Bill C-75 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

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.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm happy to respond to that question.

As the member noted, the best interests of the child is the basic premise of Bill C-78. I'm really pleased to hear, right around this table, that everyone embraces the best interests of the child. I hope that the study from this honourable committee will proceed expeditiously to ensure that we update our divorce laws.

In terms of the member's comments around Bill C-75 and the hybridization of offences, I will go back to my previous answer to our honourable colleague. The answer is the same. Bill C-75 is a very bold piece of significant legislation that seeks to address delays in the criminal justice system. This is a piece of legislation developed very closely with my counterparts in the provinces and territories. The comprehensive nature of the legislation will reduce the delays in the criminal justice system.

One of the pillars of the reform in that bill is around the hybridization of offences. I'll say again that hybridizing offences in no way changes the fundamental principles of sentencing. Serious crimes will continue to be prosecuted in a serious manner. Through the hybridization of offences, prosecutors will be given the tools, or the ability to use their discretion, to proceed in the manner that they deem appropriate given the circumstances of a particular case. In no way are we reducing or diminishing the serious nature of offences. Once a conviction is put in place, a court will determine the sentences based on the proportion of the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. It does not change the sentencing principles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I'm going to note that question for the record. I'm not taking from your time. I'm stopping the clock for a second. I waited to the end to see if it related to Bill C-78. It seems to relate to how a principle in Bill C-78 squares with Bill C-75, which is not what the minister is here to testify about today.

I'm going to ask the minister if she wishes to respond to that question or if she prefers not to. It's up to her.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for being here.

First, it's encouraging that the best interests of the child is a centrepiece of Bill C-78. The best interests of the child is well established in Canadian family law. Under Bill C-78 proposed section 16 provides that only the best interests of the child shall be considered in respect of orders applicable to children in family situations.

While that's encouraging, I want to follow up with the line of questioning from Mr. Clement. It relates to how we square Bill C-78 on the one hand, which puts the interests of the child first, with Bill C-75 that hybridizes a number of serious indictable offences, including offences that relate to crimes against children.

Mr. Clement referenced kidnapping a minor under the age of 16 as well as the offence of kidnapping a minor under the age of 14. I want to raise the issue of the hybridization of individuals who breach long-term supervision orders. These are individuals who have received sentences of more than two years. They're deemed to have a substantial risk of reoffending. The offences for which they were convicted involved a range of sexual offences, often against children. They're considered to be a serious risk of reoffending, so serious that they can be subject to up to 10 years, subject to an order that imposes a whole series of very strict conditions. We're really talking, Minister, about the worst of the worst when it comes to offenders who are at risk of offending again, often against children.

How does that square with putting the interests of the children first by hybridizing the offences related to those breaches, which are often the first sign that these bad actors are going back into their history of violence and escalation toward that? It's a serious public safety concern.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I appreciate the question. I completely disagree with the characterization of rhetoric.

Bill C-78 is a very substantial, significant piece of legislation. It seeks to update the Divorce Act, which hasn't been updated in two decades, as well as to ensure that we are putting in place factors that will enable and assist a judge to determine the best interests of the child, and factors around domestic violence and relocation, all of which are to protect and put a child first.

In terms of Bill C-75, which is our criminal justice reform bill, I am very familiar with the 136 offences that we're seeking to hybridize in that piece of legislation. I will say, as I've said many times before this committee, but particularly in the House, nothing in terms of the hybridization of offences changes the fundamental principles of sentencing. Serious offences will still be prosecuted in a serious manner, due to and having regard to the proportion of the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

We are not reducing sentences. We're providing prosecutors with the necessary tools and discretion that they need to proceed in the manner that is most appropriate in the individual circumstances of a particular case.

[Tony Clement]

The issue is not the applications, it's the actual process by which you decide and determine....

However, let's leave that and go on to the children, Minister, because you did highlight the importance of protecting children and their well-being and how that is obviously of primary importance.

