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.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair,

Mr. Cooper, thank you very much for your work on this important consideration of our Criminal Code, and I appreciate your taking the time today to speak to us about Bill S-217.

I have some questions and some concerns about the proposed legislation, and I'm hoping you can shed some light on those concerns. I think it's important to note that there isn't a single parliamentarian who doesn't acknowledge the tragic circumstances that led to the thinking behind the loops that may be closed by S-217.

My concern is three-fold, so I have three questions. One is related to the delays that will invariably be introduced in the system should this legislation become the law of the land, including in non-contested hearings. If this passes, it would have to be considered in a non-contested hearing, and if that only added five minutes, doing 30 to 50 bail hearings a day, the system of justice would slow down. You are on record as well as having said we need to do better to speed up the wheels of justice. Our government has done its part, in part, by having 12 judges nominated in Alberta. I see a dichotomy here between, on the one hand, wanting to speed up the wheels of justice, and on the other hand, introducing potentially serious consequences at bail hearings if S-217 should pass. That's one concern.

The second concern I have is that I think this tries to legislate human error. As much as I think there's legislation we'd like to see in the Criminal Code that could legislate human error, I'm not sure how that's possible and how we could have that come out of the system.

Third, the Alberta bail review conducted by former federal prosecutor Nancy Irving raises serious concerns and strong objections to the practice of some 3,000 police officers being able to represent the crown at bail hearings. I know that's under consideration in Alberta right now. If we had crown prosecutors at bail hearings instead of police officers, crown prosecutors who are better trained and understand the nuances of this, wouldn't that obviate the need for S-217?

I think it's important to note for the record that it was the Conservative government in 2015 in their budget that cut CPIC by 10%. I also think it's important to note that the last AG's report said very clearly that the delay in getting information from conviction into CPIC is 14 months in English Canada and 36 months in French Canada. I believe this compounds the issue we already have, and that's why I have grave concerns.

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

Right. Well, Mr. Bittle, I would submit that the duty of a prosecutor in the context of a bail hearing is clear, and that is to present the best and most attainable evidence about the criminal history of an accused seeking bail. That's precisely what Bill S-217 would do.

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

Okay.

We know that poor people and marginalized people, people of colour and the mentally ill, are more likely to come into conflict with the law. That's a statistic that is very much known. Do you think Bill S-217 might have some changes in terms of the makeup of the remand population in provincial correctional facilities across the country? Do you think specific minorities might fall into the trap of being disproportionately affected by this particular legislation?

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

It's a fair question, Mr. Fraser. Thank you for that.

I would say that it's for a few reasons. First of all, the third ground had been characterized as a tertiary ground or a residual ground. In the Supreme Court St-Cloud decision, at paragraph 34, the court clarified that it's not a “residual” ground “but one that is separate and distinct”. The court said it's not one that's used “as a last resort” per se, as it had been interpreted oftentimes in some lower court decisions in terms of its application.

The Supreme Court, in the St-Cloud decision, made clear, as did the Supreme Court in the Hall decision, that the four factors expressly enumerated in the Criminal Code are the factors that must be considered. They're the primary factors that are to be considered on the question of confidence in the administration of justice, but they are not the only factors.

In that regard, at paragraph 71 of the St-Cloud decision, the Supreme Court said that among the factors that should be considered, or often should be considered, is a “criminal record”. In that regard, what this would do in some respects is codify what the Supreme Court has already said is relevant and material on the question of that third ground of public confidence in the administration of justice.

I would also add that the Supreme Court, in St-Cloud and other decisions, noted that the purpose of that ground is, of course, when public confidence in the administration of justice would be compromised, as it has stated, on its face. I would submit that there would not be an instance where public confidence in the administration of justice could be more badly compromised than seeing someone let out on bail when they have an extensive criminal record, outstanding charges, and failures to appear—exactly the record of someone like Rehn.

I would submit that in terms of that secondary ancillary component of Bill S-217 it is consistent with the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in St-Cloud and also consistent with the purpose of that ground as enunciated by the Supreme Court.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, colleagues. It is a privilege to be before you to testify on Bill S-217, known as Wynn's Law, named in honour of Constable David Wynn.

Bill S-217 is a straightforward bill. It seeks amendments to the Criminal Code that while minor could have saved Constable Wynn's life had they been enacted at the time he was shot and killed.

