Thank you.
One of the issues that hasn't really been discussed is why people are denied bail. It was alluded to in my friend's presentation when he talked about the disproportionate number of aboriginal offenders. I would call them people who are detained who are alleged to have committed crimes who are aboriginals, for instance.
The significant factors that affect eligibility for bail include such things as wealth, employment, and roots in the community. This means that the denial of bail disparately, without any doubt, affects people who are marginalized and new to the community. This bill disproportionately affects their eligibility for credit on a sentence. For instance, a marginalized, unemployed, recent immigrant will have great difficulty getting bail. As the mathematics of Mr. Doob point out, that person will serve the equivalent of a longer sentence simply because they will be serving it before trial when they're not eligible for any form of statutory release whatsoever. That's one example of disparity or unfairness.
You gave the example of a Mafioso who seems to get a light sentence because he served so much time in pretrial custody. As it stands now, judges are only told that they may, under the Criminal Code, give credit for time in pretrial custody. The degree to which they give that credit is a matter of judicial discretion, and as Mr. Trudell so eloquently points out, the parameters of that discretion are limitless because the facts that can affect the fairness of the situation or the equities of the situation are limitless. The bill brings a structure to something that by its very nature ought not be so rigidly structured. That's why it is guaranteed to have a disparate effect on certain marginalized populations, for instance.