OTTAWA – The federal government’s bail reform legislation is on its way to becoming law after the House of Commons voted Thursday to accept Senate amendments to the bill.
Justice Minister Arif Virani urged MPs to accept the changes to Bill C-48 on Thursday, and they did so unanimously.
The Liberal government introduced the bill earlier this year in the face of sustained calls from all provincial premiers and many police chiefs to make bail more difficult to obtain for repeat violent offenders.
The bill landed amid heightened public safety concerns and a series of high-profile killings, including the murder of Ontario Provincial Police Const. Greg Pierzchala last December.
Court documents show a man charged with first-degree murder in his death was denied bail on unrelated assault and weapons charges months before the shooting, but was released after a review. A warrant was issued for his arrest after he failed to appear in court months before Pierzchala’s murder.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre also kept up pressure on the government over its handling of violent crime and what he described as lax justice reforms, repeating the slogan “jail, not bail”.
Former Justice Minister David Lametti introduced bail reform legislation in May after several meetings with his provincial counterparts.
The bill expands the use of reverse onus provisions for certain offenders.
This means that instead of a Crown prosecutor having to prove in court why an accused person should remain behind bars pending trial, the accused person will have to prove why he or she should be released.
The provision will be extended to cover more firearms and weapons offences and more circumstances where the alleged offence involves intimate partner violence.
The changes raised concerns from civil society groups, including indigenous and black legal advocacy groups, who warned that making bail harder to obtain risks increasing the over-representation of black and indigenous people behind bars, as well as people with mental illness or other disadvantages.
Legal experts and prisoners’ rights campaigners have also raised concerns that the government has no evidence that making bail more difficult to obtain will increase public safety.
Since Virani was appointed to his post in the summer, he has defended the rules as a targeted approach in response to unanimous community concerns.
He did so again on Thursday.
“Canadians expect laws that both keep them safe and respect the rights enshrined in the (Charter of Rights and Freedoms),” he told MPs on Thursday.
“I believe we have struck that balance.”
The House of Commons passed the bill unanimously in September, without the usual step of scrutinising it in committee.
Some senators expressed concern that the government was trying to rush the legislation through, and the Senate took its time with the bill and conducted its own inquiry.
Senators heard from witnesses including police chiefs, criminal defence lawyers and other civil society groups.
These included the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which suggested that the bill should require judges to detail how their bail decisions took into account the circumstances of Indigenous and other marginalised people.
Virani said the Criminal Code already requires courts to consider such factors, but the Senate heard from witnesses who said the law is not applied consistently.
He said it appeared that the Senate was “doubling down” on this provision and “emphasising its importance”.
During its inquiry, the Senate also heard from some police chiefs who were concerned that the bill didn’t do enough to tackle violent crime committed by people on bail.
Conservative MP Eric Dunan echoed that sentiment on Thursday, saying simply: “This bill does not go far enough.
But he said the Tories still supported the legislation, although he described it as a “small fix” to a wider problem.
Before MPs passed the amended bill, Virani also called on the provinces and territories to collect better data on bail and share it with the federal government to better inform future decisions on bail laws.
The Senate heard repeatedly during its inquiry about the lack of such data.
It also heard that the expansion of reverse onus provisions would likely lead to increased pressure on legal aid, which many marginalised offenders rely on to deal with charges.