Justice Committee on May 25th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to meeting number 30 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on May 6, 2026, the committee is meeting to study the mandate and priorities of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. In the second hour, pursuant to the order of reference of February 26, 2026, the committee will study the 2026-27 main estimates of the department.

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 the Zoom application. I can confirm that sound tests have been done successfully.

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 mic. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation—floor audio, English or French. For those in the room, you can use your earpiece and select the desired channel. All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Appearing today is the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Welcome, Minister. Thank you for being here.

With the minister today are the following from the Department of Justice: Marie-Josée Hogue, deputy minister and deputy attorney general; Bill Kroll, chief financial officer and assistant deputy minister, management sector; Owen Ripley, senior assistant deputy minister, policy sector; and Christina Van Loon, director general, programs branch.

Welcome to all. Thank you for being here today. I appreciate your taking the time.

I will now turn the floor over to the minister for opening comments.

Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

Thank you, everyone.

I'm pleased to be here to discuss the priorities of my department and of Parliament in the area of justice.

First, it's important to understand that, although the Department of Justice has a number of functions, public safety remains a top priority for the government.

You'll have noticed that a significant number of the bills that have come before Parliament since the time of the last federal election have focused on public safety. This is not just a series of bills being put forward in isolation. Instead, this is part of a broader strategy focused on making Canadian communities safer places to call home.

The strategy rests on three essential pillars. The first is to strengthen Canada's criminal laws. This includes, from a legislative point of view, a number of bills that will be no strangers to members of this committee: Bill C-9, the combatting hate act; Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act; and Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. These three bills represent some of the most significant Canadian reforms to criminal law in generations. My sense is that they will have a positive impact, although we know that strengthening Canada's criminal laws is essential but insufficient if we're going to expect long-term improvement when it comes to public safety outcomes.

The second pillar of the strategy, to help ensure that those laws have an impact on the ground, is to support those on the front line of public safety in this country. That means police, certainly, but it also means community organizations, those who are working in communities with people who are serving victims and investigating crimes, and others who will be working on public safety in our communities. As part of this effort, the federal government will be increasing our resources to the RCMP, including enough to hire 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officials to strengthen our borders. We're also introducing new tools to make it easier for law enforcement on the front lines to do their jobs, including through lawful access, which I know has been debated at length in the House of Commons.

The third pillar, though, in my mind is the most important if we expect to see long-term improvements to violent crime in this country and an enhanced level of public safety. That's to make upstream investments that are aimed at prevention in the long term. This will demand that we make significant investments in such areas as affordable and supportive housing, that we embrace mental health and addictions as part of a strategy to build healthier people, and of course that we invest in at-risk youth to deter people, as early on in life as possible, from going down the path of a criminal lifestyle.

In addition to these acutely focused policy areas, we should not lose sight of the fact that building healthier communities and stronger communities will result in safer communities. I view it to be important for governments to invest not only in policing or programs that directly target at-risk youth but also in the basics, whether it's recreational infrastructure or health infrastructure, the things that make people feel that their community is whole and allow them to live life fully as a member of that community.

In short, the strategy for strengthening public safety is based on three pillars. First, we need to strengthen criminal legislation. Second, we must support the people who protect our communities on the ground. Third, we need to invest in affordable housing and mental health care, including addiction treatment. We must also support young people and move forward with programs that make our communities safe.

It's important that we take this holistic view, because you could claim victory when you achieve royal assent on a piece of legislation, but the people I talk to across Canada are far less concerned with the date of royal assent and far more concerned with whether their kids can play in the streets. We have an opportunity to advance public safety in this country through the work of this and other committees, and I'm honoured to be a part of it.

Mr. Chair, I would prefer to leave a little time on the table to allow for questions from members. I'm happy to take what questions members have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Minister. We appreciate that.

We'll start the first six-minute round with Mr. Brock.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, officials, for your attendance today.