Before I go into details on Bill S-217, let me at the outset provide some background as to what led to Bill S-217, Wynn's Law. During the early morning hours of January 17, 2015, Constable David Wynn and Auxiliary Constable Derek Bond were inspecting licence plates outside a casino in St. Albert, my home community, as part of their routine policing. In the course of inspecting licence plates, they came across one in the name of Shawn Rehn, for whom there was an arrest warrant. Consequently Constable Wynn and Auxiliary Constable Bond proceeded into the casino to arrest Mr. Rehn. As they approached Shawn Rehn, Rehn began to shoot and shot Constable Wynn and Auxiliary Constable Bond. Tragically, Constable David Wynn died four days later, on January 21, 2015.

Constable Bond survived, but having spoken with him, I can tell you that his life will never be the same. Indeed his life is in many ways a living hell as he seeks to deal with the impacts of being shot at close range, both from a physical and from a psychological standpoint.

Constable Wynn's killer, Rehn, was out on bail at the time, notwithstanding the fact that he had over 60 prior criminal convictions, 29 outstanding charges—I said 38 before, but it was 29—and multiple failures to appear. It prompted RCMP Commissioner Paulson to ask how it was that such an individual was walking amongst us. It turns out that such an individual was walking amongst us because this individual's criminal history was not presented at the bail hearing, in part because of a loophole in the Criminal Code found at paragraph 518(1)(c). That loophole, a fatal loophole, provides that the criminal history of a bail applicant may be presented—may—notwithstanding that the criminal history of a bail applicant is always relevant and material for a proper determination on the question of bail. The essence, the cornerstone, the underlying purpose, of Bill S-217 is to amend paragraph 518(1)(c) to replace “may” with “shall” so that in all circumstances the criminal history of a bail applicant is presented at a bail application hearing.

The purpose of Wynn's Law is to ensure that all relevant and material information is presented. That didn't happen in the bail hearing of Shawn Rehn with lethal consequences.

Wynn's Law would ensure that relevant and material information is presented, but it would not interfere in any way with the discretion of a judge or magistrate to make a determination on the question of bail. Indeed, Bill S-217 would ensure that the judge or magistrate had all the relevant information before them so they could properly exercise their discretion in determining whether someone should be kept behind bars or let out into the community. Moreover, Wynn's Law would not impose any undue burden on the crown, on prosecutors. This type of evidence is almost always presented at a bail application hearing. Bill S-217 would formalize in law what is almost always done, and what should always be done at a bail hearing so that what happened to Constable Wynn and Auxiliary Constable Bond never happens again.

In addition to amending paragraph 518(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, there is also a secondary component to Bill S-217 and that is to amend section 515(10)(c). Section 515(10) is the section in the Criminal Code that sets out the grounds on which bail may be denied. There are three grounds set out in section 515(10). The first is at section 515(10)(a), which is in the case of an individual being a flight risk. The second is at section 515(10)(b), which is where public safety is at play and then the third ground, and this is the ground that this bill would amend as well, is section 515(10)(c), which deals with denying bail where confidence in the administration of justice would be compromised.

There are four sub-grounds that must be considered under that question of the administration of justice being compromised. What this bill would do is make minor amendments by adding three grounds in addition to the four that are already there, namely, past convictions, outstanding charges, and failures to appear. Again, the overriding purpose, the overriding objective, is the change to section 518(1)(c), which is to change “may” to “shall” so that the criminal history of a bail applicant is always presented at a bail application hearing.

In closing, Mr. Chair and colleagues, what happened to Constable Wynn and Auxiliary Constable Bond should never have happened. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock, but as parliamentarians, I believe we have an obligation to close a fatal loophole so that this never happens again. We owe it to Constable Bond, to Constable Wynn. We owe it to Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

It is a pleasure to call this meeting of the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights to order, as we commence our study based on the order of reference of Wednesday March 8, 2017, on Bill S-217, an act to amend the criminal code regarding detention in custody, otherwise known as Wynn's Law.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome our House sponsor of the bill, Mr. Michael Cooper, who is a member of our committee.

How proud we are to have you, Mr. Cooper. The floor is yours.

