Justice Committee on Oct. 28th, 2025

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

Okay. My time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Carrique, I would like to hear your comments on the issue of rehabilitation. In your opinion, are we currently able to rehabilitate offenders in our penitentiaries and prisons, or is rehabilitation an illusion?

[Thomas Carrique]

First off, I think rehabilitation is possible, and I think it should be a key component of an effective justice system.

I am not a subject matter expert on the rehabilitation programs that are being offered in correctional facilities. It's a question better answered by those who are administering those programs. Suffice it to say that they are important and they can work.

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

I have about a minute left.

Going back to the bail conditions, I understand that people accused of violent crimes should be detained rather than released. Should other criteria besides the type of charge be taken into consideration?

Also, what do you think about the fact that 72% of our prisons are currently occupied by people who have not yet been convicted and are awaiting trial? It seems odd to me.

[Thomas Carrique]

Bail should include both repeat and violent offenders.

We have trends happening across this country with increases in property crimes, whether they be organized retail theft rings or otherwise, fraud or crimes that are victimizing Canadians. It should apply to repeat and violent offenders.

The number of people incarcerated and awaiting trial is not necessarily indicative of the bail process. It can also be indicative of a lack of deterrence in sentencing. You need to look at the two in concert. We need to deter the crime in the first place and, when they are convicted, have strong enough sentences that we do not have repeats.

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

Are people currently being properly supervised when they are released?

[Thomas Carrique]

It depends on the circumstances and the situation.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

Commissioner, for four-plus years we have heard from premiers of every province, police chiefs, presidents of police associations, mayors and victim advocacy groups, all asking the government to do their job: keep Canadians safe and introduce appropriate bail legislation that is actually going to make a difference.

I know that you must be deeply disappointed that Bill C-48 has not had the desired impact. The former justice minister claimed that they had delivered bail reform. The proof is in the pudding: Every day we wake up to one heartbreaking story after another of someone on bail committing carnage on our streets across Canada.

We were all hopeful that the government finally got the message with the introduction of Bill C-14. The title of Bill C-14 is the “bail and sentencing reform act”. To your point, sir, earlier you said there have been 80 changes to the Criminal Code. This bill is some 35 pages long, and there's hardly a mention of any sentencing reform, apart from talking about “consecutive” sentences for “violent...motor vehicle theft”, the commission of a break and enter offence, “extortion” and “arson”.

Apart from that, apart from making certain offences an aggravating feature on sentencing, we have one sentencing reform. I don't know if you caught it. It's embedded in this act and—wait for it—it's one of the most serious violent offences in this country, called “contempt of court”. I say that facetiously, because the government wasted a precious opportunity.

I'll eventually be talking to the president of the Crown association in B.C., whose province is suffering an extreme rise in extortion.

Here was an opportunity. What do you say to the government about these missed opportunities when important stakeholders have been giving advice to the government repeatedly for the last four years?

[Thomas Carrique]

Our commitment is to continue to work towards seeing further improvements in sentencing. These are not the changes we were hoping for in totality, as related to sentencing, and, as in my previous comments, you have to look at it as a holistic system. If you don't fix sentencing, fixing bail is not going to be the complete solution. There needs to be deterrence, and that comes through appropriate sentencing. There's more work to be done, and we're willing to assist with that work.

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

Thank you for that.

To turn matters over to Mr. Dalrymple, thank you so much for agreeing to testify today, sir. This has been a missing piece of the puzzle so far, as part of our bail and sentencing study. We've heard from defence counsel, academics, law schools, etc., but we have yet to receive any input from Crown associations in this province, so I do thank you for your attendance.

I would agree with you, sir, that this is not a one-size-fits-all issue. We have to work together—all three levels of government—to improve our criminal justice system. From one Crown to another, I feel like I'm isolated in the House of Commons when I repeatedly describe the reality of being in the trenches, day in and day out, and hearing from politicians who think it's manna from heaven when the government introduces more reverse onus provisions to criminal charges. Can you provide some realistic thought on what really happens at a bail hearing when presented with a reverse onus or a Crown onus situation, and the impact of the releases that we see in light of Bill C-75?

[Adam Dalrymple]

First, thank you, Mr. Brock, for your comments. As someone who has done bail, I can tell you that every case, as you know, is very different. There are so many different factors dependent on the strength of the case and the personality of the individuals in the court. Of course, the judge ultimately gets to make the final decision.

Here's the thing: When the federal government passes new laws or makes new offences, they are creating more work for frontline people. If you're not prepared to make the investments on the front lines, to drill down, to figure out how is this going to impact the prosecutors in the courtroom.... Are they able to take on more cases? Do the police officers have the resources to investigate more offences? Then, for prosecutors to carry those through to court and prosecute them, if we don't have that investment, there's very little that may change. We can't urge you more than.... We need the federal government to step up and support frontline positions, whether that means sending money to the provinces or ensuring that the provinces have the people to carry out and enforce these laws. When there are changes to the law that are going to spark a lot of litigation, as you're probably aware, we should expect that defence counsel may constitutionally challenge some of these changes. Ask yourself—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Dalrymple. It's gone over. You'll probably have an opportunity later. We have time for another round if we keep things tight.

Mr. Chang, you have five minutes.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner, from your perspective, would you say that Bill C-14 demonstrates that the federal government has listened to law enforcement and acted decisively to protect Canadians?

[Thomas Carrique]

I would say that, yes, Bill C-14 indicates that the federal government has listened to law enforcement and intends to act decisively. The proof will be in how quickly this legislation is enacted.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you. You also mentioned that you are seeing more bail releases. Is it fair to say that's exactly the gap Bill C-14 is designed to close, by expanding reverse onus provisions and tightening bail for repeat violent offenders, so that police will see fewer of those high-risk individuals released?

[Thomas Carrique]

Yes, I do believe that the intention is to reduce the number of high-risk offenders who are released and able to perpetrate further harm to communities. That should be the intention of any effective bail process.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you. Would you urge all parties to support Bill C-14, and why?

[Thomas Carrique]

I would urge all parties to work together to enact the necessary legislation to address the deficiencies in bail and sentencing. Bill C-14 is a really good start, but there needs to be more if we're going to be truly effective.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you.

My next question goes to Mr. Rivard.

Your organization focuses on trauma-informed practices. How can these principles complement stronger bail and sentencing measures, such as those in Bill C-14?

[Patrick Rivard]

I was listening intently to the entry point of how decisions are made through the court systems. Our organization can help in terms of what data is collected to determine risk. Provide that to Crowns so that they have a more broad view of somebody on a pathway to violence and understand the multiple pathways to violence that somebody is engaged in.

Again, it's understanding that, yes, a history of violence is an important indicator to determine dangerousness, for example, but at the same time, in our work post the Columbine and Taber, Alberta, school shootings, for example, we do understand that some people who are dangerous have no history of violence. Our information and our trainings are all about helping Crowns and judges make better-informed decisions and actually trauma-informed decisions, if need be.

The safety of the community has to be first, 100%.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you.

How can the federal and provincial governments work together to make sure that more people in the justice system have access to trauma-informed supports?

[Patrick Rivard]

I think that comes down to your continued support through Public Safety Canada, ensuring that multiple partners continue to provide some really fundamental training and assisting people in collectively—again, I keep saying “collectively”—determining risk and assessing risk for individuals on pathways to violence.