Justice and Human Rights

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to discuss a proposed law (Bill C-238) that would change how restitution, or money paid by offenders to victims, is handled. This proposed law aims to allow organizations that help victims of crime to also receive restitution from offenders to cover the costs of their support services. Cristina Scarpellini from Angels of Hope Against Human Trafficking explained that human trafficking causes deep, lasting trauma and significant costs for survivors and the groups that support them. She emphasized that the proposed law would make offenders more responsible for these costs, which is crucial for survivors' long-term healing and recovery. Evie Ali from The Go-Give Project spoke about the severe impact of crime on vulnerable people, such as those experiencing homelessness or addiction, leading to financial losses. She highlighted that frontline organizations like hers absorb these costs and that the proposed law would acknowledge this burden. Committee members questioned the witnesses about the practical aspects of the proposed law, including how it might affect court trials and the process for organizations to collect funds from offenders. They also discussed how to prioritize the needs of individual victims alongside those of the support organizations. One committee member also asked about the witnesses' views on drug policy, particularly safe supply programs. No decisions were made on the proposed law during this meeting. A large portion of the session was spent on a procedural motion introduced by a committee member to discuss a different proposed law (Bill S-233), which aims to protect health care workers and first responders from assault. This led to a debate about the committee's schedule and previous communications. The meeting ended suddenly due to a vote in the House of Commons, without concluding the discussion on either the restitution proposed law or the procedural motion.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss a proposed law, Bill C-235, aimed at changing the Criminal Code regarding parole for serious crimes. This proposed law would allow judges to set a longer period before offenders convicted of abduction, sexual assault, and murder can apply for parole, specifically between 25 and 40 years. The meeting began with a motion to extend the time for another proposed law, Bill C-223, which was approved. The committee then heard from several key speakers. Jo-Anne Landolt shared a deeply personal and emotional story about the murder of her niece, Kimberly, and the ongoing trauma her family experiences from repeated parole hearings for the offenders. She strongly supported the proposed law, hoping it would spare other families from similar stress. Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, also supported the bill's goal to reduce re-traumatization for victims' families, emphasizing the need for clear information and considering longer intervals between parole reviews. He also highlighted the importance of a fair process for all involved. Representatives from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Dale Weidman and Simon Authier, expressed support for the proposed law, agreeing that it would help victims' families by reducing the number of parole hearings. However, they also suggested amendments to ensure the law is legally sound and respects offenders' rights, particularly concerning the right to appeal and providing judges with clear guidelines for imposing longer parole ineligibility periods. They stressed the need to balance victims' rights with offenders' rights. During the discussion, committee members expressed their gratitude to Ms. Landolt for her courage. They explored the emotional and practical difficulties of the parole hearing process for victims' families and the importance of creating legally robust legislation. The committee then moved to a clause-by-clause review of the proposed law, where several amendments were proposed and agreed upon. The bill, with its amendments, was approved by the committee and will be reported to the House of Commons.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to talk about a proposed law, Bill C-235, which aims to change how long serious offenders must wait before they can ask for parole. The main goal of this proposed law is to protect the families of victims from having to relive terrible events during parole hearings. Mr. Jeff Kibble, the Member of Parliament who put forward this proposed law, explained that it is for the most dangerous criminals who commit abduction, sexual assault, and murder against the same person. He said that these criminals often use parole hearings to upset and hurt victims' families again. The proposed law would let judges decide to make these criminals wait longer for parole, up to 40 years instead of 25 years, meaning fewer painful hearings for families. He also made it clear that judges would still have the power to make the final decision. Committee members mostly agreed with the idea of helping victims' families. However, some members, like Ms. Gladu and Ms. Begum, asked Mr. Kibble about adding clearer rules to the proposed law. For example, they wanted to make sure it only applies to future crimes or that judges explain why they chose a certain parole waiting period. Mr. Kibble thought some of these changes might not be needed or could make the law too complicated. Justice Department officials, Ms. Joanna Wells and Ms. Erin Kelly, told the committee that the proposed law would likely be checked by courts to see if it follows Canada's constitution, especially because it extends the time before parole. They noted that judges having choices in sentencing is an important part of the proposed law. No final decisions were made at this meeting. The committee heard from the person who proposed the law and government experts. The discussion showed that the committee wants to make sure the proposed law is strong and fair. They plan to hear from a victim's family member at their next meeting to better understand how parole hearings affect them.