Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2014

[Howard Krongold]

What I would say is this. We spend a lot of time talking about balancing competing interests, and that, indeed, is a very large part about your role and the role of the courts.

But I guess what I would say is this: there are some rights that can't be balanced, such as the rights to a fair trial.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Under any circumstances.

[Howard Krongold]

The fundamental right to a fair trial and to make full answer in defence is so primary that I don't think—

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The other point you made I want to take some issue with is you say the justice system proceeds at a glacial pace or something—

[Howard Krongold]

Yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

—as if it has rigor mortis. The point is....

[Howard Krongold]

I didn't say the rigor mortis part, but yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I know you didn't, but the point I make is this: There may be ways to resolve that, but not at the expense of victims' rights. I don't think we should be opposed to adding procedural steps because it will somehow elongate the justice system. There may be other ways to deal with that, but you shouldn't do it at the expense of victims' rights.

[Howard Krongold]

Sure. I'd be the last person to say that justice should be sacrificed to expediency. I guess what I'm raising here is that ultimately one concern, which I hear from everybody else on the panel as well, is that the amount of time it takes for litigation to come to a head is problematic.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Yes, but through procedural rights you must guard the ability for victims to have a place in a trial process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much. Thank you for that cross-examination, Mr. Komarnicki.

[Howard Krongold]

I usually get to answer a cross-examination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, everyone, for coming today, and for those presentations and the questions.

Quickly, committee, here's my plan; you can tell me if I'm wrong. But you don't have to tell me right now, because we're running out of time.

Today is October 30. We have witnesses for November 4 and 6, which fall next week on Tuesday and Thursday, and on November 18, because those witnesses basically got moved because of “the issue”.

Now, of the witnesses who were asked, the only ones who are not coming.... I thought we had more, but we actually only have one province coming. The Government of Alberta is coming, by video conference. Quebec has said no; P.E.I. has said no; B.C. is sending a letter; and we haven't had a response from Ontario yet.

I'm proceeding with that. After that is over on November 18, I would like to go back, on November 20, to our miscellaneous bill for an hour. There is information still coming. The clerk is going to follow up on why we don't have it yet, but we're going to get it. We'll tentatively have an hour on November 20 for that miscellaneous bill. I don't think it's going to take us more than an hour.

Then for the second hour we'll have a subcommittee meeting on agenda to look at what is coming next. That would allow me and you and any independents to bring forward any amendments to the bill we're dealing with now, Bill C-32. Then we will do clause by clause on November 25, and move forward on whatever is new on November 27, and we will decide upon that on November 20.

Here's what I want. We've had four bills referred to us. Bill S-2 is from the House. It's a statutory instruments piece, and is more technical than anything else. Then we have three private members' bills: Bill C-587, which has a February 18 date to it; Bill C-590, which has a March 9 date; and just as of last night, Bill S-221, which was unanimously passed by the House.

My suggestion is that if you people could get together to figure out which ones we could do...we could do Bill S-221 very quickly. Work it out. Come to see me about what you'd like to do and when. We'll have that discussion at our meeting on the agenda on November 20, and we'll know what we'll be doing till Christmastime, if that is acceptable to everybody.

Is that okay?

Yes, Mr. Casey?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

It's extremely concerning that we don't have a better uptake from the provinces. There are huge financial implications for them in this matter. Is there anything more we can do to convince them to get here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Here's what I'll do. We'll ask them one more time.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

They're not compellable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We can't make them come, of course—I hear you. We're getting a response in writing from one and verbally from another.

[An hon. member]

It's the single biggest issue.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Maybe you could call Kathleen Wynne and ask her to appear before the committee. That would be one.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Even if they don't want to appear, at least send us a—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We've asked.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

And they don't even want that?

Then can we use Twitter to pressure them, saying they don't want to talk about victims, or something?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's up to you to do.

Thank you, everyone.

We're adjourned.