Justice Committee on Sept. 25th, 2025

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, gentlemen, for being here. I really appreciate it.

I was formerly a mayor and councillor, and I have indeed done ride-alongs with the Montreal police. Mr. Campbell, I'd be happy to do one with the TPS the next time I'm in Toronto, and I'll get in touch to arrange that. I know my colleague, Vince Gasparro, did one recently.

Gentlemen, I think this is one where we're wildly in agreement. I think pretty much all of us agree that repeat violent offenders should have a very tough time getting bail and should not be out on the streets. We might differ on how we implement this, and we have a lot of problems, because nobody takes complete responsibility. You have the federal government, which is responsible for the Criminal Code, and you have the provinces, which are responsible for the administration of justice. This includes police and Crown prosecutors, court resources, judges, justices of the peace, jails and jail guards. Everybody blames everybody else when things don't work out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Hold on a second, Mr. Housefather. There's a problem with the interpretation.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

It seems that the problem has been resolved.

You may continue, Mr. Housefather. You have four minutes left.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

Gentlemen, the first thing I want to ask you about is Bill C-48, where we reversed the onus of proof with respect to various violent offenders.

I'll start with Mr. Sauvé.

How has that changed things? Has that improved things? Should we use that mechanism for other types of violent offenders?

[Brian Sauvé]

Very quickly, I think I've been quoted widely as saying that it was a good start. There is more to do.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

What would be the next step?

[Brian Sauvé]

A “good start” just means that you've started.

I've said a number of times—and I think I've said it here today—that I'm happy to see that you guys are all working together and everybody is moving forward in the same direction to accomplish the same goal, which is safe streets, safe communities, safe police officers and safe Canadians.

If that means continued expansion of reverse-onus provisions as far as a recommendation goes, fantastic, and then the provinces and the territories, which administer that justice system, need the guidance, the leadership and the resources to do that.

We can't just have laws that say we're keeping people in jail and not have places to put them. We can't have laws that say judges must do this but then not give them the resources to accomplish it in a timely manner. We can't just say that we're going in this direction and that our police officers will do that, that they will enforce what you put in place, but then, all of a sudden, the subsidiaries, the corollaries or all of those downstream impacts, fall off the rails and then you're back where you first started.

That's what I would recommend. I'm sorry. That was a little longer than.... It was a good start.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I agree: That was a good start for an answer.

Mr. Stamatakis.

[Tom Stamatakis]

We're on the record as supporting some of what you alluded to in Bill C-48 and expanding reverse-onus provisions, but I will say that it has made no difference, because of the thing that Mr. Sauvé alluded to in his opening remarks, and this is one of the areas that I urge the committee to focus on. Once you create the laws, how do you create the environment where everybody works together, where all levels of government work together, to then implement the laws?

I can give you examples post Bill C-48 and the reverse-onus provisions, in which, in British Columbia, for example, people who should have been subject to those reverse-onus provisions were being released on bail. It ties back into what my colleague mentioned about resources, capacity and all of those kinds of things.

Part of what needs to come out of this exercise, in my opinion, are some clear recommendations around how, if there are changes—if there are amendments—to the legislation, they can be implemented in a more effective way and followed through on more effectively by the provinces.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That makes complete sense.

Can I mention that I think one of the things that would make a lot of sense is that once federal legislation is adopted and in the process of it being adopted, you would then have a federal-provincial-territorial meeting with the FCM, the conference of mayors and police chiefs?

You would bring everybody together at the table to talk about how it would be implemented, as opposed to the federal government just saying, “We did our job, so now you go and do it,” and vice versa.

Would that make sense to you, Mr. Stamatakis?

[Tom Stamatakis]

On how it will be implemented and specific commitments around following through, I 100% agree with that.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Do you agree, Mr. Sauvé?

[Brian Sauvé]

I agree, and I'm surprised that it hasn't already happened. Everybody has been talking about it for three years, and all of a sudden no one has been in the room taking a leadership role and saying, “Let's try to get this ball across the finish line.” I agree with you 100%.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Campbell, I didn't give you a chance to speak to this. Do you have anything to add?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I'll let Mr. Campbell complete his thoughts, but the time's up for now, Anthony.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm sorry, Marc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

No worries.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sauvé, you said earlier that there was a lack of communication among organizations, be they municipal, provincial or federal police services, or the Crown. You said that situations were resulting where individuals had committed crimes in different regions or provinces, but that wasn't necessarily taken into account at their parole hearing. So I was thinking that a common registry may be useful. I think that's more or less what you were telling us.

Along the same lines, a few years ago, we proposed the creation of an organized crime registry. You know that there is a registry of terrorist organizations. All terrorist organizations that are added to the registry suffer various consequences, which I won't go into because it would take too long.

Do you think it would be useful, in the fight against crime, to set up a registry of criminal organizations for organizations like Hells Angels and other criminal groups? For example, in the case of criminal organizations that recruit young people, it could be said that they are criminal organizations, since they are on the list. This would limit the length of trials, since proving that they are criminal organizations would not be necessary. It would be automatic, since they are on the list, and people would know what to expect.

What do you think of that proposal?

[Brian Sauvé]

I agree, but there are better ways to do it. For example, if we're going to modernize law enforcement, national security and information-sharing systems in Canada, let's do it once. It's challenging already, with different police services across Canada using different systems on the street. You saw that come out in the Mass Casualty Commission. Halifax Regional Police are using Versaterm and the Halifax RCMP are using PROS. They don't communicate with each other. You actually have to pick up the phone and talk to them. If we're going to talk about information sharing in Canada from a law enforcement perspective, then let's go with one system.

We already have a CPIC system. It works quite well, but it could use a serious injection of technology to bring it to 2026 instead of 1986. That can be your law enforcement system. All police agencies have access to it. It is sequestered for national security files as well as put-off anti-corruption investigations and such in different areas. You can use that system. It would be easy enough to have a Crown in both Prince Rupert and Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, access that system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Lawton, the floor is yours for five minutes, please.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you very much to all of you gentlemen for being here, and also for your service. It's very much appreciated.

Mr. Campbell, has Gary Anandasangaree, the public safety minister, ever consulted with you on the firearms buyback?

[Clayton Campbell]

Yes. We met with the public safety minister. We met with Sean Fraser, the Attorney General. We spoke about the same things that we've spoken about here today. We've communicated to everybody equally.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Sauvé, have you spoken with the public safety minister about the gun buyback?

[Brian Sauvé]

We've been in conversation and getting updated from the commissioner of the RCMP just as to how it may impact our members—