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to discuss a proposed law, Bill C-231, which aims to change the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This proposed law, also known as the "friends of David bill," focuses on helping young people with problematic drug use and mental health issues through early treatment rather than just punishment. The committee heard emotional testimonies and then moved on to make changes to the proposed law. Key speakers included MP Luc Berthold, who introduced the proposed law, and his wife, Caroline Levesque, and daughter, Justine Berthold. They shared the heartbreaking story of their son David, who struggled with addiction and mental health issues and ultimately took his own life. They explained that the current system failed to provide early intervention and treatment, and they hope this proposed law will give police, prosecutors, and judges better tools to refer young people to treatment programs before their situations worsen. They emphasized that drug use is often a symptom of deeper suffering. Angy Riendeau, a criminologist, also spoke, agreeing with the need for early intervention. However, she raised concerns about whether changing the law is the best solution, or if existing laws are simply not being used effectively due to a lack of resources for assessments and treatment programs. She highlighted that specialized support often depends on a family's ability to pay, which is a major problem. Committee members from all parties expressed their condolences and support for the proposed law. They discussed the importance of early intervention and the need for more resources and training for those working with youth. After the testimonies, the committee moved to make several changes to the proposed law, mainly to broaden its scope to include "problematic substance use" and other treatment programs, not just drug addiction. The committee then agreed to report the proposed law, with these changes, to the House of Commons.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to discuss the Minister of Justice's main goals and the department's budget for the upcoming year. Minister Sean Fraser outlined his department's three main priorities for public safety: making criminal laws stronger, supporting police and community groups, and investing in prevention programs like affordable housing and mental health support. He mentioned several proposed laws aimed at these goals, including those addressing hate crimes, bail and sentencing reform, and protecting victims. Committee members questioned the Minister on various topics. Conservative committee member Larry Brock challenged Minister Fraser on his past views on mandatory minimum sentences and how a new proposed law (C-16) would affect them. Another Conservative committee member, Roman Baber, raised concerns about a proposed law (C-22) that would require companies to keep Canadians' internet data, arguing it might violate privacy rights. Liberal committee members Marilyn Gladu and Anju Dhillon asked about how proposed laws (C-14 and C-16) would address repeat violent offenders, protect frontline workers, and support victims of crime, including those affected by deepfakes. Bloc Québécois committee member Rhéal Éloi Fortin pressed the Minister on the "Clarity Act" and what would be considered a clear majority in a potential referendum in Quebec or Alberta, but the Minister avoided giving a direct answer, emphasizing the importance of a united Canada. There was also a brief discussion about combating anti-Semitism and the role of the federal government in addressing court delays. In the second hour, the committee was supposed to focus on the department's budget (main estimates). While specific budget line items weren't deeply discussed, Minister Fraser also spoke about his role with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), highlighting a new fund to build stronger communities and an economic panel to boost the region's productivity. No specific decisions were made, but the discussions clarified the government's approach to justice and public safety.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to continue its review of a proposed law that would change criminal and correctional rules about child protection, gender-based violence, delays in the justice system, and other issues. The committee was working through the proposed law, clause by clause, considering amendments. Larry Brock (Conservative) proposed a motion to prioritize future committee work, including inviting the Minister of Justice to discuss his priorities and considering other proposed laws related to youth criminal justice and parole ineligibility. This motion also suggested drafting a report on the bail system and studying the appointment of judges. However, this motion did not receive unanimous consent initially. Andrew Lawton (Conservative) questioned officials Leah Burt and Matthew Taylor from the Department of Justice about a "safety valve" in the proposed law that would allow judges to impose shorter sentences than mandatory minimums if the minimum punishment would be considered cruel and unusual. Lawton was concerned about how judges would determine if a punishment was cruel and unusual and whether they would consider the impact on victims. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Bloc Québécois) proposed an amendment to Brock's motion to include a study on the judicial appointment system, which had been previously agreed upon. Patricia Lattanzio (Liberal) expressed concerns about the committee's limited time and the need to prioritize government bills. Ultimately, Fortin's amendment was defeated, but Brock's motion to prioritize the Minister of Justice's appearance and other proposed laws was passed. The committee then completed its clause-by-clause review of the proposed law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to a law (Bill C-16) that aims to protect victims and make the justice system work faster. The committee reviewed the proposed law section by section, considering many suggested changes (amendments). They talked about things like protecting victims' privacy, ensuring fair treatment for Indigenous people, and setting appropriate punishments for crimes. Key speakers included Jenny Kwan (NDP), who proposed changes to better protect victims' rights and ensure fairness for Indigenous people in the justice system. Larry Brock (Conservative) focused on making sure punishments fit the crime, especially for serious offenses like extortion and sexual offenses against children. Michael Ellison (Department of Justice) provided legal advice, explaining how the proposed changes would affect existing laws and court processes. Patricia Lattanzio (Liberal) emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and ensuring that the proposed law would hold up in court. The committee agreed to some changes, such as expanding protections for victims of intimate partner violence and clarifying language to ensure the proposed law is consistent across different acts of Parliament. However, they rejected other changes, including proposals to eliminate the "safety valve" that allows judges to deviate from mandatory minimum sentences in certain cases. A proposal to add a mandatory minimum penalty for extortion involving a firearm was deferred, then ultimately rejected. Ultimately, the committee worked through the proposed law, clause by clause, voting on each section and proposed change. The next step is for the proposed law, as amended by the committee, to go back to the House of Commons for further debate and a final vote.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws about criminal and correctional matters, focusing on protecting children, addressing gender-based violence, and reducing court delays. The committee reviewed Bill C-16, also known as the Protecting Victims Act, clause by clause, considering various amendments. Witnesses from the Department of Justice, Department of National Defence, and Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness were present to answer technical questions. Committee members debated several proposed amendments. Leah Gazan (NDP) suggested changes to better protect survivors of intimate partner violence and address the creation and distribution of sexually explicit deepfake images. Elizabeth May (Green Party) proposed extending protections against coercive control to seniors and other family members, but later withdrew her amendments. Conservative members, including Larry Brock and Roman Baber, challenged the scope of the proposed law and sought to reinstate mandatory minimum penalties for certain offenses, particularly those related to child pornography. These attempts were largely ruled out of order by the committee chair. Several amendments were adopted, including those related to testimonial aids, non-disclosure agreements, and the definition of "sexual organs." The committee also agreed to amendments addressing the removal of intimate images from the internet and clarifying the application of criminal harassment laws. The meeting was at times contentious, with disagreements over the scope of the proposed law and the use of the notwithstanding clause. The committee will continue its clause-by-clause review of the proposed law at a future meeting.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-16, also called the Protecting Victims Act. The committee heard from various witnesses about different aspects of the proposed law, including intimate partner violence, coercive control, online exploitation, and elder abuse. Several witnesses spoke about the importance of addressing coercive control, which involves patterns of controlling and intimidating behavior. Inspector Valarie Gates from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and Chief Thai Truong from the London Police Service, emphasized the need for training and resources for police to identify and respond to these patterns effectively. Melanie Webb from the Canadian Bar Association raised concerns about mandatory minimum sentences and their potential impact on court delays and fairness. Other witnesses, such as Leah Zille from Child and Youth Advocacy Centres of Canada, and Lindsay Jolie from Boost Child & Youth Advocacy Centre, focused on protecting children from online exploitation and abuse. They highlighted the need for stronger laws and resources to address these issues. Marta Hajek from Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario, discussed the importance of protecting seniors from coercive control and abuse, particularly from family members and caregivers. Dr. Naomi Parker from the Kindex Research and Knowledge Centre, suggested improvements to the proposed law, such as graduated sexual offence categories and formalizing trauma-informed frameworks. The committee discussed the need for a balance between protecting victims and ensuring fairness in the justice system. Some committee members raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposed law on repeat offenders and the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences. The committee acknowledged the importance of training, resources, and collaboration between different agencies to effectively implement the proposed law and protect vulnerable populations.