Justice Committee on March 16th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Good morning. I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 2 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Tuesday, March 16, 2010.

You have before you the agenda for today. Today we are considering private member's bill, Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody).

With us to introduce the bill is MP Scott Andrews. Welcome here, Scott.

We also have with us a number of additional witnesses to assist in our review. First of all, representing the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, we have Krista Gray-Donald. We also have Heidi Illingworth, who is the executive director.

As individuals, we have David and Kathleen Bagby. Welcome here.

Once we've heard from the witnesses, we are prepared to move to clause-by-clause on this bill. We have with us justice officials who can provide us with advice on clause-by-clause, Anouk Desaulniers and Laura Hodgson.

As is our customary process, Mr. Andrews, you'll have up to 10 minutes to present. Then we'll also give the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime 10 minutes.

Mrs. and Mr. Bagby, we have 10 minutes for you as well.

Mr. Andrews, you may start. You have 10 minutes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the justice committee.

First of all, let me thank the committee for advancing the discussion on my private member's bill, Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody). It was introduced on October 23, 2009, followed by second reading on December 4. I look forward to the discussion and your support as we move this important piece of legislation forward.

All of us in Newfoundland and Labrador and many across the country heard the terrible story concerning the murder of a young, upcoming doctor in 2001. Dr. Andrew Bagby was murdered in a Pennsylvania park, and at the time, the police in the United States questioned Dr. Shirley Turner of St. John's, Newfoundland, in connection with the murder.

Soon after, Dr. Turner returned to Newfoundland and made her pregnancy known, with her child of the late Dr. Bagby. Court proceedings followed, and Dr. Turner fought to stay in Canada during an extradition process.

Soon after, Zachary was born to the grandparents Kate and David Bagby, and they moved to Newfoundland to file for custody of their grandson. During the court proceedings, Dr. Turner was granted bail, and Zachary remained in her custody, with the grandparents given supervised visitations.

On August 18, 2003, Dr. Turner took her own life and the life of 13-month-old baby Zachary. While on bail, Dr. Turner jumped into the Atlantic Ocean in Conception Bay South with Zachary, and both died.

Since that time, Kate and David Bagby have been presenting their story and seeking the reform of bail legislation in Canada. In addition, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the efforts of our friend, Kurt Kuenne. Kurt is the producer of a documentary called Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father that played throughout Canada and across the national media. I can assure you that this is near and dear to Kurt's heart. He used his talents to have this story told and to promote legislative reform.

Just a year ago, shortly after I was elected, I received an invitation to attend a special screening of the documentary Dear Zachary for senators and members of Parliament in Ottawa. At that time, I had the pleasure to meet and talk with Kate and David and Kurt for the first time.

Watching this documentary and listening to their personal stories had a profound impact. It was shortly after this that I knew my first ever private member's bill would try to advance the efforts of bail reform in Canada. Obviously, I had to come quickly up to speed on the procedures of private members' bills and options for amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada pertaining to bail.

We have to balance the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we need to have a court system to reflect the requirement to protect the safety of minors while those accused of serious crimes are being considered for bail.

After consultation with Kate and David and discussion of my intentions with my colleagues and lawyers, and working with the legislative branch of the House of Commons, I introduced Bill C-464 on October 23.

In summary, this bill when enacted will amend the Criminal Code to provide that the detention of the accused in custody may be justified where it is necessary for the protection and safety of the accused's minor children.

Bill C-464 is not about me. MPs create a private member's bill for two reasons: to make a political statement, knowing it will go nowhere; and, secondly, if you believe a realistic change can be made and it's possible to make a difference, then you will have success.

Bill C-464 is an accomplishment that reflects the strength and determination of David and Kate Bagby, parents and grandparents of the late Andrew and Zachary. I am delighted that Kate and David have joined us here today. These two amazing people have used their strength and determination to attract the attention of decision-makers and have had them focus upon the need to bring about change to our current bail legislation in Canada.

It is in the memory of Andrew and Zachary that we move this bill forward and do everything in our power to prevent this from happening to another family.

I have pledged my support to the Bagbys and to all Canadians wanting legislative reform within the Criminal Code that will hopefully strengthen bail requirements and achieve a common goal, so that no one has to witness or live through the devastation of losing loved ones in circumstances that are later determined to have been preventable.

