Mr. Bittle.
Evidence of meeting #51 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 accused.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #51 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 accused.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
Mr. Trudell, I'll start with the proposed amendments to paragraph 518(1)(c), namely subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii). With every crown counsel and police officer I've spoken to, this evidence is led automatically. If we were to change those proposed subparagraphs—and I'll leave out proposed subparagraph (iv) at the moment—is that a symbolic change, given your experience in the criminal justice system?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
I think it is symbolic because I think that it creates.... I think it is symbolic in many ways. That's sort of the concern I had—albeit with the apologies I stated at the beginning.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
In building on what you said, symbolism is important. We're in politics, and that's a true statement. However, in terms of overstating the public safety benefits of the proposed changes to these particular subsections of the Criminal Code, do you see any change to public safety resulting from changing the word “may” to “shall” as it affects those three proposed subparagraphs?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
I think that we are maybe creating problems in a criminal justice system that is under stress and being looked at by the federal government and provincial governments.
Let me just say this, if I could. We are sitting here and you are working very hard, and I'm a defence counsel, and there's a police officer and a victim here talking about the bill. The public out there, more generally, really doesn't understand what we're doing. The public sees a person out on the street creating a terrible situation who should have been detained. The public says, “The system must be wrong; there's something the matter here.”
When we look at it and try to explain to the public, I think they would understand that you shouldn't make legislative changes if they're not necessary because of the impact across the country.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
We heard in reference to proposed new subparagraph (iv) and the potentially significant burden it would place on the criminal justice system.
Let's take it back to basics, though. In terms of walking into the courthouse in Toronto, or any jurisdiction, can you give an idea to the committee how many matters might be heard by a justice or a justice of the peace in terms of a bail list they're expected to hear?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
If every bail were contested, we'd get nothing done. There is real hope that there's front-end management—and this has been a problem—so that crowns can make decisions about release and not be concerned about risk aversion. You need that front-end management, because you cannot ask for a detention order in every case.
Sometimes detention orders are requested because there's not enough information or because it's easier to let a justice decide, and that's not the way the system should work. To start with, defence counsel hopefully will know something about the case. If it's duty counsel, go to crown counsel who already has some information from the police as to the background. Sometimes the police recommend conditions. Hopefully that's done in the front end, but if that's not done, then you are going to have probably two or three contested bail hearings, at most, on a day.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
In the current system—without the amendments—how many approximately would a justice hear, given your experience? I know it will vary from day to day.
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
I'd say at least five to 10 each day. Sometimes you see courts, when trying to deal with this, having to deal with administrative things that are foreign to some other courts.
I don't want to pick any jurisdiction in particular, but Brampton, Ontario is a hugely growing municipality with a modern court building that is no longer adequate, and bail hearings are incredibly stacked up. It's not just what happens in the courtroom; it's getting the information.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
I'd like to turn to Mr. Elliott.
You said that, based on your opinion, this wouldn't be a burden on the judicial system, but we've heard from Mr. Trudell that this could be a significant burden on the criminal justice system. In speaking with police officers and the chief of police in my riding, they're fully aware of the Jordan decision and the pressures it has introduced.
Given what Mr. Trudell has testified to, would you care to re-examine your opinion that this would not burden the justice system, because seemingly it would place a potentially substantial burden on the justice system?
4:50 p.m.
President, Alberta Federation of Police Associations
What I am referring to when I say there is no burden is that, when I provide a CPIC printout for an accused and I do a JOIN check on the accused, I have all the information to show his or her convictions and a list of potential charges that are still before the courts. In this case, Mr. Rehn had 29 outstanding criminal charges that were still before the courts.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
But going ahead to proposed subparagraph 518(1)(c)(iv), Mr. Trudell testified that with the type of evidence that would be mandatory to put forward.... Granted, the CPIC printout and other items like that are very quick and are done as a matter of fact. If the prosecution had to provide that information, couldn't that potentially cripple the criminal justice system, based on what you are hearing from Mr. Trudell?
4:50 p.m.
President, Alberta Federation of Police Associations
I'd have to speculate about whether it would cripple the system. Would it slow down the system? I would say yes, but from my perspective that delay, for lack of a better term, is necessary to provide that information to a justice of the peace. Whatever the charges against them are, I think the justice of the peace deserves to know all the information on the accused.
April 4th, 2017 / 4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I just have one quick final question. I mentioned it to Mr. Trudell. Changing “may” to “shall” with respect to proposed subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) really is a symbolic change. You yourself testified that this is something that happens as a matter of fact. Since there is no criminal consequence or consequence of any kind for a mistake occurring, these mistakes can happen again and there is no consequence. If these actions already happen as a matter of fact, there is no consequence to doing it. Isn't this a symbolic change, and aren't we overstating the potential public safety benefits of this bill?
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
With respect, that is my submission.
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
I'm sorry. I apologize.
4:50 p.m.
President, Alberta Federation of Police Associations
Sorry, you may have to repeat that because I thought the question was being directed to my colleague here.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Trudell testified that it's a symbolic act, a symbolic change. You testified that, as a matter of fact, you provide most of this information without question. Without these changes, this information is going to be provided. If you are doing that as a matter of fact anyway and there is no consequence for a mistake, changing subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of section 518 is a symbolic change. Symbolism is important, but would you admit that this is a symbolic change—just those three particular subparagraphs—that isn't going to change how the criminal justice system is run?
4:50 p.m.
President, Alberta Federation of Police Associations
My opinion on whether it's symbolic or not is this. Even though I provide that information, I would like to ensure that the information is provided to the justice of the peace. Even though I pass my file on for a bail hearing, I do not know if that information will be presented. If we can ensure that it is presented, then we know that the information is provided to the JP.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Given that we started a bit late, may I suggest that we now go to different members of the committee who have shorter questions and that we allow everybody to participate at this point, instead of doing another full round? Is that good with everyone?
I'll start with Mr. Cooper, since I know he has several things to say.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
If I can beg your indulgence, Chair, I'd like to thank the witnesses, especially Ms. MacInnis-Wynn for her very important and powerful testimony.
I have questions for all three witnesses.
Mr. Elliott, you have over a decade of law enforcement experience. We talked about delay, and you talked about CPIC. It is my understanding that access to CPIC is really keystrokes away. Is that correct?