Justice Committee on Oct. 28th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Welcome, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 10 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

This meeting, like the previous ones, is being held in a hybrid format. Ms. Khalid, among others, is joining us online.

I know that members are familiar with the instructions. For the benefit of the witnesses though, please maintain a finger distance from the microphone, just to protect the hearing of the interpreters, as we do simultaneous interpretation into English or French, depending on the language of your preference.

For those on Zoom, I will assume but repeat that you're familiar with the “raise hand” function. Members here who want to ask the witnesses questions, raise your hand, and I will recognize you.

I'm not asking that questions go formally through the chair again. For purposes of a more dynamic conversation, it's okay to talk to the witnesses. Just be respectful of the dynamic. If I have to rein it in, obviously I will.

I have a bit of housekeeping, because we started with a 10- to 15-minute delay. I don't know if members prefer to go over or whether we will cut it at 6:30. We do have three hours today. We have plenty of time for the witnesses today in this round and in the next round. We'll just adjust on the fly, and I'll let you guys know what the cut-off time is to allow changeover so we get a full set of questions in to the witnesses.

For our first panel, we have with us Mr. and Mrs. Best, Ronald and Meechelle. From the Brantford Police Association, we have Jeremy Morton, president, and from the London Abused Women's Centre, we have Jennifer Dunn, executive director, via video conference. From the Police Association of Ontario, we have Mark Baxter, president.

I would like to remind the witnesses that they have five minutes to make their presentation.

Mr. and Mrs. Best, you have five minutes together.

Mr. Morton, Ms. Dunn and Mr. Baxter, you have five minutes each.

Afterwards, there will be a round of questions from committee members.

Mr. and Mrs. Best, I will let you start, and then I'll proceed with Mr. Morton, Ms. Dunn, and Mr. Baxter for five minutes each.

Thank you, and welcome.

[Meechelle Best, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing us to share our story of our beautiful daughter Kellie. My name is Meechelle. My husband Ron is beside me. We are here today as grieving parents.

At 28 years old, Kellie had built a full and beautiful life. She was a daughter, a sister, an aunt, a granddaughter, a fiancée, and a friend to many. She and her fiancé Travis were planning their dream wedding for this June. We were supposed to watch her walk down the aisle.

On January 15, our world stopped. Kellie was killed that day. We were on our way to meet her to prepare for her grandfather's funeral, who had passed just 48 hours earlier. Her fiancé Travis and I got the call from the RCMP, asking us to meet them. As we drove there, I called my husband and our son Michael. When we arrived, the RCMP told us the completely unthinkable—that our daughter was gone.

Over the next few days, we learned that the man who killed her had an active warrant for his arrest issued at the time of the incident. He had breached bail conditions for previous crimes involving drugs and theft. That morning, he had stolen a truck, driven it towards Portage la Prairie and caused a crash that killed my daughter. After the collision, he kicked out the truck's window and fled on foot. When he was caught, he had a large amount of methamphetamine in his system. He was taken into custody, appeared before a judge and, unbelievably, was later granted bail again. Despite his having killed our daughter while out on a warrant, the system decided to give him yet another chance.

We attended the bail hearing, along with our MLA, the mayor of Portage la Prairie, and family members. The judged ruled that he could be released to a behavioural health unit in Winnipeg, Manitoba, once a bed became available. He was ordered not to drive, not to use drugs and to follow the law. When the spot became available, he was transferred to that facility. We believe that, within hours, he had escaped again. To this day, we do not know how long he was in that facility.

When we found this out, my stomach sank with the same sick feeling I had the day Kellie was killed. My greatest fear was that he would hurt someone else or flee. Why wouldn't he? That behaviour was entirely predictable.

The judge had assured us that if he breached bail again, a warrant would be issued immediately, but there was already a warrant out for his arrest when he killed my daughter. What good are these reassurances? They mean nothing. This man was granted bail three times in two weeks before Christmas 2024. On New Year's Eve, he breached his conditions again, and a warrant was issued. In the 14 days before he killed my daughter, he stood before a judge three times. Three times he was given bail. Three times he walked away. Why does someone who shows no respect for the law, police, judges or society keep getting another chance?

