Sound advice, except for the minister of justice. I don’t mind a fresh face, but the issue is not the current federal bail laws. This is hogwash, promoted extensively by the Conservatives. A bit of research shows that the real issue is provincial.
The provinces have been underfunding the justice system. There are not enough prosecutors, court staff, jail facilities, etc. While the vacancies for federally appointed judges is down to a couple of percents, there are not enough provincially appointed judges (and they do most of the bail cases).
Currently 80% of the jailed population in Ontario is waiting for their day in court. They were not able to get bail. And more than half of this 80% will never get convicted.
Today Ontario changed its provincial laws regarding bail? Why did they do this now? And why is a change required as the Conservatives have been saying for 3 years now the problem exclusively federal?
Evan, I write this as someone who usually disagrees with your prescriptions. In this case, however, I can endorse each and every one of these points.
The fact is, the previous government was simply an abomination in terms of governing. Their policies, for the most part, were (kinda, possibly, maybe, perhaps) well intentioned but, man, oh, man, they couldn't deliver on much of anything. Yeah, I get it, folks will point to this thing and that thing but so few things after ten years? So, again, the previous people couldn't govern worth a damn.
The truth is that I would be delighted to be proven wrong but I just don't expect this government to be able to meet your (face it, really) low expectations. What I mean is that the things that you identify are so damned basic that I cannot imagine why the previous government did not understand their utility, even given their ineptitude and incompetence.
To put things differently, I expect that this government will make all sorts of (kinda, possibly, maybe, perhaps) correct sounds [I was going to say the "right sounds" but I thought that phrasing might offend someone] with the cabinet appointments and the Throne Speech but to then be dragged down with just more of the same performative, non-functioning stuff of the T2 years; plus Carney's own climate hobby-horse that will again prove constitutionally "difficult."
All that will be a prelude to real constitutional difficulties and worse.
“It’s a perfectly reasonable policy point as well, but one that codes as right wing”
I’d like to comment on this. All too often issues end up associating with a particular party simply because they do it, rather than any inherent ideological association. There’s absolutely no reason that “we actually enforce our regulations” should be Conservative coded. No reason it should be ideologically coded at all. Regardless of party, that’s the sort of thing that should simply fall under Good Governance, and be a universal expectation
Good article. I am particularly interested in seeing if Carney can return decision-making to the Cabinet table. And please, even though you are from the east Evan, don't forget MP Patrick Weiler, 38-years-old environmental lawyer, five years under his belt, in Ottawa. He has earned an important role in Carney's new government.
Bail reform is way harder than you're making out here, because the rules people had a problem with from the Trudeau era come from Supreme Court decisions they were obligated to codify and not any Trudeau era policy. Also all the Federal government does is set some broad based rules and its up to local police prosecutors and judges to interpret them and that stuff is almost entirely provincially run.
Brent, well, yes, the Supremes did say some dumb stuff among the reasonable thingys.
Where the dumb stuff was asserted to be based on the Charter and was, well, truly dumb, use the damned Charter to refute the Supremes. The Charter includes the Notwithstanding Clause and deliberate use of the NWC together with a statement about the absurdity of the Supremes' position should make a positive statement that would force the Supremes to be considerate in their decisions.
I make this suggestion in the knowledge that in Canada - like another democracy to the south - we have three branches of government, the executive (being the ministries from deputy minister on down), the legislative (both houses of Parliament) and the judicial. For some years now the judicial has been asserting itself to tell Parliament that they, i.e. Parliament, are wrong and Parliament has meekly said nothing. That has left the impression that the judicial branch is supreme. [Sorry for the pun.]
In fact, the three branches are equal so the legislative must, where necessary, push back using it's legal power: the NWC, if necessary.
On the other hand, I really don't expect the Liberals to do anything except cower in fear of the Supremes.
If you wanted tough on crime (proven unsuccessful by the way...) why didn't you vote for CPC?
At NO point should LPC use the notwithstanding unless a matter of national security.
Lastly, if only Carney met the same fate as Trudeau. 10 years in power with a Liberal replacement in a quasi-majority while CPC doubles down around an unpopular leader...
I was under the impression (due to civics class) that Laws are generally establish by the Feds, but the provinces are the ones who manage the legal system within their boundaries. Why would the Feds be responsible for bail rules? Bail reform would happen at the provincial level. Someone commented that the number of justices and judges are the responsibility of the Provinces as well, so if there are 80% of the people waiting for their day in court, the province needs to fix that.
