Bill S-217 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (detention in custody)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) expand the grounds for the justification of detention in custody; and
(b) require that, in any proceeding under section 515, the prosecutor lead evidence to prove the fact that the accused has failed to appear in court when required to do so and the fact that the accused has previously been convicted of a criminal offence or has been charged with and is awaiting trial for another criminal offence.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all I want to thank Mr. Cooper for his passionate defence of this bill. I certainly appreciated his reaching out to me in a phone conversation to talk about some of the finer details of the bill. I too voted for this bill at second reading because I agreed with the principle. I don't think there's a person in this room who denies that what happened with Constable Wynn and Shawn Rehn wasn't a good thing. It was a problem. It's a failure in the way things currently operate.

I too have independently given my full and legitimate consideration to this bill and to all the witness testimony we've heard and the briefs that were submitted. I've also consulted with caucus colleagues who are expert lawyers and with people outside of the caucus in the legal community as well. Weighing what I have seen, witnessed, and read, the evidence in my considered opinion is stacked against this bill.

I do want to say, however, that what happened to Constable Wynn does not.... We can honour his memory. This does not have to be the end of the road for honouring his memory. I sincerely think that what happened in this particular issuance does not warrant a legislative solution. I think we've heard from many witnesses that there is plenty of room for administrative solutions, whether it's through more resources for our justice system, making sure police records are timely and up to date in every part of this country, or even giving more educational opportunities to crown counsel to learn from this opportunity. I don't think we should end the road at this particular issuance.

Now, the Minister of Justice has met just recently with her provincial colleagues. I'm glad to see that this meeting has finally occurred, that the Liberal cabinet has finally acknowledged the crisis that is in our justice system, because the Jordan decision was a long time ago. I think Mr. Cooper's criticisms of the justice minister are valid; I share many of them. There have been vacancies in our courts for far too long. The legislative agenda of this government, particularly with justice bills, seems to be in tatters. It has taken 18 months to get bills forward on marijuana legalization, on impaired driving laws, and the zombie provisions of the Criminal Code. I have to ask myself what the cabinet, particularly the Minister of Justice, has been doing all that time, because there are some very important bills sitting on the Order Paper that have not yet come to second reading debate.

If I may impart some advice to my Liberal colleagues, the next time you have the opportunity to speak to the cabinet, say that there are several very important justice initiatives that can wait no longer; that we need to see properly funded resources for our justice system, whether it's in legal aid, appointing members to the bench, or providing for more administrative services in courtrooms.

We also need, though, to see this legislative agenda put forward so that we can start debating it, because if you look at the remaining timeline we have in Parliament, June 23—the last possible day we have to sit until September—is fast approaching. I would say that it's time to roll up our sleeves and really get to work on some of these pressing issues.

While I will not be supporting Bill S-217, then, don't think for a minute that this is the end of pressuring this government to get to work on these outstanding justice issues.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is with disappointment to learn of the government's intention to kill Bill S-217. It is not lost upon me that no mention was made of Shelly Wynn and her testimony. No mention was made of the former attorney general of Alberta. No mention was made of the evidence of John Muise, who has extensive experience as a Toronto police officer, and who served on the Parole Board. No mention was made of all of the associations that represent the front-line police officers who put their lives on the line every single day to keep our communities safe and who bear full support of this legislation.

What we did hear at the justice committee was a lot of MPs searching for every excuse to try to kill this bill. There were two arguments that were put forward, in essence, in opposition to this bill, both of which are equally flawed. One was the suggestion that it would increase the evidentiary burden. Mr. Woodburn tried to make that argument as a prosecutor. He tried to lead this committee into interpreting the bill to change the standard of proof by saying that the crown “shall prove”, as opposed to “may prove”. Of course, Mr. Woodburn conveniently ignored the fact that the legislation says no such thing, and members on that side ignored that fact, and continued to ignore that fact even when it was pointed out that the bill provides that prosecutors “shall lead evidence to prove”.

