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 would say that in terms of our collaboration, my colleagues and I in the federal government will continue that collaborative approach with the provinces and territories. We have regular meetings among all of us to assess and reassess what we can do better and what we can do to address issues that are a challenge for, as you say, all actors in the criminal justice system, from prosecutors to defence counsel to judges.

Again, the menu of bold reforms we've put in place with Bill C-75 have come at the request of many of those provinces and territories. Last September we got to a place where we could issue a joint press release on the need to ensure that these bold reforms move, and that we continue to work together. We'll definitely continue to do that.

In terms of resources, we always have conversations about the necessary resources. Provinces and territories have expressed to me and, I certainly suspect, to my officials that a lot of these changes and reforms proposed in Bill C-75 will assist with the efficiencies and resources necessary in the criminal justice system. That's an ongoing conversation that we will have.

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

I have more time now: I like that.

I really appreciate the question. I know that this is the objective that all of us are seeking to address, to answer the call by the Supreme Court of Canada that there be a culture shift in addressing delays and to ensure that we do everything we can to provide an accused person with the ability to come to trial in a reasonable time so that cases aren't stayed. The latter is not the objective of anybody. Our review of the criminal justice system sought to ensure public safety, to show compassion for victims, and to hold offenders to account.

In that capacity, and based on the instructions I received from the Prime Minister, working with my colleagues in the provinces and territories and doing extensive consultations across the country, we came to the reforms that are being put forward in Bill C-75 to address bail reforms; streamline the process with respect to bail; to look at the administration of justice offences, which are a significant cause of delay in the justice system; to look at the reclassification of offences to enable prosecutors to make determinations on how to proceed; to look at preliminary inquiries, which, like the other issues, was strongly advocated by provinces and territories for reform; and to look at judicial case management and other efficiencies that have been articulated in Bill C-75.

It's a very detailed bill, as has been said. There are a lot of aspects and technical provisions contained within it, but cumulatively, this piece of legislation will—in my mind, and I'm confident about this—address delays in the criminal justice system, along with other initiatives that our government has put forward and continues to do.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you very much for joining us as we begin this journey on C-75. I hope we're going to have ample time to thoroughly review it and discuss its merits and shortcomings in detail in the fall.

I have two specific questions I wanted to ask you, hoping that the government would be amenable to amendment. The first involves the routine police evidence question, and the second involves some of the implications of raising the minimum penalty for summary convictions. Perhaps I can start with routine police evidence.

It's pretty rare when you consult people from across the spectrum—academics and practising lawyers in different parts of the country—to get, essentially, unanimity, which is the case in our situation. When I asked these people about the problematic components of this legislation, one that everyone agreed about was that the proposed section involving police evidence being adduced by affidavit, proposed section 657.01, is in desperate need of amendment.

The routine police evidence language in the bill has been called too vague, creating an opportunity for abuse. For example, University of Alberta law professor Peter Sankoff went so far as to write that it is “extremely dangerous”. I think that it makes a lot of sense for lab results and other routine evidence to be at issue and submitted without requiring a police officer to come to court and testify. I'm totally in agreement with that. Indeed, I think that's probably what was intended, but the drafting of this section could allow even eye witness testimony to be submitted in this way.

I understand that defence counsel could come forward and ask for the right to cross-examine, and the courts are going to say yes. However, that's only going to cause more delay, and you've told us that dealing with delay is your agenda for this bill. In addition, many self-represented individuals—poor, marginalized, folks who can't afford legal aid—are not going to know what to do, causing delays and sometimes even injustices.

Can you commit to accepting amendments to this provision so that it's narrowed and clearly defines what routine police evidence consists of?

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

It is a vast question in terms of the many different actions necessary to address the challenge and the sad reality of the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system, as well as of individuals who are suffering from, as you quite rightly point out, mental illness and addiction issues.

This is something that I and our government has been working very diligently to address. This reality isn't just a function of the numbers in the criminal justice system and the impact on my department, but rather reflects the reality of homelessness, poverty, the colonial legacy of dealing with indigenous peoples, the lack of services, and the need to invest more in those services. Our government is working very diligently on those things and has committed and provided resources to that end.

Because we recognize that we do not, as you say, want to continue to have a revolving door in the criminal justice system, a lot of the measures to address this reality are being taken and need to continue to be taken outside of Bill C-75.

Specifically, in terms of what we're proposing, you referenced the bail reform that we are putting forward in this proposed piece of legislation. This bill would help address the issue and the reality of indigenous peoples and other marginalized Canadians who, as you say, are overrepresented, at the bail stage by enacting the principle of restraint in the bail regime to ensure that where there are no concerns with the accused being a challenge to public safety, judicial release of that individual be considered. We're also requiring that conditions imposed by police be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances, and that law enforcement officers and others take into consideration the reality and particular circumstances indigenous peoples, as well as other marginalized Canadians, face in the justice system.

We think these measures will lead to and assist in reducing the number of individuals who are currently in remand for administration of justice offences.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Minister, for being here today and for championing these reforms contained in Bill C-75.

