THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 29, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:16 p.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 Denise Batters (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. I am Denise Batters, a senator from Saskatchewan. I am normally the deputy chair of this committee. Today, I am acting as chair for this meeting. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from the province of Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I am Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
Senator Clement: I am Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Dalphond: I am Pierre J. Dalphond from the De Lorimier division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta. I also come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Welcome to all of you. Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Senator Dhillon: Welcome. Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, 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 officials from Statistics Canada: Lucie Léonard, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics; and Marnie Wallace, Assistant Director, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics.
Thank you very much for joining us today and for helping us with this study. We will begin with your opening remarks. The floor is yours for five minutes. I’m not sure which one of you will deliver the opening remarks or if you are each going to deliver some of it, but if you could, please keep it to five minutes so that we have sufficient time for questions. You may begin when ready.
Lucie Léonard, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics, Statistics Canada: Honourable chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as part of your study on Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.
My name is Lucie Léonard, and I serve as Director of the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics at Statistics Canada. Our role is to work with federal, provincial, territorial and municipal partners to develop and integrate standardized, reliable data that sheds light on crime, community safety and the administration of justice.
This data helps governments, communities and Canadians understand how the justice system is functioning and evolving — a context that is relevant to the committee’s examination of bail and sentencing reforms.
Although these issues are best understood within the broader justice system continuum, I would like to present some information on crime trends from the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, which captures detailed information on criminal incidents substantiated by police services. I will then speak about national data that we have at Statistics Canada.
Police-reported data shows that the volume and severity of crime, as measured by the Crime Severity Index, or CSI, recorded a steady decline from 1998 until reaching its lowest point in 2014. Since then, the Violent CSI has generally increased, and in 2024, it was 40% higher than a decade earlier. Non-violent crime has fluctuated over the years and currently stands 7% higher than in 2014.
Taken together, this reflects an increase in both the total CSI and an associated increase in the total volume of police-reported crime in 2024 compared with 10 years ago.
Statistics Canada publishes information on the prevalence of all Criminal Code and federal statute incidents coming to the attention of police. We understand that this committee has expressed interest related to motor vehicle theft and breaking and entering.
The rate of breaking and entering declined in 2024 and now stands 32% lower than a decade ago.
The rate of motor vehicle theft reached a historic low in 2020, followed by three consecutive years of increases. In 2024, the rate declined by 17% and now stands at 43% of the peak recorded in 2003.
The homicide rate is recognized as a key indicator of violence, safety and overall social well-being. In 2024, police services reported 788 homicides across Canada, resulting in a 4% decrease in the national homicide rate.
From 2019 to 2024, approximately one third of individuals accused of homicide were under some form of justice system supervision at the time of the incident, whether bail, remand, serving a custodial sentence or on probation.
In terms of the demographics of individuals accused of homicide between 2020 and 2024, 86% were male, 51% were under 30 years old, 35% were Indigenous and 28% identified as racialized people.
Statistics Canada also publishes quarterly and annual reports on crime trends, victimization and the administration of justice. However, as we mentioned and as has been mentioned in this committee, nationally standardized bail data does not currently exist. It is recognized that this data is essential for understanding and reporting on how bail and sentencing are applied and the impacts of these legislative reforms across all jurisdictions.
Provinces and territories are responsible for collecting information on the administration of the justice system within their jurisdictions. As such, establishing comprehensive bail data requires collaboration among all levels of government to build consistent national data sets.
Bail information is complex to collect by court administrators, police services and various agencies. It requires integrating data from across the justice system process to understand how bail is being applied, its impacts on different populations and the prevalence and context of reoffending for an accused while in the community following a release on bail.
Statistics Canada has been working closely with jurisdictions through various federal-provincial-territorial, or FPT, forums to identify data gaps, support the development of solutions and ensure a common understanding of the concepts and methodologies required for standardizing bail data.
Statistics Canada will continue to work with all jurisdictions to address reporting issues on bail-related court process data. One provincial jurisdiction at the moment has data that has been determined to be fit for purpose, and we are working with this jurisdiction to ensure a complete understanding of how the data can be interpreted to represent the bail process, with the data to be released in 2026.
In closing, Statistics Canada recognizes the need for standardized and reliable data to support decision making in the justice system and inform issues of overrepresentation and equity. The focus of these efforts remains to leverage opportunities for data linkages and integration to provide more insights and evidence on bail reform and sentencing to policy-makers, decision makers and Canadians.
Thank you for your attention. We would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I very much appreciate that. I now want to proceed to questions from senators.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Ms. Léonard, I’d like to come back to some elements of your presentation, because you used acronyms and I’m not sure I understood correctly. Were you talking about violent crime, non-violent crime and the increase in violent crime? I’d like to know what the trend is in terms of violent crime in Canada. At the start of your presentation, you brought up a few figures, but I must admit you lost me, and I think it is because of the acronyms. What’s the trend in terms of violent crime? How does Statistics Canada describe violent crime? Do you have any figures on that?
Ms. Léonard: In my presentation, I used the crime severity index. It measures the volume for both violent crime and property crime. The idea is to have an index that measures the volume and severity of crimes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What does that tell us?
Ms. Léonard: In terms of the crimes and the severity index, the increase seen is mainly —
[English]
— driven by property crime, not violent crime.
[Translation]
That’s what I meant in my opening remarks. Violent crime varies depending on the type of crime.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You’re saying non-violent property crime accounts for the increase in this index, not violent crime?
Ms. Léonard: For 2024, yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What does that increase come to in percentage?
[English]
Ms. Léonard: Since 2014, it has increased, and in 2024, it was 40% higher than a decade earlier. For crimes at the non‑violent level, it has fluctuated over time and now is 7% higher than in 2014.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: For non-violent crimes? What does that say? That violent crime is going down?
Ms. Léonard: Some are on the rise, depending on the type of crime.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do you have more information?
Ms. Léonard: Yes, we do. In the case of homicides, we see a decline in 2024 compared to 2023, when the homicide rate was 1.91 for a population of 100,000. In 2024, the number of homicides went down. Otherwise, crimes related to homicides, for example —
[English]
— for intimate partner homicide, there was an increase in 2024. There, we see that in almost one in six homicides, the victims were killed by a spouse or partner. That is why in terms of intimate partner violence, that had been increasing in 2024.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do you have more specific numbers on that?
Ms. Léonard: Yes, we can provide more specific figures and information about those who are under some form of supervision.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m interested in that, because you said one third of those charged with homicide are on parole.
Ms. Léonard: Yes. They are under some form of supervision. We said that — I’ll read it in English:
[English]
. . . accused under some form of justice system supervision. From 2020 to 2024, there were 1,119 instances of persons accused of homicide where the person was under some form of justice system supervision — roughly one in three individuals accused of homicide.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What does that say about our justice system? This may not be in your area of expertise.
Ms. Léonard: It says one in three —
[English]
— 42% of persons were accused of homicide. It was where the person had been previously accused of a crime against a person.
[Translation]
Once again, we have an idea of the records. We could give you more information on those under supervision, for example, those who already have a record, the demographic element and the criminal records of these people.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you. I apologize for taking a lot of time, but I was trying to get some clarification.
[English]
Senator Simons: It was 30 years ago when I read a book called Boom, Bust & Echo, which left a great impression on me. The economist behind that book argued about the function of demographic trends: The baby boom was a huge generation, so crime went up because there were more young men around to commit crimes. Then when Gen X came along, it was a much smaller cohort, so crime went down. And when the baby boom echo happened, crime went up. I’ve lost track of where we are in the boom-bust-echo-boom-bust-echo cycle.
Crime was falling precipitously until 2014 and then started to go up again. Have you tracked that against Canadian demographics to see if some of this can be not explained away but correlated to an increase in the number of people in those “prime crime years” of their early twenties?
Ms. Léonard: You mean in terms of the age of the demographic of the population?
Senator Simons: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Léonard: We’d have to look more specifically at the whole issue of age. There’s clearly a factor.
[English]
It’s the peak of offending, which we know to be around 15 to 24 years of age. There is a natural decline in the peak of offending during that age.
In terms of actual demographics, we can confirm that there is an age factor in terms of different types of crime. Specifically for different types of offences, we can provide more details around the demographics. Again, depending on the types of offences, it would vary as to who is involved and the ages of the offenders.
Senator Simons: Obviously, people who are embezzling and doing other white-collar crimes are going to be older than people who are stealing your car. However, I’m curious to know because I don’t think I’ve seen any work on this, and I’m sure Statistics Canada has someone who can break this out. If you put the two graphs next to each other, is part of what we’re seeing a function of the following: Now we’re into Gen Z, which will be a larger cohort because they’re the children of the elder millennials who were a big cohort.
Do we have a lot more 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds running around our streets? If it’s negatively correlated, that would also be very interesting to know.
Marnie Wallace, Assistant Director, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics, Statistics Canada: I don’t have that information in front of me, unfortunately, but we certainly do have the capacity to calculate those age-related rates. We could follow up with some of that information.
Senator Simons: I would love it if you did that. I don’t even know if it’s germane to Bill C-14. My intellectual curiosity was aroused.
