Justice Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for being here with us today.

I want to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 17 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 to continue its 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, and to later today proceed to its clause-by-clause study.

Today's meeting is taking place in the hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using Zoom.

I would like to confirm that sound tests were made successfully. Before we continue, I would ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of participants and especially our interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the cards, which links to a short awareness video.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Now, for our first hour today, I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

From the City of Kelowna, we have Mayor Tom Dyas.

Thank you for being here.

From the Regina Downtown Business Improvement District, we have Judith Veresuk, executive director, and from the Toronto Police Association in my hometown, we have Clayton Campbell, president.

I'm going to give each of you five minutes for opening remarks, but before I do that, I'm going to go a bit off script.

There's a ceremony taking place today while we are in committee: the long service awards for staff on Parliament Hill. There isn't a member of Parliament around this table who will disagree with me when I say that we are nothing without our staff. I want to say thank you to all of them, and I want to give a special shout-out to Clare Barry, who has been working with me for five years. Rather than going to receive her long service award, she's doing what she always does: She's here at my side.

Clare, I want to say thank you. I couldn't do this job without you and, frankly, I wouldn't want to.

I will turn it over to the witnesses now.

Mr. Dyas, I'll start with you.

[Tom Dyas, Mayor, City of Kelowna]

Chair Maloney and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

I will, knowing that it's being translated, maybe not speak as fast as I am now. I may be just a little bit over five minutes, but I'll move through this. It is timed for just about five minutes.

As stated, my name is Tom Dyas, and I am the mayor of the City of Kelowna.

I am here today because what you are debating has very real financial and visible consequences in communities like mine across British Columbia and Canada.

Business owners are dealing with repeated break-ins, vandalism, theft, threats to employee safety and general disorder, including windows being smashed for repeated theft without offenders being charged or held for their previous actions. Business owners are exhausted, frustrated and losing confidence in the justice system every day.

We share in those frustrations. This is common in cities across Canada. It is systemic, it is not acceptable and it requires a significant change in policy and legislation.

Our local RCMP have recently shared a chronic offender profile with us. One individual has accumulated 223 police files between 2021 and 2025, including 31 failures to comply with conditions and 32 failures to appear in court. Offences occurred almost monthly, including assaults, thefts, threats and public disturbances. Many of those offences happened shortly after release, indicating rapid reoffending under the current bail conditions.

There are many examples of repeat failures to abide by bail conditions and failure to appear in court followed by reoffending. These situations, which are outlined, for some should be met with meaningful consequences. Considering a reverse onus in these cases would better reflect the risks posed by individuals who consistently disregard court authority only to quickly reoffend after release.

In 2024, just 15 individuals in Kelowna were responsible for 1,335 police files. This trend is regrettably not isolated. B.C. is made up of approximately 189 municipalities. When I was in Victoria at UBCM last fall, the collective of municipalities had similar experiences of individuals and repeat property and violent offenders within their communities. Persistent property offences and incidents of social disorder are having a significant and costly negative impact on our communities, affecting resident safety.

Repeat property offenders are brazen knowing there is minimal consequence in the justice system that does not hold them accountable. Canada's third-largest RCMP detachment is in Kelowna. Our hard-working frontline officers are frustrated. They know who the repeat property offenders are, they arrest them and then they see the same individuals released within days, at times even hours, recommitting similar crimes. The RCMP do not have the tools and support they need to help keep our communities safe.

Public safety is a top priority of councils across Canada. We have advocated consistently to the federal government for bail reform that addresses repeat property offending and to the provincial government for investment in Crown prosecutors and justice resources.

We have produced evidence-based advocacy papers, including “Chronic Offenders—Closing the Revolving Door”, because municipalities are living with the consequences and costs of decisions that are made elsewhere. Local governments have limited impact if the same individuals continue to cycle through the justice system and then back onto our streets.

That is why Bill C-14 matters. I urge the committee and the House to move this bill forward quickly.

In particular, the focus on repeat and violent offending and the requirement for courts to consider the number and severity of outstanding charges when making bail decisions is critically important. I ask that the committee consider further defining “repeat” with the addition of the term “property” to reflect the realities playing out on our streets, impacting our residents and businesses and hurting local economies.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. We must do what we can to support and protect them—and, importantly, to protect our downtowns.

In closing, without meaningful bail reform, municipalities across Canada will continue to absorb the impacts and costs of a system that is not functioning as intended and will not support a one Canadian economy. Communities like mine in Kelowna are asking for tools that reflect reality on the ground, allow the justice system to respond appropriately to repeat property offending, hold individuals accountable and provide tougher sentences for those who blatantly show disrespect for the law. Bill C-14 goes a long way in achieving that.

I thank you for the opportunity to share Kelowna's experience and the experience that municipalities are encountering across this country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, sir.

Ms. Veresuk.

[Judith Veresuk, Executive Director, Regina Downtown Business Improvement District]

Good afternoon. I would like to thank the chair and the committee for providing me with the opportunity to speak before you today.

