to me, incredibly obvious. I would leave you with that, and if you want to make a comment, that’s fine. Thank you.
Mr. Carrique: Thank you, senator. I will make one comment: This country would be in an ideal state, from a policing standpoint, if there were a will at all levels of government and all levels of leadership — policing included — to move to one records management system. That is the long-term solution. We continue to invest in smaller grants and smaller opportunities. If we want to make big, sustainable, meaningful change, it would be one records management system for an entire country.
Mr. Stamatakis: We have made those kinds of submissions to different governments over many years. It is a question of getting consensus across all levels of government and a funding commitment from the appropriate source.
Senator Tannas: I think the police association can cut through all of the nonsense that goes on between provincial and federal turf protectors and actually assemble the numbers. My bet is you could get the funding for it. You would have a number of soldiers just here in this room who would help you, rather than hoping for the perfection of 12 jurisdictions coming together to do something quickly to solve a problem. Thanks.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you both for appearing today. You represent the chiefs and the members of the police forces. You’re on the front line in this part of the criminal process, which is dealing with offences, whether they’re being committed or you’re trying to prevent them. That’s your expertise, and I understand that you are among the stakeholders consulted in preparation of the bill and that you’re rather happy or satisfied with the content of the bill.
Would you please tell me how the bail revision will help you to fight organized crime and violent offenders, specifically in your daily work?
Mr. Carrique: Certainly, that’s a very large question, and I appreciate it senator. I will distill my answer down to a very brief summary. I think it allows us to better combat organized crime and serious offences by actually tying organized crime and naming serious and violent offences within the bail construct and within sentencing. It creates stronger sentencing that denounces and deters crime, and it also creates a stronger bail regime that will prevent repeat violent offenders and those working in concert with organized crime from being released back into our communities to continue to victimize Canadians.
Senator Dalphond: I saw the Peel Regional Police have some data about that. If you have access, would you mind providing to the committee how many of the offenders that you arrest are repeat offenders, and how many are related to organized crime, and the impact when you keep people inside and remand — on the criminality rate in the region the week after?
Mr. Carrique: There are statistics related to organized crime. It is hard to correlate it into the bail conversation with the current way data is captured, but we have statistics related to organized crime, and you’ll see it continues to grow. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service produces data related to organized crime. The number of crime groups continues to grow. Their financial prosperity continues to grow. Being able to deal with appropriate sentencing will help deter that growth and that further embedding into Canadian society that they are relying on for their financial gain.
Mr. Stamatakis: I agree with Commissioner Carrique. If there are greater consequences and that sentencing becomes more strident, that will potentially prevent people from organized crime groups from recruiting as well. There’s another knock-on benefit down the road.
There are some police services that can provide examples where a repeat violent offender or repeat offender has been arrested and detained and there’s an immediate positive effect on crime in a particular community or neighbourhood where that offender might have been prolific.
There is data around specific cases through which you can make that correlation.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you. Please provide that data if you have access to it.
The Chair: As I understand it, there are no more questions in this first round. I want to thank the witnesses for coming today and assisting us in our work. It’s very important, and I know you understand this, that you augment your verbal testimony here today with some written data, particularly on things like the burden-of-proof issue and the recommendations that you’re making to amend this act because you don’t like amendments that were made in the other place. Thank you for that. Any of the data senators have asked for will be very helpful as we analyze this bill.
Thank you to both witnesses for your attendance here today.
For our second panel, we’re pleased to welcome Mr. Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. He is present with us here this morning. As well, we welcome Jennifer Dunn, the Executive Director of the London Abused Women’s Centre, appearing by video conference.
Unfortunately, on the notice, you will see Sarah Crawford, Executive Director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, was to join us by video conference. Unfortunately, there were audio problems, so she will not be able to join us today. We’ll see if we can rectify that in the future.
In this case, then, I welcome the two witnesses with us today. We’ll start with Mr. Benjamin Roebuck, followed by Ms. Jennifer Dunn. I’m going to ask both witnesses to keep their remarks to five minutes each. We have a number of senators who wish to ask you questions, and we want to make sure all senators have a chance to do that. Please restrict yourselves there. The questions and answers will be limited to four minutes each for each senator. Mr. Roebuck, please proceed.
Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime: Thank you, honourable chair and senators. It’s nice to see you again.
We are on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. Over the past year, I have often heard that we cannot have reconciliation without truth and we cannot have justice in a system that excludes Indigenous women’s voices.
My focus today is on compliance with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, or CVBR. I appreciated how this committee considered the CVBR during your study of the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission, and I highlighted your approach in our 10-year progress report on the CVBR.