I don’t want to say post-COVID — as you can see, I’m still masking because I don’t believe it’s over — but in the wake of the peak of the pandemic years, there was a lot of social breakdown in our country, with a sense of distrust and disorder. When downtowns emptied out of office workers, there was an increase in an unhoused population coming into urban spaces. It seems to me it has been a real problem, especially in government capital cities, like my city of Edmonton and the city of Ottawa. When people were working from home, there was more social disorder on the streets because there were fewer eyes on the streets. That also cross-correlates with the fentanyl crisis.
When you look at these numbers, I don’t know to what extent there are sociological factors, like the wake of the COVID pandemic, that cross-correlate with these spikes or whether it’s the rise in fentanyl addiction.
I was speaking earlier this week to a police officer who was responsible for the downtown crime unit in Edmonton. I said to him that when I see somebody who’s zoned out on fentanyl, they don’t seem dangerous to me. They don’t even seem to know that I’m walking past them. He replied that it’s not the person who’s using fentanyl; it’s the person who doesn’t have any fentanyl and is looking to get the next score. That’s the person who is going to mug you or break into your car.
I don’t know what statistics you have that cross-correlate social disruptions like the pandemic and fentanyl trafficking with these crimes.
Ms. Léonard: That’s a complex question.
Senator Simons: Which I took too long to ask.
Ms. Léonard: No, it’s a great question. However, in terms of the causality, I think we would have issues, first, just to record information on fentanyl. We have had conversations with the new czar who has been named in order to gather data. We don’t collect exactly fentanyl-related data. On the other hand, we all know and it has also been mentioned at this committee that substance use is an issue. And you mentioned social disorder, but we have not tracked, for example, the COVID effect on crime. We’ve seen, for example, the issue around incarceration when people were more isolated and there was a decline in crime.
That’s why in terms of understanding the trend of the COVID effect —
Senator Simons: Oh, I see. So there was actually a decrease in 2020 because nobody was outside.
Ms. Léonard: Exactly.
It was otherwise for some crimes. Some people would say that’s not the case for domestic violence, where we show that the data is —
Senator Simons: People were trapped —
Ms. Léonard: Exactly, yes.
The Deputy Chair: When you were listing your different statistics in your opening remarks, I noticed breaking and entering was the lowest in 2020 because everyone was at home. Unfortunately, yes, interpersonal violence went way up.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I had a lot of concerns about statistics, since the data is then used to draft legislation and make decisions. The evidence is really important. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has already noted that police data doesn’t include information on whether an accused person has already been convicted for the same offence or whether they were on bail at the time of the alleged offence. In fact, that information is not systematically collected.
What are your thoughts on the new provisions in Bill C-14 that specifically target repeat offenders, particularly the mandatory consecutive sentences for subsequent offences? What tangible measures will Bill C-14 bring about? How can we improve the collection and use of information, given these new provisions in Bill C-14?
Ms. Léonard: That’s an interesting question, in the sense that for the time being, as you said, there’s no obligation for the police to compile all the information regarding the circumstances. Sometimes, based on what we’ve learned, they don’t always have access to the information, especially if it falls under another jurisdiction or if the police don’t have all the information on hand. There’s no obligation to compile these details when collecting the information for the file and laying charges against an individual, which could happen later. What we systematically see is this information is not collected by police services across the country.
Senator Oudar: How do we fix that? That information would be helpful. It already is, but I think it’ll become even more so.
Ms. Léonard: I think you’ve heard from Mr. Carrique, the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. He said police services were working on dashboards to track releases. He said about 32 police services out of 53 had worked on that. It’s for certain crimes, but not all. Some information is almost sent by regular mail. There are challenges.
Obviously, it’s not an interactive system police can rely on to make decisions on someone’s dangerousness. If information doesn’t exist for a court proceeding, that’s a gap, not only regarding a national system, but also at the local and provincial levels. Justice system practitioners and police services need the information to make the best possible decisions. It comes back to the modernization and update of those information systems, and also improving the interoperability between the systems themselves and their accessibility.
Senator Oudar: Thank you. I have another question. Statistics show the percentage of inmates on remand in provincial institutions has increased from 20% in 1984 to 76% in 2024, a dramatic increase that has continued despite all the legislative reforms to date.
At the same time, the crime severity index has actually gone down since 1998, and even since the latest data in 2024.
How can these two seemingly contradictory trends coexist? Can you explain these figures? There has to be a reason, but on the face of it, those numbers seem contradictory.
Ms. Léonard: I’ll start, and my colleague can add to my answer.
There are things that seem to be contradictory in the sense that, for some of the data we’ve seen, the percentages seem correct, but it’s a matter of interpretation and it depends on the analysis unit. For example, sometimes we talk about overall detention, but we’re really only talking about the provinces and territories.
In this case, there has been an increase in the provinces and territories, but at the same time, if we look at the total prison population, which would also include the federal level, there hasn’t really been an increase. The numbers have been relatively stable for the last 20 years. It depends on who’s being released and for how long. I think that’s where the stakes are quite high.
I’m not saying it doesn’t have anything to do with crime rates, but it’s more a structural issue, the justice system’s ability to avoid backlogs, for example. As a result, we can no longer ensure people’s safety, because they’re there, and there are delays and adjournments. I think witnesses have clearly highlighted the pressures on the justice system and how it creates administrative and security issues. All of this supports the questions around dangerousness, precisely because the system is stretched to the limit, judges don’t necessarily have the relevant information, and there seems to be a lot of pressure within the justice system. That’s what we’ve heard from some witnesses regarding the reforms suggested here, among other things; it would even have an impact on the courts’ ability to consider all the release cases.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Just before we move on, do you have statistics on a couple of offences I was wondering about: sexual offences and human trafficking? I’m not sure if it gets broken down as far as that.
[Translation]
Ms. Léonard: Did you want us to talk about it now?
I’ll use human trafficking as an example. This crime is on the rise and has a major impact in Canada. In the national data — and we can give you more details on that — 5,070 incidents were reported to the police over the last 10 years, with an average rate of 1.2 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2024, the rate was 1.5 with an estimated 608 incidents reported, which is the highest rate since 2014. It’s only increasing.
As for the demographics of victims of human trafficking, 93% are women and young girls, and two thirds of reported cases involve young girls and women under the age of 25. Moreover, in human trafficking cases, 82% of the accused are men, and most of the victims of trafficking are in Canada. We’re talking about a crime that is more domestic than international.
That’s the data we have at Statistics Canada. I’m going to share two other data points with you, because I think it’s important for the committee to know them.
Of course, we have our national data, but we work with many other organizations to consult other sources of information, which can also support and inform our own national data collection. To give you some context, another statistic from the Ontario First Nations Young Peoples Council and the Toronto Police Services CARE Unit points to an important factor, which is that victims of human trafficking are 13 years old on average. Regarding the average age when it comes to Indigenous youth — this is what is very important for us to understand, with these organizations — some were as young as 8 years old with a disproportionate number of victims being young girls.
The UN Special Rapporteur talked about another aspect.
[English]
The Canadian survivor service provider here of the police and court support program consistently sees that between 75% to 90% of people in the commercial sex trade were first sexually exploited as children.
[Translation]
Again, along with other types of information, this gives us a more holistic view of human trafficking.
The last figure I’d like to share with you comes from us.
[English]
Hundreds of police-reported incidents happen each year with very low conviction rates, and Statistics Canada reported in its report entitled Trafficking in persons in Canada, 2024 that out of the 5,070 police-reported incidents, only 10% of completed adult criminal court cases resulted in a guilty finding.
The Deputy Chair: I don’t want to take my colleagues’ time, but if you have specific data on sexual offences, perhaps you could provide that in writing so that we can have more time for questions, unless there are a few quick data points you can provide on that. Thank you.
Ms. Wallace: Sure. Thanks. I’ll let you quickly know. In 2024, which is the most recent year of police-reported data that has been released, both level 1 and level 2 sexual assaults declined but remain well above levels of a decade ago. Level 3 sexual assault was down 8% in the most recent year.
We also recently released information on self-reported crimes —
The Deputy Chair: Sorry, just to be clear, level 1 is the most serious or least?
Ms. Wallace: Level 3 is the most serious.
The Deputy Chair: Level 1 and level 2 declined over the last year, but it was substantially up from 10 years ago. What did you say about level 3?
Ms. Wallace: Level 3 was down about 8%, but level 3 sexual assault makes up less than 1% of sexual assault in the country. We also recently released some self-reported data from the Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces. From that survey, we know that nearly 15 million people living in Canada, or 44% of the population 15 years of age and older, have been physically or sexually assaulted since the age of 15. Specific to sexual assault, we know it continues to be extremely under-reported to police, with only 8.6% of victims of sexual assault reporting that the most serious incident that they experienced was even reported to police.
The Deputy Chair: I have just one quick further question on that: How much up were level 1 and level 2 from 10 years ago?
Ms. Wallace: Level 1 assault was up 53% from 10 years ago, and level 2 was up 103% from 10 years ago.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Tannas: I have some questions I’m curious about with respect to your organization. It’s all in the context of the fact that presumably we are about to pass into law a bill that will tighten up bail restrictions and presumably take more people off the streets, and the idea is that we will have fewer crimes in those areas that are in the bill. And we will have fewer crimes committed by people out on bail because they are not out on bail. Yet I’m hearing that there is no kind of repository for that particular statistic that we are about to solve or try to solve.
