Evidence of meeting #50 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 evidence.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It's a fair point.
I don't see it in most circumstances causing delay. Of course, depending on the particular circumstances surrounding the individual application, there are always times when bail applications are put over. I don't think that in the normal course of things it would significantly or in any real substantive way impact upon how long a bail application would take to be heard and determined.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It's always possible that in some cases you're going to have certain facts or certain circumstances in which there may need to be an adjournment. That's the case presently in the case of bail hearings.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Okay.
With regard to the extent of the evidence, right now it could be determined quite quickly that in this case we don't really need to get into the details of the circumstance of the offence because it's not as grave an offence. However, this requires it for all bail applications regardless of the offence.
In the more simple cases, it could add to the time it would take to determine that bail hearing on an offence. Normally, that third ground for bail detention wouldn't be the ground that the person would be held on, but they'd be required to produce that evidence anyway.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Fraser, I take your point. I just don't see in the normal course that it would cause a substantive amount of delay or a whole new layer to the process.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thanks very much.
Anyone else? If not, I have a couple of small questions.
First of all, I wanted to thank you for presenting not only the bill but also the passion with which you advanced the cause of your own constituents, the families of Constable Wynn and Constable Bond. I think we all appreciate both your and Senator Runciman's work on that.
I see the bill in two layers. I see the change to section 518 and the “may” to “shall” as being one layer of the bill, which I think you, Mr. Cooper, have suggested is the most important layer of the bill. It's not a question of trying to remove the fact that there are going to be errors. We all know there may be errors. If somebody says “shall” and he or she doesn't do it, there still may be an error in not presenting it, but it takes away their purposeful failure to present it. I see that as being the difference.
I think it has been bandied about a couple of times. What would happen in the event that we say “shall” and the prosecutor fails inadvertently to do this? What would happen to the result of that bail hearing? Would the bail hearing have to be reconsidered?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
In that particular circumstance, it might have to be reconsidered if the information wasn't available. What would happen to a prosecutor? Obviously, there is no penal consequence; no punishment is set out in the Criminal Code. If the prosecutor doesn't do what is required of him or her, then obviously there are certainly consequences for that prosecutor, but not Criminal Code consequences.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Right, understood.
I was more concerned about what would happen to the person who perhaps would be let out on bail. Would this be revisited if somebody said the crown didn't present this? Would we have people showing up in the system multiple times because of errors, or do you see that there's going to be an error, it goes ahead, the decision....
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I would think that in the normal course the decision is made based upon the attainable evidence before the judge or magistrate.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
That's fair enough.
My second question relates to proposed paragraph 515(10)(c). Again, I come at it that there are two different layers. One is changing “may” to “shall” and then there are the other additions to the bill, some of which I view as unnecessary.
In looking at the proposed change to subparagraph 515(10)(c)(vi), I understand that the court has said that the criminal record of the accused is one of the areas already under paragraph (c) that they would see as being a general thing that you would look at. The criminal record would not include whether somebody has been charged with another criminal offence and never been found guilty. While I understand the purpose of saying somebody didn't show up in court, somebody has been found guilty. Why would we be introducing the fact that somebody has simply been charged with another offence when we're presuming they're innocent until proven guilty?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
That again is information that would be in the mix already. In the Alberta bail report, that type of information was expressly noted as to always be presented and always available. It's not determinative.
When we look at paragraph 515(10)(c) the test is to look at all the factors that are expressly enumerated and other factors that may be applicable. In the Hall decision and the St-Cloud decision, the Supreme Court has been clear. No one factor trumps another. It's not a matter of taking one and basing it on one. It's a matter of looking at all the circumstances in the individual case.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I have one last question, Mr. Cooper.
When I look at paragraph 515(10)(b), which is the public safety element of subsection 515(10), that talks about why the detention of an accused is justifiable. Would you agree that if the prosecutor does not introduce the evidence under paragraph 518(1)(c), then it is difficult for the magistrate to draw a proper conclusion under paragraph 515(10)(b)?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Yes, I agree.
Are there any other questions from anyone? If not, first of all, thank you very much, Mr. Cooper, for your very cogent testimony. It is much appreciated.
If I may, could I ask that we stay behind and go in camera to talk about future witnesses under the bill and how many meetings we'd like to have?
5:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Perfect. The meeting, for the moment, is suspended.
[Proceedings continue in camera]