THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 23, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 10:30 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. My name is David Arnott. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan. I’m the chair of the committee.
I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Senator Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Ross: Krista Ross from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta. I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. Welcome online. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Good morning. Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: We are meeting to continue our study of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Kathy Valentino, Second Vice-President by video conference; from the Retail Council of Canada, Matt Poirier, Vice-President; and Mayor Scott Gillingham, the mayor of Winnipeg by videoconference. Welcome to all our witnesses. Thank you for joining us here today. We look forward to your opening remarks.
In terms of opening remarks, I would like to limit those to five minutes. We are tight for time, and I will ask first, Kathy Valentino; second, Matt Poirier; and third, Mayor Scott Gillingham. With that, I would ask Ms. Valentino to commence. Thank you.
Kathy Valentino, Second Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much to the standing committee for the invitation and the opportunity to appear.
My name is Kathy Valentino, and I am here in my capacity as the second vice-president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or FCM. We represent approximately 2,000 municipalities of all sizes across Canada. I am also a councillor for the City of Thompson, Manitoba, northern Manitoba, next stop Churchill, a population of 13,000 people. We have the highest RCMP contract in the province of Manitoba, and we are situated on Treaty 5 land, homeland of the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation.
I would note to the committee members today that FCM supported and was encouraged by the swift passage of Bill C-14 through the House of Commons, and that is because repeat offenders represent a considerable public safety challenge in our communities across Canada. The actions of repeat offenders pile pressure on local policing and emergency services, and crucially, their actions are eroding the local sense of safety.
In my own province of Manitoba, residents are increasingly worried, with 69% of those surveyed in a recent Leger poll now reporting that they are actively concerned about crime. The consequences of inadequate bail restrictions are stark.
Last year, we had the tragic death of Kellie Verwey in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. She was killed by an intoxicated repeat offender in a stolen vehicle, who had a warrant out for violating bail conditions. This is just one of countless stories from across this country. From Newfoundland and Labrador to B.C., the cycle of repeated offenders being granted bail is repeating itself over and over again.
The municipal perspective is that Bill C-14 can help, and FCM supports targeted reforms to the Criminal Code that make it more difficult for repeat offenders, especially violent ones, to be released on bail. Ultimately, all of us here want a justice system that instills public confidence, one where tragic incidents, like the death of Kellie Verwey, are prevented.
This support extends across party lines and orders of government. I would note the unanimous motion passed by the Manitoba MLAs on bail reform and the support from our premiers across all of Canada.
All that said, though — and this is important — FCM does not see Bill C-14 as some magic bullet. It must be paired with system-wide reforms. Ultimately, it must be backed up by our other necessary measures outlined in our considered written submission to this committee. Specifically, we need better national data and information sharing with an individual’s prior charges and history being properly collected and accessible. In other words, we need a coordinated national approach, which, right now, Canada currently lacks. We also need an increased judicial capacity with more judges, prosecutors and court personnel to ensure timely, evidence-based decisions.
We need stronger bail-enforcement measures that will identify and employ the measures that will work, which address the root causes of repeat offending, including health and mental health supports, housing and prevention programming that will help prevent crime before it occurs and better protection for our vital first responders, including within the Criminal Code.
To summarize, this legislation is only the beginning of what is really needed, but it is an important beginning. The substantive recommendations I’ve provided are just as necessary.
In FCM, we continue to urge the timely passing of this legislation. Municipalities want to see Bill C-14 resolved in practical, effective and lasting improvements that reflect some front-line realities in our communities, and we are ready to do our part in that.
Thank you very much for your time. I am pleased to take questions from the committee today.
The Chair: Thanks, Ms. Valentino.
Colleagues, the clerk has advised me that there is not a witness from the Retail Council of Canada available today, so our second witness in this panel is Mayor Scott Gillingham.
Mayor Gillingham, please proceed with your opening comments, sir.
Scott Gillingham, Mayor, City of Winnipeg: Good morning, senators. Thank you for this opportunity. I’ve been speaking out on the need for national bail reform since last summer, and I’ve done so in collaboration with Mayor Jeff Fawcett of Brandon, Mayor Sharilyn Knox of Portage la Prairie and Councillor Kathy Valentino in association with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, whom you have just heard from.
Our support for bail reform isn’t about blindly being tough on crime. It’s a rational public policy response to obvious threats, destructive patterns and repeated outcomes.
When I became mayor in 2022, I promised to help our police service do more to target repeat offenders, and I did so on the advice of a senior criminologist and several other veterans of criminal, social and public policy.
Once I was elected, the Province of Manitoba immediately acted on one of my proposals, helping to relaunch a joint Winnipeg Police Service and RCMP warrant unit targeting violent suspects and offenders.
Since this unit was operational in May 2023, there has been a clear pattern in their work. In 2024, 82% of arrests involved an offender on bail, probation or parole. In 2025, 80% of their arrests involved an offender on bail, probation or parole. Bail breaches were the most common violation in both years. We’re not a big province, but this team has been making an arrest on an average of roughly once a day. Around 20% of all arrestees were arrested more than once by the same unit.
As mayor, I’ve also served on our police board to help hire a new chief of police early in 2025. Chief Gene Bowers is delivering more proactive policing, community collaboration and intelligence-driven enforcement than we’ve seen in years. Chief Bowers created a new Bail Compliance Unit in December 2025, just weeks after I testified to your counterparts in the House of Commons.
Here’s the problem: As long as habitual offenders are repeatedly re-released into the community, there is a practical limit to how effective police, prosecutors and prisons can be in preventing crime. To protect the presumption of innocence, criminals who have been proven guilty over and over again are released with light conditions. Why are we so surprised then when these same people go on to stab, shoot, steal, assault or exploit again when freely given yet another chance to do so?
When individuals repeatedly ignore bail or probation conditions, I know many judges currently feel that the law forces them to ignore that history when assigning new bail conditions. It’s a one-way social contract. Society must presume every individual is innocent on a specific charge, but judges may not feel empowered to protect the innocent from repeat offenders in the meantime.
Despite advanced techniques and intensive collaboration to monitor those on bail, our Bail Compliance Unit is experiencing the same challenges as the Warrant Unit.
In the first two and a half months, Winnipeg’s bail unit completed 922 compliance or warranted person checks, and 36% of the checks found sufficient cause for another arrest or arrest warrant. Statistics don’t capture just how futile this can feel when police arrest the same individuals over and over again.
In the same spirit as my weekly repeat offender bulletins last fall, I asked our police service if they could scrub details from some examples to illustrate the point. They gave me five cases, and I have submitted four of them in writing to you for brevity’s sake.
Here’s the fifth, and it is one example of what the Winnipeg Police Service is encountering.
In that recent case, an individual known to be a prolific property crime offender was already the subject of two separate probation orders. A bail compliance check found the offender in breach of several court-imposed conditions, so another arrest warrant was issued. The offender began actively evading police, triggering further investigation. Our Property Crime Unit worked with the Bail Compliance Unit and found evidence linking the offender to an active retail theft ring that involved assaults on multiple security guards. Numerous new charges were then laid against the offender for new breaches and a new retail-theft-related set of offences.
Yet, this same offender was successfully arrested by the Bail Compliance Unit and then re-released on bail multiple times since it was launched in December 2025.
The current federal government was elected on a promise to enact a bail reform bill focused on a few particular crimes. When other mayors and I call for a broader approach, Minister Sean Fraser was open-minded, and I’m grateful for his open‑mindedness and his actions.
The government’s legislation responds to that shared input. The right to be presumed innocent on a particular charge is a critical principle, but the Charter also allows for reasonable limits in order to protect peace and order. We call these issues “public safety issues” for a reason: The safety of the public is the ultimate goal. It is reasonable to restore clear judicial authority to protect the public in cases when an individual poses a clear threat to our safety. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to both witnesses for your opening remarks. We have 11 senators at the table today. We now turn to the committee members for questions and discussion. I ask that the interventions be kept to four minutes, which includes the questions and the answers. That is to ensure that all the senators have an opportunity to ask questions.
Senator Batters: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today and helping us with this.
First of all, to the Winnipeg mayor, I really find it interesting that you did these weekly re-offender bulletins. I think that’s a very smart thing to do, but it is also sort of sad that we would need to do that. Regardless, thank you for the important information you relayed today. Also, I quickly wanted to thank you for hosting such an excellent Grey Cup in your city last fall. I’m from Saskatchewan, so we very much enjoyed it.
My question is to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. In your brief, you describe a very concrete cycle of violent repeat offenders who are often released on bail, who reoffend quickly, and then your members are required to repeatedly mobilize police and emergency services at the expense of other priorities. So, when other witnesses tell us, instead, that there is already too much pretrial detention and that we should not adopt measures like Bill C-14, what would you say to them based upon the day-to-day realities that your municipalities are living?
