Justice Committee on Sept. 25th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Welcome to meeting four of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on September 23, 2025, the committee is meeting to begin its study on bail, sentencing and the handling of repeat violent offenders.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. One member is attending virtually—welcome, MP Housefather.

All in-person participants, please consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These are measures in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents, which occur from time to time, and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card for a short awareness video, which you should have already watched.

I want to make a few additional comments for the benefit of witnesses and members here today.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I sometimes do so informally, but you should get a sense of where I'm looking.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone to activate the mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation, either floor audio, English or French, depending on your preferences. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. All comments should be addressed through me, the chair.

For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We thank members for their patience and understanding in this regard.

I want to welcome our three witnesses for today's meeting. They appeared on short notice.

Is there an issue with interpretation, Mr. Fortin?

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

No, Mr. Chair. It's that, in your opening remarks, you didn't mention whether the sound tests had been done and what the results were. I just wanted to ask you that, and I didn't want to interrupt the witnesses to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you for the reminder.

The clerk has confirmed that the tests have been done and that everything is working properly, unless you have a relevant complaint.

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

No. It's just that we're being asked to mention it in the introduction, publicly and not privately. That's why I was asking you. If you're telling me that the sound tests were done and the results were conclusive, so much the better. I didn't want to bother you with that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

No problem, Mr. Fortin.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing on such short notice, as we decided on the priority of this only on Tuesday.

Today we have, from the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis, president. From the National Police Federation, we have Brian Sauvé, president; and from the Toronto Police Association, we have Clayton Campbell, president.

Thanks to all three for your service.

I will remind the witnesses that you have five minutes for your opening statements followed by questions from members of the committee. We have adopted, in previous meetings, the timeline restricted to each member.

I'll go in the order I presented you.

Mr. Stamatakis, you go first, then Mr. Sauvé goes second, and then Mr. Campbell goes third.

Welcome, and please go ahead.

[Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation and for allowing me to appear this afternoon on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, which represents more than 60,000 frontline police personnel across Canada.

Our members include civilian and sworn law enforcement professionals serving in every province and territory, in large urban centres as well as rural and remote communities. Collectively, they bring a perspective that is both national in scope and grounded in day-to-day experience.

This is the first time we have had the opportunity to appear before this committee since the last federal election, so I want to begin by thanking you for the invitation.

I also want to congratulate you, Mr. Miller, on your election as chair, and mention that I look forward to working with you in this new role.

Frontline officers are uniquely positioned to speak to the challenges facing our justice system. When Canadians call for help, it's police who respond. It's our members who arrest repeat violent offenders, only to see those same individuals return to the streets weeks, days and sometimes even only hours later. While it's fair to acknowledge that Canada's justice system generally works well, the persistence of this small but highly disruptive group of offenders places an enormous strain on police resources, heightens risks to officers and communities, and perhaps most importantly, erodes public trust in the system.

That erosion of trust is real. Statistics Canada has documented a steady decline in Canadians' confidence in the justice system and the courts. This does not serve anyone well. When citizens lose faith in the fairness and effectiveness of the system, victims feel unheard, communities feel unprotected and officers feel as though their work does not matter. Confidence is the foundation of legitimacy, and without it, every part of the system suffers.

What makes this situation especially frustrating is that both the governing Liberal Party and the official opposition Conservatives acknowledged during the last election that bail and sentencing reform must be a priority. In fact, both parties made specific commitments in response to questions from the Canadian Police Association.

As you all know very well, it is rare in Canadian politics to see such broad agreement across party lines, and it would be a profound missed opportunity if Parliament failed to act. Canadians rightly expect progress when their elected officials all recognize the same problem. That is why this committee's work is so important.

We hope that your study can move this discussion beyond partisan lines and into the realm of practical solutions. This is not an idealistic or quixotic hope. It is the kind of constructive, evidence-based collaboration that Canadians expect and deserve from their representatives.

