Justice Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Good afternoon, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

There are a couple of elements before we get going. Today we have confirmed that the Minister of Justice will be available for the kickoff of our study on Bill C-9 on Thursday, with one hour provided for him exclusively and then an hour, as customary, with officials for the second hour. That is some good late-breaking news.

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

Mr. Brock.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that we had some discussions, before you hit the gavel, about some housekeeping matters, and I appreciate the position you took. I think this is something that probably should be dealt with right off the hop. I don't think it's going to be very complicated or very lengthy, but I tabled a motion last Friday. I believe it's in both official languages. Every member of committee has that motion.

I'd like to move that motion at this time and read it into the record. I move:

That the committee continue its study entitled “Bail System, Sentencing and the Handling of Repeat Violent Offenders in Canada” concurrently with a review of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), provided that one meeting on each study be held weekly, and regarding its consideration of Bill C-9, the committee:

a) dedicate at least 10 meetings to receive witness testimony;

b) invite Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, for no less than one hour, and;

c) invite departmental officials, and other witnesses deemed relevant for the purposes of this study.

Echoing my comments from last Thursday, I believe that both Bill C-9 and our particular study that we've agreed to—and we've heard several witnesses over the course of several days—are equally important. I believe that we can accomplish both studies at the same time. There is a pressing and ongoing need to have this discussion regarding sentencing and bail reform. It would be our preference, at least on the Conservative team, to continue doing that on a week-to-week basis.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Let's have this discussion at the end. It shouldn't take a long time, but let's reserve 10 minutes then. We can cut some of the witness testimony short, but since they're here and ready to go, I'm confident that we can dispense with this at the end of proceedings if we reserve five to 10 minutes to do so.

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

That's provided we can establish 10 minutes remaining in our allotted time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

We'll do that at the end. I see heads nodding, so it should acceptable. Thank you.

Mr. Lawton, we're moving on now. We'll move this to committee business.

Welcome to meeting number six 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 continue 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. The witnesses in the second hour, I believe, will be mostly on Zoom. We have a member as well present on Zoom.

Before we continue, I would like to remind all in-person participants to review the guidelines written on the cards in front of them on the table. These guidelines are in place to help prevent audio incidents and acoustic shocks and to protect the health and safety of all participants, particularly the interpreters. You will also notice that a QR code on the card links to a short awareness video.

There are a few reminders for members, especially the new ones getting seasoned. I will recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. Please also select the official language of your choice and convenience on the proper channel.

I remind you again that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

The committee clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

Thank you for your patience and understanding in this regard.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I just want to introduce the guests.

We have with us Nicole Myers.

Dr. Myers is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at Queen's University, and Michael Spratt is a criminal lawyer with Abergel Golstein & Partners.

From the Criminal Lawyers' Association, we have Boris Bytensky, president.

Mr. Lawton, go ahead on your point of order.

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

Thank you.

Again, I concede that I am new here, but my understanding of the Standing Orders is that when a motion is tabled, it is a live motion. We did not vote to adjourn debate on that motion. We did not reach a consensus on that. If, in the interest of expediency, there is a desire to dispense with the motion, I'm sure all of us can unanimously agree to adopt that motion and move on. I don't want to get us into a situation where we potentially end up with a party—not to single anyone out—deciding to filibuster the motion, which pertains to a meeting we're having in two days, without our having an opportunity to adopt that.

Respectfully, Chair, the motion is still live before this committee. If we do want to move on to witness testimony, which I am very eager to do, we can adopt the motion unanimously if my colleagues opposite agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

No, I think there was a nodding of heads to move this to the end for 10 minutes, so we'll deal with it then.

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

No, you told me that while I was trying to speak on that, Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

No, you weren't.

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

—so we didn't actually agree.

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

Mr. Chair, interpretation is telling me that there is a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

We will look into that. This is not the first time this has happened. I am not blaming anyone, but if it were possible to resolve the issue, that would be ideal, because we would like to move on to witness testimony.

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

It is working, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

All right, that is perfect.

We agreed to move this to the end and deal with it then—

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

We did not agree to that, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Well, that's what I heard and that's the ruling.

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

No. That's what you've said, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Let's move on, since that's the ruling.

