Bill C-242, the proposed Jail Not Bail Act, would amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act. Its stated goal is to give public protection and safety greater weight in decisions about release before trial or sentencing. The supplied material does not establish whether the bill is now law; the changes described here are proposed, not provisions shown to be in force.
Police officers, justices and judges would have to give primary consideration to public protection and safety when making decisions under the relevant part of the Criminal Code. This would replace the current principle of restraint, but the current law could not be checked against the supplied materials.
The bill would add specified offences to the reverse-onus list. In those cases, an accused seeking release would have to show why detention is not justified. The additions include offences under specified Criminal Code sections, and alleged violence against a peace officer or a “first responder” (defined to include firefighters, paramedics and emergency medical technicians, plus any classes added by regulation).
Police could not release a person they arrested for a “major offence” (a defined group of reverse-onus offences) under the specified police-release provisions. A justice would have to detain an accused charged with a major offence if they were allegedly at large on release for another major offence when the new offence occurred and had a major-offence conviction in the previous ten years. Only a superior court judge could then consider release, and the accused would have to show why detention is not justified.
Release decisions would have to consider whether the accused is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and, if not, whether leaving the country is reasonably foreseeable. A person who is not a citizen or permanent resident would have to deposit all passports to receive a police undertaking; for release by a justice, this passport condition applies when the accused is subject to the reverse-onus rules.
The bill would bar a person convicted of an indictable offence in the previous ten years from being named as a surety (someone who agrees to supervise an accused’s release). It would also change rules for release after a guilty plea or finding of guilt for an indictable offence.
The Minister of Justice would have to prepare and table an annual report on release outcomes, conditions, recidivism, incidents requiring public attention, accessibility and differences between groups.
People accused of offences: The bill would not require detention of everyone charged. But more charges would carry a reverse onus, and the bill would make public protection the primary consideration. It would also require criminal history to be considered, including major-offence convictions, past breaches of release conditions and reoffending while on release.
People arrested for major offences: Police could not release them under the specified provisions. If the bill’s repeat-offence conditions apply, a justice must order detention; a superior court judge could consider release if the accused shows why detention is not justified.
People who are not citizens or permanent residents: They would have to deposit all passports to be released by police. A justice must impose that condition when releasing an accused covered by the reverse-onus rules. The bill does not require passport deposit for every release by a justice.
People asked to be sureties: A person with an indictable-offence conviction in the previous ten years could not be named as a surety.
People charged with an indictable offence who plead guilty or are found guilty: After an accepted guilty plea, detention would be required unless the accused shows why it is not justified. After a finding of guilt at trial, release would also require the accused to show why detention is not justified.
The public: The bill would not create a new independent agency or a new front-line service. It would require the Justice Minister to report to Parliament each year.
The supplied materials do not include the current versions of the Criminal Code or the Department of Justice Act. I could not verify how the proposed changes compare with current law.
The bill does not provide a start date or explain when its changes would take effect.
“Reasonably foreseeable” is not defined, including in the test about whether an accused may try to leave the country.
The bill does not set out how the annual report’s data would be collected or how disparities between groups would be assessed.
The Governor in Council could add classes of first responders by regulation, but the bill does not say which classes might be added.
The bill appears intended to make public safety a central consideration in release decisions.
Adding specified offences to the reverse-onus list could require closer scrutiny of release in those cases, while still allowing an accused to seek release.
Requiring criminal history to be considered could help decision-makers assess the risks named in the bill, such as repeat offending while on release.
Annual public reporting could give Parliament information about release outcomes, conditions and access to release.
Making public protection the primary consideration would replace the principle of restraint and could shift the balance toward detention.
More reverse-onus offences and the mandatory detention rule for some repeat accused could mean more people are held before trial; the bill provides no estimate of how many.
The passport rule applies to people who are not citizens or permanent residents, without setting out exceptions or a process for dealing with cases where a person cannot deposit all passports.
The bill does not define “reasonably foreseeable” or provide detailed rules for how officials should apply that test, which could leave important decisions uncertain.