I support the objective of Bill C-14 and do not want to slow a bill vital to public safety. I do want to raise some issues that would be valuable to capture in formal observations to guide future reforms.
My office hears from victims and survivors across Canada every day. Their message is remarkably consistent: They want to be safe. They want to be heard. They want to be included in decisions that affect their safety.
Just this week, a service provider told me that she has often been on the phone with survivors while the accused, released on bail, was already at their front door, banging to get inside.
For many survivors, the bail stage is one of the highest-risk moments. Yet, too many report not being notified when hearings occur, when the accused is released or where to turn for help when bail conditions are breached — particularly outside office hours.
When a woman is violently assaulted, the Criminal Code requires judges to consider her safety when deciding bail, and courts can impose protective conditions. However, she has no standing in the process herself.
She cannot make submissions if proposed release conditions put her at risk, and she cannot seek a review of decisions that may determine whether she lives or dies.
This is not an information gap; it is a safety gap. Victims cannot protect themselves when decisions are made about their safety without their knowledge.
This year, our office published Rethinking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence: A Systemic Investigation, the result of an 18-month national systemic investigation involving thousands of participants. In a survey of 1,000 survivors, less than half whose cases had resulted in charges believed that the police or the Crown took their safety seriously. Among survivors sexually assaulted by an intimate partner, fewer than one in four felt they had the information they needed from police or the Crown.
More tangibly, Myrna Dawson, Director of the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, shared with us that, from 2018 to 2025, at least 52 women and girls were killed while a protection order was in place or the accused was on bail. No less than 79% of the accused were former intimate partners, and of those with known histories, 54% had prior domestic violence convictions.
Additionally, survivors report that Gladue factors, while essential, are not always accompanied by equal consideration of the safety of Indigenous women, consistent with the findings of the national inquiry into missing Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people. Survivors in small and remote communities have limited protection options when an accused person is released. Conflicting orders between criminal and family courts compromise survivor safety. Finally, across jurisdictions, we still lack consistent national data on how often victims are notified about bail, how often their safety concerns are considered or how breaches affect outcomes. Without data, we cannot evaluate risk or prevention with accuracy.
If we want to prevent femicide in Canada, we need to centre survivor safety and survivor voices in how we design and administer bail. We cannot make consequential policy decisions with only half the picture.
These are gaps that may extend beyond the scope of Bill C-14, but they are important to capture in the record and can inform ongoing legislative work on victims’ rights.
I’d like to make two recommendations. First, protect victims by providing information. Parliament should ensure that victims have a legal right to proactive notification of bail hearings, release decisions, conditions and how to report breaches.
Second, report on victim safety. This committee could make a formal observation that the annual report on judicial interim release proposed in the bill should include data relevant to the information, protection and participation rights of victims, as required under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We’ll now hear from Ms. Dunn, who is representing the London Abused Women’s Centre.
Jennifer Dunn, Executive Director, London Abused Women’s Centre: Thank you for the invitation to be here today.
My name is Jennifer Dunn, and I am Executive Director of the London Abused Women’s Centre, or LAWC, here in London, Ontario.
For more than 43 years, LAWC has supported women and girls who have been subjected to male violence, including intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation and trafficking, with long-term trauma- and violence-informed counselling, advocacy and support.
Every day, we see how decisions made within Canada’s justice system shape not only women’s safety but their faith in justice itself. Bail and sentencing decisions are not simply legal concepts. For the women we serve, they can be the difference between safety and serious harm or even life and death.
I want to acknowledge that Bill C-14 is responding to very real and urgent concerns about repeat violence and escalating risk. From a front-line perspective, particularly in cases involving strangulation, for example, those risks are deeply concerning.
At the same time, I think it is very important to say that we must be cautious not to rely on more punitive responses to address violence against women on their own.
LAWC strongly believes that, without meaningful investments in prevention, guaranteed livable income and long-term support, we risk creating the appearance of safety without changing the underlying conditions that allow violence to continue.
We know from both research and practice that non-fatal strangulation, for example, is one of the strongest predictors of future lethal violence.
As Senator Dalphond noted in reading before the Senate:
. . . assaults and sexual assaults involving strangulation constitute a known risk factor for escalating violence or fatal violence against women leading to femicide.
From a front-line perspective, we see that risk play out in very real ways.
LAWC sits as co-chair of the High-Risk Action Table for Femicide Prevention, which is a collaborative of organizations across London and Middlesex County that provides a coordinated response to the escalating and imminent risk of femicide.
