This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) re-enact the victim surcharge regime and provide the court with the discretion to waive a victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that the victim surcharge would cause the offender undue hardship or would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.
Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Before we go to the hon. member for Bow River, I will say that I am very interested to hear what he has to say, so I assume everybody will stay quiet and let the hon. member for Bow River give his answer.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that you are interested in my answer.
I know that my learned colleague is waiting with bated breath to hear what I might say. I obviously got him very excited with what I said before, which I thought I just might do.
I really believe that, fundamentally, this is a download onto the provincial governments. It is just another example of a senior level of government dumping the expenses down on the next level of government. The member referred to the prosecutors making decisions, but in Alberta there may not be any left. They are quitting. They are tired of it. The caseload in Alberta for crown prosecutors is double the average of a few years ago. They have had it. They are not going to be there to do what the member said. This will be just too much.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about parts of this bill, but I see much in it that is welcome and important.
Does my hon. friend from Bow River not agree that doing away with peremptory challenges would help create fairer juries for the accused? I do not know if he has any thoughts on the Colten Boushie case, but we do need to do better in this country in having juries that are able to fairly assess a criminally accused.
I do not want to comment on a particular case, but clearly this is an important reform.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member said she would not respond to a specific case, so I will not either.
As with my colleagues in the legal profession, I do believe we have a tremendous legal profession. I trust the process they have used in choosing how it works. They have a tremendous responsibility on their hands. I believe in both the defence and the prosecutor, and the system they have. It should be a process they use, and historically it has worked. I want to leave it there. It is not for me to step into that one.
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his assessment and analysis of this. As he pointed out, he is bringing a sort of lay perspective to this. I appreciate the fact that he has been consulting with his constituents, as I know he does during the summer. In fact, that is one of the good things about the bill. The Liberals are putting it in at the end of June, just as they did with a bill last year, and by the time the summer was over, so many people found out that they were going to remove protection for religious services and members of the clergy that they had to rethink this. That is what I am thinking is going to happen here.
When the hon. gentleman is talking to his constituents this summer, I am sure he will bring this up and get some feedback from them. For instance, do they like the idea that people convicted of human trafficking will not get a consecutive sentence if they trafficked 25 human beings as opposed to one human being? If his constituents agree with that, it would be interesting to hear. I would also be interested to hear if some of his constituents say that it is more serious if people traffic 25 human beings, so they should get a consecutive sentence. I would also be interested to know whether his constituents think, after they get a chance to analyze this over the summer, that if people are participants in and members of a terrorist organization they should be eligible for the lowest possible criminal offence.
The Liberals are saying that everyone loves this and that all these different changes to the Criminal Code are just wonderful, but I think this is one of the good things about the summer. We get a chance to hear from our constituents, and I know the hon. member will do that.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I know from my colleague's background how learned he is. I am home virtually every weekend, and this is an issue about which people address me on the street, in meetings, and at round tables. My fear is that a number of people do not trust the justice system anymore, because of examples like the ones the member gave. What I fear is that a number of people have said that they will take care of their own rural communities themselves—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I just want to remind hon. members that some members are gifted with very piercing voices, and when they are sitting next to the microphone that is on, it pierces that much more. I want to remind them that if they are going to say something, they should whisper it and not shout it or speak in a loud voice.
The hon. member for Bow River.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have never been accused of having a piercing voice, so I assume it was not me.
The member mentioned those specific things. I get letters and notes. I have a stack on my desk tonight that talk about these things, which I read through before I came here. I get written comments and telephone calls, and I meet people on the street. My fear is that people now do not trust the justice system to keep them safe and to deal with the criminals. They feel like they are victims over and over again. I fear that we are creating people in our communities who want to take the law into their own hands to protect themselves because the judicial system in our country is not going to do it. They fear for themselves, and that is wrong.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, nothing shows the difference between Liberals and Conservatives more than this idea of hybridization of offences, which takes away the discretion and knowledge of judges, who have heard all the evidence, to make decisions. It has been a constant theme with the Conservatives, and of course we disagree with that. It does not give good decisions.