By contrast, the bill does nothing to change the standard of proof which is provided for at section 518(1)(e), which provides that a judge or justice of the peace may accept evidence that is deemed credible and trustworthy. Of course, the case law is very clear that evidence from a police agency or from a police department is credible and trustworthy evidence, and that would encompass the CPIC record. Frankly, that argument is baseless.

It comes down to this argument of delay by requiring the crown to lead evidence of the criminal history of someone seeking bail. We heard at committee from none other than Mr. Woodburn, who said that this was the bread and butter of prosecutors. It's what they do every day. It's the first thing they learn. Indeed, I challenge any member of the committee to cite any credible evidence put forward before the committee as to a scenario when the criminal history of a bail applicant should not be presented. There was no evidence. There was no credible evidence. There was no credible example provided for, and there was no credible example because such information is always relevant in material. Indeed, it is impossible for a judge or justice of the peace to exercise their discretion without such information. That's, in essence, all this bill does.

Yes, there were some aspects of the bill in terms of the language that arguably needed to be tightened up. Based upon the evidence, I was prepared to work in a co-operative fashion to bring forward amendments to clean up some areas of the bill that needed to be amended. However, on the key question of whether evidence shall be presented at a bail application hearing, the essence of the bill, that was not in question in terms of the evidence before the committee. I would reiterate the point that Mr. Nicholson very astutely made in terms of when we talk about delay. Who are we talking about? Which bail applications are we talking about?

If an individual has no criminal history and is charged and appears and there's a contested bail hearing, there is no delay because there is no criminal record, but when you have someone like Mr. Rehn, who had a criminal record longer than my arm, shoot and kill Constable Wynn, yes, there will be some delay. Yes, there will be a need for a thorough analysis, for due diligence, for a need to provide voluminous information on that criminal's history before a judge or justice of the peace so that judge or justice of the peace can properly exercise their discretion, including keeping the public safe.

Frankly I was disturbed by the attitude about efficiency on that side and perhaps on other sides. We heard this over and over again. I would submit it is precisely that lax attitude that contributed to Constable Wynn not being with us today. It was an example of a bail hearing that was rushed, unfortunately. Let's process the application without the evidence in front of us, and what were the consequences? They were fatal, Mr. Chair, and that is absolutely untenable.

It is unacceptable, and in terms of delay, the irony is not lost on me and it shouldn't be lost on Canadians. These Liberals would talk about delay in the context of the murder of Constable Wynn and trying to fix the bail system, when they have stood in silence as their Minister of Justice has failed to do her job, a Minister of Justice whose conduct has been nothing short of negligent in failing to fill one of her core responsibilities, and that is to fill judicial vacancies in a timely manner. We have a minister who gets up in the House of Commons and pats herself on the back as we have a near-historic number of judicial vacancies. We have judicial advisory committees that are almost half vacant and have been almost half vacant since October. We have murder cases, sexual assault cases, child abuse cases thrown out of court, and the minister says she's proud of her record. We have thousands of cases at risk, and the minister can't even appoint judges.

These Liberals talk about delay. The irony is not lost, and I can tell you that as the member of Parliament for St. Albert—Edmonton and as the deputy justice critic, we're going to keep fighting for this bill regardless of the outcome of the vote this day because the stakes are too high. What happened to Constable Wynn should never have happened, and this law, if it could be passed, would help prevent such an incident from happening again.

Thank you.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Yes, please.

First, I'd like to commend Mr. Cooper on this bill. I was impressed with the intent and the passion and commitment he's put forward on this, so much so that I voted for this bill despite the government's opposition to it when it first came through the House on second reading. I know a number of my colleagues on the Liberal side of the House, including some members of our committee, did the same thing, because the intention of the bill is noble. There are issues with the bail system in this country, and an attempt to reform the bail system is a noble objective.

That being said, I came to committee with an open mind, to listen to the witnesses and to hear evidence on the effects and impacts of this bill. Going into it, I knew there would have to be some changes. I had hoped we could make some changes to make this bill palatable and to make this an effective piece of legislation. However, listening to the witnesses and hearing from them one after another, I was immediately left with the impression that this bill misses the mark unfortunately. It will have the opposite impact of making the bail system worse, and it will lead to significant delays.

