Discussion · Government Orders
Christine Normandin Bloc Québécois
“The Senate change still gives judges clear rules. Judges would have to write down good reasons before letting someone with a recent criminal record watch over an accused person on bail. I am asking my colleague if rejecting this change shows a lack of trust in judges to make good choices.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the bail issue, I can understand my colleague’s position on the Senate amendment. However, it does come with certain guidelines. A judge who grants a person who has committed a crime in recent years the opportunity to be designated as a surety must demonstrate that it is in the interest of justice and must record the reasons for their decision in the case file. Does my colleague not think that refusing this amendment is a bit of an affront to judges’ ability to make sound decisions on a case-by-case basis, allowing them, where justified, to authorize a surety that would otherwise have been inadmissible?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, on the bail issue, I can understand my colleague’s position on the Senate amendment. However, it does come with certain guidelines. A judge who grants a person who has committed a crime in recent years the opportunity to be designated as a surety must demonstrate that it is in the interest of justice and must record the reasons for their decision in the case file. Does my colleague not think that refusing this amendment is a bit of an affront to judges’ ability to make sound decisions on a case-by-case basis, allowing them, where justified, to authorize a surety that would otherwise have been inadmissible?