I do want to comment, though, that this committee has just been through Bill C-75. Of course, that bill proposes summary conviction options for very serious crimes, including the abduction of a child under the age of 14, participating in activities of a criminal organization, forced marriage, and marriage under the age of 16. These are all hybridized offences now.

How do you square what we saw in Bill C-75 with your rhetoric today about children's protection?

Justice and Human Rights

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.

Justice

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are many things the Liberal government has failed on: balancing the budget, cutting taxes for the middle class, and maintaining Canada's strong presence on the world stage. What it has not failed on is standing up for the rights of criminals over the rights of victims.

Bill C-75, the Liberal's 300-page omnibus justice reform bill, would water down penalties for very serious crimes. If passed, criminals could be sentenced with as little as a fine for serious offences such as human trafficking, using drugs in the act of sexual assault, and impaired driving causing bodily harm.

Canadians can always count on the Conservative Party to put the rights of victims before the rights of criminals. That is why we introduced the victim's bill of rights, introduced mandatory minimums and campaigned on life means life legislation.

Today, as the father of Tori Stafford and hundreds of others are outside these walls protesting the Liberal government, I call on the government to put its ideology aside, do the decent thing and stand up for victims of crime.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I completely reject the characterization by members opposite on Bill C-75, which is a comprehensive bill that seeks to address delays in the criminal justice system.

There is nothing in this legislation that would reduce sentences. There is nothing that would change the principles around sentencing, which take into account the gravity of the offence and the proportion responsibility of an offender.

We are not lowering sentences. We are providing prosecutors with the necessary discretion they need to move forward in the appropriate way given the circumstances of the particular case.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing again. They are watering down sentences for crimes such as administering date rape drugs, abducting children, impaired driving causing bodily harm and selling young women and men into sexual slavery.

The Conservatives called for over 100 amendments to clean up the government's deeply flawed omnibus Bill C-75, but the Liberals were not listening.

Does the minister really believe Canadians want sex traffickers and kidnappers to have lesser sentences?

[Randy Boissonnault]

Madam Chair, as for the NDP proposal, I know that Mr. Saganash is quite familiar with how acts and bills are written, given his experience as a lawyer. For my part, I have been involved in the study of Bill C-75 for some months now, and I know that amendments can change the text considerably. We find it redundant to add again here the reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Since it is indicated at the beginning, it has an impact on the whole process. The reference to this statement and to the particular section you mentioned therefore applies to all the provisions of this bill without exception. We therefore consider this to be redundant. That is why we cannot support this proposal.

Criminal Code

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to require that a pre-sentence report contain information on any mental disorder that an offender may have.

I understand and am sympathetic to those who suffer from mental health disorders. I proudly supported the private member's bill of my colleague from Niagara Falls, Bill C-233, which sought to address the challenges of Alzheimer's and other dementias on a national level. However, I am deeply concerned about this bill. This bill, when taken together with other legislation introduced and passed by the current Liberal government, continues a long and disturbing pattern of favouring the protection of criminals over the protection of the victims of crime.

Just last week, I stood in this place and compared the record of the last Conservative government on crime with the record of the current Liberal government. They stand in stark contrast. From day one of their mandate, the Liberals have demonstrated both an appalling indifference to victims and a disquieting compassion for criminals. We have seen this time and again. This is the government that willingly gave a $10.5 million payout to unrepentant convicted terrorist Omar Khadr, who killed American medic Sergeant Christopher Speer in a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. Further, Tabitha Speer, Sergeant Speer's widow, was awarded a judgment of $134 million by a court in Utah against Omar Khadr. The Liberals could have, and I would suggest should have, waited to allow the courts to rule on an injunction for Mrs. Speer. Instead, they rushed payment to Khadr, making enforcement of the judgment unlikely.

