Justice Committee on Dec. 5th, 2023

[Julie Besner]

It's an adjournment. I don't have a sense that it's something like months, for example, because there's still a requirement for people to have a hearing within a reasonable period of time.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay.

Knowing people who work in the justice system, I'm curious to understand, though, how the requirement for a hearing to take place within a reasonable period of time comes up against what may be the resource realities on the ground. You can say there's an obligation to have a hearing take place within a certain period of time, but if there are competing obligations that a particular court of appeal and a particular province are facing, that's still going to have an effect on the timeline.

What is the effect if there is an obligation but there is a failure to realize that obligation?

[Julie Besner]

The general rule is that the hearing will be held very shortly after the notice is received. I think that in some jurisdictions, like Ontario...I think I heard it was maybe even five days. When an adjournment is requested, it could be perhaps 30 days, but the general rule is that the hearing will be held very shortly after the notice is provided.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay, but to say that's the general rule doesn't really answer my question of what happens in the event that the general rule is not.... That may be the general case, but what about the particular case in which that does not happen?

[Julie Besner]

There would be probably even a motion for an extension. The courts have their own authorities and their own rules about the notice and when a hearing will be held after a notice. I can't really speak to more than that. It would be for the courts to determine.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

To understand the implications of this—that these applications be heard by a court of appeal.... I'm sorry; that's as opposed to what? What's the current forum?

[Julie Besner]

It's the superior courts of criminal jurisdiction.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. All right.

This does put an additional obligation on the court of appeal as opposed to the existing forum, and that may require some significant adjustment in terms of resourcing and capacity. Is that a fair assumption, do you think?

[Julie Besner]

I don't think it's a fair assumption, in the sense that in terms of volumes it's not a large number of cases, comparatively or relatively speaking.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

What is the reason for shifting the forum? What is the upside of doing so?

[Julie Besner]

It was a recommendation that was made in the consultation report. There was a lot of interest in adopting that recommendation, among all interested stakeholders.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

All right. Thank you for explaining that.

I'll leave my comments there. I think some of my colleagues may have questions or comments as well.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

There are no amendments to this, and I am asking....

Please, go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me first say that it's been interesting as I dove into some details about this, in the context of the larger conversation about the justice system in Canada. I have concerns, as do many members around this table, and I would think all parties as well, about the erosion of trust that has taken place within our justice system.

Certainly, one of the contributing factors in this is when a miscarriage of justice takes place. This bill is referred to as “David and Joyce Milgaard's Law”. From some of the research I've done, according to that and from a host of additional examples, there have in fact been miscarriages of justice. That is a contributing factor.

We see violent crime rates increasing in this country and a host of concerns related to the proliferation of violence, and the justice system seems to be unable to.... Certainly, from the perspective of the last eight years, there are contributions to that from the actions of now three successive Parliaments, where the Liberals passed bills that have contributed to it. That has added to the erosion of trust.

This is the other side of that same coin. Canadians have to, first, trust that the justice system does, in fact, ensure that people end up behind bars when they've committed crimes, to ensure that there is a full understanding of the consequences when someone does not uphold their obligations under the law.

The other side of that is what we're talking about here. It is that Canadians also have to trust the justice system and the idea of a unique and pivotal factor in the development of our modern society, which is the presumption of innocence and the ability for somebody to have a just and due process that lends towards allowing people to err, at least as little as is humanly possible.

I wish we could look back in our history at a record of perfection, but we know, as evidenced by Bill C-40 before us—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I think the bells are ringing.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You may have anticipated the subject of my point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I am going to adjourn the meeting.

We will be back at this next time.

Have a good evening, everyone.