THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 30, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 10:31 a.m. [ET] to consider 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 morning, honourable senators. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. My name is Denise Batters, a senator from Saskatchewan. I am the deputy chair of this committee, and I happen to be acting as chair today.
I invite colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
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 of Quebec.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Good morning. Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 Territory.
Senator Simons: Good morning. I’m Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, and I also live on Treaty 6 Territory.
Senator Pate: Good morning. I’m Kim Pate, and I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered, unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Dhillon: Good morning. Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Deputy Chair: Excellent.
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 today, we’re pleased to welcome — all in person, which is great; thank you for making that effort — Clayton Campbell, President, Toronto Police Association; Brian Sauvé, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Police Federation; and appearing for the first time before our committee — welcome — Patrick Smith, Senior Criminal Lead, Legal Services Board of Nunavut, Nunavut Legal Aid; and Angnakuluk Friesen, Criminal Defence Lawyer, Nunavut Legal Aid. Welcome, and thank you all very much for your time and for joining us today.
We will first hear from the Toronto Police Association, followed by the National Police Federation, and then conclude with Nunavut Legal Aid. The floor is yours for five minutes each when you are ready. Over to the Toronto Police Association for five minutes, thank you.
Clayton Campbell, President, Toronto Police Association: Good morning, chair, members of the committee, staff and other guests.
My name is Clayton Campbell, and I am the President of the Toronto Police Association, or TPA. As president, I feel very privileged to represent more than 8,800 members of the Toronto Police Service, in uniform and civilian roles. For those who may not be familiar with the TPA, we are a professional labour organization dedicated to advancing the interests of our members through education, political action and legislative advocacy. We operate in an open, ethical and professional manner, and we strive to promote professionalism within the ranks of our members.
On behalf of our board of directors and our members, I am here today to advocate for the communities we serve, because there is little difference between what we want and what our communities want, which are safe and healthy neighbourhoods. And, contrary to some suggestions, we also support a fair and balanced justice system, one that upholds the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the core principles of rehabilitation, while prioritizing the safety and protection of society’s most vulnerable members.
Since my last appearance at the House of Commons Standing Committee, the TPA has continued to call for changes to bail and sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders. We have had formal and informal discussions with both federal Liberal and Conservative members of Parliament; in fact, we just spent the first half of this week with the Canadian Police Association and our police association partners from across the country for “lobby day.” We have also been invited and have participated in several community town halls at the invitation of both the Conservative and Liberal parties.
From my perspective, the consultation process on Bill C-14 has been exceptional. We have repeatedly said that this is not about politics, it’s about public safety. This is why we are back here today, asking you to please support Bill C-14 and do what is necessary to pass this legislation.
While there is still work to be done, we have been clear about our support for the proposed legislation, which includes many recommendations we have put forward. Specifically clarifying that the “ladder principle” does not apply to an accused subject to a reverse-onus bail proceeding; at bail, requiring judges to consider whether an allegation involves random, unprovoked violence when denying release; modifying the tertiary ground for release to include consideration of the seriousness of any outstanding charges when determining whether granting bail would undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice; the creation of new reverse onuses for a number of offences, many of which have a direct impact on the criminal activity we are experiencing in Toronto; making conditional sentences unavailable for serious sexual offences, including those against children; making custodial sentences available to youth who commit bodily harm rather than requiring that their offence be violent; allowing the publication of youth information where the youth is at large and poses an immediate, grave danger to the public; and we were also pleasantly surprised to see the inclusion of offending against a first responder as an aggravating factor at sentencing.
Not only will these provisions close many of the gaps our members experience on a daily basis, but we feel they strike an appropriate balance, recognizing what we have always stood for: It is not about more people in custody; it’s about having the right people in custody.
We have made these points known in every meeting and every committee appearance.
Our members and communities expect governments and institutions to collaborate on addressing repeat violent offences and ensuring the justice system responds properly to serious crimes. We strongly believe the recommendations in Bill C-14 will achieve this. We respectfully suggest the Senate move forward with this legislation as quickly as possible.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Yes, I had an opportunity earlier this week to meet with members of the Regina Police Association while they were here for the Canadian Police Association “lobby day.” It is always an excellent meeting. Thank you for being here for that.
Next, we will hear from the National Police Federation for five minutes. Thank you.
Brian Sauvé, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Police Federation: Thank you, chair and senators, for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Brian Sauvé. I am a sergeant with the RCMP with about 22 years of service. I am the President of the National Police Federation, representing nearly 20,000 police officers across Canada and internationally, doing just about every job conceivable in policing. We are here in strong support of Bill C-14 and encourage its timely passage.
Our members are on the front lines of a justice/legal system under strain. They increasingly encounter repeat and violent offenders who cycle through arrest, release and reoffending, often in just a matter of days. This is not an abstract issue for police; it is a daily reality that directly impacts community safety and police officer risk.
Bill C-14 represents a meaningful and necessary response. In particular, we support the amendments made in the House of Commons that expand reverse-onus provisions. These changes better reflect the realities our members face when dealing with individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of violence or non‑compliance with court orders.
We also support the clarification of the principle of restraint, especially the requirement that courts explicitly consider public safety in bail decisions. Greater consistency in how this principle is applied is critical. Too often, our members see similar fact patterns that result in very different outcomes, particularly with repeat violent offenders.
This bill helps move us toward a more balanced approach, one that continues to respect the rights of the accused while more clearly prioritizing the safety of communities.
That said, legislation alone will not resolve the broader challenges within the bail system.
One of the most persistent issues is access to timely and complete information. Police officers are often required to make release decisions quickly, sometimes without full visibility into an accused’s history of violence, prior breaches or outstanding conditions.
Investments in modern, interoperable data-sharing systems, particularly enhancements to the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, are essential to ensuring these decisions are informed and consistent.
Equally important is enforcement. Bail conditions only have meaning if breaches are addressed consistently. Our members frequently encounter individuals who repeatedly violate conditions with limited to no consequence. This undermines public confidence and places communities and police officers at greater risk.
There is a clear role for federal leadership here in supporting national coordination, improving prosecutorial capacity and ensuring that courts and supervision systems have the resources needed to uphold the intent of this legislation.
Bill C-14 is an important step forward. With the right implementation and support, it can help restore balance and confidence in Canada’s bail system.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Next we will hear from Nunavut Legal Aid.
Angnakuluk Friesen, Criminal Defence Lawyer, Nunavut Legal Aid: [Indigenous language spoken]
Good morning, thank you for the invitation to the panel on the proposed amendments in Bill C-14. We’ll be focusing on three amendments. With me is Patrick Smith. He is Nunavut Legal Aid’s criminal team lead, and I am Angnakuluk Friesen from Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. I started defence work in January of this year. Prior to that, I worked at the Public Prosecution Service of Canada from 2021 to 2025 through articling, my bar call and three years as a federal Crown prosecutor.
Restricting conditional sentence orders, or CSOs, as proposed only captured individuals who would otherwise satisfy the principles of sentencing with a sentence served in the community. Placing Nunavummiut into custody increases the chances of recidivism, especially for our more vulnerable clients who have no criminal record, can create more potential victims. Most of those convicted of sexual assault are sentenced to a term of custody, and the ones who are sentenced to a CSO must undergo careful negotiations and proof that this represents a just and appropriate sentence.
Second, reversing the onus on charges involving breaking and entering will affect Nunavummiut disproportionately because of the norms related to cultural and societal practices. Where elsewhere in Canada, walking into someone’s house, unannounced, can be seen as impolite, Inuit families understand that their extended family and friends might be attending their house at any given moment for a couch to sleep on or a place to hang out without notice or even a knock at the door. The essence of collective title can be found here regarding the comings and goings in any given Inuit household or family.
The restriction of surety status by not including those with criminal records will significantly affect Nunavut’s bail system. Our courts in Nunavut highly depend on our sureties, as there is a shortage of resources available to otherwise house or supervise our clients. Our sureties play an integral role in rehabilitation and restorative justice by helping our clients understand and adhere to their conditions. We should not be looking for more reasons to detain someone based on a blanket assumption that those with indictable offences on their criminal record are not suitable to act as sureties.
Nunavut Inuit are more likely to be detained as a result of these amendments. We cannot afford to place more Inuit at risk by relying on a system of detention without addressing first the real issues that plague Canada’s North. The low population and the isolation of fly-in communities exacerbate the deleterious effects of banishing Inuit from their lands and family. Inuit culture relies on its men to hunt and provide country food for their families, and for women to care for the home, generally speaking. We are a culture with strong ties to tradition, language and our land.