What of our Canadian veterans who need help? To them, the Prime Minister had one thing to say, that they were asking for more than he was willing to give. However, for ISIS fighters, it seems the cash never stops flowing. The Prime Minister pledged to use taxpayers' hard-earned money to de-radicalize terrorists through such tried and tested means as reading Canadian poetry.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, for her part, refuses to use the term “ISIS terrorists”, instead choosing to use the vapid term “foreign fighters”. When pressed on her plan for these so-called foreign fighters, she offered this gem of an insight:

With respect to the foreign fighters, I think we need to remember why they are where they are right now.

We all remember why they are where they are. We remember that they left Canada to engage in horrific war crimes against innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world, crimes like beheading innocents, throwing gay people off buildings, and stoning women to death for the crime of being raped. According to the Prime Minister, these hardened terrorists can be “an extraordinarily powerful voice” in Canada. One wonders what those voices are saying.

The Conservatives have fought this disturbing hippyesque Kumbaya session with criminals and terrorists every step of the way. When Bill C-75 was introduced, it weakened the penalties for many crimes, including terrorism-related charges, to possibly as little as a fine. The Liberals spent months defending this decision before finally backing down and supporting Conservative amendments that ensured that terrorists would face the consequences of their actions. It took months of pressure and hard work to make this one obvious change. However, even now the bill remains deeply flawed.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Immigration Levels Plan

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, in relation to the question of privilege I raised earlier today. I have some important additional information that I would like to put on the record.

I want to put on the record an email exchange I had with a reporter today. This exchange began at approximately 3:20 p.m. It is in regard to the immigration levels plan that was tabled by the minister at approximately 4 p.m. today.

The exchange began with, “Hi there, I'm hoping to connect with [the member for Calgary Nose Hill] this afternoon to get her reaction to the government's new levels plan numbers and also to the fact the CBSA has been asked to step up its removals. Could she give me a call.” I responded with “Were the levels tabled today? I must have missed it.”

The exchange said, “Sorry no, but they will be. It would have happened by now but for this point of order. Just looking to set up a quick interview for after they are tabled.” I responded with, “Do you have a copy? I am happy to comment, but it would help to see them first.”

In addition to this email exchange, there was a follow-up phone conversation between my staff and the reporter, which occurred at 3:45 p.m., and again the minister tabled the levels plan at 4:00 p.m. This is a first draft transcription.

The reporter said, “I did just did get a little bit of a heads-up on what they were so that I could have something ready to move on the wire when it is tabled just in case.” My assistant said, “Oh okay I see.” “So that's where I was expecting that it would have been tabled by now but there's a point of order that obviously is taking up more time than usual.” My assistant said, “Okay I guess I will have to flip on the House in a second here but I'm so—okay, do you have some of the information and we're just kind of waiting now to see when they'll table it I guess.” Then the reporter said, “It's just kind of a continuation of what they did last year, like a three-year plan and it will go up to 350,000 in 2021.” I will note that a story was published that included details on the levels plan at 4:30 p.m. today.

I am also happy to provide the Speaker with copies of this information, if he so requests.

As you know, Madam Speaker, there is no provision for information to be given to journalists ahead of a member of Parliament and there are numerous precedents, particularly in regard to legislation. I will give one example. On April 19, 2016, the Speaker found a prima facie case of privilege after the leader of the opposition pointed out that specific and detailed information contained in Bill C-14 was given to the media ahead of the House and members of Parliament.

During that discussion, Speaker Milliken's ruling was referenced of March 19, 2001, when he said, “To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.” In that 2001 case, my former colleague, Vic Toews, was called by a reporter for comment on a bill not yet tabled. He was embarrassed by the exchange. The facts in that scenario are identical to this situation. Again I would point out that this was business that was put in front of the House this afternoon with regard to the levels plan.

My colleague, the member for Milton, was also recently questioned by a reporter over information the journalist was given, but she was denied. The Speaker is still deliberating on that matter. Today, I have been put in that same position.

We have had two other rulings by the Speaker recently that I believe are relevant. On March 20, following a complaint from the hon. member for Abbotsford that the media and stakeholders received a briefing five hours before members on Bill C-69, an omnibus bill of 377 pages, this was the Speaker's comment on the matter, “there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.”