I'd like to briefly go through what some individuals—the witnesses that we heard—discussed. The first one, Mr. Michael Elliott, who is president of the Alberta Federation of Police Associations, supported this bill. After examination, he asked himself whether it would slow down the system, and answered yes. That's a supporter of the bill.

Mr. Rick Woodburn is president of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel. Crown counsels are individuals who want to see criminals in jail. They want to see the right people go to jail: that's their job.

He said of the tragedy that brought forward this bill, that it was “human error: [the constable dealing with the bail matter] failed to put the record before the court...It is not something we normally do. We put the record before the court. It's important. That's meat and potatoes; it's the first thing we're trained to do.”

He went on to say of his concerns about Bill S-217, that “bail hearings will double and triple in time. And it's not necessary.” He said that S-217 “will add nothing to bail hearings, but it will take away a lot,” and that if “bail hearings expand and take longer, other matters will fall like dominoes, and it will end up having the opposite effect.”

Rachel Huntsman, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said that this bill “may cause confusion, create added delay, and impose challenges upon a bail system that is already operating at full capacity. Instead of strengthening the bail provisions, we fear that these amendments may create a result counterproductive to what the bill is hoping to achieve.” She said of the bill that this amendment is not necessary.

Detective Superintendent Dave Truax from the Ontario Provincial Police added that this bill would cause a challenge for Canadian law enforcement agencies.

Dr. Cheryl Webster, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa, said that legislation can't change human error, which is what caused this tragedy. She said it seemed to her that “this bill will very likely only add volume to an already exploding problem.”

Ms. Nancy Irving, who has done some incredible work looking into this tragedy and how to improve the bail system in Alberta, said, “I share the concern that this new language could turn bail hearings into mini-trials.”

I tried during many of my questions to ask witnesses for amendments or potential amendments to make this bill an effective tool for law enforcement and for crown prosecutors. The response we received from witness after witness was that they couldn't propose anything, and that even minor changes—minor or major amendments to this bill—would have negative impacts on the justice system. My fear is that this bill will have the opposite effect and could in fact make Canadians less safe.

It could do this in terms of significant delays, which the Supreme Court has ruled on, especially in the Jordan case, which we've talked about. This may see more people out on the street who should be in jail, and that's not something I want to see. Despite the good intentions of the bill, I'm concerned that this bill may put Canadians at risk, and unfortunately, I can no longer support Bill S-217.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Now, ladies and gentlemen, we will turn our heads to S-217. I would like to welcome Laura Hodgson, who is the counsel for the criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice and is here to answer any questions we may have.

We'll now move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Mr. Bittle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Today, we move to clause-by-clause consideration of the Senate public Bill S-217, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (detention in custody).

Before we begin the clause-by-clause, though, the clerk has asked me for 30 seconds of our time to look at paying the witnesses who testified before us, so I'm going to turn it over to the clerk to ask for approval of the budget, basically.

Do you want me to just read it out? Basically, it's a budget of $12,200 for witnesses and $1,500 for miscellaneous, so it's a total budget to approve of $13,700 for our study of S-217.

Does everybody have a copy?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Look, the government has been very clear on this issue, and I'll answer any questions the Ethics Commissioner has.

More seriously, Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. It's an honour to be back. I have to apologize to members of the committee for having to depart almost mid-sentence last time. There were many points that I had only started to make, and I know people were looking forward to my wrapping up those points the last time. I think I only talked for about 10 hours at that time, so now I have occasion to bring some of those points to a conclusion. The only reason I could not continue the next day was that I had an event I had committed to long in advance, an event at Queen's Park in Toronto. That's why I wasn't here. Since then, I've been trying to get back on the speakers list, but my colleagues have been hogging all the glory here, to quote Ajax from Troy. So now that I have the floor, they're not getting it back, whether they like it or not.

I think it's important to recognize that we have the opposition House leader here, and I really appreciate that. It shows the level of engagement that our caucus has with this issue in general. This is something that we are very much committed to in our party, namely, strengthening the role of individual members of Parliament. That's what this is about. It's not just about the balance that exists between parties. It's also about the role of individual members of Parliament.