The fact is, rampant violence is not a part of Inuit culture, and yet, a report by the RCMP and the Government of Nunavut revealed that, with approximately 40,000 people in Nunavut, there were over 22,000 incidents of reported crime in 2025. This is an issue that must be addressed through intervention at the foundation of the problem, not by enacting stricter laws that favour imprisonment. This approach simply does not work.
Patrick Smith, Senior Criminal Lead, Legal Services Board of Nunavut, Nunavut Legal Aid: Thank you. Good morning. I am Patrick Smith, as mentioned, Criminal Lead for Nunavut Legal Aid.
I have been fortunate to have worked and lived in Nunavut for these past 26 years. Nunavut is a remarkable place with remarkable people and a vibrant culture. The Inuit connection to family, community and the land used to be unfathomable to me, but now I recognize it in all aspects of life here in Nunavut. It is a powerful connection and one that has allowed Inuit people to persevere and thrive in the face of adversity and change. Once again, these connections will be tested if some of the amendments in Bill C-14 are adopted.
As the senior defence lawyer for the Legal Services Board of Nunavut, I can say that the Legal Services Board of Nunavut echoes the recommendations made by the Canadian Bar Association, or CBA, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, or CLA, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Today, our focus is on some of the unforeseen consequences to Nunavummiut by adopting the amendments surrounding bail, sureties and the reverse onus provisions.
Unfortunately, as in the past, decisions made in Ottawa ripple across the North with many unforeseen consequences for the Inuit.
With these amendments, the consequences will be that more Inuit will be jailed, thereby increasing the overrepresentation of Indigenous offenders in our jails.
Any amendment that puts even one more Inuk in jail will only move us further away from the principles set out in Gladue and Ipeelee.
Taima.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to all witnesses for your opening remarks.
We will now turn to committee members for questions and discussion. I ask that you keep your interventions as succinct as possible, both questions and answers, to ensure that all senators have an opportunity to participate here today.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you to all of today’s participants.
I will ask my question in French. I will start with Clayton Campbell.
You talked about everything that’s wrong with the system and about the changes that you would like to see. I’d like to come back to the role of the police. In a big city like Toronto, do you also have problems accessing data and the criminal history of repeat offenders? We’ve been told that, generally speaking, such issues arise because the provinces collect this data separately and that causes problems across Canada. You’re in Toronto and you’re dealing with criminals in Toronto. Do you have problems accessing this information? Normally, when you arrest a repeat offender, it is up to you to report on their criminal history and on how dangerous they are.
[English]
Mr. Campbell: To be clear, my role is to represent the men and women who are out there on the streets. The Toronto Police Service does have data. If there is anything in particular you want, I can reach out to them and get you that information. I don’t have access to it.
I come here to present the perspective of the men and women who are out there every day trying to keep Torontonians safe. We see repeat violent offenders causing havoc in our city. People out on previous firearms and shooting charges are involved in an additional homicide or another shooting. We need to get some changes done now. Some of the violence we are seeing is unacceptable. We are seeing a trend in the right direction, but it’s still at a level that is unacceptable, and some of these amendments in Bill C-14 will help us do just that.
For any particular data that you want, I can speak to my counterparts at the Toronto Police Service and try to get that for you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes. I would like that information, if possible, so I can see whether you are missing information about the background of accused persons.
Mr. Sauvé, I read your brief. In it, you talk about police officers’ long-standing concerns regarding the inconsistency of decisions that sometimes do not give enough weight to the risks posed by violent repeat offenders. You are quite critical of the system. You spoke of inconsistency. Can you tell me more about that from the police officers’ perspective?
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: Yes. For us, similar to the data sharing you were discussing with my colleague, Clayton Campbell, we find that across our jurisdictions. Our members are police officers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, collectively the Prairies, or into British Columbia and the Lower Mainland. We look for access to offender information from provincial jurisdictions, but crime does not respect provincial boundaries, nor does it respect municipal or police jurisdictional boundaries.
We have seen that information uploaded into different systems — for example, the B.C. court registry system — but outstanding breach charges are not available to a Calgary police officer or an RCMP officer, even in Revelstoke, British Columbia, if a repeat offender has been arrested. The system can’t provide the court with relevant information in a submission on bail or new charges.
Not having access to that information cross-jurisdictionally or across boundaries is having an impact on the JJP, Judicial Justices of the Peace, and the justices who decide to grant or deny bail. That’s where we, as a country, really need to do better in sharing and collecting that information and making it available to those who are making decisions on the ground and in the moment.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That is a rather serious matter then. As you’ve said, accused persons could be released when it is unclear as to whether they have a criminal history. What would be the result of this reform? We know that the prisons are full. Is it really a good idea to put even more people in prison?
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: I know the courts are given a lot of deference in bail decisions. Judges have to exercise their discretion. For example, I was in New Brunswick four months ago talking with a Deputy Crown counsel. Their interim facilities are at 156% occupancy. It is challenging for a justice or a judge to deny bail knowing that you’re sending an accused into an over-capacity facility. These are things where we have advocated for federal leadership to encourage your FPT partners to invest more in administering the justice system by hiring greater numbers of Crown counsel; creating more time available in the courtrooms; and providing interim facilities, whether it be in the Surrey pretrial facility or some facility in Manitoba. We need to do better in accommodating those who will be denied bail. I think that’s what Canadians expect.
Decision making needs to be clear, cogent and fair, but as my colleague mentioned here, should someone facing firearm charges be released on bail and commit another firearm crime — that’s the kind of challenge that Canadians don’t want to see anymore.
Senator Simons: Ms. Friesen, it is a real privilege to have you with us because you’ve been on both sides of this situation, both as a Crown prosecutor and now as a defence attorney.
Could you walk us through what happens when an accused in your jurisdiction is unable to get bail or unable to find a surety in the community? Where are they ending up? What does that mean for them, for their access to justice and for their community?
Ms. Friesen: Nunavut is a very large territory with a low population. However, we do have detention facilities for men — one in my hometown of Rankin Inlet, in Iqaluit, and another in Yellowknife.
When someone is unable to secure a suitable release plan in a small community, for example, they could be sent to any one of these facilities, which can be thousands of kilometres away from their own hometown. We’re seeing people with no criminal records being detained for lack of a suitable surety, unfortunately.
For those individuals, being sent to a different community means that they no longer have contact with their family or their friends. They are far away from their home. If they want to be released to the community where they are being detained, it’s very difficult for them to go back to their home community to attend trial or for any court appearances. Essentially, quite often, the person who is detained is being banished right away from their community, based on allegations. It’s a real problem.
Senator Simons: Yellowknife is already a different territory, but are people ever sent down to the lower part of Canada?
Ms. Friesen: Actually, yes.
Senator Simons: Maybe Mr. Smith can respond?
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Smith may be better suited.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, senator. Yes, we do see some offenders on remand actually here in Ottawa or in Winnipeg on occasion.
It has been a couple of years since that happened with the new jail opening up in Iqaluit, the Aaqqigiarvik Correctional Healing Facility, known as ACHF. But ACHF is fairly close to capacity. It does run over capacity quite often, so we do see —
Senator Simons: What is its official capacity?
Mr. Smith: I believe there are 112 beds in Iqaluit.
Senator Simons: That is quite large relative to the population.
Mr. Smith: That’s correct.
Senator Simons: Ms. Friesen, since you are new to this side, let me ask you about your work on the other side. When you were a Crown prosecutor and you were seeking remand for someone, what were the factors that you weighed? How do you think this legislation would change the way Crown prosecutors approach deciding whether someone should be granted bail?
Ms. Friesen: As a prosecutor, I was often met with the question of safety and risk management. My practice was always to include the victims with that process. Now that I’ve been practising defence work, I’ve discovered that not all Crown prosecutors do that, and the risk assessment is solely based on communications with RCMP members or on the paperwork they have before them.
I believe this legislation may further distance that need to speak with the victims or members of the community when it comes to doing that risk assessment based on the reverse-onus provisions and the bail ladder not being utilized at that stage.
Senator Simons: It is a difficult balance because, as you are speaking, I understand how devastating it is for someone to be sent thousands of kilometres away, whether that’s to Yellowknife or Winnipeg or Ottawa or even to Iqaluit if they’re from a different part of the territory. At the same time, there are situations in close communities, especially in cases of domestic violence. You also have to protect the safety of the victim.
I’m imagining that’s a very difficult balance to strike.
Ms. Friesen: Yes, of course.
