Justice Committee on Oct. 21st, 2025

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses.

To pick up on some of the things Mr. Lawton was talking about, there is this issue about federal, provincial and municipal jurisdiction. One of you, not all of you, alluded to it. There's too much finger pointing going on.

Mayor Gillingham, I'll start with you. I saw you on TV on the weekend. I heard you talk about your bulletins, as you have today. You've issued five bulletins. Am I correct in assuming that these five bulletins were used to highlight the really bad cases out there, and that this is why we need the system reformed and we need some fixes to take place?

[Scott Gillingham]

They certainly highlight historical cases where tragic consequences to breaching court orders have been the outcome.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. Thank you, but that doesn't capture the entirety of the bail system or the entirety of the criminal justice system.

I also heard you say the other day, I believe on Sunday, the same thing Mr. Gemmel just said—that there's a requirement for coordination between all three levels of government. Mr. Lawton tried to suggest that the federal government is pointing fingers at the province. It's quite the contrary, in fact. What we're trying to do is have a reasoned, responsible discussion with all three levels of government: This is our part of the equation. That's your part of the equation. This is what I can do. This is what you need to do.

This is what takes me to the data point. Look, the federal government's responsibility is the Criminal Code. Let's face it. That's our part of the equation. The administration of the justice system is the province's responsibility. You gave an example of auto theft going down as the result of coordination in collecting data. Right now, we don't have that data.

Mr. Gemmel, you suggested that maybe the federal government plays a role in that. I'd like to know what you think the federal government can do in light of the fact that.... I'm from Ontario. The Province of Ontario appoints the judges who do bail hearings, hires the Crown attorneys, builds the jails and so on. They're the ones in possession of all the information from which we can gather this data we don't have.

How do we get the provinces on board? Manitoba, I think, might be a good example.

Mr. Gemmel, I'd like you to suggest to me how you think the federal government can play a role in gathering that data.

[Scott Gillingham]

Are you starting with me?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Sure.

[Scott Gillingham]

I think you heard from at least three of us here—the professor, Mr. Gemmel and me—that we agree that there's a part for each level of government to play. As mayor, I have a role to say that my community is not safe enough, because too many times we have repeat violent offenders breaching their court orders, but we all agree that there is a role for everyone to play.

We're making more investment as a city in police resources and going upstream as well. We're making investments in young people and in crime prevention through investing in recreational services for young people in high-needs areas. We have to remove the choke points, synchronize and have “calibration”, the word that the professor used and that I agree with. If we need more investment in Crown resources by provinces, then that needs to happen. If we need more investment in rehabilitation while people are incarcerated, which I'm calling for, that needs to happen.

For sure, every level of government, including the municipal level, needs to do their part to make sure our communities are safer. That's the principle. We need justice for victims. We need safer communities. We need the public across this nation to be confident, once again, that the justice system is working.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I think everybody in this room agrees with that thought, but the negative rhetoric and the fearmongering doesn't help that. Facts matter. This alignment issue takes me to my next question.

Professor Sundberg, you talked about a misalignment or a lack of collaboration. This is exactly what we're talking about, because if one level of government takes steps and the other two don't do their part, the system could run into a whole new set of problems. Is that what you meant by that?

[Kelly W. Sundberg]

Yes, and I think that, when we consider the number of independent players within this at the municipal level and then going to the provinces and the territories and then to the federal government and, within the federal government, the different parts of our justice system, it becomes very difficult to adjust or apply goals and ambitions with regard to addressing the ills of our society at a national level with one approach. I would agree with the mayor and with the municipalities that the federal government does play a critical role.

I think you raised a really important part of that, which was that facts do matter, but I think one of the frustrations from the academic world, from municipal governments and from others is the difficulty in getting coordinated statistics in a timely manner. We have the capacity, and I agree with you that we have all these different sources of data, but—

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I'm going to interrupt you, because I think we're in agreement here.

