Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Just for clarification.
MBates are you saying based on your expertise in criminal law that in your opinion Danielle Smith has no idea what she’s talking about here and will not be able to deliver on this promise?
|
To be fair, I would have to clarify that I find it essentially impossible to determine just what Danielle Smith and the UCP are talking about - because they are (a) not saying the same things even; and (b) what is being said by Danielle Smith and candidates in talking points appears to be purposefully misleading.
So, if purposefully misleading then arguably Danielle Smith knows exactly what she is talking about (and knows it is at least partially a fake promise)? Or as you say, she might just have no idea what she is talking about.
I will try to break it down this way:
1. The Constitution Act 1867 will render invalid any law passed by an Alberta government that "in pith and substance" is an exercise of criminal law and criminal procedure jurisdiction (or interferes with federal bail laws already "occupying the field"). So if they are saying they will somehow add 24/7 ankle bracelet monitoring to anyone released on bail who did not already get that condition imposed through the normal existing bail process - they are either misleading voters or they are in fact going to attempt to do it but they know it is unlawful and will never be upheld.
2. If, however, all they are going to do is allocate taxpayer money to either expand the ability of the already existing private monitoring companies to 'monitor more' or 'monitor better' (or whatever, I honestly cannot even follow what they are suggesting) then they can do that...but they are not telling voters that and I would love to hear how that would benefit anyone other than the monitoring companies.
3. If, they are going to enter into competition with the monitoring companies and create a government operated monitoring program that will use Sheriffs to provide 'better' or 'more' monitoring (again whatever that is supposed to mean) then they also could do that...in theory. The constitutional devil would be in the details.
But here is the bottom line...
Nobody can constitutionally be electronically monitored on bail unless a judge lawfully orders such a condition in accordance with the Criminal Code, the Charter, and the binding SCC law interpreting same. And nothing about this campaign announcement would be able to change that.
So maybe Albertans will end up owning thousands of monitoring bracelets that never get used? Because - something something DANGER something something PUBLIC SAFETY!!! something something ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!
Anyway, some others have since offered similar assessments for those interested:
https://globalnews.ca/news/9689915/a...s-out-on-bail/