My name is Judith Veresuk. I'm the executive director of the Regina Downtown Business Improvement District, representing over 600 businesses in Regina's downtown core. The Regina downtown BID is also a proud member of the International Downtown Association of Canada. Our mandate is to create the conditions for strong economic activity, entrepreneurship and cultural life in urban centres.

Regina's downtown, like many downtowns and main streets across Canada, is the economic and cultural anchor of our city. The downtown area is a major provider of jobs, while also serving as a gathering place for arts, events and community life. However, today crime and public safety concerns are becoming significant barriers for the residents, workers and small business owners who bring life to our downtown. The effects of repeat offenders cycling through the justice system to disturb the same downtown locations are highly visible in Regina.

These growing concerns have real consequences. Small businesses are being forced to reduce their hours. Investment is declining. New business entry is slowing. Employees don't feel safe commuting to or being at work these days. Canadians—Regina's in particular—are avoiding our downtown. The consequence is devastating for our city's small business landscape and our economy as a whole. What we are seeing mirrors what I hear from my colleagues nationally, underscoring the need for meaningful bail reform legislation from the federal government to address these challenges.

Public opinion polling in western Canada shows that downtowns across the region face this same pressure. The City of Saskatoon found that the vast majority of their residents, or 82%, felt that crime was somewhat or very high in their community. In a 2025 poll done by the Calgary Police Association, more than half of Calgarians said they felt that social disorder has increased since 2024. In Edmonton, a similar survey conducted by the Edmonton Police Service reported that just under half of their residents, or 46%, felt their city was getting less safe. That perception was even more acutely felt by the city's indigenous residents, with 64% of respondents saying they felt Edmonton was less safe.

These figures indicate a stark diagnosis for Canadian downtowns. People are losing faith in the safety of their neighbourhoods and communities. These results also point to this challenge occurring across municipal and provincial jurisdictions, reinforcing the need for effective, federally led bail reform to address the systematic changes being faced by Canadian communities. Bill C-14 represents an opportunity for such a decisive action by strengthening bail provisions for repeat and violent offenders and improving protection for workers and communities most affected by these crimes.

On behalf of the Regina downtown business community and downtown areas across Canada, our organization advocates for Bill C-14 to include strengthened bail provisions for repeat and violent offenders, including reverse onus considerations, and enhanced recognition of the serious offences committed against retail and public-facing workers. By ensuring that these conditions are met, this legislation can simultaneously address challenges with public safety and restore confidence in Canadian downtowns, which need to revitalize themselves and contribute to more vibrant communities. Our community, and many of your communities that you represent, need it. We look forward to your leadership to make this possible.

We urge the committee to advance bail reform that reflects the realities on our streets. We believe Bill C-14 does this. Subsequently, we hope that all parties can support this bill's ratification to ensure better outcomes for downtown business communities across Canada.

Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Campbell, over to you.

[Clayton Campbell, President, Toronto Police Association]

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice-Chair, members of the standing committee and legislative staff, including Clare. You have the same name as my daughter. She just turned 17 and got into U of T, so I'm going to put that out there.

My name is Clayton Campbell. I'm the president of the Toronto Police Association.

As president, I feel very privileged to represent more than 8,500 members of the Toronto police service who work both in uniform and in civilian roles.

Since my last appearance before this committee, the TPA has continued to call for changes to bail and sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders.

We've had formal and informal discussions with federal Liberal and Conservative members of Parliament. We've engaged your counterparts at the provincial level, including the Ford government, which has been a champion for public safety in the province of Ontario.

We've also been invited and have participated in several community town halls at the invitation of both the Conservative and Liberal parties.

From my perspective, the process of consultation on Bill C‑14 has been exceptional. We have repeatedly said that this is not about politics, it's about public safety. It is why we're back here today, asking all parties to support Bill C‑14 and do what's necessary to facilitate its timely passage through the legislative process.

While there's still work to be done, we have been clear about our support for the proposed legislation, which includes many of the recommendations we put forward.

Specifically, we recommend clarifying that the ladder principle does not apply to an accused who's subject to a reverse onus in a bail proceeding. At bail, the justices and judges must consider whether an allegation involves random, unprovoked violence when denying release.

It would include modifying the tertiary grounds for release to include consideration of the seriousness of any outstanding charges when determining if bail would undermine the public's confidence in the administration of justice. We recommend the creation of new reverse onuses for a number of offences, many of which will have a direct impact on the criminal activity we're experiencing in Toronto.

Conditional sentences should be made unavailable for serious sexual offences, including those against children. Custodial sentences should be made available to youth who commit bodily harm rather than requiring it to be just violent. The publication of youth information should be allowed where the youth is at large and poses an immediate grave danger to the public. We have also been pleasantly surprised to see the inclusion of offences against a first responder as an aggravating factor at sentencing.

Not only will these provisions close many of the gaps our members experience on a daily basis, but we feel they'll strike an appropriate balance, recognizing what we have always stood for, which is not more people in custody but the right people in custody.

We would be remiss not to take this opportunity to highlight a few significant recommendations that were not included in this bill.