Because Nunavut has very few resources to address the major societal issues that we struggle with, including substance-abuse issues, overcrowding and dilapidated housing, the RCMP is called for any sort of conflict that might occur, including people in mental-health distress or even those who are threatening to commit suicide. Police are there for every call.
The Deputy Chair: I’m sorry, but we’re at six minutes. Thank you for your response.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I would also like to ask Mr. Sauvé a question that is related to what we were talking about earlier. You said that, according to the brief submitted by the National Police Federation, police officers are often the primary decision-makers in the bail process. However, they are acting under pressure with incomplete information. The Canadian Police Information Centre does not always provide details on existing bail conditions, charges before the courts or an accused person’s breaches.
As part of our study, we can propose amendments, but we can also provide comments in the report to the government. Can you think of any specific improvements that could be made to the national information-sharing framework that would help your members make informed decisions at the time of arrest?
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: Definitely.
The Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, is a 1970s software system that is being held together with duct tape and paperclips. Recommendations to invest and modernize such a system — which will not happen overnight because we would have to go through the federal procurement system, obviously, which might take a few years — however, that would definitely improve service delivery by police officers on the ground.
At the same time, one of the challenges that our members see is that different jurisdictions and court systems, which are provincially administered, are using different software platforms, and that information is not always uploaded to CPIC. So, even if the courts in the provincial systems were to start uploading information into CPIC or some cross-jurisdictional sharing platform, our members on the street, when they do a vehicle stop or go to a call at a house for whatever it may be, they would have the most up-to-date information from all jurisdictions across Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I previously served as the president of the CNESST. It is so important for the safety of police officers to have certain information, such as whether a person under arrest is in possession of a firearm. We heard the tragic news of the police officer in Quebec who was killed because of a lack of information. What you are proposing would be good for the system, but also for the safety of your own officers. Do you see any other improvements that could be made to the national infrastructure? Now is the time to tell us about them.
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: We have been fairly large proponents. I don’t know if you’ve seen our Smart Bail Initiatives report from 2023, where we brought in a former federal Crown and current defence attorney and criminologist to study the bail landscape across Canada. One of the recommendations that came out of that was actually consistent training across jurisdictions for Judicial Justices of the Peace and Crown counsel when you’re talking about a bail hearing, decision making and the decision-making process in a bail hearing.
Another recommendation that came out of that was to leverage technology that we have available to us today. In fact, I don’t know if Mr. Campbell wants to comment on this, but there is a really good pilot project happening throughout the Greater Toronto Area that is leveraging smart-bail monitoring devices with 5G technology and police computer-aided dispatch systems that can monitor on their own. We can do that. Obviously, it depends upon bandwidth and the availability of cell service. My colleagues have been up to Nunavut, and cell service is sometimes not great across the North. If you’ve ever driven across Newfoundland, you would be hard-pressed to keep a cell signal anywhere.
There is infrastructure that needs to be implemented to improve that 5G technology and ability across Canada in order to have effective electronic monitoring.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Mr. Campbell, do you have anything to add?
[English]
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
In the GTA, if anyone has used the MLS app for real estate, ours essentially looks like that. Our members are young on the road and understand this technology. It allows information to be at a click of a button on an address of an offender.
I love the point around the safety of our members, which is sometimes forgotten in these discussions. They’ll know if someone is on bail and if they have a violent history, but it allows them to track down and hold some of these violent offenders accountable in our bail compliance units. If it were national, it would be fantastic. It’s working very well in the GTA right now.
The Deputy Chair: First, I want to compliment Ms. Friesen. Good for you for including victims as you’re doing those prosecutions to make sure that their safety is taken into account. I thank you for that.
You made a comment in your opening remarks about the surety status being restricted. You did confirm that, yes, Bill C-14 would impose a restriction upon people who have been convicted of an indictable offence — not all criminal offences, but those by indictment.
Given it is restricted — would not be allowed as a surety for an indictable offence conviction, what percentage would you estimate — because I wouldn’t think it would be as high — what is the indictable offence, approximately, in your experience?
Ms. Friesen: When I receive a criminal record of a client, there is no indication of whether a charge has been preceded by an indictment or summary on the criminal record. The way I understood that amendment provision is that it would also capture hybrid offences.
In Nunavut, we don’t have any shelters outside of two or three communities. We don’t have damp shelters or electronic monitoring in the North. We don’t have bail supervision programs or even a John Howard Society office in our territory. So, whether it captures a few sureties or a lot of sureties, any sort of restriction on somebody’s liberty based upon a suitable surety legislated in this way is not in the best interests of Nunavut or the Nunavummiut.
The Deputy Chair: Perhaps we can get clarity from the government on that because my understanding of this bill is that it has to be an indictable offence conviction and not just whether the offence is normally a hybrid or something like that. If there is no way for you to tell? Are you saying that there is nothing on the CPIC record or something like that, which indicates if it is an indictable offence conviction? If it is not, how will this be a workable provision?
We will have to get some clarity on that because that could be problematic.
Frankly, when I was looking at it, I wasn’t satisfied with just having somebody who was convicted of an indictable offence; I thought it should be applied more broadly. However, if there is no way to actually determine if somebody has that, then I don’t know how the government will make this work.
We will have to seek some clarification on that. Thank you.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for being here today. Ms. Friesen, I will start with you. I think you gave us an example that, in Nunavut, if someone walks into a home, that is expected behaviour. But would you agree that wouldn’t constitute a break and enter? A break and enter would only be if there were an offence that followed and there was a complaint made?
Ms. Friesen: Yes. I’ve outlined it in my brief, but I understand that hasn’t circulated yet. All of the essential elements of a break-and-enter charge may be met; however, quite often at trial, that charge is dismissed based on the facts proven in trial. The fact that the charge is laid by the RCMP will deter somebody’s release prospects based on this reverse onus, especially with the clarification that the bail letter doesn’t apply.
Senator Dhillon: Before we get to that part of it, if it’s an expected cultural norm that family would come over or others would, there wouldn’t be a complaint about that. And if there is no complaint, there wouldn’t be a response. Would you agree?
Ms. Friesen: I would say that the charges are laid anyway. I do have an example of this —
Senator Dhillon: Any other place that I’ve worked, unless there is a police complaint, the RCMP wouldn’t just show up and arrest someone without a complaint.
Ms. Friesen: Yes, and in this situation a complaint would have been made, and an allegation is also made for a crime, apart from the break-and-enter charge. However, the break-and-enter charge is laid anyway based on the surrounding circumstances of the substantive allegations, whatever that second indictable offence is.
Senator Dhillon: I look forward to reading your brief.
If you could also maybe give some clarification, you shared that there were 22,000 reported offences in 2025 out of a 44,000‑base population. What type of offences?
Ms. Friesen: I’ll provide the report at the conclusion of this. That number is taken from a crime severity index. It’s incidents of reported crime, as well as taking into consideration the severity of it. I use the population as a visionary tool to paint this picture of over 50%.
Senator Dhillon: That was very helpful. Thank you. I appreciate that. Maybe I can go to Mr. Sauvé and Mr. Campbell. You’ve spoken of modernization of our information of sharing in CPIC, and duct tape is appropriate.
Would you agree, and I believe you said as much that this legislation has a high likelihood of failure if the info-sharing system is not modernized?
Mr. Sauvé: I think the spirit and the intent of the legislation is to have equal applications across the country. The only way to do that is to modernize the national infrastructure of information sharing.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. Mr. Campbell?
Mr. Campbell: I don’t think it’s an either/or. When we’re talking in Toronto with break and enters, we’re talking violent home invasions, people with firearms kicking in people’s doors, stealing their car keys; they’ve shot and killed people in their own homes. I have to comment on sureties. The surety system in Toronto is ineffective, and the sureties don’t take it serious, period. They do not take it seriously.
I know we have different experiences, but that’s what’s happening in Toronto right now.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for that context.
The Deputy Chair: I did look up the prohibition part. It’s on page 8 of the bill. Clause 2.11 says:
. . . a judge, justice or court shall not name a person as surety if the person was convicted of an indictable offence within ten years before the day on which the release order is made.
So it needs to be a conviction on an indictable offence. Perhaps one of the police can let us know. Is that information available on a CPIC record or whatever would be available for this?
Mr. Campbell: It is on our information system. In Toronto, it’s available. We’re integrated with the court system. I understand we’re in a big city and have more access to technology and information. So we do have access to it.
Sureties are such a problem. I’ll be frank, the system is kind of a joke, and sureties do not take it serious, period.