Ms. Valentino: I think the day-to-day realities clearly show why Bill C-14 needs to be put into place, and it is at the cost of our municipalities.
Our police need to be able to be policing and to be proactive, and it’s not happening the way the system is now with the repeat cycles. It goes hand in hand with some of the other suggestions that FCM has had to expand the court and the justice system’s capacity to also not have that kind of overcapacity, such as what you’re referring to. It also goes to Mayor Gillingham’s comments and the data, which clearly shows why they should see why the bill should be put into place.
The cost to municipalities is being costed to the ratepayers for different kinds of initiatives that municipalities are having to put into place to keep their streets safe. That shouldn’t happen in Canada.
That’s the reason why they should see this bill put into action.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
I have a further question for you. In your opening comments, you referenced that you are recommending better national tracking and data sharing on prior charges, conditions, compliance and reoffending.
Can you explain further to the committee about what information is most often missing at a bail hearing and how that affects release decisions or the conditions that are imposed?
Ms. Valentino: We are looking at more of a national data collection so that the data is shared and collected properly.
If there should be a coordinated program to track bail. Mayor Gillingham shouldn’t be having to get the stats to track bail. There should be a national system that tracks bail and reoffending trends, as well as something that ensures that these justice officials across all jurisdictions in Canada have the same access to consistent information for these repeat offenders before they are in front of a judge. That data should be right from across Canada and consistent.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Mayor Gillingham, do you have anything to add to that last question about the potential data sharing that would help your community, in particular?
Mr. Gillingham: Data sharing is so important because, of course, our police agencies across Canada are often working in collaboration, seamlessly. Whether it’s the RCMP with the Winnipeg Police Service or with the Calgary Police Service. Criminal activity doesn’t know and doesn’t respect municipal boundaries. Being able to share data across jurisdictions easily and readily is important.
Also, more and more of that data should be publicly available. Often, although the court system is a public system, the information from the courts is not readily available or easily accessible to members of the public. It takes a lot of work to find out the conditions upon which someone was released, as an example.
Again, in a society where we want to ensure public safety is priority number one, giving our police services the equipment and data tools necessary to maximize public safety and to share information is vital.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you to our two witnesses.
My question is for the Mayor of Winnipeg first.
Some opponents of the proposed bail reforms in Bill C-14 say that there’s not enough statistical evidence to show that many violent repeat offenders are released and commit new violent crimes. What statistics do you have in Winnipeg to show that these highly publicized cases are not just exceptional cases, but that there’s a trend among violent repeat offenders to commit serious crimes again when they are released?
[English]
Mr. Gillingham: Thank you for the question.
It was referenced a bit ago that, last fall, I brought in weekly offender bulletins where I showed case by case, protecting the anonymity of the individual, but I showed the pattern of repeat offences, specifically, repeat violent offences.
Councillor Valentino referenced one such incident in Manitoba. There was another horrific incident last year here where we had an individual who was out on bail commit a horrific crime; homicides resulted. So, there is a pattern, for sure. I don’t have the data in front of me, but there is a pattern of repeat violent offences committed by those who are out on bail or breaching their court orders.
A few moments ago, I gave the stats from the Manitoba Integrated Violent Offender Apprehension Unit, which is the RCMP and Winnipeg Police Service. Their focus is on repeat violent offenders who are out on bail or on court conditions, who are breaching their court orders.
In 2024, 84% of the arrests that unit made were individuals breaching bail conditions. Those were not petty crimes; they were violent offences. In 2025, it was 80%. So, there is a statistical pattern in our community of people on bail or court conditions repeating violent offences and threatening our community.
The priority has to be public safety. We have a public right now that has grown cynical when it comes to their views on the justice system. We need to restore that as a community. We need a nation that believes they can trust our judicial system, and I believe the reforms being proposed in this bill will go a long way to establish that.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Ms. Valentino, do you have anything to add to that? You’re focusing on cases, but bail goes well in many cases.
[English]
Ms. Valentino: Absolutely. I totally believe and support what Mayor Gillingham is saying. I think the data is already there. Getting to this point and being here today is because there’s already data showing that there are repeat offenders, people are dying and the public is feeling unsafe. We hear it all the time. Whether it’s data showing how many people have died or people who have gotten hurt, if one individual has died, then there’s a problem here. So these repeat offenders, what we’re hearing from police and all the time and resources that are going into it, the data is supporting why we’re having these conversations. It’s happening, and the public is feeling unsafe. In Canada, that just shouldn’t happen, and this is a step in the right direction to make that change.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to our witnesses. I have tremendous sympathy for the issues that municipalities deal with. Whatever the federal or provincial governments are ordering or organizing, it’s the municipalities, as the front-line system of government, that have to deal with the consequences.
I want to talk a little bit about some of the social factors that are driving crime. Mayor Gillingham, you recently saved the life of somebody who was having a drug overdose because you were there with naloxone. Could you talk to me about what support each of your municipalities need to help you deal with the factors that are driving crime?
It’s one thing to arrest people after the fact. What support do you need federally and provincially to help you build safe communities in the first place?
Mr. Gillingham: Senator, thank you very much for that question. Without a doubt, the collective effort that we need to make as municipalities in partnership with our provincial and federal governments to go upstream, work on prevention and invest in preventative measures so that people don’t fall into a life of crime — this absolutely needs to be part of this conversation.
I have said repeatedly in my calls for bail and sentencing reform that I’m not a person who advocates for putting people away and throwing away the key. That’s not my view at all. We need those interventions for people who are incarcerated to make sure that the programming is there and the options are available to them to get their lives turned around.
At the City of Winnipeg, we put more money in our budget into funding non-profit agencies that are working, particularly with youth, in our high-poverty areas to make sure that those preventative interventions are in place. We are investing in young people, and we’re investing in the programs that provide them with mentors as well so that they can stay on the right and good path.
I look out my window every day at city hall and, like many other mayors in many other cities, I see a lot of drug activity, people in the throes of addiction and people struggling in poverty.
We need to continue collectively address the social issues that weigh people down and turn people from the possibility of even being successfully housed because sometimes their addiction means that they are not successfully housed and it makes it challenging.
There are a whole set of social factors we need to continue to address because often those social factors can lead to criminal activity. I would point out as well, though, that often the most victimized in our community are also the most vulnerable. It’s those people who are struggling — sometimes homeless or in poverty — who are often the most victimized in crime.
There is no single approach here. The reforms in this bail act are very important to address repeat violent offenders and make our streets safer, but we need to collectively continue to address the social conditions that, in some cases, are leading to criminal behaviour.
Senator Simons: Ms. Valentino?
Ms. Valentino: Thank you very much, and thank you, senator, for actually saying that for municipalities. We are the front line when this starts to happen. Thank you for asking what we need to do to build safe communities. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
In my community of 13,000 people, our drug of choice is alcohol, and we serve an outlying population of about 60,000 people, and we commonly rank number one in Canada on the crime severity index.
I clearly understand that support measures need to be in place in Bill C-14 because we do have to get to the root cause of repeat offending and the root cause of some of this crime.
Municipalities need support, whether in mental health programming or affordable housing for our homeless problem, as well as working with addictions.
All of that has to be the supporting measure that goes along with what Bill C-14 will do. When we ask what we need to build safe communities, we need to first get Bill C-14 in place and then work on the supporting measures for municipalities.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Saint-Germain: The majority of my questions have been asked, but I still have one, and I will ask it in French.
[Translation]
This committee has heard testimony from rights advocacy organizations, including the Ligue des droits et libertés, and defence lawyers. They shared comments indicating that parolees were often rearrested because of a resistance or an aversion to risk. Racism was also a factor that led to quick arrests in certain situations, and alternatives to arrest were not used. This is especially true for members of First Nations and racialized individuals, including the Black community.
Municipally and from the federation’s standpoint, based on your knowledge of police forces — particularly in Winnipeg — how do you respond to these claims?
[English]
Mr. Gillingham: Thank you, senator.
The Winnipeg Police Service regularly has training of other officers related to racial bias and making sure that there is an understanding of the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in our judicial system. So we ensure that our officers have that thorough knowledge and understanding and that lens by which they do their work.
If an alleged crime has been committed, you also have to look at the stark facts that, regardless of age, nationality or race, the criminal activity has to be addressed. Whether that’s through arrest, charges or having the person have their day in court, that is obviously part of the judicial process that the public needs confidence in as well.
If crimes have been committed and there are victims of the crimes, notwithstanding the age, race or nationality of the person arrested or charged, then the justice system has to do its part.
I will repeat this: As a mayor, public safety has to be at the forefront of the work that we do and that our justice system does. When we poll the citizens of Winnipeg and ask them what their top-of-mind concern is, even in this higher cost of living, consistently, public safety is the primary issue.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you. My second question will be for Ms. Valentino.