I want to start by following up on a point Mr. Nicholson made. He seemed to suggest that with hybridized offences, the accused might have an option of choosing summary conviction versus an indictable offence.

My understanding was that such an option, as it exists, could be exercised only by the crown based on the circumstances of the case.

Could you clarify that for me, please?

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

Certainly with respect to the clogging up of the provincial courts, I would again reiterate the need to consider Bill C-75 in its entirety when considering the impact it would have on delays.

In terms of 136 offences that we're seeking to reclassify in the Criminal Code, we have done extensive work around that. With respect to the reclassification, as I said in my remarks, this is not about changing sentencing. This is about providing additional tools to prosecutors to exercise their discretion given the facts and the circumstances of a particular individual who comes before them. This is not about changing the fundamental principles of sentencing in terms of consideration around the proportionality and the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the accused person. That will be determined based on the offence and the circumstances.

I will say with respect to terrorism offences that there is a difference between how offences are committed, the gravity of the offence, the proportionality, and the responsibility of the accused person in whatever the situation is. As my honourable colleague likely will know, the Supreme Court of Canada has weighed in on terrorism offences and on not having different principles of sentencing around those offences.

There are a number of examples of offences—from terrorism offences to impaired driving causing bodily harm, to other offences—that can be committed in different ways. We have to ensure that we're providing tools to the prosecutors. Then, on sentencing, the judge will ultimately make the decision on the necessary tools to determine which way to proceed, because a number of the sentences, whether they be for whatever offence, could and have been shown to be less than what we're proposing, namely, two years less a day for a summary conviction offence. If a prosecutor proceeds by way of summary conviction, it will help to alleviate some of the burdens of the highly procedural aspects when proceeding by way of indictment.

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

I hear the question by my colleague. In terms of procedure, I would say with respect to Bill C-75 that we now have the opportunity to continue to engage in discussions around these important issues that seek to address delays in the criminal justice system, a topic that we have been having discussions about for two and a half years.

Certainly, I have benefited and we have benefited from what we've heard from reports and feedback from the round tables we've held across the country. We've benefited from Senate committee reports. But I very much look forward to what has always been the thoughtful consideration and recommendations from this committee, and certainly recognize the opportunity you have had to meet with numerous witnesses with respect to all of the different aspects of the bill.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and, as usual, thank you to the members of the committee. I think I was here very recently, but it's good to be back.

As you say, today I'm here to speak about 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.

Bill C-75 seeks to modernize the criminal justice system, reduce delays, and improve the safety of our communities. It also proposes significant new measures to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people and marginalized Canadians in the criminal justice system.

Delays in the criminal justice system are a long-standing issue. The Supreme Court of Canada has pronounced on this important issue several times: in 1990 in Askov; in 1992 in Morin; and more recently in 2016-17 in its decisions in Jordan and Cody. Their direction to us was clear.

We must change the culture of complacency that exists in the criminal justice system or risk having charges stayed for violating an accused's right to be tried without delay. This is exactly what Bill C-75 seeks to do.

It proposes criminal law reform in seven key areas.

First, the bill will modernize and streamline the bail system. Second, it will enhance our approach to addressing administration of justice offences, including for youth. Third, it will bolster our response to intimate partner violence. Fourth, the bill will restrict the availability of preliminary inquiries to offences with penalties of life imprisonment. Fifth, it will reclassify offences to allow crowns to elect the most efficient procedure appropriate in the circumstances. Sixth, it will improve the jury selection process. Seventh, it will strengthen the case management powers of judges.

As a former prosecutor, an indigenous person, and now Minister of Justice, I am convinced that these proposed reforms will have a positive impact on criminal courts across the country on a daily basis. I invite the committee to study all areas of reform and to think about their cumulative impact in combatting delays.

Let me begin by stating that I take very seriously the mandate I have been given to address the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system, particularly in remand centres, where there are more people awaiting trial than there are individuals who have actually been convicted of an offence. I recognize that other marginalized groups—people struggling with homelessness, black Canadians, those with mental health and addictions issues—face these challenges as well.

The proposed bail amendments will enact a “principle of restraint” for the police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention, and provide more guidance to police on how to impose appropriate conditions without impacting public safety. The proposals will also include a requirement that the circumstances of accused persons who are indigenous or come from vulnerable populations are considered at all stages in the bail process in order to address the disproportionate impacts that the bail system has on them.

The second area of reform will enhance the approach to administration of justice offences, such as breaching a curfew condition or a sobriety condition of bail. Processing these administrative offences is consuming court time and resources at an alarming rate and preventing courts from efficiently dealing with more serious matters. This bill will result in fewer charges for these offences by creating a new process called a “judicial referral hearing”. The hearing will be an alternative to laying charges for breaches of bail and failure to attend court in cases where there has been no physical, emotional, or financial harm to a victim.