The Deputy Chair: That was my initial impression as a critic of the bill. I have a question for the Toronto Police Association. I know you support the bill, but I’m wondering if you agree with Bill C-14’s approach to conditional sentences and house arrest, notably the fact that, for example, an exclusion for offences that are sexual in nature or committed for a sexual purpose that involves a victim under 18 applies only when the prosecution proceeds by indictment. So if a Crown counsel proceeds summarily and if a conditional sentence or house arrest could remain legally possible in a case involving a young victim, are you comfortable with that door being left open?
Mr. Campbell: No bill is perfect. I would say 90% of the things we proposed are in it. It’s definitely a step in the right direction. We see people on conditional sentences walk out of their houses, walk across the street and sexually assault a five-year-old girl. Those are things that actually happen. It’s not in academics; it happens on the streets. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for child sex offenders. Having said that, we are extremely supportive of this bill; it is a step in the right direction. Yes, data is important. I don’t disagree with that, but to not pass this bill because the data is not perfect, I think, would be a mistake.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much. When I’ve been speaking with police and police chiefs in a variety of jurisdictions across the country, the issue of the lack of availability of a national system has been an issue for decades in this country. I’d love for the committee to receive, from both your organizations, the information you have input to the federal government about the need for that streamlined system because my understanding it has been a call for some time. Some of the police chiefs I’ve been in contact with talked about making representations for resources for mental health, for homelessness, and for many of the issues that a lot of police officers spend a lot of time dealing with, which takes away from their ability to deal with very serious cases.
So if you have records on the types of submissions you make, I think it would be helpful for the committee to receive.
Ms. Friesen, thank you for reminding me of when we met on one of my visits to the North when you were still in law school and a brilliant student. That visit, you may recall, I had gone to the prison. There was a new prison being planned, and there was much talk in the community about the need for actual housing supports. You talked about overcrowding. The building of a jail costs far more than the provision of housing and addiction supports. I’m wondering if you can speak to how much of those kinds of investments have been made by the federal government and what kinds of suggestions you and Mr. Smith would have for improving those supports in the community.
Ms. Friesen: I believe that the first step is always for the federal government to listen to the Inuit, especially our Elders and their vision on what it will take in order to mend the splinters that have been created through colonizing the North. I can’t speak for the whole territory of Nunavut, but I can say that Elders have been vocal throughout the years on what it will take in order to heal Inuit.
As I referenced, before first contact, there were no Inuit in jail. If we’re going to bring down that crime statistic, it has to be through ancient knowledge carried by our Elders.
Senator Pate: Sorry to interrupt. You responded to Senator Dhillon about the situation. On that visit, I met women in jail who had been nominally charged by the police because it was the only way to get them somewhere out of the cold. It struck me that the kinds of discussions you were having where someone gets charged with a break and enter because they go into a house to sleep may be, in part, a function of trying to get help, not ill will or trying to criminalize people but trying to get help.
How often do you see people criminalized who really need those kinds of supports?
Ms. Friesen: More often than I should. I see many people being remanded with no criminal records. I’m here because I really love my people and want things to be better for us.
Being in the South, you can see the luxury and the privilege. In the North, there are so many dilapidated houses. Every neighbourhood severely lacks rooms, homes, food, mental health services and even just space. We’re in a really dire state right now and can’t afford to have more people be put in our jails. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith: Addictions bring our clients into remand. Alcohol addiction is probably the number one factor in 70% of our matters. When you say resources are not being provided, we’re now 27 years after division. I came to Nunavut just shortly after division, and to this day, there is still not a residential alcohol treatment centre in Nunavut. If you talk to Crown prosecutors, judges and defence attorneys, alcohol-related offences are, on average, about 70% of our dockets.
The Deputy Chair: It’s very much appreciated that you came here to tell us about this. Ms. Friesen, thank you also. It’s so important when someone is educated and has such a deep love for their people that they continue to stay in the area of legal practice and try to help their people. I imagine many people move away after completing their studies, and you stayed, so that’s to be commended.
Senator Clement: I do so agree with how Madam Chair put that to Ms. Friesen. It’s good to use the word “love” in this space. It’s important. It’s why many of us do what we do. When you live in intersectionality and you bring expertise and lived experience, it’s hard. I just want to acknowledge that.
It’s really interesting, this panel; there is such a contrast. I want to thank you for your careers because you’ve had consequential careers. Thank you. There is the contrast between Toronto and the North.
Mr. Smith, in your opening statement, you talked about how decisions in Ottawa ripple in the North. I also I think heard Mr. Campbell or Mr. Sauvé say there’s been pretty decent consultation around this bill. We’re hearing that. Some of the consultation has been pretty good. We’re legislating without data, though.
How do you feel about the consultation that took place with the North, in particular, around this bill? Has it happened?
Mr. Smith: To be honest, senator, I think there could have been more consultation and discussion. We received our invite about three weeks ago. I managed to read through all the briefs by all the organizations, and I understand the positions of many of them.
Our position and what we’re trying to impart to this committee here today is that I don’t have a clue understanding what my colleagues on the panel need, for both the RCMP and Toronto, in enforcement and law enforcement. The challenges they have are foreign concepts to us in Nunavut.
I think Mr. Campbell mentioned that their sureties don’t take it seriously. Our sureties turn our guys in; our sureties are on the ball. It’s just so different; it is a different way.
Crime is different there. That’s a bit of hyperbole, but it really is. We have a lot of broken people, so when I say alcohol is at the root of many of our offences, that’s not an overstatement. When Senator Dhillon talked about the break and enters, the break and enter is not a home invasion in Nunavut. Again, I understand it is different in the South. I’m here in Ontario on medical leave, so I see the news constantly about home invasions. You have targeted households, cars and stuff. That’s a foreign concept in Nunavut.
Our break and enters, our guys, yes, they’ve gone into the home, probably illegally, and that’s why most of the time the charge gets downgraded to unlawfully in a dwelling. It’s not a break and enter. At the end of the day, when that does happen, it will be downgraded.
We are trying to get that sort of message across, given that the southern perspective, the policing and the nature of crime in the South are so foreign to us.
Just this past weekend in Hamilton, where I’m from, my old hometown, we had a 14-year-old shoot a 16-year-old in a local mall. We don’t have these types of crimes.
We have violence. Don’t get me wrong. We have violent offenders against women; there is no doubt about that. We have gun offences. However, the targeting and the malice that I see are not the same. When I talk to my guys, it’s broken guys. That’s who I’m talking to. I’m talking to guys, and you can see the trauma dripping off them. That’s the big difference. I wish there was more of an effort to get that understanding and maybe a bit more discussion in that area, because when we say Bill C-14 will put more Inuit in jail, it will. I know that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Clement: I hope to go to Nunavut one day.
Mr. Smith: You’re welcome to.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much. I have met with the police association, the police federation and the chiefs. I’m mindful of the work you do and the importance of the work you do. Rest assured, we all appreciate it.
Many comments are made sometimes that we don’t have data and we are acting without knowing exactly what we’re doing. I’m not sure this is accurate. There is a lot of data, but it’s not necessarily available, put in a coherent way and accessible to everybody. However, when we dig, we find a lot of information.
My questions will follow that comment. You referred to the Toronto police, the largest police service in Canada, in a sense, and you have more resources and access to more data. Could you provide some specific data you have — not the associations, but those who are in charge of the system — regarding repeat offenders and violent repeat offenders? That’s what we’re targeting. I am fully supportive. I would not be sponsoring the bill if I were not supportive of that orientation. However, we have to distinguish; we have to make sure the net is applied to those who deserve to be under that net.
If you could provide some information about that — and the same for you, Mr. Sauvé — that would be good. You had your report from two or three years ago on bail — if you could send it to all members of the committee — share it with all of us — that would be interesting. Thank you.
Now my questions are for Ms. Friesen and Mr. Smith. Thank you for coming. I know it is a long distance and an effort to come to the South. I appreciate it. There is no connecting flight; well, no direct flight, maybe you have to do three airports before coming here when everything goes nicely. So, I appreciate it.
You said — and it strikes me as very important — that the reality of the North is the link with the community. The community is not the whole of Nunavut; it is the local community. It is different for the next village that might be 100 kilometres away with a different culture and a different approach to life. You said if you are kept in custody on remand, the community would react as seeing that you have been punished already — you are a criminal — and you would be excluded from the community.
It is not helpful with respect to the reintegration that we all expect to achieve, except for some cases where reintegration would not be possible.
You said that most of your work is about surety from somebody in the community who would be a relative — a grandmother or grandfather — of the accused in order to return and sustain the community.