First, thank you for your recommendations. Among other things, you told us what the federal government could do to improve health services, housing services and so on. As we know, the reality is that these services are generally managed by the provinces.
I’d like to know your perspective and that of your members on the ability of the provinces to be responsible for parolees and provide social services, housing, support and mental health care. Do you believe that discrimination — which can be seen or has been reported to us — influences the level of support for parolees or individuals who have a criminal record after their release, even when there are no other charges against them?
[English]
Ms. Valentino: Thanks for the question. There are two parts to the answer. Absolutely, the provinces also have a responsibility to support municipalities in creating safer communities, and that relates to mental health, housing, health care and addictions.
However, I also think there needs to be a partnership with the federal government. When we see some of the streaming and funding realities, the province has to be able to match some of that to provide to municipalities.
When you talked just now to Mayor Gillingham about discrimination and overrepresentation, I think it’s also very important that there have to be strong municipalities having relationships with whatever that minority representation might be in their community. I speak for myself, where we are about 54% an Indigenous city, and the 60,000 in outlying communities are Indigenous. We work very hard with our Indigenous leadership so that, when we do have programs that maybe are funded by the province or by the federal government, we work together to provide programs for mental health and housing addictions and have open conversations.
To Mayor Gillingham’s point about cultural awareness and training to ensure that our local police services and our community safety officers are doing, I think there’s a responsibility when we talk about discrimination or racism from all parties — federal, provincial and municipalities. There needs to be some open-door conversations and relationship building to ensure that’s addressed and that the programs that would go to support this bill are worked on in more of a partnership base.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thanks to both of you.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much to both of you for being here. Like my colleagues, I want to thank you for the work you do on the ground. It’s where you often see the results of deficits in federal and provincial policies, as others have mentioned.
I’ve been meeting with chiefs of police and mayors across the country talking about what’s needed. One of the things that the minister said when he was here is that a third pillar of this strategy needs to be the prevention that you’ve both spoken about.
When I’m speaking to a number of the mayors and chiefs of police, one of the things they’re talking about is their role in educating the public about these issues and how the easiest response is usually a criminal justice response. But there’s a recognition that homelessness, mental health issues, poverty and addiction issues will not be solved by these kinds of responses.
We’ve been having discussions about the role of municipalities, the provincial and territorial governments and the federal government in educating the public about how we actually stem the tide you’re talking about. Many have talked about how they’re spending so much time dealing with homelessness and poverty. Yes, of course, there are individuals who pose a genuine risk, but those tend to be far fewer than the hundreds of thousands going through the system. We don’t have the resources to deal with them because we’re using our prisons and our legal system to address what are essentially health, mental health and income-disparity issues. I’d be interested in both of your views on that issue and what the role of municipalities is to turn this ship around a bit so we can actually effectively deal with these issues.
Mr. Gillingham: I’ll defer to Ms. Valentino first. Go ahead, Ms. Valentino.
Ms. Valentino: Thank you, Mayor Gillingham. Thanks for the question.
We have to ensure that, when we talk about all of Canada and mayors, we have to sometimes remember that rural crime — I’m small town and remote — is just as important as when we hear about big murder crimes in big cities. It’s very important to understand that, in rural Canada, the repeat offender who keeps breaking into the small mom-and-pop shop and is destroying that family’s income is just as important as a crime by a repeat offender as a stabbing or something in a big city.
Talking to mayors and police chiefs — good on you for getting that information straight up. But I also want to ensure that we always look to small-town crime as being just as important because we’re seeing municipalities and that the gap in the bail system is affecting our communities of all sizes. I want to make sure we mention that and don’t lose sight of that.
We have heard a lot from municipalities that they’re trying different safety measures on their own for crime. They’re paying for community safety officer programs, which means they’re having to buy vehicles and they’re bearing the cost of those body-worn cameras for them. They’re creating programs with First Nation policing within their neighbourhoods and communities. Municipalities shouldn’t have to pay to keep their streets safe. It’s a federal thing in Canada that we should be able to be safe on our streets, and we’re hearing in municipalities that it’s not happening.
A big part of the problems for our policing is that their time and resources seem to be focused on these repeat offenders instead of having a presence in our municipalities to try to work before the crime happens.
Municipalities are really trying. They’re being creative. They’re opening sobriety centres. They’re trying the social aspects out of their budgets, and they’re trying safety issues out of their municipal budgets also.
This is a partnership for all levels. The judicial system, policing, health care and homelessness all have to work as one, but we have to start somewhere. The beginning is this bill getting through. Then we have to work and continue the conversation with municipalities on what’s next, asking, what do we do, and what do we work toward as municipalities to support these changes to ensure we’re on the right path and that we’re changing the tide on this and getting to better, safer streets in Canada? Public safety is at the forefront, as Mayor Gillingham has reiterated.
Mr. Gillingham: Thank you. Senator, I would add four things.
First, the primary reason we need Bill C-14 is really related to the reverse onus provisions in the bill. Those are critical. We do have individuals who breach court conditions consistently and go on to repeated offences, which obviously is a threat to our community. We need those individuals held longer. We need public safety to be the priority.
When it comes to social matters and addressing them, we’re spending more money as a city on addressing homelessness, poverty and housing than we’ve ever spent before. Years ago, not that long ago, it was really the provincial and the federal governments that led the charge on that. As a city now, we are taking on a larger load and a bigger share of that work without, as many senators have already pointed out, the funding from senior levels of government required to deliver on those. We’re spending more city funds and property tax dollars on addressing those issues as a partner.
I will leave you with two areas of hope. One of the things we’re trying to do is establish a fourth emergency service for mental health calls. Right now, we have officers going to 21,000 “check well-being” calls in a year. Some of those calls don’t need a badge-and-gun response. They don’t need a paramedic, and they don’t need a firefighter. They need a mental health worker. If we can get a mental health worker assigned to those calls, that will assist us.
We have a couple of organizations within the City of Winnipeg. One is called Purpose Construction, and one is called Build Inc. Those two companies work with individuals, many of whom come out of incarceration, have served their time, and get into these construction groups. They teach individuals how to build houses. They are building houses. The beauty of it is that they’re building houses in the City of Winnipeg on lots that have been vacant and derelict. It’s an exciting initiative. We’re supportive, and partners, like the City of Winnipeg, together with these organizations, are helping individuals turn their lives around so they’re not repeat offenders. We need to make that investment at the same time. There’s not one magic wand that will solve the problem; it’s about addressing it on all fronts, including with Bill C-14.
Senator Clement: Thank you so much to both of you. You’re, of course, eloquent because elected municipal folks are always the most eloquent. I’m going to reveal a bias.
Mr. Gillingham: You are my favourite senator!
Senator Clement: Yes, we met in Winnipeg last year.
I’m a former mayor of Cornwall, Ontario, and Manitoba is my second-favourite province, actually. My mom was from Elie, Manitoba, just outside of Winnipeg. I’ve been to Thompson, Manitoba, as well, and was beautifully received there years ago. I love Manitoba.
I want to come back to things that were raised by Senators Simons, Pate and Saint-Germain. I have concerns about Bill C-14 being a reaction because we know people are concerned about their safety, and politicians need to react to that. I worry about the overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous people and that this will compound certain problems. I thank Senator Saint-Germain for raising it. I’m the only Black lawyer senator, and I love it when other allies around the table can raise these issues. I appreciate that question from Senator Saint‑Germain.
I want to ask you about what you need to see the federal and provincial governments do specifically. What are your priorities?
In Ontario, some years ago, we had community safety plans, where the province mandated cities to set up community safety plans that included the police and non-profit organizations. I know in Winnipeg you had the Downtown Community Safety Partnership plan that was mandated or funded by the province. Can you be specific in terms of what you need to see?
Thank you, Councillor Valentino, for talking about building relationships with Indigenous communities. I think building relationships with communities is the key to everything.
Could you be specific in saying what you need from the province and the federal government? You’re doing your part. Municipalities punch above their weight always. What do you need from your province and the federal government? What are your top three priorities, let’s say, in terms of funding?
Ms. Valentino: First, senator, I’ve been called a lot of things, but I don’t know if eloquent was one, so that was awesome. Thank you for that. Thank you for recognizing that you’ve been to Thompson. I was born and raised there, so I love when people say that. Thank you for that.
Thanks for the question. I think you clearly understand where we come from as municipalities with you having been mayor. You’re almost making it sound like we need a wish list. That’s great. I can easily say money, but money won’t solve this problem.
I’m a strong believer in relationships and conversations. I feel that this bill moving through these committees is really a strong representation of where we need to go with change, especially with what you’re hearing about discrimination and overrepresentation. I think that’s great because that’s how we can get to a place to make Canada safer.
As municipalities, we also have to have a good relationship with our provincial government. When I think of Manitoba, we have a very strong relationship with Premier Canoe and Minister Wiebe, our Minister of Public Safety. We work and talk a lot with them.
