SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians

Don Davies

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
  • NDP
  • Vancouver Kingsway
  • British Columbia
  • Voting Attendance: 59%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $153,893.57

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)
  • Sep/18/23 6:09:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-48 
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was pretty wide-ranging and touched on a number of things. It contributed to the debate, but in some cases it did not. We are talking about bail conditions and how we deal with people who commit crimes on bail. The member raised the tragedy outside the Starbucks in Vancouver, where Mr. Schmidt was knifed to death. However, that was by a person who was not out on bail, so I am not sure what that has to do with the legislation that is under consideration. The current bail law in this country is that bail can be denied when an accused's criminal record is taken into account, particularly if they have failed to comply with past bail conditions or court orders. It is the law now that bail can be denied by a judge if someone has failed to comply with bail conditions in the past or if they have a repeat criminal record. Could the member explain to us why she thinks the current law is not sufficient to keep those people in jail pending their trial, when that is the law right now?
194 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)
  • Sep/18/23 5:10:20 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-48 
Madam Speaker, I think the average person on the street would probably agree with the principle that someone who has repeat offended at some point would require a reverse onus for bail. However, I am thinking of one of the cornerstones of the rule of law system in our country, which is the presumption of innocence. We have a right to walk the streets and have liberty, and if the state charges us with a crime, we have a right to be presumed innocent and not to be deprived of our liberty. I am wondering how my hon. colleague squares that notion with the concept of reverse onus, where somebody who is accused would have to justify why they would retain liberty instead of being incarcerated pending a trial and pending conviction of the crime, which has not yet occurred. Does he have any concerns in that regard?
148 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border