Following this tragedy, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reviewed and investigated the circumstances surrounding the death of Zachary.

Dr. Peter Markesteyn was appointed to conduct the review and report findings to the provincial government. Dr. Markesteyn has had extensive experience in the conduct of children and adult health death reviews and has been a consultant to the Department of Justice federally. His professional experience includes many years of teaching in the faculties of medicine in several Canadian universities, including the University of Alberta, the University of Manitoba, and Memorial University in Newfoundland. He has also been trained as a consultant by the RCMP training division in Regina, the Atlantic Police Academy in Charlottetown, and the Canadian Police College here in Ontario.

Dr. Markesteyn conducted an exhaustive investigation over a 15-month period, and at the end of his research there were two distinct conclusions: one, Zachary Turner's death was preventable; two, Zachary was in his mother's care when he should not have been.

Although Dr. Markesteyn's mandate did not include a review of federal legislation concerning bail conditions, the provincial minister of justice at the time did bring these findings to the attention of the federal government.

From a tragic ending, we bring this new beginning of bail reform so that no other family has to go through this devastation that Kate and David have gone through so far. During the past short while, we have made considerable progress with the bill. It is my hope that such progress can continue so that we can move my private member's bill through the committee stage and into the House for third reading with minimal required legislative timelines.

Senator Tommy Banks has been part of the debate and the progress of Bill C-464. He has pledged his support and is ready to sponsor this bill for approval through the Senate.

Once again, I would like to thank the committee members for their timely response to Bill C-464, and I look forward to continuing the debate on this very important piece of legislation. I'd like to thank David and Kate for their continued support and for joining me here today. I'd also like to thank the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime for their interest in and support for Bill C-464.

I look forward to hearing from other witnesses and to continued discussion and debate.

In closing, we support the proposed amendment that was brought forward by the parliamentary secretary. It puts more clarity and defines “minor children” so that there will be no misunderstanding when this needs to be used in a court of law.

Once again, thank you for your time. We look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

We'll move on to the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. I believe, Ms. Illingworth, you're going to present. You have 10 minutes.

[Heidi Illingworth, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime]

Thank you.

Good morning.

The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is a national, non-profit advocacy group for victims and survivors of serious, violent crime. We provide direct assistance and support to victims across the country, as well as advocating for public safety and improved services and rights for crime victims.

The CRCVC is pleased to appear today before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to take part in the debate over Bill C-464.

Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge David and Kate Bagby, who have travelled a very long distance to share their story with us today. Their story is truly tragic, and I'm sure you're aware of the details. We are here, along with the Bagbys, to make sure that another family does not have to endure the same suffering.

The decision to grant bail is inherently difficult. A judge is asked to balance the rights of an accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, against the protection of public safety. It is our position that the protection of the public must take precedence over an accused's right to be released from custody pending trial.

The Criminal Code has provisions that govern when detention should be ordered, and Bill C-464 seeks to amend these provisions and correct what is, in our opinion, a gross oversight. Bill C-464 modifies paragraph 515(10)(b) to provide that the detention of an accused in custody may be justified where it is necessary for the protection or safety of the accused’s minor children. It is hoped that this modification might save the lives of children, children like Zachary Turner, whose life would not have been lost had the judges who twice granted Shirley Turner bail not done so. There are a number of examples where Zachary Turner was failed by the systems put in place to protect him, but ultimately the fact that he was not considered in the evaluation of Shirley Turner's risk led directly to his death.

We are fortunate in Canada that cases of homicide where the victim is a child are rare. It is, however, alarming how many of these young victims are killed by their parents. Statistics Canada reports show that in 2006 there were 60 homicides committed against children and youth under the age of 18. This represents 10% of all murders committed during that year. Thirty-six of these young victims, or 65%, were murdered by family members. In 2003, 33 children under the age of 12 were murdered. Twenty-seven of these cases were solved, and of those, 85% were found to be murdered by a parent. Over the past three decades, from 1977 to 2006, 90% of family related homicide victims under the age of 18 were killed by a parent, the definition of which includes step and adoptive parents. These statistics tell us that a significant number of murdered children lose their lives at the hands of their parents, and that the younger they are, the more likely it is that their parents take their lives.

Unfortunately, Statistics Canada does not record statistics on the number of cases that involved a parent who was released on judicial interim release when they murdered their child. We must therefore rely on individual cases reported in the media to capture these crimes. The media shows us that Zachary’s case was not unique.