Criminal Code

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. There was a bit of confusion when it all started. The votes came zipping by and I missed my opportunity to vote for Bill S-217. I would like my vote to be registered in favour of Bill S-217.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill S-217.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

The House resumed from February 22 consideration of the motion that Bill S-217, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (detention in custody), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, later today, Bill S-217, Wynn's law, will come to a decisive vote. Members of the House will decide if the death of RCMP Constable David Wynn was in vain or if his death was the catalyst for meaningful change. Members will vote. They will decide if we are willing to lose another life, or lives, or if we will take responsible steps to protect Canadians. Members will cast a vote to keep a flawed justice system or a vote to improve our justice system.

We have the opportunity to honour the legacy of Constable David Wynn. We have the opportunity to make our streets safer. We have the opportunity to fix a loophole in our justice system. We have the opportunity to make a positive difference.

I encourage all colleagues to seize that opportunity and support Bill S-217.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the outset that I want to acknowledge the hard work of Senator Bob Runciman in championing this bill in the Senate, as well as my predecessor, Brent Rathgeber, who introduced a similar bill in the last Parliament.

The essence of Bill S-217, known as Wynn's law, is about changing one word in the Criminal Code, one word, to change a loophole that cost Constable David Wynn his life when he was murdered, a loophole that imposed a life sentence on Auxiliary Constable Derek Bond, who forever will have to live with the consequences of being shot at close range.

Constable David Wynn should be with us today, but he is not, and Auxiliary Constable Bond should not be living a life sentence of hell, but he is. The change of one word in the Criminal Code could have made all the difference, and that one word change is to change “may” to “shall” in section 518 of the Criminal Code to make it mandatory for prosecutors to lead evidence of the criminal history of bail applicants.

The criminal history of bail applicants is always relevant and material to determine the question of bail. It is always relevant and material because without such information, it is not possible for judges or magistrates to properly exercise their discretion as to whether someone should be kept behind bars or let out on to the street, and yet, section 518 of the Criminal Code provides that it is discretionary whether this information is brought forward. It simply does not make sense, and Wynn's law would fix that.

There have been some who have said that Wynn's law is unnecessary because the criminal history of bail applicants is almost always put forward. I say to those critics that simply is not good enough. It is not good enough for Constable Wynn, who is no longer with us. It is not good enough for Constable Wynn's family, who lost a husband, a father, and a brother. It is not good enough for my community of St. Albert, which lost a brave constable who ultimately gave his life to keep my community safe. It is not good enough for Auxiliary Constable Bond and his family, whose lives have forever been changed.

It simply is not good enough that the criminal history of bail applicants is almost always put forward. The criminal history of bail applicants must always be put forward so that what happened to Constable Wynn and Auxiliary Constable Bond never happens again.

Some critics of Wynn's law say that it would cause delay in our justice system. I say how could that be, given that such information is a keystroke away and, at most, a phone call away?

In closing, let me say that we must never forget Constable Wynn and Auxiliary Constable Bond. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to close this fatal loophole in the Criminal Code. We owe it to Constable Wynn, and we owe it to Auxiliary Constable Bond, and we owe it to Canadians.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to speak to Wynn's law as well. I would like to thank the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for bringing the bill forward. He has been a tireless champion on it, and has worked with me in my riding as well to raise awareness of the issue. I would like to thank him for all his efforts.

This issue hit us pretty close to home in northern Alberta. I will start by backing up a bit. We all remember the events that took place in 2005 in Mayerthorpe, where four police officers were gunned down. That was right near my riding. That was something that rocked the nation at the time, so the day that David Wynn was killed brought back all those memories.

I know my own communities were reeling with those memories. We all thought those days were behind us, that we were not going to see another police officer fall in the line of duty in northern Alberta again. However, there we were a few short years later, and another fallen officer. I remember the day well when we heard on the radio that a police officer had been checking licence plates in the parking lot at the casino, and that had led to him being gunned down.

For me, that was an introspective point in my life. I thought about my time as an automotive mechanic. I was working in Barrhead. I thought that guy probably went to work today thinking it was just another day of work, the same as I did. I am sure he kissed his wife goodbye, and said goodbye to his sons, but never thought he would not see them again in the evening, or whenever he got off his shift. That is a powerful feeling. He was of a similar age to what I am now, and I know the feelings I have every evening when I come home and see my kids. David Wynn is a real story of humanity. The fact that he chose the career as a police officer to protect his community is profound.

