Justice Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

[Matt Poirier]

Certainly, I have just such an example.

In Winnipeg, there was a retailer who saw their store and workers affected when someone who had 120 previous thefts in 12 months hit their store. That person was never jailed. They were only ever given a promise to appear in court later. You can just imagine the demoralizing effect of someone who stole 120 times in one year.

To Mr. MacKinnon's point earlier, it's reached a point where retailers, because of where they fall on the pecking order of criminality, have stopped reporting these issues. Even though the stats still show that it's increasing, specifically for retail crime, it is probably under-reported because there's a frustration in the industry. There's only so much the police can do, given their resources and the allocation of officers for these things.

We've been doing our job to work with them to build up that capacity, but you start with the tools and then you have to follow it up with the resources as well. That's what we're calling for. We're really happy with what we're seeing in this bill, but it's the first step. The money really needs to follow.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

What has been the mental health impact on retail employees frequently exposed to crime or disorder?

[Matt Poirier]

It's tremendous. Like I said, morale is at an all-time low in the industry.

From the employer perspective, when you're dealing with labour shortages to begin with, this doesn't help. I'll use Ottawa as an example. Just in the ByWard Market, a lot of chain restaurants have decided to close up shop. One of the issues is the criminality, but it's also about finding people to work in those areas. Who would want to?

Those are the big challenges. Morale takes a hit, and then retention takes a hit, and then recruitment takes a hit. It's just a vicious cycle that we need to break.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Which specific provisions in Bill C-14 are most likely to produce measurable reductions in retail crime, and how should Parliament evaluate success?

[Matt Poirier]

Certainly the reverse onus provision is a welcome change. Just make it harder to get bail so these people aren't back in the store right away, or put the onus on them to prove why they shouldn't be, especially in the example I gave where someone was caught stealing 120 times within one year. That's a top one.

What we're particularly happy to see in the bill is the specific mention of organized retail theft as an aggravating factor in sentencing. We love to see that—it's about time—but I think we can add to that, as I was saying to Monsieur Fortin, to target the bill towards the ringleaders of the organized criminal networks and away from the vulnerable youth or people with mental health issues who are being recruited into these networks.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

What additional supports or coordination does RCC believe are necessary for Bill C-14 to truly improve retail safety?

[Matt Poirier]

What we would like to see beyond Bill C-14 is a national reporting portal. Right now you have police forces across the country that have data, which they feed into various systems, but it doesn't really cross borders. It doesn't even cross within police departments sometimes.

We have a very big issue reporting and finding out. If the crime gravitates from Windsor, Ontario, to Toronto or over to Montreal, it's hard to track all that. We think the creation of a national reporting portal, where it's not just police forces, but also people like retailers who can feed into it and access information from it, frankly, will give better data for the government and for law enforcement.

That's a low-hanging fruit thing. It's just a coordination problem. We have the technology now to be able to make this dynamic and live to try to prevent crimes from happening. That's not in Bill C-14. That's a public safety jurisdiction, but certainly that's something we've been talking about for a while, and we would love to see it as a next step.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Fortin, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Poirier, you were just talking about a reporting portal. Police officers have been asking for this for a long time actually, and it's one of the things we want to put in place. However, I'm a bit surprised to hear you bring it up, because I didn't think the Retail Council of Canada would be interested in such a tool, which seems a bit technical to me.

I heard you say that you could also have access to it. I'd like to know what you mean by access. What would be helpful for your members? How would they access this information and for what purpose?

[Matt Poirier]

There are obviously limits to privacy, and we totally respect the related rules.

Our members have their own services that work at preventing thefts and other crimes. That said, they have no information. They work with police forces, but information is often found in one city and not in others. There's a lack of data. Our members could provide such data at the national level or use it in their own businesses to identify trends. Basically, they could use that information for a lot of things.

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

Are we talking about banning people on this registry from going into retail stores, for example?

[Matt Poirier]

No, it wouldn't be that serious. It would just allow us to see the evolution of the criminal trend, for example. That could help a great deal and we think police forces could use such a system. When they find and pick up someone, for example, they can see if that person has previously committed other offences. That gives them a better idea of who they're dealing with. More importantly, they can build a stronger case if it needs to go before a judge.

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

I understand.

Mr. Poirier, thank you very much for your comments.

Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon. I didn't ask you any question, and maybe I should apologize for that. It's not that your comments weren't interesting or important.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Gill, you have five minutes.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to both of you. Thank you for your patience. Conservatives value your time and your feedback on this major bill, Bill C-14.

This is the pattern from Liberals: when they cannot accomplish or collaborate, they like to blame the opposition. I will come straight to the question, which probably Canadians want to hear and get resolved, because we want Bill C-14 to be passed as soon as possible.

We all know that crime is surging and businesses and residents are paying the price. Reports show extortions have increased dramatically in recent years. In my riding of Brampton West, it has become a frightening reality for families and business owners.

From your perspective, Mr. Poirier, does Bill C-14 sufficiently address extortion and protect victims from repeated intimidation or does it leave gaps that still put business owners and Canadians at risk?

[Matt Poirier]

I think certainly Bill C-14, especially the elements that pertain to retail crime, is a marked improvement over what we have now. As I've mentioned, specifically identifying organized retail crime, which is a big problem especially in the greater Toronto area, to target that level of criminality as an aggravating factor is certainly welcome. That will improve things.

Additionally, the reverse onus will make it harder to get bail, which will help with the morale issues of retailers seeing the same repeat offenders keep coming through their doors. sometimes within days. On that scale alone, it's certainly a very positive development in our view. I think there's still room to fine-tune it and to have even more of an impact, not to have another bill but within Bill C-14.

Certainly the suggestions and the proposed language I've shared with the committee could be valuable in the clause-by-clause, but that's how we view it. We can just enhance it without betraying what this bill is envisioning and balance it, focusing it on the real bad guys and not the vulnerable people.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

In your opinion, does Bill C-14 give Canadians assurance that extortion will be effectively addressed?

[Matt Poirier]

I'm not an expert on the extortion angle of it. It certainly is a concern in retail, but less so. I think they're more preoccupied with the brazenness. It certainly is part of it, but I could safely say that retailers would welcome any measures that would help cut down on that as well.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I would like to ask Mr. MacKinnon if he believes removing the principle of restraint in favour of prioritizing public safety would meaningfully help revitalize downtown areas across Canada.

[Paul MacKinnon]

Absolutely. It's as much a perception issue as an issue of reality. A lot of the perception around downtowns being unsafe comes from other issues, not just crime. It's social disorder. It's homeless encampments. That all creates a sense of things not being safe. But we do know, when we're talking about retail crime or theft, those are actual crimes, and there is something can do about that. We think it's really important.

There are downtowns in our country that are already being thought of as being unsafe. It's certainly not all of them at this point in time. I think moving quickly is really important. It really is the ball game. If people don't feel safe, they won't come downtown. That's going to have spinoff economic impacts that will be felt across the entire country.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Gill. We're going to stop there.

I do have one question for you, Mr. MacKinnon.

Are churches, synagogues and mosques typically members of BIAs?

[Paul MacKinnon]

The membership varies a bit. They are in my organization. Essentially, if you have a non-residential use within the catchment area of a BIA, you are a member.

I would say that most of us would consider all those faith institutions to be members.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

We're going to stop there. I want to say thank you again, on behalf of the entire committee, for your patience, for your evidence and for joining us here today.

I will suspend the meeting, ladies and gentlemen. Then we'll come back and go to clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'd like to call the meeting back to order. Welcome back, everyone.

I want to welcome our officials, who are going to help us with clause-by-clause, and I want to start by saying thank you. You've been incredibly patient. I know you've been waiting to join us for quite a time now, so we're incredibly grateful.

We are joined again by Matthew Taylor, senior general counsel and director general, criminal law policy section; Samantha Reynolds, acting senior counsel, youth criminal justice division; Peter Grbac, counsel, criminal law policy section; Leah Burt, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Lise-Anne Wheeler, counsel, youth criminal justice division.

Before we begin, I would like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once again, any amendments or subamendments from the floor must be shared in writing in both official languages.

Thank you all very much.

Let's get on to Bill C-14. I will move to our agenda. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), the consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to)

There's a new clause 6.1, which is CPC-1. However, CPC-1, CPC-2.1 and CPC-2.2 are very similar. I believe there have been some discussions on which of those three you're going to move forward with.

Mr. Baber.