Peter Lee of Victoria attempted to murder his wife in 2007. He was charged but granted judicial interim release despite a recommendation by police that he not be released by the courts. Conditions were imposed that required that he not have contact with his wife, yet in September 2007 he murdered his six-year-old son as well as his wife and her parents.

In Cumberland, Ontario, in April 2006, Frank Mailly murdered his two sons, ages six and nine, his daughter, aged twelve, and their mother. He then burned down their home, with their bodies in it, killing himself in the process. He was not to have contact with Francine, but he had visitation rights to the children, and he committed these murders at the conclusion of one of their visits. Mailly had a long history of domestic violence and was on bail at the time he murdered his family.

In 2002, Lawrence Mends was released on bail in St. Catharines following an attempt to take the life of the mother of his child. When he returned to her home to attack her again, he wounded her and murdered their two-year-old son, Robert, stabbing him in excess of 20 times with a knife.

These are just a few examples where the risk to children was not properly assessed. In addition to these cases where children lost their lives, there are numerous cases where children were left orphaned when one parent was murdered by another, frequently in the presence of the children or when their mother was trying to protect the children from harm.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Illingworth, I'm just going to ask you to slow down a little bit. When we read our presentations they tend to be faster than one would normally present them. So slow down, because we have some interpreters who need to keep up with you.

Thank you.

[Heidi Illingworth]

Okay. I'm sorry.

These children often survive because of the sole actions of their murdered parents and will likely be irreparably harmed by these offences.

It was argued in the Turner case that Shirley Turner need not be detained, as she had allegedly sought to harm and ultimately murdered the only person she would have wanted to harm. Our experience in working with victims of domestic violence tells us this logic is flawed, and this is generally not the case. Abusers, especially those who prey on a spouse or a significant other, generally don't differentiate between their spouses and their children. They seek to harm those who are vulnerable and dependent on them. The children are quite frequently harmed in order to inflict pain on the spouse or in response to the relationship shared by the spouse and the children.

Our experience and media reporting tell us that the public is concerned about crimes committed by those people who are on bail and awaiting trial for other offences. This is especially true in cases involving serious or violent offences, the cases that this amendment was drafted to address. As written, it will enable a judge who is considering a bail application to take into account the risk that the accused is likely to commit a serious crime if he or she is given bail, and to include the accused's minor children in the determination of that risk.

The proposal does not suggest that all accused be denied bail or that the conditions under which a person will be granted bail be made so onerous that no accused will be granted bail. It asks that meaningful consideration be given to the minor children of the accused when determining risk—children who are quite often at the greatest risk of harm at the hands of the accused. It does not dictate that bail will be refused in any given case or that having children would unfairly predispose an accused to remand.

On a daily basis our centre assists Canadians like the Bagbys. Serious, violent crime has had an impact on their lives. These victims and survivors want more than anything else to ensure the justice system has the tools in place to prevent what happened to them or to their loved ones from happening to anyone else. The legislative change proposed in Bill C-464 will compel the judiciary to consider the minor children of the accused when they are making decisions on judicial interim releases. Had such consideration been given to Zachary Turner, Christian Lee, Jessica, Brandon, and Kevin Mailly, and Robert Mends, among many others, they would likely be alive today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Ms. Gray-Donald, do you have anything to add?

[Krista Gray-Donald, Director, Advocacy and Awareness, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime]

No, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. and Mrs. Bagby.

Mr. Bagby, I believe you have a statement.

[David Bagby, As an Individual]

Thank you.

First I'd like to thank Mr. Andrews and Senator Banks for taking up this issue and introducing legislation to improve this bail situation.

Here are five facts I want to put in evidence with this committee: murderers are dangerous; most people accused of murder actually did the killing; repeat killings are unpredictable; courts have no means, other than incarceration, to prevent second killings; and murder is not just another crime. I want to back up those five things with a little data.

One, murderers are dangerous. That's intuitively obvious, but the literature on murder is sprinkled with notations that the recidivism rate is very low, under 1%. That's nice and that's comforting, until you consider the fact that even at less than 1%, it is about 17 times the murder rate for the general population of Canada. That factor, 17, is based on recidivism statistics from the Canadian National Parole Board and population statistics from Statistics Canada. If you want to tune that number for more accuracy, I'm sure one of your staffers would have access to complete statistics on all murders throughout Canada for as far back as you care to look. I doubt very much that the number will change dramatically with more data.