I would like to thank all those who stand in the line of duty, protecting our communities and working hard every day. Some of my colleagues with whom I sit here have done that as well. I take my hat off to them. Through the process of the bill progressing, I have had an opportunity to chat with the member for Yellowhead, who is a former police officer. He worked in the RCMP for over 25 years. He has some great stories about protecting communities and things like that. He also says there are some more ugly sides to it. The bill we have before us today, termed Wynn's law, elicits those feelings of the times when we really see where our police force members put their lives on the line, quite literally.

I remember just sitting in my vehicle that day. I heard it over the radio on my drive to work in the morning. I remember thinking, what are we going to do next? How do we solve a problem like this? For me, at the time it seemed beyond my grasp to see how we would solve an issue like this. There are people out there for whom there seems to be no solution.

Today, we cannot reverse the actions of this individual. We cannot reverse the life taken, but we can, in honour of his memory, stand up in this place. That is one of the huge privileges we all have as we stand or sit in this place. We have the ability to see wrongs of the past, and issues that have places and areas in law where we can actually make a big difference. I know this is one of the things I continually say whenever anyone asks me why I pursued becoming a member of Parliament, it is to make a difference, to do something good in the world.

Bill S-217, in light of the situation around it, entitled “Wynn's law” is, to me, the whole reason why we are here today. It is to solve some of these problems we see in the world, to make the world a better place, and work to close a loophole.

I am sometimes frustrated by lawyers. The very first time I met the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, I asked him what he did, and he told me he was a lawyer. I said that we need more rule of law and less rule of lawyers. However, there are times when having a keen legal mind on some of these things, and seeing how we can, through the rule of law, solve some of these problems in the world, is much appreciated.

I typically see things from 30,000 feet, in broad strokes. With this particular bill, just a change of the word “may” to “shall” could make all the difference. It could make the difference between someone being out on the street and later killing someone and someone being kept incarcerated so that he or she is not out on the street gunning down police officers. That, to me, is profound.

I take my hat off to the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for even knowing about this in the first place, although I will say that if members need to know anything, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton is a walking encyclopedia. There is no doubt about that, particularly when it comes to this place. If members want to know the name of the riding a member represents and how many votes that person won by, they should ask the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. He will tell them lickety-split. There is no doubt about that. It is no wonder he would come up with such a profound bill in this place. He knows the workings of this place well. He has been at it a long time. I take my hat off to him.

I am fairly emotionally attached to this whole issue, but I was at a bit of a loss as to how to deal with it. At the time, I was not even considering being elected, but now that I am here, I am very happy to be standing in this place and arguing in defence of Wynn's law. It is a concrete action that could be taken to do two things: to recognize the sacrifice of Mr. Wynn and to make sure that it does not happen again.

We know that after the fallen four in Mayerthorpe happened, we all said, “Never again”, and we honoured their memory. There is now a national memorial in the town of Mayerthorpe that I drive by often. However, the passing of David Wynn struck just too close to home.

I plead for everyone to support the bill. I think it is a bill that is long overdue. It is a monument to the hard work of the member for St. Albert—Edmonton but would also be a monument to David Wynn, who lost his life on that fateful day.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill S-217, known as Wynn's law.

I would like to start by offering my sincere condolences and sympathies to Constable David Wynn's widow Shelly MacInnes-Wynn, and her entire family.

I would also like to thank the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for his tireless work on Wynn's law. He has done an incredible job.

When Constable Wynn was shot and killed in the line of duty, it pointed to a dangerous loophole in the Canadian justice system. His killer Shawn Rehn was a career criminal who was out on bail. His killer was granted bail despite the fact that he had more than 50 prior criminal convictions, 38 outstanding charges, as well as arrest warrants for failing to appear in court. That is incredible. It seems unreal that an accused with this type of criminal record would be granted bail. However, we now know that his extensive criminal history was not brought to the attention of the person presiding over his bail hearing, which is shameful. While it is common practice that the prosecutor provide a judge or justice of the peace with the bail applicant's criminal history, it is not legally required. It is difficult to imagine that Shawn Rehn would have been granted bail had his full criminal history been disclosed.

