Justice Committee on Oct. 28th, 2025

[Thomas Carrique, Commissioner, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Good afternoon.

Thank you, honourable Chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has continually advocated for legislative improvements to advance public safety. It is encouraging that the government is proposing amendments to the Criminal Code to create safer communities, enhance officer safety, and improve trust and confidence in the justice system. There have been many egregious examples of repeat and violent offenders out on bail who commit additional offences, including homicide, such as in the December 2022 murder of Ontario Provincial Police constable Greg Pierzchala.

I addressed this committee just two years ago on the issue of bail reform. While some amendments were brought about by the introduction of Bill C-48, it's evident that our work to ensure the safety and security of our communities is not done. The recent legislative proposals regarding bail and sentencing are welcomed by the CACP, which has repeatedly advocated specific changes.

In particular, we called for the broadening of reverse onus provisions for bail-related offences that are violent or serious in nature. It's encouraging that the proposed legislation before the House recognizes the importance of this amendment, particularly with respect to offenders who commit violent offences or weapons offences or those connected to organized crime. Direction regarding the principle of restraint and clarity that the latter principle does not apply to reverse onus are necessary protections to address public safety. Jurists must be given direction on how to properly apply the reverse onus provisions and the strength of evidence an accused must present to meet it. It is the CACP's position that the burden of proof in certain reverse onus bail hearings should require clear and convincing evidence before the accused person may be released. The standard falls between a balance of probabilities and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The CACP also advocates for new tertiary ground considerations when an accused faces multiple charges for failing to comply with release conditions. Bill C-14 will require the courts to consider the number or seriousness of any outstanding charges when determining whether to release an offender. This consideration, while recognizing that accused persons have a presumption of innocence, sensibly addresses the need to weigh the rights of the accused against the protection of society and the safety of Canadians.

Additionally, the CACP recommends including strengthening the estreatment process to require specific information from a proposed surety, and a limiting of judicial discretion as to the forfeiture of the entire amount pledged. A more rigid forfeiture process compels accused persons to comply with their conditions and spares their sureties financial hardship. A surety is only as effective as the consequences of a breach are meaningful.

The CACP has further recommended an appeal mechanism by the Court of Appeal for section 525 detention reviews, since there is currently no ability for the Crown to seek a review of that decision apart from appealing directly to the Supreme Court.

We are pleased with the intentions to address sentencing in Bill C-14, in particular sentences associated with serious sexual offences. The consecutive sentencing provisions are a positive step towards addressing repeat and violent offenders in our judicial system.

Also important is the primary sentencing objective of denunciation and deterrence for second and subsequent convictions relating to organized crime, auto theft or break-and-enter offences.

The CACP continues to call for tougher penalties for intimate partner violence, along with firearm offences, including the smuggling and trafficking of firearms.

While the Supreme Court has previously ruled on the constitutional periods for parole ineligibility, the courts could be provided with direction to lengthen parole ineligibility periods or assign dangerous offender designations for multiple murder convictions.

We believe that still more can be done to address the issue of repeat and violent offenders and to combat organized crime. The CACP strongly supports the intention of the proposed legislative reform to ensure bail and sentencing deters crime, protects law-abiding Canadians and strengthens victims' rights.

In the interests of public safety, I urge the members of this committee and all members of Parliament to work together, without delay, to enact the meaningful legislative change regarding bail and sentencing found in Bill C-14. The CACP is calling on Parliament to come together and collectively prioritize public safety in consultation with those who understand it through lived experience and operational expertise.

Thank you. Meegwetch. I look forward to any questions you may have for me, honourable Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Rivard, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Patrick Rivard, Director, Canadian Operations, Center for Trauma Informed Practices]

Thank you, honourable Chair.

Thank you all for your work, which is really important.

I will speak English, but I wanted to start by greeting you with "bonjour".

I really come to you not only as an expert in threat assessment and trauma response but also as a citizen and a community member in Canada. I really thank you for your work and this important conversation.

The Center for Trauma Informed Practices is a Canadian organization that works with multidisciplinary professionals, starting with our police officers, our probation officers and a lot of mental health workers. We train many folks across Canada—it's 70,000, to give an estimate right about now—in really understanding the importance of having a collaborative approach to determining the issue of risk and risk assessment.

