Justice Committee on Oct. 21st, 2025

[Penny McVicar]

I think that's a major deficiency. Victim notification needs to be enshrined in the Canadian bill of rights.

This is not only about fairness but about building a justice system that protects victims as much as it holds offenders accountable. It says in the Victims Bill of Rights that victims are entitled to notification, but that is viewed differently by police services in jurisdictions all across Canada. There's no consistent process for victims to get information, to be provided with timely bail notification or to be provided with the information they need to keep themselves safe.

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

What about bail variations? What are your thoughts?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

You have about 15 seconds, so be brief.

[Penny McVicar]

We have victims asking about bail variances from day one, because they're afraid or their family's being torn apart or they don't know what to do.

Part of what we do is help victims to figure out where they can go to get help and what the next steps are for them. Oftentimes, bail variances lead to revictimization, but oftentimes, victims are inviting the offenders back in as well, so it—

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Wade, you have six minutes.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In my conversations with my constituents in Burnaby, B.C., I often hear deep concern for public safety. People want to be safe in their homes. I share that concern, but as a lawyer, I also know that lasting safety depends on a justice system that is fair, balanced and guided by evidence rather than emotion.

Each of you brings a distinct perspective to this conversation, so thank you.

Ms. Owens, LEAF has highlighted that broad reverse onus provisions can disproportionately impact women and marginalized groups. What safeguards should the government consider to ensure that bail reforms remain effective and equitable?

[Kat Owens]

I think one thing that's always important to consider when making changes to the criminal legal system is the communities that are likely to be most affected by these changes.

We think about the terrible cases that happen, the emotional cases, and they are awful, but we don't think about the everyday work of bail systems. I think taking discretion away from judges and putting an increased burden on accused people is going to harm members of marginalized communities the most, and that's something we need to keep in mind.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

How can the federal and provincial governments better incorporate gender-based analysis and equality analysis when designing or reviewing bail and sentencing policies?

[Kat Owens]

I would say two things.

The first, I think, is to speak to the communities that are affected and to the people who work with them. Studies like this are very helpful, as is proactively seeking input from those groups.

The second would be to improve the collection of evidence so that we know who is going through the bail system—who's being detained, who's represented and who needs legal aid—so that we can make evidence-based decisions on bail reform.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Goldkind, drawing on your experience in the courtroom, what measures should be taken to strengthen enforcement on bail breaches without compromising fairness or creating additional backlog in provincial courts?

[Ari Goldkind]

That's something I deal with every day.

One of the witnesses just talked about how that's a huge part of the criminal justice system, with fails to comply or breaches occurring in about 20% to 30% of cases.

Two things jump out at me. One is something that I don't think anybody ever talks about, so we'll leave that for a second.

The first is that there's no way that police can knock on every door. Again, one of your witnesses said that when an offender gets their bail paper or their promise-to-appear undertaking, it's not worth the paper it's written on. They're out and they're happy to be out. They're told they're on curfew, but they're out past curfew, or they're out on house arrest, but they're out and about with their friends and maybe committing more crimes.

The part that's never talked about is the role of the surety in Canada. Most people on this panel have probably watched a movie involving a bail bondsman or a midnight run. In the movie, you put money down, and if you don't come to court, you don't get it back. In Canada, it's very different.

I don't think we have a sufficiently robust system. It's not really a juicy talking point, but most people who get bail at a bail hearing need to have sureties come and say that they're going to supervise that person. That's how somebody gets bail in Canada, particularly with the serious kinds of crimes that I think we're all here to talk about today. I don't think we're here for shoplifting, necessarily.

When mom and dad come to court and say that they're going to watch their child and make sure that he abides by his curfew or his house arrest, and then the child goes out, and the surety knows that the child is out violating that bail but doesn't call the police, most people here would be surprised to know that there's very little recourse against the surety.

I think that if there was a public perception that if you come to court and say that you're going to be the one who's going to be watching that person in the community and that if that person screws up, the government is going to come after you in what's called estreatment court, it would go a long way toward helping people comply with their bail, because the people who made the promise to watch that person would know there's actually a significant financial penalty if they don't watch them.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you.

Much of the responsibility for enforcement falls on provincial police and courts.

How could better coordination over data sharing across jurisdictions improve both public safety and confidence in the bail process?

[Ari Goldkind]

If I understand your question correctly, and I don't know that I do fully, it's that you want to have a centralized system, which we do. We have CPIC and we have onboard computers in police vehicles, for example.

I know there's a movement in many cities to have bail compliance units, a term that I think is very familiar to you, but there are only so many police officers you can take off frontline duty to do compliance checks. I think one of the witnesses talked about door knocking and that sort of thing.