We hear a lot these days about rights—constitutional rights, individual rights and the rights of the accused—but what about our rights? What we do know is that what we're doing right now is not working, and we need change. The definition of insanity is to continue to do the same things, in the same manner, repeatedly, and expect a different outcome. In my view, this is where we are in the criminal justice system. What about Kellie's right to safety? What about our right to live in a country where the laws protect the innocent people who contribute to our society? Who's defending those rights when repeat offenders are released again and again, only to reoffend, sometimes within hours?

Our communities are in crisis. Our justice system is broken and, somewhere along the way, we've started to accept this as normal. It's not normal, and it's not acceptable.

If you hear anything from me today, hear this: The cost of these failures is measured in lives, grief, trauma and the fear of repeat criminals on our streets. As a mother, as a Canadian, I expect better from my government. I expect that you will fix the system that keeps putting dangerous people back on our streets.

We need all of you to do the hard work. Fix our broken system. It's your job, and it's what we expect.

Thank you for having us here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Ms. Best.

Mr. Best, we have a minute or so, or perhaps a little more, if you want to say a few words.

[Ronald Best, As an Individual]

No. I think we can cover it in the questions we take. That's fine.

Thanks, Marc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Morton, it's over to you.

[Jeremy Morton, President, Brantford Police Association]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Jeremy Morton. I serve as president of the Brantford Police Association and represent 330 frontline police officers and civilian personnel who work proudly to serve the citizens of Brantford, Ontario.

I also want to acknowledge that I appear here as part of the broader Canadian Police Association, which represents more than 60,000 frontline police personnel across the country.

From large urban centres to small and mid-sized communities like mine, police associations are united in supporting meaningful, practical bail reform that addresses the ongoing challenges posed by serious violent repeat offenders.

The introduction of Bill C-14 last week by Minister of Justice Sean Fraser represents an important and welcome step in that direction. As CPA president Tom Stamatakis has said, this legislation responds to long-standing calls from police associations across Canada to strengthen public safety and ensure that individuals who repeatedly commit violent offences face appropriate consequences. We appreciate that the government has listened to these concerns and taken action.

In Brantford, as in many parts of Canada, our officers routinely arrest the same individuals multiple times in a single year. Those arrests are made professionally, reports are completed and cases are brought before the court, yet far too often these same offenders are released almost immediately, without sufficient supervision or consequences for breaching their conditions. This revolving door of arrest and release drains police resources, frustrates victims and erodes public confidence in the justice system.

That loss of confidence is not theoretical. It's something that we hear directly from residents and business owners, who are tired of seeing the same individuals reoffending in their neighbourhoods. It also affects the morale of officers, who take pride in their work and want to know that the system they serve is fair, effective and accountable.

Bill C-14 proposes targeted measures that will help address these issues, including strengthening bail provisions for repeat violent offenders and ensuring that community safety is a central consideration in release decisions. These are practical evidence-based reforms that can make a real difference in keeping our communities safe.

Of course, no piece of legislation will solve every problem on its own. Implementation will matter, and continued investments in police services, Crown attorneys and correctional personnel will be essential in making these changes effective, but Bill C-14 is a significant and positive start.

Finally, I want to emphasize that public safety should never be a partisan issue. Canadians expect their elected representatives to work together to find common-sense solutions that protect communities and respect the rights of all.

Police associations across Canada are encouraged to see this legislation introduced, and we urge Parliament to move quickly and collaboratively to ensure that these measures are passed into effect as soon as possible.

Mr. Chair, our members are doing their jobs. They're arresting dangerous offenders and bringing them before the courts. We are asking that the justice system now do its part and ensure that those efforts have a lasting impact.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Ms. Dunn, it's over to you for five minutes.

[Jennifer Dunn, Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to first address Mr. and Mrs. Best and say that I am so sorry for the loss of your daughter.

My name is Jennifer Dunn. I am the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre here in London, Ontario.

The London Abused Women's Centre is a non-residential centre that provides women and girls over the age of 12 who have been subjected to abuse by an intimate partner, assault, harassment, exploitation, trafficking or non-state torture with immediate access to long-term, trauma-informed counselling, advocacy and support.

