Justice Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2025

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses. What they had to say was very interesting.

Mr. Rahim, I particularly liked your introduction and the story you told.

From the beginning of this meeting, we've been hearing all kinds of data and positions, but you can obviously make numbers say whatever you want.

At the same time, I think we all want safer communities.

Based on your experience and your comments, as well as those of Ms. Latimer and Ms. Donkor, it seems that there aren't that many repeat offenders and that the system is largely up to the task.

Do you think bail is now seen more as a right than a privilege?

[Shakir Rahim]

The data tells us, based on the number of people who have been denied bail, that the right to bail has in fact been weakened. There are many people who are repeat offenders who are regularly put behind bars in Canadian prisons. It is not unusual.

That data piece is so important, so we can look at some of the high-profile cases and ask what the issue there was. Was it a risk assessment issue? Was it the condition? Was it the plan of supervision? Can we find patterns in those cases? Then, armed with that information, how do we make adjustments to resourcing and the law to stop those situations from happening?

That is different from the sort of categorical reforms that one member just mentioned, which do not take into account those individual variances, distinctions and patterns, but instead, restrict bail and its access for everybody, including the innocent.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Rahim.

Ms. Latimer, I'd like to hear your perspective on this as well. In your opening remarks, you said that bail was more difficult to obtain, but that more needed to be done to prevent repeat offences.

[Catherine Latimer]

I think that's true.

The numbers are very alarming, particularly if you look at them in the international context. Most first world countries have a considerably smaller proportion of their overall prison population in remand than Canada does. We're lagging on that. Our numbers on that are not particularly good, which means we have too many people in the remand system.

The question then becomes, “Do we have the right people in the remand system? Why is it taking so long? Are there delays that make our numbers look bad? What exactly is the problem?”

I agree with Mr. Rahim that the numbers and evidence are not clear. The database on which to make these judgments about how to effectively reform the remand system is not there at the moment. We need the evidence in order to participate, meaningfully, in a comprehensive overhaul, because the system is not working now—on either end.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

During other studies conducted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in recent years, we've heard a number of witnesses say, as you mentioned earlier, that longer sentences don't have the desired deterrent effect.

How can we balance all of those aspects, including bail and sentencing?

[Catherine Latimer]

In the bail process, people are presumed to be innocent—they haven't actually been convicted, so they haven't actually been sentenced.

While people are in remand, they ought not to be getting rehabilitation because they haven't technically committed any crimes yet. They're just warehoused, essentially, under various difficult circumstances, for periods of time that are way too long.

When you're talking about post-conviction, and you're dealing with rehabilitation and trying to reintegrate, I think there is a lot more that we can be doing and should be doing. I am a very strong supporter of the government's federal framework to reduce recidivism, which would deal with some repeat offending. That was introduced by a Conservative backbencher, but it was embraced by all parties. I think there's common ground here, to try to ensure that repeat crime is addressed.

You can't make the assumption that people who are remanded are guilty of an offence. They're technically innocent, and they should be treated that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Your time is up, Mrs. Brière.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have limited time, but I want to go to both witnesses on the issue of pretrial bail.

Should there be a different criterion for a repeat offender, meaning someone who winds up in court after previously committing similar crimes?

Shouldn't the fact of being a repeat offender necessarily be taken into consideration to keep that person in prison? If so, how many repeat offences should it take?

[Catherine Latimer]

Go ahead.

[Shakir Rahim]

If you look at the bail judgments in those situations, you will see that there is specific weight placed on the fact that there have been prior offences, when applying the public safety criterion.

I would say that it's about ensuring, and of course there are abilities to—

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

I apologize for rushing you, but I'm almost out of time.

I know it's being considered. My question is whether that should be a criterion. In other words, if the person was a repeat offender, they would not be released. If so, how many repeat offences would it take to apply the criterion?

You have a few seconds left to respond.

[Shakir Rahim]

There should not be a numerical cut-off. It should be the role of the justice of the peace or a judge to analyze the record and make that determination.

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

Thank you, Mr. Rahim.

Ms. Latimer, what do you think?

[Catherine Latimer]

I agree with my colleague here. It really depends on the individual and how old the criminal record is. For a criminal record that's five years out of date, the person is just as likely to be committing an offence as you or me, after that point, so it shouldn't bear on it.

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

In your opinion, the current criteria in the bail system are the right ones and don't need to be changed. Did I understand correctly?

[Catherine Latimer]

I think there needs to be a lot of judicial education, perhaps some Crown guidelines and perhaps a lot of other things—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Latimer.

We agree that we need to do more work and education. I'm just talking about the criteria or the calculation. We're talking about the Criminal Code. Are the criteria good or should they be changed? I understand that work needs to be done, but what about the criteria?

[Shakir Rahim]

[Inaudible—Editor] are to be changed. We need that data first and then we can evaluate that question effectively.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

We still have two members to speak, Mr. Gunn and Ms. Dhillon, who will have four minutes each.

Mr. Gunn, you have four minutes.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Chief Roskamp, is Canada currently releasing repeat offenders on bail who are a threat to public safety?

[Marc Roskamp]

I believe that in some situations they are.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

In Vancouver, just a couple of years ago, there was a report that 40 individuals—prolific offenders—were responsible for over 6,300 incidents with the police in just a small period of time.

In your estimation, what per cent of crime that's being committed in your community is being committed by a small number of criminals, repeat offenders or individuals already well known to police?

[Marc Roskamp]

It is a very high percentage. I would say it is above 80%.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I think that 80% is what leads a lot of Canadians—members of the public—to refer to our justice system as a revolving door.

What do you think are the main causes of what many Canadians perceive to be a catch-and-release system?