You said something else that I want to go to Mayor Gillingham about. You said that we have good laws in place, and the issue is enforcement.

[Kelly W. Sundberg]

That's correct.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mayor Gillingham said we need new laws. If the law reform that's going to happen imminently, according to the Prime Minister's announcement the other day, does certain things, what happens if the...? We don't have data on the existing system. We don't have the data Professor Sundberg's talking about right now. I believe we have good laws in place right now, too.

On the principle of restraint notion, nowhere in the Criminal Code does it say that someone who's been convicted of three previous crimes, no matter how heinous they are, should be released. Without that data, we can't move forward in a positive way. The federal government's doing its part, so what I'm asking you to do is to become vocal on the provincial component of this aspect, which I think is what Professor Sundberg is talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

The time is complete. Maybe another member will follow up to allow you to spend a few minutes on that, Kelly.

I have to give it over to Monsieur Fortin.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here with us today.

I kind of agree with Mr. Maloney. I also took from Mr. Sundberg's testimony that we have good laws, but the way they are applied is problematic. My question is about conditional release.

Currently, when detainees appear before a judge within 24 hours of their arrest, they are presumed innocent. The judge will release them unless the Crown determines that they will likely not appear at their next court date, that public safety requires that they be detained or that their release would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. These criteria have been upheld by the Supreme Court, and there has always been a kind of presumption that they were sufficient. Now we want to reconsider that.

In your opinion, what should be changed? Are these criteria sufficient? If not, what criteria should be added?

Mr. Sundberg, I'll start with you.

[Kelly W. Sundberg]

I think this is an excellent question.

When we look at what's being proposed, I think we need to consider reverse onus specifically as being a tool we use as a scalpel as opposed to a hammer. When we use a scalpel, we need to have the individuals who are using that tool to have the information, the skills, the training and the resources in order to make the best decisions. What I see has happened is that...and with respect to thinking around why individuals are breaching their bail and what the big root causes are, I think we're all in agreement across all aspects of that. The reality is that the biggest part of this is that we have vulnerable people. As the regional chief rightfully pointed out, we have a very significant indigenous population, which—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Sundberg.

Did I understand correctly that the problem is how the courts apply these criteria?

[Kelly W. Sundberg]

I do think the application by the courts needs to be more surgical in its approach.

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

Mr. Gillingham, I'd like to hear your answer to the same question.

In your opinion, should some of these three criteria be changed, or should others be added? On the contrary, are the criteria sufficient and, as Mr. Sundberg says, the problem is rather their application or interpretation by the courts?

[Scott Gillingham]

I appreciate the question.

My focus as mayor is to tell the facts of the story I'm seeing on my streets. I would remind us all—I know everyone is aware of this—that every time we have a violent offender who breaches court orders, not only is there a threat to the public but there's a threat to our frontline police officers and other emergency services members as well.

The specifics of what aspects of federal legislation would need to be tweaked or adjusted, that is the specific role, of course, of parliamentarians and the corresponding provincial elected officials as well. I say that with respect.

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

Thank you—

[Scott Gillingham]

What I'm telling you is what is happening on the streets of Winnipeg: what I'm feeling from the public, what my police officers and police chief are saying, and what off-record Crown attorneys and even judges are telling me. I'm here to call for that.

Thank you.

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

Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Gillingham. I understand your message.

Mr. Gemmel, I'd like to ask you the same question.

[Matt Gemmel]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Fortin.

In short, our answer is that it's both and more. We do need changes to the Criminal Code. FCM isn't recommending—

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

What changes need to be made?

[Matt Gemmel]

FCM isn't recommending specific changes. We have two principles that we're advancing. The first is that changes to the Criminal Code would make it harder for violent repeat offenders to be released on bail.

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

How? I want it to be harder, but how? The three criteria in place have seemed sufficient to everyone so far.

We can change them; that's why we're here, but tell us what should be changed.