As part of this work, I recently attended specialized training with the London Police Service provided by the Training Institute on Strangulation Prevention and learned that women who are strangled by their partners and survive are 750% more likely to be a victim of attempted femicide at a later time and are 800% more likely to be killed by their partner in a subsequent assault.
When these cases come before the courts at the bail stage, they must be understood not as isolated incidents but as indicators of escalating and potentially fatal risk. Recognizing this risk in bail decisions is absolutely critical.
In London, we remember Breanna Broadfoot, who, in March 2024, was brutally attacked by her boyfriend. She was left with broken bones in her face and severe bruising from strangulation. She was only 16 years old. He was arrested and charged, but he was released from custody and was told to attend court in July.
Unfortunately, on July 16, 2024, Breanna was attacked by him again and passed away from her injuries on July 18. In November 2025, Brett Broadfoot, Breanna’s father, appeared before the House of Commons about this same bill and said:
. . . I truly feel that Breanna could and should still be with us if her abuser had not been released after the original attack . . . .
Violence is rarely a single incident. It is a pattern. When a violent offender is released, survivors are often forced to relocate, leave employment or live in hiding. They have to change their lives to be safe, often with few resources available to them, specifically financial resources. These are not temporary disruptions; they are profound losses of safety, stability and identity.
A trauma- and violence-informed approach means thinking about what a decision on bail will mean for her safety tonight, tomorrow and in the months or years ahead, and how not only the perpetrator but the system can cause harm with a decision that is made.
In London, we also remember Caitlin Jennings, a young woman whose life was taken in an act of femicide. In her case, the accused was denied bail after a very detailed judicial decision. I was grateful to be able to attend the bail hearing with Caitlin’s father, Dan.
While nothing can undo the loss of Caitlin’s life, that decision provided her family with some measure of reassurance that the system could prioritize public safety where the risk was clear. Legislation sets a framework, but safety is determined in practice. Meaningful reform cannot happen in isolation.
Right now, the imbalance is significant. The criminal justice system receives the majority of investment, while front-line services are left to fundraise in order to survive. Yet it’s those services, services like ours at LAWC — counselling, safety planning, housing and advocacy — that allow women to stay safe long enough to participate in their journey to justice — whatever that may look like for them. Without these supports, risk management is effectively downloaded onto survivors themselves.
Accountability must be meaningful when bail is granted. We have seen cases where high-risk offenders are released to sureties who are unable or unwilling to follow conditions. When thinking about this from a lens of power and control, a high-risk offender will not be deterred by conditions on a paper alone. Perpetrators must learn that their actions and behaviours are not acceptable. This learning can actually begin from a very young age.
We are not advocating for everyone to be held or not receive bail. Overly punitive responses can deepen harm, particularly for Indigenous and racialized communities, who are already overrepresented in the system.
What we call for is precision. High-risk, repeat violent offenders, particularly where there are clear indicators of escalating violence, must be treated as such.
At the same time, we must continue to address the systemic inequities that shape who comes into contact with the justice system in the first place.
In closing, we would like to respectfully recommend the following: first, that legislative changes impacting survivors be accompanied by sustained investment in counselling, advocacy and support services; second, that those making bail decisions receive training on male violence against women, including patterns of power and control; and third, that implementation be monitored closely to assess both effectiveness and unintended impacts, particularly on overrepresented and vulnerable populations.
Every woman deserves to live free from violence. Safety must not depend on chance. It cannot be inconsistent. It must be the result of deliberate, informed and coordinated decisions across systems. Bill C-14 is one part of that work, but it cannot stand alone. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to both witnesses. We’ll now move to questions from senators.
Senator Batters: Thank you to both of you for being here and for all the work you do every day to help victims of crime.
Ms. Dunn, thank you for outlining the compelling example of Breanna Broadfoot. It reminds us all that there are real-world consequences to these issues and they are not theoretical situations.
I’d like to start first with you, Mr. Roebuck. Bill C-14 does tighten conditional sentences for certain sexual offences, but other serious crimes can still, in some scenarios, result in a sentence served in the community. Do victims fear that violent or dangerous offenders can still go back home? What message does that send to victims in terms of safety and confidence in the justice system? Do you think there are other categories of offenders that should, in your view, be clearly excluded from conditional sentences — period?
Mr. Roebuck: Thank you for the question. I’d also like to thank Ms. Dunn for her comments. They were very important.
One area we’ve raised for added precaution is regarding strong stalking behaviours as a risk factor, where conditional sentences may not be sufficient to guard against those behaviours if they’re continuing. If somebody is already violating boundaries repeatedly as a pattern of the offence, there may need to be greater safety precautions or at least greater attention given if the conditions are violated in that case.
