Justice Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2026

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sauvé and Ms. Valentino, welcome to our committee. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Sauvé, my colleague Ms. Lattanzio has already asked you a few questions that I wanted to ask you, so I'm saving a little time, but I'm going to go a little further.

As police officers, the members of your federation must be fed up—and I understand—with continually seeing the same offenders arrested for similar offences. We have to fight recidivism. I agree that Bill C‑14 is a step in the right direction. Can we do better? We can always do better, but I think it's a good thing.

That said, in an ideal world, everyone wouldn't be put in prison. In fact, no one would be in prison. The ideal world would be that, when someone commits an offence, we succeed in rehabilitating them and making them understand what's wrong.

First of all, do you agree with me that the ultimate goal is that people who have committed crimes don't reoffend? I suspect you would agree with that. In that case, I would ask what you think are the most urgent measures we should put in place to rehabilitate people who commit crimes.

[Brian Sauvé]

Thank you for the question; it's a good one.

We have to remember that the Canadian legal system and the Canadian justice system are built on the foundational principle of rehabilitation, not incarceration. That being said, where are we failing in that system?

For example, post-sentence in custody, whether it be provincial or federal custody, are we actually investing in rehabilitation of offenders? Are we preparing them for a productive life once they are on parole or they have completed their sentence?

That I haven't seen. We haven't seen investments for a vocational training program or a housing assistance program on post-sentence release or on post-sentence probation.

Can we do better there for those who are incarcerated? Yes.

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

Again, I'm going to ask my questions in French, but feel free to answer in English or French.

What measures can be taken? When people are incarcerated following a sentence, unless I'm mistaken, there's a program in place to promote their reintegration and rehabilitation. They can be taught a trade, for example. All kinds of things can happen. However, if I understand correctly, there is no rehabilitation program for people being held on remand. What I also understand is that there are a lot of those people, and they stay on remand for a long time.

If memory serves, a witness in another study told us that 75%, or even more, of prisoners held in provincial prisons are held there on remand, without ever having been convicted of a crime. That's a bit surprising, and I wonder if that doesn't indicate a flaw in our prison system or our justice system.

I'd like to hear your opinion on that, since you work with these people on a daily basis. You arrest them; then there's a trial; they're incarcerated, and they reoffend after a few months or years. You have a certain expertise in that, more than I do, I admit. What specifically can we do about those people to prevent them from reoffending?

[Brian Sauvé]

That's interesting. I think that question should be put to a lawyer, but I'll give you my opinion.

If someone is awaiting conviction, do we have the right to enrol them in a vocational training centre?

If the person has been found guilty, the judge can add conditions to their sentence, such as requiring them to take a vocational training program or something like that.

I think you would have to ask a human rights lawyer if it's possible to do that before a conviction. The person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That's my perspective on that, but I don't know if I'm right.

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

Thank you. That's an excellent point, indeed.

It can be complicated when the person is on remand. If they're acquitted, there's obviously no problem. That means they didn't commit the crime they were accused of, at least in theory. However, if they're convicted, they have to serve a sentence, and the time served before the sentence is often enough to make up the difference. Indeed, the length of trials is another problem, which I think could be the subject of another study.

In short, for people who are convicted, have already served part of their sentence and may be serving another part afterward, should a process be put in place that would be included in the sentencing? For example, if a person has a two-year sentence to serve, shouldn't there be a rehabilitation process in place at the end of those two years? If so, what kind? Do you have an idea?

I understand that there are other experts on this issue, but I'd like to know your opinion, since, as a police officer, you work with these people. Is there anything that should be done about that?

[Brian Sauvé]

There are provinces and territories that are looking at mandating the individual to attend an addiction treatment program, for example. That's one idea. Again, this issue falls under the regulatory and budgetary systems of the provinces and territories, since it affects the health care systems for residents of the provinces and territories. However, it will always be good for the federal government to show some leadership in that regard.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

We'll move to the second round of five minutes each.

Mr. Lawton, we're starting with you.

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

Thank you very much, witnesses.

Mr. Sauvé, it's good to have you back. People may recall that you testified as a witness before our study on bail, which the Conservative team initiated, understanding the urgency of this issue.

I'm very grateful not just to have you and your fellow witnesses here today but also that our Liberal colleagues have allowed us to finally get to work on reforms that you and other police agencies have been calling for across the country for many years now.

I want to return to Bill C-48, because you and the federation you represent were very optimistic about it. When you testified before this committee in September, one of my Liberal colleagues asked you how Bill C-48 had improved the safety of victims and the safety of officers on the front line, and you said, “I don't think they have”, so we have had false starts before.