The third area of Bill C-75 that I will discuss is our strengthened response to intimate partner violence. The bill will toughen our laws in cases of domestic assault. It establishes higher maximum sentences for repeat offenders, provides a reverse onus at bail hearings for repeat offenders, and recognizes strangulation as an elevated form of assault. As well, the bill modernizes our laws by broadening the parameters of intimate partner violence, which will now include a current or former spouse, a common-law partner, and a dating partner. These changes will make victims safer and will respond to the seriousness of intimate partner violence.

The fourth key area of Bill C-75 that I would like to note is the proposal to restrict the availability of preliminary inquiries for adults accused of offences liable to life imprisonment. As I've said before, this proposal will significantly reduce delays and inefficiencies in the criminal justice system. That is why, in its 2017 final report on delays, the Senate committee recommended that preliminary inquiries be restricted or eliminated, and why many of my provincial and territorial counterparts called for this reform.

I acknowledge that, overall, preliminary inquiries are held in only a small percentage of cases, but they are consuming a disproportionate amount of time in a number of provinces. These reforms are expected to have a significant impact in those provinces where preliminary inquiries are more common and will have a cumulative impact overall.

I will now discuss Bill C-75's proposal to hybridize a number of offences in the Criminal Code, which, unfortunately, has been mis-characterized. This reform will mean that prosecutors will have the discretion to prosecute alleged crimes either by way of indictment or by way of summary conviction. Hybridization of straight indictable offences punishable by a maximum of two, five, and 10 years will have the following effect.

Cases involving serious facts and circumstances will still be prosecuted on indictment and will still face the current maximum penalty. However, for cases involving less serious circumstances, the crown will have a choice: proceed on indictment, or, if similar cases have resulted in much shorter sentences, consider proceeding summarily, where the same sentence will result but likely more quickly.

Let me be extremely clear: reclassification reforms are not about lowering sentences. Serious conduct will continue to be treated seriously by the courts. This is one of the bold reforms that we expect will have a fundamental, cumulative impact on delays in the criminal justice system. I would also underscore that this reform is strongly supported by the provinces and territories.

I am proud of the many other reforms being proposed in Bill C-75, including with respect to improving the jury selection process. Abolishing peremptory challenges will follow long-standing reform recommendations in this country and the experience of other countries, and will finally put an end to potential jurors being excluded from serving as a result of baseless speculation, stigma, or discrimination.

Finally, I would like to draw the committee's attention to the legislative backgrounder on Bill C-75 that I tabled on May 31, as well as the accompanying charter statement. I hope these documents will help guide your study by explaining in more detail the intent of the proposed changes.

Mr. Chair, those are my comments, and I very much look forward to the questions of the honourable members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I am very thankful that we're joined by our Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, who will be talking to us about Bill C-75. This is the beginning of our hearings on Bill C-75.

I know that we only have the minister until five o'clock, so I want to give her all the time we can.

I am going to turn it over to you, Madam Minister. Thank you for joining us.

Bill C-71—Time Allocation Motion

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is quite clear this is the backdoor gun registry coming back. Under Bill C-71, if a firearms owner sells a firearm to another individual, he or she would have to call a registrar and that purchase would now be registered. Even though both individuals have a valid possession and acquisition licence and show that they are valid, they would still have to call the registrar to have that purchase registered.

It is quite clear from the research done on the old Liberal firearms registry that law-abiding citizens complied with it. I certainly did. However, at the same time, there was zero evidence it reduced crime. On the other hand, we have Bill C-75, where the Liberals would be making punishment for violent crimes and criminals more lenient, while at the same time, under Bill C-71, they would be punishing law-abiding citizens. In the Liberal world, it is far easier to punish law-abiding citizens because they obey the law and the criminals do not. Why this dichotomy? Why are criminals treated better than law-abiding citizens under the Liberal government?

Firearms Act

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions I want to ask tonight to kind of wrap this up.

One of the main questions, as I sat here and listened tonight, is that I fail to understand why the Liberals do not even seem to know the basics of what this proposed law is about. I heard a number of things this evening that are concerning. They do not seem to know what the past requirements were for background checks. I heard a number of people talking about that. They do not seem to understand that they have been adequate in the past. There has been a good system in place for doing background checks, and it has worked well for Canadians. They do not seem to know that firearms owners have to be registered and be licensed themselves in order to own a firearm. Earlier we heard someone ask why we treat guns differently than some other things. Well, the reality with firearms is that one actually needs to be registered. One has to take the course and get the certification.

I was really concerned a little earlier about why the Liberals approach firearms owners in the way that they do. When the member for Oakville North—Burlington said that all gun owners are law-abiding until they are not, I wondered what she meant by that. There is some sort of attitude of superiority that the Liberals come with in regard to firearms owners, and we have seen this for 25 years. We saw it with Bill C-68 and the fact that they would never back down on that legislation. It cost them dozens of ridings across this country. Several elections later, they have come back with another piece of legislation. I think we are beginning to see both in Ontario, and with the results in Quebec tonight, that the attitude the Liberals have is starting to irritate Canadians. I think we are going to see a response to that, and an even better response from our perspective, in the next federal election.