In cases where the level of the offence should be lower because of the conditions, sometimes the prosecutor has to throw out the whole case because it is not hybridized. The penalty would be too serious, and it would be cruel and unreasonable justice. Having that philosophy is actually allowing criminals to go free.
However, that is not my question. My question is related to the root causes. We all want to reduce rural crime and remove the root causes. For example, if there is broken glass in a rural kitchen and people keep walking across the floor and cutting their feet, putting Band-Aids on every time is not the way to deal with it. We need to deal with the root cause and clean up the glass. Therefore, I would like to know some of the suggestions the member is making to his party to remove the root causes of rural crime, which we would all like to remove.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that parking the ambulances at the bottom of the cliff to take care of the bodies does not make any sense. They need to go to the top of the cliff to find out why they are going there.
At the status of women committee, members will find my name on the unanimous report on the percentage of indigenous women who are incarcerated. It will be submitted within days in this House. Whose name? It is my name. It is there in support of the recommendations to find ways to reduce the number of indigenous women who are incarcerated.
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Surrey—Newton.
I am pleased to rise today to lend my support to Bill C-75, introduced by our government on March 29, 2018. Today my remarks will address how the bill would contribute to eliminating intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence is one of the most common forms of gender-based violence. The term includes physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and controlling behaviours by an intimate partner.
I would like to reiterate some very shocking statistics the Minister of Justice shared when she spoke to Bill C-75 at second reading.
In 2016, according to police-reported data from Statistics Canada, over 93,000 people in Canada experienced intimate partner violence. Sadly, intimate partner violence is a reality for at least one in two women in Canada. Women who are indigenous, trans, elderly, new to Canada, or living with a disability are at increased risk of experiencing violence due to systemic barriers and failures. The personal and often lifelong consequences of violence against women are enormous.
This data also shows that in 2016, violence within dating relationships was more common than violence within spousal relationships. These statistics are devastating. I believe that we, as a government, must work to continue to strengthen our responses to this complex social problem that so disproportionately impacts women, particularly those who are in certain types of relationships.
During the 2015 election, our government campaigned on a promise to give more support to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment and to ensure that more perpetrators were brought to justice. As well, the minister's mandate letter included implementing our platform commitment to toughen criminal laws and bail conditions in cases of domestic assault, in consultation with stakeholders, with the goal of keeping survivors and children safe.
In Bill C-75, we are fulfilling these commitments. This bill would standardize the meaning of “intimate partner” for all Criminal Code purposes by defining the term. The new definition would specify that an intimate partner would include a current or former spouse, a common-law partner, and a dating partner.
These changes are long overdue. As I just noted, the data demonstrates that a substantial number of violent incidents are committed in the context of a dating rather than a cohabiting relationship. Since violence against a dating partner has long been recognized in Canadian courts as a form of intimate partner or domestic violence, the reforms would codify what is already standard practice in many jurisdictions, thereby clarifying the law. Specifying that “intimate partner” includes a person's current or former spouse, common-law partner, and dating partner would reflect sentencing decisions that have considered abuse of both current and former intimate partners as an aggravating factor, even though the existing provision does not specify that abuse of current or former intimate partners should be taken into account. Specifying that sentencing judges must consider any evidence of abuse of current or former spouses, common-law partners, or dating partners as an aggravating factor would not only clarify the law, but as previously mentioned, would support one of our government's platform commitments to ensure that all forms of intimate partner violence were considered an aggravating factor at sentencing.
Bill C-75 would also clarify that strangling, choking, or suffocating another person would constitute the more serious form of assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, which is punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. These types of assaults, which often occur in the intimate partner violence context, have serious and even deadly consequences for victims. However, under existing law, courts do not always recognize this greater harm. The proposed amendment would ensure that this type of assaultive conduct was treated more seriously.
Further, in support of our government's electoral platform commitments, Bill C-75 would also allow for the imposition of a higher maximum penalty where offenders have been repeatedly violent toward an intimate partner. In such cases, the crown would be able to give notice that a higher maximum penalty would be sought. Allowing courts to impose a term of imprisonment that was higher than the applicable maximum penalty in repeat intimate partner violence cases would better reflect the severity of the conduct and assist in better protecting victims. For example, in some cases, the higher maximum penalty would ensure that sanctions other than imprisonment, such as conditional sentence orders, were not available.