Two, most people accused of murder actually did the killing. I used a 25-year study of murders in the Toronto area to demonstrate this fact: 85% of those accused actually did the killing. Again, a funded researcher could get a more accurate number, but the basic proposition stands. Most people accused of murder actually did the killing.

Three, repeat killings are unpredictable. Shirley Turner provided the most recent example that I know of in Canada, killing her son Zachary while free on bail, pending extradition to Pennsylvania for the murder of Andrew Bagby. In 1994, also in Newfoundland, John Cousins murdered Edward Shaw while free on bail, pending his trial for the murder of Marvin Squires. In England in 2007, Garry Weddell murdered his wife Sandra. He was charged with the crime, examined by a psychiatrist, and declared safe for release; that is, he presented no danger to himself or others. The court released him on bail, whereupon he shot and killed his mother-in-law, Traute Maxfield, and then himself.

Four, courts have no means, other than incarceration, to prevent second killings. A piece of paper won't stop a killer. Shirley Turner was ordered to appear in court and agreed to obey that order. She did in fact obey that order many times over the 20 months of the extradition process, but she always had the option to thumb her nose at the court and disappear whenever she felt like it, and to hurt as many people as possible on her way out. The same was true for John Cousins and Garry Weddell.

Five, murder is not just another crime. For every other crime, the primary victim and all the secondary victims--those who care about the primary victim--have at least the potential to recover something like a normal life. Even the victim of a brutal repeated rape or any other kind of vicious assault has an opportunity, with a lot of help from family and friends and maybe professional counsellors, to restore some semblance of normalcy to his or her life. It's not so for a murder victim.

When the last breath is drawn, all negotiations are terminated, all bridges are burned, and there can be no recovery. All is lost. Murder is the only crime that leaves such desolation in its wake.

The general population gets these facts. Here is a quote from University of Ottawa law professor David M. Paciocco:

Many Canadians are losing faith in the criminal justice system. They believe that courts are letting too many people go and are being too soft on those who are punished. It is not too strong to suggest that some of these people are disgusted with what they see.

That is from the first paragraph of the preface of Professor Paciocco's 1999 book, Getting Away with Murder: The Canadian Criminal Justice System. In that book he explains, in layman's terms, why this happens--why some people get away with murder. I found it very helpful and mostly palatable, but Professor Paciocco's elitism shows through on at least one issue.

After carefully explaining why the rule of law is so important in combating arbitrary variations in the delivery of justice, he turns right around and applauds circumventing the rule of law through plea bargaining. In response to the wishes of Canada's voters, Parliament passed a law imposing a sentence of life imprisonment for murder, but Professor Paciocco decries this loss of prosecutorial and judicial discretion, citing cases where prosecutors--and he--considered this sentence to be too harsh.

He applauds the bargaining down of an actual murder to a charge of manslaughter in order to avoid a life sentence for the killer. Apparently the rule of law is a wonderful thing when it works to the advantage of a criminal, but it's okay to sneak around the rule of law when a prosecutor, a professor, or a judge doesn't agree with a particular statute.

I have one more example of elitist disconnect from the real horror of murder. This is from a judicial decision in which Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Jean-Louis Baudouin explained the release of accused murderers on bail. I quote:

...certain inconveniences with respect to effectiveness and the repression of crime [are] the price that must be paid for life in a free and democratic society...

This is an asinine use of the word “inconvenience”. This is in a written judicial decision. Zachary, Edward Shaw, and Traute Maxfield had suffered enormously greater harm than can be described by “inconvenience”. I submit that a case in which an innocent person who is unfortunate enough to appear guilty and is forced to await his or her trial in custody is a much more accurate application of the word “inconvenience”. Once acquitted, the innocent accused has an opportunity to go on with his or her life. It's not so for second victims of actual murderers.

A free and democratic society should be able to minimize the inconvenience to an innocent accused who is held in custody while awaiting trial through liberal visitation and communication rules. But a free and democratic society should also be able to protect its innocent citizens from the actual monsters that arise among us.