Your proposals are reasonable and would go a long way to bridging the divide currently in Canada. If Carney does implement your points - I might be convinced to vote Liberal in the next election in 2030. 🇨🇦
Sound advice, except for the minister of justice. I don’t mind a fresh face, but the issue is not the current federal bail laws. This is hogwash, promoted extensively by the Conservatives. A bit of research shows that the real issue is provincial.
The provinces have been underfunding the justice system. There are not enough prosecutors, court staff, jail facilities, etc. While the vacancies for federally appointed judges is down to a couple of percents, there are not enough provincially appointed judges (and they do most of the bail cases).
Currently 80% of the jailed population in Ontario is waiting for their day in court. They were not able to get bail. And more than half of this 80% will never get convicted.
Today Ontario changed its provincial laws regarding bail? Why did they do this now? And why is a change required as the Conservatives have been saying for 3 years now the problem exclusively federal?
Well!!
Evan, I write this as someone who usually disagrees with your prescriptions. In this case, however, I can endorse each and every one of these points.
The fact is, the previous government was simply an abomination in terms of governing. Their policies, for the most part, were (kinda, possibly, maybe, perhaps) well intentioned but, man, oh, man, they couldn't deliver on much of anything. Yeah, I get it, folks will point to this thing and that thing but so few things after ten years? So, again, the previous people couldn't govern worth a damn.
The truth is that I would be delighted to be proven wrong but I just don't expect this government to be able to meet your (face it, really) low expectations. What I mean is that the things that you identify are so damned basic that I cannot imagine why the previous government did not understand their utility, even given their ineptitude and incompetence.
To put things differently, I expect that this government will make all sorts of (kinda, possibly, maybe, perhaps) correct sounds [I was going to say the "right sounds" but I thought that phrasing might offend someone] with the cabinet appointments and the Throne Speech but to then be dragged down with just more of the same performative, non-functioning stuff of the T2 years; plus Carney's own climate hobby-horse that will again prove constitutionally "difficult."
All that will be a prelude to real constitutional difficulties and worse.
“It’s a perfectly reasonable policy point as well, but one that codes as right wing”
I’d like to comment on this. All too often issues end up associating with a particular party simply because they do it, rather than any inherent ideological association. There’s absolutely no reason that “we actually enforce our regulations” should be Conservative coded. No reason it should be ideologically coded at all. Regardless of party, that’s the sort of thing that should simply fall under Good Governance, and be a universal expectation
Good article. I am particularly interested in seeing if Carney can return decision-making to the Cabinet table. And please, even though you are from the east Evan, don't forget MP Patrick Weiler, 38-years-old environmental lawyer, five years under his belt, in Ottawa. He has earned an important role in Carney's new government.
Bail reform is way harder than you're making out here, because the rules people had a problem with from the Trudeau era come from Supreme Court decisions they were obligated to codify and not any Trudeau era policy. Also all the Federal government does is set some broad based rules and its up to local police prosecutors and judges to interpret them and that stuff is almost entirely provincially run.
Brent, well, yes, the Supremes did say some dumb stuff among the reasonable thingys.
Where the dumb stuff was asserted to be based on the Charter and was, well, truly dumb, use the damned Charter to refute the Supremes. The Charter includes the Notwithstanding Clause and deliberate use of the NWC together with a statement about the absurdity of the Supremes' position should make a positive statement that would force the Supremes to be considerate in their decisions.
I make this suggestion in the knowledge that in Canada - like another democracy to the south - we have three branches of government, the executive (being the ministries from deputy minister on down), the legislative (both houses of Parliament) and the judicial. For some years now the judicial has been asserting itself to tell Parliament that they, i.e. Parliament, are wrong and Parliament has meekly said nothing. That has left the impression that the judicial branch is supreme. [Sorry for the pun.]
In fact, the three branches are equal so the legislative must, where necessary, push back using it's legal power: the NWC, if necessary.
On the other hand, I really don't expect the Liberals to do anything except cower in fear of the Supremes.
If you wanted tough on crime (proven unsuccessful by the way...) why didn't you vote for CPC?
At NO point should LPC use the notwithstanding unless a matter of national security.
Lastly, if only Carney met the same fate as Trudeau. 10 years in power with a Liberal replacement in a quasi-majority while CPC doubles down around an unpopular leader...
I was under the impression (due to civics class) that Laws are generally establish by the Feds, but the provinces are the ones who manage the legal system within their boundaries. Why would the Feds be responsible for bail rules? Bail reform would happen at the provincial level. Someone commented that the number of justices and judges are the responsibility of the Provinces as well, so if there are 80% of the people waiting for their day in court, the province needs to fix that.
Your proposals are reasonable and would go a long way to bridging the divide currently in Canada. If Carney does implement your points - I might be convinced to vote Liberal in the next election in 2030. 🇨🇦