Through the government's ongoing public safety agenda, we strongly encourage adopting the three strikes provision, placing limitations on who can be surety, and immediate parole system reform.

As these discussions continue, we remain committed to the process of engagement and consultation, regardless of the political party. Canadians, despite their differences or political affiliation, all want and deserve the same thing for themselves and their loved ones.

Thank you and I look forward to answering any of your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

We're going start the first six-minute round.

We started late. Out of respect for the witnesses, I don't want to cut the time short, so we'll just take the witness portion a little longer rather than stop at 5:30 as we're supposed to.

Mr. Brock, it's over to you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I echo the words of our chair with respect to all our staff members here on the Hill and our respective constituents. They make our job so much easier. I would agree that no one could exist without the incredible years of service that every staff member puts in.

At this point I'd love to point out my chief of staff in my constituency. Her name is Teresa Percival and she is a long-time Conservative supporter. She has contributed to all the years of service since my 2021 election. Previously to that, she worked with my predecessor, Phil McColeman, who was the member of Parliament for Brantford—Brant. I sincerely want to thank her for all her incredible efforts.

Thank you, witnesses, for your attendance. I really enjoyed your opening statements.

Mr. Campbell, it's always a pleasure to see you again. I want to sincerely thank you for all of your incredible advocacy. In my view, it was that consistent messaging that always remained the same. You are always loud and clear with other stakeholders to move this government in the appropriate direction.

We will soon go to clause-by-clause on this particular bill before it gets back into the House for third reading and ultimately to the Senate. I want to bring to you some amendments that the Conservatives are seeking and I want to get your opinion on them, sir.

One amendment that we are seeking is to add a consecutive sentence rule for repeat human trafficking offences. Is that something that policing should support?

[Clayton Campbell]

Absolutely.

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

Okay. The Liberals will not support that.

Secondly—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

He just made a statement with no foundation about an entire group of people. We don't know whether we will support it or not, and different people may have different views. I don't think that's appropriate, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I tend to agree with you.

Mr. Brock, we haven't gotten to that amendment yet, so I would reserve judgment on that, with all due respect.

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

Sure. I have a different position on that. I'm not going to elaborate, but I wanted to bring certain passages to Mr. Campbell's attention. I will certainly seek his support on various Conservative amendments that are being brought.

Another significant amendment is with respect to the principle of restraint. We've talked about that numerous times. Section 493.1, ushered in by Bill C-75, in my view as a former Crown attorney, was the origin of catch-and-release.

What we want to do, where it relates to violent repeat offending, is replace the wording in subsection 493.1 to not “give...consideration to the earliest release...on the least onerous conditions” but to make public safety and security the primary consideration when releasing or detaining those individuals.

Is that something that policing would support?

[Clayton Campbell]

I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer, because there are probably lots in this room. I'm not sure how that process would work.

I know that Bill C-14 tried to clarify that in the language. I can say that the wording of “the least onerous conditions” “at the earliest opportunity” caused lots of issues that we're seeing in the community. I'm not going to speculate on how that should be done, but if there is any way to limit it, we would support it.

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

Would policing support a term to surrender a passport as a potential condition depending on the circumstances?

[Clayton Campbell]

It makes sense to me. It is my first time thinking about it, but it does make sense to me.

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

Would policing support an amendment to the tertiary grounds under subsection 515(10) to include terms such as ensuring safety and security of the public; preventing physical or psychological harm to victims, including child victims and their families; and preventing interference with the administration of justice?

Would policing find that to be helpful for a justice considering detention or release on the tertiary grounds?

[Clayton Campbell]

I would have to go back and look at each section, but clearly there's an issue with repeat violent offenders.

I know that there are some amendments around tertiary grounds for the gravity of the offence and the number of offences, so I kind of read that as repeat violent offenders, but we would be open to looking at anything that's going to keep our communities safe.

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

Would policing support another Conservative amendment that would require mandatory detention for certain offences committed under a major offence category? This could be a current alleged major offence being committed while the accused was at large on release for another major offence. It would be for significant criminal activity and if the accused had been convicted of a major offence within the previous 10 years. Is that something the police would support?

[Clayton Campbell]

We did support what is commonly referred to as the “three strikes and you're out” provision. When someone is convicted of a second or a third serious violent offence, for the third offence, they're not allowed to be released.

I know there's some language around it. I think it's commonly referred to as a “release valve”, but we supported that in principle.

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

Would policing support the expansion of the conditional sentence unavailability specifically as it relates to further firearms offences, weapons trafficking and human trafficking? Is that something that makes sense to you from a policing perspective?

[Clayton Campbell]

Definitely for the firearms offences and a conditional sentence, we do agree with that. We're seeing many times people out on bail or conditional sentences committing further firearms offences in the city.

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

I've heard from a number of witnesses that the problem that we find ourselves in as a nation with respect to criminal justice issues and bail is a lack of data and sharing of the data.

One other Conservative amendment being sought is to require the Department of Justice to table an annual report on the state of judicial interim release, including outcomes and compliance, recidivism data, analysis of effectiveness of release conditions and accessibility and disparities across groups.

Would that be something that policing would support?