, 05.17.2023 12:05 PM

My latest: Lametti does the right thing

Let’s give credit where credit’s due.

Namely: David Lametti’s proposed bail reforms are exceptionally good. Outstandingly good.

It was not always thus. Since he became Canada’s Minister of Justice, David Lametti has not exactly covered himself with glory. A sampling:

• He has suggested that Canada’s provinces be stripped of their constitutional authority over natural resources.
• He urged another cabinet minister to send in the Canadian Armed Forces – and a tank – to forcibly remove the Ottawa “convoy” occupiers.
• He defended Justin Trudeau’s attempts to pressure prosecutors to go easy on a Liberal Party donor facing a corruption trial.
• He has tweeted, then rescinded, about the appointment of one of his political donors to the bench. (The donor was later appointed anyway.)

Like we say: not exactly covered in glory. The former McGill law professor has always had a Stéphane Dion look to him – you know, an owly academic who doesn’t really understand politics.

But, on his proposed bail reforms, Lametti has hit the proverbial ball out of the proverbial park.

The need for the reforms is clear. Since the pandemic faded, crime has skyrocketed – and, in particular, violent crimes committed by repeat offenders. One fairly recent study found that a whopping 23 per cent of federal offenders re-offended within two years of getting released. And the number who re-offend using violence is up, as well.

The case that likely pushed Lametti to act was tragic and unforgettable: the cold-blooded murder of an OPP officer late last year. Const. Grzegorz Pierzchala was killed west of Hagersville, Ont. just after Christmas. And the alleged shooter was Randall McKenzie, who had been out on bail and under a lifetime firearms ban.

The outcry in the Pierzchala case was immediate and nationwide, and the Trudeau Liberals could not ignore it – their internal polls reportedly showed that Canadians were angry and afraid about the surge in violent crime, particularly by repeat offenders.

So Lametti acted, and this week unveiled his proposed reforms. They’re tough.

For instance, Lametti wants to create what is sometimes called “reverse-onus” bail conditions for people charged with serious violent offences involving a weapon – where that person was convicted of a similar violent offence. A “reverse onus” law is exactly what the name implies – it shifts the burden of proof onto the accused.

Lametti’s changes will also slap certain firearms offences with the reverse-onus requirement, and expand it to cases of domestic abuse.

Anticipating an avalanche of Charter challenges by criminal defence lawyers, Lametti told the media: “You are innocent until proven guilty, and this is a critically important part of our legal system. But what we’re doing for certain violent offences is changing the default position and making sure that it is only in cases where there isn’t a threat to security.”

So, in some cases, it’ll be up to repeat offenders to show why they should get bail. Not on prosecutors to show why they shouldn’t.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre responded by saying he’d go even further – under a government led by him, he’d completely ban bail hearings for such offenders. So, a repeat offender arrested for a new violent crime would get “jail, not bail,” he said.

That’s good gut-level politics – but it’d be unlikely to ever survive a Charter challenge. Under section seven of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every Canadian has the right to life, liberty and security of the person “and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Poilievre’s approach would likely get thrown out for violating fundamental justice – and then violent re-offenders would be free to re-offend.

Lametti’s approach seems to be the better one. His legislation was introduced in the House of Commons on Tuesday morning. We’ll see what happens to it next – in Commons debate, in committee, and in the Senate.

But, for now, David Lametti has done the right thing. And he deserves credit for trying.

38 Comments

  1. Warren,

    It’s the chicken and the egg: this is the egg and I support it. However, the chicken is called at minimum, vocational training while in the slammer so they have a legitimate and decent shot at a job when they get out, both in the private sector and in government jobs associated with vocational training. This ain’t rocket science. Got a job. Much less likely to reoffend, violent criminal or otherwise. Hello.

    • Arrangez-vous just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore in 2023 when offenders hit the street.

    • PJH says:

      My father ran the food service for a Maximum security penitentiary in BC. The inmates(can we use that term anymore?) trained in the kitchen to become cooks, bakers, and butchers, producing all of the food consumed in the prison themselves…. My father would arrange for inmates(if they chose to) to go out and glean local farmers fields for vegetables, fruits and berries, allowing the inmates to supplement their diets with preserves and other different things that weren’t always available in their rations. The system worked well. Inmates learned valuable job skills, and took pride in what they produced(for their fellow inmates, and prison staff) and in the case of gleaning, got a chance to be on “the outside”, if only for a little while.

