Justice and Human Rights

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.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws about bail and sentencing, focusing on Bill C-14. Witnesses from various organizations shared their perspectives on the proposed law. The committee heard from the National Police Federation, who supported the proposed law as a step towards protecting communities from repeat violent offenders, but stressed the need for better information sharing between police and courts. The Association of Manitoba Municipalities expressed strong support for the proposed law, emphasizing the concerns of residents about crime and the need for effective measures to address repeat offenders. The Canadian Urban Transit Association asked for an amendment to the proposed law to include all transit workers under the protections of the Criminal Code, not just transit operators.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws about bail and sentencing (Bill C-14). The goal is to make communities safer by addressing concerns about repeat offenders and violent crimes. The proposed law aims to make it harder for people with a history of violence or ties to organized crime to get bail. It also looks at stricter sentences for certain crimes, especially those involving repeat offenders or violence against first responders. The key speaker was the Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, who explained the proposed changes and why they are needed. He emphasized that the proposed law is a response to concerns raised by law enforcement, provincial governments, and communities across Canada. Fraser highlighted that the proposed law includes measures to ensure courts consider public safety when making bail decisions and to impose tougher conditions on release. He also discussed changes to sentencing, such as making sentences consecutive for certain crimes and prioritizing denunciation and deterrence. Committee members questioned the Minister and Justice Department officials about the details of the proposed law and its potential impact. Some members expressed concern that the proposed changes may not go far enough to address the problems with the current bail system. Others raised questions about the constitutionality of certain provisions and the potential impact on vulnerable populations. Officials clarified that the proposed law is designed to be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that judicial discretion will still be available in individual cases. The committee approved a budget for the study of the proposed law. The next steps involve further review and debate of the proposed law, with the possibility of amendments being proposed by committee members. The goal is to pass a law that will make communities safer while respecting the rights of individuals.

The Justice and Human Rights Committee met to discuss proposed changes to a proposed law about hate speech, hate crimes, and access to religious places. The main focus was on an amendment from the Bloc Québécois (BQ-3) that aimed to remove religious exemptions from the proposed law, meaning people couldn't use religious beliefs as a defense for promoting hate. This sparked a lot of debate about religious freedom and whether the proposed law went too far. Conservative members, like Larry Brock and Andrew Lawton, argued against the Bloc's amendment, saying it would limit religious freedom and that the committee hadn't studied the issue enough. They felt the proposed law was already flawed and that this change would make it worse. They also tried to shift the committee's focus to a proposed law about bail reform, which they believed was more important for public safety. Liberal members, including Patricia Lattanzio, defended the amendment, stating that it was a clarification and that freedom of religion is already protected by the Charter. The committee voted in favor of the Bloc Québécois amendment to remove the religious exemption. Following this, the committee discussed an amendment from Mr. Lawton which stated that nothing in the section should interfere with freedom of expression or religion. The committee agreed to secure resources to continue the discussion tomorrow and Thursday from 3:30 until midnight. The committee will continue with clause-by-clause on the proposed hate speech law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to the law, specifically Bill C-9, also known as the Combatting Hate Act. The meeting focused on whether to prioritize this proposed law or another one related to bail and sentencing reform. Committee members also debated the need for more witness testimony and the potential impact of the proposed changes on freedom of expression. Andrew Lawton, a Conservative member, introduced a motion to reset the committee's priorities, arguing that the committee should focus on bail reform first. He criticized the Liberal members for allegedly obstructing the process and preventing a thorough review of the proposed law. He also raised concerns about the potential for the proposed law to censor online speech and infringe on civil liberties. Anthony Housefather, a Liberal member, defended the proposed law and argued that it was necessary to combat hate crimes. He also expressed concerns about the scope and constitutionality of the proposed amendments. During the meeting, committee members engaged in heated debates over procedural matters and the substance of the proposed law. Points of order were raised frequently, and the chair had to intervene to maintain order. The committee ultimately voted to proceed with a clause-by-clause study of the proposed law, despite objections from some members. The committee also discussed amendments related to the promotion of terrorist activities, with members expressing different views on how to address this issue. Ultimately, several amendments were withdrawn or set aside for later consideration, and the committee agreed to deal with amendments related to Attorney General consent as a group. The committee adopted some amendments, including those related to Attorney General consent, but rejected others, such as an amendment to remove the portion of the proposed law dealing with symbols. The meeting was adjourned before the committee could complete its clause-by-clause study of the proposed law. James Maloney was elected chair after the previous chair resigned. The committee agreed to continue the clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed law at a future meeting.