From our perspective, there are clear and achievable reforms that would help restore confidence and strengthen accountability: creating a stand-alone offence for breaching parole conditions to ensure that supervision orders carry real consequences; mandating the reporting of all breaches by supervising authorities so that gaps and delays do not put the public at risk; replacing automatic statutory release with earned discretionary parole for high-risk repeat offenders so release is based on rehabilitation and not the calendar; strengthening reverse onus provisions and bail decisions, particularly for violent and habitual offenders, to better protect communities while awaiting trial; expanding resources for police to locate and apprehend offenders who breach conditions, ensuring swift and consistent accountability; and finally, increasing resources to support any changes that are made in relation to bail and sentencing reform, particularly with respect to additional training and resources for Crowns, JPs and judges to facilitate the modernization of facilities and capacity building within the corrections system.

These are not radical proposals. They are targeted, evidence-based measures that respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while enforcing the fairness and effectiveness of our justice system. Most importantly, they reflect what Canadians expect, that when repeat violent offenders violate the conditions of their release, there are meaningful and immediate consequences.

Our members are doing their jobs. They arrest dangerous offenders and bring them before the courts, but without reforms, the cycle of arrest, release and reoffending will continue to erode confidence in the system and place unnecessary strain on communities.

The Canadian Police Association stands ready to work with all members of Parliament and with our provincial and territorial partners to turn consensus into action. During the question and answer portion of today's meeting, I'd welcome the opportunity to provide more detail on our proposals and discuss how they can be implemented.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Stamatakis.

It's over to you, Mr. Sauvé.

[Brian Sauvé, President, National Police Federation]

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to appear today.

I'm Brian Sauvé. I'm a sergeant in the RCMP and president of the National Police Federation. We are the sole certified bargaining agent representing nearly 20,000 members of the RCMP, serving communities across Canada and internationally. Our members have varying mandates, including federal enforcement and national security. As well, in many municipalities and provinces, they are the police of jurisdiction. They experience first-hand both the successes and the shortcomings of the criminal justice system every day.

Tragically, Canadians have seen far too many cases in which individuals released on bail have reoffended, sometimes with devastating consequences. These incidents leave deep scars on families, communities and police officers. They have also shaken the public's confidence in a system that must balance fairness with safety.

I want to be clear: Our members believe strongly in the principles of justice, restraint and fairness that underpin our Criminal Code and our charter, but they also see the human toll of a system that often functions like a revolving door. Our members are repeatedly arresting the same individuals, often for crimes committed while already on judicial interim release. This is dangerous and demoralizing. It also drains police resources that could be better spent preventing crime.

In 2019, Bill C-75 introduced some reforms, codifying principles of restraint and requiring consideration of indigenous and other vulnerable populations who are disproportionately represented in our justice system. However, four years later, municipalities, provinces and police report that these changes have had little measurable impact on violent repeat offenders or public safety.

In 2023, Bill C-48 created new reverse-onus provisions for certain violent and firearm-related offences. These steps respond to some concerns, but they have not addressed deeper systemic issues, such as weak monitoring, inconsistent enforcement and poor data collection.

Canada's criminal justice system also continues to be underfunded, leaving resource gaps that criminals exploit. A disturbing trend that our members see is organized criminals recruiting youth to commit serious crimes, knowing that sentencing under the YCJA is far less severe. This places vulnerable young people on a dangerous path and further erodes public confidence.

In 2023, the National Police Federation released a report on bail reform. While much of that work focused on what provinces could do to improve monitoring, enforcement, and bail hearing standards, many of those recommendations are relevant to your study today. I'd like to highlight four areas where we believe urgent action is needed.

The first area is better data and information sharing. The courts often make bail decisions with incomplete information. National police records are often missing offences that exist only in local or provincial databases. Judges and prosecutors may not see the full picture of an accused's history. We need standardized, reliable justice system data across all jurisdictions. Without it, risk assessments remain inadequate.

