Evidence of meeting #115 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was move.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
The change in LIB-15 is consequential to clause 278, meaning LIB-15 should only be adopted if we vote down clause 278 on routine police evidence.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I would prefer that we do the routine police evidence discussion before going back to LIB-15, if that's okay with everybody.
(On clause 278)
Mr. Fraser, did you want to speak to clause 278?
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Then I'll ask anybody else who wishes to speak....
Mr. Cooper...? Mr. Rankin...?
6 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
We did hear from—I think it was—almost all witnesses who appeared before our committee, with respect to the problems associated with routine police evidence. The Canadian Bar Association was very strong on this point in particular, regarding evidence going in without an automatic right to cross-examination.
The idea here, that we would be putting in place a scheme where there could be an application for a defendant to have the right to cross-examine on routine police evidence, is problematic, I believe, because the scope of what is routine police evidence is not understood clearly.
We heard evidence, as well, that it would likely result in any judge saying yes any time a defendant wanted to have cross-examination on this—whatever it is—routine police evidence. If the accused is self-represented, for example, they would have perhaps no knowledge of the right to even ask for cross-examination on that evidence. I think the compelling testimony has caused me to decide that having routine police evidence going in without the automatic right to cross-examination would be problematic and would be the subject, I'm sure, of a lot of litigation that would add to delays and be counter to the thread throughout this bill, which is to address court delays and deal with the principles of justice in a fair manner.
For those reasons, I'm voting to remove the routine police evidence parts of this bill.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
We'll have Mr. Rankin and then Ms. Khalid.
6 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I'd just like to thank Mr. Fraser. He articulated his reasons very well. I feel the same way and would wish to remove routine police evidence from the code.
Thank you.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I agree that Mr. Fraser really articulated it well. The inclusion of routine police evidence would lead to delays and possible abuses and violations of rights of individuals, specifically the accused. For this reason, I think it should not be part of Bill C-75.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Just to reiterate the position of Conservative members, we agree with Mr. Fraser and the reasons he set forth as to why this aspect of the bill is problematic. It's something that on the surface sounds attractive, but the evidence was overwhelming that there really is nothing routine about routine police evidence.
6 p.m.
Liberal
6 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Because I don't get to vote, I just want to add hallelujah. Thank you.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
If you could sing it like Leonard Cohen, it would be even better.
6 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I can, actually, but I don't think you want that right now.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
You're correct. For those who want to vote down routine police evidence, you vote against clause 278.
(Clause 278 negatived)
(On clause 253)
Then we move back to LIB-15 on clause 253.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
My understanding, Chair, is that this is a technical amendment consequential to our voting down clause 278, so I'm just asking Mr. Taylor, probably, for clarification of this amendment.
October 29th, 2018 / 6:05 p.m.
Matthew Taylor Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Yes, you're correct. This is a consequential amendment that would be necessary as a result of your decision to vote down the routine police evidence clause. This was a provision that wanted to allow case management judges to hear things related to routine police evidence. Since routine police evidence is no longer part of this bill, this amendment would no longer be necessary.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 253 as amended agreed to)
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
On clause 254, LIB-16 was dealt with under LIB-4, so there's no vote here.
(Clause 254 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 255 to 269 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 270)
We move to clause 270, where we have PV-40.
Ms. May.
6:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This deals with the situation where the accused is not a citizen. Given the incredible pressures on non-citizens—and this could be, of course, permanent residents—they may not understand the impacts of accepting a plea bargain or the conditions the court has put in place for accepting a guilty plea, as it's more legalistically known. This could have serious implications under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The effect of my amendment is therefore to ensure that any accused in that situation is fully informed of the other repercussions that are outside the Criminal Code, and of accepting a plea bargain that could have the consequences of denying them citizenship. They could then be seen as inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, because any sentence of more than six months is considered serious criminality even though in a common-sense understanding, an accused person who's not a citizen might not understand that.
That comes out of a lot of the evidence we heard, particularly the Association for Canadian Clinical Legal Education submission.
Thank you.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Is there any discussion on PV-40?
Mr. Fraser.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Briefly, Mr. Chair, I totally understand the rationale that Ms. May has put forward, and I understand the importance of ensuring people understand the consequences of guilty pleas.
My concern, however, is that once you start listing certain things to determine whether or not people are actually making a voluntary plea based on all of the facts, it starts to throw into question the general application. Therefore, I won't be supporting this amendment.
Thank you.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is PV-41.
Ms. May.