My question to you about Statistics Canada is really twofold. I presume in cases like this where this is an obvious government priority and where we’re going to need to see statistics on them in order to understand whether we’re successful or not successful, then somebody would be swinging into action to say, “Hey, we really do have to now measure this. What are we going to do to start putting up some numbers for the baseline and going forward to see where it’s at?”
If you could, please cover that for me on how that process all works within Statistics Canada.
Ms. Léonard: Yes, we heard you in another intervention. What we are getting at is the whole issue of why we don’t have a national bail data system in Canada, with a bit of a national data set. To begin with, from our perspective, there is the issue of clarifying the mandate of our centre, which is national, and we’re there for mainly analysis and research. We’re not there for daily court operations, and there is a bit of a mismatch. Maybe we can eventually in the years to come when there will be a very modern system that the police can access. But for us, we usually publish a year after. We’re there for the trends and formed policies and programs and a review of how the system works.
From that perspective, just to be clear, this is not a dashboard on a daily basis that StatCan would house for police services or court administrators. Having said that, the issue that we have is there is a lot of bail data being collected but not at the national level.
Right now, as you mentioned, there seems to be an order — and the Minister of Justice was here — that there is an alignment to report annually. We are currently and we have been working, as we mentioned, with a lot of FPT forums over many years around even the issue of bail. The issue is some of the systems were not built to collect the data in the way it comes to us in terms of legal definitions. The way bail is handled locally is different. They don’t call it the same thing. In one place, they call it a pretrial hearing, and in another place, it is bail — I wouldn’t say it’s none of our business, but those local practices are not going to change tomorrow because a national data set is needed.
However, right now, what we recognize is the systems are siloed and fragmented, and they need to be made more accessible and modernized because, as we mentioned, in terms of even the police and judges, they don’t necessarily have the information. What was also said here at committee is this work, even at police services, needs to be completed and then the provinces. Then maybe we’re in a position for us to then acquire this data and have some standard definitions to then have fit-for-purpose data to be disseminated.
Senator Tannas: What I’m hearing is that it’s not your job to solve the problem. Someone else needs to solve the problem and you’ll collect the data when it’s available.
Ms. Léonard: We’re not saying it’s for somebody else to resolve the problem. But just to be clear, in terms of what a national data set would do, it is to report on trends and inform legislative reforms. There is a bit of a mix in terms of some of the problems that some of the bill is talking about. It’s not so much that the national data set is going to resolve it tomorrow, but in terms of annual reporting and monitoring and in terms of some of the key issues around release and decisions around bail that we are not able to assess, that is for the jurisdictions to work on. But we are working together on having some common definitions so that we’re ready as well to capture that at the national level. We’re working all together on that.
Senator Tannas: Having been here for a while, when a government comes 10 years from now to say, “We’re actually going to relax all this because we’ve got the feeling that it has not worked or it’s unfair or it’s whatever,” do you expect that you would have a set of data that they could actually rely on to argue for the next time this all comes up rather than this time obviously we’re going —
Ms. Léonard: My colleague Ms. Wallace could talk about this. She’s directly involved with the lead at Justice Canada, but definitely within the next 12 months, we would have data. As we mentioned, we’re working with one jurisdiction for the proof of concept. Many other jurisdictions are there, but again, it’s in terms of making sure it’s fit and it’s going to reflect the reality. Behind this, we also have the data custodians who are chief judges and provincial courts. Again, we’re working together and we have an agreement. Yes, we are committing to having the data in less than 12 months.
The Deputy Chair: I have a quick follow-up on that. Given you produce the national data on this and on crime and the administration of justice, when the government prepares a bill like Bill C-14, does the government consult Statistics Canada? Did the government consult Statistics Canada to get this kind of data to inform their policy choices that they made in this bill?
Ms. Wallace: Generally speaking, yes, that is the case.
The Deputy Chair: Did they do so on Bill C-14?
Ms. Wallace: We have been working very closely with colleagues at the Department of Justice Canada, as well as in the provinces and territories, on this issue of a lack of bail data for well over a year now. They are very well versed on what data we do and do not have. In this case, they are aware that we don’t have national bail data but have been working on advancing the collection of bail data across the country.
The Deputy Chair: Did they consult you?
Ms. Wallace: Yes, they are also aware that we simply don’t have the data at this point.
The Deputy Chair: You don’t have the specific data to be able to inform it?
Ms. Wallace: That’s right.
The Deputy Chair: Right, okay. Thank you.
Senator Dhillon: I just want to pick up on what Senator Tannas was saying, and I’ve got a couple of questions of my own.
Based on what we’ve got in front of us as a bill, have we identified a framework of data that we need to collect to be best positioned and to have a posture and a reporting system in the future to be able to seek answers that give us some indication that this is working or not or if we need to shift or adjust?
Ms. Wallace: As of right now, we do at Statistics Canada collect information from courts across the country through our Integrated Criminal Court Survey. It has the capacity and currently attempts to collect information on whether release has been granted or denied through the bail process. So we are actually capable of collecting that information now. Not many jurisdictions are able to provide us with that information.
The structure actually exists as it is to collect that information, and we’re working with provinces and territories to increase their capacity to collect and report it to us.
Senator Dhillon: I’ve got limited time, and I want to help you with this. It might not seem like it, but I am.
Ms. Wallace: Please.
Senator Dhillon: Will it be helpful to you for us to propose a strong observation within this bill to put in place that required data framework as we launch this work?
Ms. Wallace: So the data framework exists.
Senator Dhillon: This is where we’re confused. The framework exists, but we don’t have the data?
Ms. Wallace: That’s right. The framework exists to collect the data. The data itself comes from the provinces and territories and must be collected there first. It may be that we’re using a different understanding of “framework,” but the requirement to collect and share the information with Statistics Canada is important.
Senator Dhillon: Here is your chance to be as clear as possible because the lead senator is right there. What do you need us to say in an observation so that the data that is available but is not yet available is available when we need it in the future?
Ms. Léonard: If I understand your question, senator, there is an agreement to report on key indicators related to the reform.
Senator Dhillon: Okay.
Ms. Léonard: That is there in terms of the bail decision outcome, the conditions imposed and the timing variables that we know are linked accordingly. So it’s a set of key variables — a kind of matrix — to report on, and it aligns with the annual reporting that the minister has mentioned is a requirement of this bill. It aligns with those in terms of having key indicators because, again, it could be very complex to look at the whole system, but the idea is to pick key indicators that everyone would be committed and able to report on and then also to inform this committee with the annual reporting requirement.
Senator Dhillon: I have one more question to ask. This is a critical piece, folks, so that we’re better positioned to address some of these issues as we go along. Some of the criticism that’s come along — which we’ve been having to address and look at — is the fact that they were somewhat making a decision in the dark with what’s absent. Let me ask you this question.
You’ve shared that from 2014 to 2024, there’s been an increase in violent crimes, such as intimate partner violence, homicides and others. I also understand — and you’ll correct me, as I’m making statements here because I don’t have a lot of time to pull those answers from you — gun violence, organized crime, criminal activity and intimate partner violence are, in very general terms, a part of the reason why we have an increase.
Given that, does your data support the position that the failure of having bail requirements, like those in Bill C-14, has contributed to an increase in violence being perpetrated on Canadians?
Let me first say that this is of high interest to me, and I’m a big proponent of prevention; we want to do that, but we also know about repeat violent offenders. We also have capabilities of predicting future behaviour, given the data we have. We are continuing to be put in the position where questions are asked of us, such as, “If you knew, why didn’t you act?”
To that point, would you agree that the failure of having bail requirements, such as those in this bill, has contributed to an increase in violence being perpetrated on Canadians? And does the data point to this?
The Deputy Chair: Just 30 seconds, please. If you need more time than that, please provide it in writing.
Ms. Léonard: That’s a difficult question. I don’t think we are able to answer with some data on that in terms of —
Senator Dhillon: Would you take that question away and see if you can come back with —
Ms. Léonard: Yes, absolutely. We could come back more data-informed because —
Senator Dhillon: But I am asking from a data perspective.
Ms. Léonard: Yes, exactly. We will come back with the data for that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Please try to keep it to four-minute exchanges if you can.
Senator K. Wells: First, I’m glad to hear someone is following our committee discussions intently and viewing our previous meetings. Thank you for that. It makes us feel good.
Second, I want to pick up on the line of questioning you’ve heard from Senator Tannas and Senator Dhillon and then go a little bit deeper on a different level.
One of the key things we’ve been looking at here, as you’ve heard and as you have been following, is the baseline data on recidivism in violent crimes. Do they justify the new measures proposed in this bill?
You may have seen that as a committee, we are proponents of more data and better data, which is decision-making data. We are seeing some absences perhaps to justify some of the means taking place.
In your work in particular, does StatCan collect enough sufficient data that details race-based and identity-based information to establish a clear baseline against which the impacts of Bill C-14 can be measured? If not, then what are the most critical gaps that we should possibly be considering to recommend to the Government of Canada to consider?
Again, we are looking at observations or ways to help you collect some of this data. We know there are particular parts of the population that will be more impacted by this bill. We want to be able to measure impact.
