Justice Committee on Oct. 21st, 2025

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

Again, your role is to represent your client. Your primary obligation as a defence lawyer is not public safety, but the system itself could be designed in a way that does prioritize public safety. Is that correct?

[Ari Goldkind]

That's very true.

You might listen to me today as you and I are talking and hear that I have one view as a citizen mixed with one as a criminal defence lawyer.

When I walk into a courtroom, which I have done every single day of my life for 20 years, there is no guesswork. It is unmitigated zeal to do the very best job I can for that client, whether you want to use more media terms in terms of a trial and getting them acquitted or getting them out on bail even if they've committed 17 crimes and they were out on 15 bails.

This part of my life in which I'm talking to you stops, and when I go into the courtroom, unmitigated zeal is a very polite way to talk of the passion I undertake on behalf of any client who hires me. I am not as concerned in that moment with public safety or the balancing that we're talking about here today. I have one mission, and I choose to accept it.

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

It sounds, from what you're saying, Mr. Goldkind, as though the Liberal government has handed defence lawyers—has handed perpetrators—a variety of tools that put public safety in jeopardy. Is that correct?

[Ari Goldkind]

I would think that's a fair comment, but I don't want to point the finger just one way. I think this is something in the ether over the last 10 to 20 years. As Canada changes very much, I think there is a perception, yes, that the government of the day is soft on crime.

That's why I thought last week's announcement in advance of this committee was of significant interest to me, but there are other factors at play. I want to be fair. There are judges, justices of the peace, the cultural perception of certain things, Canada changing and the Criminal Code in certain sections, but yes, I think I would be being disingenuous with you if I said I thought that we have a government similar to the one south of the border, which is making it clear that law and order are top of mind and crime is going to be harshly punished no matter who you are.

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

Thank you.

I have 10 seconds left here.

If we were to repeal the principle of restraint from the Criminal Code, would that make bail harder to get for repeat violent offenders?

[Ari Goldkind]

I think it might in certain circumstances. I really draw the line—in the 10 seconds we have—on violence versus non-violence. I'm not in favour of repealing the principle of restraint. I think it's important as a civilized country. I just think it should be applied differently to those who are not getting the message from many previous chances to get the message.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Goldkind and Mr. Lawton.

MP Dhillon, you have five minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you very much.

I will start with Ms. Owens.

My first question for you would be, do you believe it should be harder for repeat offenders accused of intimate partner violence to get bail?

[Kat Owens]

I don't think there is a legislative solution to the problem of gender-based violence to be found within the Criminal Code.

I think it's incredibly tempting—and I say this as someone who is a lawyer—for us to look to law as the solution to these problems, but as you've heard from, I think, many witnesses, the tools exist in the Criminal Code. It's a question of how those tools are applied, and it's a question of the supports that are provided, both to people accused of crimes and to victims to ensure they are safe.

I would say that I don't think there are changes that need to be made in the Criminal Code at this point.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

My next question is for Ms. McVicar.

As you know, we brought forward Bill C-75 on intimate partner violence. There's a reverse onus that was created for bail for repeat intimate partner violence offenders, and it required courts to consider past violence. Are these the kinds of measures you think would help victims in the long run and would strengthen accountability?

[Penny McVicar]

It's important that you look at history. I think it tells you a lot about what future behaviours are going to be. That's important, especially in cases of intimate partner violence.

One of the speakers talked about sureties. There are some things we ask when we're doing our bail notification, when we're talking to victims prior to bail court. Who is a good surety? Who is not a good surety? Who do you feel is not able to do that public duty of being the bailer in the community? I think it's important that we listen to victims in those areas because they know the people in the offender's life, especially with intimate partner violence, and they know who might be appropriate and who isn't appropriate.

I also agree that the use of the estreatment hearings would go a long way if people found out it was going to cost them money or some other consequence if they didn't do their job to ensure that the offender remained on their conditions.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

The Conservative Party has promised to repeal Bill C-75, which would remove these very protections. From your perspective, would that be a mistake for those victims of intimate partner violence?

[Penny McVicar]

I think the conditions that are placed on bail are really important for victims. That's why bail notification is so important. We have to make sure that there's an absolute right that victims have, which is to have a copy of those conditions of release so that they know what the offender is and is not allowed to do, and also to have the information on what to do if those conditions are violated. That's victim empowerment.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Leclerc, do you want to add any comments to what your colleagues just said?

[Chloé Leclerc]

I 100% agree with my colleague. I have nothing to add.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you. That's great.

Ms. Owens, would you also agree with what Ms. McVicar said?

[Kat Owens]

Yes. I would say that LEAF supported the passage of Bill C-75 and would like to see it continue to be law.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Now we have the opportunity to jump into the third round. We'll probably get through three people, starting off with Mr. Gill for five minutes and then MP Maloney.

Mr. Fortin can wrap up the meeting with his two and a half minutes.

Mr. Gill, please go ahead.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for coming today.

Ms. McVicar, you testified previously that some victims are no longer reporting violent crime because they fear the suspect will be quickly released. Do you believe there has been a significant increase in these situations?

[Penny McVicar]

I've been doing this for 25 years, and yes, there are a lot of victims of repeat offenders, and they do get frustrated. They do start to feel that there's no point, because he's just going to get out again, that the conditions are going to be the same and that he's just going to breach another time. That's primarily when we're talking about intimate partner violence, gender-based violence situations. It is a concern because it's so important that they do report. There's the ladder of release: the more frequently the victims report, the more the offender moves up that ladder, which can be very important for holding accountability.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

What are the consequences for victims when bail decisions prioritize presumption of release over community safety?

[Penny McVicar]

Women are displaced from their homes. They end up at a shelter, or we put them in a hotel because it's not safe for them to stay in their own homes. We do our best to provide them with safety supports so that they can remain in their own homes.

Whether they're in custody, especially with intimate partner violence, or whether they're released, the offender may no longer pay child support or help support the family. This is a big issue of concern for victims who have children. All of a sudden, all of their financial supports are gone, and they don't have ways to support their families. It takes a while for them to apply for things like family benefits.

Oftentimes, especially with intimate partner violence, the offender controls all the resources, all the bank accounts, everything. It's a big financial burden, and that's part of the reason they allow them to come back into the home or that they ask for a variance. They need that financial support back. It's hard to raise a family or to look after children when you have no financial resources.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Given the urgency of this issue, do you think that the government's reluctance to adopt existing Conservative motions is costing us valuable time and putting politics ahead of the safety of Canadians?

[Penny McVicar]

My personal opinion is that we need to look at what we can do better to support victims. We have the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, but there's no meat to that bill if it's violated, if they aren't provided with information or if they aren't allowed input into the process to express their concerns. They're then put at greater risk. That's what I see as one of the biggest downfalls of the system: victims' lack of ability to give input and to have information.