Justice Committee on Jan. 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Good afternoon, everybody.

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 15 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of November 18, 2025, the committee is meeting to begin the study of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using Zoom, although there is no one on Zoom today.

Before we start, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. The comments about Zoom don't apply, so I'll skip that. This is quite easy today.

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today.

In the first hour, we have the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Thank you for attending, Minister.

Along with the minister, I would like to welcome our witnesses for today's first hour from the Department of Justice. They are Owen Ripley, senior assistant deputy minister, policy sector; Matthew Taylor, senior general counsel and director general, criminal law policy section; and Chelsea Moore, team lead and senior counsel, criminal law policy section.

Minister, again, welcome. I will turn the floor over to you, sir, for your opening remarks.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You have 10 minutes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you so much.

I want to wish everyone a happy new year.

I'll endeavour to take less than the time allotted to allow more time for questions, knowing that I have a hard stop at 5:30 and I don't want to avoid the questions you may have or be seen to avoid them.

Let me start out by saying that crime and criminal justice reform are obviously pressing priorities for Canadians who have experienced certain challenges in their communities in different parts of the country that demand the attention of the Government of Canada. The fact that they're a priority for Canadians has made them a priority for the Government of Canada, which is why we've conducted ourselves with commitment to the cause from the moment this government took office, by advancing new laws as part of a broader strategy to improve public safety.

Before I get into the specifics on the bail and sentencing reform act, which we're here to discuss today, it's helpful to situate it in the context of the broader public safety strategy.

The first pillar of this strategy is in fact to adopt stronger criminal laws to help promote safety in our communities. That includes, of course, the combatting hate act, the bail and sentencing reform act and, apropos of the timing, the protecting victims act, which is being debated in the House of Commons this week.

In addition to adopting significant reforms to Canada's criminal laws, we're also making additional investments in the front line to help promote safety in our communities. This includes major investments in the RCMP, with 1,000 new officers, and major investments in the border, with 1,000 new CBSA officers, but it also includes support for frontline organizations, particularly those that support survivors of violence and victims of crime.

In addition to these supports on the front line, we are looking at making upstream investments that will have a positive impact on violent crime in the long term. This includes investments in mental health and addictions. It includes investments in affordable housing and supportive housing. It includes programs that target at-risk youth and infrastructure that helps build stronger communities and healthier people, which will promote public safety in the long term.

It is vital to respond to the priorities of Canadians, for whom crime is a very important community issue. The strategy includes the three aspects I just mentioned in English.

When we have an opportunity to reform criminal justice, we must make the most of it and bring about changes that will protect our communities.

The bill we're here to discuss today is on what I would suggest is perhaps the biggest political priority for Canadians when it comes to criminal justice reform, which is addressing the challenges in bail and sentencing that Canadians are calling for. Indeed, the measures we've included in this bill are gaining the support of law enforcement organizations, police, those who work in the courts, provincial governments of different parties from different regions, municipalities and other actors within the justice system.

Though the long-term solutions to public safety can be very nuanced, this bill has at its core two main themes: bail and sentencing.

When it comes to bail, there are a number of measures that I want to draw your attention to.

The first is changing the way we deal with the principle of restraint by directing courts to ensure they're considering the public safety imperative and communicating that release is not mandatory, but that, in fact, if public safety cannot be managed, there are grounds to detain a person who appears before the court at a bail hearing.

We are also urging the court to consider new factors, including not only the seriousness of a charge that a person may be facing, but also the number of charges they have faced in history, to ensure we're dealing with violent crime, but also with very high-volume offenders who are changing the dynamic of downtown cores across the country.

We also seek to impose new conditions on bail. They follow largely the offence to which they're tied. When it comes to organized crime, having non-communication orders seems like a good idea. When it comes to people who have been facing many charges for home invasion or auto theft, prohibiting the possession of break-in devices is the kind of thing we're talking about. There are other examples, but they all naturally follow the logic tied to the crimes to which they're attached.

In addition to these conditions, a major feature of the bail reforms—informed, again, by law enforcement and actors in the criminal justice system—is to implement a series of reverse onuses, insisting that in all instances it should not just be the Crown that bears the onus of demonstrating that a person should be detained, but that for certain crimes, where there is potentially a higher risk of recidivism or in some instances ties to organized crime, there's an opportunity to flip the script, so to speak, and to insist that the person facing these charges demonstrate why they ought to be released, by putting forward credible information as to why the public safety imperative can be managed and why the public confidence in the justice system should remain.

In addition to these important reforms when it comes to bail, there are certain changes we're making to the sentencing framework that exists in this country. This includes new aggravating factors that touch on repeat violent offenders, crimes committed against our first responders, organized retail crime and crimes that, though they may fall in the class of crimes that are theft under $5,000, often have outsized impacts on our essential infrastructure.

