Madam Speaker, certainly the member cannot argue that the NDP member was not swayed by the witnesses.
Therefore, let us talk about what some of those witnesses had to say. We called all the witnesses for whom all parties asked. We did not ignore witnesses who the Conservatives asked us to call.
What did Rick Woodburn, president of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel have to say? He said:
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....What I can say is that as it stands right now, we “may” prove all this. But when you put “shall” prove, it raises the standard. And if we don't prove, which we'll now be mandated to do, they're more likely to be released than not....We have cases that go to the Supreme Court of Canada on placement of a comma. Changing from our “may” to “shall”—what we have to do—is a big leap.
That was from the prosecutors, the people designed to keep us safe.
Rachel Huntsman from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said:
Although we support the spirit of Bill S-217....Following careful consideration and analysis of this bill, we believe that the amendments, in particular the amendment to paragraph 518(1)(c), may cause confusion, create added delay, and impose challenges upon a bail system that is already operating at full capacity. Instead of strengthening the bail provisions, we fear that these amendments may create a result counterproductive to what the bill is hoping to achieve.
We heard from Dr. Cheryl Webster who said that it struck her that it:
....is going to add to court delays.....higher evidentiary burden....Any additional time taken during the bail process puts cases even closer to being thrown out for violation of the constitutional right that an accused be tried within a reasonable amount of time.
Dr. Anthony Doob, professor, University of Toronto, said:
....one cannot legislate away human error....proving that a specific accused person before the court has a criminal record takes substantially longer than the seconds it might take to print it out.
The bill that you have before you will expand the bail process for everyone at a time when almost everyone agrees that court delay is a problem.
Ms. Nancy Irving, the person charged with writing the report to the Alberta government, said:
I share the concern that this new language could turn bail hearings into mini-trials. That would certainly make bail hearings longer, and it would likely contribute to further delays in a system already struggling to cope with the volume of bail cases and the new time requirements set by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan, which were released last summer. At a minimum, I think it's reasonable to anticipate that the meaning of this new language will be litigated, perhaps all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, before we receive judicial guidance. That could take years. In the meantime, the crown's standard of proof will be uncertain.
The Government of Ontario said:
...changes to section 518(1 )(c) of the Code undermine prosecutorial discretion and could significantly lengthen and complicate bail hearings. Bill S-217 is at odds with general trends in bail and is contrary to ongoing efforts to achieve justice efficiencies.
It concluded by saying, “Ontario is of the view that Bill S-217 is contrary to ongoing federal and provincial efforts to achieve important gains in criminal justice, including increasing justice efficiencies.”
The Canadian Bar Association said, “The CBA Section does not support passage of Bill S-217. We believe it is constitutionally vulnerable, unnecessary and contrary to current efforts to improve justice and justice efficiencies.”
Finally, if we take a more conservative government, let us take the Government of Saskatchewan. It says, “With respect, Clause 1 is unnecessary—