Evidence of meeting #8 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
We're good to go.
Without further ado, we'll start the first round of witnesses in the order that I announced. We'll have Ari Goldkind first, followed by Chloé Leclerc.
Thank you.
Ari Goldkind Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual
Good afternoon.
My name is Ari Goldkind. I am a criminal defence lawyer in Canada—in Toronto, specifically—and an extraordinarily busy one. I am also a citizen. More and more each day, those two titles clash. Why?
Every Canadian has the right to feel safe in their community, in their homes, on their streets. Many Canadians, if not most, no longer do. That seems to be across the spectrum. Canadians are spending more money on Ring cameras, Faraday bags, and bollards—a word I never even knew until a couple of years ago—to prevent their cars from being stolen by rings and shipped to far-off countries. Their insurance skyrockets without their ever having an accident. They worry about getting carjacked. You don't have to be a Toronto Maple Leaf to have that happen to you. They worry about the perception that those in charge of their lives are soft on crime. They worry about having their home invaded. They hear unfortunate clips from police departments saying, “Don't fight back” or “Just hand over your keys.” They see ordinary homeowners being charged for defending their homes against home invaders. They ask—and I'm asked this question all the time—what has changed so drastically in Canada in the last decade or so, and what can be done about it.
That is why, I am sure, we are all here.
Many Canadians feel their concerns are falling on deaf ears. They hear and feel that their bail system requires significant reform, that it is a revolving door.
It used to be the case that maybe once a week, or maybe every couple of weeks, you'd read about somebody who committed a crime while out on bail, and you'd think, “Okay, that's an aberration. Maybe that's a unicorn.” Now the unicorn rises every day. You can't open a newspaper in a major city without reading about somebody committing a crime while out on their second or third bail release, or somebody just released on parole or statutory release going out and wreaking havoc, particularly on vulnerable members of the community.
Many people in charge have never sat in a courtroom and watched the human toll that having a loved one raped, killed or assaulted takes on a family. I spent my day today in a courtroom on two murder cases. The toll on the deceased's family is unbelievable. Why do I mention that?
The criminal justice system has a balancing act to do. I represent accused people. I defend them, but I also, as a citizen, watch the toll that this is taking on my country, and rightly or wrongly, there is a perception among the public that the balance has shifted incrementally more in the last couple of decades towards the accused, to the preference of rehabilitation over deterrence and over separating out the truly dangerous from society.
We read about all of these incidents that I mentioned. We see Doug Ford having to act as Batman at a Home Depot to stop a theft. We watch people literally getting away with things. We have rural areas where 911 doesn't lead to the police being able to get out there.
When ordinary, average, law-abiding—and may I emphasize, taxpaying—Canadians are harmed, they have the right to believe that their criminal justice system will respond accordingly so that the same thing doesn't happen to their neighbour, to their friend or to their colleague.
I, as a criminal defence lawyer, also say to you that every Canadian citizen has certain rights. Every Canadian has certain rights: If they're arrested, they have a right not only to be presumed innocent, but also a right to a reasonable bail and to be sentenced appropriately. Those things should never be taken away.
Why are we here? Are we striking the right balance in this country? Are the reforms that have been talked about in the last week or two sufficient? Are we truly dealing with the dangerous among us in the right way? Is that a big number of people or a small number of people? Why are we afraid to touch the third rail of crime? How do you solve it without talking honestly about it?
Our Criminal Code has a number of safeguards in it. The legislation is there. Parliament has spoken. Are the laws and the rules being applied properly at the bail stage, at the sentencing stage and, increasingly, at the parole stage?
The Criminal Code, the law and the charter are living and breathing documents. They have to keep up with the times. In my view, they are not.
A perfect example is the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is not keeping up with changes in society.
Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual
Sure.
We have a principle of restraint, which is a very good thing. We're a country that wants to be proud of not only how we treat the best in our society, but the worst.