Is it the problem that we say that nobody can be a surety if that person has been charged and convicted for an indictable offence within 10 years? Will that remove access to the surety?
Ms. Friesen: Yes, senator. With the high rates of incidence of reported crime, we do have a lot of individuals in our communities who have criminal records. With the history of Nunavut, police enforcement and the relationship between the RCMP and the community, I would assert that our members are being over-policed. If this were happening in the southern context, there might be fewer people with criminal records than there currently are.
Because of the low number of resources, the lack of action to address housing and education issues and the great distances between each community — along with the needs of our clients to hunt to provide for their families — we would strongly oppose any sort of restriction on surety availability.
Senator Dalphond: Would you prefer, perhaps, to have a safety valve of judicial discretion to include some people who might otherwise not fit if this were in the interests of the judicial system as a whole in the community?
Ms. Friesen: Yes. Thank you for that. The judicial discretion that goes into deciding whether a surety is suitable is quite extensive in Nunavut. Often, they are cross-examined in court on their criminal record as well as incidents of reported crime that have not resulted in convictions; it is not just limited to a criminal record; it is also a weighing of calls to that house.
So, our sureties are already highly scrutinized, along with struggling with food and home insecurities.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I want to thank all of our witnesses for taking the time to be here today and answer our questions. Your contributions will play an important role in guiding our discussions and the study of this bill.
You can also submit in writing any additional comments that you have to the committee clerk. It assists us in our study of the bill. If you would like to do that, please do that quite soon, because we will be starting clause-by-clause consideration for this bill next week.
For our second and final panel, we are pleased to welcome The Honourable Niki Sharma, K.C., MLA, Attorney General of British Columbia and Deputy Premier of British Columbia, by video conference; The Honourable Matt Wiebe, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba, also by video conference; and Adam Dalrymple, President and Vice-President, Canadian Association of Crown Counsel, BC Crown Counsel Association. Is that correct — president and vice-president? You are very busy. Welcome, all, and thank you for joining us by video conference today to help us with this bill.
First, we’ll hear from Deputy Premier Niki Sharma, followed by Mr. Wiebe and Mr. Dalrymple. The floor will be yours for five minutes each. If you could restrict it to that time, we will have sufficient time for questions from senators.
Ms. Sharma, please start us off.
Hon. Niki Sharma, K.C., MLA, Attorney General of British Columbia and Deputy Premier of British Columbia, Government of British Columbia: Good morning, everybody. I’m coming to you today from Victoria, here in beautiful British Columbia. It is a real pleasure to speak about our support of Bill C-14.
I wanted to start by saying clearly that there were a few examples in my time as an elected official where there has been national cooperation on an issue that has really brought together provinces and the federal government on a common issue of concern when we sat at tables to really solve problems. I’m grateful for Minister Fraser and his team, who heard from attorneys general across the provinces as to their ideas and issues, and what they thought needed to change in our bail and sentencing systems.
What we see here, and why we’re supportive, are some of the ideas and thoughts that B.C. brought forward — when we were witnessing in terms of public safety issues in B.C.
I know we will get to questions in a while, but I want to talk briefly about our approach in B.C. and why we think these amendments will help with public safety.
We’ve taken a pretty comprehensive approach to responding to public safety issues, including in investing in certain programs we know will break the cycle of incarceration and intervene in different categories. We have also noticed that our bail and sentencing laws have gaps in them that need to be fixed.
There are certain things we have brought forward that we see reflected in this bill, in particular when it comes to repeated and violent offenders. Reverse-onus bail in high-risk cases — it is important that our bail and sentencing systems focus around those individuals who have been proven to show the most harm to communities and that our Crown counsel are equipped with the Criminal Code helping to protect British Columbians from these individuals.
That also includes the expanded sentencing tools for serious, repeat offences. There is an important one that I think B.C. brought to the table that is reflected here that I wanted to spend more time on, and that is with respect to intimate partner violence. Unfortunately, the tragic story of Bailey McCourt occurred in our province. After that happened, I made sure that we did a study of these cases where there’s a risk between conviction and sentencing. What happened there — and I’m sure, senators, you have heard about this story. It was between the conviction — so the person was found guilty of this very serious, intimate partner violence — and sentencing, where she was brutally murdered in broad daylight.
We took a look at our data when it came to this particular time period. My prosecution service took a look at cases in between conviction and sentencing. They found through their data that, for sexual assault, violence and intimate partner violence files, there was a greater portion of new offences occurring between convictions and sentencings of crimes against the person.
What you have before you is an amendment that will make sure that our system recognizes that, on request of the Crown, you can change existing bail conditions. Our Crown prosecutors have been directed now in cases of intimate partner violence to ensure that, in those cases, they are revisiting bail after conviction to make sure that nothing like that happens again.
So, I come to you with a request to help pass this bill quickly because we need these types of provisions to save lives in the province.
I will talk about a few more things, as I’m sure I am running out of time.
We also needed better tools to combat extortion, and we have been doing a lot of work in partnership with the federal government to do that, as our residents have been hit by a large number of extortion. They are working. What you have before you in the bill are better tools to address extortion through sentencing and other aspects of it that are related to intimate partner violence.
I’m looking forward to the conversation, where we get to dig deeper into why we believe that these reforms are needed, welcomed and supported by the Province of British Columbia. I’m really grateful for the collaboration that got us to this. Reflected in this bill are ideas from attorneys general across the country in that they have brought their challenges forward, and the federal government responded with this bill that you see before you.
I am looking forward to the questions, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all.
Hon. Matt Wiebe, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba, Government of Manitoba: Thank you, chair and honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-14.
My name is Matt Wiebe, Minister of Justice and Attorney General in Manitoba. In my role, I work closely with police, prosecutors and justice partners across Manitoba to ensure our system is both fair and focused on protecting the public.
The reality is that public confidence in the bail system is being seriously tested. Manitobans are seeing repeat and violent offenders move through the system in ways that do not always reflect the risk they pose to public safety. Communities across our province expect and deserve a justice system that prioritizes their safety and responds effectively when risk is known.
In 2025, Kellie Verwey, of Portage la Prairie — a name that senators might have heard — was tragically killed by an impaired driver who had a warrant out for violating the conditions of his release. In the wake of this tragedy, I joined with Manitoba MLAs, premiers across the country and others to urge the federal government to take tougher bail reform measures.
I am pleased to see that Bill C-14 is before the Senate today. It is a necessary piece of legislation that will make our communities safer.
The current bail system is just not working, and Manitobans are urgently looking for action. Both Premier Kinew and I have emphasized that repeat and violent offending is having a devastating impact on our communities. In light of tragedies, like the death of Kellie Verwey, Canadians need to see that the justice system is capable of protecting them. In Winnipeg alone, approximately 82% of arrests involve individuals who are already under some form of supervision. This is not a marginal issue; it is a clear sign that the system is not effectively managing those repeat offenders.
I am encouraged that Bill C-14 brings forward the urgent need for bail and sentencing reform, and includes stronger measures for repeat violent offenders. The amendments reflect the importance of considering the risk to public safety before releasing a repeat offender on bail. I am also pleased that Bill C-14 enhances protections for first responders by introducing an aggravating factor for assaults against them. This is a necessary measure that clearly affirms that violence against those who protect our communities will not be tolerated. First responders place themselves in harm’s way every day when they are protecting others.
When they are targeted, it is not just an attack on an individual; it is an attack on the safety of the entire community. They deserve a justice system that responds firmly and consistently with real accountability.
The Manitoba government has taken significant bail reform action through enhanced bail policies, additional funding for law enforcement, electronic monitoring, enhanced supervision for chronic offenders, and other support for those who are trapped in the justice system, as well as extended capacity for data and intelligence sharing.
At the same time, we recognize that bail reform is not a standalone solution but a necessary part of a broader strategy that includes policing, prevention, mental health supports and the treatment of addictions; all steps our government is taking.
As our premier has acknowledged, it is important to be tough on crime but also tough on the root causes of crime. Manitoba has and will continue to make significant investments to address these root causes.
However, Manitobans have been clear: they expect all levels of government to work together to improve public safety. Bill C-14 represents an important step toward that more accountable, responsible and risk-focused bail system for all Canadians.
We are committed to collaborating with the federal government and with all levels of government to implement these reforms effectively.
For Manitoba and for Canada, this bill is about breaking the revolving door of repeat offending. It is about giving our justice system the tools it needs to act when risk is clear, and to prevent harm before it happens.
