PROPOSED JUSTICE BILL TOO BROAD
If the federal government is to be faulted for its ambitious justice reform bill, it is perhaps because the legislation tries to accomplish too much at one time. Bill C-75, unveiled last Thursday, presents a wide array of targets for opponents to aim at.
Some, for instance, will balk over eliminating preliminary inquiries in all but the most serious cases. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould boasts the bill would end such hearings in 87 per cent of cases, speeding up court cases. But many experts think doing away with them will slow things down.
Or, they may worry over changes to jury selection. The bill does away with the right of both Crown and defence to reject jurors without citing their reasons; the change comes in the emotionally charged aftermath of the Colten Boushie case, in which several Indigenous people were excluded from the jury trying a non-Indigenous man for Boushie’s death. Some see this part of the bill as hastily contrived.
There will also be people fearful of specific changes to the bail system. For instance, the bill specifies a “reverse onus” on those facing domestic assault charges who have previously been convicted of similar offences; it means these accused would have to satisfy a judge as to why they deserve bail, rather than the Crown having to argue why they should be kept in custody.
Still, both the broad intent and general direction of Bill C-75 deserve applause. Once the Supreme Court of Canada, with its so-called “Jordan decision” in 2016, said Canadian courts had to rule more quickly or serious cases would be tossed out altogether (many were), Wilson-Raybould had no choice but to act.
That is why the proposed bill reduces those preliminary hearings, for instance. That’s why it also contains other measures such as diverting less serious offences from superior courts and giving judges more discretion about the pace of proceedings. That’s also why some other parts of the bail system will be more streamlined. All good, perhaps — though, oddly, the bill doesn’t address mandatory minimum sentences, which many lawyers believe seriously clog the courts, since they reduce the possibility of plea bargains.
For its merits, this bill nonetheless feels overly broad, and that girth could prove its downfall. Given how tough it is proving to pass other federal legislation the government probably shouldn’t be mixing priorities in Bill C-75.
It may end up tripping over its own sprawling, if noble, intentions.