In my role representing municipalities in Manitoba — you specifically asked about our province and I’m hoping Mayor Gillingham will support me — we try to be creative with different ideas that will work. I live in Thompson, and our drug of choice is alcohol. We don’t have the needle program. We need our province to work with us with funding or ideas for our sobriety centre that we have with all of northern Manitoba in partnership with First Nations leadership. That’s one thing. I think there’s a strong relationship in identifying the different needs within your province. A cookie-cutter approach to fixing this isn’t going to work. You have to have an open mind on the demographics of your own province.
In Manitoba, in the North, we don’t have the needle problem and that kind of a drug problem that contributes to repeat offenders. You have to be very aware of your province, and Canada needs to be aware that this bill can’t be a cookie-cutter approach. That’s why we need the necessary measures that go along with it to support what comes afterward. I don’t think Bill C-14 is going to solve everything, and I said that in my notes. There are actions that have to go with it.
My top three things for Manitoba municipalities would be a vision or strategy that isn’t a cookie-cutter approach to the needs of municipalities in Manitoba because they’re different. If we’re going to look at this, we need concrete data that is cohesive with the rest of Canada for these repeat offenders. I would say that we would also need to take a good look at the RCMP funding model and the vacancies for the RCMP in Manitoba because we do have one of the highest vacancy rates in this province. That would be my top three for Manitoba.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Mr. Gillingham: Thank you for the question, senator. I will add to what Councillor Valentino has said.
By the way, the Downtown Community Safety Partnership, or DCSP, does great work. We are now fully coordinating DCSP, the Winnipeg Police Service, community safety officers and business patrols. There’s a coordinated effort. The city also funds the DCSP. They do good work.
You asked for three. I’m going to give you four.
The first thing is what Bill C-14 does. What it does, in part, is give judges more tools to keep our community safer. I think the reverse onus provision is very important. I think that’s key.
The second thing is that I do believe there needs to be more resources for our provincial Crowns. Sometimes, the workload of our Crown attorneys — and I’ve met with them — is really high. We need to make sure that our Crown attorneys across the nation have the resources they need to get people the opportunity to have their day in court.
The third thing is related to the investment in the treatment and rehabilitation of individuals, especially those who are struggling with addiction. The number of people struggling with addictions seems to be increasing. I don’t have data on it, but when I look out my window at city hall and see the number of people struggling, it doesn’t seem to be going down.
Those individuals who are addicted and struggling are most often the victims of crime. Predators prey on them. They become the targets of drug dealers. If we can get those people rehabilitated and out of addiction, I think that will go a long way to obviously a healthy society and a strong community.
Those would be my four requests.
Senator Ross: Good morning. Thank you for joining us here this morning.
In reviewing this bill, you can see there are a lot of clauses. This committee, after hearing from all the witnesses, will have a process called clause-by-clause consideration, where we go through the bill clause by clause and decide if we feel there need to be changes, adjustments, amendments or observations on the bill.
In your opinion, based on the study and the work that you have done, are there areas where the bill does not go far enough, where the bill goes too far or areas that you think could be adjusted or amended to make the bill even better? That’s for both of you.
Mr. Gillingham: I appreciate the question, senator. I’ve looked through the bill. I don’t have all of it in front of me at this point.
I think that some of the changes proposed related to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are good and important and need to be looked at.
A big one for me is the reverse onus provisions. Those are important. I’m going to repeat myself. Public safety has got to be paramount. The community has got to be protected. It has to be protected from individuals who have a pattern of repeating their offences. When we have individuals who, time after time, are arrested and, while they await their trial date, are on bail and go out to commit more crime in the community. We have to end that.
It’s really hard for the public to have confidence in our judicial system. It’s exhausting for the police to arrest the same individual over and over again. As a nation, we can and should do better.
The provisions in the bill that relate to that will help to help curb that and reduce the repeat offences and repeat criminal activity. To me, they are some of the most important provisions being proposed.
Senator Ross: Thank you so much. Councillor Valentino?
Ms. Valentino: Thanks for the question. I didn’t know which one of us was answering first, so I’m sorry about that.
Clearly, I wouldn’t be able to go clause by clause with you through the whole bill, nor am I a lawyer, but definitely, the youth part. In this bill, the clause about strengthening the protection for first responders, including firefighters and paramedics, is very important. We need to ensure that the Criminal Code can provide safeguards, similar to peace officers, because they need to have that in place for treating the assaults against them as aggravating factors at sentencing. It’s important we mention the importance of the clause that strengthens the protections for our first responders across Canada.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, folks, for being here, and thank you for your commentary. I appreciate you starting your opening remarks here today acknowledging that this is not a silver bullet but, rather, one component of a larger comprehensive strategy that is required to address the issues we’re dealing with across the nation.
This committee has been struggling with a question around data. I think Councillor Valentino spoke about data that’s already in front of us; we’ve got it. That’s why we’re reacting. I just wonder this: Do you have any empirical data that you have worked on, or is it still city to city, municipality to municipality — no different than what the mayor has spoken about? Is it siloed and not contained or available in one central area?
I just made you a mayor, by the way, councillor. Councillor Valentino, if you can start, please.
Ms. Valentino: “Eloquent Mayor” — let’s call me that. Thank you very much for that.
If there is actual data to support that, I would have to have FCM get you that information because I wouldn’t have that in front of me. I spoke more broadly about improving the whole national data collection and information sharing, similar to Mayor Gillingham saying that jurisdictions across provinces — the police, the RCMP or provincial police services — are working together on some of these repeat offenders. If we can improve that information sharing and national data so that there’s a coordinated program to track bail, compliance and reoffending trends, that is what we were saying is a very important part of this.
Mr. Gillingham: To add to that, one of the reasons I started and launched the weekly repeat offender bulletin last fall is because there just wasn’t enough data that was readily available to the public when it comes to repeat offenders.
The data sharing to me is two things. As Councillor Valentino has said, one, it’s an important tool for our police services to work cross-jurisdictionally because criminal elements often move cross jurisdictionally. That’s important. It’s also to show the public what’s working and what is not. At the end of the day, the judicial system belongs to the people of Canada. We need to keep updating it, amending it and fixing it so that it serves the people of our nation.
That’s why I’m so pleased to see Bill C-14 before you, making its way through the processes in Ottawa: We need safer communities in Canada. Winnipeg needs to be a safer community.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: Welcome to the members of the panel. I’m the son of a father who was a mayor for over 20 years and vice-president of the regional council, so I know you are on the front lines, and I know the people who knock on doors even on Sunday mornings when something is going wrong. I appreciate you. We live here in a kind of bubble, far from the streets, so I appreciate your direct testimony.
You’re responsible for the local police and what the police officers whom you pay report to you.
We speak about the lack of data, the need for more national data and more collection of data. Going through this file, I realize there’s a lot of data available, but it’s not accessible or centralized.
You referred to a task force, for example: The RCMP and Winnipeg police joint task force. You said they provided you with many statistics about repeat offenders, especially, and how much time and effort they had to spend on bail enforcement and bail conditions that are breached and bringing people back. Some of these people were working within networks and organized crime.
Would you mind sharing that data with us through the clerk of the committee?
Mr. Gillingham: Thank you, senator. Yes, I’d be glad to forward to the clerk any data that we have to be passed on to your committee. Certainly, we’ll do that after this event today. Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that what is sometimes missing, including for police officers, is access to data breaches elsewhere. Somebody might be in Ontario one day and, six months later, is living in Manitoba, and you don’t know about their background. I understand that is one of the things you would like: not only that we at the federal level have more data, but that police across the country share more data, in a sense.
Mr. Gillingham: I agree with you, senator.
As we’ve said, that would be such an important and useful tool for our police services to help them work in partnership. They work very hard, and they collaborate across jurisdictions. Being able to share that information readily, quickly and in an easily accessible manner would help them do a better job of keeping the community safe.
I go back to this again: To me, this is all about public safety, first and foremost.
Senator Dalphond: I understand. Maybe I’ll give you a chance, councillor, to speak because you are also the vice-president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which is an important organization representing all municipalities across Canada.
I understand the reverse onus is a way for you to achieve safer communities. I understand the lack of judicial resources is relevant because the Crown doesn’t have access to everything, and the judge is sitting there with 20 or 30 appearances that day to deal with. You say that, in some cases, we should have a reverse onus so that the accused has to come up front and to say, well, yes, I did that, but I have a plan. I think that plan will ensure safety in the community, and you can trust me if you release me.
Ms. Valentino: Yes. Mayor Gillingham talked about the importance of the reverse onus that would help municipalities.
Just to expand on what you and Mayor Gillingham were talking about in terms of that data collection — that would be huge. If we can have national coordinated data, we are providing support to our RCMP or our police forces. That’s what they need because they are stretched so thin. A lot of it is dealing with these repeat offenders. If we can get them back to policing — just being police and being proactive in our communities — it would be a huge help to them. We have to remember that they need some support because of the vacancy rates. That profession is struggling.