I thank the Senate for this important work and its careful study of this bill. I urge you to pass the legislation along, and I am happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you, meegwetch.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Now we will hear from the B.C. Crown Counsel Association for five minutes. Thank you.
Adam Dalrymple, President and Vice-President, Canadian Association of Crown Counsel, BC Crown Counsel Association: Thank you. My name is Adam Dalrymple. I’m the President of the British Columbia Crown Counsel Association and the Vice President of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel.
I am employed as a Crown counsel in Vancouver, British Columbia, and I have been a front-line criminal prosecutor with the B.C. Prosecution Service for over 18 years. My experience includes working in Canada’s first community court, Downtown Community Court on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, Richmond Provincial Court, Vancouver’s youth court, and the Indigenous community of Bella Coola on British Columbia’s central coast. I’ve conducted countless bail hearings, trials and sentences over the course of my career. I have prosecuted sexual offences, repeat violent offenders, intimate partner violence, prolific property offenders and murder.
I am honoured to be invited, on behalf of our associations, to be a witness before this committee, and I must preface my comments by saying that I am not permitted to speak about specific cases or active prosecutions. I also do not speak on behalf of the BC Prosecution Service or the Government of British Columbia.
As President of the BC Crown Counsel Association, I represent approximately 530 front-line criminal prosecutors who conduct bail hearings, trials, sentencings and appeals in British Columbia.
Our association was established 33 years ago. As Vice-President of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel, I represent approximately 8,000 government lawyers and criminal prosecutors employed by the provinces and the federal government. Crown counsels are quasi-judicial. Pursuant to the seminal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boucher, we act as ministers of justice. Our role is not to seek a conviction at all costs; rather, we must make objective and impartial decisions grounded in law, evidence and the public interest.
The law of bail and sentencing, particularly in respect to repeat and violent offenders, is at the forefront of Canadians’ minds. In my role as President of the BC Crown Counsel Association, I have travelled our province and listened to mayors, council members, business organizations, citizens and front-line prosecutors. This outreach, coupled with my years of experience in the criminal courts, informs our views on this important topic.
Our association would urge legislators and policy-makers to look at the issue of bail and sentencing in Canada from a holistic perspective. Not one level of government in our Canadian federation holds all the answers, and there is no quick fix.
Funding one part of the justice system without considering the others will create an imbalance in the system, leading to choke points and exacerbating the problems we currently experience. An investment in one criminal justice partner must be met with reciprocal investments in others. Absent that, the intended objectives cannot be fully realized.
Given the division of powers, as you know, the federal government is charged with deciding what is criminal in our criminal justice system.
The provinces are largely responsible for the administration of justice. This means that most of our criminal courts and prosecution services are funded and staffed by the provinces. Many of the social services we provide to our most vulnerable citizens fall on the shoulders of the provincial and municipal governments.
While enacting tougher laws may assist, it is not sufficient to address offending in our communities. Aggravating features, tougher language, more reverse onuses and consecutive sentencing will not, alone, solve the issues of our citizens, communities and businesses. Laws must be strengthened with sufficient front-line resources and services to prevent, investigate and prosecute offences. Absent adequate funding for police and prosecutors, the creation of reverse onuses on bail, new aggravating features and consecutive sentencing will only have a minor impact on public safety.
Let me be clear: more reverse onuses will mean more contested and lengthier bail hearings. Prosecutors will require more time to prepare quality submissions to the court during these lengthier and contested hearings. Eliminating conditional sentence orders for offences will mean there will be fewer guilty pleas and more trials.
Trials are resource intensive. They take more time for prosecutors and the courts. Tougher sentences will result in fewer pleas, more trials and longer delays. Without a commensurate investment in operational resources — prosecutors, support staff, sheriffs/special constables, infrastructure and technology — these changes will likely not fully achieve their objectives. Prosecutors will be forced to prioritize and triage. Longer court lists, more contested hearings and trials without support will lead to more burnout, more PTSD and less job satisfaction. I fear this will result in an exodus of experienced Crown attorneys from front-line positions and contribute to a constant turnover of new prosecutors. That is a loss for our prosecution services, the law and public safety.
If our legislators want to enhance public safety and rebuild public confidence in our justice system, we must deliver more than tougher laws. We must recognize that our justice system is rapidly changing, and we need to keep pace by making meaningful investments in people and technology in the system. Ensure front-line prosecutors have sufficient people and reliable and efficient technology to be effective at their jobs. Make sure our front-line prosecutors are not burning out or suffering from secondary trauma stress or PTSD. Give them reliable and modern technology they can use to make their job more efficient. For example, we call on the federal government to implement a national bail information repository where a prosecutor in Manitoba can call up a court order, warrant or file summary from British Columbia at the click of a button and make those submissions to a justice or judge at a bail hearing. That is just one example of where the federal government can assist in a meaningful way.
While we appreciate that the hiring of most criminal prosecutors is within the provincial domain, we stress the importance of a coordinated, multi-faceted approach by governments. It’s not enough to say we spent this many millions of dollars on this or that. We want to demonstrate and deliver objectively verifiable results. By limiting the ratio of front-line Crown to accused —
The Deputy Chair: Excuse me. Could you wrap up, please? You are about 90 seconds over. Perhaps there will be some opportunity to elaborate during questions. Thank you.
Mr. Dalrymple: One case in point is the ReVOII system here in British Columbia, the Repeat Violent Offending Intervention Initiative. Developed by the Government of British Columbia, this is an example of a multi-agency approach that can reduce offending, uphold the rule of law, enhance public confidence in the justice system and keep our communities safe. I understand from front-line prosecutors that ReVOII has had an 85% success rate in terms of getting detention when asked for by a prosecutor. In some cases it’s 92%.
We have to have the courage to invest in these programs.
The Deputy Chair: When I say wrap up, I mean ten seconds, not 40. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Now we will proceed to questions from senators. I will say that I ask both questions, and the responses be limited to four minutes, but I will be strict on the four minutes so I do not have to limit you to three so that all senators have an opportunity to participate. We will start with Senator Miville-Dechêne.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Ms. Sharma.
Thank you for talking about intimate partner violence and about what you have done to try to address the shortcomings in the system prior to sentencing.
What steps have you taken to support victims at hearings and when decisions are made regarding the alleged perpetrator’s bail? What are you doing? Recently, witnesses from Quebec told us that the province now has specialized courts and organizations that contact the women to ensure that they are warned and that they can protect themselves. There is also the issue of electronic monitoring bracelets. What proactive measures are you taking in British Columbia to protect alleged victims?
[English]
Ms. Sharma: Thank you, senator, for that excellent question. We are looking at what Quebec is doing, actually. I think there are some examples there of the system. We have a whole bunch of work going on. I asked Dr. Kim Stanton about a year ago to look at our system and see where improvements could happen, particularly with intimate partner violence or gender-based violence. She has armed me with 21 recommendations that we are working on. I think a couple of the points that address your question directly are safe support programs for the justice system where women who are coming forward with intimate partner violence, including in family court, can get support when they’re facing their accuser. We have victim-support services through our criminal justice system as well that are in place for people going through it.
It’s my view as Attorney General, and certainly the work I’ve been doing, that the justice system needs to do a lot better when it comes to not only the prosecution of this, but also the way that it’s done. We are actively working on many reforms.
One of the things that I’m excited about is, in a couple of weeks, we will be hosting a risk-assessment forum with all of the front-line workers who deal with it, as well as decision-makers like police and prosecutors, everybody who is relevant to the issue to understand when the safety risk assessments are done and how they’re done and where the gaps are so we can understand how we assess what high risk is. Once a woman comes forward in this system, they’re asking for safety. They’re reporting to the police and asking for safety for themselves, and they expect that, and sometimes it’s the most dangerous time for them. We want to really tighten that up across the system, so every actor is doing the appropriate risk assessment at the right level and putting the safety measures in place for that person. There are examples of really good case studies of how that’s worked. We’re actively working on that reform, and I think it’s an important question. Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a quick question for Mr. Dalrymple. You spoke about a program that seems to be working for repeat offenders. Can you tell me about that in less than a minute? What is this program that you mentioned at the end of your presentation?