I have to say, looking across the floor at some of the Liberals we have here at the committee, that we have some new members who are already very strong in their understanding of the importance of members of Parliament expressing some degree of individuality. I want to recognize Mr. May's excellent private member's bill. It was a private member's bill that he proposed, that all Conservatives voted for, and that passed as a result of the support of the opposition. I think New Democrats supported it as well. The cabinet did not support it, but he proposed it. Many members of the government supported it, and it went through to committee.

That's just an example of the importance of members of Parliament. We're engaged in this conversation around ensuring that there's unanimity of the parties in the study, which will proceed in order to ensure that we actually could protect the role of members of Parliament.

We need to understand that this is not just a fight for a particular party, not just a fight for the opposition. It's actually a fight that should matter to individual members of Parliament on the government side, members of Parliament who have good proposals that may not reflect what the government has in mind.

Our chair had an excellent private member's bill on FASD that I was very pleased to support. Actually, we had people on the front bench who opposed that bill, from both the government and the official opposition. Yet it almost passed because of the support of individual members of Parliament who were talking to each other, saying this was a good initiative, a good bill. Maybe there were some details that could be worked out at committee, but fundamentally it was a good bill.

One of the concerns I have with the government making unilateral changes to the Standing Orders...and by the way, if they don't like the direction that members of this committee want to take with respect to the study, they can pull you right off this committee and put somebody else on. That's something that permanent members of PROC know or should know. It's actually not up to you. The way our system works right now, who sits on this committee is entirely within the control of your whip. Even if individual members sitting here on the Liberal side think they could be reasonable and listen to what the opposition is saying, unless we pass this amendment, which deals with unanimity, unless we have this clarified in the language going forward, it's really only up to the government whip to decide the outcome. Any time the whip doesn't like the proposals or opinions from government members with respect to the Standing Orders, that's it. You can't actually express your individuality on the committee in the same way because of that constant threat. This is something that on the opposition side we're very aware of—the risks and problems.

I recognized Mr. May on his excellent private member's bill. I know Mr. Bittle voted in favour of Wynn's law, which was a great private member's bill that was brought to the House by Mr. Cooper. It was initially put forward in the Senate, but it was sponsored in the House by Mr. Cooper. There was a lot of advocacy that went on around that. The entire opposition supported that bill, and it was able to pass to the next stage because of a number of members of the government who realized it was a good bill and stood up to support it.

I can mention the genetic discrimination bill, on which I think almost the entire government backbench voted against certain government amendments that would have gutted the bill, and then in favour of the bill.

These are important moments in the life of this Parliament, when some individuals in particular, and especially on the genetic discrimination bill almost the entire government backbench, stood up. Sometimes it doesn't seem like the government backbench does, but in certain moments we do see this, an actual appreciation that, yes, good ideas do come from the opposition and also that as members of Parliament you have a critical role to represent your constituents, to advocate on behalf of your own considered judgment with respect to issues, and not to simply go along with the direction that you've been given from on high.

Changes to the Standing Orders that don't reflect the judgment of the entire House, that don't reflect the wisdom of all parties, put in jeopardy the position not just of the opposition, not just of the Conservative Party, but the position of individual members of the government. When we have these conversations as an opposition party, of course we're cognizant of the fact that, hopefully, we'll be in government one day soon. It's looking more and more like it will be after the next election, in light of some of the things that are happening. But whether that's after the next election or the one after that, the rights that we protect in this process will also protect those members of the government caucus, let's say, who are not, in the formal sense, part of the government.

These are important points that need to be made, and I hope that members of the government, even if they can't necessarily, for political reasons, come out and say in this committee, “All right, we agree with you; let's pass this amendment and move on”, hopefully they'll at least take this back to the government House leader, to their caucus, to their Prime Minister, and say, “We have an important role, too, in this place. This isn't just about being a backdrop for the Prime Minister. This is about representing our constituents in a constructive and meaningful way.”

This is a critical part of what we're engaged in. I invite government members to really reflect on that, to consider supporting this amendment as individuals, and to make the case back to their party. Not only would approving this amendment allow us to proceed in a constructive direction, but it would also be a way of actually preserving those rights that members of Parliament from all parties are supposed to have.