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

I move to challenge the ruling, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

You can move it all you want, but we're moving on to the witnesses. We will move this to committee business and have that discussion with 10 minutes remaining. This is an important study and we all want to get on with it, so let's get on with it.

I've introduced the three witnesses for the first hour. Each will have five minutes.

Following the order that appears before me, Mr. Bytensky will start.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Boris Bytensky, President, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everybody at the committee for having the Criminal Lawyers' Association and for allowing me to address you on their behalf.

Our organization represents nearly 2,000 criminal lawyers across Canada, many of whom are on the front lines of our courts, bail and sentencing courts in every province and every territory in Canada. Our members are also members of our communities. We live in the same communities where the victims of crime live, where police officers live and where everybody here lives. We want the exact same things in terms of public safety for our children that you want for yours, and we want to live in safe communities in dignity and harmony with our neighbours and to enjoy the rights and freedoms that we all enjoy as Canadians.

Personally, I was called to the bar in 1993. I have spent much of my career dealing with issues in bail court, and I have litigated these issues in a number of provinces and at the Supreme Court of Canada. The issues of bail and bail delays have been persistent, and they have plagued our courts for about a quarter century, at least in my own experience as I've been dealing with them.

I've provided some speaking notes, and there are some footnotes. I welcome everybody to review them. I'm not going to go into all those details. Our position from the CLA can be summarized in this way.

The bail system is not lenient, and the system cannot be perfect. It's important to recognize, contrary to many reports, that it is not easy to get bail in Canada. It is certainly not easy to get bail in a timely way, and it's not easy to get bail without facing unnecessary terms and conditions.

It's also important to recognize that having a successful bail system that maintains public confidence does not and cannot require perfect compliance. We must accept, as the Supreme Court of Canada has, that predicting future dangerousness is notoriously unreliable and will inevitably lead to unexpected and unfortunate negative outcomes.

The only way to remove all risk for those on bail is to eliminate bail, eliminate bail for all charges for all offenders. Of course, even if one ignores the constitutional barriers to that tongue-in-cheek suggestion, the criminogenic nature of our detention facilities would make that a net negative from a public safety standpoint if measured over a moderate period of time. Simply put, we cannot jail our way out of any public safety risk that will always accompany bail and sentencing decisions.

Addressing the problem of repeat violent offenders was discussed when we were here last time to make some submissions on Bill C-48. That bill was designed to have “targeted changes” to the Criminal Code's bail regime to address “serious repeat violent offending with firearms, knives, bear spray and other weapons” and to address “the enhanced risks posed by intimate partner violence”. All of these were addressed through the primary mechanism of creating additional reverse-onus bail provisions at that time and were designed to apply to certain individuals and certain enumerated offences in certain circumstances. Today there is ongoing dialogue about adding additional reverse-onus provisions for the same general reasons.

The position of the CLA is similar to the position taken by various other organizations that have appeared before this committee. Decisions to change bail legislation must be evidence-based and not the product of public sentiment that is stoked by individual cases or by partisan politics. Our submission is not based on the constitutionality of reverse-onus bail. It's simply based on our lived experience and the experience that we've seen in our courts. Reverse-onus bail does not lead to more detention orders. It leads to slower bail cases. It results in more cases being delayed in the bail courts and more people waiting for the bail cases to begin.

In our submissions, in 2023, we predicted that this will lead to these types of delays, and that prediction has turned out to be 100% accurate, at least in Ontario. Further enactments of reverse-onus provisions or other barriers to bail will only exacerbate these problems. In other words, these barriers to bail will have a measurable and inverse effect on public safety, at least in the medium or long term. Remand centres, as I said, are highly criminogenic. Whatever short-term gains you realize from keeping a specific individual in custody without bail for that period of time will be outweighed by the increased risk to public safety from that same individual when he or she is eventually released. For every individual who loses a job, housing, a bed in a shelter or a spot in a treatment program simply from having their bail hearings delayed, even if bail is eventually granted, that individual will also contribute to an overall increased risk to public safety in our communities.

We have three discrete suggestions—and I'll be quick about this, noting my time—that will assist in bail without addressing bail delays.

First, in my respectful submission, Parliament can legislate a mandatory right to proceed with bail within 24 hours, if you're ready to go.

Second, adjournments for matters that are “not reached” should be outlawed right in the Criminal Code. Bail adjournment should only be granted if requested by the prosecution for legitimate investigative reasons.