Also, I do not think the Liberals understand that there is no right to firearms ownership in this country. I think everyone needs to be reminded of that. The only reason that we can own firearms is because the government gives us permission. When I talk to my friends with the Canadian Wildlife Federation on those kinds of things, they say that we need to help Canadians understand that. We do not have a right to own firearms. If we do not get licensed, we are criminals. They resent that, but they will accept the fact that we need to have a licensing regime in place.

Another concern is that I am wondering why those Liberals who have firearms owners in their ridings do not seem to be willing to listen to them. I want to point out that at the committee, the leader of the opposition in the Yukon legislature was not allowed to speak. I am told that there was not a single northern Canadian who was able to testify on how the bill would impact their way of life. I want to read a little from his briefing, which said, “unlike the provinces, Yukon only has one Member of Parliament. This leads to situations where the input of Northerners is often an afterthought and not taken into account. This is the case with this piece of firearms legislation..”.

I can tell members that there are others. I have another notice on this situation from members of the Yukon Fish and Game Association, who are very concerned that they cannot track down their MP and talk to him about this issue. This is a member who has been around on this issue before. He should be standing up for his constituents. Why is it that the Liberals in the rural ridings, the ones whose constituents depend on having access to firearms for much of their livelihood, are not speaking out?

As my colleague mentioned earlier, we heard about a few of the ridings where there was concern about this, but these Liberals need to speak out. We are getting to the end of the proposed legislation, and it is basically the re-establishment of a semi long-gun registry, where every transaction that takes place at a gun store is going to be recorded for 20 years. The firearm, serial number, the name of the person who bought it, along with their PAL number, will be recorded. That certainly has all the makings and all the components of a firearms registry, and we do not hear anything from the other side.

Another concern is why the Liberals always need to manipulate things on this file. I can go on about this for a long time. I found it very interesting that the public safety minister from Regina has appointed a number of people to the firearms advisory committee who are clearly against firearms in any way, shape, or form. It is interesting that one of them was appointed and ended up being in the vice-chair position. She was a lobbyist. She said she would step down from her lobbying activities. The agreement she signed said that she is not to “engage in lobbying activities or work as a registered lobbyist on behalf of an entity making submissions or representations to the Government of Canada on issues relating to the mandate of this committee”. However, 10 months after signing that, this person submitted a legislative demand to the Government of Canada under the letterhead of that organization, and with her signature on it.

I would go through it if I had more time, but many of the bill's provisions happen to be exactly as she has laid them out. Is she actually doing the government's bidding, or is the government doing the lobbyists' bidding, who have said they are not going to lobby the government and then turn around and do it?

I can give members another example in which the government has felt some sort of necessity to manipulate every piece of data it can on this issue. That is around the issue of statistics. As Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” With the Liberal government, that is certainly more true than almost anything else we can say about it.

It was mentioned earlier that 2013 had one of the lowest rates ever for firearms crimes. It is interesting that even CBC recognized that the Liberals are playing games with this situation. It writes, “2013 saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years, and the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada” and “every year since 1966 has been worse than 2013.” The Liberals use a year in which the stats are lower than they have ever been, and then use that to set their base, and compare it to today. Today is still below the 30-year average, but the Liberals' news releases completely mislead Canadians. When the government has to resort to that kind of manipulation and misinformation, we can see that it is not very comfortable with the legislation that it is bringing in.

The article goes on to say that the “homicide rate in 2018 will be similar to or lower than it was...in 2008...or in 1998”, and well below 1988 and 1978, and similar to what it was in 1968. We certainly did not get that from the Liberal press release we saw.

There are a number of other important issues we need to touch on. A member across the way was speaking tonight about the Assembly of First Nations. I wanted to ask him a question. The AFN has said that it was not consulted before Bill C-71 came forward. The AFN also said that the bill violates first nations treaty rights, and that it is going to launch a constitutional challenge. It is interesting to note that we have heard nothing about that, and there has been no response to it from the government. The Liberals claims to want to work with these communities, but when it comes to their legislation, they are very happy to set these communities aside, and ignore what they have to say about it and just go on.

We have heard comment tonight about Bill C-75 and Bill C-71 playing off each other. Bill C-75 has all kinds of penalties that are basically being written off for serious crimes. For things like terrorism, we are reducing the charges. Imagine there being a summary conviction for terrorism activity. The punishment for genocide is being reduced in Bill C-75. The penalties for organized criminal activity, municipal corruption, and so on are being reduced in Bill C-75, and Bill C-71 is making the lives of honest gun owners even more complicated and bureaucratic than ever. Why is the government doing that? Why are the Liberals ganging up on Canadian citizens, while they are happy to leave all of these other gangs to go through life the way they want?