What we’d like to see is that the safety and protection rights of survivors take on greater meaning and that their voices are included in decisions that affect their safety. Right now, the courts are required to consider victim safety, but there’s not always a measure or a vehicle for the actual safety concerns to be considered. We might actually impose unnecessary conditions for victim safety that are beyond what’s required and not address the most critical things that would make survivors safer. We’d like to see stronger participation protection rights. Information is a safety issue as well.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Ms. Dunn, thank you also for outlining the risk factors of strangulation and non-fatal strangulation. In my second reading speech as critic of the bill, I outlined a personal situation where my former legal assistant was strangled to death after she had been assaulted by the same man two weeks earlier and he had been let out on bail. It’s just a horrendous situation that too often happens.
Bill C-14 expands reverse onus for certain high-risk scenarios, particularly in cases where strangulation or suffocation is alleged or there is extortion with violence.
My question to you is this: In your view, is reverse onus — which, of course, still allows judicial discretion to release that offender — sufficient, or should there be a more restrictive approach, for example, a stronger presumption of detention, in those types of circumstances?
Ms. Dunn: Thank you very much for your question.
With regard to reverse onus — if I’m not mistaken, trafficking is included in the reverse onus provisions as well — I think that’s one step. It’s definitely helpful. I do think, however, there should be stronger — I’m going to use the word “penalties,” for those who cause those types of harm.
I want to go back even further in my answer because I feel like it’s important. I touched on this in what I had to say. I know this is about Bill C-14, but I want to bring in the very important facts about education and prevention work that must be included when we’re talking about this. When somebody commits a violent act of strangulation or is trafficking somebody, it’s not isolated. It’s not like somebody just decides they’re going to do this kind of thing, so I think it’s important to think about it that way as well and not look at this in isolation.
While it’s very important, for lack of a better way to say it, for somebody to prove why they should be released and why they won’t perform this kind of act again, we also have to look at what supports are available to make sure that that doesn’t happen. We could talk about early intervention, education and all of that, but what is actually available for the individual who has caused harm to make sure that it doesn’t happen again? A stricter, harsher penalty isn’t the answer.
I know that maybe doesn’t answer your question exactly, senator, but I think this issue is so nuanced when we’re looking at violence against women that we can’t look at one response on its own. I think that’s really important.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Ms. Dunn, I’ll start with a question for you, in French. You said that, at the bail stage, we should be able to provide training to the judges who release the accused persons before they go to trial. I take it that the judges who make these decisions fail to understand either the nature or the severity of sexual violence or violence against women, such as strangulation?
I also take it that the judges generally underestimate the seriousness of these acts and the fact that they’re part of a string of acts that could end in murder? In your opinion, aside from the different definitions of each act, do the judges take violence against women seriously enough at the bail stage?
[English]
Ms. Dunn: Thank you so much for the question. It’s nice to see you again, senator.
I believe that those across the criminal justice system in general, not only judges, need additional training and education on all of the nuances involved in violence against women. I think we have a large problem when it comes to everything that you would need to know about the pattern of escalation or coercive control regarding sexual assault, intimate partner violence or trafficking. What that looks like needs to be examined in a way that would capture a full criminal history or a full history of what has happened in a relationship, for example, if we’re talking about intimate partner violence. That’s very important.
To answer your question, yes, additional training and education are definitely required for judges, and it should never just be something that a judge can choose to do. I think it should be mandatory.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I also have a question for Mr. Roebuck.
You explained quite clearly that the women — the victims — are kept out of the bail hearing system. I gather from your comments that the victims aren’t informed before the hearing takes place? They aren’t informed that the hearing took place? They aren’t informed of the bail conditions?
Did I understand all this correctly?
[English]
Mr. Roebuck: Right now, in Canada, if your phone bill is going to change by $5, the cellphone company has to tell you; however, if a person who has harmed a woman is released on bail, there is not a legal requirement in the Criminal Code to inform that woman.
What we see in Canada is that many jurisdictions, provincially, have either legislation or policy to guide bail notification, but it is not consistent and there is no legal requirement in the code itself to anchor some of those pieces, so there are gaps. I heard this week that we have policies in Ontario about some of those gaps for survivors.
The Criminal Code currently includes a provision where a judge is required to ask if the victim has been notified that they have a right to receive the conditions. What is different about bail than other parts of engagement is that the safety interests are highly engaged. I believe we need proactive notification of all of those pieces, and that it’s not sufficient to require a victim to ask for that. So, we do need legal protection for survivors.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So should it be in this bill or in other bills? Where should it be?