The bill would strengthen the bail provisions of the Criminal Code by imposing a reverse onus at bail for an accused charged with an offence involving violence against an intimate partner if the accused had a criminal record with at least one prior conviction involving intimate partner violence. In the context of bail, a reverse onus means that the accused, rather than the crown, would have to justify why he or she should not be detained in custody until the start of the trial, having regard for the safety of the victim and public confidence in the administration of justice. This would ensure that an accused's history of intimate partner violence would be brought to the attention of the bail court at the outset of the hearing, regardless of whether the current charge involved the same victim or a different one. The reverse onus would also signal to the bail court the seriousness of the alleged offence as well as the increased risk of recidivism in this context.
Bill C-75 would require all bail courts to consider, in making any order relating to bail, whether an accused was charged with an offence where violence was used, threatened, or attempted against an intimate partner. Bail courts would be required to take this factor into account when making a number of possible bail-related determinations, including the decision to impose an order not to communicate with a particular victim, witness, or other person; a detention order; or an order to release the accused on bail.
In particular, if the accused was to be released into the community pending trial, the bail judge would have to consider the fact that the alleged offence was against an intimate partner in determining whether bail conditions were necessary, and if so, what types of conditions would be appropriate. Requiring bail courts to consider the safety of the accused's intimate partner before releasing an accused on bail would afford increased protection to victims of intimate partner violence.
Bill C-75's intimate partner violence amendments would provide the courts with the means to denounce intimate partner violence to better protect victims, including prior to trial, and to ensure that the sentences imposed were proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
Concisely put, Bill C-75 would make marked improvements to the treatment of intimate partner violence in our criminal laws. It would establish a higher maximum sentence and reverse onus at bail for repeat offenders, recognize strangulation as an elevated form of assault, and broaden the parameters of intimate partner violence, which would now include current or former spouses, common-law partners, and dating partners.
These reforms are sorely needed. I hope that all my colleagues will join me in seeking to end intimate partner violence and will support Bill C-75.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have touched on a few other aspects of Bill C-75, and I certainly agree with my hon. colleague that doing more to deal with intimate partner violence is critical.
I am troubled that the bill would eliminate preliminary inquiries. A preliminary inquiry is typically a time when the defence gets to test the evidence. It is something of a dry run or dress rehearsal for what is going to come at trial, and it allows the defence to properly prepare and may even lead to deciding not to proceed to trial because the evidence is too weak.
I do not understand the rationale for eliminating preliminary inquiries, all for efficiency. It is trampling the rights of the accused, who may be innocent, in the interest of efficiency. At least that is how I see it right now, standing here tonight.
I would love to know what the defence and rationale is for getting rid of preliminary inquiries.
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Speaker, as stated earlier, getting rid of preliminary inquiries would not only make the system more efficient but would also help to serve the victims. We have seen through speaking with stakeholders that when we have preliminary inquiries, we are actually subjecting victims to being re-victimized, and that is certainly something we do not want. There are two benefits right there. One is to have the system be more efficient. Second, it is more compassionate, because we would not re-victimize victims.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives often talk about their biggest objective being the protection of victims of crime and getting justice for victims of crime.
I would like to thank the member for his eloquent speech and for his answer to the first question about how this legislation would protect victims of crime and provide some justice. It was excellent.
I would like to ask him about something totally different in the bill. We have all heard stories about back in the middle ages when a starving child would steal a loaf of bread, and the justice was to cut off his hand, which obviously did not make any sense.
In the bill there could be an exemption to paying the victim surcharge if the court was satisfied that the payment would cause the offender undue hardship. I would ask if the member agrees. If people are poor and have no means to get along, and an undue financial hardship is added to that, it forces them into crime, into petty theft, to feed their children or pay the rent. Does that really make any sense? Does that help the justice system? Does he agree with that provision that no one has talked about yet in tonight's debate?
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brings up a very good point, because ultimately, what we want to do is have true justice. If we truly want to have justice, we have to take into account many things. The example that was brought up does not take into account the victim's age or circumstance. When we take into account different things that in our country affect those who are marginalized, we are doing a better job of serving the public good and administering justice.