There is another issue around mental health. We heard a member earlier tonight talk about how proud she was of her amendment. I am sure she had good intentions when she put it forward, but we are not just criminalizing activity anymore; we are criminalizing possible intent. She mentioned that CFOs will make the distinctions. How are the CFOs going to decide if someone is suicidal or not? What CFO wants to take on the responsibility for the entire province in trying to find every person with a mental health issue? It was pointed out earlier that there are police and veterans who have PTSD who want some help for their mental health issues. Are they going to come forward? Why would they do that with a bill like this when those kinds of things come into play in their lives and in their careers, and with a tool they use every day in their occupation?

We can be very proud of the record we have. We brought in a number of pieces of legislation, which have been criticized tonight. In terms of youth violence, we brought in the youth justice fund. The guns, gangs, and drugs component of the youth justice fund was launched to focus on the rehabilitation of youth. We created the youth gang prevention fund. We are very proud of that. We supported a national crime prevention strategy, and there is the northern and aboriginal crime prevention fund. We passed bills that dealt with organized crime and the protection of the justice system. We were always trying to protect the victims, while making sure criminals were the ones who paid the price for their crimes.

This bill is a long way from that. Why an entire bill that is supposed to deal with gun violence and gangs does not mention either of those things, and targets normal, law-abiding citizens, I will never understand.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting evening and an interesting debate, with a lot of information and emotion. I get to follow the last three, and they are tough to follow. Many of the things I might say will be related to things that have already been said, such as gang violence, illegal guns, illegal handguns, the penalties for those people who use those illegal weapons, and the consequences that follow.

I have heard from a lot of my constituents on this. There are a lot of unhappy constituents. I just heard a member across the aisle say that it is a registry, but I heard several members across the floor tonight saying it is not a registry. It was really nice to hear a member stand up and say it is a registry, but all the previous ones stood up and said it is not a registry. This bill targets law-abiding firearms owners in my riding. It does not actually prevent the crimes. They use firearms in legitimate and lawful ways. They use them to hunt, to work, and for sport shooting. Firearms are a big part of their rural life.

I remember a few years ago when I was the principal of a high school, there were issues about guns and gun violence with youth. I happened to be in a regional meeting of principals talking about guns and other issues, and I said there would be guns in vehicles in the parking lot of my school. There were other principals from urban areas who were astounded that I would admit there were guns in vehicles in my parking lot. I said, “You bet there are.” Those are farm trucks. Those are ranching vehicles. Those guns are tools. Those students know how to use those tools. They are trained how to use them, and they are there as a tool in their vehicle. They drive the vehicle to school and they drive it home. They may use that gun as a tool on the way to school or on the way home. It is part of rural life. They are responsible for those firearms. They do not like being targeted every time a Liberal government says that we need to have a registry or more gun control.

The opposition to this bill is not just in my riding. It is across Canada. E-petition 1608 which calls on the government to scrap this law had over 80,000 signatures the last time I checked. That is the second largest e-petition in history. I do not know why that number does not give the government pause. Regardless, I am happy to have the opportunity to convey some of my constituents' concerns about the bill.

The largest source of disappointment is it has nothing to do with gang violence, illegal handguns, and crime in rural areas. My constituents say they hear about the gang violence, the shootings in cities, and they experience rural crime, but where in the legislation does it do anything about that, other than make them do more red tape as legal gun owners?

There are a lot of obvious points about the bill, but criminals are generally not using legal firearms. What is driving gun violence is gangs and illegal handguns. The illegal use of handguns will not be impacted by this legislation. Only those who already follow the law will. Criminals do not register illegal weapons nor do those who have the number filed off those weapons.

Let me move to some obvious points suggesting this legislation is poorly designed. Given that we are at report stage of the legislation, it is worth looking at some of the testimony my colleagues heard in committee. They heard from Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence lawyer in Ottawa and expert in firearms. He had some interesting testimony. We all heard the Minister of Public Safety suggest the legislation is intended to combat increasing gun violence from 2013. Mr. Friedman noted, as some of my colleagues have already said, that the year 2013 as a starting point for the reported trend was not chosen at random. As we know, 2013 was a statistical aberration in terms of violent crime and homicide in Canada. The year 2013 saw the lowest rate of criminal homicide in Canada in 50 years. If we start at a point that was the lowest, the only place it probably will go is slightly up. It looks like the Liberal government has used statistics to justify targeting law-abiding firearm owners. This is a disappointing choice.

My colleagues at the public safety and national security committee also heard from Mr. Gary Mauser. He noted that 121 of the 141 firearms-related homicides that the minister cited were directly related to gangs in cities. Where in the legislation does it deal with gangs that are working with illegal handguns? It is not there.

We know what the real issues are out there. We agree that the safety of Canadians should be our priority. However, the government seems intent on distorting the evidence to suit its particular narrative. I think many of my colleagues have pointed out why it is doing this. The Liberals are pretending the legislation will do something to combat crime, but all it does is place more regulations on law-abiding firearms owners.