To conclude, I have never understood why crime or punishment is a partisan issue. No criminal before they reoffend ever asks their victim, “Who do you vote for?” Public safety needs to be the goal, not being popular or being called useless or meaningless names. That should be the goal across the spectrum. The only reason I am here today is to talk about what can make our system better.
Chloé Leclerc Professor, Université de Montréal, Centre international de criminologie comparée, As an Individual
For a few years now, here and elsewhere, we have seen criminal matters used as political tools. That's precisely what I'm urging you not to do today, in other words, not to legislate in response to high-profile cases or what we believe are the expectations of the public or the victims.
The experience of past reforms, both in Canada and abroad, is revealing in many ways. First, extreme cases must never dictate the general rule; otherwise, laws are created that are ill suited to most situations. Second, the tools to deny bail or to impose a severe sentence already exist. If judges aren't currently using them, it's because the facts of the case didn't justify it when they made their ruling, not because they don't have the opportunity to do so.
If the reform you are considering is intended to limit judicial discretion to ensure that judges impose harsh sentences, all the research shows that these policies have significant adverse effects. They clog up the justice system by adding more procedures, they create injustices and inequalities and, most importantly, they weaken the principle of individualized sentences, which is one of the strengths of the Canadian model.
Examples in Canada and around the world show that, when the law is too restrictive, people in the justice system develop new strategies to get around the rules and avoid complying with rulings they don't agree with. The result is that the reform does not have the expected effects and exacerbates problems or creates new ones—
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt Ms. Leclerc's testimony, but I think the interpreters are having trouble keeping up with the pace.
Professor, Université de Montréal, Centre international de criminologie comparée, As an Individual
What a shock! I've never heard that before.
I'll slow down.
In the end, all the scientific research leads to the same conclusion, the most important one: Harsh sentences do not lead to lower crime rates. Not only do countries that have extremely punitive policies not have lower crime rates, but implementing such measures does not lead to a decrease in crime. The most telling example is the war on drugs in the United States. That policy filled American prisons, but it never reduced drug use or drug trafficking.
Another important finding of the research is that the public and victims are not as vindictive as one might think. When we take the time to listen and carefully assess their expectations, we see that they are much more engaged in looking for an effective, consistent and fair system than just seeking punishment. The research in victimology is exactly the same: More than anything, victims want to be heard, informed and supported, and they also want to make sure that there will be no other victims. It is possible to meet their expectations, for example through psychological support, information and safety measures such as electronic monitoring, without necessarily making sentences harsher.
Public opinion is often shaped by a misunderstanding of the justice system and simplistic media portrayals. A conditional sentence, often characterized as a “Netflix” sentence that would allow someone to serve their sentence at home while watching television, is a good example, when in reality it is an extremely harsh and demanding sentence. People who are sentenced to it often perceive it as a harsher sentence than prison. Freedom is restricted, while seeming more easily accessible, and there are numerous conditions and constant responsibilities.
While a conditional sentence is comparable in severity to a prison sentence, it nevertheless has the advantage of avoiding the negative effects of prison, such as family breakdown, job loss and loss of housing. It also promotes accountability, since people need to show they are taking charge of themselves if they want lighter detention conditions.
In addition, a number of studies confirm its effectiveness. In Canada, a recent Statistics Canada document shows that people under community supervision, which includes conditional sentences, reoffend in 28% of cases, compared to 53% for people coming out of prison. We can conclude that it is a harsh and effective sentence, but it is most certainly underused in our system, mainly because of the negative and often distorted image we have of it.
In closing, I would say that your focus on violent repeat offences is entirely justified and essential. The justice system is currently devoting a lot of its resources to dealing with administration-related offences. In fact, 30% of cases before the courts involve a breach of conditions. Worse, prisons are now mostly used to manage people awaiting trial, who, in some provinces, represent between half and three quarters of the prison population. Case load management definitely prevents the system from focusing on its primary purpose.