Of course, we know the gold standard is disaggregated data, right? We need more of that to be able to see which communities will actually be most impacted by these bills. Hopefully, that’s clear enough.
Ms. Wallace: I want to make sure I am understanding the question. We are looking at reconviction as well as the ability for us to disaggregate data. I have a few statistics here. We do have some reconviction information.
We are able to identify people coming back into contact with the justice system through record linkage.
Among individuals released from provincial custody or starting a community sentence, over half were reconvicted within five years. We know that of the people who are involved in the justice system, many of them will come back.
Speaking specifically about racialized individuals, the study shows — and I can share the study after so that you can look at it in more detail — that Indigenous people had higher reconviction rates than non-Indigenous people. In particular, 40% of Indigenous people were reconvicted within one year compared to 26% of non-Indigenous people, with the largest gap being for violent offences, followed by administration of justice offences.
We know Black individuals had slightly lower reconviction rates than White individuals. So we do have the ability to produce that sort of information, and as I said, we do have some analysis that we can follow up with so that you can see more of what’s there.
Senator K. Wells: Is that disaggregation based on Canadian census data? Or do you have different categories? We’re looking at people with disabilities and 2SLGBTQ individuals.
Ms. Wallace: It depends on which data sets we’re looking at. Our Canadian Correctional Services Survey does collect a lot of information on Indigenous or racialized identity. For other groups, we can link to the census in order to identify, and then provided that the sample is large enough, we can release that information as well.
The Deputy Chair: You’re on time. Thank you.
Senator Pate: I’m glad you’ve been following along as well. You may recall that a number of us — further to the questions you’ve already heard — have asked why three successive ministers have admitted there is not enough bail data, yet that has not been collected.
We’ve just received input from Dr. Doob, who appeared before the committee. I don’t know if his testimony is on our site or if it will go up on our site. It would be extremely useful for us to have the answers to the questions he poses. I understood that we should be able to get the data from all jurisdictions. He makes a cogent argument for the fact that we can take it from the jurisdictions that currently provide and do an analysis. The fact that this has not been done is a challenge.
The last time our office was able to find any reporting on bail was 2018, yet we’ve had three successive reforms since then. He makes a very convincing argument for the fact that changing bail won’t affect crime rates, as other things actually need to be collected and some other analyses need to be done.
If it’s possible, could you look at his questions and come back to us? You’re Statistics Canada; that’s where the information would come from. What powers do you have to compel jurisdictions to provide data?
Ms. Wallace: We operate under the Statistics Act, as you are likely aware. We are specific to the administration of justice and crime. We are able to ask jurisdictions or require jurisdictions to share with us the administrative data that they already collect. If they’re already collecting the information, we can request and expect it, as they are obligated to provide us with that information. It’s important to recognize that this is information they are already collecting and have in their systems. This is where I made the point earlier about bail data not being collected across the board by every jurisdiction; this is a significant limitation.
Senator Pate: I am aware of time. Given Senator Dhillon’s question, it strikes me one of the things we could be saying and should be saying as a committee is that if all provinces and territories have come to the federal government demanding this bail reform, presumably on the basis of some evidence, yet seven of those jurisdictions have not shared any of the information with you, then how on earth could they be claiming this and coming forth with these challenges? Why are they suggesting this is the way to go about addressing the issue if, in fact, you don’t have the data?
Would you suggest we put in a requirement — before any further action is taken on bail — that those jurisdictions pony up the data?
Ms. Léonard: Really, the aspect I saw with this in terms of the provinces and territories and the feds is around the executive and judicial branches needing to enhance the coordination. As you can see, I would say it’s not at our level, but there’s readiness and then there’s governance and the leadership issues to make it happen.
Senator Pate: I apologize if I overstated, but a recommendation from this committee that the government not act any further without the provision of that data by jurisdictions would presumably be of assistance to you. We are not asking you to do it but rather requiring that the federal government do it before, for instance, we are willing to look at another bail bill.
Ms. Léonard: That’s the legislative requirement you’re talking about in terms of this bill for data.
Senator Pate: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, but you do have some of that because one of your earlier answers was that one third of those who were charged with homicide were under some form of judicial release. Is that correct? So you do have that information?
Ms. Léonard: For some jurisdictions.
The Deputy Chair: Which jurisdictions do you have it for?
Ms. Wallace: I will provide clarification: We have it for homicide only. Information collected through our Homicide Survey does include information on whether the accused was under some form of supervision at the time, but for anything other than homicide, we don’t have that information.
However, through the court survey, we have been working very hard, and it is important to note that there has been a lot of work with the jurisdictions, and there are a variety of reasons why the jurisdictions are not currently collecting information. I know they are working closely with federal and provincial partners to address those issues.
The Deputy Chair: And for homicide, you do have it for all jurisdictions.
Ms. Wallace: That’s correct. It comes through police-reported information.
Senator Clement: Thank you for being here and for your work.
I’m glad to hear there is a framework, but we are legislating right now, so the concern I have is that this has to be done now and we will not have that. It is an issue.
In your opening statement, you said you had these statistics: 28% were racialized people and 35% were Indigenous people. So I will ask my questions and get them out of the way. Has there been an increase in racialized and Indigenous people in the criminal justice system? Do you have that? I am interested in whatever you are going to provide in response to Senator Wells regarding the report on that disaggregated data.
Second, we have heard from witnesses that there are many more people in pretrial detention. In 1984, the percentage in pretrial detention was 20%, and as of 2024, the number was 76%. Senator Oudar was talking about counterintuitive things. Crime rates fluctuate but are generally up yet so are people incarcerated. That doesn’t feel like it makes sense. How is it helpful if we are locking people up and crime rates are still going up? If you have a comment about that, it would be great.
Third, one of the witnesses, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA, said that they want to propose an amendment. This bill has a reporting requirement that will have data on judicial interim release outcomes, including in respect of compliance with release conditions, and an analysis of the effectiveness — so it is a good addition. The CCLA would like to specifically add wording around the rates of pretrial detention. They would also like this part of the bill to require consultation with Statistics Canada and other organizations that have expertise on data collection and then coordinate the collection of data with Statistics Canada.
Could you comment on those questions and then the amendment?
The Deputy Chair: You only have 90 seconds, please.
Ms. Wallace: Sure.
I will start with the pretrial detention numbers. There are a number of factors that can affect the proportion of people who are incarcerated in pretrial versus sentence custody. One of those things is that we know that provincial sentence custody has decreased, so people being sentenced to custody has actually decreased. There are fewer of those people, which automatically increases the proportion in remand. That’s a factor.
Another factor that likely contributes to the increase in the proportion of people in remand is the length of time that courts are taking to conclude cases. If courts are taking longer to conclude cases, there are more people in remand longer. Again, that will also contribute to the increases.
I think it is important — and we don’t have time to do that now — to unpack those numbers a little bit more because only the proportion isn’t telling the full story about the number of people. It is also not a direct indicator of the use of bail. For that, we do need those bail decision pieces.
We can follow up with a little bit more information that unpacks those numbers, but we have to be a little bit careful with the pretrial detention numbers.
Ms. Léonard: Quickly, something that could be quite relevant is in terms of the statistics that we have from Correctional Service Canada, which we can both confirm in terms of trends of increased incarceration: While it is generally in decline, the increase is there for both Indigenous and Black women in particular. Indigenous women, as has been mentioned, make up half of the federal custody population, despite representing about 5% of the population. They are overrepresented in custody, which has increased every year since 2019 for Indigenous women. That proportion has more than doubled since the early 2000s and has continued to rise.
Those are very sharp trends that are not going away. Yes, we can provide more details, but those are trends that have been there for the past two decades.
Senator Clement: Please comment on the amendment or do so in writing.
Ms. Léonard: Yes. We met with the CCLA. Some of the details will be for provinces and the jurisdictions themselves. We are not there to dictate; it is all together. That’s why we say it is not about blaming for the lack of data or the gaps. It is a matter of transparency with provinces and territories.
Most of the reporting, again, can be worked out with the CCLA in terms of the key indicators that are being worked on now.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Regarding what you were just speaking about, do you keep statistics on crime victims? If you do, that’s great. Please give us something in writing about that, if you could. That would be helpful.
Ms. Léonard: Yes, we do. We are very active and can provide more. We’re the lead with Women and Gender Equality Canada, or WAGE, on gender-based violence, and there’s the big Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces that we are just releasing now with WAGE. Also, with the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, we worked on developing national standards for missing and murdered Indigenous women.
On victimization, for this bill — and, again, I don’t want to create any issues for anybody — perhaps you could talk about key indicators to follow and indicators around victims as to whether they have been informed. Again, I don’t want to put something on us, but that could be part of this bill as well in terms of what information on victims is reported: Are they better protected? Is there better access to information? Those would be important indicators for this bill.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, if you could give us additional information in writing through the committee clerk, that would be helpful.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Welcome to the committee. When will the statistics for 2025 be available? You’re probably collecting it right now. Could you share some preliminary data on the number of people who fall into the category called “average counts of adults in provincial and territorial correctional programs”? Would you be able to update the 2024 tables?
Ms. Léonard: Not at this time. Annual crime data usually comes out in July.
