Evidence of meeting #28 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Ellison  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Taylor  Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Levman  Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Burt  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Sigouin  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Matt MacMillan  Director Military Justice Implementation, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence

11:20 a.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice

Michael Ellison

It's an excellent fact scenario that you pointed out. The Crown would have to, in this situation.... The proposal here, around giving the Crown the ability to produce these types of documents and replacing that explicit waiver provision, this is not mandatory for the Crown to do. The Crown still has its responsibilities to only disclose things in a proper manner—for example, making appropriate redactions and not disclosing things that might otherwise be protected to, let's say, a third party accused on the same case—a co-accused.

In that example, a Crown does have the authority here to—if this were to pass—disclose communications. However, if there is a co-accused and there is some sort of special consideration there—not part of the marriage, obviously—and they have concerns there, they can still withhold that disclosure, as they would be expected to today if there was a concern, or make appropriate redactions.

I just want to stress that these powers are discretionary. It's an exercise in Crown discretion as it's drafted. Nothing here compels the Crown to make production. It is simply their decision within their role as a minister of justice.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON

As a follow-up, will this amendment assist Crown prosecutors in the carriage of their responsibility? Give me a yes or no.

11:25 a.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice

Michael Ellison

Yes, it would.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Mr. Baber, go ahead.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON

Thank you for your excellent testimony and assistance to all of us.

The spousal complaining witness is not a compellable witness. I think that's the state of the law. You can't compel. In other words, they're still capable of some of their own decisions. The NDP amendment is essentially that the disclosure would be conditional on the complainant's agreement. That's the operative provision of this amendment. Is that correct?

11:25 a.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice

Michael Ellison

Yes. The crux of this amendment here would be to constrain the Crown discretion that Bill C-16 proposes to provide.

Right now, Bill C-16 says that we know our Crown attorneys are educated, know their role as a minister of justice and can make the appropriate determinations. Especially when it comes to communication evidence, which in certain cases can be vast, they want to be able to exercise that discretion, make the appropriate redactions and get that disclosed to defence, so they don't have to wait until the eleventh hour, right before trial, when they get that trial judge assigned, in order to get a production order.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON

How do you balance this requirement of consent by the complainant proposed by the NDP amendment versus the Stinchcombe requirement to disclose?

11:25 a.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice

Michael Ellison

We are working within the production regime, which already provides a constraint on the Crown's ability to disclose. In this case, we already have that constraint. Parliament would be free to impose further constraints. It would go against the intention of Bill C-16 overall to provide greater discretion.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Ellison.

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Does NDP-14 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on G-20.

Ms. Lattanzio.

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Again, it's a technical amendment. It's the same as G-16 and G-18.

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Shall G-20 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on G-21.

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Chair, this is another technical amendment. It corrects the typo that changes the intent of proposed subsection 278.29(2), which governs the test for admissibility of records and therapeutic records, including when they contain sexual history evidence.

This amendment would clarify that all therapeutic records, including those that contain sexual history evidence, are only admissible if they meet the “innocence at stake” test by removing the disjunctive “or” from the list of records that are subject to the private records admissibility regime in sexual offence trials in proposed paragraphs 278.29(2)(a) and 278.29(2)(c), and replacing it with a conjunctive, thus clarifying that therapeutic records that contain sexual history evidence, which are listed in proposed paragraph 278.29(2)(a), must also meet the “innocence at stake” test in proposed paragraph 278.29(2)(c).

Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Chair, are we on G-22 now?

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

We're on G-21.

Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC

You were just describing G-22.

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

I did G-21. Did we not vote on G-21?

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

No.

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Amendment G-21 is the same as G-16 and G-18, Mr. Chair.

I got ahead of myself. I thought we had voted on that. I'm sorry about that.

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Do you have any further submissions on G-21?

Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

I have none on G-20. Those are all for G-22. I'm sorry about that, colleagues.

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Shall G-21 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I have a feeling Ms. Lattanzio is going to speak to G-22.

Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC

She just did.

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

I have a feeling I know what she's going to say.