The second is improving bail hearing resources and standards. Too often, bail hearings are rushed and presided over by officials without the proper training. We need experienced prosecutors and qualified judicial justices of the peace conducting these hearings, with adequate preparation time. Bail decisions are among the most consequential in the justice system. They must be made with full information and proper expertise.

The third is strengthening monitoring and enforcement. Once an individual is released on bail, monitoring varies widely across Canada. Some jurisdictions use electronic monitoring. Others have minimal or no supervision. Our members often arrest people who have been released only hours or days earlier and have openly ignored their court-imposed conditions. Dedicated bail enforcement resources, including modern technologies and the use of special constables, would relieve pressure on frontline police and provide some accountability.

The fourth is addressing youth exploitation. Criminal networks are increasingly recruiting young people to commit violent offences, knowing the consequences are lighter. Federal and provincial governments must close this gap through targeted prevention, stronger deterrence and better support for at-risk youth. This is not only about penalties but also about stopping criminal groups from exploiting your people and protecting communities from harm.

All of this points to one larger truth: Fixing Canada's justice system cannot be accomplished by Ottawa alone. The federal government writes the Criminal Code, the provinces administer the courts and municipalities feel the greatest impact of repeat offenders cycling through the system. Too often, each level of government waits for the other to act, and progress stalls. The path forward requires smart, targeted initiatives developed and implemented collaboratively across jurisdictions. Federal, provincial, territorial and municipal leaders must work together alongside the police, victims advocates and communities.

Our members are committed to serving Canadians with professionalism and compassion, but they need a justice system that supports their work rather than undermining it. The National Police Federation stands ready to work with all levels of government to build a bail and sentencing system that truly prioritizes both fairness and community safety.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I welcome questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Sauvé.

For the benefit of members, I'm letting the witnesses complete their statements even if they go a little over five minutes, unless there's an objection. We have a lot of time today, and I think it's important to hear from them unless someone objects.

Mr. Campbell, it's over to you.

[Clayton Campbell, President, Toronto Police Association]

I need only three minutes, so I'll share some of my time with the other side.

Good afternoon, Chair, vice-chairs, members of the standing committee, legislative staff and other guests.

My name is Clayton Campbell. I'm the president of the Toronto Police Association. As president, it's my greatest honour to represent more than 8,600 members of the Toronto Police Service, both uniformed and civilian.

I'm here to advocate for the communities we serve, because there's little difference between what we want and what the public wants, and that is safe and healthy neighbourhoods. Despite what some may suggest, I'm here to advocate for a fair and balanced justice system. We believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we believe in rehabilitation and we believe in second and third chances.

Our suggestions for improving the current system are entirely focused on violent offenders who have consistently shown a total disregard for the safety of innocent people. They are based on the daily lived experiences of our members and the victims they support, and they were developed with the help of talented legal minds.

I'd like to start with recommendations to the bail system as it relates to sureties. Specifically, we want legislation that defines who presumptively is unsuitable to be a surety.

Currently, anyone can take this role, act as the eyes and ears of the justice system and be responsible for reporting any breaches of the person's release orders. If that person has a criminal record or has previously acted as a surety for someone who has breached their conditions, or if there is a power imbalance between the surety and the accused, these factors should disqualify them from this role. It is unreasonable to expect that someone who relies on the accused for financial support or has been victimized by them should act as their surety.

We recommend strengthening the secondary grounds for detention by including a mandatory provision that someone with two convictions for serious violent offences would be ineligible for bail for 10 years, and those with three or more convictions would be barred from bail for life. Recognizing that someone with a proven history of serious and violent victimization may have given up their rights to release at the earliest opportunity is not cruel and unusual.

We also cannot overlook the role of victims in the bail process; therefore, we would like their rights strengthened to include access to the details of release within 24 hours and that, in certain crimes, victims be provided with a transcript of the bail hearing upon request.

