Justice Committee on March 21st, 2017

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I suggest we now go to shorter questions, so everybody can ask whatever questions they have.

Who has some questions?

Mr. Fraser, you didn't get to wrap up your last comments, so please go ahead.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

All right, thanks very much.

Mr. Cooper, with regard to the paragraph 518(1)(c) provisions that you're seeking to change, if your bill passes, it will now be required to submit evidence of the accused's criminal convictions for a determination. What's your view on how that would be interpreted in light of pardons or absolute discharges that have been granted? Do you have a comment on that? I would imagine it wouldn't include that in the type of information that has to be presented to the court.

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

That's correct, Mr. Fraser.

In terms of pardons and conditional and absolute discharges, that sort of evidence would not be presented. In fact, in terms of pardons, information on prior convictions that are pardoned are removed pursuant to paragraph 2.3(b) of the Criminal Records Act. Discharges are similarly removed pursuant to section 6.1 of the Criminal Records Act. So no, that type of information would not be presented in the case of pardons and conditional and absolute discharges.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you. I have a couple other quick ones, but I don't know if Mr. Falk had a question. Do you want me to finish?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Why don't you ask your couple and then we'll go to Mr. Falk.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I'll be brief.

Since the requirement will now be on the crown to lead this evidence, if this bill is passed, rather than suggesting that they can do it. This might be a strange question, but when they're proving a fact or submitting the evidence, the fact that the accused has previously been convicted of a criminal offence, would it never come up since it was “may”? Now that it's a requirement to do so, does it make sense to specify that it be a criminal offence committed in Canada, or is this any criminal offence having been committed that the crown is now required to adduce evidence on?

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

It would be based upon criminal evidence, any evidence that is attainable and available to be presented, so yes.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

What would happen though if evidence of a criminal conviction in the United States, for example, was not presented because at the time it wasn't obtainable? What would happen to the decision made by the court at that bail hearing? Could it be vitiated by a further proceeding?

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

The intent of the bill is to maintain the type of evidence that is almost always presented and to codify that by making it a requirement. That is the purpose of the bill. It is to ensure the types of evidence typically presented, almost always presented, in court are readily and easily attainable, respecting the criminal history of the accused being presented.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Do you see that including trying to find out if there's any international information that could be relevant to that person's record?

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

Obviously, if that information was readily attainable and available, then it should be presented. But in most cases, I presume, it wouldn't be readily attainable.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Do you think there would be any use in adding the words “of a criminal offence in Canada”?

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

Perhaps that is something the committee could look at.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Cooper, for presenting to committee. Not often do we get the opportunity to have you at the other end of the table. It's probably a delight for most people.

Back in my home province of Manitoba, I was speaking with the Manitoba safety accident investigator in the course of an investigation of an accident. We were talking about it, and I said, “What kinds of things are you looking for?” He said, “I'm looking to see if the individual was trained properly, if there was a proper work procedure for what was supposed to happen, whether the employee followed the procedure, and whether something was missing.” He said, “At the end of the day, we're looking for links in the chain that are missing.”

When I look at proposed paragraph 518(1)(c), you've changed the wording from “may” to “shall”. It seems to me when I look at the situation with Constable Wynn and Auxiliary Constable Bond that the tools were accessible and readily available to them, but it wasn't necessarily prescribed that they use them as far as a police officer conducting a bail hearing. He obviously didn't use all of the resources that were available to him.

It seems to me that the intent of this bill is to make sure the link in the chain that was missing is now put back in to make the chain complete. Would that be your understanding?

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

That's a fair point, Mr. Falk. It's about ensuring the information that is available, accessible, and attainable is, in fact, presented as it should be.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Are you also aware, in your study and support of this bill, if there were any other situations similar to this, where had the information been provided at a bail or bond hearing, it may have made a difference to someone, either a law enforcement officer or an individual in the public?

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

I guess we will never quite know how many cases there are where this information isn't presented. We certainly know about this case. It resulted in the most serious of consequences possible, including the loss of life of a brave police officer, and an auxiliary constable whose life has been turned upside down as a result.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes, I think you're right. It certainly would have made a difference in this one.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacGregor is next, and then Mr. Boissonnault.

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

Mr. Cooper, I just want to quickly revisit the state of record-keeping in Canada. I was going back over the transcripts from the Senate committee. Senator Runciman, in his Q and A session with members of the committee, noted that they've been talking about trying to get the Ontario system away from a paper-driven system for many years—he mentioned that we're going back 15 or 16 years—and that there has been very little progress and millions of dollars spent.

Leaving aside the intent of this bill, I'm wondering this. If we have what amounts to a patchwork quilt across Canada and don't have that up-to-date record system, do you think it might be better for the government to concentrate its resources on making sure that we have a nationwide, up-to-date computer system whereby a magistrate has information at his or her fingertips, so that you're not really putting the onus on the prosecutor anymore, because that information is available before the magistrate?

I'm wondering whether that might in your opinion be a way that we could solve this problem and also make sure that a tragedy such as what happened with Constable Wynn doesn't befall anyone else.

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

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

I would submit that there really are two separate issues. One is with CPIC, which is accessible right across Canada but I understand there are some issues in terms of how quickly the data is entered and of backlogs and delays.

That situation is frankly unacceptable. It's absolutely unacceptable that CPIC isn't fully up to date in all cases. The fact that there may be some backlog in CPIC does not change or impinge upon the fact that the criminal history of someone should be presented at a bail application hearing. After all, such information, as I mentioned, is always relevant and material. Indeed, often it is about the only evidence that is relevant and material at a bail application hearing.

What I would submit is that we should amend the Criminal Code to close this loophole and continue to put on pressure, as there has been pressure put, to get CPIC fully up to date.

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

I guess what I'm saying is that it may not even be a loophole, if we were to tackle the quality of the information readily available. That may be one way of looking at it.