Minister, the position and messaging from you and various other ministers, including Prime Minister Carney and former prime minister Justin Trudeau, have not aged very well. In 2017, you appeared before the FEWO committee on December 7, and you said as follows:

On the issue of mandatory minimums and conditional sentencing restrictions...I don't know how we think we are better positioned in Ottawa, with no facts or evidence, to decide what a sentence should be than a judge who is aware of the facts and evidence in a particular case.

Minister, also in 2016, you criticized mandatory minimum sentences by suggesting that Ottawa legislators were not better positioned than judges with the facts before them.

Now you are Minister of Justice here in this 45th Parliament and defending a bill that aims to restore mandatory minimum penalties. What has changed?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thanks very much for the question, because I don't view my position when I was a member of the status of women committee in 2017 to be at odds with the position, posturing or language used since I've taken over this particular set of responsibilities. The point that I was making in those comments.... Now, that being nearly a decade ago, you'll forgive my memory, but I think the point holds.

If you try to make a rule that applies in every single circumstance, without regard for extraordinary cases that may arise and are beyond the contemplation of people who advance legislation with the best of intentions, you come up short when those unique cases actually do emerge. The balance that I think we've struck by restoring mandatory minimums that were previously struck down, or that I believe were constitutionally vulnerable, but allowing some residual discretion where applying the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate allows you to deal with those oddities that would not necessarily result in what the public would view to be justice.

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

Thank you, Minister.

Do you now accept that Parliament has a legitimate role in setting mandatory prison sentences for serious crimes, yes or no?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I've always believed that we have a role, but I think that having some residual discretion for the court in certain circumstances is a useful tool.

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

Why did your government vote against so many Conservative amendments to restore or protect mandatory minimums for serious firearm offences, sexual offences, child exploitation, extortion and drug-trafficking offences during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-16?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Now, one of the things that are important to understand is that when we made a decision to move forward with the restoration of mandatory minimums with the residual discretion I've discussed, we did it from the point of view that we wanted to protect the mandatory minimums that exist or that a court had struck down. We did not undertake a policy exercise to analyze each of the mandatory minimums that existed at one point in time in Canada's history but that Parliament had made a decision to repeal.

By saying that the laws on the books were going to be made constitutionally compliant and that those decisions have overturned existing mandatory minimums we could restore, I think we've taken the right approach, but to answer your question, the policy work for mandatory minimums that fell outside of that scope was not part of the formulation of the bill.

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

That's the problem, Minister. You have not touched mandatory minimum penalties that have been challenged and upheld as constitutionally valid. Those are still in place, but you've actually weakened every single one of those mandatory minimum penalties by giving an escape hatch to accused and their counsel, by making an argument that this would constitute an infraction under section 12 of the charter.

I'll give you an example, Minister. I know you've never practised criminal law. You've never been, I don't think, in a criminal forum before, whether it be trial court or plea court or bail court. Name one accused facing his second, third or fourth driving conviction who would not make an argument that a mandatory minimum penalty of 60 days or 90 days would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, particularly if they were the breadwinner of the family. You have now opened up an argument to allow judges to undercut those mandatory minimum penalties that have consistently been upheld by the courts as being constitutionally sound. You've now given them an excuse to go below that and, if necessary, impose a one-day jail sentence.

Why on earth would you be weakening our current sentencing regime, particularly in the area of drinking and driving, which is generally the number one or number two leading cause of death in this country? Why on earth would this government, which claims to care about public safety and community safety and the rights of victims, do that?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

With respect, I disagree fundamentally with your characterization of the position we've taken. I will not accept your invitation to start naming a single accused who may have had cases before the court. I think that would be poor form for someone in my position. With respect to driving under the influence, I'd also remind you that one of the bills that's going through the parliamentary process restores as a potential penalty a prohibition on driving for those who have been convicted of driving drunk, for example.

On the fundamental point behind your question, you've suggested that this represents a weakening of Canada's criminal laws. I could not more fundamentally disagree. What you neglected to mention during your questioning was the constitutional vulnerability of many provisions that were in the code that now will be protected with the residual discretion that we put in place and that members of your party, the Bloc, and Liberals have all supported in the past.