It is an absolute tragedy that Constable Wynn had to die. His death could have been prevented. This tragedy points to a serious loophole in our Criminal Code that must be addressed. The safety and security of Canadians should be the priority for any government. We cannot go back and prevent the death of Constable Wynn, but we can respond in the present by closing the loophole that led to his death. I believe that Wynn's law is the logical response to this tragic event. Wynn's law would require prosecutors to disclose a bail applicant's criminal history at a bail hearing. It is very simple. It would also mandate that failures to appear in court must be disclosed. This legislation introduces a simple measure that has the potential to save lives and increase public safety.

My constituents in the neighbouring riding of Edmonton Griesbach have been very vocal in their support of this bill. At community events, many have told me that they strongly support passing this legislation. I have also received written feedback from hundreds of constituents with respect to Wynn's law. I would like to share some of the feedback that I have received from my constituents on Wynn's law.

Doris wrote, “It's only common sense that previous charges be included in bail hearings, especially in cases where [there is] a long record of breaking laws and ignoring court dates.”

Stanley wrote, “It will help stop innocent lives [from] being taken by dangerous criminals. Plus a lot of lives could have been saved if this law had been in effect long ago.”

Jeanne wrote, “I find it 'criminal' not to pass this law. Shame on the Liberals! Do the right thing!”

Cathy wrote, “Wynn's law is a must!!!”

Susan wrote, “Judges can't make proper decisions without full disclosure of a criminal's history. Get this law put through. Police and public safety should always come before a dangerous criminal.”

I cannot stress enough to the House that these are real people with real feedback. I am speaking for them.

Bob wrote me to say, “This [Constable Wynn] could be any one of us. The judge definitely needs to be aware of a criminal's past history in order to bring about a fair judgment”.

Wendy wrote me to say, “Judges need full disclosure of the criminal's past in order to make a decision that is best for society, not for the criminal”.

Daryl wrote me to say, “Not passing this law is irresponsible and an insult to law-abiding citizens”.

Herb wrote me to say, “Wynn's law should be passed immediately”. I hear Herb.

Glen wrote me to say, “[Wynn's law] should have been done years ago”.

Al wrote me to say, “[Wynn's law], it's a no-brainer bill”.

Perhaps that last comment summarizes it the best. Wynn's law is common-sense legislation. Our judges and justices of the peace cannot be expected to make a fair ruling at a bail hearing without all of the relevant facts.

Again, Wynn's law is a no-brainer. My constituents get it. Canadians across the country get it. Why do the Liberals not get it?

It is time the Liberal government put the safety and security of law-abiding Canadians ahead of criminals.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in support of Bill S-217, also known as Wynn's law. I want to congratulate and commend all of the hard work of my colleague the member for St. Albert—Edmonton in advancing this bill, as well as the comprehensive case that the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner made earlier based on his long experience as the chief of city police. Our advocacy speaks volumes to both the family of Constable Wynn and the thousands of other families who have lost loved ones to previously convicted criminals.

For most Canadians, Saturday, January 17, 2015, was just a normal day. We were doing errands, visiting with family and friends, or going to work, but for the Wynn family, it was a day that changed their lives forever. It was the day Constable David Wynn was stolen from them. As we all know by now, in the early morning hours that day, Constable David Wynn and Auxiliary Constable Derek Bond were patrolling in St. Albert, Alberta, checking licence plates outside of a casino. After finding one flagged as connected to an outstanding arrest warrant, they went into the casino to arrest Shawn Rehn.

A career criminal with a dangerous past, Rehn had several warrants out for his arrest, one having only been issued a few days earlier. He had at least 100 offences dating back to 1994 and many of those charges included confrontations with police officers. Since 2010, Rehn had been sentenced to a total of 10 years in jail for offences that varied from possession of a prohibited firearm, to breaking and entering, and theft, yet he was not serving time in prison. He was walking the streets. He turned from career criminal to murderer in four seconds, all because of a loophole, a loophole that we, as legislators, can fix before this happens again.

We can and we must do more than express sadness, as our Liberal colleagues said earlier. We must act so we can stop this from happening again, because there is no question that Constable Wynn's murder was preventable. Rehn should never have been given bail, but in September 2014, after an arrest on several charges, which included possession of a prohibited weapon and an outstanding arrest warrant for failing to appear in court, he had been released on $4,500 bail.

