Good afternoon. I am an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Guelph. I have spent over a decade studying Canada’s bail system. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I will make three main arguments. First, Canada’s bail system merits attention and review. There is much room for improvement. Second, Bill C-48 is unlikely to bring about the desired consequences of improved community safety over the long-term and may, in fact, undermine it. Third, a more promising approach to meaningful bail reform can be found in efforts by provincial and territorial governments to modify how bail is implemented.

To begin, I agree that a critical review of the bail system is warranted. Evidence-based decisions must guide bail reform, and we must focus on long-term public safety. Public safety is an important goal of the criminal justice system. We cannot lose sight of the devastating harm and trauma that accrue to victims and communities from crime, particularly violent crime. We must also uphold the key principles of the criminal justice system — namely the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail. Will Bill C-48 help us achieve these goals?

My primary concern with the proposed bill is that it will do little to enhance public safety and may possibly even degrade it, while making the system less fair for accused individuals. Under the existing system, decision makers are required to consider public safety when ruling to detain or release an accused, as well as relevant factors, including criminal history. As you know, many individuals are currently incarcerated before trial. Since incarceration separates individuals from community connections, including family, employment and housing, and introduces them to a criminogenic environment, increasing rates of incarceration may have the unintended effect of decreasing public safety.

It is also important to note that the impact of expanding reverse onus provisions will not be distributed evenly. Individuals who cannot afford a private lawyer to argue against reverse onus provisions will be significantly disadvantaged. Already marginalized groups in society, including Indigenous Canadians, will be disproportionately affected by Bill C-48.

I’ll conclude by briefly outlining four suggestions that my colleague Dr. Laura MacDiarmid and I proposed that could better balance the goal of public safety with the presumption of innocence and the principle of restraint.

First, more resources should be devoted to strengthening bail compliance to carefully monitor accused deemed to be higher risk and to apprehend those accused of violent offences found in breach of their conditions in a timely manner. Importantly, in some cases that preceded Bill C-48, there were outstanding warrants for individuals who were not apprehended.

Second, improving court efficiency is needed to reduce the amount of time accused spend in remand custody, decrease the likelihood of additional charges for breaching conditions — often for non-criminal behaviour — and to accelerate the rate at which those who are found guilty will be sentenced.

Third, access to adequate legal counsel and greater funding for legal aid is paramount. Ensuring accused have legal representation not only contributes to court efficiency by addressing delays in court proceedings but provides essential services for economically marginalized individuals.

Fourth, greater social supports, including prioritizing efforts to address homelessness, mental health, poverty, addiction, victimization and trauma, are essential. We must recognize that effective public safety depends upon addressing the precursors of offending. Connecting accused with social services and supports complements public safety.

The types of bail reform activities I’m suggesting largely fall within provincial and territorial jurisdictions. The federal government would make a much more meaningful and productive contribution to public safety, while better preserving the core principles of our criminal justice system, by engaging with the provinces on the issue of bail reform and offering resources for the types of initiatives I’ve discussed that focus on the implementation of bail, not changing the criminal law.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you for the question, and I will clarify. The 80% refers to the number of people who are detained, roughly, in Ontario, who are in the remand population who have not yet been found guilty of their charges, not who ultimately won’t be convicted of the charge.

There is some data. I don’t have the specific numbers with me right now. We do know there is a significant proportion of charges that are withdrawn. We know that many people who are in custody ultimately have charges withdrawn or are not found guilty of those charges.

Yes.

Thank you very much for the question.

My work with women in custody didn’t focus so much on wrongful conviction. That was prior work focusing on their experiences of victimization offending.

Having said that, the link between wrongful conviction, which has been discussed on the panel today, with Bill C-48 is very concerning and something we must take seriously because if individuals are faced with increased barriers to being able to achieve bail, there is certainly a greater likelihood that they may decide it’s in their best interest to enter a false guilty plea for something that they didn’t do to avoid spending long periods of time in remand. The very negative detrimental consequences of remand have already been discussed yesterday and today, so I won’t elaborate on those. There is real concern that we will see increase in wrongful conviction and false guilty pleas, miscarriages of justice more generally, if we contribute to an overburdened system by making it more and more difficult for people to achieve bail with the expansion of the reverse onus provision.