The decrease in risk tolerance over time has led to the most effective measures, such as conditional sentencing and conditional release, being offered to people who are least likely to reoffend and who have good reintegration potential. In contrast, those who are deemed to be at the highest risk of reoffending are incarcerated in maximum-security institutions, where there are the fewest services and the fewest supports, partly due to lack of resources.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Thank you, Ms. Leclerc. That's your time. You can expand on your thoughts during the question period.
Professor, Université de Montréal, Centre international de criminologie comparée, As an Individual
That's great. Thank you.
Liberal
Penny McVicar Executive Director, Victim Services of Brant
Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of survivors of violence and the dedicated teams who support them.
My name is Penny McVicar. I am the executive director of Victim Services of Brant and past chair of the Ontario Network of Victim Service Providers.
Victim Services of Brant delivers the victim crisis assistance Ontario program and the victim quick response program-plus, alongside 41 sister sites across the province.
Victim Services of Brant, like our sister agencies across Ontario, stands ready to collaborate with justice partners to ensure that victim safety planning is embedded into bail decisions. We urge the committee to consider mechanisms that allow for timely communication with victims when bail conditions are set or changed and to ensure that supports are in place to help survivors navigate the emotional and logistical challenges that often follow.
These reforms are vital, and they provide us with an opportunity to ensure that victims are not left behind but are fully integrated into the conversation.
As we move forward with reforming bail practices, it is essential that we do so with a trauma-informed lens, one that recognizes the lived experiences of survivors and prioritizes their safety, dignity and voice. Every decision made within the justice system has a ripple effect on those who have already endured harm. Survivors deserve to feel protected, heard and supported, not retraumatized by processes that overlook their needs.
When we speak of bail reform, we must also speak of victim safety. At the heart of victim safety is timely bail notification. Without it, survivors remain at serious risk in the hours and days that follow an offender's release.
What exactly is bail notification? Simply put, it is informing victims as soon as possible when an offender is released on bail or when bail decisions are made. This timely notice allows victims to prepare, protect themselves and access necessary support during their most vulnerable moments. Almost all perpetrators are eventually released back into the community, so the real question becomes not whether release will happen but how we will ensure victims are protected when it does.
In Brant, where we operate an established bail notification program, I have seen first-hand how crucial this service is. Survivors of intimate partner violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and hate crimes face immediate and serious dangers once offenders return to the community, yet far too often in Canada, survivors do not receive timely or consistent notification and are left vulnerable to repeat harm or worse.
The reality is that current bail notification systems in Ontario and Canada are fragmented and inconsistent. Some jurisdictions rely on police or court staff, but most victims receive no notification at all. More often than not, notifications happen only during business hours, leaving nights and weekends, the times when risk is often highest, largely uncovered. This creates dangerous inequities in victim safety, based solely on location and timing.
Victim services agencies in Ontario that deliver the victim crisis assistance program, including in Peel and Brant, operate 24-7, 365 days a year. Currently, Brant and Peel deliver trauma-informed, survivor-centred bail notification programs that combine real-time notification with safety planning and access to essential safety provisions through the victim quick response program-plus. These include emergency supports, such as temporary housing, lock changes, personal alarms, transportation and other critical tools that help keep survivors safe.
Once notified of a release, survivors are not left to piece together things on their own. We work with them immediately to plan proactively for their safety. That proactive planning reduces repeat calls for service to police, prevents missed opportunities for intervention and increases survivor co-operation in investigations. In short, timely bail notification strengthens both community safety and the justice system as a whole.
Peel's bail notification program stands as Ontario's longest-running model, with over 40 years of proven success. Brant has effectively operated a similar model on a smaller scale for over 25 years. Together, these programs clearly demonstrate that timely, consistent notification saves lives and leads to better outcomes for survivors, police and communities.
At present, these programs are not funded by the government but rely on unstable fundraising dollars to operate in their communities.
Therefore, we, the Ontario Network of Victim Service Providers, recommend that the federal government establish a mandated province-wide bail notification and advocacy program through victim crisis assistance Ontario agencies. Building on the long-standing success of Peel and Brant, this would be an Ontario-made pilot—a program developed, tested and proven here—that could serve as a nation-building project.