Mr. Roebuck: There’s an opportunity with Bill C-16, which has just come to committee in the House — the protecting victims act — where some of these measures could be picked up. If there’s an observation here that signals the need for that, I think it’s an opportunity.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I have a question, Mr. Roebuck.
Wouldn’t it be better to give victims standing in the bail hearing? We could amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the act in Bill C-14 and cure that problem here. There’s an opportunity to do that here, isn’t there?
Mr. Roebuck: I will never argue against victim standing, but I also recognize that bail courts might be doing 200 cases a day. There are ways to include victims’ voices and have consultation at the federal level. We have a regular system where, at any point, victims can submit safety concerns, and it’s from them directly with their specific concerns. Something like that could be adopted by provinces in their administration. There are ways to do it that wouldn’t be as resource intensive, but independent legal advice paired with the ability to have a submission like that could provide some limited standing without overwhelming the courts.
The Chair: I think the safety of victims should be paramount, and my own view is that it should be in the Criminal Code. Anyway, we’ll deal with that later.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to our witnesses for the work you do.
The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls issued Calls for Justice that demanded substantive systemic changes regarding how the state responds to violence against Indigenous women. How does Bill C-14 advance any of those calls, and, in your view, what should the Senate add, amend or require in this bill to bring it into closer alignment with Canada’s obligations to Indigenous women and girls?
Maybe I’ll begin with you, Mr. Roebuck, and then Ms. Dunn.
Mr. Roebuck: Thank you.
I know there is a deep concern that the Calls for Justice and Calls for Action will quietly fade away, and it’s so important for committees like this to reconsider and come back to those very clear recommendations that have been brought forward. Ongoing consultations are really needed on the implementation of measures like these.
The law itself will give a lot of leeway for provinces and territories to decide how they will administer it, and I think, in that nuance of application, that continuing to speak with those communities is critical for safety.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Ms. Dunn: Thank you for the question. I agree with everything Mr. Roebuck said.
Continuing to listen to the voices of those with lived experiences is of the utmost importance. Bill C-14 plays a critical role in what needs to be done, but without strong social supports — housing, income, counselling and advocacy — we have to remember that we are asking survivors to sometimes manage risks on their own. It’s very important for that to be considered, as well. The best way to do that is to listen to those with lived experience.
Senator Prosper: The bill introduces new reverse onus bail provisions for trafficking in persons and repeated intimate partner violence, offences where Indigenous women and girls in Canada are massively overrepresented as victims. Why do you believe that stronger bail conditions and a reverse onus for traffickers will materially improve safety for Indigenous women?
Second, what else would need to be in place, such as culturally grounded supports, Indigenous-held services and community resources, for those provisions to be genuinely effective?
Again, Mr. Roebuck, if you could provide comment, and then Ms. Dunn.
Mr. Roebuck: Bail is only a small picture of the piece of the picture of safety. As you have heard, prevention, support programs, funding the gender-based violence sector and services for Indigenous women and girls are critical for safety.
One of the areas that would be an easy contribution from the federal government would be to fund legal supports for the stakeholders who are still engaged in following through on the inquiry. The National Family and Survivors Circle is often asked to appear at committees and provide legal advice, but it doesn’t have the funding for the legal expertise in-house that would help them to engage and really connect those calls to policy more effectively.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Do you have anything further to add, Ms. Dunn?
Ms. Dunn: Thank you so much.
It’s important to remember that, in understanding violence, it’s rarely a one-time event; it’s a pattern.
With regard to reverse onus, I think that provides one extra tool for a judge to make a decision on bail, so I would agree that the reverse onus being added is an important measure.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to both our witnesses, and thank you for sharing these difficult stories.
I want to go back to what my friend Senator Miville-Dechêne was speaking to you about. It’s astonishing to me that the issue of domestic violence — it’s nice to talk about educating judges, but haven’t we been doing that for the past 30 years? We obviously can’t remand every single person who was arrested, but in the kinds of fact patterns the two of you have described, it’s extraordinary to me that people are being granted bail. Frankly, I don’t see any amendments to legislation that change the fact that people don’t take domestic violence seriously.
Frankly, Mr. Roebuck, I would be interested in seeing draft amendments that you might suggest that we could add to Bill C-14 that would allow for the notification of people.
I want each of you to speak, if you could, perhaps more existentially to this question beyond the scope of Bill C-14. How do we change a culture so that it is reflected in our courts and the people who are given the responsibility, whether they’re justices of the peace or judges — in some jurisdictions, I think it’s even somebody at a lower level who is making the decisions about who is being granted bail? How do we help our Crown prosecutors understand why they need to make the case for people to have bail?