At the same time, the government has introduced Bill C-75, which makes all kinds of serious crimes punishable with a mere fine. That for rural crime is a real challenge. We have many people in western Canada, in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, where rural crime rates have increased in the last two or three years. People are using guns and violence, robbing properties, and are being slapped with fines. They will be right back on those properties. It should be the reverse. If people are using guns in crimes, there should be more severe penalties. This is not how we stop gun use in crimes by letting people off with fines.

The witness testimony I noted undermines a lot of rationale for this legislation. It supports what I have heard from so many law-abiding constituents, who use their firearms for sport, work, or hunting. They are not happy that the word '“gangs” never appears in this bill. “Illegal handguns” does not appear there. However, they are even more unhappy to see the word '“registrar” in the legislation. In fact, it looks like the words “registrar” or “reference number” are used 28 times. It is a registry. As the last member from across the aisle admitted, it is a registry.

It seems pretty clear that Bill C-71 would make it mandatory to register firearms and provide reference numbers. That information would be logged by a business and then passed onto the government. The government has been insistent that this is not a new gun registry.

Law-abiding gun owners will follow the law. They will do this because they are law-abiding gun owners. They will go through more red tape because they re law-abiding Canadian citizens. That is all it is doing is providing more red tape for those people.

I was happy at first to see that the Liberals supported one of our amendments, the one that stated “For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.” I expected they would back up their support for this amendment by actually taking action. I assumed they would then support changes that removed the elements of the legislation that essentially created a new registry. However, they did no such thing.

It makes sense that the government does not want to remind Canadians of the wasteful $2 billion gun registry we dealt with before, but we do not know the cost of what they will do with this one. There will be a lot of bureaucracy, but there is no cost assigned to this. It is going to cost money, possibly a lot.

As I said, we want concrete measures that keep Canadians safe. I know the members opposite do not have bad intentions in supporting this legislation. However, they should understand that the bill would do nothing to fight the criminal elements that are behind gun violence. They should be focused on that. Instead they try to criminalize law-abiding citizens. I know there are members who are from rural communities and have misgivings about this legislation. Again, does this stop gun violence? Does this stop the illegal use of handguns? We need handguns to be out of the hands of criminals.

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

My colleagues opposite just heckled me with “Annie Oakley”. That shows how they do not understand the community, the sport, or the respect for firearms. I tabled a petition in the House asking for the members of the committee that is supposed to inform the government, the subject matter experts on this, to at least have the licence that I have, that I understand how to use, but they refused. Why? Because this is all about ideology, not about keeping Canadians safe. The government does not give two hoots about keeping Canadians safe. The Liberals care about the politics of the Prime Minister's ego because that is what is keeping them in office. That is what Canadians rejected in Chicoutimi tonight, by the way. They care about changing the channel, but regardless of political stripe, Canadians are standing up and saying this makes no sense. If we want to keep Canadians safe from firearms, then deal with the people who are illegally bringing it in and using it illegally in gang violence.

The RCMP should have an oversight with regard to firearms reclassification. People who are on the committee advising the government on this should understand the basics of requiring a licence. If the government really cares about keeping Canadians safe, it should not be watering down sentences for major crimes in the omnibus justice bill, Bill C-75. The bill does nothing to protect Canadians. All it does is vilify people who play by the rules. On this side of the aisle, we stand up for law-abiding Canadians and we will keep Canadians safe.

National Security Act, 2017

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-59. As we know, it is the government's national security legislation. After months of debate, hearing from many witnesses, and reading expert briefs with respect to the bill, it is light on actions that will actually improve public safety and national security. I believe that Canada would be weaker because of this legislation, which hampers our agencies, cuts funding to intelligence and national security, and is more concerned about looking over the shoulder of those protecting us than watching those who seek to harm us. Let us be clear on this point. National security and intelligence officers and public servants are not a threat to public safety or privacy. They show dedication to protecting us and our country in a professional manner. However, Bill C-59 is more concerned with what someone might do in an effort to protect others than what criminals, extremists, and others might do to harm us.

In a world with growing international threats, instability, trade aggression, state-sponsored corporate cyber-espionage, and rising crime rates, Canada is weaker with the current Prime Minister and the Liberals in power. As I have said in the House before, public safety and national security should be the top priority of government and should be above politics so that the safety and security of Canadians are put ahead of political fortunes. This bill on national security fails to live up to its title.

Looking at the body of the Liberals' work, we see a continuous erosion of Canada's safety and security. Bill C-71, the recent gun legislation, ignores criminals who commit gun crimes. Bill C-75 softens sentences and rehabilitation for terrorists and violent crimes. The legalization of drugs is being done in a way that all but assures that organized crime will benefit and Canadians are put at risk.

As world hostility and hatred grows, we need stronger support for our way of life, not the erosion of it. That means empowering front-line national security and intelligence workers, stronger border protections, a better transfer of information between policing and security bodies, plus assured prosecution of criminals and threats to Canada. We need to be looking proactively at emerging technologies rather than reactively trying to put the genie back in the bottle, as we have done with cybersecurity.