[English]
Mr. Dalrymple: Thank you for that. The acronym is ReVOII — Repeat Violent Offending Intervention Initiative — a program set up by our current government, Ms. Sharma’s ministry, in respect to repeat violent offenders. Essentially, there are approximately 20 prosecutors in the province in five different regions who carry a caseload of 20 offenders that they monitor intensely, and they get a lot of collateral information on from, say, community corrections or probation or things like that. They have transcripts from previous sentencing hearings, they’re fully supported by paralegals and/or assistants, and they work in a multidisciplinary group with corrections, police — in some cases forensics and mental health experts — and they gather this information together. If a person commits a crime and they’re in custody, that prosecutor, who becomes very familiar with that offender given they have access to all of the information, current court orders can use that information in an effort to hold that offender accountable. That doesn’t necessarily mean sending them to jail. It may mean making sure if they are committed to getting support for a substance use dependency or something like that, they go there and they’re held accountable. So if they do breach, that prosecutor is immediately notified —
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you. We have very little time. Thank you for that information.
[English]
Senator Simons: Mr. Dalrymple painted a pretty grim picture of what could happen if there are not sufficient resources added to the system to balance off the new demands that this legislation will create. I have to say, Mr. Dalrymple, we heard very similar testimony from your colleague from Ontario a couple of weeks ago.
My question is to the two attorneys general. This legislation has the potential to create many more court cases and longer backlogs in the courts, and to create much more pressure on remand systems. Are provinces willing to step up and pay for the logical consequences of this legislation? Mr. Wiebe, I’ll start with you.
Mr. Wiebe: Thanks for the question. The short answer is yes. We are prepared to step up and, in fact, have already begun doing so. Here in the province of Manitoba that started with a commitment to law enforcement, specifically around the issue of bail. We’ve stood up here in the City of Winnipeg 12-member units that have been tasked with going after high-risk, repeat offenders. Across the province, we have an integrated unit that targets high-risk offenders throughout the province.
Likewise, within the court’s 35 new Crown prosecutors and additional court clerks and additional resources to keep our courts running efficiently. In corrections, we’re building a new justice facility, a centre for justice, that will really be that holistic new way of dealing with offenders that will focus on rehabilitation.
We’ve been clear. This is as much the province’s role as it is the federal government’s. We want the changes that will help us do the work, but we see our role as being a partner, and that means diverting significant resources in Budget 2026 to make that happen.
Senator Simons: My own daughter is a young civil litigator in Vancouver, and I hear about the stacking problem from her all the time, hours and hours and hours that counsel spend in courtrooms unable to speak to the judge, unable to get off the docket. You just heard from Mr. Dalrymple, what is British Columbia going to do to make sure the worst-case scenario he paints does not come to pass in British Columbia courtrooms?
Ms. Sharma: Yes, it is a good question, and, of course, the administration of justices is our job as attorneys general, and in our provinces we’ve been steadily increasing our resources to our courts, and it is part of our job to assess what’s needed.
It’s not a question just of resources, if I might, it’s also a question of how we do things and how we use up court time. We’re having an active conversation with different levels of the chiefs of my judiciary to talk about that. Because if it was just a matter of resources, we have an almost a fully staffed judiciary. What I hear from people is that more complicated matters are hitting the courts, and they’re taking longer. Although we have fewer cases overall, if you track the number, the complexity has increased, so we really need to tackle how we do things, and that is an active conversation in B.C.
If I can have a minute to talk about ReVOII and the Chronic Property and Public Disorder Intervention Initiative, or C-POII, I would take a minute to take a look at our recent data report. I think it’s really important to show when we make investments that are directed to cut the cycle of violence, it helps, and we’re expanding that program to not just repeat offenders to chronic property offenders, too.
The Deputy Chair: By the way, Minister Sharma, I wanted to thank you for bringing up the case of Bailey McCourt. Earlier this week Bailey’s Law — the private member’s bill tabled by B.C. Member of Parliament, Frank Caputo — passed in the House of Commons and came to the Senate, so we’ll soon be looking at that as well. I wanted to mention that. I know her family is paying close attention to these proceedings.
Senator Pate: Thank you to our witnesses.
I want to start with you, Minister Sharma. Thank you for all the work you have done, and thank you for mentioning the intervention programs that you just did.
As you are, no doubt, aware, those kinds of intervention programs existed 30, 40 years ago. It’s almost like they’re relapsing or something.
Your province has also taken the lead — and thank you for Dr. Stanton’s report — at different times on recommending things like the need for taking violence against women seriously, ensuring the supports are in place, including income, housing and other supports.
But it seems like the focus has been more on the so-called law‑and-order approach than some of the interventions. I notice, for instance, the federal public safety department has made an investment of $750,000 in a new initiative for youth safety and well-being. But that amount is far outstripped by what it will cost to jail folks who need these kinds of supports.
I’m curious how you’re managing that balance because, as you well know — and certainly for Minister Wiebe as well — the likelihood of the overrepresentation of more Indigenous people, and particularly Indigenous women who, when their needs are not taken care of, is a massive concern, most particularly in Manitoba. I’m curious as to — first, Minister Sharma, and then, Minister Wiebe — how you’re taking it on?
Ms. Sharma: Thanks for the question. In B.C., we’ve been thinking about safer communities holistically. What is a safer community? It’s not just a criminal justice system, but having people supported through their journeys, through mental health challenges and also through housing and poverty reduction. We have a comprehensive approach when it comes to responding.
In particular, with respect to my job — which is the justice system — we need to make sure that the right interventions are happening at the right time. We’ve expanded with our Indigenous Justice Strategy. There are 15 Indigenous justice centres operating across the province. I know you know this, senator, but they’re doing front-line work in terms of what an Indigenous person is facing with the system at that time. There are great stories coming of it.
We also started, in partnership with the federal government, a diversion program in Prince George where, if you can get young people at the right time — or the person at the right time who commits an offence that is not at a serious level — connected to culture and get them on a different path, we’re seeing great results with that.
The reason we expanded our ReVOII, the repeat violent offender program, is because what we found — and those stats are remarkable, for around 70% of the people that got intervention with those targeted resources, they sought out help and stayed with that help. If they actually were a harm to the community and needed incarceration, the detention rates were increased.
The C-POII program is going to be focused on chronic property offenders. We hear from many municipalities there are 15 people that keep causing problems. That’s usually a small number. We want to circle around those people with the right interventions. I think these changes in the Criminal Code also assist with that.
Senator Pate: Minister Wiebe?
Mr. Wiebe: I wish to echo some of the important work that’s being done here in Manitoba. Of course, partnership is the key. We have a fundamental advantage in Manitoba to have already developed the kinds of partnerships that will allow restorative justice programs, healing lodges and the kind of deep relationship building with Indigenous communities that will allow us to deal with that overrepresentation.
It’s a mandate letter item, of course directed by Premier Wab Kinew; in our work, it is the foundation and core of everything we do. If I had more time, we could talk about some of those important investments. But diversion and restorative justice are certainly the core of what we’re looking at.
Senator Pate: Perhaps you could send that in writing. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Sure.
Mr. Wiebe: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: If you could send that in writing, that would be great. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I am pleased to continue the discussion on the implementation of community programs. I applaud the initiatives undertaken by British Columbia, which has been a leader in developing bail supervision programs and alternative measures.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association told us that setting aside the principle of restraint could undermine the remedial provisions. In British Columbia’s experience, how effective have community-based bail supervision programs and tailored cultural support programs been in reducing recidivism?
I would like you to comment on that statement by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association with which you probably disagree. Could setting aside the principle of restraint undermine the effectiveness of Bill C-14?
I would first like to hear from Ms. Sharma and then from Mr. Wiebe.
[English]
Ms. Sharma: Thank you. I appreciate the question.
I think it’s very important in a democracy where people have rights, that we have the right balance and we strike the right balance all the time; it’s why we have checks and balances in the system, and a free and independent court system that can make sure that legislatures are not stepping too far beyond correcting that balance as societies evolve. I take the point of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association when they say that we must be careful when we step into certain aspects.
But what I’ve seen when it comes to the appropriate measures at the appropriate time, with the right person, the interventions can be better for public safety and sometimes better for the individual.
When we target reforms at the right population, and we measure those reforms based on what’s needed at the right time with the risk of that individual, I think we strike the right balance there. And we have an open court system, and if people feel as if we didn’t or if it were the case that it wasn’t applied correctly, that’s how we figure out that balance.
I think what we see here is a measured approach to that where we’re circling around individuals who are causing the most harm, which we hear are causing the most harm and line up the appropriate measures for those individuals. I think that’s an effective way for a criminal justice system to work.
Mr. Wiebe: Thanks, senator, for the important question.
Of course, we’ve talked about electronic monitoring and the advancements in technology. We brought that program back and enhanced it here in Manitoba. I think what you’re talking about is a deeper kind of addressing those root causes.
In Manitoba we did a study, and when restorative justice is used, there was a 32% lower recidivism rate than otherwise. It speaks to our partnership with Indigenous communities.