[English]
Ms. Wallace: The police-reported crime data will be out in July for 2025, and the courts and corrections data will come out a little bit after that. Unfortunately, we don’t have preliminary data in our corrections area, but we do release preliminary data for our courts and policing in certain areas.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Do you have any data on dismissed proceedings and stay of proceedings? We often hear that up to 50% of people in remand will have their proceedings stayed or dismissed. Do you have any details of that?
A lot of people don’t get tried within the three years or the applicable deadline for the Supreme Court decision. Then proceedings are dismissed or a court orders a stay of proceedings. It doesn’t mean they’re not guilty; it means proceedings are stopped. Do you have any data on that?
Ms. Léonard: Yes, we have data.
Senator Dalphond: Could you send them to the committee? We don’t need to read them today.
Ms. Léonard: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: I have a question about the provisional number, the average count of adults in correctional programs. I’ve been reading your statistics a lot since July 2025, and I even do interviews on your statistics.
I need some clarification on your notes. You have the actual total number of inmates. Last year, there were 25,349. That’s the total, but that’s not the count on the register; it doesn’t include those released by the prison warden that day, because you’re taking a snapshot of the day, not the average for the year. You use one day in the year as a baseline. I understand that.
Also, what does “sentenced, actual-in count” include? We’re talking about those who were sentenced to two years less a day under the Criminal Code, or who are convicted under a provincial act because, I don’t know, they were hunting without a licence and that’s the fifteenth time they get caught, so they’re sent to jail.
What else does it include? I’d like some clarification on footnote 4. What does that mean?
Ms. Léonard: Is that in the table we received? We’ll give you some details.
Senator Dalphond: You have an explanation; let me quote from footnote 4:
Sentenced counts include all inmates held on a Provincial/Territorial Warrant of Committal only, and inmates held on both a Provincial/Territorial Warrant of Committal and on an Other/Temporary Detention . . . .
Does that mean there are people who are included in “temporary detention” and who are part of the “sentenced” category? I would like to understand.
I have another question: In the next section, “Remand, actual-in count,” the footnote says:
Remand includes all inmates held on a Remand Warrant of Committal only . . . .
— so those who are on remand —
. . . and inmates held on both a Remand Warrant of Committal and a Provincial/Territorial Warrant of Committal unless stated otherwise.
So those who have not been released are being detained, but are appearing before the judge on other charges. They are then convicted, they remain incarcerated, but the order in the first file isn’t finished, so they’re being counted as remanded, even though they’re being detained, serving their sentence?
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Could you please confine your answer to one minute, and if you need additional time, please respond to the rest in writing?
Senator Dalphond: I will ask that they provide the information.
Ms. Léonard: We will provide the information on dual status for some cases.
Senator Dalphond: Do you have a breakdown in your statistics?
Ms. Léonard: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: It’s important to distinguish those who are still under provisional detention but are serving time, yet they also have a bail order. That’s confusing because the number is larger than the real number of people who are on bail awaiting their first trial. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses for sharing your expertise and answering our questions today, and thank you for following up on our questions and augmenting your testimony, as you indicated throughout. Particularly, with those types of answers, you can provide additional information in writing by providing it to our committee clerk. If you could do that as soon as possible, that would be very helpful for our study.
For our second panel, we are pleased to welcome Mary Campbell, Retired Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety, who is appearing as an individual; Peter Copeland, Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, who is joining us by video conference; and Peter German, President and Executive Director, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform, who is in the room with us. Thank you very much to all of you for being here today.
We will proceed to opening remarks, starting with Mary Campbell, followed by Peter Copeland and concluding with Peter German. The floor is yours for five minutes each. You may begin when ready.
Mary Campbell, Retired Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety, as an individual: Thank you very much, senator. I would start by acknowledging the heartbreaking stories that some witnesses have brought to this committee. It has been profoundly disturbing for all of us. Whatever our views are on Bill C-14, we are united in wanting to stop this pattern of behaviour.
Second, I want to thank the committee and also the staff for a very well-organized review of Bill C-14, specifically Vincent, your clerk; his staff; the parliamentary researchers; the ever-patient interpreters; the security; and all others who work to bring this committee to life.
I don’t want to repeat everything that many people have said. I’m not a supporter of the bill, particularly because of the bail provisions, which completely lack data. I give the minister full credit for his candour by stating that he had no data to support the bill. I’ve experienced ministers who have tabled bills without evidence but never with that level of candour.
Clearly, there are real problems. They are diverse across the country and need real solutions, but without that data, I’m afraid it is like blasting off into space to go around the moon but not knowing which planet is the moon. I cannot support that aspect of the bill.
I’m happy to see that provincial Crowns and attorneys general are on the agenda again. We often talk about judges in a very derogatory way: “What are they thinking? What are they doing?” Crowns have such an important role to play, and it is important to hear from them in these matters. Of course, the attorneys general have a very particular responsibility.
On conditional sentences, level 1 sexual assaults proceeded by indictment would no longer be eligible for conditional sentences. We have no data on level 1 sexual assaults in terms of those that are proceeded by indictment versus summary conviction. I don’t know if we are solving a real problem here or not. I don’t know how many level 1 indictable convictions result in a conditional sentence.
Moreover, it is extremely puzzling because even if a conditional sentence is not available, there are at least three other ways that the person could continue to serve their sentence in the community if it is appropriate. The judge can suspend the passing of sentence and release the person on probation. The judge can order up to a 90-day sentence and order that it be served intermittently. If a person arrives at the prison gate and is considered to be a low risk by those authorities, they can be released — and are often released — very quickly on back-to-back temporary absences to serve their sentence in the community. I don’t know why they’re taking one option off the table and leaving all of the others.
I will say that a couple of years ago, I tried to get some data on conditional sentences because there really isn’t any, even though they were enacted in 1996 — I was there. A wonderful analyst at Statistics Canada said, yes, they could do such a study, but because I am a member of the public at this point, it would cost hundreds of dollars. So I declined to pursue it. If you wanted to pursue it, you might be able to without that direct cost out of your pocket.
I’ll speak briefly to restraint as a fundamental principle.
This principle was enacted by former prime minister Brian Mulroney in sentencing reforms and correctional reforms — correctional reforms in 1992 and then sentencing because Justice Canada was a little slower, so they came in 1996. This is not some Canadian whimsical invention; it is an international principle and fundamental. If we were to deviate or water down the principle of restraint, frankly, we would look like idiots in the international community, and that would be brought to our attention. This principle is in the Mandela Rules, and it’s in all kinds of conventions that we are signatory to.
There was a government a few years ago that watered down their commitment to international obligations, and I can tell you that the then-secretary of state in the U.S., Hillary Clinton, sent a diplomatic démarche to Ottawa to complain about Canada’s behaviour. These are not matters to be taken lightly or discussed with rhyming slogans.
On denunciation and deterrence, we could spend the night here on this —
The Deputy Chair: You’re at five minutes. Could you wrap up?
Ms. Campbell: Harsher penalties don’t deter. Please, the only thing a person or most people are thinking about is: Am I going to get caught? They’re not thinking: Am I going to get a reverse onus on bail? The reason why they think that getting caught is unlikely are the police clearance rates, and I’ve invited my colleague to speak to that for a moment. They are very low. The public would be shocked.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Campbell: I would be happy to answer questions. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Next we will go to Peter Copeland. Thank you very much. Five minutes for you.
Peter Copeland, Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute: Thank you, chair and members of the committee, for having me. I’m pleased to share my thoughts on the bill. The bill addresses problems that are well documented and of clear concern to Canadians: the increase in violent crime and other tangible forms of crime, including property and retail crime, which we’ve seen rise over the past decade; the prevalence of repeat violent offenders; and, certainly, many high-profile offences committed by those on bail.
Overall, many amendments in the bill are sensible and move in the right direction. My concern is not that the bill is misguided but rather that it may not go far enough in addressing the broader factors that may be driving these problems, including sentencing consistency, predictability and certainly police and prosecution resources as well as their effect on clearance rates — which I’m glad was just mentioned, as the Macdonald-Laurier Institute just published a study last week documenting the decline — as well as the role of organized crime in driving these incidents.
Dangerous, repeat and violent offenders should not be released where they pose a clear risk to public safety, and the bill is trying to address that. But if bail is made more restrictive without meaningfully changing the sentencing framework, we will have to monitor the consequences carefully.
Already, as was noted in the first hour, many people in provincial jails are on remand. In fact, the proportion has almost flipped. In some jurisdictions, the balance is now 70-30 or 80-20 between remanded and sentenced inmates in provincial facilities, which are marked by high turnover, limited programming and vulnerability to contraband, violence and organized crime infiltration. So people don’t often emerge from short stays in these conditions rehabilitated. When they are ultimately sentenced, their sentences are often reduced through credit for time served.
This is not to say the bail amendments are wrong-headed, but they can really do little more than limit reoffence while on bail — that’s only a part of the issue — and it could have negative consequences.
Some of the most important deterrents to crime — as Ms. Campbell just mentioned — are not, in fact, sentence severity but rather the predictability and consistency of enforcement, prosecution and sentencing. These depend on police and prosecution capacity, judicial discretion, offence design and the sentencing principles that Parliament emphasizes.
For that reason, this bill should be seen as a useful step, but we should not expect it to fully address organized crime or deliver the deterrence needed for violent crime reduction.