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-16, also known as the Protecting Victims Act. The committee heard from several witnesses about different aspects of the proposed law, including mandatory minimum sentences, elder abuse, and victims' rights. The committee is trying to understand if the proposed law will help victims and if it is fair. Colton Fehr, a professor, talked about the safety valve clause in the proposed law, which would allow judges to give a lesser sentence in some cases where a mandatory minimum sentence would be too harsh. He suggested some factors that should not be considered when deciding whether to use the safety valve. Joanne Blinco, from the Alberta Elder Abuse Awareness Council, spoke about coercive control in elder abuse, where older adults are manipulated and controlled. She said that this is often a hidden problem, especially for older women. Benjamin Roebuck, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, said that the proposed law is a big step forward for victims' rights, but that there are still some things that need to be improved, like making it easier for victims to get information and complain about violations of their rights. During the meeting, committee members asked questions about how the proposed law would work in practice and whether it would be effective in protecting victims. They also discussed the definition of femicide, which is the killing of a woman because she is a woman. Some committee members wanted to make sure that the proposed law would not unfairly punish people from marginalized communities. Other witnesses including Nancy Boucher, Rizwan Khan and Liz Brown also testified on the bill. Some witnesses suggested changes to the proposed law, such as expanding the definition of coercive control to include abuse by family members other than intimate partners. The committee will consider these suggestions as it continues its study of the proposed law. No decisions were made during the meeting, but the committee is gathering information to help it make informed decisions about the proposed law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws related to criminal and correctional matters, focusing on protecting victims. The committee heard from several witnesses about their perspectives on the proposed law. The first panel included representatives from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Daughter Project Canada, and the London Abused Women's Centre. They discussed topics like femicide, coercive control, online sexual exploitation of children, and the need for prevention and education. Jennifer Dunn from the London Abused Women's Centre emphasized the importance of recognizing femicide but cautioned against criminalizing coercive control without proper training for police, lawyers, and judges. Monique St. Germain from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection supported changes aimed at protecting children from online exploitation and image-based abuse. Kristin Szabo from Daughter Project Canada recommended strengthening the definition of "intimate image" and addressing online exploitation through shared responsibility between individuals, platforms, communities, and governments. All three emphasized the need for more data collection and public reporting on child sexual exploitation. The second panel included Kendra Cooke, who shared her personal experiences with intimate partner violence and coercive control, highlighting the need for better support systems for victims. Angela Marinos from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights proposed providing independent legal representation for victims of sexual violence and sex trafficking. Andrew Ullock and Lisa Henderson from the Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association emphasized the importance of restoring mandatory minimum sentences for child exploitation offenses and addressing unreasonable delays in trials. The committee approved a budget of $46,600 for the study.

The Canadian parliamentary committee met to discuss proposed changes to laws about crime and victims. They looked at a proposed law called Bill C-16, which aims to protect victims, especially in cases of domestic violence. The committee heard from different groups, including the National Association of Women and the Law, the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, the Barreau du Québec, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan. Key speakers included Suzanne Zaccour from the National Association of Women and the Law, who suggested changes to the proposed law to better protect women who are victims of abuse. Louise Riendeau and Karine Barrette from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale talked about the importance of making coercive control a crime, but also making sure that the law is used fairly and doesn't hurt the victims it's supposed to protect. Peter Copeland from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute talked about the need to address delays in the justice system and to make sure that laws are clear and effective. Dr. Crystal Giesbrecht from the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan spoke in favor of the proposed law and suggested ways to improve it. The committee members discussed issues like how to define "femicide" (the killing of women), how to deal with cases of coercive control, and how to make sure that victims' rights are protected. They also talked about the importance of training police and other legal professionals so that they can understand and respond to domestic violence effectively. The committee plans to continue studying the proposed law and will consider changes before voting on it. The next steps include completing the witness portion of the study on April 22nd, and beginning clause-by-clause consideration on April 27th. Proposed amendments should be submitted by noon on Thursday, April 23.