You, the Government of Canada, are too late to help Zachary, and I was too late in realizing that I was his only hope. If you leave the bail law as it is, siding with the monsters against the rest of us, eventually someone like me will do the right thing and kill one of these monsters you routinely set free. You will then have to send an innocent person to prison for the crime of protecting himself and his family from a murderer.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you very much.

We'll move now to questions from members.

Mrs. Bagby, did you want to add anything to that?

[Kathleen Bagby, As an Individual]

No. All I want to know is....

Excuse my speech. I had an accident and had an intracranial hemorrhage in 2006, and my speech isn't as good as it used to be.

It's a very personal thing, murder. It goes to a grief too deep for crying. People don't seem to understand that. It's as if.... Well, “God doesn't give you more than you can bear”, or things like that, are said to you. It could have been managed; it could have been deterred. We were there; we were two people who could have Zachary. But she walked around that courtroom, adjusting drapes, pouring water, and we were sat in the back, not saying a word, and no one could come to the courtroom with us, because she was walking free, and they knew that if they came, she would just go over to them and indicate friendship. Although they loved Andrew, they didn't want her in their lives, and we didn't blame them. But it was lonely.

We managed. To actually interface with her was tremendously painful. I used to look at her hand and think to myself, everybody seems to think that she's a delicate little doctor and couldn't possibly have done this. I haven't pulled a gun, but I figure it doesn't take much to pull a trigger. It was a very brutal crime, as that judge well said, but it was a very particular one. Only my son Andrew was her victim.

She fooled everybody, because everybody was giving her the victim's rights, that everybody is innocent until proven guilty, and that America would change the law and give her the death penalty. But the death penalty was never a problem, because in Pennsylvania only police murderers, or people who murder two people, or who torture.... Those are the three murderers who might be getting the death penalty. Her lawyer would say that the Americans tell lies and could change that. But they never would. Why would they? Then nobody would ever extradite anybody to America.

She got all these things. Judge Green said to her one day, “Dr. Turner, I'm so sorry the law is slow and that we have your life on hold.” I wanted to scream from the back, “My son's life is on hold forever, and you have the audacity to apologize to this woman?”

But of course the victim's survivors have no rights. The crown prosecutor said, “I'm not your son's lawyer; I represent Canada and America.” He didn't even want to be seen with us, because it would mean that perhaps he was biased towards us. I find that absolutely abominable, because in Pennsylvania we were treated so well by the police. I know that doesn't always happen in America. We came to Newfoundland with great expectations. We thought, America and Canada are friends; they have an extradition process. Shirley—the murderer—told us that her lawyer told her that he could easily get two to three years in Canada before she was extradited, so that would give her time for the baby.

I just want people to know that we lost Andrew; nobody could have prevented that except Turner. But it was total disregard for Zachary. We were there, but we got searched. We had an hour visit with him because she said we might hurt him. We had to pay a lady to sit there and supervise us while we had that hour.

We did all that; we didn't care. We got searched all the time. You can't imagine how wonderful it was to walk down that corridor and know there's part of Andrew there. He was beautiful. But we were put through terrible pain to get to Zachary, and then this happened.

So I just want you to know there are changes that could be made, and I'm hoping they will get made.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Murphy. Do you have some questions of the witnesses?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses from the resource centre.

I also want to thank our colleague, Scott Andrews, who, in untypical humility, really, underplays the role he played in bringing this forward. I think there's going to be unanimity, and it was done without any fanfare or politics, so congratulations to you. Well done.

And lastly, but really firstly, to the Bagbys, it's a very compelling situation that we have before us, and we all feel quite moved by your testimony. We could call this Zachary's law. We could make it fact specific. It does relate to a number of fact situations that the resource centre brought forward. But I would urge committee members and the general populace and politicians in general to look at laws that we make in a more general sense, so they can affect in a positive way or a less negative way the general criminal law. That's why we might do a disservice in narrowing the discussion today. I haven't heard, in my four years, a lay person suffering from grief and having a high emotional hold on an issue more succinctly talk about reforms that could be made than you, Mr. Bagby, in your five points.

On your first two points, with respect to statistics, we do have those resources, and immediately after this meeting I will make inquiries, for the committee's benefit as well, from Juristat, our service, with respect to the issues of recidivism and how often guilt is actually the case in murder and capital cases. So thank you for that point.