I know that during a previous session, Mr. Baber in particular raised concern around the use of reasonable hypotheticals by the court. We've taken that out of the equation to a large degree by saying that you now have to look at the specific facts of an individual case to determine whether the penalty would be grossly disproportionate and constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe this represents a strengthening of the code, a restoration of mandatory minimums and a protection of the constitutional validity of those that remain in place today.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Ms. Gladu, it's over to you for six minutes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Good morning. Thanks for being here today.

In your first year as Minister of Justice, you've consistently spoken about the importance of taking a balanced and comprehensive approach to public safety. You described the three-pillar strategy that involves stronger criminal laws, investments in frontline enforcement and upstream supports that address the root causes of crime.

Could you elaborate on that approach for the committee and on how your government's work over the last year reflects those priorities?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Certainly, and I think the starting point in this analysis is getting past preconceived notions that certain people in Canada may have about political actors who belong to one party or another.

The reality, I think, is that parliamentarians from every partisan persuasion understand that if a person poses a public safety threat and commits a crime, they should face penalties, and incarceration may be an appropriate penalty if it's required to maintain public safety in this country. It sounds obvious when you say it out loud, but I think that sometimes we have to say that. As a Liberal, if there is a violent person who's going to threaten my neighbours, I'm comfortable with them being incarcerated.

I also know that changing the criminal law in and of itself is not sufficient in the long term to have permanent marked improvements when it comes to public safety. If we're not trying to advance a strategy to achieve those long-term public safety outcomes, then we're doing it wrong. Strengthening the criminal law is part of it, and also making sure that law enforcement have the tools they need to enforce and investigate those laws and work with the prosecution to bring them to trial, including having not only the resources they need, which will engage concerns around provincial responsibilities as well, but also the legislative tools they need.

At the end of the day, you have to take a citizen-centred and community-centred approach and realize that we know, from extensive academic study, that people who live with mental health and addictions are at an increased risk of interfacing with the police. People who do not have a place to sleep are at an increased risk of engaging with public safety officials. People who grow up in low-income neighbourhoods and low-income families are disproportionally represented when it comes to the criminal justice system. There's obviously a significant racialization to the population of those who interface with the system as well. You realize that there's a very long-standing, deep set of layers of social issues that intersect with the public safety issues we're discussing.

If we don't try to tackle those social issues, we're going to be repeating this conversation 10 or 20 years from now when various governments repeal or put in place new laws. We need to make sure that people in Canada have the ability to live safely in their communities. That means making those upstream investments at the same time as we support those on the front line.

It doesn't sound like magic to me. It sounds rather obvious. Let's have tough laws to make sure that dangerous people aren't in the community, but good supports that prevent people from becoming dangerous in the first place. We can do all of these things at once. It's just going to take a consistent effort over a significant period of time.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you.

Minister, provinces, municipalities, police leaders and frontline workers have all welcomed action on repeat violent offending. How does Bill C-14 respond to the concerns Canadians have been raising in their communities?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It does a number of things. I heard—from the moment I was appointed to this position—primarily from law enforcement but also from ordinary Canadians and communities in every part of the country, that we need to do more when it comes to public safety and specifically when it comes to bail and sentencing.

In my view, people are more than willing to give an honest person a second chance, but when a certain individual is in the community for the 28th time and is being accused of a crime for which they have previously been committed, particularly if it's a violent crime, people are right to ask questions.

We have advanced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which represents the most significant strengthening of the bail system in particular in many years, to ensure that for certain violent repeat offenders or those tied to criminal organizations there is a reverse onus put in place and there can be aggravating factors on sentencing, and we will ensure that the court, when looking at the principle of restraint, doesn't use that as a get-out-of-jail-free card but instead insists that they can protect public safety before a person will be released after being charged with any offence that would require them to conduct that analysis.