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to discuss proposed changes to a proposed law called the Combatting Hate Act. This proposed law aims to update the Criminal Code to better protect groups that are often targeted by hate. However, some people think the proposed law goes too far and could limit free speech. Others believe it doesn't go far enough to protect vulnerable communities. DeRico Symonds from the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute said the proposed law needs to include symbols of anti-Black hate, like nooses and Ku Klux Klan symbols. He also said that decisions about hate crimes should involve community members, not just police. Christine Van Geyn from the Canadian Constitution Foundation argued that the proposed law could punish people for expressing unpopular opinions and that it should be withdrawn. Representatives from the Ligue des droits et libertés worried the proposed law could unfairly target peaceful protests. Kyla Lee from the Canadian Bar Association said some parts of the proposed law are unclear and could unintentionally harm the people it's trying to protect. During the meeting, committee member Larry Brock introduced a motion about a recent Supreme Court decision on child sexual exploitation. This led to a debate about whether the government should use a special power called the "notwithstanding clause" to override the court's decision. Eventually, the committee agreed to call on the government to create new laws to protect children from sexual exploitation. The committee also set a deadline for submitting changes to the proposed Combatting Hate Act and scheduled future meetings to continue working on it.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-9, also called the Combatting Hate Act. The committee heard from various witnesses about their perspectives on the proposed law, which aims to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crimes, and access to religious or cultural places. Nicole Chapdelaine, Deputy Chief of the Edmonton Police Service, expressed support for the proposed law, highlighting the need for appropriate deterrence and public denunciation of hate crimes. She emphasized the importance of removing the Attorney General's consent for hate propaganda offenses and creating a stand-alone hate crime offense to improve data collection and public trust. Derek Ross, Executive Director of the Christian Legal Fellowship, shared concerns about the definition of hatred in the proposed law, suggesting it should be more precise to avoid infringing on freedom of expression. He also emphasized the importance of protecting the freedom to discuss and criticize beliefs in good faith. Timothy McSorley, National Coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, raised concerns about the provisions related to displaying certain symbols in public, arguing they could pose a threat to freedom of expression. He suggested the proposed law should be withdrawn and revisited. Vijaykumar Jain, Director of Canadian Hindus for Harmony, raised concerns about the use of the word "swastika" in hate references, as it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. Noah Shack, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, spoke about the rise in hate crimes and violence and the need for clear laws and consistent enforcement. The committee members discussed the merits of the proposed law, including the removal of the Attorney General's consent for hate propaganda offenses and the creation of a stand-alone hate crime offense. They also explored concerns about freedom of expression and the potential for the proposed law to be misused. The committee plans to continue its study of the proposed law at a future meeting.

The Canadian parliamentary committee met to discuss bail and sentencing laws, focusing on repeat offenders and public safety. Witnesses included victims of crime, police representatives, Crown counsel, and experts in trauma-informed practices. The committee heard emotional testimony from parents who lost their daughter due to a repeat offender being released on bail. They emphasized the need for stricter criteria for judges when making bail decisions and expressed frustration with the current system. Police representatives discussed the challenges of dealing with repeat offenders and supported proposed law changes to strengthen bail provisions and ensure community safety is a central consideration. Other witnesses discussed the importance of a trauma-informed approach to bail decisions, considering the safety and well-being of victims. They also highlighted the need for better coordination and funding for social services to support survivors of violence. The committee also heard about the need for more resources for Crown attorneys and the importance of a national bail information system. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police advocated for broadening reverse onus provisions for bail-related offences and strengthening the estreatment process for sureties. Several committee members expressed support for proposed law changes to address repeat offenders and improve public safety. Some members raised concerns about the effectiveness of previous bail reform efforts and the need for ongoing monitoring and adjustments. There was also discussion about the role of rehabilitation and the need for a balance between protecting public safety and respecting individual rights. The committee identified the need for collaboration between federal and provincial governments to ensure effective implementation of bail and sentencing reforms. Overall, the committee members agreed that the proposed law is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to address the issue of repeat offenders and improve public safety. They emphasized the need for a holistic approach that includes prevention, rehabilitation, and support for victims. The committee members committed to working together to find common-sense solutions that protect communities and respect the rights of all Canadians. The committee agreed to continue studying the issue and to make recommendations to the House of Commons.