What was the intent with this bill? Canadians and parliamentarians alike can tell a lot from the language used by the minister and the people who the Liberal majority called to testify. The bill was positioned by the Liberals as protecting Canadians from the public servants who work to protect Canada and our interests, and the majority of witnesses heard at committee were law professors, civil liberties groups, and privacy organizations. While they have important and valid views, they shared essentially one point: be scared of public servants. It is funny that after the many times the Prime Minister has used public servants as a political shield, stating that he “always trusts and respects them”, they are apparently more scary than threats of cyber-attacks from Chinese state-controlled hackers, ISIS extremists, white supremacists, and organized crime.

There is not much in this bill for security forces to do their work. With the Liberals' plan, there will now be four oversight bodies looking over the shoulder of our intelligence and security forces: first, a new parliamentary committee on security and intelligence oversight; second, the new national security and intelligence review agency; third, the expanded intelligence commissioner; and, finally, the existing oversights of Parliament and executive branches like the minister, the Prime Minister, and the national security advisor.

The Conservatives offered positive amendments. We asked the minister to tell us how these groups would work together to make it clear to Parliament, senior government officials, and those affected. This was turned down by the Liberals without any reason. It would seem reasonable that the minister would be happy to provide clarity to Canadians, and to those who need to work with the various boards, agencies, committees, and advisers, on how it will all work together. We also recommended that, as this new central intelligence and security agency would see information from a variety of departments and agencies, they play a role in identifying threats and providing a clear picture on the state of national security. The Liberals on the committee for some reason would prefer that the agency focus on only complaints and micromanaging our security professionals. If their goal had been to improve public safety, this suggestion would have been taken more seriously.

When we heard from security experts, they raised valid concerns. Dick Fadden, the former CSIS director, noted that the bill would send a message to security teams to be more restrictive with the information that they share. He said:

I haven't counted, but the number of times that the words “protection of privacy” are mentioned in this bill is really quite astounding. I'm as much in favour of privacy as everybody else, but I sometimes wonder whether we're placing so much emphasis on it that it's going to scare some people out of dealing with information relating to national security.

Information sharing between national security teams is essential to protecting Canadians and Canada. In fact, several inquiries, including one of the worst terrorism attacks in Canadian history, the Air India bombing, determined that information sharing was critical to stopping attacks.

Mr. Fadden stated that his worst nightmare scenario was an attack on Canada that was preventable; that being that information was withheld by one agency from other agencies. With Bill C-59, we would move toward more silos, less intelligence sharing, and more threats to Canadians. In his words, security professionals would have a clear message from the many repeated insertions of privacy and charter references, and, as he put it, to share less information lest they run afoul of their political masters.

The Conservatives offered a mild amendment that public servants be required to share information they thought was a threat to Canada with national security agencies. This was so all federal employees would have no fear of reprisal for sharing valid concerns with relevant authorities, like the new security review agency. This was turned down, again reaffirming that the Liberals on the committee were not focused on improving public safety and protecting Canadians.

Retired General Michael Day pointed out that there was nothing in the bill or in the government's policies to deal with emerging threats, real dangers today and tomorrow to our economic prosperity and our societal values. When he was asked by the Liberal MP from Mississauga—Lakeshore, “on the questions of artificial intelligence and potentially also quantum computing, how confident are you that Bill C-59,...is a flexible enough framework to address unknown unknowns that may come at us through the cyber domain in those two areas”, General Day replied, “Zero confidence”.

There continues to be clear threats, but dealing with current and emerging threats were not the focus of the government with this bill. We have already missed the emergence of cybersecurity threats and are playing catch-up at a cost of billions of dollars in government spending, lost economic opportunities through stolen commercial secrets, and personal losses through cybercrime. We have not looked forward at the next problem, so we are heading down the same path all over again.

We heard from Professor Leuprecht, a national security expert who teaches at the Royal Military College. He raised a number of concerns. The first was that the increased regulation and administrative work needed to report to new oversight groups would effectively be a cut to those agencies, shifting money away from protecting Canadians. We did find out eventually how much that cost would be. Nearly $100 million would be cut from national security in favour of red tape. Sadly, we only received this information a few weeks after the committee finished with the bill. The minister had knowingly withheld that information from my request for over six months. Once again, a lot of lip service to open and transparent government but very little actual transparency.

Dick Fadden, Professor Leuprecht, and Ray Boisvert, a former assistant director of CSIS and security expert with the Government of Ontario, also raised concerns of the overt hostility of China against Canada. When I asked him about our readiness for dealing with China's aggressions, he said:

I think that the answer is no. I don't think that we're oblivious to the threat...

I would argue that we do not really understand, in all of its complexity, how much China is different from Canada and how it aggressively uses all of the resources of the state against not just Canada but against any number of other countries in pursuit of its objectives.

At one meeting they noted that Chinese agents freely intimidated and threatened Canadians of Chinese descent, pushing them to support communist party initiatives. They or their families back in China could face the backlash of a highly oppressive regime and there was nothing that Canada did to protect them from such threats. China continues this trend, recently ordering Air Canada to call Taiwan part of China.