The measures included in that bill alone—in excess of 80 new reforms in the bail and sentencing system—are going to significantly strengthen the system and have a unique focus on violent repeat offenders who have the potential to make their communities more dangerous.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you.

Will Bill C-14 help address the increased extortion and intimidation that we're seeing across the country?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Yes, very specifically. Maybe first in general terms, when you look at some of the measures, including the clarification around the principle of restraint that I've just discussed, it would impact a wide range of offences, including but not limited to extortion.

Very specifically, there are measures included in the bill that are tied to violent extortion. The underlying theme through the bill that touches on organized crime will implicitly capture significant extortion because of the enormous representation of criminal organizations that are tied to extortion-related offences. In my view, this will be one of the tools that will help improve dealing with extortion.

I would be remiss if I didn't highlight Bill C-22 in particular, around lawful access. When I talk to law enforcement officials who have experience working with and preventing extortion, making sure they have the tools to investigate and prosecute crime that often is cross-border, fast-moving and digital in nature is one of the best things we can do to help crack down on extortion in this country, in addition to having harsher penalties and a bail system that is more reflective of the standard Canadians would expect.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Fortin, it's over to you for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Minister. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I see that you're joined by the qualified people needed to help you effectively carry out your mandate as minister. Your team includes our former colleague from the Barreau du Québec, Ms. Hogue. She used to be a judge at the Quebec Court of Appeal. I would like to extend my greetings to her as well.

Minister, your priorities for the coming weeks and months include a topic of particular concern to us. This topic is the Clarity Act. In recent weeks, you must have noticed a number of different statements that we found contradictory, to say the least. Your parliamentary secretary confirmed, for example, that 50% plus one was a valid percentage—a clear result—in a referendum. However, you and the Prime Minister seemed somewhat conflicted about the issue. Some journalists spoke of reframing.

I would like to hear your opinion on this matter. In a referendum—in Alberta, Quebec or another place—is 50% plus one a clear majority?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

First, I don't think that it's a good idea to speculate on a potential referendum in Quebec. There may be one, but it isn't certain. I'm an anglophone from Nova Scotia. It isn't a good idea for me to put forward any ideas on this matter. In my opinion, there's no Canada without Quebec and there's no Canada without Alberta. That said, it isn't my place to speculate on the possibility of a referendum in Quebec.

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

Thank you. Minister, it's music to my ears to hear that the federal government and you, as Minister of Justice, don't get to decide what constitutes a clear majority. In our view, at least in the Bloc Québécois, the matter must be decided by the legislative assembly concerned in Alberta, Quebec or another province.

I gather that the Minister of Justice currently has no opinion on what would constitute a clear majority in a possible referendum, wherever it might be held in Canada. Is that right?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Let me clarify my response in English.

We would not formulate a legal opinion in isolation of a given set of facts. As the world changes and new issues emerge, as we're required to engage in certain conversations, we would do so. Obviously, the Clarity Act exists. There is a role in that conversation for Parliament. The federal government would follow federal laws.

It's essential that we don't foment this conversation. I think it's uniquely unhelpful for someone in my position to be suggesting what would happen during a referendum that may not happen at all, in Quebec's instance, or to speculate on what legal analysis may result on facts that have not yet been determined, given the nature of questions and debates playing out elsewhere. From my perspective, we would form a legal analysis with the full benefit of facts that have not yet emerged in either case.

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

Still, you must admit that your parliamentary secretary, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister—your leader—and you yourself made statements on the matter in recent weeks. You'll appreciate that it's a hot topic.

There are two aspects to the Clarity Act. The first is the clarity of the question asked in a referendum and the second is the clarity of the result. I gather that you don't want to comment on the clarity of the result. We can take a look at where things stand with the clarity of the question.

That said, I gather that 50% plus one was a clear result in an election. If a party has 50% plus one of the seats in the House of Commons, it becomes the majority party.

Is that also your opinion, Minister?