By embedding this work within VCAO agencies, we would ensure consistent, trauma-informed and survivor-centred service delivery across the province. Such a program would not only strengthen public safety in Ontario but also create a clear network for national adoption, setting the standard for victim safety across Canada.
Finally, for this program to succeed, it must be fully funded. Funding must consider caseload, geography, community size and risk factors to ensure equitable access for all victims. Every victim in Canada has the right to timely notification and the safety support they need, regardless of where they live.
Thank you.
Kat Owens Interim Legal Director, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
Thank you. Good evening.
My name is Kat Owens. I am a lawyer and the interim legal director of the women's Legal Education and Action Fund, LEAF. I'm grateful to be joining you here today on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.
As you may know, LEAF is a national charitable organization that advances equality for women, girls, trans and non-binary people throughout Canada. We do this through litigation, law reform and public legal education.
LEAF works with and on behalf of women and gender-diverse people who have faced gender-based violence, intimate partner violence and criminalization.
I will be clear: Gender-based violence in this country is an epidemic, and we absolutely need to do more to end that epidemic. As an organization, we support measures that will meaningfully address gender-based violence and make survivors of intimate partner violence safer.
We'll also acknowledge that there are genuine public safety and trust concerns with how the criminal legal system operates. At the same time, making bail harder to get and increasing sentencing harshness will not solve gender-based violence in this country. Instead, these changes will increase the criminalization of marginalized communities, including women and gender-diverse people within those communities.
I'll focus first on those effects, and then I'll move on to highlight some of the reforms that we need in order to improve public safety and end the gender-based violence epidemic in this country.
As you've heard from people who work directly in Canada's bail system and who study it, the bail system is overwhelmed. People in pretrial custody face appalling conditions. They face lengthy lockdowns and a lack of rehabilitative programming or mental health supports, as well as serious health and safety risks. The consequences for women and gender-diverse people in Canada truly cannot be overstated.
First, and at its most extreme, people in these conditions are dying. In 2023, for example, Sarah Rose Denny, a young Mi'kmaq mother from the east coast, repeatedly asked for access to health care in a provincial jail. She was denied that care and died days later of double pneumonia.
It's not just those extreme cases. When we remove an individual from the broader community, we may see an improvement in short-term public safety, but when that person is released back into the community, we see longer-term negative public safety outcomes. Even short amounts of time in jail can have devastating consequences. These include adverse mental health outcomes as well as loss of income, employment, custody of children and housing. This affects women and gender-diverse people who are detained themselves, of course, but it also affects those who have family members detained, who then lose income, lose access to housing, lose the supports that they need.
When we consider increasing sentencing harshness, it's really important to remember that individuals who are convicted of crimes are also often survivors of gender-based violence. People who are incarcerated, especially Black and indigenous women, are more likely to have experienced intimate partner violence and are more likely to face criminalization by the state, so when we make sentences harsher, we often end up hurting the people we set out trying to help in the first place.
Take, for example, the case of Cheyenne Sharma, which many of you may be familiar with, as it went to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Ms. Sharma was a young indigenous woman, an intergenerational survivor of the residential school system, a survivor of sexual violence and a single mother. She was facing the possibility of eviction from her home, so she decided to act as a drug courier and brought cocaine into Canada.
Strict sentencing laws in place at the time meant that this woman—with a young child, who pleaded guilty, had no criminal record and was facing intimate partner abuse—was ineligible for a conditional sentence and had to be sent to jail. I would just ask this: What is the benefit to society of sending someone like Ms. Sharma to jail?
We need reforms to the criminal legal system. I agree with that and LEAF agrees with that, but they need to be grounded in evidence.
We need an independent, external evaluation of Canada's bail system. We need reforms that disrupt the larger relationship between incarceration, mental health, addiction, discrimination, poverty and social disadvantage. When it comes to gender-based violence, we need a team effort from all levels of government—federal, provincial, territorial and indigenous—to take a proactive approach, focused on prevention, that looks at root causes.