Only one month later, on April 17, the hon. member for Niagara Falls brought to the Speaker's attention evidence that the CBC received information on Bill C-75 ahead of members, allowing it to post an article online only eight minutes after the bill was introduced. What the government did to the member for Niagara Falls with Bill C-75 I believe I have evidence that it has done the same thing to me, but concrete evidence that this was done ahead of it being tabled in the House of Commons with respect to the information contained in the levels plan tabled by the minister today. In the Speaker's ruling on this matter on May 7, 2018, the Speaker indicated how troubled he was that some of the members had an experience of feeling disadvantaged in their ability to fulfill their duties and that members should never have to even so much as wonder if they were not the first to receive the information from the government.

I have one final point. Given this pattern of the government on this matter and given that leaking information to the media has become part of its routine communication strategy, there comes a time, particularly when a government persists in behaviour that has caught the attention of the Speaker much too often, as I have just laid out, that another warning will not be good enough. Sometimes members deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt when they feel that their privileges have been breached. In this situation, I am again happy to provide concrete proof of the information that I have put on the record today.

There are precedents for this that I would like to offer the Speaker. In Maingot, second edition, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 227, he states:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply:

Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.

In a ruling of October 24, 1966, at page 9005 of Debates, the Speaker said:

In considering this matter I ask myself, what is the duty of the Speaker in cases of doubt? If we take into consideration that at the moment the Speaker is not asked to render a decision as to whether or not the article complained of constitutes a breach of privilege...considering also the Speaker is the guardian of the rules, right and privileges of the house and of its members and that he cannot deprive them of such privileges when there is uncertainty in his mind...I think at this preliminary stage of the proceedings the doubt which I have in my mind should be interpreted to the benefit of the member.

I am not being critical of the journalists in this regard, because I believe they were just doing their job. The problem I have is the minister tabled this afternoon a 43-page document. I am the shadow minister for citizenship and immigration. Immigration is a topic of great concern and consternation in the public at this point of time. The minister tabled a 43-page document. The media was given an advance copy of the information contained in the document and then I was asked for comment.

I understand that some members of the media might feel like this is routine proceedings, that somehow they should be given information so they can put a story out and be newsy. I would argue that it is the opposite. It is the job of the media to respond to deliberations of Parliament and that my right as a parliamentarian with respect to being able to digest and critically evaluate information that is put in front of the House supersedes the government wanting to have a positive communications strategy or any journalist wanting to sell a paper.

This is also something journalists should be asking themselves in terms of standards. Is it right to be publishing stories on a 43-page document and asking for comments when clearly they have had the information and a member of Parliament whose task is critically evaluating it and providing comment on it does not? I would argue no.

However, going back to my point of privilege. There is no manner by which any of our rules give journalists the right to have information prior to a member of Parliament. Therefore, I ask you, Madam Speaker, to find a prima facie case of privilege. I would ask, in your ruling, to understand how one can provide comment on a 43-page document on detailed immigration policy that affects the number of people that Canada will allow into this country and under what assumption when the journalists already have this. Why should they be given the right to review that information when I am not? That is wrong.

Therefore, I ask you to find a prima facie case of privilege, Madam Speaker. I believe it is there. Should you find such, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Exactly to that point, clause 410 specifies which clauses would come into force 180 days after the bill receives royal assent. This list would amend to reflect changes made to Bill C-75. I can go through the list, should any members require.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Clause 409 specifies which clauses would come into force 90 days after the day on which the bill receives royal assent. The list of clauses should be amended to reflect the changes made to Bill C-75 by the motions to amend. This motion updates the list accordingly.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment modifies the coordinating amendment in subclause 407(5) to reflect the changes made by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to section 83.221 in Bill C-59, the national security act, 2017. This amendment ensures that the amendments made to section 83.221 during committee study of Bill C-59 are reflected in Bill C-75.