This House of Commons committee meeting was part of a study on bail, sentencing, and the handling of repeat violent offenders. Witnesses included Kelly W. Sundberg, a professor at Mount Royal University; Regional Chief Terry Teegee of the Assembly of First Nations; Scott Gillingham, Mayor of Winnipeg; Matt Gemmel of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; criminal defence lawyer Ari Goldkind; professor Chloé Leclerc; Penny McVicar of Victim Services of Brant; and Kat Owens of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund.
Kelly Sundberg argued that Canada already has good laws, but the problem lies in enforcement and a lack of coordination across the justice system. He recommended using a "surgical," evidence-based approach to bail reform, emphasizing that bail is a process requiring monitoring and support, not just a single decision point, and that resources for addiction and mental health are critical.
Regional Chief Terry Teegee stated that First Nations people face systemic racism and a presumption of guilt in the bail system, leading to overincarceration. He opposed broad punitive reforms, arguing they would worsen inequities, and called for empowering First Nations-led justice systems, culturally appropriate healing lodges, and addressing root causes like poverty and trauma, noting a lack of consultation on proposed changes.
Mayor Scott Gillingham presented data showing repeat violent offenders in Winnipeg are frequently released on bail and reoffend, eroding public trust. He called for federal legislation to prioritize public safety in bail decisions, reform statutory release laws, and consider an offender's history of breaching conditions, while also supporting rehabilitation investments.
Matt Gemmel, representing the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, described the bail system as failing nationally, with police rearresting the same individuals repeatedly. He recommended five steps: strengthening the Criminal Code for repeat violent offenders, increasing justice system capacity, improving national data sharing, enhancing bail enforcement practices, and addressing root causes like mental health and addiction.
Ari Goldkind, a criminal defence lawyer, argued the balance has shifted too far toward the accused, with the public feeling unsafe. He recommended stronger consequences for sureties who fail to supervise, more Crown bail review applications, and a focus on dangerousness, disagreeing with the idea that the principle of restraint should apply equally to all offenders.
Chloé Leclerc cautioned against legislating based on high-profile cases, citing research that harsh sentences do not reduce crime and that the public is less punitive when given full context. She argued the current bail criteria are adequate but underfunded, and recommended investing in community supervision and rehabilitation rather than detention, noting that conditional sentences are effective but underused.
Penny McVicar emphasized that victims need timely bail notification to ensure their safety, as current systems are fragmented and inconsistent. She recommended a mandated, provincially funded bail notification and advocacy program, built on successful models in Brant and Peel, to provide trauma-informed support and safety planning for survivors.
Kat Owens argued that making bail harder and increasing sentencing harshness will not solve gender-based violence and will instead criminalize marginalized communities, including women and gender-diverse people. She called for evidence-based reforms, an independent evaluation of the bail system, and a focus on prevention and root causes, disagreeing with punitive approaches and supporting the retention of Bill C-75's protections.
The committee did not engage in procedural debate, motions, or votes during this meeting.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.