Legal Experts Reject Federal Bail Reform Bills in Urgent Panel

UPDATE: A panel at Brandon University has raised critical concerns about proposed bail reform bills by the federal Liberal and Conservative parties, calling their effectiveness into serious question. Legal experts Rich Lonstrup and Jennifer Janssens voiced their skepticism during a panel discussion on October 25, 2023, emphasizing that these legislative efforts are unlikely to enhance public safety.

The urgency of this issue cannot be overstated, as Canadians increasingly demand solutions to crime. According to both lawyers, the proposed legislation, including Prime Minister Mark Carney‘s Bill C-14 and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre‘s Bill C-242, will not achieve their stated goals of reducing crime and creating a safer society. “The intention of politicians to reduce crime is noble,” stated Janssens, a criminal defense attorney. “However, the effect of their proposed legislation will not obtain that at all.”

During the panel titled “Bail Reform in the Court of Public Opinion,” both experts argued that the proposed changes would merely waste court resources rather than effectively address the issue. Lonstrup, a Crown attorney, contended that Carney’s proposal to shift the burden of proof for certain offenses would not significantly alter judicial outcomes. “Reversing the onus looks great on paper, but it doesn’t achieve much more than what was already in place,” he stated.

The panel also highlighted that the proposed legislation could inadvertently strain judicial resources. Lonstrup criticized Poilievre’s Bill C-242, suggesting it would overwhelm Superior Court judges with cases better suited for lower courts, potentially leading to delays that could result in charges being dropped. “(The proposed laws) do too much, which is detrimental to people getting a speedy trial,” he warned.

Sociology professor Chris Schneider added a critical perspective, arguing that current crime rates in Canada are misleadingly inflated by political rhetoric. “When politicians claim they are fixing the Criminal Code and that crime is spiking, some of these things are not true,” he asserted. Schneider emphasized that “tough on crime” strategies have historically failed and will likely continue to do so.

Despite their skepticism about the new bills, both Lonstrup and Janssens expressed support for using ankle monitors as a tool for enforcing bail conditions. Janssens noted that such technology could provide immediate feedback on compliance. “It takes trust right out of it — we know instantly,” she explained, enhancing the court’s ability to make informed decisions.

The panel’s conclusions resonate with a national audience as public concern over crime remains high, particularly related to rising issues surrounding substances like methamphetamine. “Both parties have a common goal in mind, and it’s a very reasonable one,” Lonstrup stated, acknowledging the validity of public fears.

As discussions around these bills continue, the legal community and concerned citizens alike are left questioning the efficacy of proposed reforms. What happens next in this legislative battle remains to be seen, but the voices from Brandon University have made it clear that many believe the current proposals fall short of delivering real solutions.

Stay tuned for further updates on this urgent issue as it develops.