During the hearing, there was no mention, no consideration of Rehn's lengthy criminal past, no mention of how, in 2009, Rehn attacked an ex-girlfriend. He choked her, ripped out her hair, and broke her collar bone. He forced that girlfriend and her infant daughter to sleep in a room with him while he held a loaded gun, because he was feeling paranoid. Was this recounted during his bail hearing? No. Neither was the fact that he was subject to a lifetime firearms ban, that he posed a flight risk, and that he had demonstrated over and over again complete and utter disregard for previous court orders.

This bill makes sense. It seeks to amend section 518 of the Criminal Code, which says that a prosecutor “may” lead evidence of a bail applicant's criminal history. This bill would change the word “may” to “shall”, making it mandatory for prosecutors to lead with any evidence relevant to accused criminals' pasts.

The bill would further amend the same section to include previous convictions, outstanding charges, and failures to appear as criteria that may be considered to deny an accused bail. Wynn's law would protect everyday Canadians. It would protect all of us and law enforcement officers from those who should not be out on the streets, like Rehn, by ensuring informed decisions can be made, enabled by knowledge of the criminal record of an accused. It is common sense and it is just.

This bill has received overwhelming support from communities all over Canada. The Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness, and the former minister of justice and attorney general of Alberta, Jonathan Denis, who was in cabinet at the time of Wynn's murder, all support this bill. It easily passed the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee unanimously. Then the Senate passed the bill by an overwhelming majority. Rank and file law enforcement officers have given their support to this legislation, but incredibly, inexplicably, the Liberals do not agree and vowed to vote against this life-saving bill.

In November, the member for Charlottetown, when he was parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, said Wynn's law would “unnecessarily complicate and lengthen the bail process” and remove discretion from the crown. The Minister of Justice has also said, “The measures that are articulated in this bill are measures that are in place at this time”, but they are not. This just is not the case.

Of course, many prosecutors do present criminal history at a bail hearing, but some do not, and that is the problem. That is the problem we can fix.

Bill S-217 would not impose any undue burden or complications on the crown or on law enforcement. It would not infringe on the discretion of a judge or justice of the peace at a bail hearing to make a determination on the question of bail. Decisions would still be made based on the specific facts and circumstances of the individual case, with a complete picture of the accused and the risk to Canadians.

This is not about politics. It is about a life that could have been saved and many others that could be saved as a result. I urge my colleagues opposite to do the right thing and support this bill so that another mother does not have to explain to her kids that a loophole helped kill their dad, that a preventable measure could have saved a life.

RCMP officers and all levels of law enforcement and first responders serve Canadians selflessly 365 days of the year. My mother-in-law, Dianne Saskiw, worked in the Two Hills RCMP detachment centre for almost 40 years. She has seen first hand the officers' brave and compassionate dedication and sacrifice and the important role of RCMP officers in Alberta's rural communities. Here in the House of Commons, it is incumbent on us to ensure that there are safeguards in place to protect those who choose a life of service and risk to themselves for all Canadians.

Constable Wynn's widow, Shelly MacInnis-Wynn, has been a tireless champion of this bill. On behalf of all Canadians, this strong woman is advocating for the successful passage of Wynn's law. Her determination and her courage are unwavering. Last summer, Ms. MacInnis-Wynn gave powerful and emotional testimony at the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee. She asked those present to close their eyes for four seconds. She said:

In those four seconds, a constable was taken away from his community, a husband was taken away from his wife, a father was taken away from his three sons, and a son and a brother was taken away from his mother and sisters—in four seconds.

Every day I wake up wishing that I could take those four seconds back, but I can't. There is nothing I can do to change that.

Every day I have to live my life alone, not have Dave by my side enjoying the moments we were supposed to have together as a family and as husband and wife.

Every day his children have to experience new things and new milestones without their dad.... They don't have any more chances to make new memories.

Changing this one simple word could save a lifetime of happiness for somebody else, and that somebody else could have easily been you. Dave was the unfortunate one that happened to be there that night, but it could easily have been anybody else.

Four seconds represents the time when Ms. MacInnis-Wynn went from being a wife to a widow. In four seconds, her world was shattered. In four seconds, a sister lost a brother, parents lost their son, a wife lost a loving husband, and three young sons lost their hero. All of their lives changed forever.