Finally, we recommend that bail pending an appeal should be considered only where there is a likelihood of success, since these individuals are no longer accused but rather have been convicted of their current crimes and, therefore, are no longer entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Regarding sentencing and parole, we recommend mandatory consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple life sentences, with a release valve in specific circumstances to address the judicial discretion concerns noted in Bissonnette.

We also suggest amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, particularly as it relates to high-risk prisoners. Specifically, we suggest establishing a separate parole regime for the small number of high-risk prisoners. This regime would include, among other measures, lengthening the interval between parole hearings and granting victims full party status at these hearings.

Sadly, considering the high rate of youth violence in our city right now, we also need to propose recommendations to strengthen the existing Youth Criminal Justice Act. We believe many of our suggested changes to the adult system should also be implemented for young people. We also request consideration of the expansion of the allowable periods of both open and closed custody for young people, so that longer sentences can become a viable option in cases of violent crimes, weapons offences, human trafficking, robbery and sexual assault.

These suggestions may seem counterintuitive to the core principles of rehabilitation and restraint when it comes to young people. Still, I want to remind you that we are discussing youth as young as 14 years of age who have committed serious violent offences not once but multiple times.

In closing, I'd like to emphasize that it might be easy to dismiss our stance as biased or politically motivated. However, for us, this is not a matter of politics. It's about public safety. We have a proven track record of collaborating with anybody from any party who shares our values.

At home, in Toronto, our mayor is a lifelong member of the NDP. The chair of our police service board is a Liberal. As you know, we have a Conservative premier, yet we have all set aside political differences to do what's right for the safety of Torontonians and our police members. We urge you, at the federal level, to do the same.

We have shared these thoughts and others with Minister Fraser and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Pierre Poilievre, in letters dated September 12, 2025. We'd be happy to make those available upon request.

Thank you. I'm looking forward to any of your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you to all three of you.

We're now at the first round of questions. As agreed upon beforehand, we have the Conservatives going first for six minutes.

MP Brock, you'll have the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of our subject matter experts, as I like to call all three of you. Thank you for your attendance. Thank you for coming as quickly as possible. This is an incredibly important study for all of Canada. In my view, it is long overdue. We are pleased that we're finally launching it.

I have a question for Mr. Campbell, to start.

The federal gun ban and confiscation scheme is an absolute disaster. Police, academics, licensed gun owners and everyday taxpayers know that targeting lawful firearm owners won't make Canadians safe.

You, sir, are on record saying, “We know that the gun buyback program is going to have essentially zero impact on the crime in Toronto.” The public safety minister, Gary Anandasangaree, certainly doesn't seem to think it will work either. He admitted on a leaked audio recording that legal gun owners aren't causing crime and that police services likely don't have the resources to follow through on the project.

Does the Toronto Police Association and its members, sir, believe that the Prime Minister should fire the Minister of Public Safety? Give me a yes or no.

[Clayton Campbell]

I don't want to weigh in on who should be fired at this time, but I definitely would want to comment on the gun registry and the impacts on safety in Toronto, if that's possible.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Please go ahead.

[Clayton Campbell]

The bottom line in the city of Toronto is that the gun buyback program would not have any impact on the violence we're seeing. The violence that we're seeing in relation to firearm offences is, essentially, exclusive to a small number of gang members, thugs, using illegal firearms. Most of the time, they come across the border. About 90% of the 700 illegal firearms we seized last year came across the border. Most of the time, it was people on bail or people prohibited from using a firearm.

I can say that in the city of Toronto, it's a very challenging thing when it comes to funding public safety. I'm sure if you were to ask the mayor of Toronto, Olivia Chow, or Chief Myron Demkiw of the Toronto Police Service how they could use even a fraction of the $750 million, we'd find a lot of better ways to spend that money to actually improve public safety in our great city.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

I listened very carefully, sir, to the recommendations you made to the committee in your opening statement. There is, in my view, a lot of similarity between what you are proposing and what our party has been proposing. In fact, we introduced a new private member's bill called the “jail not bail act”. I believe you were at the press conference a few weeks ago.