The following reforms could be considered in the future.
First, section 718’s sentencing principles could be amended for a broader class of serious offences to make clear that courts give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence. It could apply where repeat conduct, violence, coercion or organized criminal activity pose serious public safety risks, going beyond the bill’s prioritization of this principle for secondary and subsequent convictions of a limited set of offences.
Specific offence types to which this could apply include robbery, extortion, intimidation, serious property crime, retail theft connected to organized crime and repeat assaults or other violent crimes.
Second, it is important to consider reforming the middle tier of sentencing. Conditional sentence orders, which are typically forms of house arrest or curfew, are capped at two years, but that could be revisited. We currently have a lot more flexibility at the low and high ends but few of these structured options in the middle where a good deal of the repeat offending occurs. It’s both safer and more cost-effective to provide for community supervision under conditions of house arrest or curfew with the advent of GPS ankle monitoring technology, which should be used more in the future. These conditions have the benefit of ensuring supervision and therefore public safety, clearly emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, all while allowing a person to work and slowly reintegrate back into society in a way that is less costly as well.
Finally, Parliament should treat organized crime as an upstream public safety priority and often the driver of the violent and tangible forms of crime we’re concerned with here. As I’ve said before, amending the definition of “organized crime” to include patterns of behaviour rather than proof of organization structure would make organized crime prosecution easier.
In conclusion, the bill is a constructive but partial response to the issues we’re concerned with here. The test will ultimately be whether it reduces violent crime and other visible forms of crime without worsening pressures in provincial remand facilities and whether Parliament follows through with a deeper set of reforms that are needed to address the root drivers of the increases in crime that the bill attempts to address.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thanks very much.
Lastly, Mr. German, please proceed.
Peter German, President and Executive Director, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to appear here today and for the work the committee is doing on Bill C-14. It is very important work.
Allow me to briefly introduce myself. I was a member of the RCMP for 31 years, retiring as deputy commissioner. I also served as deputy commissioner of Correctional Service Canada. As the current President and Executive Director of the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform, I have the privilege of guiding our institute as its associates undertake projects within Canada and abroad. We are a United Nations affiliate, which is the result of a treaty between Canada and the UN.
Communities across Canada are facing a growing and urgent challenge. A small number of repeat offenders are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, both property and violent offences. This reality is placing increased pressure on public safety, local businesses, police resources and overall confidence in the justice system.
In many municipalities, the impact of repeat offending is both visible and measurable. When speaking to this legislation at the Commons committee on Bill C-14, the Mayor of Kelowna noted that just 15 individuals were responsible for more than 1,300 police files in a single year.
Across the country, similar patterns are emerging in which a small group of chronic offenders is driving a significant portion of crime and disorder. At the same time, those working on the front lines, especially police officers, are experiencing what is often described as a “revolving door” justice system. Officers arrest individuals who pose clear risks to public safety, only to see them released back into the community within hours or days. Many of these individuals breach their bail conditions or fail to appear in court, and in many cases, they reoffend shortly after being released.
This cycle repeats itself, placing strain not only on policing resources but also on victims, witnesses and communities.
The consequences are being felt deeply at the community level. Business owners are dealing with repeated theft, vandalism and threats to employee safety. Residents are experiencing increased disorder and a growing sense of insecurity in their neighbourhoods. Municipal governments are left to absorb the financial and social costs of a system that is not functioning as intended.
Part of the issue lies in the way the current system handles bail. Conditions of release are often ineffective or not meaningfully enforced. It is important to recognize that there is a frustration factor that emerges in first responders, particularly law enforcement, who witness the revolving door and ask, “Why are we placing our lives on the line when the system seems not to care?” It is only their professionalism and sense of duty that keep them going.
Bill C-14 is intended to address these challenges in a targeted and practical way. At its core, the bill strengthens the role of public safety in bail decisions, ensuring that it is explicitly considered in every case. It also focuses on repeat and violent offenders, recognizing that they pose a disproportionate risk and require a more consistent and accountable response.
We must also recognize that it is not only violent offenders who are the problem; it is also chronic property offenders. Again, Bill C-14 attempts to deal with these offenders, in particular retail theft and mischief to property.
One of the key elements of the bill is the expansion of reverse onus provisions in high-risk situations. In these cases, the responsibility shifts to the accused to demonstrate why their release would not endanger the public. This approach better reflects the realities faced by police and communities, where certain patterns of offending signal a higher likelihood of continued harm.
The use of aggravating factors at sentencing is a tool that helps protect vulnerable people, such as transit bus drivers. I have personally suggested in media interviews that threats or violence toward politicians at all three levels of government should also be an aggravating factor at sentencing.
There is a strong level of consensus across the country on the need for action. Political leaders, local governments, the police and others have all called for meaningful bail reform. This level of alignment reflects both the urgency of the issue and the shared recognition that the current system is not meeting expectations.
However, legislation alone will not be enough. For reforms like those in Bill C-14 to be fully effective, they must be supported by improvements in other areas. These include stronger enforcement of bail conditions, adequate resources for police and courts and modern tools that allow investigators to access digital evidence quickly and lawfully. Without these supports, even well-designed legislation may fall short of its intended impact.
In conclusion, Bill C-14 represents a necessary and practical step toward restoring balance in the justice system. It targets repeat and violent offending, strengthens accountability and places a renewed emphasis on public safety, while maintaining fairness and proportionality. Without meaningful reform, communities will continue to bear the costs of a system that is not working as intended. The need for action is clear, and the opportunity to restore confidence and improve public safety should not be delayed.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all for your remarks. We will now proceed to questions from senators. I will ask members to keep questions and answers within about four minutes so that we can ensure all senators have a chance to take part.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m going to ask you a question in French, Mr. German. You heard the previous panel. Several times, witnesses said we don’t have the necessary data to know exactly what’s happening with parole. However, you say the mere fact there’s an increase in violent crime justifies questioning this system.
What are you basing your opinion on?
Then, in terms of reverse onus, we also heard witnesses say this requirement means the most disadvantaged members of society, who often can’t afford it, are being asked to take it upon themselves to prove they’re not a danger to society. They say we’re fundamentally changing our justice system. I’d like to hear your thoughts on those two issues.
[English]
Mr. German: First, with regard to data, quite frankly, I don’t have a great level of comfort you’re going to get the data you want in the near future, but doing nothing is not an answer, I’m afraid. It’s incumbent upon members of the Commons and the Senate to — in some cases, it will be a leap of faith if you don’t have the data, but something has to be done, and that seems to be recognized across the country.
As was mentioned earlier, it would be really nice if Statistics Canada could put a framework together and actually collect data. There are significant issues there.
Do I have data? No, I’m not Statistics Canada, and I don’t take responsibility for providing data. What I could do, however, is take you for a walk through the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver and show you how that has changed over the last 10 years to the point that I would not want you to walk down there alone. But 10 years ago, you could.
With regard to the reverse onus, the Supreme Court of Canada made it very clear that a reverse onus is only to be used in very specific situations. At the end of the day, the Supreme Court of Canada will superintend whatever takes place.
However, there is a place for the reverse onus. We have to be mindful that everybody is entitled to representation in our courts, and there is legal aid counsel available. So it’s not as if we’re throwing individuals to the wolves. There is a judge and legal counsel available.
At the end of the day, the courts will decide whether this is an overreach with respect to the reverse onus. Thank you, senator.
Senator Simons: My question is for Ms. Campbell.
Earlier this week, The Globe and Mail reported that the number of people denied bail in Ontario spiked to its highest level in data going back to 2018, and it has more than doubled over the past two years. They also found that one third of people who were denied bail subsequently had the charges against them dropped or were found not guilty.
You have worked inside the system, so what happens in a system where these are record numbers of people being denied bail? It’s higher than any point since the late 1970s. That’s before we have passed Bill C-14.
We heard earlier from the Crown prosecutors in Ontario who were very dubious about this legislation because of what it was going to mean for backups in the courts, but what is this going to mean for the criminal justice system if we literally don’t have space to put all the people we’ve remanded?
Ms. Campbell: That’s an excellent question. Some hope that this bill will improve things, but others have stated quite clearly that they fear it will make things worse because there will be more people denied bail, and overcrowding will increase. That’s a very real concern.
I do spend a fair bit of time with people who are on the other side of the bars, and I don’t expect you to feel sorry for them. They all have stories. The devastation of someone who is charged and may, in fact, not be guilty or may have a viable defence is very real. To say that, ultimately, the courts will remedy this situation, it’s a long walk from arrest to the courts to resolve your situation. I’ve worked with people and helped them get to the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of Canada. It takes a pile of money and a pile of time. It takes advocates willing to answer your phone calls in the first instance. God bless legal aid lawyers, but try to get a lawyer if you’re Suzie Nobody and you want to challenge it.
These are very real issues, and I fear this bill could, in fact, make things much worse because we’re not addressing the real problems.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: I’ll just step in here to ask Mr. Copeland a question. Bill C-14 is being presented as the bail and sentencing reform act, but actual tougher sentences are largely absent in this bill. In your view, did the government potentially miss an opportunity on sentencing? Also, you said if we tighten up primarily through bail without reforming sentencing, then we risk increasing pretrial detention without improving deterrence. Can you elaborate on that, please?