What has to happen in the DNA of the justice system so that people get this?
Mr. Roebuck, I’m going to start with you because you’re here in the room nodding at me.
Mr. Roebuck: Yes, I completely agree we need legal mechanisms to take it more seriously. One area that I think is very important and that we’ve raised consistently in our systemic investigation on sexual violence regards the Charter rights of survivors. We need to recognize that violence is a distinct form of harm from the harm that survivors can experience from the justice system itself, which more strongly engages their Charter rights. So bail is a state-run risk assessment that has lifelong implications for survivors. Their Charter interests should be engaged in that, and I think that the Charter rights of the accused are set out clearly — and that’s so important — but we don’t always look at how to balance those Charter rights of survivors when they’re engaged.
The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is quasi-constitutional, and the intent when it was introduced by Parliament was that it would take on more power as its primacy, or the idea that all federal legislation is required to be applied in a way that is interpreted through the lens of the CVBR. It’s quasi-constitutional. So the more that happens in the courts, the more effective it will be; and the more that committees look at every criminal justice bill that comes through and how we are ensuring that these reflect information, protection and participation for victims of crime — that will make a difference.
Senator Simons: Ms. Dunn, does it help if more justices of the peace were women or if more Crown prosecutors were women? Am I being reductive in looking at gender stereotypes here? What do we have to do to convince our courts that domestic violence is violence?
Ms. Dunn: Thank you so much for this question. I’m very happy that you’ve asked it.
What makes women safer and feel safer is consistency and real and true support.
So, we often see one thing happening at one point in time and another thing happening at another point in time. There is no consistency across the board, which really doesn’t allow women to have faith in the justice system itself. In fact, when I was before the House of Commons testifying about the same thing, I said that women often don’t even want to refer to the justice system as “the justice system” because there’s no justice for them, and there need to be other options for women. We have started to look into what restorative justice might look like, for example.
With regard to training and education, there is such inconsistency there as well. For example, we were very involved in providing support for the survivor at the centre of the Hockey Canada case and the community and women that we provide services to that were impacted by that. We learned during that time that judges — and I don’t have the information in front of me, and I’m not recalling it, but I can pull it for you and send it to you after — can choose if they want to receive certain kinds of training, and that goes for sexual assault training, for example, as well.
If you were a judge before a certain period, whatever it is — I will obtain that information for you — you had the choice on whether you wanted to receive that training, and that is a problem. It doesn’t necessarily matter if a judge is a woman or a man. They have a job to do, and they should be able to do it. They should be provided with — or it should be mandated that they have — all the information required of them to do their job most effectively.
I want to finish my answer with the consistency piece because that really is what allows women to lose their faith in the justice system, and that’s really important.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Ms. Dunn and Mr. Roebuck, thank you for your work and for your team’s work. I had the opportunity to meet you when the report entitled Rethinking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence: A Systemic Investigation was released. I encourage the committee members who have not yet looked at the report to read it carefully.
I would like to focus on the last two points in your remarks, which tie in with everything that you said earlier. These points concerned not only access to information, but also the challenges faced by victims in navigating a complex system where communications between courts are fragmented and where victim services aren’t always accessible. The relationship with the police and the correctional system is another issue.
Some provisions of Bill C-14 are noteworthy. However, you made two suggestions at the end of your remarks. You continued to address one of them in relation to the information provided to victims. For the benefit of the committee members, perhaps you could address the second one, which concerns the report on victims that you spoke about.
[English]
Mr. Roebuck: Thank you. Combined with what we heard here, we can’t say that we treat violence against women seriously when we don’t even inform women of their rights in the criminal justice system. At its most fundamental, if we look at gender-based violence and the Charter guarantees that the accused will be provided with their legal rights and legal representation, we don’t have an equivalent for survivors, and that’s the starting point. It’s a tip of the iceberg that reflects our lack of centring survivors and their needs.
People want information, and I’ve often heard in the policy process, “Not everyone wants to receive information.” That’s not a choice the federal government should make for survivors. Every survivor should have the choice of whether they want information, and it should be provided proactively. There are ways that we can easily embed that in the system so it becomes more cohesive and comprehensive. There’s some work to do.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Indeed. Thank you. Ms. Dunn, would you like to add anything?
[English]
Ms. Dunn: I don’t have anything to add. I agree with what Mr. Roebuck has said. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to both of you for the incredible work you do. I want to pick up on something, and it’s partly because of an email I received while you were testifying.
You’ve both worked with us on this, and I appreciate and thank you for your contributions. There is this notion of a dichotomy between someone being a victim and then an “offender,” and, of course, when we’re talking about women in particular — and even more so racialized women, Indigenous women and women with mental health issues — we see this.