The words “risk assessment” come with really a lot of interpretation, and we're asking the committee to consider having a little more of a collaborative approach around our definition of risk assessment and the data the courts are using to make informed decisions around repeat offenders, etc.

Our models are very much situated to fit into this conversation, to provide professionals with data-based decision-making, and to use multisectoral data assessments to make decisions around what we would refer to as the IOC—the individual of concern.

Inside this conversation, what I would also just observe in our work.... Our research is based on about 45,000 cases of what we would determine as moderate- to high-risk cases where there is a risk of violence or a risk to public safety, spanning from youth—school-aged children—to adults in some communities as well.

One of the limitations in the work and in doing collaborative work and really determining risk is the ability for professionals to share information among themselves. Again, it's an invitation to look at some of the legislation around what we can say among professionals to determine risk. There are some challenges inside of that, and I want to be clear when I present that I'm talking about when there is a clear, direct and plausible threat to public safety. The legislation does allow people to share information, but too often it doesn't occur.

I'm speaking to my police colleagues a lot of times. I'm in Toronto right now, doing some work with them. The other limitation I hear in practice from my colleagues is when searchability becomes an issue. We may have a lot of ideas around risk and dangerousness, where a weapon might be held in a room or somewhere, and our police are struggling to be able to even execute exigent circumstances in the Criminal Code.

Therefore, I'm asking—on their behalf in a lot of ways, and based on 45,000 cases—that you maybe have a look at those kinds of restrictions that are placed around determining risk and dangerousness.

Inside the work we do, we differentiate between risk assessment and determining if someone is dangerous. What often happens—and what we've been observing—is that sometimes the decisions made around bail are based on criminal history and not history of violence. Somebody can have a history of criminality and actually be at moderate risk in terms of being dangerous.

However, there sometimes can be situations where somebody has basically never had a history of criminality but is extremely dangerous. The litmus paper test for maybe a bail restraint or a condition around bail is generally focused on a history of criminality, so the information we would provide the courts goes beyond a history of criminality. We looked at a concept. I don't have time to train everyone, of course, with five minutes, but it's the concept of a baseline.

On the concept of somebody's baseline, somebody who's engaging in pathways to violence, is there a typical pathway to violence? The rule in our work is that, if they've shifted in their pathway, if they've switched their target selection, then there are higher levels of dangerousness and risk based on what they're doing.

I know I'm running out of time, but I do want to share with you—and I heard it before from some of my colleagues—that the need for collaborative work in communities is something that we see and that we do well at CTIP. We have over 500 protocols in this country where multidisciplinary professionals work together—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Rivard, I'm sorry, but I have to cut you off.

It went way over, but perhaps a member can follow up on that and ask you a question so that you can continue your thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you, indeed, to all of the witnesses.

We'll start off the first round with six minutes each, starting with you, Roman, and then James for six minutes.

Mr. Fortin will then have the floor for six minutes.

In the second round, Mr. Lawton, Ms. Lattanzio, Mr. Fortin, Mr. Brock and Mr. Chang will have the floor for five minutes each. It will even be possible to have a third round before 6:30 p.m.

Mr. Baber, the floor is yours.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Commissioner Carrique, welcome.

You are here leading a force of almost 6,000 uniformed officers. I thank you for your service, and I salute your work.

You may know that I used to serve in Ontario's provincial legislature, and I followed the OPP very closely. It's important that your officers possess high morale on the job. Is it fair to say that Canada's bail and sentencing laws dampen the morale of your officers?

[Thomas Carrique]

Yes, sir, that is very fair to say.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Tell us a bit about that.

[Thomas Carrique]

You can imagine that.... Officers are risking their personal safety day in and day out, they're risking the sanctity of their families, their psychological and emotional well-being, when dealing with repeat and violent offenders. When these perpetrators are brought before the courts, and when they are released and the officers can clearly see an elevated risk—they're released into communities, and they further victimize innocent, law-abiding Canadians, including police officers in the lawful execution of their duties—it is very demoralizing for our officers.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Commissioner, too often we hear of one of our OPP heroes choosing to take their own life. Can you please tell us why you think that is happening?

[Thomas Carrique]

That is a very complex thing to try to even put into context. I don't know that it belongs before this discussion here this evening, sir.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I appreciate that, sir.

Can you please tell me what this committee can do and what Parliament can do to strengthen morale in the OPP?

