Legal Experts Critique Proposed Bail Reform Bills in Canada

Two legal professionals expressed skepticism regarding recent bail reform proposals during a panel discussion at Brandon University on October 25, 2023. The proposed legislation, introduced by the federal Liberal and Conservative parties, aims to address rising crime rates in Canada. However, both lawyers believe these measures will not achieve their intended outcomes.

Rich Lonstrup, a Crown attorney, and Jennifer Janssens, a criminal defence lawyer, participated in the panel titled “Bail Reform in the Court of Public Opinion.” They questioned the efficacy of the bills presented by Prime Minister Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. Janssens emphasized that while the goal of creating a safer society is commendable, the legislative changes will likely result in wasted court resources rather than meaningful reforms.

“The intention of politicians to reduce crime is very noble,” Janssens stated. “However, the effect of their proposed legislation is not going to obtain that at all.” She criticized the lack of expertise among legislators regarding bail matters, advocating for a trust in the judicial system and its ability to handle such decisions effectively.

Lonstrup shared similar sentiments, particularly regarding Carney’s Bill C-14, which proposes to shift the burden of proof for certain offences, requiring defendants to justify their right to bail. He argued that this would not significantly alter judicial decision-making. “Reversing the onus looks great on paper, but it doesn’t achieve much more than what was already in place,” Lonstrup explained. He expressed confidence in the judges’ ability to make informed decisions based on evidence.

Both lawyers also addressed Poilievre’s Bill C-242, which aims to assign Superior Court judges to manage cases that could be handled at lower court levels. Lonstrup warned that this approach could overburden the court system, potentially delaying trials and resulting in cases being dismissed due to procedural delays. “Proposed laws do too much and are detrimental toward people getting a speedy trial,” he noted.

In a broader context, Chris Schneider, a sociology professor at Brandon University, highlighted how political rhetoric can manipulate public perception of crime. Schneider pointed out that recent statistics show a decline in crime rates in Canada, urging caution against accepting sensational claims at face value. “Tough on crime does not work; it never has,” Schneider asserted.

Despite their criticisms of the proposed bills, both Lonstrup and Janssens expressed support for the use of ankle monitors as a potential tool for managing bail conditions. They argued that such devices could provide a reliable means of monitoring compliance with bail terms. “The best part about ankle monitoring is it takes trust right out of it,” Lonstrup remarked, emphasizing the immediate feedback these devices offer to the judicial system.

While Schneider acknowledged that crime perceptions might not align with reality, Lonstrup reiterated the public’s concerns regarding safety, particularly in relation to visible crime linked to substance abuse. “Both parties have a common goal in mind, and it’s a very reasonable one,” Lonstrup stated. “Their constituents tell them how bad it’s getting, and they are not wrong in saying they’ve seen it.”

The discussion at Brandon University underscores the complexities surrounding bail reform in Canada and the challenges politicians face in addressing public safety concerns while ensuring a fair judicial process.