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-9, which aims to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crimes, and access to religious or cultural places. Witnesses presented their views on the proposed law, with some supporting certain aspects while raising concerns about potential impacts on freedom of expression and the need for careful consideration of the wording and scope of the proposed changes. Several witnesses raised concerns about the definition of "hatred" in the proposed law, arguing that it lowers the bar for conviction and could capture speech that should be protected. Professor Ryan Alford stated the proposed law lowers the threshold below what is constitutional for limiting freedom of expression. There were also concerns about removing the requirement for the Attorney General's consent for hate propaganda prosecutions, with some arguing that it could lead to politically motivated prosecutions and vexatious litigation. Mark Sandler supported several components of C-9 but suggested the Attorney General's consent requirement should either be retained as is or retained only in relation to private prosecutions. Other topics discussed included the display of hate symbols, the need for a separate offense for promoting terrorist activities, and the importance of enforcing existing laws. Nusaiba Al-Azem expressed concerns about a clause criminalizing symbols resembling those set out in the section and stated it may impact every Canadian. Cassandra Hallett spoke about the rise of hate-fueled language and protest and its impact on students and school staff. Brandon Silver emphasized the importance of government leadership in combating hate crime. Ultimately, the committee members engaged in a detailed discussion with the witnesses, exploring the potential benefits and drawbacks of the proposed law. Several committee members expressed a need to strike a balance between protecting vulnerable groups from hate and safeguarding freedom of expression. The committee will continue to study the proposed law and consider potential amendments based on the testimony received.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss issues related to bail, sentencing, and repeat violent offenders. The committee heard from a variety of witnesses, including professors, First Nations leaders, a mayor, and representatives from municipal organizations and legal advocacy groups. Kelly Sundberg, a professor at Mount Royal University, emphasized that Canada already has good laws in place, but the issue lies in their enforcement. He suggested that the public's perception of a "revolving door" justice system is a communications challenge and that changes to the system must consider the impact on other parts of the system. Regional Chief Terry Teegee from the Assembly of First Nations spoke about the overrepresentation of First Nations people in the justice system and the need for upstream reform to address the root causes of crime, such as poverty, trauma, and systemic discrimination. Mayor Scott Gillingham of Winnipeg shared his city's experience with repeat violent offenders and called for bail reform to prioritize public safety. Matt Gemmel from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities echoed the concerns of municipalities across Canada and recommended strengthening the Criminal Code for violent repeat offenders, increasing capacity for the justice system, improving data sharing, and addressing the root causes of repeat offending. Ari Goldkind, a criminal defence lawyer, expressed concern that Canadians no longer feel safe and that the balance in the justice system has shifted too far towards the accused. Chloé Leclerc, a professor at the Université de Montréal, urged the committee not to legislate in response to high-profile cases and emphasized that harsh sentences do not lead to lower crime rates. Penny McVicar, executive director of Victim Services of Brant, advocated for timely bail notification for victims and a trauma-informed approach to bail decisions. Kat Owens from the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) argued that making bail harder to get and increasing sentencing harshness will not solve gender-based violence and will disproportionately impact marginalized communities. Committee members discussed the roles of federal, provincial, and municipal governments in addressing these issues and the need for better data collection and information sharing. There was also discussion about the principle of restraint in the Criminal Code and whether it should be repealed or modified. Some committee members expressed concern that the Liberal government's policies have been too lenient on offenders and have put public safety at risk, while others emphasized the importance of upholding the constitutional rights of the accused and addressing the root causes of crime. The committee approved a budget to compensate the witnesses and continue the financial support for this study. The committee will schedule additional witnesses for the next meeting.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss Bill C-9, a proposed law to combat hate propaganda, hate crimes, and protect access to religious and cultural places. Minister of Justice Sean Fraser presented the proposed law, emphasizing the need to protect Canadians from hate and discrimination, which he said has worsened since the pandemic. The proposed law aims to add new offenses to the Criminal Code, including a stand-alone crime of hate and criminalizing the wilful promotion of hate through hate symbols. The goal is to protect people's ability to participate in activities at religious institutions and recognize that hate exists throughout communities. The proposed law also seeks to clarify the definition of hate and remove the requirement for the attorney general's consent for charges to be laid. Committee members raised concerns about the proposed law. Some worried it might restrict free speech and criminalize speech that isn't currently criminal. There were questions about whether the proposed law duplicates existing Criminal Code provisions and whether it might be used to target protesters. Some committee members questioned the need for the law, suggesting that the core problem is the uneven enforcement of current laws, not the lack of legislation. The definition of hate was also questioned, with some suggesting it lowers the bar for hate speech charges. Minister Fraser defended the proposed law, arguing that it is necessary to protect vulnerable communities and that it includes safeguards to protect free speech. He also stated that the proposed law is based on recommendations from a previous committee study on anti-Semitism. He said that the government is open to considering amendments to the proposed law. Officials from the Department of Justice provided further clarification on the proposed law, including how it would apply to existing Criminal Code offenses and how it would be implemented. They also addressed concerns about the removal of the attorney general's consent for hate propaganda charges. The committee agreed to continue studying the proposed law and to hear from witnesses at a future meeting. MP Idlout raised concerns about trusting police to not abuse their power, the stigma related to being charged with a hate crime, and vague language in the proposed law. The Minister of Justice agreed to provide written answers to MP Idlout's questions.