      That system no longer exists. Meals now come into the penitentiary prepacked….”Heat and eat”, is the order of the day.

      The bean counters in Ottawa thought the old ways were too expensive, and that gleaning was exploitative of the inmates.

      And people wonder why the recidivism rate among convicts is so high these days?

  2. Peter Williams says:

    If this law survives a Supreme Court challenge, which I doubt, the application of this reform in practice will be farcical. I predict judges will bend over backwards to grant bail.

    We see what Liberals say, but what’s more important is what liberals do.

    • Martin Dixon says:

      Yes-I am sure there were lots of guffaws in SK when JT brought up Canada’s feminist values before his grip and grin with the SK president. They read newspapers over there too and would be familiar with his routine throwing of females under the bus, not to mention the Kokanee grope but I digress. Can he ever leave our shores without making himself look like a dumbass? Message was fine, messenger was embarrassing.

    • Peter,

      It’s probably like mandatory minimums which often allow judges no case discretion upon sentencing. If that’s the case, the judges will have to tow the line, period.

    • Gloriosus et Liber says:

      Exactly. We saw this with PM Harper’s mandatory minimums and concurrent sentencing that judges quickly put aside. I fear the same thing will happen here.

      • The Doctor says:

        Me too. I believe in judicial independence, but what judges did to openly defy the sitting government of the day crossed the line. Judges need to stay in their lane, or we risk having people totally lose faith in the system.

  3. Fred Pertanson says:

    According to the National Post: “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.”

    So it is a weak law, really just another government virtue signal.

  4. Steve T says:

    Your original comments, WK, and the reader comments above, hit the nail on the head (sideways) as to the true underlying problem. Our Supreme Court and their extreme-left interpretation of our Charter in various ways, is the source of much of this country’s malaise.
    Until that changes, we will get criminals who are cast back out into society for all sorts of touchy-feely academic reasons that bear no resemblance to the harsh reality many Canadians live every day.

    • Steve,

      Huh?

      How can Charter rights be interpreted left or right? They either apply according to the legal text or they don’t. Can they really read-in a Charter right? I don’t think so but I’m no constitutional lawyer.

      • Steve T says:

        Really? Tell me where the precise verbatim text exists in the Charter that draws the line of where bail can be granted versus denied?
        Similarly, tell me the exact precise verbatim text in the Charter that replicates the Gladue sentencing considerations that are now part of criminal trials.
        The Charter, by its very nature, is subject to interpretation. And that interpretation has been very very liberal for a number of years.

        • Steve,

          With respect, my argument is more about the existence of a fundamental right than its actual application. As to application, my view is that good law is good law and bad law is bad law and it has very little to do with so-called judicial application by a bench on the left or the right. But again, only one man’s opinion.

          Remember when women weren’t legal persons? Or for that matter Dred Scott in the States? Two examples right there of bad law. But I digress somewhat.

      • westcoastjim says:

        Completely correct Ronald and I will add that a broad interpretation of charter rights is, if anything, right wing/libertarian rather than left wing/collective.

        Steve if you don’t like individual rights enshrined in the Charter your inner socialist might be taking over.

        • Steve T says:

          Individual rights is one of those cliches that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
          My idea of individual rights, for example, is the right to be free from the violence inflicted by repeated offenders. Trying to juxtapose that against the theoretical “rights” of said violent criminals is why I believe the SCC has been left-biased for quite some time.

          • westcoastjim says:

            My dear Steven we always knew you were a socialist at heart. The right to be free from violence caused by others is a communal right. Your view puts you right in line with Marx, Trotsky and Lenin. Further dictatorships often are able to lower crime by diminishing individual rights. The Soviets were able to diminish crime by having neighbours spy and report on each other.

            Comrade Steven. Hope you find the worker’s paradise you so obviously long for.

          • WCJ,

            I tend to prioritize the concept of individual rights of law-abiding Canadians. But I’m not for exclusion of same when it comes to offenders’ rights. But quite clearly, those rights have to follow behind those of law-abiding citizens and residents.