I mentioned during the earlier panel that I was contacted this morning by police, who were trying to figure out an avenue to get someone into a psychiatric hospital instead of taking them to prison because they recognized what they were dealing with was fundamentally someone with mental health issues.
I just received an email from a lawyer who is representing a woman who has pled guilty to manslaughter in a situation where a person with whom she’s been in a relationship has raped and murdered another woman. She’s been held in custody for two years. The police have videotaped evidence from the man’s phone of him abusing her as well. These lawyers have been now engaged because she has just pled guilty to try to get out of custody. Part of the reason she pled guilty was she was told that the judge they’re going before is one who many of us know has convicted women who have used force to try to extricate themselves from abusive situations. He’s been overturned on appeal in the past.
Nevertheless, this is the kind of situation that is resulting in disproportionate numbers of racialized women, in particular, women with mental health issues, being caught up in these kinds of provisions.
What would your recommendations be to this committee on what to put in this legislation to try to prevent what is happening from continuing? Police are not treating her as a victim; they’re treating her as a co-accused. There’s agreement by the Crown that she was a victim. They’ve agreed to a statement — I’ve just read through the agreed statement of facts — but nevertheless, they do not want to reopen the guilty plea to manslaughter. It seems absolutely abhorrent to me that we continue to put in place these kinds of provisions in the context that you’ve both just described, where, yet again, we’re not taking the violence seriously. This woman, because she has now been attached to someone who committed a horrendous act, somehow becomes just as implicated as the man.
Suggestions on how we amend this legislation to avoid that happening in the future would be well appreciated.
The Chair: Could you provide those in writing, both witnesses, the answer to Senator Pate’s questions? That would be helpful to us.
Senator Clement: Thank you both. You’re both just so eloquent, and consistently so. It’s remarkable.
I want to continue on the intersection piece. I quoted to the minister last night something from the Black Justice Strategy, a Black person saying they have very little faith in the system’s responsiveness to the needs of Black victims and its ability to be fair and just to accused Black people. If you could say more about that intersection, I would appreciate that.
I assume you’ve been consulted for the upcoming Bill C-16, but have you been consulted in terms of the drafting of Bill C-14?
The other thing I want you to speak to is how we speak to Canadian society, because the way politicians speak, it’s as if Bill C-14 is an answer to Canadians not feeling safe. I was on CBC last week arguing that cuts to libraries in prisons actually have an impact on safety, because you’re not going to be rehabilitating people, they’re going to go back into the community and it’s not going to be safe. How do we speak to Canadians about safety in the community from a broader, more real perspective? How do you do that in your work?
Ms. Dunn: Thank you so much for the question.
To answer your question on Bill C-14 consultation, we were involved in some online meetings with regard to the bill.
To go into safety, we really and truly need to be looking at proper education and prevention methods. Young children can learn about what it means to be in a healthy relationship and how to treat people. I think it’s very important. You mentioned cuts to libraries. Provincially, we deal with cuts to the education system. You have young children who are growing up in an education system that is completely underfunded, and there are not proper resources for those who are most vulnerable. There’s no real way that somebody could learn, even the basics, what a healthy relationship might look like. To me, and to us at LAWC, there is a direct correlation to safety and violence prevention. We’re running a program where we provide education and support called Coaching Boys Into Men. We look at sports organizations and speak to, for example, here in London, Ontario, the London Knights, about what it means to be a good person on and off the ice.
That may not answer your question exactly, senator, but I think all of that connects completely. If we start there, instead of looking at these legislative changes as a reaction, and if we look at more preventative measures and have properly funded services that are able to do that work, then we’re going to be miles ahead of where we should be — and women will feel safer.
Mr. Roebuck: Thank you.
Not being informed makes people afraid, and not being consulted makes people feel disrespected. I think the failure of a strong framework for victims’ rights continues to amplify some of the problems that we’re having. I think of the case that Senator Pate raised, and part of the failure in that case is that we don’t have a strong and effective response to the earlier victimization that this woman was experiencing. In our investigation on sexual violence, we heard from too many survivors that the criminal justice system was more harmful and problematic than having been sexually assaulted. That’s wrong.
We know survivors are avoiding the system. Patrina Duhaney out of Calgary, I believe, has researched and shown that Black women are often afraid to report partner violence to the police because of the fear of lethal violence against their partners. I think a lot of conversation in criminal justice circles looks at the marginalized realities of people caught in the justice system, but we don’t always unpack the marginalized realities of survivors as well. We need to do that more so we can get to the root causes of some of these things and come up with better policy options.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you both for being here. I’ll be quick.