We're also looking at adopting consecutive sentences for a range of different crimes, including, for example, extortion and arson, which I've seen in the news in Winnipeg as recently as this morning being an issue that needs to be addressed, with certain arrests that have been made. This would also apply to people who are facing charges for home invasion and auto theft, which has obviously been a pressing priority. I'll note that the crime rate has significantly dropped in recent years when it comes to auto theft in particular, but there is more work we need to do to continue this positive trend.

I will also be prioritizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence when it comes to home invasion, auto theft and organized crime, and ensuring that conditional sentencing orders will not be applicable for sexual offences, including sexual offences against children.

When we have an opportunity to strengthen the criminal justice system rules, it is essential to involve people with experience in conveying information about the process.

These policies were not dreamed up behind closed doors on Parliament Hill. They're the result of extensive engagement with people who live and breathe the justice system, the people who are charged with the responsibility of keeping our community safe and administering our systems.

I've endeavoured to be under the clock that I have been allowed, Mr. Chair. You've been very gracious to give me 10 minutes. By my count, I have seven. Let's donate the additional three minutes to the questioners.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Minister. Your clock is the same as mine, and we appreciate the extra time.

All right. We'll start off the six-minute rounds with Mr. Lawton.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for being with us today.

You said in your remarks that bail is the most pressing criminal justice priority for Canadians. Why was Bill C-14 not your first criminal justice bill in this Parliament?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawton.

The answer is fairly simple. We wanted to ensure that we had the opportunity to engage extensively with the people who we had faith would give us the advice we needed. As I mentioned, this wasn't a matter of sitting down for a meeting in a boardroom on the Hill.

I had the opportunity, over the course of the summer and into the fall, to engage with police leadership, provincial governments, municipalities and advocates for change across a range of different issues. I didn't want to present a bill before I had faith that the advice and expertise of the people who would strengthen it could actually be captured and included in the bill.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

This committee's first priority in this Parliament was a study on bail. We heard testimony from witnesses, including municipal leaders, a range of police chiefs and police association leaders. All of them said that Liberal justice laws in the last 10 years have made things markedly worse.

I'll quote police chief Marc Roskamp from St. Thomas, Ontario, which is in in my riding. He said, “I believe Bill C-75 has created less safe communities; that is my opinion, based on a near 30-year career in policing.”

Mr. Chang asked this question of Brian Sauvé of the National Police Federation: “From the RCMP's perspective, how have these changes [in Bill C-48] improved the safety of victims and the safety of officers on the front lines?” Mr. Sauvé said, “I don't think they have”.

Why is law enforcement to believe that Bill C-14 will be any different, when we've had these promises in the past that have not made things safer for communities?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think the key difference is the process of engagement, including some of the names that you've mentioned. Brian Sauvé, for example, was one of my first phone calls. That was in the context of the strong borders act, which he still continued to advocate for Parliament to adopt. The response from law enforcement, I think, speaks volumes. They see themselves in this bill because their advice led to the creation of the proposals that are included in the bill.

I don't want to debate the different laws that were adopted over the course of Canada's distant or recent history. We have an opportunity to change the path going forward. By listening to law enforcement, I have faith that we have put together a bill that's going to improve their experience of policing in our communities and, importantly, improve public safety outcomes for Canadians.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Chief Roskamp and numerous other police officers have specifically singled out Bill C-75 largely because of the principle of restraint. This is a section of the Criminal Code that says judges should give “primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”. Bill C-14 puts a clarification there, which says, “For greater certainty, section 493.1 does not require the accused to be released.” A clarification is not a fundamental change.

Are you of the view that the principle of restraint has been misinterpreted by judges and a clarification is all that's required to address this issue that law enforcement has been raising?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I take a slightly different view. If you'll allow me maybe 30 seconds, I'll try to give you the nuanced answer.

First, Bill C-75 has other measures that I believe are very important. It makes it harder for people who've been charged with intimate partner violence offences, for example, to be released on bail. We should protect that.

One thing that's essential to understand is that simply doing away with the language that's in the code today wouldn't get rid of the principle of restraint at law, because that was brought into Canadian law through the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions. That makes it part of the body of common law, which has application today.

By not just putting in clarifying language, but directing the courts to deal with that principle differently, we can have a more profound impact than would be the case if we simply removed it. Specifically, it doesn't only clarify that it doesn't mandate release; it demands that courts consider the public safety imperative and communicates with no equivocation that if the public safety imperative cannot be managed, there are grounds to detain the person who appears before the court. That's an important change we should make.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

That was closer to 60 seconds, but I did want to give you an opportunity to explain this.