Among the things you see courts very loathe to impose are geographic restrictions. In other words, somebody charged in Kitchener-Waterloo, for example, remains in Kitchener-Waterloo. Forget the passport, as most people aren't leaving the country.

At the end of the day, for the truly dangerous people who I think are the people we all want to focus on—and I think this is probably bipartisan or non-partisan—I think there has to be more notice to the public about those people being out on bail, or not, or for the public to understand that this person has bail.

There's a different part of the question that I will leave, due to time, about what I would recommend, but to me there seems to be a problem in the system with the number of breaches by people who are not taking their bail seriously and with having no recourse over the people who signed those bail papers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was very interested in Mr. Goldkind's remarks.

That said, I'm going to turn to Ms. Leclerc.

In your testimony, which I very much appreciated as well, you referred to certain statistics and documents. I was taking notes. You said that harsher sentences didn't reduce crime and that “Netflix” sentences were often harder for a prisoner to bear than being in prison, and that they might be more effective.

Could you send us documents and statistics on that?

[Chloé Leclerc]

Yes, absolutely. In fact, I relied on a Statistics Canada report that shows the reoffence rates according to the different approaches. I could definitely send you that information.

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

I'll stop you there because I don't want to spend two minutes on that. I understood that you'll send us that report. Thank you very much for that. The same goes for repeat offenders. My understanding is that they weren't necessarily all accounted for properly, among other things. If you have any documents pertaining to that, we would really appreciate your forwarding them to the clerk of the committee.

We've heard from other groups of witnesses, and some of the witnesses have asked us to be harsher and stricter about parole and interim release. I would tend to agree with that. I think it's appalling every time people commit a second or third offence and commit more crimes. I don't want to talk about specific cases, because that could go on and on, but a woman was recently killed by her spouse, and it was his 16th offence or something like that. The point is, we agree with what the witnesses are asking for.

This is a really big problem. As of now, judges must consider three factors before granting interim release to someone. First, the judge must ensure that the accused can appear at their hearing on the scheduled date. Second, the judge must ensure that releasing the accused will not compromise public safety, meaning that the accused won't kill everyone on the street upon leaving the courthouse. Last, the judge must ensure that, based on the seriousness of the charge, granting bail will not be detrimental to confidence in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court put those criteria in place, and we have pretty much made do with them ever since.

Nowadays, we are seeing cases that get a lot of media attention. I acknowledge your warning that the media must not dictate lawmaking, but the fact remains that the public is aware of all these cases and is expressing vehement disapproval. Our job as legislators is to address that.

The criteria that once seemed sufficient to grant interim release may no longer be sufficient today. I don't know.

What do you think? Are the criteria sufficient? If not, what criteria should be added or removed?

I will have more questions for you afterwards.

[Chloé Leclerc]

I'm not sure I agree on the issue of public opinion.

Case in point: When you ask people what they think of the courts, about 70% of them say that they're not tough enough and that sentences need to be longer. However, when presented with real situations and asked to make decisions about the fate of these accused, those same people make decisions that are very similar to the judges' or even less harsh in many cases.

I think we have to be careful about what we think public expectations are. That's the first part of the answer I'd like to give you.

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

I agree with you.

I don't have much time left, so I'll move on to this: Are the current criteria adequate or not?

[Chloé Leclerc]

I want to say something else: Remand is more common now than ever before. It used to be 20%—

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

Now, it is 72%. We know that.

Sorry to rush you, but I don't have much time left. Talk to me about the criteria, because that's what we have to make decisions about.

[Chloé Leclerc]

It's important to understand that the criteria are subject to interpretation. The criteria themselves are consistent, but courts may interpret them differently depending on the time, political pressure and public pressure.

In my opinion, the current criteria are not a problem.

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

In your opinion, the current criteria are adequate.

For repeat offenders, if a person is appearing before the court for the second or third time, some people believe the burden of proof should be reversed.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. If that were the case, it would not be up to the Crown to prove that the accused may not show up for their hearing, that they may be a danger to public safety or that their interim release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The assumption would be that none of the criteria are met in the case of an individual who has logged a certain number of repeat offences. It would then be up to that individual to prove that they are not a public safety risk, that they will attend their trial and that confidence in the administration of justice will not be undermined.

What are your thoughts on reverse onus? Would it be a good idea in the case of repeat offenders or not?

[Chloé Leclerc]

Whether the burden of proof rests on the court or the accused, the possibility of keeping them behind bars during their trial already exists. Detention rates are at an all-time high, which indicates that the courts don't seem to have a problem keeping people in remand.

In my opinion, the question is not whether there should be reverse onus because, at the end of the day, those debates are already taking place in the criminal division and the courts.