For more than 42 years in London, Ontario, our organization has supported women and girls who have been subjected to male violence. Every day we see how decisions made within Canada's justice system shape women's safety and their faith in the system itself.

Today, I speak on behalf of survivors, their families and frontline workers who stand beside them. Bail and sentencing decisions are not abstract legal matters. For some women, they are life-or-death moments.

My first point is that bail must be trauma- and violence-informed. When a violent offender is released, survivors are often forced to relocate, leave work or lose their job, or live in hiding. These are not just disruptions; they are losses of safety, identity and stability.

Bail decisions must reflect an understanding that violence is rarely a single act. It is usually a pattern that continues even after charges are laid. A trauma- and violence-informed approach means recognizing that history and centring the victim's safety in every decision.

This does not mean denying bail in every case. It means assessing risk with depth and compassion and asking, “What will this decision mean, not only for the survivor's safety but potentially her life tonight, tomorrow and the next month?” It could be over the next couple of years, depending on how long this particular court case takes to get to trial.

My second point is to highlight Caitlin Jennings' story. In London, we remember Caitlin Jennings, a young woman whose life was taken in an act of femicide. Her case is a painful reminder of what can happen when the system fails to protect, but also of what happens when it works.

The man charged with Caitlin's death had a bail hearing in November 2023 and was denied bail. Superior Court Justice Leach denied bail after reading a two-hour decision. Colleagues and I sat in that court room supporting Caitlin's family, and we were relieved to know that he would be held in custody until his trial.

While that did not erase the tragedy of her loss, it gave her family and other survivors a measure of reassurance that the justice system could prioritize safety when the risk was clear. Caitlin's father said, “This is Step 1 in my healing and justice for Caitlin.” The trial isn't until September 2027. I could honestly not imagine this man out of custody for the next two years, knowing what I know.

Caitlin's story reminds us that decisions around bail should not only be procedural, because behind every court file are a woman, a family and a community living with the consequences.

My third point is that systems must work together and be equally funded. Meaningful reform cannot happen in isolation. The justice system, police and community support must be aligned and funded equally.

At present, the imbalance is stark. The criminal justice system receives the bulk of investment, while frontline social services are left to fundraise for survival. However, it is those services, such as counselling, safety planning, housing and advocacy that help survivors stay alive long enough to see justice happen. Without stable funding for social support, bail reform will remain a theory on paper. Safety depends on collaboration, not competition, between systems.

My fourth point is accountability and the role of sureties. Accountability is essential when bail is granted. Too often, high-risk offenders are released into the care of sureties who do not understand or cannot enforce their responsibilities.

At the London Abused Women's Centre, we worked with a woman whose perpetrator was released on bail with his mother as the surety. She had no control over his actions. She knew he breached conditions, but she did not report it. There were no consequences, and the victim's fear returned immediately. She could not leave her home without a safety plan. She couldn't even access our services without a safety plan. Sureties must receive clear information, training and oversight. There must be consequences for knowingly ignoring breaches.

My fifth point is around balancing safety and fairness. The London Abused Women's Centre is not necessarily advocating for mass incarceration. Overly punitive systems harm those who are already the most vulnerable, particularly indigenous and racialized individuals. We would like to call for targeted accountability.

High-risk, repeat, violent offenders must face detention, but justice reform must also include investment in prevention, education, trauma support, addiction support and the list goes on, through a trauma- and violence-informed lens that stops violence before it starts.

Safety and fairness are not competing values. They must coexist for justice to have legitimacy.

In closing, every woman deserves to live free from violence. Every child deserves to sleep safely at night, and every system, from the courtroom to the counselling office, shares that responsibility.

Reforming bail and sentencing is an opportunity to build a justice system that is trauma-informed, violence-informed and survivor-centred. It is an opportunity to ensure that when we ask, “Will this decision keep victims and communities safe?”, the answer is yes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Ms. Dunn.

We will move over to you, Mr. Baxter.

[Mark Baxter, President, Police Association of Ontario]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Just as I begin, Mr. and Mrs. Best, I would just like to commend you for your courage and the strength that you've shown in the face of the unimaginable loss of your daughter, Kellie. My sincere condolences go to you, to your family and to all those families who have been impacted as a result of violence committed by repeat and violent offenders.

