Canadians deserve safer communities

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/02/2025 (205 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Brandon City Council has joined a growing national chorus that is calling upon the federal government to implement changes to the bail system in order to better protect communities.

Councillors have voted in favour of a motion to write a letter to the governments of Canada and Manitoba, in which the city will refer to the rising crime rate in Brandon and argue the problem is tied to federal policies that do not appropriately hold offenders accountable.

In support of the motion, Brandon Police Service data reveals that the number of investigations in which people break release conditions amounts to an average of three cases per day, or more than 1,100 cases annually.

All of those bail breaches — in many cases, breaches by persons with a history of previous breaches — jeopardize the safety of our city and strain police resources.

It is disappointing that bail laws continue to be an issue in this country, given the proclamation of Bill C-48 just 13 months ago. That federal legislation amended the Criminal Code’s bail provisions for the specific purposes of improving community safety and reinforcing public confidence in the administration of justice.

In order to accomplish those objectives, the amendments made it harder for those charged with violent offences involving intimate partner violence and/or weapons to be released on bail if they have prior convictions for such offences.

The changes also require courts to consider an accused person’s history of convictions for violence when making a bail decision, and to also weigh the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence.

Despite those changes, the amendments have not solved the problems they were intended to fix. Repeat offenders and those with a history of breaching bail conditions continue to commit additional offences while at large. That is what is driving the call for even tougher bail laws, but how much tougher can our laws really be?

Bail, or interim release, occurs when a person who has been charged with a criminal offence is released from custody while awaiting their trial. Accused persons are presumed innocent until they have been found guilty of the offence charged. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every person charged with an offence has the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.

That explains why the prosecution must ordinarily convince the court that the accused person should be denied bail and held in custody until trial.

Bill C-48 created a “reverse onus” to target serious repeat violent offending involving weapons, and broadened the reverse onus that limits the bail rights of repeat offenders of intimate partner violence. In those cases, the accused must convince the court that bail is warranted.

The reverse onus changes in C-48 were welcome, but did not include offences committed without weapons or elements of intimate partner violence. For those offences, the presumption in favour of granting bail forces the Crown to convince the court there are compelling reasons for the accused to remain in custody pending trial. Two such reasons would be an accused’s history of convictions for violent offences and/or the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence.

With all of that information in mind, the solution that Brandon City Council and other local and provincial governments should be seeking becomes obvious. First, accused persons with a history of violating bail conditions should be ineligible for bail in the future. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

An accused’s failure to comply with bail conditions points to the likelihood they will breach bail conditions in the future. Communities should not be forced to shoulder that risk.

Second, the community crime problem goes far beyond those who fail to comply with their bail conditions. It also includes sentencing policies that fail to adequately punish and incarcerate those convicted of serious offences, especially repeat offenders. Too many thugs with prior violent convictions, for which they received too-lenient sentences, are roaming Canada’s streets, committing crimes and eroding our sense of safety.

Finally, the race or ethnicity of an accused should have no bearing on their eligibility for bail, nor the length of their sentence if convicted. Anybody who does the crime should do the time.

Canadians demand and deserve safer communities. In order to accomplish that goal, we require an approach that more fairly balances community safety with the rights of an accused — a solution that respects the presumption of innocence without endangering citizens.

It is a reasonable expectation, and yet puzzling that it appears so hard to achieve.