At the heart of that bill is to replace the so-called “principle of restraint” under section 493.‍1 of the Criminal Code, which essentially states that judges must release the accused at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. Practically speaking, this means that regardless of what the offence is, regardless of the impact it has on the community or the victim, regardless of the criminal record, which may establish a pattern of breaching court orders or a pattern of committing the same offence over and over again, and quite frankly, regardless of the number of prior releases the person may be on, that person should be released.

At the core of your recommendations, sir, do you believe the principle of restraint has to be rescinded?

[Clayton Campbell]

We do, and we've called for that.

In the end—and I want to repeat it—it's not about politics for us. It's about our member having to go see the mother of an eight-year-old, just a few weeks ago, who was shot and killed while sleeping in his bed beside his mother. One youth has been arrested; two are still outstanding. They were both on release and using illegal firearms. Something needs to change.

Our members, as my friends here have talked about, are frustrated. They really are doing their best. They're putting their lives on the line. Something needs to change.

We need to make sure the small number—it's a small number in the city of Toronto—of really violent individuals are not out there wreaking havoc on our streets every day.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

For over four years, all three of you, as well as all other members of the police associations and services, premiers, MLAs, mayors and victim advocacy groups, have been pleading with this Liberal government under the leadership of Justin Trudeau and now under Mark Carney, and all the various justice ministers, to implement immediate bail reform to keep Canadians safe.

I'd like to hear from all three of you. In your collective opinions, why have your pleas fallen on deaf ears with the Liberal government?

[Clayton Campbell]

I can start.

For the first time, we did meet with Sean Fraser. We met and we explained exactly the same things I'm saying today. The same information we've provided to the Conservative party we've provided to Sean Fraser as well.

I really don't know. I say to anybody who's not sure what to do to come on out for a ride-along in the city of Toronto. You'd see some of the violence going on. You'd see the victimization.

This is not about someone who's made a mistake or some minor criminal offences. This is just a small number of really violent thugs and criminals who are causing all the problems in the city.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you.

I believe the justice minister needs to go on a ride-along very soon.

[Clayton Campbell]

We'll take anybody at any time in the city.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Brock, thanks. The time is up. Perhaps one of the other members will allow the other two to complete their thoughts on this.

We'll now turn this over to the Liberals.

Ms. Dhillon.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much to all our witnesses for coming in on such short notice. I think all committee members appreciate that.

I'll start with Mr. Sauvé.

I very much appreciated your comments and your recommendations. One of those recommendations was that Ottawa cannot do it alone. We pass the laws, and we put in programs. All levels—provincial and municipal—must also contribute.

In your opinion, how can they do better to work with Ottawa as well?

[Brian Sauvé]

I think it starts with the leadership. One thing this government can do is provide that leadership.

One of the benefits of my particular role is that I get to meet with municipalities—large, small, and anywhere in Canada, whether it's the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association, the Union of BC Municipalities, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, or reeves, mayors and elected officials from all communities, large and small. They've all been talking about this. In fact, we were part of a panel at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities earlier this year, with Chief Nishan from Peel and one of our superintendents of major crime in northern Saskatchewan talking about bail reform.

You have willing partners. I will tell you that. You have willing mayors. You have willing provincial leaders who want to get this right. Somebody has to pick up the ball and start running with it. That comes from here.

As we mentioned in our opening remarks, this is a shared responsibility. You can change as many laws as you want, but if there are not enough places to put someone in jail before trial, what's the judge going to do? Are they going to double bunk?

If we don't have enough corrections officers to actually patrol those jails.... Keep in mind that police services are recruiting heavily across Canada right now. Corrections, which is a provincial responsibility, is a challenging job. Perhaps it doesn't come with the commensurate compensation package that policing does. I think they're having challenges recruiting enough corrections officers.

All of those resources need to be in place. Someone has to take the ball and lead with it. You'll be able to pull your provinces and your municipalities along with you.