If we are to take our cues from your experience in this regard, how can we make sure that Bill C-14 is not retreading old ground in that sense? How can we make sure it is actually living up to the promises?

[Brian Sauvé]

That's the challenge. Whether it's Bill C-75, Bill C-48 or Bill C-14, we've said in numerous submissions and pieces of testimony that the justice system, when you're talking about bail or sentencing, is a joint partnership. The federal government can lead and govern with respect to the Criminal Code, but the provinces and territories administer it. Without their joint partnership and funding for adequate Crown attorneys, judges, pretrial detention facilities and probation officers and the resources to administer that, we're setting ourselves up to fail, regardless of what system we put in place in the code.

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

I recognize that sadly, in my role, I can only deal with the issues that are in the federal jurisdiction. In this context, it's the code.

You indicated that you view Bill C-14 as a second step. You suggested in your earlier response to Mr. Brock that there should be a third step beyond that. If we are to get this right, what should be in the bill that's not in the bill? What would you like to see, building off this?

[Brian Sauvé]

When I speak about a third step, the first step was Bill C-48, and now we have Bill C-14 as the second step. If you'll recall—I think it was in November when we were studying the bill—one of the recommendations or pieces that we put forward was whether the federal government can be a leader in consistent training for judicial justices of the peace or consistent training in the application of Bill C-14, Bill C-48 or reverse onus provisions, so that you have consistency across the board in provincial court systems.

Instead of convening a first ministers' meeting, you could convene a first attorneys general meeting so that there is consistency across the board and every police officer in every court across the land is actually operating from the same premise.

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

The NPF has previously recommended ensuring that bail hearings are only presided over by justices of the peace who have a legal background. Is that something you would have liked to see in Bill C-14? Is it perhaps something that could be included as an amendment in the Criminal Code that you would welcome?

[Brian Sauvé]

I think that would be welcome. Whether it can be done and would withstand scrutiny is the other question.

I think consistency, whether it's only judges, only JJPs, or folks who are consistently trained to the same standard across all jurisdictions, would be welcome.

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

I've heard anecdotally from officers that I've spoken to in my riding that the see a very clear connection between the really bad bail decisions we hear about that often make the news and cases that were presided over by JPs rather than judges. Is that consistent with your experience as well?

[Brian Sauvé]

It's also who's arguing the case on behalf of the Crown. For example, as a police officer, in some cases I was arguing and writing the case for the primary, secondary and tertiary grounds. In that case, let's have some consistency across the board. Should it be police officers in some cases who are acting on behalf of the Crown, or do we need more resources so we have consistent arguments that are going forward to consistently trained JJPs or judges at hearings?

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

In the Conservatives' jail not bail act, which we had hoped to receive collaboration on from the Liberals, after listening to concerns that have been raised by police, we urged the removal of the ability of people who are convicted of serious offences to vouch for people as sureties. Is that something you would support including?

[Brian Sauvé]

It's an interesting topic to explore. I don't know whether it would withstand scrutiny.

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

Would you support it if it did?

[Brian Sauvé]

I'd have to look a bit more into that one.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Lawton.

We'll go to Mr. Chang for five minutes.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

My first question will be directed to Mr. Sauvé.

From your perspective, how do you believe Bill C-14's bail reforms address the real gaps? How do they align with what police have been asking for?

[Brian Sauvé]

There's clarity around reverse onus provisions and placing a reverse onus on those accused of more serious and perhaps random and unprovoked attacks to declare why they are worthy of bail. That's a start. Then you have some good pieces, to start with, when you're talking about organized crime, mandatory firearms bans and mandatory....

The challenge, from a law enforcement perspective, is going to be when someone achieves...a reverse onus provision and is released on bail on their own recognizance or in some form and a police officer finds them violating it. What happens then? Are we going to end up in the same situation we have today where courts or Crowns are not taking breaches of bail provisions as seriously as other offences? Is it your second strike or third strike when we are going to deny you bail?

Those are all good starts, but the devil is in the details and the proof is in the pudding.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

You have stressed the importance of ensuring that courts have the tools to keep repeat and violent offenders off the street. How do you see Bill C-14 strengthening public safety and community confidence in bail decisions compared to the current framework or current system?

[Brian Sauvé]

As you just mentioned, you are expanding and strengthening the opportunity for reverse onus provisions. Also, as you talk about repeat and violent offenders, those are who it's going to impact. Those are the ones who will be seeing a more difficult road to achieving bail than your average, everyday first offender.