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.