To your other point, yes, we need to expand the court and justice system, as well as to increase the judicial level and administrative resources. That’s very important to municipalities, also.
To Mayor Gillingham’s point, at the end of the day, this is just about public safety for our municipalities. Your comments are absolutely correct. We have to have these conversations and support the police, the judicial system and the courts. We have to find a way to make this work. At the end of the day, we live in Canada, and we need safer streets.
The Chair: Thank you to both of our witnesses here today for coming, being with us and answering our questions. Your contributions will play an important role in guiding our discussions in the study of this bill.
I know the mayor has already committed to providing additional comments, but I would like to remind you that any additional comments you may wish to make can be in writing and should be sent to the clerk for study by the committee. Thank you.
Our second panel has five individuals representing four groups. We have Jacqueline Beisel-Cobb, and we have Brett Broadfoot by video conference. From the Crime Victims Assistance Centre of Quebec, we have Sophie Gasse and Marilie Cormier Gaudet. We also have Paul Brandt, founder of Not in My City and chair of the governing board of the Alberta Centre to End Trafficking in Persons.
We welcome all the witnesses here today. We will now proceed to opening remarks. I would like to keep them to five minutes or less. We are tight for time. I’ll ask Ms. Jacqueline Beisel-Cobb to commence, then Mr. Broadfoot, then the Crime Victims Assistance Centre of Quebec, and then Paul Brandt.
Ms. Beisel-Cobb, please proceed.
Jacqueline Beisel-Cobb, as an individual: Thank you, members of the committee for having me today.
My name is Jackie Cobb, and I am here to speak on behalf of my 23-year-old daughter, Madisson Cobb, a bright, compassionate and accomplished young lady. She graduated and began a promising career as a surgical eye assistant at LASIK MD. Her life was full of potential. Maddy deeply impacted and connected with people. She always helped others in need. She cared about people — something most of us have lost over the years.
Maddy’s life was brutally taken away from her by her ex‑boyfriend on July 19, 2025, in a parkade in Calgary. Before Madisson could get into her car to come home to her house, she was gunned down by her ex-boyfriend, leaving her dead at the scene. Take a moment and picture your own daughter, sister or friend. Picture them walking into that parkade, not knowing that that was going to be the last breath she would ever take. Picture your own daughter’s fear. Picture her left to bleed to death with no one there to help her. Imagine how your life would change if you got the same call I did.
My life has changed forever. I will never see my daughter walk through that front door with an incredible smile, knowing she is safe. I cannot kiss her goodnight or say I love you or call her when something is exciting.
I will not have the joy of seeing her walk down the aisle or having kids of her own. All I have left are photos and videos to help remember every detail of her appearance and listen to her voice on tape so I can hear how she spoke my name. Now I have to look at an empty chair at my dining room table where she sat when we ate.
I walk past her room with constant sadness, remembering the good times we shared in that room. There will be no more treasured family vacations we loved taking together. Now I have a constant worry my family will fall apart because of this crime, like so many other victims’ families have.
My family and I have been given a life sentence of our own to share, one filled with sadness, grief and loss.
Maddy followed every legal avenue to ensure her safety. A restraining order was granted on June 10, 2025, against her offender, who had a warrant out for his arrest for a criminal harassment charge for stalking her.
He was known to have a firearm in his possession as well. He was released on bail and then, a week later, was arrested again and was released on June 17 for another criminal harassment charge for stalking her. With a restraining order in place, why did he still have his firearm, and why was he even released? This law seriously needs to be examined and changed immediately.
The restraining order did not do its job. It was a piece of paper with meaningless words. Nothing stopped him from walking out of the court, free to plan and carry out this horrific act. Maddy deserved to live without fear. She was not protected by the system. Madisson became a victim of a violent crime and paid the ultimate price. This was not a single moment of anger. Every action was calculated, planned and implemented. He hunted her, waited for her and executed his plan. The nature of this deliberate act should automatically remove any possibility of bail or leniency. He chose to take someone else’s life. He should be held accountable.
First-degree murder: 25 years with a chance of parole thereafter? For taking someone’s life? Life should be life in prison without parole; no second chances. Why should he be offered reform or consideration to be returned to society? My Madisson cannot return to her life. Our country is too soft. There are no hard consequences for those violent actions; no accountability. We need to make examples out of these criminals and encourage them not to break the law. God forbid, it actually might send a message to people to stop breaking the law.
Our current system failed my daughter. If we made ankle monitors mandatory for restraining orders, my daughter might be alive today. I am begging for mandatory ankle monitors for all criminals.
If provinces don’t have the funds for this and offenders can’t pay for it, ask the victims if they want to pay.
Alberta first announced the creation of a provincial ankle monitoring program in 2024, and as of March 25, 2026, after I had a meeting with Mike Ellis, Alberta’s Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Services, and the founder of FearIsNotLove, Kim Ruse, Alberta announced $4.1 million over three years to activate a new notification capability with real‑time alerts 24-7, expanding Alberta’s ankle monitoring program. This investment will enable judges to order ankle monitors and provide another tool for victim safety and peace of mind.
If judges decide who wears ankle monitors, the Criminal Code must be modernized. More specifically, it needs to amend the definition of who is considered a high-risk offender. The criteria need to include firearms, criminal harassment charges and people on restraining orders. Time-served considerations are another area that needs to be addressed. Why is pretrial custody given extra time served in consideration? Regardless of living conditions or overpopulation in remand centres, time served being credited as longer encourages defendants to stall trials and spend longer in remand centres, as it can count for more time served. This needs to stop.
I urge Parliament to enact stronger consequences for repeat offenders and those who breach protective orders. How many innocent people need to die, like my young daughter, Madisson, for legislation to change? I stand here today to advocate for change so no other family endures this pain. You never think it will happen to you until it does, but you can make the difference.
Hold the criminals accountable for their first offence so this tragedy won’t become your nightmare, the nightmare I’m living for the rest of my life. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Beisel-Cobb.
We will next hear from Mr. Brent Broadfoot.
Brett Broadfoot, as an individual: Thank you. Good morning, senators. Thank you for having me here today.
My name is Brett Broadfoot. I’m here today to speak for my family and, most importantly, for my beautiful and now deceased daughter, Breanna.
I also hope to speak on behalf of other victims of intimate partner violence and to speak for all the women in our country who are currently living in fear of their abusers because they have been released after committing high-risk acts of extreme violence.
I’ll begin by sharing my family’s personal experience at this time. On March 15, 2024, my daughter, Breanna Broadfoot, was brutally attacked by her boyfriend. She was left with two black eyes, a fractured orbital bone, several other broken bones in her cheeks and severe bruising around her neck from his hands having been wrapped around them in an act of strangulation.
Breanna was only 16 years old at the time. Her attacker, an adult, aged 18, was arrested on March 15 and charged with assault, plus assault with choking and suffocation or strangulation. He was released from police custody on the same day he was arrested, after being scheduled to attend court again on July 31, 2024.
He was sent with orders to not communicate or go near my daughter, as well as refrain from possessing any weapons. All of this was communicated to me while our family sat beside Breanna in the hospital as she struggled to recover from her injuries. It was impossible to comprehend. This monster, who had just attacked and severely injured my daughter, was now free to continue on with his life as if nothing had happened.
We eventually came to understand that the release of individuals charged with particular violent crimes is at the discretion of a police administration and not a judge at times. To this day, I cannot understand how our police force is charged with this responsibility. When did serve and protect turn into catch and release?
Furthermore, our family received zero victim support during this time. Instead, we were left alone to sit with the knowledge that Breanna’s attacker was just out there, unmonitored and unchallenged, ready to assault again whenever he wanted.
On July 16, 2024, only 15 days before he was to appear in court, Breanna, now 17, was attacked again, but this time in a much more serious way. At approximately 1 a.m. on July 17, we were woken by the sound of a police sergeant knocking on the door. We were told that our daughter had been taken to the critical care trauma unit at Victoria Hospital here in London, Ontario, with multiple stab wounds. We were told that the same individual had abused her again.
Breanna passed away from her injuries on July 18, 2024. We lost our baby girl, and our worlds have changed forever. Anyone who has suddenly lost a loved one will wonder if the path of destruction that led to it could have been avoided. It is an entirely different and far more powerful thing to know that it should have been avoided.
There is no doubt in my mind that Breanna would still be alive if her abuser had not been immediately released after the first attack. Why was he given the freedom to commit a second crime instantly, easily and without prejudice?
Jennifer Dunn, executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre, said this:
We know from both research and practice that non-fatal strangulation is one of the strongest predictors of future lethal violence. Police and court officials must be made to understand that this crime cannot be treated as an isolated incident but seen as an indicator of an escalating and potentially fatal risk.