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss how to manage their study of the bail system and sentencing for repeat violent offenders alongside a new proposed law, Bill C-9, called the Combatting Hate Act. Larry Brock, a Conservative committee member, proposed a motion to study both topics at the same time, dedicating one meeting per week to each. This led to a lengthy debate among committee members about the importance and urgency of both issues. Patricia Lattanzio, a Liberal committee member, expressed concern that dedicating 10 meetings to Bill C-9, as suggested in the motion, would delay its progress. She suggested reducing the number of meetings or increasing the committee's meeting schedule to ensure the proposed law could be reviewed and potentially passed by December 2026. Other committee members, like Andrew Lawton and Roman Baber (both Conservative), emphasized the importance of thoroughly studying Bill C-9, citing concerns about its potential impact on various communities and freedom of expression. Wade Chang (Liberal) shared a personal experience of being a victim of a hate crime, emphasizing the importance of Bill C-9. James Maloney (Liberal) argued for prioritizing Bill C-9, stating that it's a standard practice for committees to prioritize legislation referred to them. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Bloc Québécois) expressed frustration with the debate, suggesting that it was delaying important work and proposed excusing the witnesses who were waiting to testify. Ultimately, the committee agreed to amend the original motion. They will now dedicate five meetings to Bill C-9, studying it concurrently with the bail system and sentencing review. The study of Bill C-9 will begin this Thursday with the Minister of Justice appearing for the first hour, followed by officials. After the Thanksgiving break, the committee will resume the bail study on Tuesdays and Bill C-9 on Thursdays, alternating each week.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss Canada's bail system, sentencing, and how repeat violent offenders are handled. Committee members heard from various witnesses including representatives from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the John Howard Society of Canada, and the St. Thomas Police Service. The witnesses presented different perspectives on whether current laws are effective and fair. Some witnesses argued that stricter bail and sentencing laws aren't supported by evidence and may not make communities safer. Theresa Donkor from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers pointed to statistics showing decreases in certain crimes in some cities. Nyki Kish from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies emphasized that prisons can be harmful and that community investment is more effective. Melanie Webb from the Canadian Bar Association suggested improvements to make the bail system more efficient. Other witnesses, like Chief Marc Roskamp of the St. Thomas Police Service, expressed concern that the current system isn't adequately protecting communities from repeat offenders. He argued that some laws have made it harder for police to fulfill their duty to protect the public. He also stated that the majority of individuals committing criminal offenses are doing so in a pretrial, recidivist way. He supported stricter measures for repeat violent offenders. Witnesses also discussed the importance of rehabilitation, addressing the root causes of crime, and collecting better data to inform policy decisions. Shakir Rahim from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association stressed the need for standardized data on reoffending while on bail. Catherine Latimer from the John Howard Society of Canada highlighted the need for collaboration between different levels of government to improve the bail system. Committee members discussed potentially prioritizing a proposed law and requested witness lists for future meetings.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss Canada's bail system, sentencing, and how repeat violent offenders are handled. The goal was to explore potential reforms to address public safety concerns and declining confidence in the justice system. Three key witnesses were invited to speak: Tom Stamatakis, President of the Canadian Police Association; Brian Sauvé, President of the National Police Federation; and Clayton Campbell, President of the Toronto Police Association. They shared their experiences and suggestions for improvement. The witnesses emphasized that repeat violent offenders are often arrested and released, only to re-offend, which strains police resources and erodes public trust. They proposed several reforms, including creating a separate offense for breaching parole, mandatory reporting of breaches, and replacing automatic release with earned parole for high-risk offenders. They also suggested strengthening reverse onus provisions for bail decisions and increasing resources for police and the justice system. The witnesses stressed the need for better data collection and information sharing between different levels of government and across provinces, as well as modernization of existing systems. The committee members discussed the principle of restraint in the Criminal Code, which requires judges to release accused individuals at the earliest opportunity. Some members questioned whether this principle should be rescinded for repeat violent offenders. The witnesses agreed that the justice system often seems to prioritize the rights of the accused over the rights of victims and communities. They also discussed the role of drug policies and youth exploitation in driving crime rates. The committee identified the need for federal leadership and collaboration with provinces and municipalities to implement effective reforms and address the root causes of crime.