There's one thing I want to read into the record as we explore this question. This is from Discover Canada, which is the study guide for people who are looking to become citizens of Canada. It talks about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. I think it's a great document. It talks about parliamentary democracy and what the principles that need to animate parliamentary democracy are.

I don't think this debate is about a possible end of democracy in Canada. I don't, but I do think that this debate is about the strength of our parliamentary institutions, and really, the ability of the government to move us away from our traditions of responsible parliamentary democracy towards a sort of reimagined quasi-presidential system in which we do have elections every four years, but effectively, in between elections all of the power is with one person, the prime minister. That's not what our system is supposed to have. Of course, presidential democracies around the world do have other kinds of checks and balances, but especially in a parliamentary democracy, where you don't have the same kinds of external checks and balances to that centre of power, it is important that you not allow that centre of power—the prime minister, the prime minister's office, and perhaps, by extension, the whip—to suck all the power in. You need to make sure that Parliament maintains its strength.

I'm not going to read the whole thing, but this is from page 28 of the citizenship guide where it talks about parliamentary democracy:

In Canada's parliamentary democracy, the people elect members to the House of Commons in Ottawa and to the provincial and territorial legislatures. These representatives are responsible for passing laws, approving and monitoring expenditures, and keeping the government accountable.

Right off the bat, we don't see discussion in this guide.... I think it's quite right in saying that members of the opposition are responsible for approving and monitoring expenditures, and keeping the government accountable. It actually says, “these representatives”, all members of Parliament, us as well as members on the other side of the table. We are responsible for doing all of these things, for passing laws, approving and monitoring expenditures, and keeping the government accountable.

Cabinet ministers are responsible to the elected representatives—

Hey, that's a thought.

Cabinet ministers are responsible to the elected representatives, which means they must retain the “confidence of the House” and have to resign if they are defeated in a non-confidence vote.

Maybe we need to have a footnote here that says this is how we want it to work. It goes on to say:

Parliament has three parts: the Sovereign (Queen or King), the Senate and the House of Commons. Provincial legislatures comprise the Lieutenant Governor and the elected Assembly. In the federal government, the Prime Minister selects the Cabinet ministers and is responsible for the operations and policy of the government.

The buck is supposed to stop there on decisions of the government. I'm ad libbing; that's not what it says. It doesn't use language that informal.

The House of Commons is the representative chamber, made up of members of Parliament elected by the people, traditionally every four years. Senators are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister and serve until age 75. Both the House of Commons and the Senate consider and review bills (proposals for new laws). No bill can become law in Canada until it has been passed by both chambers and has received royal assent, granted by the Governor General on behalf of the Sovereign.

Living in a democracy, Canadian citizens have the right and the responsibility to participate in making decisions that affect them. It is important for Canadians aged 18 or more to participate in their democracy by voting in federal, provincial or territorial and municipal elections.

This is a pretty simple and straightforward but positive description of what a parliamentary democracy is.

Sometimes we need to pinch ourselves and remind ourselves of the kind of basic civics grounding on which we are supposed to be standing. It is one in which members of Parliament are elected by their constituents directly. In fact, it was only relatively recently that party names appeared on ballots at all. Before, yes, people had affiliations with political parties. Those political parties were very important in terms of support, but you still had to rise or fall within your own constituency purely on the basis of your own name. If people wanted to vote for the candidate of a particular political party, they had to at least know the name of that candidate in advance. This is the structure of our system, one in which members of Parliament have the—yes, I say relatively recently; it was before I was born. Lots of things happened before that.

[Jay Cameron]

I think that, first of all, I will refer to Alberta and what Alberta has done. My understanding is that they've implemented a pilot project, so that you have dedicated crowns who run the bail hearings. They are run between certain hours of the day and it's a lengthy time period, something like 12, 14, or 16 hours of a day.

All that crown counsel does is consider the release of accused persons. Sometimes they release and sometimes they oppose release, in which case there's a bail hearing.

It really cuts down when you have a dedicated justice of the peace or you have a dedicated judge and then you have dedicated crowns to run bail hearings like that. That really gets rid of backlogs.