We have ideas, including creating an independent gender-based violence commissioner, exploring restorative and transformative justice models and properly funding the national action plan to end gender-based violence.
Interim Legal Director, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
That's very brief. I wish other witnesses took that lead.
I will announce the first two rounds.
Members are familiar with the time slots, but I will remind them when I name then. Just briefly, the order in the roster is MP Brock, and then Chang, Fortin, Baber, Lattanzio, Fortin, Lawton and Dhillon. I'll point to you individually.
Those are the first two rounds. We'll probably get well into the third, if not complete it.
It's over to you, MP Brock, for six minutes.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you, Chair, and I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all our witnesses for their participation today.
This is a very important study. The country is in desperate need of some reform in this particular area, and victims certainly are asking for it, so I do thank you for your participation.
I'm going to start with you, Ms. McVicar. You and I have had a professional relationship in the past. It's good to see you again.
You've seen violent repeat offenders walk free under conditions that are supposed to protect victims, such as no-contact orders, curfews and weapons bans. In your experience, how often are those conditions actually enforced, and isn't it fair to say that for many victims, bail conditions have become meaningless pieces of paper?
Executive Director, Victim Services of Brant
I just want to give you an example of something that we dealt with in the last week in my office.
We contact victims prior to bail court. We talk to them about what their safety concerns are if the offender is released. We get that information and we pass it on to the Crown attorney, and they use that as part of the information that they use to set up the bail conditions. It also gives us an opportunity to work with the client to do some safety planning, to do some needs assessment and to see what we can do to help that victim to keep them safer should that offender be released.
Just a couple of weeks ago, we had a victim for whom we'd done all those things. We knew she needed the locks changed. We got a locksmith out to get the locks changed. We knew that she needed some web cameras and things like that for safety, as well as some other safety supports put in place.
We call the victims immediately when we know that an accused is being released. We were on the phone with the victim. On her phone, she was able to watch the web cameras that were out in front of her house and see the offender walking up her front steps. She was terrified, to say the least. We kept her on the phone. We contacted the police. We made sure that they were on their way. The offender left and went down around the corner, which she was also able to see from her web cameras. The police got there. She was able to provide information on where he had gone, and they were able to rearrest him immediately.
We see this. You know, it might not happen as immediately as it did in this situation, but it happens a lot that the offenders think that victims don't know what the conditions of release are, think that they can go back home, think that they can just walk in the door and say, “I'm back”, and—
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you, Ms. McVicar. I'm going to move on. My time is very limited.
Your team has supported victims who've seen the same names and the same faces cycling through the system over and over again. What does this do to community trust, particularly to trust in the victim-centric position, when these violent offenders are arrested within hours, if not minutes, of committing the offence of breaching bail conditions?
Executive Director, Victim Services of Brant
I would say it's hard on victims. They lose some confidence in the system. They lose confidence in what the police can do to help them and what the courts can do to help keep them safe. Sometimes they stop reporting; they say, “What's the point?”
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
The Liberal government keeps saying that its bail reforms in the past and those upcoming this week will strike the right balance between upholding the constitutional rights of the accused and ensuring that victim safety and community safety are paramount.
From where you sit in the capacity of executive director, seeing victims who have been traumatized over and over again and are afraid to leave their homes, do you see any balance at all with the current government's approach, or are victims the ones paying the price for a system that simply puts offenders first?
Executive Director, Victim Services of Brant
As I said before, I think the reality is that all offenders are going to be released at some point, whether it's the next day, six months down the road or a couple of years down the road. What we need to be looking at is how we make victims safe when those offenders are released, and I don't think we have that in place at this point in time. There's no effective....
I mean, we have a Canadian Victims Bill of Rights—
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I want to talk to you about that, so that's a good segue.
I've reviewed the current version of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights; I see no provision in there regarding absolute bail notification. Do you feel that's a deficiency that needs to be addressed by the federal government?