It will take less than four seconds to stand up and vote yes for Wynn's law, less than four seconds to vote for a law that would prevent future senseless murders and that would protect innocent Canadians everywhere. On behalf of the people of Lakeland, I urge my colleagues to do so.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-217, which was introduced by a senator and is now being debated here in the House, as we continue our study and consider passing this bill to amend the Criminal Code. We became quite accustomed to changes to the Criminal Code under the previous government. I want to thank my NDP colleagues who worked so hard examining this issue.

First of all, I want to offer my condolences, as most members have done, to Mr. Wynn's family. Constable Wynn was regrettably killed by someone who had been released on bail while awaiting trial. It is in this context that we are debating Bill S-217; we are trying to correct the flaw that made it possible for the accused in question, who had committed very serious crimes, to be released pending trial, at which point he sadly committed the acts we are all well aware of now. I therefore want to offer my condolences to the family.

I would also like to say that the NDP will be supporting Bill S-217 at second reading so that it is studied in committee. It is our role as legislators to thoroughly study issues, not just in the House when we give our speeches, but mainly in committees, where we study proposed legislation in depth.

In this case, we will focus mainly on the effects of this bill on our judicial system. It is important that this be studied by a committee; as such, we will support this bill at second reading so we can consider the wealth of evidence related to the issue.

Many people are concerned about the proposed legislation. Naturally, police forces are very concerned and expressed their concerns when the bill was before the Senate. The legal community is also very concerned by this issue because the bill would add a step prior to the release of an accused person awaiting trial.

Many people are concerned about this, which is why it is important to have an in-depth study in committee to determine the repercussions of this proposal. For example, some experts say that this could slow down the process. We certainly do not want that, especially when the justice system is already so slow when it comes to hearing crown prosecutors and defendants. There is already a backlog in processing court cases across Canada. It is important to address this issue because it could affect the length of proceedings.

This could have repercussions on the work of police, who are extremely important people in our communities. Crown attorneys could also be affected. I am therefore in favour of Bill S-217 and I think we will have the opportunity to look at its impact.

There are other issues that I wanted to raise and that could help inform the committee members. It will be important to ask the experts to address the issue of presumption of innocence, which is the foundation of our current system.

That is why accused persons are released in many cases. Of course, they will appear before a judge at some point, and that is when the crown and the defendant will present their arguments. In the end, it is up to the judge to determine whether the person is guilty or not.

It is important to consider the fact that, in our system, everyone is presumed innocent until a judge determines otherwise. This issue must be discussed because there is no need to keep people in custody until they have been found guilty of a crime. Since there are hundreds of crimes set out in the Criminal Code, it would not make any sense to keep everyone who has been accused of a crime in custody awaiting trial.

There are mechanisms in place to allow accused persons to go free because not all of them are a danger to the public. As I said, there are hundreds of crimes. There are economic crimes, fraud. The judge analyzes each situation and makes a decision on a case-by-case basis. Allowing accused persons to go free while they await trial does not always present a danger to the public.

We need to look closely at this situation, so as not to put too much of a burden on our justice system and our prisons. Keeping more accused persons in custody for longer periods will not be without consequences. In this debate, it is important to keep in mind that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, we need to give judges the discretion to decide whether the accused constitutes a danger to the public and the community.

In the case before us, the situation is profoundly sad, because the individual released had been charged with several serious crimes and then went on to reoffend by committing an even more serious crime.

Mechanisms exist that give judges the discretion to say that an accused person constitutes a danger to society and must remain in custody awaiting trial. Judges should have that discretion.

If our policies and our laws are too restrictive, we will be removing the judges' discretion to make that decision. Judges are in the best position, because they are the ones who speak directly to the accused and take all the facts presented to them into account.

There certainly is a need for an ideal mechanism, as laid out in Bill S-217, to take into account the accused's criminal record, including previous convictions and failures to appear in court. That can help the judge determine whether the accused is at risk of failing to appear again. If the accused does not appear in court when required to do so, an arrest warrant must be issued. There are consequences for that.

As we debate this bill, it is extremely important to keep in mind that judges must have as much discretion as possible to make informed decisions based on the facts of a given case. They are the judges. There is a reason we call them judges. They are the ones who judge whether accused individuals should be detained in custody or whether they can be released while awaiting trial.

In this debate, I want all of us to think about giving judges as much discretion as possible because they, not we in the House of Commons, are in the best position to evaluate each case based on the facts before them and to decide whether to release the accused or detain them in custody.

My time is up, but I hope to see the next installment of this debate in committee very soon.