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear here today on behalf of the Police Association of Ontario, representing more than 32,000 uniformed and civilian police personnel from 46 police associations right across the province, including the Brantford Police Association. Our members are the dedicated men and women who serve on the front lines, keeping our communities safe every single day.

Today I am here to address challenges that threaten public safety—our current bail system. As it stands, bail practices often allow violent and repeat offenders to be released back to the very neighbourhoods they have harmed, undermining public confidence and draining police resources. This is more than a procedural flaw. It is a cycle that emboldens offenders, increases community risk and perpetrates a dangerous pattern of apprehension, release and reoffending.

The frustration our members feel is echoed by the communities they serve. To many, the justice system has become more than a revolving door. It feels as though the door has been left wide open.

Recent data is cause for concern. Between 2019 and 2023, violent Criminal Code violations in Ontario increased by 20%. Nearly half of convicted offenders reoffend within three years, and violent repeat offences are on the rise. These numbers, combined with first-hand accounts from our members and victims, underscore the anxiety and frustration felt by Ontarians and the immense challenges facing those sworn to protect them.

The Police Association of Ontario has long advocated for practical, charter-compliant bail reform. We have called for evidence-based changes such as expanding the list of reverse onus offences to include violent auto theft, home invasions, human trafficking and more, lengthening the review period for prior convictions, and ensuring that the courts rigorously scrutinize bail plans before release. These are not abstract proposals. They are grounded in the realities that our members and community members face every day.

Both major political parties have recognized the urgency of bail reform. Public safety is not a partisan issue. Well-designed bail reform that balances charter rights with community protection is in everyone's interest.

The introduction of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act introduced last Thursday, October 23, marks a significant and long-awaited step forward. The bill addresses urgent shortcomings in our bail system. Its provisions—including new reverse onus rules for violent organized crime, stronger bail conditions and tougher sentencing for repeat violent offenders—respond directly to concerns raised by our members for years. This is an encouraging sign that the voices of frontline officers and the communities we serve are finally being heard at the highest level. These proposed reforms reflect the lived realities of our members, the experiences of victims and the expectations of the public, and they send a clear message that repeat and violent offending will not be tolerated in Ontario or across Canada.

Let me be clear. Without meaningful change, the safety of our communities and the lives of police officers and the public remain at an unacceptable level of risk. Each release of a violent offender increases the risk of tragedy in our communities. Ontario cannot wait for more lives to be put in jeopardy. Decisive action is needed now. We urge all parties to pass Bill C-14 immediately. Every day that this vital legislation is used as a political bargaining chip or a sound bite during question period leaves real lives on the line. Mothers, daughters, fathers, sons, sisters, brothers, friends and families across Ontario deserve action, not politics.

On behalf of the 46 police associations that we very proudly represent, I thank the Government of Canada for taking concrete steps to strengthen public safety and support those who work every day to protect it. Ontario's police personnel will continue to do our part in our communities, in the courts and on the front lines to keep people safe. We look forward to working together to ensure that these reforms are implemented effectively and deliver the results that Ontarians and Canadians expect and deserve. Together, we can and we must build safer communities and ensure that these reforms deliver a justice system that protects victims, not offenders.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

We'll get a chance to go through probably two complete rounds, starting off with Mr. Brock for six minutes and then Ms. Lattanzio for six.

Next, Mr. Fortin will have the floor for six minutes.

In the second round of questions, the speaking order will be as follows: Mr. Lawton for five minutes, Mr. Chang for five minutes, Mr. Fortin for two and a half minutes, Mr. Leslie for five minutes and Mr. Chang for five minutes.

Mr. Brock, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to all of our witnesses. Thank you for participating.

To Mr. and Mrs. Best, I am heartbroken. I am angry and disgusted that I was once a member of a justice system that has failed you so miserably.

To really emphasize that point, every time that offender who took your daughter's life appeared in front of a judge and was granted bail, he promised to follow those conditions; and if he was released with a surety, that surety also promised that he would abide by those conditions.

