Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 40
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Justice committee  This is rapid: failing to put the record before the court.

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  It wouldn't matter if it was required or not. Somebody forgot to put the record before the court.

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  As I already pointed out, with regard to each one of these new sections, which is what they are, really, when you put “shall” in there, we're being mandated to do something that we've never before had to do. While we “may”—

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  —put the information before the court, and we “may” put in the criminal record...in the past, we didn't have to prove it. Now we have to prove it. That takes us into a different ball game altogether, and that's important.

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  No, I can't. I couldn't sit here and suggest another alternative word for that.

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  No, the most problematic part is “shall”. The word “prove” is already in the code. The most problematic part is when you take “shall” and put it with “prove”.

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  Absolutely. When you raise the standard of proof on all of these sections, which is really what you're asking to do with “shall” prove this, it sets bail hearings on a higher standard, not a lower standard. It makes it harder, not easier, for us to get bail. When you remove the c

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  That's kind of a quagmire of questions.

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  There's a lot there. 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. If we don't properly prove t

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  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

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  Down the rabbit hole, as they would say?

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  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 a

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  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 Alb

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  Not being a legislative drafter, I can't see my way through fixing it per se. I like the idea that the language can change, but once again, if you change a comma you start running into problems. The bail provisions as they stand work the best way they can. Changing them is not g

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn

Justice committee  Are you giving me a blank cheque, or do I have to be—?

April 6th, 2017Committee meeting

Rick Woodburn