Third, if those guarantees are not met, bail should be deemed not to be pursued by the Crown. Release should be granted, subject only to the mandatory conditions regarding weapons and protection of victims that exist in the Criminal Code.

I strongly urge the committee to consider some of these suggestions and to use this as an opportunity to address the real problems we have in our bail courts.

In my respectful submission, we can accomplish much more regarding public safety by adopting those measures than by some of the ones that are being publicly discussed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Spratt, please go ahead.

[Michael Spratt, Criminal Lawyer, partner at AGP LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation today.

I'm a criminal defence lawyer. I spend most of my time in court. I wish I could tell you that Canada's justice debates were guided by evidence, but they're not. Too often, they run on vibes and misinformation.

Lately, we've seen sweeping justice reforms proposed after a few high-profile cases, usually before the facts of those cases are fully known. That might be good politics, but it's bad policy-making.

We all remember the Zameer case in Toronto. When Mr. Zameer was released on bail, politicians and police leaders declared the system broken. The jury heard the evidence and found him not guilty. That's the entire point: Presumption of innocence matters. Bail is how a free society honours that principle while protecting the public. When we legislate before we know the facts, we don't fix the problem. We create new problems.

Let's talk about some facts.

First, bail's not easy to get. In Ottawa, my clients wait days and sometimes weeks just for a bail hearing. When there's serious violence and when there are breaches or weapons involved, police and Crowns rarely consent to the release. Bail courts take those cases very seriously. They look at the criminal record, the offence, the plan of supervision, the evidence and public safety. People are released, but calling this a catch-and-release system is a misrepresentation.

Second, even when release is granted, it's far more restrictive now than it used to be. Ontario has seen an expansion in the use of GPS monitoring, for example. Five years ago, it was exceptional; now, it's quite routine.

Third, we're detaining more people than ever. Our jails have never been fuller. About 80% of inmates in Ontario are in remand, awaiting a trial while presumed innocent.

Fourth, the conditions in remand are inhumane. Our courts have said so repeatedly. After an extensive review of prior cases, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found the conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre “fail to comport with basic standards of human decency.” Why? The court found that was “a deliberate policy choice to treat offenders in an inhumane fashion”. Just last month, the Ontario Court of Justice found things have gotten even worse. They haven't improved. It called the conditions “so appalling that it is hard to find words to adequately condemn them.”

My clients confirm what those judges have found. They are triple-bunked on the floor beside a toilet with no visits, no fresh air, endless lockdowns, no programs, no counselling and violence born of scarcity. If you were to design a system to increase reoffending, this would be it.

That should matter to everyone. People don't emerge from these conditions better citizens. They come out cut off from family, treatment, school, work and housing. They are more traumatized, less stable and, yes, more likely to reoffend.

On to some legislation and a myth we need to dispel. It's been a popular talking point to blame Bill C-75 and the codification of the principle of restraint for the so-called bail crisis. That's wrong in fact and law. Bill C-75 simply codified what the Supreme Court has already said. Restraint and the ladder principle aren't just suggestions; they're constitutional guardrails.

Let's be clear, proposals for mandatory detention or eliminating bail for certain offences run head-first into the Constitution. The Supreme Court has already struck down mandatory minimums for the same reason. They ignore the individualized, proportional analysis that the charter requires. They also don't work. Studies show this type of one-size-fits-all justice policy can actually increase the rate of reoffence. If the goal is safer communities, mandatory detention isn't the path. It's not the solution. It's just an illusion of one.

No system is perfect, so what could actually help? Let's go through these quickly.

One, with real bail supports, give the courts options beyond jail. Expand supervised bail beds and provide culturally competent supports and third party monitoring.

Two, with treatment on demand, fund in-patient and out-patient mental health and addiction treatment and tie that to bail and probation orders.

Three is smart compliance. Police budgets, have you noticed they always keep growing? How about we use some of that growth to actually do targeted checks on high-risk cases?

Four, use the tools you already have. If a court gets a decision wrong—sometimes courts get things wrong—you appeal it. That's how you fix errors without ripping up the charter.

Five, fix the jails. Remand conditions are a public safety issue.

Six, tell the truth. Wait for facts before rushing to a microphone.

Those accused of serious violence are already the most likely to be detained and the law already reflects that.