These are false promises that are given every single day in this country, and the justice system accepts them at face value. They will often sometimes give warnings—“Should you breach these conditions, you ought not to expect to be released a second time or a third time or a fourth time”—and history and example after example show us that these are promises that are not fulfilled; consequences are not given to offenders.

If you could tell the government what the most important thing is to you as survivors of a loss such as you've suffered, what would you tell this committee when we write our report to the House?

[Ronald Best]

It would be nice to have the criminals become accountable, no different from the way we're accountable as members of society. We sat in on a bail hearing. The accused sat in a small cubicle in the detention facility, and it was like, “Jeez, are we done yet?” He was not engaged. He was not listening. He did not care.

The bail hearing had to be extended with an apology of the justice, because the defence lawyer, for 40 minutes—I'm not sure if he took three breaths—would not stop talking. As a result, we had to go back three days later, and then he was provided bail. Again, there was no emotion. There was nothing. There was no feeling.

It's a slap in the face to the government that passed these features that we're living with today. It's a slap in the face to the police force, who have to deal with these people. It's—

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

I'm going to stop you right there. He showed no emotion.

[Ronald Best]

None.

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

He showed no care, because he knew he was getting out. That's what this Liberal government's failed justice policies for the last 10 years have instilled within the criminal element in this country. It has emboldened criminals to do exactly what they are doing, terrorizing communities.

Thank you for that.

To the officers, both of you spoke about first steps. This was a good first step, the government introducing Bill C-14, but you both acknowledged that while it talks about making it tougher for individuals to obtain bail...the same language that they used with the disastrous rollout of Bill C-48, by expanding the list of reverse onus charges.... When you had members of the government, including the prime minister of the day and the former justice minister, proudly stating, “We delivered bail reform. These repeat violent criminals are going to be detained,” we know that was a false promise, a false declaration, because we found ourselves right where we are right now, with catch-and-release.

Will you both agree with me that there is not a pathway in Bill C-14 for automatic detention—yes or no?

[Jeremy Morton]

I would agree with you, yes.

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

It still vests discretion for bail matters in judges, particularly when you're dealing with violent repeat offenders to still be granted bail. The bill clearly states that when a justice makes a decision to release, it has to be on the least onerous conditions. I want to talk about that, because it's one thing that we're not talking about in this committee—the sufficiency and the degree by which conditions need to be established.

I have heard horror stories across this country of judges refusing to list conditions because it's an invitation to breach, or they're not addressing conditions reflective of the crime and the impact to the community or the victims, or they're making a joke of the promise to pay by requiring offenders to pay 5¢.

This is what's happening in downtown Toronto as we speak.

Do you think that type of activism by our judges is appropriate to deal with community and victim safety?

[Mark Baxter]

I think there's lots of work that we can still do around sureties.

In the Antic decision, it said that a pledge for a deposit performs the same function as actually giving a deposit.

Quite frankly, that's nonsense.

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

Do you agree with that?

[Mark Baxter]

No, it's nonsense.

We need to do more work around sureties. We need to ensure that some sort of deposit is received by the court. We need to ensure that we're doing proper checks on sureties, that we don't have these career sureties showing up time and time again, vouching for someone who's been accused of an offence, saying they're going to ensure that they abide by their conditions while knowing that they've put a pledge for a deposit and they're never going to have to pay that. It's never going to be collected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Baxter.

Ms. Lattanzio, you have six minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first comments are for Mr. and Mrs. Best.

Let me start by saying how deeply sorry I am for your loss. Your family's story is quite devastating, to say the least. It shows how devastating it can be when someone who has a long record of breaking bail is released.

You heard us speak about Bill C-14, which was introduced last week by the Minister of Justice and which strengthens and makes bail and sentencing tougher. It was also made with the scope of preventing the incidents that happened in your family from happening again. It would require the courts to consider the offender's history and past breaches of violence before granting release.

From your perspective, how critical is the change to ensure that no other family goes through what you've gone through?

[Ronald Best]

It's an important step. This is a beginning, to establish a framework. Once it's passed, then that framework—as we carry forward any deficiencies as a result of the experiences—can be tailored to protect society.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Would you like to...?