They don't believe in statistics.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
This bill is from the 42nd Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2019.
This bill is from 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 has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-75s:
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
An hon. member
They don't believe in statistics.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
We have heard in question period, as my hon. friend mentioned, that belief in statistics may not necessarily be the Conservatives' thing, but I will put that forward.
This bill, Bill C-75, gives the Crown discretion on how to proceed. The Crown knows, when it is going forward with a case, the sentence it would ask for if a conviction happened. The Crown then has to make arguments within the range of sentences.
In my riding, the Crown has been doing this for five, 10, 15, 20 years. The Conservatives say that we do not trust them. We do not trust them to make that call even though—
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
We trust judges. We do not trust prosecutors. I said that we trust judges.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, “we do not trust judges”. We just heard that from the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton who is yelling, for some reason.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
Order. I just want to remind the hon. members that while someone is talking, shouting across the floor is not regular parliamentary procedure.
I will let the hon. member for St. Catharines continue.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, I may have misheard the hon. member screaming and shouting. He may have said that he trusts judges. However, opposing this bill shows that they do not trust judges.
At the end of the day, it is the Crown and the defence who make the arguments. The Crown will say this requires a sentence for a certain period of time and the defence will say, “No, we believe it is less”. The judge will make that decision.
It is the Crown prosecutor's job in this business is to put dangerous people behind bars. They have gone into the business for that reason. If they believe that the sentence should be less than 24 months, why not make a proceeding to get these people behind bars quicker? This bill achieves a tougher on crime approach. It gets those charged with offences before a judge faster.
Members from the other side scoff, but they cannot dispute that fact. They cannot dispute the fact that they do not trust Crown prosecutors, which is shameful. How does one surround oneself with a law and order agenda while not trusting one of the most significant aspects of the system, which is the Crown prosecutors? They do not trust the police to lay the appropriate charge. They do not trust the Crown and they may or may not trust the judges either. That is just disappointing.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
That is just pure rhetoric. Get to the substance.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, we still hear the heckling. I think I have touched a nerve in terms of the truth of this. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton continues to heckle. I have not seen the recent reports. I believe he has been the most called out in terms of his heckling. He continues to do so, which is truly unfortunate. I am sure he has had plenty of opportunity to speak but wishes to shout me down. Again, speaking the truth, sometimes that stings and we are seeing that in this particular situation.
It is clear that keeping section 467.11 of the Criminal Code, which I had mentioned, a straight indictable offence, will not in any way prevent the Crown in appropriate cases from seeking a non-custodial sentence or a sentence of imprisonment that is in the summary conviction range or seeking a sentence that is even higher. It all comes down to the Crown attorneys who are on the ground and know the facts of the case. Who are we as members of Parliament to say that they are not the best people in the position to make that decision? They live in the communities where they are trying these cases. They do not want to see bad people out on the streets.
If I look to the opposition members, is that what they believe? That is what they are suggesting. What they are suggesting is going on in this bill is a complete lack of trust from some of our chief law officials who are living in their communities who want to see bad people go to jail and have dedicated their careers to that goal.
It is utterly shameful that the opposition would try to spin the narrative that this is soft on crime legislation. This is getting people to a judge faster. It is getting people to jail faster and it is meeting the charter requirements as set out by the Supreme Court.
As we heard from the leader of the opposition in his plan, which was rated full of baloney, they have no plan to make Canada safer. We have a plan. This plan will get people to justice faster. It will allow Crown attorneys to have discretion and it will make the justice system more efficient. Justice delayed is justice denied and this is going to help our Canadian justice system.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was certainly long on rhetoric but short on substance.
The hon. member talked about giving prosecutors discretion and that is all this is about. If that were the case, then why would we have solely indictable offences at all? Why would every offence not be a hybrid offence? Why would murder not be a hybrid offence, if it is all just about giving prosecutors the appropriate discretion? We do not because there are certain offences that are serious, that need to be treated seriously in all cases and, therefore, are indictable.
The member spoke about the range of conduct captured, such that it would be appropriate to prosecute by way of summary conviction. Just what range of conduct captured does he envision in the case of infanticide or concealing the body of a child, or perhaps administering a date-rape drug? In just what circumstances does he see those offences being on the level of a ticketable offence or a minor property crime?
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, I again go back to this law and order government. I will give the hon. member an example that he can chew on a bit himself in terms of the offence of sexual assault. Sexual assault is a hybrid offence. It remained a hybrid offence under the Harper government. Why did the Conservatives not change it? Maybe it is because it is best to give Crown attorneys discretion, maybe it is because it is best to give judges discretion, or were they soft on crime? I do not know at the end of the day.
We gave the hon. member statistics as to the particular offence that was provided that at the end of the day, again under the law and order Harper government, the individuals charged and convicted under that particular offence were not getting sentences of more than 24 months. Fewer than 10% were. Therefore, why not come up with a plan to get those cases that are going to be less than 24 months to a judge quicker and get those people behind bars quicker? The Conservatives have no plan, and that is truly unfortunate.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I hear the government talk about being a law and order government when it is clearly a common spin government.
I am not an expert on these matters, but all I can say about this bill is that everyone including the member for Papineau can see that the justice system is clogged up because of these very mandatory minimums.
Why not deal with the bigger problem, which is mandatory minimums? It is as though they called a plumber to fix a leak in the water heater and he is wasting his time fiddling with the taps.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will have to respectfully disagree. We are fixing the problem. There are two different methods in two different courts, one at the superior court and one at the provincial court. Provincial court matters move quicker and if Crown attorneys know at the end of the day that they are going to seek sentences of less than 24 months, they can move far more expeditiously through the provincial court system. That is what we are doing in this case. If Crown prosecutors know that they are going to seek only 20 months, why send the accused through superior court? Why incur all that extra delay? Why not get offenders before judges as quickly as possible and get them behind bars?
Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion about trusting judges. A key aspect of this bill that has not been touched on much is the power of judges to stand aside jurors. Normally, they can only do this in the context of personal hardship, but this bill would amend the Criminal Code so that judges can stand aside jurors to ensure a more representative jury.
What does that mean to the member's constituents in St. Catharines and around this county so that they can ensure there are more diverse juries hearing cases and rendering verdicts in criminal matters?
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary and the committee for their incredible work on this.
This bill speaks to a whole host of issues throughout the justice system, be it bail, juries and the like. I am very pleased to support this bill and at the end of the day, I hope opposition members come to their senses and support this bill, because it would get offenders to judges quicker than the previous government ever could.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. I will point out to the hon. member that she will have nine minutes and then I will have to cut her off.