Mr. Copeland: Certainly. We need to focus on police and Crown resourcing to ensure they have the capacity they need to bring clearance rates up, which have significantly dropped over the past number of years. That’s an important feature.
Ultimately, we have a system based on principles. Sentencing principles afford a great deal of discretion to judges in terms of which ones they emphasize and then the ultimate outcome and sentence that they impose. When you don’t have that consistency and you don’t have the ability to ensure that offenders are being caught at the level of police resourcing, then you don’t have the kind of predictability and consistency that are important for deterrence. It’s outside the scope of this bill, but I recommended previously that the government look again at sentencing guidelines, which is something that the U.K. has in place. Those basically put tighter constraints on the types of factors and the methods that judges use in sentencing. They can streamline the process and ensure in regard to carve-outs and exemptions and appeals to various factors or Charter rights or identity circumstances, which we’ve seen an increase in the use of within Canada in the past number of decades. That is having a negative effect on the deterrence component of the law.
Yes, that should be revisited going forward, as certainly these issues aren’t going away. They’re not going to end with this bill. I am disappointed that sentencing wasn’t given greater attention in this bill.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: My question is for Mr. German and it relates to managing organized crime. The bill introduces new provisions, including a reverse onus, mandatory conditions prohibiting the use of weapons for certain offences involving a criminal organization, and the addition of new aggravating factors at sentencing.
When he appeared before the committee, the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said there are more and more criminal groups in Canada and that appropriate sentences could slow that growth.
Given your expertise in criminal law reform at the international level, could you tell us if the provisions relating to organized crime in Bill C-14 align with the international practices of other comparable countries?
When it comes to confiscating the proceeds of crime or targeting financial networks, should something else be planned in parallel to more effectively fight these networks and eventually succeed in dismantling them?
[English]
Mr. German: Thank you for the question, senator. This is really the bailiwick that I enjoy the most because I have spent most of my time in the area of organized crime and transnational organized crime, which is a real issue. It seems to be more of an add-on to this bill. This certainly is not a bill focused on dealing with organized crime.
There are a lot of reasons why Canada has become very vulnerable to organized crime. It’s a lot of environmental factors. A lot of the reasons we like Canada so much are also the reasons organized crime likes Canada. It’s not surprising that we have seen a great increase in organized crime, money laundering and so forth in Canada, whether it’s connected to Asia, Mexico or Europe. We’re seeing all of that, particularly in the main centres, like Vancouver and Toronto. Although the environmental factors are slightly different, it’s really there.
I really think Canada has to develop a strategy to deal with organized crime writ large. We need a national strategy.
Right now, we’re sort of seen as patsies if you were to look at other countries. For example, Australia does a much better job than Canada when it comes to dealing with organized crime. They’re on top of that issue at various levels, not just the police. Criminal justice is generally very focused there.
I won’t use the U.S. as an example because the U.S. is quite a different creature altogether when it comes to dealing with crime.
Australia is the country that is most like us and that we can model after, and certainly we see that in policing. What this bill deals with are really minor issues involving organized crime. It does not deal with it head-on. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Mr. German, you’ve mentioned the growing numbers across the country of this small group of people who are allocated. That’s the same issue that many of us have heard for decades. In fact, particularly in the 1970s and the 1980s, there was a focus on — and your organization was part of this — the whole idea of crime prevention through social development and focusing resources on those very individuals. It was the younger the better and then moving up. And it was about not actually using criminal law as a recognition that it’s a blunt instrument that tends to scoop up the least privileged. Those communities that didn’t do it were seeing the results. Now that we’ve had several decades of using criminal law instead of using social, economic and health provisions, what data do you have to show that those previous provisions didn’t work in the jurisdictions where they were developed? And if you have it and if you could share it, that would be great.
Ms. Campbell, if you could, please talk a little bit more about how you worked in the research area for a long period of time in the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, which was renamed after 9/11 to Public Safety Canada. What research have you seen in these areas?
Mr. German: Thank you, senator. I think Canada has done quite a good job when it comes to reform of our system through the years, starting in the 1970s and moving forward, like you said. And I think Canada has recognized social factors and environmental factors when dealing with crime.
But as the folks who were here before us from Statistics Canada made it very clear, there has been a change since 2014 in this country. I mean, we listened to the raw numbers that they provided or the aggregate percentages. It’s significant: the increase in crime, yes.
Senator Pate: If you have —
Mr. German: I’ll stop there.
Senator Pate: If you have data that shores it up, that would be great. The problem is successive ministers have appeared before us and said they don’t have the data.
Mr. German: I’m not a collector of data. I’m just telling you what one sees on the street. And Statistics Canada should be doing that, but apparently they’re not.
Senator Pate: I agree and maybe the policy direction that your organization has apparently changed since I was working more directly with them would be helpful to know and maybe get that in writing.
Ms. Campbell, if you could respond, please.
Ms. Campbell: I have had the privilege of having some of the world’s pre-eminent researchers working for me, although to say they worked for me is a bit of a laugh. You know, it’s people like Jim Bonta, Karl Hanson and Guy Bourgon. Karl Hanson is one of the world’s pre-eminent sex offender researchers, and this committee would do well to spend an hour with Karl and talk to him about why so many men feel it is their right to sexually assault women, beat them up or kill them. We know what works. We have had decades of reports, and I recently had the chance to go through many of those reports. It was so depressing to read the same recommendations over and over and see them ignored over and over. It’s not a lack of knowledge about what works. We know what works. Do we have the backbone and the commitment to do it? That’s a little less certain.
Senator Pate: Do you have some examples of other approaches?
Ms. Campbell: Well, gosh, there is the approach you mentioned through social development and addressing children’s behaviour at an early stage. You can have any teacher come here and talk about whether they can identify the problem children at a very young age. Yes, they generally can.
Many people say, “Well, my dad used to beat me with the belt or whatever, and I turned out properly.”
Yes, well, what else did you have in your life that was working? Was it a faith community? Were you good in school? You had friends?
It is so frustrating because we do know that targeted, individual-specific remedies can treat the source of the problem and not just the outcome of the problem, but we don’t do that very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Clement: No, we don’t do that very much, Ms. Campbell.
Thank you to all three of you for your testimony and for your work and careers, quite frankly.
I have two questions for Ms. Campbell and then one for Mr. Copeland.
Ms. Campbell, you were here. You heard StatCan talk about the framework that’s being worked on currently. That’s encouraging. You’ve been around for a while in terms of this work. I would want your comment about how much faith you have in that framework actually coming to pass so that we get proper sharing of information between the different levels of government, most notably the provincial governments. That’s number one.
Number two, I’m looking at some potential amendments to this bill. Something struck me from Aboriginal Legal Services last week. They testified regarding making it an aggravating factor when you are interfering with the access to or functioning of an essential infrastructure, so in other words, it is an aggravating factor if you interfere. Aboriginal Legal Services is concerned that this could target Indigenous people who are trying to get governments to listen to their concerns over incursions into their lands. Could you comment on that?
For Mr. Copeland, I always look into the backgrounds of our witnesses. I think you do some pro bono work and some legal aid work, maybe for Legal Aid Ontario. No? Okay. Well, in your opening statement, you used the phrase “root causes” or “root drivers” of crime. Could you speak more about what you meant by that? You said it right at the end, but you didn’t go into detail about what you meant.
Ms. Campbell: Do I have faith in the framework? I have enormous respect for the people at Statistics Canada. Over the years, they have done some terrific work. But we’re at a point now to say that we have to continue to have faith in a framework to get data that, as the senators have pointed out, we’ve known about for so long.
I have to say that my faith is somewhat limited at this point, but I think the provinces recognize that they are the ones who have to come to the table with this data. I can only hope that those involved — the ministers from the two departments, Justice Canada and Public Safety Canada, as well as the deputy ministers who meet regularly and the officials — keep the pressure on to get this data. Statistics Canada can only work with what they’re given.
As to the aggravating factors and, in particular, this issue about infrastructure, when we created the statutory aggravating factors and mitigating factors — lest we forget those as well — we came up with a list at the time that reflected the research as we knew it at the time. That was in the 1980s. Unfortunately, the list of aggravating factors in the statute has only grown, while the mitigating factors have not.
Judges have that authority now. It’s at common law. You don’t have to legislate these factors. The concerns about incursions into lands and infrastructure issues are very real. There needs to be a discussion with the Indigenous communities about how this could work while still respecting their land but also respecting the reliance of society on those infrastructures.
I don’t have an easy answer, but, man, I’d really like to see a moratorium on adding to the list of aggravating factors, just for the moment.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Copeland, could you please confine your answer to 30 or 45 seconds, because we are already over on this part? If you have more to add, perhaps you could provide it in writing. Thank you.
Mr. Copeland: Okay. Sure, there are those factors that affect a person’s life and then there are environmental factors that could affect the crime rate overall. With respect to criminogenic risk factors, those include adverse childhood experiences, as Ms. Campbell mentioned, and things like family structure and community. We’ve seen a significant trend in this regard post-1960s in the Western world. Canada is no exception here. There is a serious decline in marriages and an increase in divorces. This is a huge factor for criminogenic risks. We know the vast majority of people who have unstable, unattached or abusive family environments end up with serious negative consequences, resulting oftentimes in connection to the justice system.