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-16, also known as the Protecting Victims Act. The committee heard from several witnesses about different aspects of the proposed law, including coercive control, femicide, and the distribution of intimate images. Committee members were interested in hearing how the law could be improved to better protect vulnerable populations, like seniors and victims of domestic violence. Andrea Silverstone, CEO of Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society, spoke about the importance of recognizing coercive control as a distinct harm. She suggested broadening the scope of the proposed law to include relationships of dependency and trust, not just intimate partner relationships. Rosel Kim, a senior staff lawyer at the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), expressed caution about the proposed law's amendments concerning femicide and coercive control, suggesting that they could lead to unintended consequences for survivors, especially those from marginalized communities. Alison Irons, whose daughter was murdered by an ex-partner, shared her personal story and advocated for recognizing patterns of coercive control in intimate partner violence. Tom Stamatakis, President of the Canadian Police Association, said the CPA broadly supports the proposed law. He said it would give police officers more tools to respond to issues like coercive control and the exploitation of children. Kerri Thomson, Manager, Justice and Legislative Affairs, Humane Canada, spoke about the importance of addressing animal cruelty and torture imagery online. Vicky Law, Executive Director, Rise Women's Legal Centre, said that education for all legal system actors is the best way to provide protection to survivors and victims. Committee members discussed potential amendments to the proposed law, such as broadening the definition of coercive control and adding protections for seniors. They also discussed the importance of providing resources and training to law enforcement and other professionals to help them identify and respond to cases of domestic violence and coercive control. The committee will continue to study the proposed law and consider potential amendments.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss Bill C-16, also known as the Protecting Victims Act. This proposed law aims to make changes to criminal laws to better protect victims, especially in cases of gender-based violence and online exploitation of children. The committee members heard from the Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, and several justice department officials. Minister Fraser explained that the proposed law focuses on strengthening criminal laws, supporting law enforcement, and investing in community programs to prevent crime. Key changes include creating a new first-degree murder charge for femicides (the murder of women), criminalizing coercive control (controlling and abusive behavior in relationships), and modernizing laws to address sextortion and the creation of AI-generated deepfake sexual images. The proposed law also seeks to restore mandatory minimum penalties for certain crimes while providing a "safety valve" for judges to avoid unjust sentences. Committee members raised concerns about the "safety valve," arguing it could weaken mandatory minimum sentences and potentially lead to lighter sentences for serious offenders. Minister Fraser and department officials defended the measure, stating it was necessary to ensure the proposed law is constitutional and to address situations where a mandatory minimum penalty would be excessively harsh. They also emphasized that the proposed law is part of a broader strategy to combat crime and protect victims. The committee discussed the issue of court delays and how the proposed law aims to streamline procedures and encourage courts to consider alternative remedies instead of dismissing cases due to delays. The committee agreed to hold five meetings with witnesses to further study the proposed law before proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration. A motion was also passed to study the appointment of judges after completing the review of the proposed law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to continue reviewing a proposed law that would change the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime, and access to religious or cultural places. The meeting was held in a hybrid format, with committee members attending both in person and via video conference. The committee was under an order from the House of Commons to complete the review of the proposed law without adjournment. The meeting was chaired by James Maloney, who guided the committee through a series of votes on amendments and clauses of the proposed law. Conservative members, including Andrew Lawton and Roman Baber, raised points of order and privilege, questioning the process and the ability to propose subamendments. However, the Chair maintained that the committee was to proceed directly to voting without further debate or submissions, based on the order from the House. Several amendments were proposed and voted on, with many being defeated. Some amendments were withdrawn by their proposers, such as Anthony Housefather, to support alternative wording from other committee members. The committee worked through each clause of the proposed law, addressing technical questions raised by members like Rhéal Éloi Fortin to ensure clarity on the voting process. Ultimately, the committee completed its clause-by-clause review of the proposed law. The proposed law, with amendments, was agreed to by a vote of 5 to 4. The committee also agreed to report the proposed law as amended to the House and to order a reprint of the proposed law for use at the report stage.