Justice Committee on Oct. 28th, 2025

[Meechelle Best]

I think the other thing is that it's still giving the judge the opportunity to make a decision. Our judges need stricter criteria when they're making those decisions.

For example, she could still have let Mr. Hilton out, the three times or whatever, but what we saw from those three times was that there was actual escalation of the charges from the first one to the third one. However, it was still okay for that judge to make that decision.

If there were some clearer guidelines put in place each time—if there's an escalation, if there are drugs, whatever.... Our judges need more support besides just their discretion. That's not good enough.

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

My next question is for you, Mr. Morton.

From your frontline experience, how would Bill C-14's bail reforms change what officers face from day to day in keeping communities safe?

[Jeremy Morton]

In Brantford, as I stated in my opening comments, we are often arresting the same individuals repeatedly, and they have an outsized impact on both the police service and the criminal justice system.

If you look at the crime severity index that was posted for 2024 and the comments made by our chief, Chief Saunders, a decrease in the crime severity index can often be caused by one or two individuals being detained in custody, which causes those charges or offences to stop happening while those individuals are in custody. Keeping those repeat violent offenders in custody helps protect the rights of the victims and the community.

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

How would you say Bill C-14 delivers on the concerns raised by police officers?

[Jeremy Morton]

I would say that Bill C-14 addresses quite a few concerns that the Police Association of Ontario has been raising over the last several years in regard to expanding reverse onus bail hearings. That's along with the fact that it's making more stringent conditions for judges or justices of the peace to retain individuals in custody.

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

In your opinion, would consecutive sentencing also help?

[Jeremy Morton]

I would say that consecutive sentencing, if used appropriately, would help indeed.

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

Okay.

We've heard time and time again that there's a coordination between provinces and the federal government. In your opinion, what would that coordination mean? Do you believe it is needed to ensure that these reforms work on the ground?

[Jeremy Morton]

I believe that a standardized training program....

I was shocked to learn that justices of the peace don't have standardized training across Canada. I believe that such a program would be instrumental in making sure that the Criminal Code, along with the charter, is properly applied when dealing with repeat violent offenders.

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

Can you give us a little more detail on what the training would entail? What would you want to see in terms of the training, specifically?

[Jeremy Morton]

Currently, as I stated, I don't believe there's any standardized training for justices of the peace across Canada. It would be nice to see training specifically around maybe the ladder principle, along with the opportunity to ensure that sureties are staying in compliance and to address the concerns of not having the individuals just out.

As President Baxter said, the professional sureties who come in have not had any interaction with these individuals for quite some time, and then they're vouching that they're going to keep an eye on them, with no real consequences if those individuals end up breaching those conditions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being with us today. I also offer my deepest condolences to Ms. and Mr. Best on the passing of their daughter.

Currently, in order to release an accused pending their next court appearance, the judge must assess three criteria. First, do we think there is a risk that the accused will not show up at his next court appearance? Second, is the accused a threat to public safety? Third, would his release undermine public confidence in the administration of justice? Those are the three criteria that are in place.

Currently, to deny bail, the Crown must prove there is a risk that the accused will not appear in court, that they are a threat to the public or that their release could bring the administration of justice into disrepute. However, we are talking about reversing the burden of proof, that is to say asking the accused to prove that he will be present at his trial, that he is not a threat to the public, and so on.

Mr. Baxter, in your opinion, will the reverse onus change anything? If so, could you elaborate?

[Mark Baxter]

Sure. Thank you.

On reverse onus offences, first of all, what we're talking about here are limited scenarios in which the starting point for violent repeat offenders is detention and then the onus is on them to show why they should be released from custody.

Along with clarification of how justices should be applying the ladder principle—the principle of least restraint—it seems to me that once this bill becomes law, it's going to have a real impact on this group of people that we're talking about, who are continuing to victimize our communities.

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

If I understand correctly, in your opinion, we could keep more people behind bars before their trial if we implemented this proposal to reverse the burden of proof. Is that what you are telling me?

[Mark Baxter]

Yes, that is the intent. We would detain people who have met the criteria of dangerous, violent and repeat offenders. We would hold them in custody ahead of their trial, so they can't be out revictimizing communities.

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

The Canadian Bar Association claims that the proposed reverse onus is unnecessary. Do you have an opinion on that? Have you discussed this with the Canadian Bar Association?

[Mark Baxter]

I have not spoken with anyone from the Canadian Bar Association about this.

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

Currently, statistics show that 72% of inmates are detained pending trial, not as a result of a conviction. Only 28% of the prison population has been convicted of a crime, which shows that our prisons are mainly used to detain people who have not been convicted of a crime. Does this statistic concern you?

[Mark Baxter]

We have to ensure that we have safe communities, and the way that we have safe communities in the face of repeat and violent offenders, those accused of the most serious offences and violent crimes, is that they remain in custody until their trial. That is how we can keep our communities safe. We see far too often that people who are accused of the very serious violent offences of terrorizing and victimizing communities are released, and they continue to commit these same or similar violent offences.

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

I appreciate that.

Mr. Baxter, what we are talking about is the seriousness of the charges. However, if the Crown prosecutor decides to charge someone with homicide, for example, that does not necessarily mean that the individual is guilty. Do you not think it would be wiser to apply the reverse onus provision only to repeat offenders? Instead of asking an individual who does not have a criminal record, but who, rightly or wrongly, is accused of a serious crime to prove that he meets the criteria for bail, should this requirement not be reserved for repeat offenders, in other words, for the accused who have previously been convicted of similar crimes? Would our justice system be more balanced that way?

[Mark Baxter]

I think, first of all, that the Crown does not decide who it wants to charge or who it wants to accuse. The police have gathered evidence. They've conducted a criminal investigation, and through that investigation they've determined that they have reasonable probable grounds to believe that someone has committed an offence—

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

I am sorry to interrupt. I do not mean to be rude, but time is running out. I think I have barely a minute left.

I understand what you are saying, and I have no doubt that the police do a good job. I am just saying that we are trying to strike a balance between public safety and respect for individual freedoms. Consequently, should the reoffending, rather than the seriousness of the charges, be the criterion for reversing the burden of proof?

[Mark Baxter]

Yes, I think we can use both. I think we should be looking at the seriousness as well as at the repeat offenders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

The second round of questions now begins in the following order: Mr. Lawton, Mr. Chang, Mr. Fortin, Mr. Leslie and Mr. Chang.

Andrew, it's up to you.