First Reading is a daily newsletter keeping you posted on the travails of Canadian politicos, all curated by the National Post’s own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent directly to your inbox every Monday to Thursday at 6:30 p.m. ET (and 9:30 a.m. on Saturdays), sign up here .
TOP STORY
Amid a wave of random violent attacks committed by repeat offenders on bail, the Liberals have finally introduced their much-awaited plan to cut down on Canada’s crisis of so-called “catch-and-release” justice.
While police organizations have welcomed the reforms as a concrete step to rein in “repeat violent offenders,” Conservatives and legal critics are saying it will do shockingly little to reform a justice system that remains tilted towards chronic releases of violent offenders.
Bill C-48 was introduced Tuesday by Justice Minister David Lametti, who touted it as a “targeted” measure “to strengthen our bail system.”
It’s only eight pages , and its main provision is the expansion of a “reverse onus” on bail for suspects charged with a violent crime.
Under normal circumstances, it’s up to prosecutors to show whether a suspect charged with a crime should be kept in pre-trial detention, rather than being released on bail with a court date.
But in extreme cases — such as homicide — the onus is reversed, and it’s suddenly up to the accused to argue why they deserve freedom.
What C-48 does is to apply a reverse onus to suspects charged with a violent offence who have previously been convicted of another violent offence “within the last five years.”
Police — who have been at the forefront of pushing for bail reform — expressed appreciation for C-48. In a joint statement with other law enforcement representatives, Canadian Police Association President Tom Stamatakis called the bill “common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns our members raised.”
The statement was clear that they weren’t seeking an across-the-board toughening of bail. Rather, they simply wanted a mechanism to deal with the “small number of repeat violent offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences.”
The most vocal counterpoint to C-48 arguably came from Ian Runkle, a criminal defence lawyer and prominent Canadian YouTuber.
“I can summarize the practical effects (of C-48) very briefly: The bill does f–k all. It’s a scam they’re pulling on the public,” he wrote in a post on Wednesday.
Notably, Runkle is generally against the notion that bail needed reform at all, but his chief criticism of C-48 is that it purports to be transformative bail reform while having little to no actual effect. “I’d be surprised if it results in more than like a single extra detention per month,” he wrote.
Bill C-48 is very specific about what it considers “violence.”
To qualify for the new reverse onus provision, a suspect has to be charged with a crime involving “violence and the use of a weapon,” and their record over the last five years must also include a conviction for “violence and the use of a weapon.”
Thus, it doesn’t affect anyone who prefers to commit violent crime with their hands. It’s also irrelevant in cases of chronic property crime.
The only exception would be in cases where someone awaiting domestic abuse charges is again arrested for domestic abuse: That scenario will warrant a “reverse onus” for bail as per C-48, even if the suspect didn’t use a weapon.
While Bill C-48 does propose to change the structure of bail hearings, there’s no inherent reason it will impact the ultimate bail decisions of judges and justices of the peace. For a justice system that has gotten accustomed to granting immediate bail to violent offenders, there are no hard provisions in Bill C-48 to stop that from remaining the norm.
The bill also does nothing to reverse a measure – first passed by the Liberals in 2018 — that requires judges to prioritize bail for any suspect coming from a historically “marginalized” community.
This was a key factor in the case that ultimately spurred a federal push towards bail reform: The unprovoked Dec. 27 killing of OPP Const. Greg Pierzchala by an alleged suspect, Randall McKenzie, who was already on bail for a host of violent offences.
The judge who had given bail to McKenzie openly acknowledged at the hearing that the suspect was likely dangerous and prone to reoffend, but he ultimately decided that McKenzie’s Indigenous background took precedent.
“I don’t mind telling you, it’s a very iffy case. I do feel my obligation is, something I can’t ignore is, being a status Aboriginal,” Justice Harrison Arrell says in an audio tape of the bail hearing obtained by The Canadian Press.
On Tuesday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said the changes introduced by C-48 would “not have protected Const. Pierzchala.”
Poilievre’s counter-proposal is that violent suspects who break the conditions of their bail are automatically remanded to jail until their court date — what he called the “jail, not bail” solution.
IN OTHER NEWS
In what may well be a preview of Canadian political battles to come, the Alberta election is being fought in part over a United Conservative Party proposal to impose involuntary treatment on drug addicts if they win. This week, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith officially unveiled her campaign pledge to implement the Compassionate Intervention Act; essentially a system of drug courts that would include judge-mandated involuntary treatment orders as a last resort. While a similar program was briefly proposed a few months ago by B.C.’s NDP premier David Eby, the Alberta NDP has opposed involuntary treatment, with party leader Rachel Notley saying this week that “forced recovery is not successful.”
The theme of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Wednesday speech to the National Assembly of South Korea was the rise of “authoritarianism” around the world. Given that South Koreans are only a generation removed from living under military dictatorship – and also share a border with the world’s most oppressive government – it’s unclear whether they thought a Canadian had all that much to teach them about the subject . Also, fun fact: The South Korean president is not allowed to dissolve the National Assembly in the same way that Trudeau can dissolve Parliament. Such powers were discarded in the 1980s on the grounds that they were too authoritarian.
Ontario, Canada’s least fun province, may once again be gearing up for a months-long handwringing debate about whether beer in convenience stores will demolish civilization . The measure is practiced uncontroversially in jurisdictions to the east and south of the province, but has never become Ontario policy primarily due to fears about a spike in alcohol-fueled chaos. Premier Doug Ford first promised such a thing in 2018 before getting distracted. But at a recent unrelated press briefing he answered a reporter’s question on more convenient booze by saying “we’re going to fulfill that promise.”
Yet another poll has Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre besting Justin Trudeau in terms of “preferred prime minister.” On Wednesday, a Nanos Research poll had 29 per cent of respondents favouring Poilievre, 24 per cent favouring Trudeau, 19 per cent favouring NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and 18 per cent not entirely comfortable with any of them.
Get all of these insights and more into your inbox every weekday at 6 p.m. ET by signing up for the First Reading newsletter here .
Copyright Postmedia Network Inc., 2023