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to a proposed law about hate speech and hate crimes. The committee is working through the proposed law section by section, considering amendments and subamendments. The main point of debate was a subamendment proposed by Mr. Lawton to an amendment by Ms. Lattanzio, which aimed to clarify when someone could not be charged with promoting hate. Mr. Housefather argued that Mr. Lawton's subamendment would weaken the proposed law and go against its intent to protect minority groups. Mr. Baber countered that the subamendment was a valid way to change the proposed law. Ms. Wells from the Department of Justice said the subamendment would change the substance of the proposed law. Mr. Brock brought up concerns from a legal group and suggested the Liberals were trying to rush the process. Mr. Baber raised concerns about the wording of Ms. Lattanzio's amendment, suggesting it could create more uncertainty. Ms. Lattanzio defended her amendment as a way to address fears that the proposed law would restrict religious freedom. Mr. Fortin criticized the Conservatives for being influenced by religious groups and suggested the committee was at an impasse. Ultimately, the Chair ruled Mr. Lawton's subamendment admissible, meaning the committee would debate and vote on it. Mr. Lawton asked for unanimous consent to withdraw his subamendment, but it was denied. The committee did not come to a resolution and will continue the discussion at a future meeting.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to a proposed law called the Combatting Hate Act (Bill C-9). This law aims to update the Criminal Code regarding hate speech and crimes, especially concerning religious or cultural sites. The committee is working through the proposed law section by section. During the meeting, committee members debated an amendment about religious freedom and whether the proposed law would limit people's ability to express their religious beliefs. Larry Brock, a Conservative member, mentioned discussions about clarifying the language in the proposed law, especially regarding the removal of a "religious defence" in the Criminal Code. Andrew Lawton, also a Conservative, wanted to prioritize a new clause dealing with religious freedom concerns. Anthony Housefather, a Liberal, said the government would propose an amendment to address these concerns, but at the appropriate time. Later, Patricia Lattanzio, a Liberal member, introduced an amendment intended to clarify that the proposed law wouldn't stop people from discussing public interest matters, including religious, educational, or political topics, as long as they weren't intentionally promoting hatred. Lawton proposed a change to this amendment, suggesting the removal of certain phrases to strengthen protections for religious freedom and freedom of expression. Housefather argued that Lawton's change would undermine the purpose of the amendment and the Criminal Code. The committee did not come to a final decision. The chairperson, James Maloney, decided to postpone the meeting until a written copy of Lawton's proposed change could be reviewed. The meeting was adjourned until Wednesday.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws about bail and sentencing. The goal is to address concerns about repeat offenders and public safety. Witnesses included Mayor Tom Dyas of Kelowna, Judith Veresuk from Regina Downtown Business Improvement District, and Clayton Campbell from the Toronto Police Association. They all spoke about the need for stronger bail rules to deal with repeat offenders, especially those committing property crimes and violence. They emphasized how these crimes affect businesses and communities. They generally supported the proposed law but suggested it could be stronger, particularly regarding repeat property offenders and data collection on bail outcomes. During the meeting, committee members discussed possible changes to the proposed law. These included adding consecutive sentences for repeat human trafficking offences, making public safety the main consideration in bail decisions, and requiring mandatory detention for certain major offences. Clayton Campbell of the Toronto Police Association supported many of these changes. He emphasized the importance of keeping repeat violent offenders in custody and providing police with the tools they need to keep communities safe. He also highlighted the need for better data collection to assess the effectiveness of bail decisions. The committee also discussed how the proposed law would affect young offenders. Clayton Campbell agreed that young people who commit crimes are generally less responsible than adults but said that there should be stricter rules for youth who commit serious violent crimes like murder. He also supported allowing police to release information about young people who pose an immediate danger to the public. The committee members debated the merits of the proposed law and the need for further changes. A vote was held regarding prioritizing a different proposed law, but it was defeated. Ultimately, the committee agreed to continue studying the proposed law and make changes to it. They agreed to prioritize a different proposed law at the next meeting. The committee members acknowledged the importance of addressing crime and public safety concerns and committed to working together to find solutions.