While I understand that police operations are not a federal issue, I do believe that all jurisdictions need to make it mandatory to have specialized units dedicated to intimate partner violence, as well as specialized officers that immediately take part in the investigation of any case related to intimate partner violence.
Front-line police officers don’t have the resources, time, training or education to be able to look at the full picture of intimate partner violence and specifically cases of strangulation. They should not be left to make the decision to release a violent offender on their own.
Bill C-14 is legislation that will set a framework, but safety is determined by how it is implemented.
It’s not enough to acknowledge that front-line police officers should not have the ability to look at the full picture on their own — we need judges to do that as well — but the judges need to be properly trained. An example, while not related to femicide, is with regards to amendments made to the Judges Act and the Criminal Code in 2021. I know that Ms. Dunn touched on this as well when she appeared before you last month.
The changes at that point in time required candidates seeking an appointment to the provincial superior court to participate in training on matters related to sexual assault law and social context but did not require judges prior to 2021 to agree to participate in the same training. This is a major gap in the system.
Our system has completely failed us, just as it has failed so many others in the past. We need to stop the catch and release of arrested abusers now. Granting immediate freedom to an individual who has violently assaulted and hospitalized a defenceless, young girl or woman is incomprehensible to me. Our system allows offenders to exist, completely unmonitored, as if nothing has happened. Survivors are forced to live in constant fear of being abused again by the same man. This is not right. I know we can do better. Let’s work together to be part of the solution that stops this violence. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Broadfoot. We will now hear from the Crime Victims Assistance Centre of Quebec. Ms. Gasse, go ahead, please.
[Translation]
Sophie Gasse, Chief Executive Officer, Crime Victims Assistance Centre: We thank you for the opportunity to share our views today. This forum is essential to highlight that criminal justice reforms have real and immediate impacts on the safety and lives of victims.
The network of Crime Victims Assistance Centres, CAVACs, brings together the 17 CAVACs in each administrative region of Quebec, with a mission that includes providing psychosocial and post-traumatic intervention and support throughout the socio‑judicial process to anyone who is a victim of crime, their loved ones and witnesses.
Through their ongoing involvement with victims, CAVACs are able to observe the concrete effects of judicial decisions on the safety, dignity, freedom and recovery of victims.
As part of the study of Bill C-14, the CAVAC network wants to highlight a reality that is too often overlooked in legislative debates.
Victims also have rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. However, these rights are often relegated to the background when criminal justice reforms are being examined. Those reforms focus primarily on the rights of the accused and the constitutionality of the measures.
Victims may live in fear when the perpetrator is released and their own freedom can be concretely affected, including their freedom of movement and their freedom to live in safety, both physically and psychologically. This is a direct violation of their fundamental rights, including their security and dignity.
Bail decisions are among those with the most immediate and serious consequences for victims, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence.
On the ground, we see that the quick release of an accused creates fear, hypervigilance and isolation, and forces victims to change their routines. Victims become the ones who have to manage the risk, often to the detriment of their personal freedom.
The status quo is not neutral: It systematically shifts responsibility for safety onto the victims. In this context, and in certain targeted situations, we believe that the reverse onus is a necessary tool to rebalance the protection of rights and to recognize that victim safety warrants proactive protection.
Marilie Cormier Gaudet, Executive Director, Centre-du-Québec, Crime Victims Assistance Centre: The CAVAC network has previously raised concerns about mandatory minimum sentences, which are often too rigid to take into account the complexity of situations experienced by victims. Sentencing raises similar issues when existing processes aimed at incorporating victim experiences are not well known, are rarely used or are unequally applied.
Although the current legal framework provides mechanisms for considering victims’ needs and the impacts of the crime on them, including through the victim’s impact statement, these levers are not systematically used or lack the necessary support to be used effectively. In this context, overly standardized criminal law responses, be they mandatory minimum sentences or sentencing practices that are insensitive to the victim’s experiences, can further trivialize violence and result in the inadequate recognition of the harm suffered.
As has been argued with respect to mandatory minimum sentences, the CAVAC network stresses the importance of preserving genuine and informed judicial discretion while ensuring that existing mechanisms are better known, better used and adequately supported. This is how the human, psychological, social and lasting impacts of crime will truly be integrated into sentencing, beyond a strictly legal interpretation of the offence.
I’ll now tell you about the CAVAC model.
For decades, in collaboration with partners from the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions and police services, CAVACS have developed a proactive information and intervention model.
In Quebec, CAVACs play a key role for victims, especially in the context of intimate partner violence.
CAVACs quickly make proactive calls following bail hearings, forward the release order, provide clear information on the conditions imposed and what to do in the event of non‑compliance, and provide support in applying appropriate protective measures.
In addition, Quebec has had a court specialized in sexual violence and domestic violence since 2021, and CAVACs play a key role in that court process. The court represents significant advancements at the heart of the judicial system, particularly at the bail stage. Among other things, this model allows CAVACs to do a systematic risk assessment to inform the criminal and penal prosecutor prior to the bail hearing. In addition, a meeting prior to the bail hearing is systematically arranged between the victim and the criminal and penal prosecutor.
In conclusion, the CAVAC network again asserts that victims’ rights are fully protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Experience on the ground shows that the protection of victims does not depend solely on the severity of the rules. It also depends on an essential combination of information, support, understanding and efforts to prevent revictimization.
Any reform, including Bill C-14, must fully incorporate this reality and be studied in light of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, to strengthen public safety, particularly that of victims and their confidence — and I would dare say that of all Canadians — in the justice system.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Next is Mr. Paul Brandt. Please proceed, sir.
Paul Brandt, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Not in My City: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, I’m Paul Brandt, former registered nurse at Alberta Children’s Hospital, founder of Not in My City, past chair of the Alberta Human Trafficking Task Force and current chair of the governing board of the Alberta Centre to End Trafficking in Persons.
In 2021, we produced The Reading Stone: The Survivor’s Lens to Human Trafficking, a survivor-led report built on testimony from 92 experts and victims. I speak today for the voiceless children who cannot speak for themselves.
Bill C-14 makes some modest improvements to bail and sentencing, but it is a half-measure. It does not restore the mandatory minimum sentences Parliament created for the possession and accessing of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. It does not repeal the principle of restraint that has given us catch-and-release justice. Finally, it does not send the clear parliamentary message that real children, not hypothetical adults, must come first.
Last October, the Supreme Court in Senneville struck down those minimums, using a hypothetical 18-year-old keeping a single “sext.” The actual cases involved hundreds of files showing the rape and torture of children aged 3 to 10. I will repeat that: While we are talking right now, there are real children whose torture and rape are being filmed and photographed. I am sure you will agree with me that these children have to be our priority.
Parliament’s job is not to legislate for hypotheticals; it is to protect real victims. Under Canadian law, these offences are already violent. Human trafficking requires force, fraud and coercion. Child sexual abuse and exploitation material document the actual rape of a child. The demand side of sex trafficking fuels the entire market.
The data is devastating: 93% of trafficking victims in Canada are Canadian; 93% are women and girls. The average age of first trafficking is 13 years old, and it is younger for Indigenous girls. Between 75% and 90% of people in the commercial sex industry were first sexually exploited as children.
Despite hundreds of police-reported incidents each year, conviction rates for human trafficking remain alarmingly low.
I have sat with survivors like Trisha Baptie, sold from ages 13 until 19. The day she turned 19, the law suddenly called her a willing participant. That false line ignores the continuum of trauma we documented in The Reading Stone report.
Canada’s 2019 National Strategy to Combat Human Trafficking has now lapsed, and there is still no national survivor advisory table to ensure that the voices of those whose lives have been directly impacted guide federal policy. In Alberta, we have taken leadership by establishing the Lived Experience Advisory Network through the Alberta Centre to End Trafficking in Persons.
As Ontario Superior Court Justice Antonio Skarica recently stated in a powerful sentencing decision, the Canadian justice system is at an inflection point and must decide whether to prioritize the needs of vulnerable Canadians or the criminals who abuse them. He noted that courts often talk about the principles of deterrence and denunciation and then contradict those grandiose proclamations by instituting relatively light sentences. He warned that these proclamations mirror an ongoing current Canadian cultural trend to express shock and outrage at criminal attacks on vulnerable targets, followed by hollow words of condemnation, such as, “This is not who we are,” followed again by relative inaction, thereby ignoring the disturbing reality that this is now clearly who we have become. He further observed the public’s perception that the system is soft on crime and prioritizes the rights of criminals over the rights of victims.
This is not theoretical. In a recent Lethbridge case, Skye Atoa was granted bail by Justice F. C. Fisher on a $1,000 promise to pay with strict conditions, including no contact with anyone under the age of 18 and mandatory drug counselling. He was released from custody the following afternoon, only to be observed in very close proximity to a young female, breaching multiple conditions. This is exactly why the principle of restraint must be fundamentally reformed. He was charged with trafficking a 14-year-old and having a 15- and 16-year-old in captivity.