[Thomas Carrique]

Bring about these bail and sentencing changes as quickly as possible. We are so encouraged right now. We saw the Conservatives bring forward Bill C-242. We saw the Liberals bring forward Bill C-14. There's a joint interest in improving public safety across party lines. That has motivated and inspired law enforcement professionals.

If we can actually get the job done and make the meaningful changes that are being highlighted, incorporating the suggestions that your law enforcement witnesses are bringing forward, you will bring a dramatic improvement to police morale, and more importantly, you will improve public safety.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Commissioner, I gather you welcome the expansion of the list of the reverse onus offences, but Bill C-48 had already done that with respect to a number of offences, and even with respect to those offences we've still witnessed catch-and-release policies.

What, if anything, gives you the confidence that Bill C-14 will not have the same results as Bill C-48?

[Thomas Carrique]

I am encouraged by the direction and the clarity that appear to be present in Bill C-14. It clearly gives direction around the parameters of reverse onus and highlights the things that need to be considered, like tertiary grounds.

I believe that we're going to need to monitor it. I don't know how effectively, as a society, we have monitored the impacts of Bill C-48 and been committed to making quick changes, as opposed to the five-year commitment that's embedded in the legislation to review the effectiveness of it.

This is public safety, and it can't wait five years. We need to be constantly monitoring how these implications are affecting Canadians, and we need to be making the necessary changes.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Commissioner, the challenge I see with Bill C-14 is that it does not clarify the burden of proof in the reverse onus offences, nor does it completely remove the ladder principle, which requires judges to propose the least restrictive terms of release. What do you say to that?

[Thomas Carrique]

As I indicated in my opening statement, we believe there is room to further clarify that burden of proof to be clear and convincing evidence that an accused will not violate a bail plan. We absolutely endorse further clarity around the ladder principle and ensuring that it is not applied in reverse onus circumstances.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I know that in advance of this legislation, various police forces from across the country urged the Liberal government to modify the cash requirement for bail to ensure that bail is complied with or else real money is forfeited. Are you disappointed that Bill C-14 is silent on cash bail?

[Thomas Carrique]

I was very optimistic that proposed legislation would include addressing the frailties in the surety process. That does not appear to be contained in the 80-odd changes to the Criminal Code. We would welcome further discussion as to how we could see those amendments implemented.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Commissioner, we had a defence lawyer at committee last week, a professional who as a citizen was perplexed that violent offenders are able to be granted parole after serving one-third of their sentence again and again. Regrettably, we don't see any action on parole from this Liberal government in Bill C-14.

Would you urge the government to reconsider that? What do you see as the challenge with parole, and how do you propose that we address that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

You have time for a very brief answer, Commissioner.

[Thomas Carrique]

Very briefly, I would encourage much further discussion on that. We at the CACP would be happy to assist.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Go ahead, Mr. Maloney.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today to talk about this issue that we all agree is very important.

Commissioner Carrique, I want to say thank you, first of all, for your enthusiastic support for Bill C-14.

I want to talk to you about two things you mentioned right off the top. One of them is the principle of restraint, and the other is the success of Bill C-48 and the monitoring component. The witness we had last week, to whom Mr. Baber just referred, is a criminal lawyer from Ontario. His evidence was that the principle of restraint is not anything new. The codification was simply a reflection of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling, and it's been around for generations. That was his evidence. He said that it hasn't affected his practice one iota. He approaches it the same now as he always has.

Officer Wall, you referred to repealing Bill C-75. I assume you were referring to the principle of restraint. You weren't referring to the provisions dealing with gender-based violence.

First of all, Commissioner, I want to ask you this: Do you agree with that lawyer's assessment of the principle of restraint?

[Thomas Carrique]

Not having heard the lawyer's testimony, I will just say that I feel that the principle of restraint needs to be clarified. There needs to be direction to police and the judiciary that it does not mean mandatory release.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

I'm glad you went there, because I've had many discussions with frontline officers in Toronto about Bill C-75, trying to understand what it is they have trouble with. The trouble, they tell me, time and time again, is that they were not trained or given any education on what it actually means. As a result, they've interpreted it as somehow meaning that people should just get out easily. That's not what the bill says. That's not what the legislation says. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Having said that, you've reviewed Bill C-14. The bill addresses some of that component of the principle of restraint in giving frontline officers and people involved in the criminal justice system that type of information and that type of education, which will prevent the type of approach you're concerned about. Would you agree with that?