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.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Again, the day-to-day workings.... You were a politician. You were a political minister. That's fine, and I appreciate that from a policy standpoint, but on the ground, you are not doing bail hearings, sir.
As an Individual
I have done bail hearings in the past. It's not something that is currently part of my practice, but I demur upon your past comments, with respect.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Well, that being said, we've heard now from the Canadian criminal defence lawyers, the prosecutors, and the chiefs of police, who disagree with your assessment of this bill. Do you wish to change your opinion of this? Or is your opinion stronger and you have better experience than those groups that have testified?
As an Individual
I believe I've sufficiently articulated my opinion to this committee and to you.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Well, you've articulated it. I've asked you a follow-up question. I don't know why you're refusing to answer that question.
Liberal
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
So your opinion is stronger than that of chiefs of police, the prosecutors, and the defence bar...?
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Wow. That's very impressive, Mr. Denis. You should put that onto your website. Back to—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Fortunately, Mr. Denis has a lot of forbearance and is able as a former attorney general to deal with Mr. Bittle's questions, I'm sure, but....
Mr. Bittle, you have about one minute left.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I'll move on. Thank you so much.
Mr. Muise, you testified in your original statement that delay wasn't going to occur. You mentioned me and Mr. Boissonnault and our concerns about delay. After hearing the evidence from others, you've now said, well, maybe that can happen. That seems to be a significant shift in your testimony at the start, in hearing the experts on that file. Do you now agree it's a distinct possibility that these amendments could cause significant delay in the justice system?
Director of Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
No, that's not what I would say.
What I would say is about some of the language, which is really what Mr. Woodburn and the CACP spoke about: “to prove the fact”. If that is problematic language, what I would suggest is, as Mr. Denis suggested, don't take an all-or-nothing approach.
Mr. Woodburn is right: there are a lot mongooses out there. Clarity will ensure that it doesn't happen again. Don't take an all-or-nothing approach. Fix the language. That's what the committee is for. That's what you're here for—
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I don't have much time.
Mr. Woodburn testified that making changes and messing around in the bail system could have significant consequences. Is that something you're willing to risk?
Director of Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
I've testified on a lot of legislation. Every time legislation is introduced, language is changed. Drafters change language. It's done every day. I think that if there is a will to get this right, there are smart people around this table and there are people who you can go to, people you can go to in the Department of Justice—drafters.
You're a civil litigator. You just told us that a minute ago. Rather than finding a million ways why we can't do something, why don't we work on trying to do something right?
No, I don't accept that if you sit down and try to work around a few words, “Oh my God, you might not get it right...”. I don't accept that. I think that is just saying, “You know what, forget it, and throw out the baby with the bathwater, because this is no good.” No, I don't accept that at all, actually. I think what you need to do is put your heads down, get to work, and do what you're supposed to do, which is to pass good legislation. I think we can make good legislation out of that if.... I accept that there might be some issue with the wording. I heard it loud and clear on both sides, so I'm saying, “Work on it.”
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We're about 12 minutes away from the vote. What I would suggest is on that either side, for all three parties, if anybody has a one-minute short question...? I know that Mr. Fraser has one and Mr. Falk has one.
Mr. Falk, you go first.
Mr. Fraser, you can go second.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the witnesses. I appreciate hearing all of your different perspectives.
Mr. Woodburn, I'm going to ask you questions. You said that with the Wynn case in particular it was human error. What was the human error? Let's go rapidly.
President, Canadian Association of Crown Counsel
This is rapid: failing to put the record before the court.
Conservative
President, Canadian Association of Crown Counsel
It wouldn't matter if it was required or not. Somebody forgot to put the record before the court.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
You said there was an error made, even though it wasn't a requirement of the law to produce that. It was a “may”. You stated in part of your testimony that typically all this is done anyway. If it's done anyway, what's the problem with saying “Let's do it”?