The lack of consistent denunciation, deterrence and accountability is not merely a debate about balancing the rights of victims versus offenders; it is about the health and safety of Canadian society as a whole. When crimes go undeterred and undenounced, criminals are emboldened, victims are denied justice, and society, as a whole, loses faith in the Canadian justice system. We are not winning this fight when the justice system treats documented child rape as discretionary.
Judicial discretion has its place, but Canada’s track record shows it has not delivered on public safety or confidence. When the system fails to impose proportionate consequences, it undermines the governability of society. Parliament has both the authority and the duty to set a clear floor for the worst crimes against children.
The children and survivors I represent do not ask for perfection. They ask for consistency beyond courage, and I urge this committee to recommend amendments that move Bill C-14 beyond a half-measure and deliver the parliamentary statement our most vulnerable deserve. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to all of our witnesses for your opening comments.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much to all of you for being here. I wish I had an hour with each of you. Your perspectives are so important. I’m sorry for the loved ones of yours that you’ve lost.
My first question is to Ms. Beisel-Cobb. As a member of your Madisson’s grieving family, what do you say to those often in academia who argue that the system already detains too many people and that the presumption of innocence and the rights of the accused should come first? If you had one simple message for decision makers who hesitate to tighten bail detention because they fear being seen as too harsh, what would it be?
Ms. Beisel-Cobb: I would definitely say picture your own daughter when you’re making these decisions because you would be very quick to tighten those rules; you would throw everyone away.
There are no second chances when it comes to someone’s life. We don’t get our children back, so they shouldn’t get a second chance either.
Senator Batters: Exactly. Thank you.
To Mr. Brandt, your organization Not in My City works directly on human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Several years ago, on Bill C-5, the Liberal government widely expanded the ability of convicted criminals to receive house arrest as their sentence. Bill C-14 takes away the ability to have house arrest for some of those offences, but there are many serious offences that continue to be eligible for house arrest, and that includes the serious crime of human trafficking.
At the House of Commons committee on this bill, the Liberal government opposed a Conservative amendment, which would have stopped house arrest for human trafficking, period. That amendment was unfortunately defeated then.
Mr. Brandt, with all the work you and your organization have done to help victims of human trafficking, do you think that anyone convicted of human trafficking in Canada should receive house arrest?
Mr. Brandt: Thank you, senator, for that excellent question.
I would say that I’m a person under authority, and I also want to ensure that every time someone comes to me looking for a solution, that I’m not just criticizing; I’m bringing an actual solution. I ask for the same from the people I work with.
I strongly believe that we need to expand the reverse onus on bail, apply it to all repeat violent offenders — human traffickers, organized sexual exploitation rings and serious child and sexual exploitation material cases — and repeal the principle of restraint in these categories.
The current expansions on Bill C-14 are just too narrow. When there is a documented pattern of violence or exploitation, the onus must shift to the accused to provide evidence that release is justified.
I would add to that that Conservatives did work constructively to strengthen this bill, tighten bail, protecting workers and increasing accountability, including ending the practice of letting convicted criminals act as sureties for the accused, which is, in essence, the fox guarding the henhouse.
When it came to consecutive sentences for repeat human traffickers, making public safety the primary consideration in bail decisions, mandatory detention for serious repeat offenders and eliminating house arrest for major crimes, the refusal came from the Liberal side.
Bill C-14 is still a half-measure in its current form, and we need full accountability. We can do better.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’d first like to thank Ms. Jacqueline Beisel-Cobb and Mr. Brett Broadfoot.
Of course, I’d like to offer my condolences, but I also want to tell you how much your heartbreaking stories reveal the flaws in our justice system.
I’d also like to say a few words to Mr. Paul Brandt.
I admire your very public outreach work, especially against child trafficking. Thank you.
My questions will be for the two Quebec women from CAVAC. You rightly stated that the rights of victims are often relegated to the background. With respect to release orders, we’ve heard since the committee’s hearings began that victims are not being heard.
You said that the CAVACs intervene. Is this specific to Quebec? What exactly do CAVACs do? Are you able to make the situation safer for victims? Are some victims attacked again by those who’ve attacked them in the past?
Ms. Cormier Gaudet: I’ll speak first, and my colleague can add to my response if needed.
When there’s a release order, CAVAC contacts the victims and examines safety nets with them. If I may, I’ll use the feminine, because women represent most of the victims we see.
Very often, when suspects are released, rapid response units involving several partners are triggered, to prevent a homicide. That’s mostly what CAVAC does when the offender is released.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do you consider it normal for you to have that role, under the circumstances?
Ms. Gasse: In these situations, the most important thing is coordination between the different people involved, both with the victim and the offender. Everyone can share information to protect the victim and supervise the offender.
The fact that all stakeholders involved in the same case can consult with each other about a specific situation, a specific case or a specific victim really helps cover all angles.
Ms. Cormier Gaudet: As for your question about whether we think it’s normal, no, I don’t think so, because the victim is again responsible for ensuring her own safety. As a result, the burden is placed on the victim, when organizations should be doing it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Should the release system be changed? Do you believe that those accused of crimes, particularly against an intimate partner, are being released too quickly?
Ms. Cormier Gaudet: I think it’s a complex and far-reaching question. However, as mentioned at the beginning, in Quebec, we’re fortunate to have courts that specialize in domestic violence and sexual violence. In these cases, the channels of communication with prosecutors are more effective. When CAVAC is concerned about a situation, the prosecutor listens and objects to the release. I can’t speak for the other provinces, but I see a big improvement in this respect in Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are cases falling through the cracks?
Ms. Cormier Gaudet: Obviously, every situation is different. However, the good thing about Bill C-14 is that in some situations, particularly those involving repeat offenders, a reverse onus is possible. That could be a way to reassure the victims and provide a broader picture of the situation at the interim release stage.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you. That’s all the time I have.
[English]
Senator Simons: Thank you to all of our witnesses for such powerful personal testimony today.
My questions are going to be for Mr. Broadfoot and Ms. Beisel-Cobb. I want to, again, thank you for your courage in sharing your stories with us. It’s really important for us to hear this kind of testimony and not just from experts. You guys have become experts in all too horrible a way.
As I listened to you both tell your stories, it struck me that there’s an underlying problem that isn’t just the bail system. It’s a complete failure of the justice system, from beginning to end, to understand the danger of intimate partner violence.
Mr. Broadfoot, in your testimony, you touched on the issue of the education of judges. Could we step back from some of the specifics of Bill C-14? I’d like to hear from each of you about why you think our courts, our prosecutors and our police still don’t understand how extraordinarily dangerous intimate partner violence is and what a predictor it is of later homicide, and not just of the individual, but oftentimes a predictor of horrible spree killings that affect the wider community too?
What is it that people are still not getting about why these cases are so deadly and dangerous?
Ms. Beisel-Cobb: We’re people of hope. We don’t really believe that things will happen until they really do. We dismiss warning signs. We easy to just push them aside.
In my daughter’s case, when he was present with the judge, I think we’re so busy, we have so much to do that we don’t really take the time to see what is in front of us. We don’t read that document and say, “Okay, he does have a restraining order. He does have a firearm. He does have a criminal harassment charge. Maybe we should do something different.” It’s very easy to just quickly scan for anything new — nothing there — and then do bail right away, as opposed to saying, “There is a mandatory ankle monitoring. This is a case we need to look at.” I think we’re just too busy ourselves to do things. Everyone is too busy, so we automatically dismiss it. We need time to step back and fully think outside the box and say, “These are red flags and we have to do something because this could be our last chance,” and it was in my daughter’s case.
Mr. Broadfoot: I agree with what Ms. Beisel-Cobb just said.
I would like to add to your question. It’s been touched on that we don’t want to seem too harsh, I guess. I don’t know why that is. If somebody commits a violent act against another individual — we’re talking specifically at this moment about intimate partner violence — there are holes and gaps, as I mentioned, with our education, both from the police services right up to our judges.
Bill C-14 says that, for these violent, extreme acts, you don’t get to just get out. They need to be written in black and white. At that point, I believe it will give the Crown the opportunity to go through this. It will give the judges the opportunity to go through this and not, as was just mentioned, push it off. That is why, potentially, to hopefully answer your question to some degree, this is recurring. That’s my insight to that, I suppose.
Senator Simons: It just seems to me there’s still this deep cultural belief that somehow a man has the right to do this to a female partner. I can’t imagine, Mr. Broadfoot, that if the kind of assault you’re describing had been inflicted on another man, the police would have just let it go.
I know that we will have Bill C-16 before us shortly, which deals with the crime of femicide. I worry that all the legislation in the world doesn’t change anything until our police, our Crown prosecutors’ offices and our judges understand how predictive abuse is of future violence.