Perhaps I can address what you said about the number of people who oppose Bill S-217. It's a classic fallacy, and no disrespect in using that word. I just mean it in the sense of logic, to say that there is a lot of people who oppose something and therefore they must be correct.

I pointed out in my brief—and I urge you to go through it—that some of the people have misstated some material aspects of the legislation, and they're not small misstatements. I'm sure they're inadvertent, but yet they're there. Just because lots of people say one thing doesn't mean they're correct.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Cameron, I didn't get a chance to ask you any questions during the first round.

I appreciated your strong and vigorous defence of the bill, but I think you have to admit, from the committee hearings we've had, that the number of people and organizations asking us to vote against this bill is starting to mount. We now have noted academics, the chiefs of police, people representing crown counsel, and so on....

I will go through your testimony, because I want to review the evidence you cited and make sure that when we come to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill that I have all the facts at my disposal.

As some sort of a peace offering, if you will—and I don't want to prejudge this committee's outcome—if we arrive at a situation where Bill S-217 is going to proceed no further, can you at least put into the record some of your suggestions on how we tackle some of the systemic issues that are causing these kinds of things in our bail hearings? Leaving aside what Bill S-217 is, I want to give you a chance to offer your suggestions for what we in the federal Parliament can do to make the operation of our justice system more efficient, aside from a legislative solution.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Before we conclude and I give you a question you might want to answer in further testimony, it's reasonable to assume that, as is, S-217 could end up causing more harm than good.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'll move on to my second question, to something that you alluded to. I thank you for raising the “prove the fact” notion. It's the first time we've heard that it may be a higher standard of evidence. I understand your argument with regard to “may” and “shall”.

In very simple terms, the intent of Bill S-217 is to prevent criminals from being on the streets to reoffend and commit violent offences against people, including our first responders. As is, if we're not able to figure out any changes to Bill S-217, in your opinion would this cause delays in the bail hearing process, which would then have ramifications in the trial process, such that with Jordan, now being a time limit the criminal justice system has to respect, we'd actually see more criminal proceedings stayed, and thus have more criminals on the streets without having their cases heard?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

And that's what Bill S-217 would fix. It would ensure that it wouldn't occur.

[Jay Cameron]

First of all, I'll agree with her that CPIC is way behind being updated, which is really unfortunate and why prosecutors currently supplement the CPIC record with the provincial record, but no, there's no reason to go and call viva voce evidence at a bail hearing just because of Bill S-217, because the CPIC is already “credible and trustworthy”, and that's what the case law says.

[Jay Cameron]

Bill S-217 just changes the “may” to “shall”, as in “shall...lead evidence.”

It's not “shall prove”, as everybody keeps saying. It's “shall...lead evidence to prove”.

Now I think, and I'll tell you candidly, that the introduction of “the fact” in the legislation is unfortunate. I don't think it belongs in there, to be perfectly honest. So I think that it could be amended because I think that's partly the reason there's confusion on this point, but ultimately speaking, from my perspective, it doesn't change the evidentiary burden because it's something that the crown is doing on a daily basis. It just says “shall...lead evidence” as opposed to “may...lead evidence”. Right? We just want them to lead evidence.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

So tell me how Bill S-217 changes that evidentiary burden. Does it?

[Jay Cameron]

Typically, there is not viva voce evidence. What happens is that the police generate a police report. The crown has that in a file, as well as the CPIC, and then the crown reads in the information that has been compiled by the police. That information is hearsay, but it is admissible because of paragraph 518(1)(e), just like the CPIC is. Typically, the CPIC is admitted because the accused knows what his record says or what it doesn't say and the hearing proceeds.

I will say this. I have personally seen situations where the record was not in front of the court. It's not just in the case law; I've seen it personally. What happens is that you have a crown who is busy. They have a hundred different files, they take a file apart, and part of it goes here and part of it goes there. They put it back together, they run down to court, and they leave the record upstairs.

Bill S-217 is required because it requires the crown to go upstairs, get the record, come back to the courtroom, and introduce the record. In the case of R. v. Brooks, that didn't happen.