With respect to some of the environmental factors, I was referring in particular to organized crime. Organized crime is oftentimes recruiting vulnerable women into human trafficking and also young men to engage in the kinds of low-level criminal activities that we’re seeing show up in the statistics here. If you really want to address those sources of crime, organized crime is a place to look, as my other colleague has mentioned.
Senator K. Wells: First, just picking up on what Mr. Copeland said, if you could follow up with the research that supports some of those claims you just made about divorce and single-parent families leading to increased crime rates, that would be lovely.
My question is for Ms. Campbell. Our committee received a brief today from the International Bureau for Children’s Rights, which makes a couple of observations on Bill C-14. The first of which says:
. . . Bill C-14 could result in a greater number of young persons sentenced to “custody” . . . .
The brief goes on to argue that clause 59 of the bill would have the effect of:
. . . expanding the range of offences for which a court may sentence a young person to custody. Whether in an open custody setting or under more restrictive and supervised conditions . . . .
Would you agree with that assessment and if not, why not?
Ms. Campbell: Let me first say that I have not worked a lot in youth criminal justice. You had Catherine Latimer here as a witness, and, of course, Catherine was the head of youth justice when the Youth Criminal Justice Act was developed.
Yes, I am not a fan of criminalizing young people even more. It’s not the answer. If you’re starting with a child or a young person who is already subject to conditions to which none of us would want to be, further criminalizing them will not help.
Senator K. Wells: Certainly those environments of other individuals can be problematic. Thank you. I will cede the rest of my time.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Senator Dhillon: First, Ms. Campbell, let me agree with you that I think there is great interest on the part of this committee and others and also Canadians that prevention is the way to go. Nobody wants to be visited by a police officer to be told that they’ve lost a loved one and then that the police have been successful at solving that crime.
I also agree that there are risk factors and protective factors that can be worked on. I had the opportunity when I was in the RCMP to put some of those pieces in place to address some of those issues at the front end and upstream rather than downstream. But here we are. We’ve had an increase in violent offender crime over the last 10 years. We had Commissioner Carrique here from the Ontario Provincial Police. He shared that from 2023 to 2025, over 9,700 people were charged with an offence while out on bail, and of the charges laid, 7,540 were violent crime charges. What’s the response to that particular scenario? What do we do in that instance?
Ms. Campbell: First of all, you need much more information behind those numbers. I’ve heard these numbers, and I thank the police who have tried their best to come forward with statistics. However, we don’t have the full picture. They were charged with what? What were they on bail for? What is the new charge? Was it a breach of conditions charge and for what? Was it because they were late for curfew? Probably not. We need more information.
Senator Dhillon: That’s fine. I think you heard the testimony last week of a mother who lost her daughter for that reason. Anecdotally, we can say that if the system had, in that instance, been more responsive, she may have her daughter today. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Copeland, you said that police have lower clearance rates and the clearance rates have fallen. What is the reason for that? Do you know?
Mr. Copeland: There are a number of factors. One could be the police-to-population ratio. This has not kept up everywhere, especially in urban areas. That’s a notable potential driver of this. We’ve also seen a change in police behaviour — there are some studies that show this — in response to some of the protest movements that have arisen around the recent tragic deaths of people in the United States and also the responses to protests. Police are somewhat more reluctant to engage in proactive policing, so they are not engaging in the same types of enforcement behaviours.
Senator Dhillon: Mr. Copeland, are these assumptions, or is this data-based?
Mr. Copeland: The clearance rates going down are definitely data-based. We can show that the cop-to-pop — as it is referred to — or police-to-population ratios are not keeping up.
However, as you are often dealing with in these scenarios, direct causation is hard to establish. It is the social sciences, so you always have to express them with a degree of caution, but there are certainly sensible links.
Senator Dhillon: Let me offer a couple of things and maybe you can help me. How about the complexity of crimes, the use of digital communication and the greater challenges with organized crime? Would all of these be contributing factors where police officers and law enforcement may not be equipped with the right tools and legislation to be able to have higher clearance rates?
Mr. Copeland: Those are potential contributing factors. I would draw your attention to a study by Dave Snow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, which came out a week ago. We do try to control for some of the case complexity and unfounded incidents, in fact, and we can show that the decline is still noteworthy when you take those into account. Certainly, those could be factors.
Senator Dhillon: I will review the study, and I may have questions for you after.
Thank you, Mr. German, for being here.
Senator Tannas: I’m interested to know from Ms. Campbell and Mr. German and, if there is time, Mr. Copeland on something that we talked tangentially about but have not tackled in this, and that is the time to trial or speedy trials.
What do each of you say — if you could just give me a sentence — on what kind of effect speedy trials could have on repeat offenders, such as guys who are out on bail and doing things? Could you talk about that?
Ms. Campbell: That’s an urgent issue, and we know from research, particularly for young people, there has to be a fairly immediate connection between the act and the consequences; otherwise, it is lost on them. Anyone who does something one day and it is not until two or three years later that they are called to account — I mean, I can barely remember what I did last month. So it is an urgent issue.
Senator Tannas: Thank you. How about you, Mr. German?
Mr. German: I would certainly agree. If our system were faster and probably more efficient, you wouldn’t see the numbers of people in remand. We have a lot of people in remand. That’s not a reason for not dealing with this issue that we’ve got, but it’s this larger criminal justice problem of whether it is not enough resources or whatever it may be and speedy trials. For minor offences, there is no reason why we can’t have fairly speedy trials. When it gets to more complex investigations, you run into the Stinchcombe disclosure cases and the Jordan time limit cases. That’s a whole other bailiwick, but for minor offences, you are right on, senator.
Senator Tannas: Mr. Copeland, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Copeland: Briefly, I’ll add that the literature tends to show that certainty of punishment is the most important thing for deterrence, but, yes, swiftness is definitely right alongside it. It is a very complex issue, though. There are so many contributing factors, but everyone knows that a certain amount of the problem can be attributed to capacity, so we need to improve our capacity.
Senator Tannas: Great. Mr. German, on the bail system internationally, can you tell me what country does this the best?
Mr. German: We often say that Canada actually does it the best when it comes to parole. At the federal level, we do a very good job in terms of recidivism and so forth. That’s something we can be very proud of.
In terms of remand and bail, I can’t really say. Thanks.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Obviously, parole is quite a bit different than bail.
Senator Dalphond: Mr. Copeland, you work with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. The institute released an interesting report in March. Were you part of the drafting of that report?
Mr. Copeland: Which one is it?
Senator Dalphond: It’s the March report entitled Rising Crime, Eroding Trust: Report on the Criminal Justice System, vol. 4.
Mr. Copeland: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: That’s the fourth study that your institute has conducted.
Mr. Copeland: Yes, I was involved.
Senator Dalphond: On page 26 of the report, it is written:
According to an analysis by the Globe and Mail of Statistics Canada data, 9,560 cases were stayed or withdrawn specifically for exceeding Jordan limits in 2023/24, which accounted for 4.2 per cent of all cases involving federal statutes in adult criminal courts . . . .
Do you have any more details about that? If they were stayed or withdrawn, it was before a guilty or not guilty judgment was rendered. Most likely, some of them or many of them were on bail. Do you have any kind of data about that?
Mr. Copeland: Thank you for the question. I don’t have it accessible, but this is being addressed through Bill C-16, which is before Parliament now. They are addressing the Jordan framework, which was imposed or created by the court, so it’s unclear how much study went into it. It is commendable that the government has taken the time to adopt an approach while ensuring that a speedy trial is guaranteed to the degree that it can be for the accused.
Senator Dalphond: It’s much better for the victims and for the witnesses. It’s much better for everybody rather than waiting a year or two when people have forgotten half of it.
Mr. Copeland: True.
Senator Dalphond: But my specific question is: In a follow-up to this meeting, could you provide in writing the data that supports your affirmation that close to 10,000 cases were stayed or withdrawn because of the Jordan framework, with the breakdown, if you have it, on how many of the people in those cases were on bail? That would be useful.
Mr. Copeland: Certainly. I will have to confirm the extent to which we can break it down by bail, but I will endeavour to do so.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. That response comes about nine years after Jordan.
Colleagues, I very much want to thank our witnesses for their participation and their presence today.
Your contributions to our study have been valuable and will inform and shape the committee’s work on this bill as we conclude this study. If you have further comments that you want to provide in support of our study of the bill and in answer to some of the questions you were asked today, please do that in writing to our committee clerk as soon as possible.
Colleagues, before we adjourn, I want to remind senators that tomorrow will be our last hearing with witnesses on Bill C-14. Following that, the committee intends to begin clause-by-clause consideration on Wednesday, May 6. The first clause-by-clause meeting will actually be extended a little bit on May 6 from 3 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. to ensure that the committee has sufficient time to review Bill C-14. Our steering committee thought that was important. That meeting will be held upstairs in room C128 of this building to avoid any scheduling conflicts.
As such, members should contact the Law Clerk as soon as possible to prepare your amendments. You are also encouraged to share them in advance with the committee clerk to facilitate the process as soon as possible.
If there are no questions about that, then, thank you, senators.
(The committee adjourned.)