Mr. Broadfoot: When Ms. Dunn appeared last month, she gave statistics of those predictors. I don’t have them in front of me, but she shared them with this committee, and they’re pretty high. Why do we continue to allow this? I don’t know either.
Senator Simons: Thank you, all, very much.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of you, and in particular, no parent can imagine the loss of a child. I’m very sorry for that for both of you. Thank you for the work that you’re doing, CAVAC. I’ve been familiar with it for a long time. Mr. Brandt, my work in this whole area started with children in Alberta. Trish Baptie is a good friend.
This morning, as I was coming in to work, I received a call that I have been thinking about since you all started talking. The question that was being put to me was why we are again looking at this end of the system and pretending like adjusting bail will address the failure to deal — as Senator Simons just talked about — seriously with violence against women and children. She was asking in particular, now that we know all of this evidence about the number of men going to websites to figure out how to drug, strangle and rape their own partners, why we’re not addressing these issues.
In this moment, was anything else besides bail reform offered to you as an option of how we could do better in these areas? We have leaders, whether it’s civic leaders or people in the system itself, who are reinforcing the attitudes that allow what happened to your daughters to happen, which results in women — if they’re not killed — being deputized to protect themselves. Was anything else offered to you besides criminal law reform?
Ms. Beisel-Cobb: No. My daughter went and got a restraining order. We all know it’s just a piece of paper. I really wish there had been a mandatory ankle monitor because she might have seen him coming and wouldn’t have walked down those parkade stairs. I recommend criminals having some type of accountability, like having an ankle monitor on them. In Alberta, we have a 24-7 system now that links the ankle monitor to the victim’s cellphone in real time. In Alberta, victims will be able to see within that 100-metre proximity so that they can get out and remove themselves from danger. If my daughter had had that and if the judge had given the ankle monitor, again, she might be alive today.
Mr. Brandt: We have here Mr. Broadfoot and Ms. Beisel-Cobb and their powerful testimonies, and I thank the constituents in Quebec, where I’ll be tomorrow with the Maddison Sessions front-line human trafficking investigator’s summit that is taking place there for the next week.
Bullets and fists tear through restraining orders. We have to ensure that we have stronger measures in place. Survivors and front-line workers have been clear. We need more than clarification. We need correction. We have a number of recommendations that I would like to bring. I already talked about reverse onus on bail. I believe that the restoration of mandatory minimum sentences is something that needs to be upheld as a requirement of consecutive sentencing on these violent crimes and to explicitly codify these violent offences in sentencing provisions.
I’ll finish with this. I’d like to leave time for the other witnesses as well. I don’t believe accountability and rehabilitation are mutually exclusive. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Sometimes, for the sake of the safety and governability of society and to ensure justice for victims, the rights of perpetrators must be limited.
Rehabilitation programs can be applied in many different circumstances and arrangements. We need a multipronged, multifront approach. I’ll finish with that. Thank you, senator.
The Chair: Mr. Broadfoot, did you want to add anything?
Mr. Broadfoot: No, I think they both answered very eloquently. Thank you.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for being here. I cannot imagine how difficult this is. Thank you for your courage. As a former law enforcement officer, I’ve seen too many of these things, and they never leave you.
To the group in Quebec, thank you for what you’ve shared there. My question to you folks is this: When you do your assessment and work through your risk assessment and protection plan for the victims, is that considered part of the bail decision by the court and the prosecutor? Is that part of that decision-making process or is that something that happens outside of that process?
[Translation]
Ms. Cormier Gaudet: I wouldn’t say that it’s outside the judicial process, because the prosecutor receives the professional opinion from our worker. However, it’s not filed with the court, so it’s actually included in the prosecutor’s file.
With respect to the previous question, I’d like to add that we have anti-approach bracelets in Quebec, which is an additional measure that works.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: I may not have been clear. Do you believe it is important that Crown prosecutors and the courts consider the complexity of a victim’s situation and the costs and challenges that are incurred in putting in place a protective plan in these circumstances and that this should be a consideration when bail is being discussed?
[Translation]
Ms. Gasse: That exists in Quebec, but it’s not done by CAVAC workers. It’s done by probation officers from Quebec’s correctional services. They can evaluate offenders at the interim release stage to inform the court. Probation officers can therefore submit a report or testify to inform the court about the risks associated with the accused.
Ms. Cormier Gaudet: However, the accused, so the defence lawyer, must consent to it.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: First, I want to say to the two parents that I share their grief. There’s nothing we can do to go back, unfortunately. Your testimony is very powerful in assisting us to decide what we should do next, but it will never put an end to your grief. I’m so sorry for that. As a father of four, I certainly understand.
[Translation]
My questions are for CAVAC.
As you probably know, many provinces still have justices of the peace who hear bail hearings. In Ontario, no legal training is needed to be a justice of the peace. People sometimes confuse judges. There are several types of jurisdictions and several types of judges. The federal Judges Act applies only to judges appointed by the federal government: the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
In Quebec, I understand that provincial judges have been specialized, they’ve been trained to focus on violence against women, whether sexual violence or violence against children, and so on. Have you noticed that the judges and various participants — the public prosecutors and the judges in those courts — have a good understanding of the aspects of violence and risks and issue orders accordingly?
Ms. Gasse: I can start and my colleague can add to it.
Under the Act to create a court specialized in sexual violence and domestic violence, there is a strong emphasis on training judges. Someone was saying earlier that there has been mandatory training since 2021, but, for judges who were appointed before that, the focus is on ensuring that they can access information about myths and prejudices related to sexual violence and the full complexity of cases involving intimate partner violence.
That’s also available to criminal and penal prosecutors and even defence lawyers. We’re starting to see the benefits of all this. Is it perfect? Not yet. However, I think it’s a good way for everyone to have the necessary training.
Ms. Cormier Gaudet: I’d just say that there’s no guarantee that justices will take these training courses. It can’t be imposed on them, but, yes, we’re seeing a cultural shift. It’s a long process, but I think that’s normal.
Senator Dalphond: Have you noticed that more and more judges are issuing orders to wear an anti-approach bracelet?
Ms. Cormier Gaudet: For release, an appraisal will be requested at the probation stage, and the recommendation will be made at that stage.
I’d say that, when those involved in probation say it’s feasible, judges will be increasingly inclined to impose a bracelet. In cases where there’s a high risk of dangerousness, for our part, it’s very rare because there are still criteria. If it can’t be done, that’s understandable. Otherwise, yes, for my part, I’m seeing that bracelets are more common.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning. My question is for the two representatives from CAVAC.
Further to my colleague Senator Dhillon’s question, I’d like some clarification. It’s about what you said regarding probation officers and the fact that, if the inmate refuses to cooperate with the probation officer, it won’t go any further.
Are you referring to the work of the Commission québécoise des libérations conditionnelles? In this specific case, does the Quebec parole board take into account the failure to cooperate with the probation officer? The board is very reserved about authorizing release in such cases.
Ms. Gasse: There are two situations. The first is the evaluation at the interim release stage. At that point, the accused must certainly give consent.
As for the Commission québécoise des libérations conditionnelles, probation officers will conduct a sentence evaluation. That’s a different process. They’re two different things.
Ms. Cormier Gaudet: Basically, it’s a question of assessing dangerousness, so no, it’s not taken into consideration at the interim release stage. It’s truly on a voluntary basis, and it’s an agreement made between the Crown and the defence to send it to the probation team.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the clarification.
[English]
Senator Clement: Thank you all for your testimony. I don’t have a question. I just want to say their names. Madisson Cobb. Breanna Broadfoot. We have to say the names of the women who inspire us out loud as much as we can, so I thank you for saying their names, and I will say them. Madisson Cobb and Breanna Broadfoot. Thank you.
Senator Batters: I have a further question to Ms. Beisel-Cobb. When you learned that your daughter’s estranged boyfriend had been released, what did you feel as a family and what message does that type of release decision send to victims and, more broadly, to society about victim protection and accountability?
Ms. Beisel-Cobb: There is none. We were devastated. My daughter did everything right and jumped through every hoop that was asked, and he just walked out of the court to do whatever he wanted. People must be devastated out there — scared. How are we not protecting these people who are asking for it? I don’t understand.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much to all of you.
The Chair: Thank you to all the witnesses who testified here today, certainly, the group from the Crime Victims Assistance Centre of Quebec and Mr. Paul Brandt.
In addition, to the witnesses Ms. Beisel-Cobb and Mr. Broadfoot, we thank you for your emotional and compelling testimony. We acknowledge the heartbreaking loss of your daughters. We acknowledge your courage, your strength, your resilience and your sense of duty to the Canadian public and to Canadian society for coming here today. Your testimony is etched in our memories, and it will, no doubt, affect the way we analyze the work we still have to do on this bill. Thank you very much for all of that.
(The committee adjourned.)