Is it your view that judges have been interpreting the principle of restraint incorrectly? By clarifying, it seems that you're effectively saying that all of these police officers who have said the principle of restraint has made it easier to get bail are wrong when they tie it to that section of the law.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

The principle of restraint pre-existed the changes that were made to bring it into the code through the history of decisions that now form part of the body of law that comes from our courts in Canada.

I think we need to communicate for two reasons. One is to give direction to the court as to how we wish that it should be interpreted. It's also to give faith to Canadians that a very real and pressing priority, based on their lived experience, has the full attention of the government and we can't have any equivocation.

I certainly don't want to criticize the court or judges en masse or individually, but I do think that this direction is timely and important.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Criminals can vouch for criminals as sureties under our current system. This is an ongoing problem we've seen. Police have raised it as an issue.

Bill C-14 does not address sureties. If this was something that you wanted to get right, why have you left out that key piece that some of the very people you've consulted with have said, even before this committee, that we need to deal with?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

We had an opportunity to engage on the issues that people raised with me, with our department and with my political team as priorities. The endorsements we've seen from law enforcement have communicated to me that we've done a pretty good job of incorporating their feedback to the extent that the work that this committee has conducted should inform proposed amendments. Know that, so long as they don't oppose the spirit of the bill, if they are going to have a positive public safety outcome and don't create unwanted collateral consequences....

I don't want to be dogmatic about these things. I just want communities to be safer.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Would you be open to amendments on sureties?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton. That's all your time.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

We can discuss that subsequently.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Chang, you have six minutes.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the justice committee. Thank you for being here and for your continued engagement with the committee. We appreciate the work that you and your officials are doing to protect Canadians and to make sure our justice system remains fair and responsive to the challenges that Canadians are facing every day.

My very first question for you is this. Since introducing Bill C-14, what kind of reaction or feedback have you heard from the provinces, territories, police leaders and frontline justice partners?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Look, I'll answer your question slightly differently from how you asked it, only because their reactions started to come in before we released Bill C-14. This was because of the way we engaged. There was pleasant surprise, frankly, in some instances, with the approach we took, because we so sincerely wanted provincial governments to inform the final version of the bill.

I think to myself about the engagements I've had with my Conservative counterpart in Ontario, Attorney General Doug Downey. Many of the ideas, including how we're going to look at a new process for reverse onuses, came from conversations I had with Attorney General Downey. I think about my engagements with Matt Wiebe in Manitoba and the advocacy he put toward, including specific provisions that would deal with attacks against first responders. I think about Niki Sharma insisting, in response to the horrific murder of Bailey McCourt, that we make changes about refusing bail when someone has been convicted pre-sentencing.

Their reaction didn't just follow; it was actually part of the process. They appreciated that engagement. When we included that feedback in the version of the bill we presented in the House of Commons, they didn't just say nice things in public; in some instances, they asked to be present at press conferences to feature some of the elements that they had advocated to be included in the bill.

To answer your question summarily, it's been a uniquely positive reaction.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you.

Bill C-14 focuses on repeat and violent offending. Why was it important to be targeted and precise?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Look, we see real challenges. Provinces in particular, which have a constitutional responsibility to administer the justice system, are facing real challenges when it comes to volume. We're looking at trying to ensure that we change the system by putting our focus on people who pose danger to our communities, who have a history of committing violent offences and committing violent offences repeatedly, who are tied to organized crime and who we know can achieve a level of scale that is far greater than any single individual. We really wanted to address the measures that we thought would have the most profound impact on public safety and that would ensure that the precious resources that provincial governments put into the justice system have the greatest impact.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you.

Stakeholders have long pointed to the challenge of the uneven bail decision-making processes across Canada. How does Bill C-14 help promote greater consistency in the application of bail principles nationwide, and what mechanism will the government rely on to ensure that Parliament's intent is reflected in those provisions applied in practice?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think things like the exchange I had with Mr. Lawton on providing not only clarifying language but also direction on how certain principles ought to be applied is a healthy start. I do think we would be kidding ourselves if we said that any one particular law, in and of itself, will solve all these problems. We need to complement the measures that we put into the Criminal Code with collaboration with provincial counterparts to ensure that as rules change, there are training resources put in place and we actually have the capacity for people to meet the demands on a system that is under pressure with the volume it's facing right now.

Through continued engagement, bringing together the different provinces and territories with the federal government, making sure we're continually engaging with not just with lawyers and judges and court administrators but also law enforcement, municipalities and provincial governments, we can bring everyone on the same page and pull in one direction more effectively.