I’ll just mention that we also have a broader program called community mobilization that brings together a table of service providers and support systems around offenders to understand what those root causes are and what tools we have within our province?
Again, this speaks to our partnership that we’re willing to take at all levels of government to address these issues in a truly holistic and deep manner.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, folks, for being here.
Good to see you, Minister Sharma.
I have a quick question. We’ve heard from witnesses from law enforcement. One of the things they’ve shared as recently as today — the Toronto Police Association and the National Police Federation — is that we have an antiquated police system across the country.
In all of the conversations that you’ve had as attorneys general at the national level, was that a conversation that’s happened around modernizing police information and information-sharing across the country, both so that allows for police officers to make good decisions as they respond to these issues and also bring that information when a bail assessment is being made?
Can I start with you, Minister Sharma?
Ms. Sharma: Yes, thank you. Nice to see you, Senator Dhillon. I know you would have a lot of opinions on this topic with all your background, and I’m sure very good ones.
I will say, yes, it was a topic at the table. What I see from the prosecutors’ side, and I hear from the policing side, everything’s gotten more complicated out there. We look at an extortion file. There are international connections. There is technology.
Police need to investigate many things, and there are antiquated systems on how they can get at that data, how long they have to hold it, what they need to do to access that data and what rules are related to that. We haven’t given police the tools to keep up with the speed of the crime they are investigating.
There was quite a bit of conversation about modernizing our systems. When someone gets a cellphone, one of the changes we asked for has to do with the number of times they need a renewed warrant to keep it. It takes a lot of resources and isn’t in keeping with the reality of investigation. You’re absolutely right, and there is a big conversation about that as well.
Mr. Wiebe: I would start by saying the foundation of our bail plan here in Manitoba is the National Police Federation’s call to action on bail reform. I know senators heard from the National Police Federation just before us. I’m sure you heard their call for that national sharing of data and information.
We put specific investments in place back in 2023 that are starting to bear fruit. We have the Manitoba Criminal Intelligence Centre as a focal point of that investment, and they’re collecting the type of data that will inform this conversation going forward.
I also want to focus, as Minister Sharma did, on the impact on local police. We know they need to have the right information in front of them to be effective. The Winnipeg Police Service, with our funding, stood up a 12-person unit that uses that data in a very real-time way. They literally have this in front of them, as they’re going out and executing this work. We know that it has been built in-house, but we’re willing to share that information because we know whatever impact it will have on the street will inform the larger conversation across the country. We’re partners in this work and want to continue to have that information shared.
The Deputy Chair: In your opening remarks, Minister Wiebe, you referenced the “enhanced bail policies” your province has. If it’s something that will take a lengthy period of time, maybe you could provide that in writing. Could you briefly describe some of the enhanced bail policies your province has in case it’s something other provinces across the country may benefit from?
Mr. Wiebe: Sure, I’ll be happy to share that. This was working with our Crown prosecutors, understanding their day-to-day and what they’re dealing with, but really clarifying that, as Bill C-14 does, the tertiary grounds are so key to the importance of enhancing bail policies. It was working with our Crowns, ensuring they had the direction that they needed. Bill C-14 fits very closely with the work that we initiated here in that regard.
The Deputy Chair: If you could please provide us some of the specifics about the actual enhanced bail policies your province has, that would be helpful to receive in writing.
Minister Sharma, you wrote in your letter that Bill C-14 strengthens sentencing tools, but the sentencing part of Bill C-14 actually has less bite. There are some added factors and broad guidance, but the only clearly increased penalty relates to contempt of court. Do you believe that the federal government may have missed an opportunity to more directly increase consequences for violent repeat offenders to avoid overly lenient sentences and improve predictability? You also said harsher consequences are needed, so wouldn’t that actually ensure that this could be achieved?
Ms. Sharma: Good question. When we came forward with our ideas about what was needed, we proposed many things. One of the things that we did talk about is what happens when an individual is repeatedly breaching something. Not only is justice important but also people’s idea of justice, and that the justice system is working is important. I’ve heard from many people is that there is a class of people who will repeatedly breach orders or repeatedly breach court orders. If a court order is to be meaningful, it has to be respected. If individuals come before the system and repeatedly do not respect the court order, shouldn’t the level of sentencing be commensurate with that and shouldn’t the court consider that?
We didn’t get as far as we might have wanted to when it came to that aspect of it in this bill, but we certainly had that discussion related to that with the federal government. This is our second time looking at bail and sentencing. It’s my view that the Criminal Code is an evolving document, and the conversation needs to evolve. Maybe some of the tools that are in there now will help us with that challenge, but hopefully, there will be a continued conversation on how we address it.
Sentencing will not solve everything, but we were concerned about the people who are continually breaching and how sentencing should be looked at. The court should be directed to look at sentencing differently in those circumstances, and we had a range of suggestions related to that. They didn’t make it into this version, but maybe they will in another one.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much, ministers, for taking the time out of your busy schedules to appear before us today. I appreciate the initiatives that have been taken in both provinces for bail enforcement and also for repeat offenders, special units and all of that, especially in Manitoba.
I understand, minister, you will provide the committee with some data. It is a new initiative, but I’m sure you are gathering data on a daily basis.
My question is for Mr. Dalrymple. I remember a few groups appeared here and said if we keep people in bail, we know that many charges will be stayed or withdrawn by the Crown, so we’re keeping innocents in jail. Could you explain the main cause of stayed proceedings? Is that related to the time in the Jordan principle and the withdrawal cases? So it’s not an acquittal. It’s the proceedings are withdrawn or stayed.
Those files that go to trial, according to Statistics Canada, 50% and more will find a guilty plea, 7% will be acquitted and the rest are stayed or withdrawn.
Mr. Dalrymple: Thank you for your great question. There are a lot of reasons why a file might be stayed by a prosecutor. There are prosecutors who stay files, there are judicial stays, and in other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, for example, in Ontario, they withdraw charges. There is a host of reasons why we might stay or withdraw charges.
Our charge approval standard is there must be a substantial likelihood of conviction based on the evidence, and it must be in the public interest. It is an ongoing charge approval standard. At every stage and time that file comes before the court, we have to review it in light of that charge approval standard. Sometimes evidence might pass. For example, a witness may say they no longer want to testify.
One example would be intimate partner violence. We would argue it is very important to ensure we have the infrastructure — the prosecutor, the people, the courts — to get those files to a trial judge as soon as possible. Why? Because often we find that complainants or victims of intimate partner violence will recant, or they may decide not to cooperate with the process. We want to be trauma-informed but, at the same time, hold the offender accountable. That’s just one example.
Sometimes evidence is lost; sometimes there are delays. Other jurisdictions, particularly Ontario, face a significant Jordan issue: 11(b) issues with delay. If we don’t bring a matter to court before the 18 months or 30 months in a Supreme Court, then we’re in a de facto breach of their constitutional rights. There are a host of reasons why something might be stayed.
Senator Dalphond: At the time of bail in the current system for repeat offenders, there is no real reverse onus. In some cases, yes, but in most cases, there is none — but do you expect this reverse onus will change the reality in the courtroom?
Mr. Dalrymple: That’s a great question. Having done quite a lot of bail, I can tell you in some cases it may; in other cases, I don’t think so. Ultimately, when an individual comes before the court and they are perhaps breaching bail or these new amendments or, for example, a conditional sentence order, the Crown will tell the court this person is in a reverse onus. The judge ultimately gets to make the decision whether the person is released. They will hear the submissions of the accused, and if the accused has a reasonable excuse, explanation or there are extenuating circumstances, that person might be released, even if they are in a reverse-onus position.
We have to be careful about the reverse onus. If you make too many offences reverse onus position, you have the effect of watering down certain aspects of the Criminal Code and certain offences.
Practically speaking, do I think that it is going to have a significant impact? No. When an accused puts forward a plan of release or an excuse, if you have prosecutors who have the time to vet that plan or to do the research to figure out if the excuse they are offering is actually the truth, call around and get all of that information, it is difficult to hold someone accountable. That is why we talk about time and resources to have the effect that our legislators want.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Once again, I want to sincerely thank our witnesses for taking the time to appear before us today to share their expertise. If you want to provide any additional comments, either to answer questions or to provide additional commentary to support our committee’s study of this bill, please submit that in writing to the clerk of our committee as soon as possible. As I have said, we are going to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill next week, so as soon as possible would be great.
Thank you, senators, for your engagement with and participation in the study of this bill. To remind you, we will see you next week for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14.
(The committee adjourned.)