Mr. Boisvert said:

There's also the issue that China is now in the age of self-admitted “sharp power”, and they exercise that power with very little reservation anymore. There's no longer even a question of hiding their intentions. They are taking a very aggressive approach around resources and intellectual property, and they also are very clear in dealing with dissidents and academics. They've arrested some of them, and they punish others, including academic institutions in North America, at their will, so I think there's a value challenge that Canadians have to consider along with the economic opportunities discussion. The Cold War is over, but a new version is rapidly emerging, and I think our focus on counterterrorism is not always our best play.

We did not have the right people, the right information, and the right issues at committee to have a comprehensive law that would enhance national security. It appears that yet again the Liberals are bringing out legislation to deal with perceived threats at the expense of not dealing with actual threats.

If Canadians were being well served by the government, we would have dealt with serious questions ignored by the Liberals in this legislative process.

Canada has at least 60 returned ISIS terrorists in Canada. That number is likely low, as we have heard that as many as 180 or more Canadians have left our country to fight for ISIS. After the Liberals revoked Canada's ability to strip citizenship from such a heinous and despicable group as ISIS, Canada is now stuck simply welcoming them back with no repercussions and acting like nothing has gone wrong. We will likely never be able to prosecute them or extradite them because we cannot easily transfer intelligence; that is information gathered in other countries of these murders and rapists into evidence suitable for prosecutions in this country.

Canada needs to join the ranks of other modern countries in bringing known crimes conducted by Canadians abroad into our courts without compromising security agents and intelligence sharing agreements. We need to deal with the obvious intelligence to evidence gap that continues to exist in this legislation. This legislation has failed to do this, with Liberal MPs voting against Conservative amendments that tried to address this exact issue.

If we were serious about dealing with national security, we would have treated privacy and security as a single policy, not the competing interests that many civil groups suggested. Protecting Canadians includes protecting their privacy in addition to their economic opportunities, public safety, national security, and social values. These are a single policy, and for the most part those professionals who protect us know this.

Professor Leuprecht said:

We are not here because there's in any way some large-scale violation of the professionalism or the capabilities in which the community does its job....In the Five Eyes community, we have, by far, the most restrictive privacy regime. This is a choice that we have made as Canadians...other countries that have more rigorous parliamentary and other review mechanisms than Canada have also given their community more latitude in terms of how it can act, what it can do, and how it can do it.

Retired Lieutenant-General Michael Day stated:

...the trade-off between privacy and security, between the charter and the reasonable measures to protect Canadians. This is not, from my perspective obviously, a binary issue, or one that should be looked at as absolutes, but rather a dynamic relationship that should remain constantly under review. We should embrace that tension as opposed to pretending it doesn't exist, with a conversation being seen to have value in and of itself.

This is crystal clear when we look at the growing issue of cybercrime, such as identity theft, fraud, corporate espionage, and hacking. Privacy and other interests, social and financial, are one, and yet throughout this legislative process the Liberals presented this bill as a choice between one and the other.

The bill ignores the massive shift in issues with Canada's border security. Canada lacks the assets, people, and facilities to deal with the current threat to our borders. We know that an open border, which is internationally known as unprotected, is currently being exploited. It is being exploited not only by those who are shopping for a new home, but by human traffickers, smugglers, drug cartels, and other organized crime rings. While this issue is new, it is real and needs to be managed better than just hoping everything will sort itself out.

If we were serious about national security, we would be dealing more seriously with Canada's most important law enforcement agency, the RCMP. Beyond a glaring gap in personnel, failing equipment, and an increased lack of faith in its leadership, the RCMP is headed toward a crisis level of challenges: a growing opioid crisis; legalized marijuana; influx of ISIS terrorists; open borders without a plan to manage illegal border crossers; and increasing cybercrime, just to name a few. The RCMP is overwhelmed, while the Liberals present false information and sidestep questions on what to do.

The Liberals may have called this a national security law, but it is more like a regulatory bill. It would erode rather than help public safety. It deals with security from the federal government's perspective rather than from protecting Canadians first and foremost.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I must say to my colleague who is blaming us about a group of women victims that the Conservatives were the ones who always who supported the victims. All of the laws we adopted over the 10 years we were in power were always stricter toward criminals and aimed to help the victims. So please don't make any comments to me about assistance for victims. I think the Conservatives have a good record on this.

Bill C-75 includes criminal sanctions for persons who derive material advantage from the provision of sexual services, such as through forced marriage, polygamy, and the marriage of those of less than 16 years of age. From now on, these cases will be dealt with in the criminal justice system.

I'd like to go back to my colleague's notice of motion. I want to say to the committee that the content of that motion could have been dealt with when we studied Bill C-71; it could very well have been a part of it. These are elements we agree on. We agree on everything concerning background checks and having better investigations and better processes. Once again, this could all have been settled when we studied Bill C-71.

Thank you.