            I also favour collective rights to a limited extent. Two examples: the right of society to…within reasonable limits, rights that are not contrary to the individual rights set out in the Charter. IMHO, there is a place in society for collective rights but they need to be strictly limited to what is absolutely necessary in a society. And then, of course, there’s the collective rights elephant in the room otherwise known as Quebec. Given our distinct nature and language in this federation, it goes without saying that I do not oppose the collective rights of the Quebec nation as outlined by its democratically elected legislature. English Canada tends to just love this last part. LOL.

  5. Martin Dixon says:

    This is comedy gold. I notice that the Junior Jimmy Olsen asking the questions has not put the exchange on Twitter. I am sure the usual suspects and PDS derangement types will defend Jimmy because what he was doing was asking about root causes and PP “refused” to answer the question. Personally(and why I could never be a politician), the question I would have asked would not have been “are you serious?”, it would have been much less polite.

    https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-a-would-be-prime-minister-and-dogged-reporter-duke-it-out-over-bail-argument

  6. Douglas W says:

    Remember the days when no one received credit for doing what they’re paid to do?

    • Douglas,

      Apparently, there’s actually a guy in Ottawa who handsomely paid just to look consistently stupid. I got to find out who that guy is!

      • westcoastjim says:

        Completely correct Ronald and I will add that a broad interpretation of charter rights is, if anything, right wing/libertarian rather than left wing/collective.

        Steve if you don’t like individual rights enshrined in the Charter your inner socialist might be taking over.

      • Douglas W says:

        Ronald, me thinks that guy is going to be around for a long time as PM because he will concoct a way to remain in power.

  7. Peter Williams says:

    Meanwhile the Trudeau-Singh coalition government gave $200,000 to help fund Chinese police stations in Quebec.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/suspected-chinese-police-station-federal-funding

    • Peter,

      Wiggle room will decide this. If it’s unknowing and unintentional, they will once again get off the hook. But if it was intentional with at least basic knowledge of the facts prior to giving the money, this issue will be the coup de grace leading us into the election. If the latter is true, there will be some elements of a coverup there and that will definitely finish off the Trudeau Liberals. My money is on the second scenario. Wow, just wow. How could they be so careless with taxpayer money, not to mention be so STUPID?

      • Peter Williams says:

        Ronald

        Team Trudeau, supported by Singh, and the CBC will try to wiggle out, or they might just ignore it (look abortion! Stephen Harper! etc)

        I don’t think it was unknowing.

  8. Warren,

    By God, after this, please vote Conservative. How much more does Joe and Jane public need? Jesus. Thanks.

    • Martin Dixon says:

      Ask Curious Ronald. He would rather a guy like Bill Blair remain at his post. There is no tipping point.

      • Peter Williams says:

        Speaking of Blair:

        Reports of Blair taking four months to sign a warrant application are incorrect.
        https://twitter.com/brianlilley/status/1659706061106954242
        Blair can sign, and did sign, his name in approximately two seconds. Thus the news reports are factually incorrect.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          I’m told he is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. He seems to be confirming that in spades. This carefully crafted law dude weaselly worded statement took hours to come up with. The truth would have taken seconds. Although, he has lots of company in caucus, starting at the top.

  9. Peter Williams says:

    How is Xi’s representative at the G7 doing?

  10. Martin Dixon says:

    Back to the RFK Jr discussion. He brought the house down in Miami at his first public event and the independents loved him.

    • Martin,

      Like all anti-vaxxers, he has no judgment.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        Ronald-that doesn’t mean he can’t win. That is a PLUS for many down there. Combine them with the people whose hearts flutter at his name like morons do up here with Trudeau’s and those who like his views on other matters and he could very be President Anti-Vaxxer.

      • Gilbert says:

        There’s nothing wrong with being opposed to things like polyethylene glycol, aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde and monosodium glutamate injected into your body.

  11. Martin Dixon says:

    Another minister that finally woke up and started to read the room after continually downplaying this project. The fact that the US DOD has a strong interest in it may have had something to do with Wilkinson changing his tune so he likely doesn’t deserve a whole lot of props.

    https://biz.crast.net/federal-government-pledges-new-funding-for-ring-of-fire-and-proposes-working-group-with-ontario/

Leave a Reply to Steve T Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.