I'll skip to your fifth point, which is the gist of my question, that murder is not just another crime. In fact, it unites the members that we're very concerned about violent crime, the rise in violent crime in this country, which includes of course life-ending crimes and life-changing crimes. The idea that murder is not given the hierarchy it should be, and violent crime is, is something we can all agree on.

In fact, getting into my point about section 515 and show cause, you'll notice in the beginning of it, in every case, there has to be this consideration of release, except for those offences in 469. You might all look and say, 469, those must be really serious crimes, and I suppose they are, but it shows how outdated our laws are. They go back to the time of the kings and queens, when sedition and treason...I don't know the last sedition case that I've ever heard of. So in the hierarchy in this old law we give precedence to crimes that aren't as heinous as murder. Murder should be given a priority that it is not given in section 515.

In section 515 we might consider going forward, reversing the onus that has been reversed. We may all be aware that the crown has to show why, on the balance of probabilities, someone should not be released except in certain circumstances. We might look at that, because a defence lawyer might well be able to meet that burden and the balance of probabilities. It's a suggestion that comes to mind based on your reasons.

My question to both the resource centre and to you, Mr. Bagby, would be this. Do you see some broader amendments or improvements that we can make to section 515 in general? I've suggested one, the reversing of the onus, the hierarchy being changed with respect to certain circumstances where it's not really allowed.

And overall, my second question, because I think Mrs. Bagby is particularly interested in this question, and I know it's not in the purview of this act, is this. Is our extradiction process so unwieldy, even between cooperative and friendly states, that we must urge other ministries of the government to move on the issue of expediting extradiction in capital or in murder cases?

If you look at the facts of this situation and some other extraditable offences, the delay is often quite inordinate, and it does often lead to other offences occurring that wouldn't otherwise occur. That's quite aside from the aspect that people are basically flouting their freedom against the rights I think of people to feel that there ought to be a reckoning. You could say punishment, but that's only one aspect of the Criminal Code in sentencing. But they're flouting, by their freedom, the conclusion--or the reckoning--for what their actions are.

That's a two-part question, I guess. First, what other reforms could we look at within section 515 or otherwise, and what about expediting this expedition process?

[David Bagby]

I've made no secret since Zachary's murder that I think anyone accused of murder should be denied bail, period, and I believe these five points support that. If you can't do that, then at least reverse the onus so that the defendant has to bring something more than a promise. Shirley Turner promised she would appear in court every time. But she always had the power to say, “Buzz off, I'm out of here,” which she did. Something more than a promise should be required. If you change it so that the onus is reversed, it's got to be something more than words on a piece of paper.

Regarding the extradition, I do not understand why it isn't this simple. I know I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand why it isn't this simple: the requesting state says it wants a certain person for a certain crime, and the responding state, in my opinion, should simply determine if this is the person. Yes. If this action took place in our country, would it be a crime? Yes. Then off you go. The details happen at trial. The trial is where, to my knowledge, every criminal justice system, at least in the western world, really digs in and gets as close as a courtroom can ever get to the truth. All the preliminary stuff is, dare I say, often a waste of time.

Shirley Turner's attorney had a couple of nits that he argued, and they were fine points of the law and they didn't have a damned thing to do with the fundamental question of whether this person did this crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Lemay for seven minutes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you for being here, sir, and you, madam. The Bloc Québécois and myself have an enormous amount of respect...

I am sorry; I have to start again.

[David Bagby]

Yes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. and Mrs. Bagby, I wanted to tell you that I have an enormous amount of respect for the work you have done following the events of 2003. They were very painful—I still feel that to be so. You can count on the fact that we will vote for this bill and for the amendment it proposes.

That said, I have some questions and requests for clarification. If my reading and my understanding are correct, the murder took place in Pennsylvania, in the United States.

[David Bagby]

Andrew was murdered in Pennsylvania.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

So he was granted bail in the United States. His wife, rather, was granted bail in the United States.

[David Bagby]

May I clarify that?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes.

[David Bagby]

The police in Pennsylvania were building a case against her, and one of the key pieces of evidence--it's long and complicated, like every criminal case--was cellphone records proving that she was actually in Pennsylvania at the time of the killing. They had a lot of other evidence, but that nailed it down, and that took longer--that took well over two weeks--and she fled the country one week after the murder.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The murder took place in the United States and the bail discussions also took place in the United States, if I understand correctly.