Evidence of meeting #52 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 crown.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Detective Superintendent Truax, in part of your testimony you were talking about how the criminal information system is being updated with a goal of March 2018. Do you feel that when we reach that stage we're just going to—?
I would like to hear more commentary on what the goals of it are, what it will allow us to do, and so on.
Detective Superintendent, Ontario Provincial Police and Member of the Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
The RCMP advised us, as part of our preparation for our testimony today, that the automation of the submission of fingerprints in order to update criminal record information will be completed, they anticipate, by March 2018. That will certainly expedite the updating of criminal records far more quickly than was the case under the manual and much more labour-intensive process.
There are challenges, as indicated by Mr. Woodburn, in relation to the mobility of criminals across the country—all of those pieces. That's important; it needs to be current and up to date for the police and the involved prosecutors at the bail process to have the most up-to-date, real-time information.
The challenge, however, is that all of that criminal record information is based on fingerprints. If someone misses their appearance for submitting fingerprints, that information may never be entered into the criminal record for consideration by the police, the prosecutor, or the court.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Before I start asking questions, I have to say that I'm significantly disappointed, because I've learned that the motion we're voting on is a Conservative delay motion that is going to limit our ability and limit our time here today. While there are many accusations about not wanting to work, it's the Conservatives today who, even on a Conservative matter, are asking the House to adjourn early and stop the deliberations today.
I do apologize, and I will—
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Now I'd like to make a point of order. The delay will cost this committee eight minutes.
You Liberals cost the committee 30 minutes at the beginning of the committee.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
The motion is “that the House do now adjourn”. That's disappointing, but I'll start my questions.
Mr. Woodburn, thank you for bringing this to our attention on the words “to prove”, because it hadn't been brought forward. We've talked about adding “the fact” into this section, which seemed to be problematic. Could it be salvaged if you changed the language from “shall prove” to “shall show”? In your mind, would that have any effect, or are we going down the road on that?
President, Canadian Association of Crown Counsel
Down the rabbit hole, as they would say?
President, Canadian Association of Crown Counsel
Every time you do something like that, I have to put it back in the mix, churn it around a while, and see what happens. It's probably not a question that I could answer right away.
It would be different, but then again, you're changing established wording in the code, so once again I'll go back to my “changing a comma could change a lot” statement.
We're having more problems with “shall” and the combination with “prove” or “shall show.” When we're mandated to do something and we don't do it, that's when people are set free, and that's more likely to happen than it is that we're going to forget to put up the bail report to the justice.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Your opinion is that this bill makes Canadians less safe than more safe.
President, Canadian Association of Crown Counsel
I probably would have to say that in my view that would be the case: that it actually does not help. Now, I'm exponentially glad that the conversation has been had, and that the bill was brought forward, because we're having a conversation. It's dramatically changed things in Alberta in how things are done and has made us all view the bail provisions in a different way.
However, this bill, as it's written right now, is going to cause delay, in our view. Also, it's a higher standard for us at the bail hearing, and we may have issues with regard to proof. “Dangerous” is more your word than my word.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Detective Superintendent Truax, in your opinion, does this bill have the effect of making Canadians more safe?
Detective Superintendent, Ontario Provincial Police and Member of the Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Well, obviously the bill is here for review in order to come to some conclusion and consider all of those pieces. Also obviously, the law needs to be reviewed in a timely manner. It has to evolve with Canadian society. There are all of those pieces.
There are challenges in the bill. Some of the wording in the bill we believe may be problematic and may have an impact on police resources in relation to the bail hearing process. That causes a challenge, obviously, for Canadian law enforcement agencies.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
Back to you, Mr. Woodburn, on what we heard from the Canadian criminal defence lawyers association in terms of clause 2 and paragraph 518(1)(c)(iv). It states:
to show the circumstances of the alleged offence, particularly as they relate to the probability of conviction of the accused,
The concern of the Canadian criminal defence lawyers was that this clause essentially creates a trial and could dramatically increase the amount of time spent on a bail hearing. Would you concur with that assessment?
President, Canadian Association of Crown Counsel
They'd be right for sure. That's part of the issue we're having, which is that we're going to have mini-trials and that it's just going to make the process longer or more arduous by once again setting the bar a little higher. What happens if we don't have all the evidence we need? We normally don't have it at a bail hearing. Remember: this is shortly after it happens.
As for Stinchcombe, that's fine, but it takes months to get all our evidence in. If we don't have everything we need, if we run the bail hearing, and if we have to prove it to a higher standard and we don't, that person is released.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
Mr. Denis, you've buttressed your arguments with the statement that you've been practising law for 15 years, but on your firm's website, I see that you practice in terms of “corporate and commercial law and public affairs consulting”. Is that the nature of your practice?
As an Individual
Currently, yes. I was called to the bar on November 23, 2001.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Yes.
I'm a civil litigator, but, like me, you are far removed from the daily goings-on of the criminal justice system.
As an Individual
I would respectfully submit that's not the case. One of my partners is a criminal lawyer—
Liberal
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Well no, I'm asking you a direct question. You are not involved in the day-to-day workings of the criminal justice system, and you have no experience in that on a day-to-day basis.
As an Individual
I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. I was the attorney general of Alberta from 2012 to 2015.