This allows us to have conversations beyond the legislation itself and to look at other ways and means to address some of the concerns raised around bail release. I think we can all agree that this will provide some solutions, but not all when it comes to some of the threats and risks that victims, especially women, continue to face in the community.
To that end, the National Police Federation also recommended investing in community-based bail enforcement monitoring systems that provide real-time information on breaches. We have a lot of data, and that data was shared with us this morning, with respect to whom you may put conditions on. But whether those conditions are followed is the issue. Knowing when those breaches occur, in real time, may offer us an opportunity to intervene in any potential violence. Would you recommend that? Would you agree with something like that? Do you know of any models that are working in the country today?
Mr. Roebuck: I think where it’s deemed that it’s safe and there’s technology that can support conditions, and it’s not a high-risk situation, like some of the things we were talking about, we need to recognize that victims of crime have different relationships with the people who harm them. Somebody being supervised in the community might mean they’re continuing with their job and supporting the income of the family. It’s a big concern that, often, reporting violence means losing your housing or losing your income, and that’s why guaranteed income is such an important policy.
I think there’s some promising research on effective supervision. One of the challenges that we hear about consistently is, when conditions are breached, having adequate recourse and knowing what to do and whom to speak with.
Senator Dhillon: I’m short on time, so maybe I can reframe it. I’m talking about exactly the moment the breach occurs and having that in real time. Often what happens is a breach is learned about post-event or post-violence. If we can intervene at the time that the no-contact order is no longer being respected, there may be an opportunity. Do you know of any models like that? Would you support that type of model?
Mr. Roebuck: If we can establish one effectively, that’s great. I heard this week about a case where a technology company that was monitoring an offender left a phone message with the people who would have been responsible, but it was outside working hours and wasn’t picked up until Monday, so we need seamless systems.
Senator Dhillon: I’m out of time.
The Chair: We’re going to go over time a bit.
Senator Dhillon: If you could make a comment, Ms. Dunn, that would be useful.
Ms. Dunn: I would honestly agree with what was said. I think any addition to help with safety, whether it’s technology-based or otherwise, is a good tool for us to have. But it’s only going to be as good as its implementation. The example that was just given is a very good example of that.
What usually ends up happening, regardless of the tools available, is a community-based organization like ours is left to support the survivor or the victim in a wraparound way. I touched earlier on us being involved in the coordinated response to femicide that’s being done here in London and Middlesex County, where we come together to try to support the victim or survivor in a very coordinated, responsive way. That seems to be more effective than bail notification or any kind of pre-existing tool that is available.
Any additional tool that could be available is going to be helpful, as long as it’s implemented properly everywhere. Thank you.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for that.
The Chair: Senator Dalphond, you’re the sponsor of the bill. You get the last question.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
First, I would like to thank both witnesses. I think they have broadly focused on the need to improve the legislation on the protection and safety of the victims. Certainly, it’s very appreciated.
I think your report, Mr. Roebuck, came out before Bill C-14 was tabled. Certainly, the reverse onus in the matter of intimate partner violence specifically addresses the issue of the safety of the victim pending judicial proceedings. By the reverse onus, the presumption is that the person should stay in unless that person, the accused, has shown a clear, reliable plan that will protect the victim. I understand the need to inform the victim of that, and better education and better information by justice officials and the government about this new system will maybe bring some relief.
It’s often difficult to get the victim’s perspective at the bail appearance because the bail appearance could be within 24 hours of arrest. It has to be very short. It’s going very fast. The person is detained, so you have the Charter presumption of appearing before a judge right away. You may have 48 hours, but that is getting long.
Thank you for the suggestions. Maybe the Crown, during the appearance, can also report to the judge. Maybe it’s a suggestion we could make — that, in the future, the judge should ask the Crown if they got in touch with the victim and if the plan being proposed by the accused will meet the safety requirements of the victim. This is something of great interest. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Dunn, once more, for participating in the process. We know that better training for judges, especially justices of the peace, who handle these things in a packed room where there are many appearances on the same day, have to be better educated about the continuum of violence. Just kicking the dog or the cat may be a sign of what is coming next for the partner. Many judges don’t know that. I think we need more training, and I hope your organization will continue.
These are not really questions, but comments. I duly noted your suggestions. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to appear and sharing your expertise with us today. Your insights are very valuable to the committee’s work, and we truly appreciate the thoughtful answers you provided to us today. They will help us in our determination and review of this legislation.
Thank you to the senators as well for your participation and engagement.
(The committee adjourned.)