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.

Criminal Code

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and what I heard was a terrific amount of concern for people who have committed crimes. I know there have been many cases, and there has been one recently in my riding, where victims simply feel that justice has not been done.

I would like the member to explain how she can talk about some of the sentence reductions that would happen for very serious crimes and how she can face people in her riding who might be victims of these crimes and say that it is more important we deal with compassion for the people who commit the offences than those who are the victims.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clear one thing up. First, the proposed amendments will not change the fundamental principles of sentencing, requiring courts to impose sentences that are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender.

Second, our government takes into account very seriously the safety of Canadians and the safety of our communities. By doing so, we ensure that the victims and those who are impacted by crime are safe and that the perpetrators of those crimes are appropriately dealt with in our criminal justice system.

However, there are individuals who are overrepresented in our criminal justice system and are not a further danger to society or to property. The vulnerabilities and systemic barriers within the system cause individuals like indigenous people, members of the black community, and vulnerable populations, such as those with mental health issues, to be incarcerated and be caught up in a justice system that disproportionately impacts them in a very negative way. We need to be sensitive to that.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested to hear the comments of my hon. colleague from Whitby about laws and legislation, especially when they affect marginalized groups.

We often hear the opposition, the Conservatives especially, criticize this bill, saying it will mean somehow that criminals will be out on the streets. I know that the people in my community of London West are also concerned. When they hear this, it is fearmongering.

Could my colleague talk about what this really means so people will not be as fearful, as the Conservatives make them feel sometimes?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, we understand the importance of keeping our communities safe, while upholding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The protection of Canadians is always paramount in what we do in this place.

However, I want to address my colleague's concern. The suggestion that this bill will have criminals running in the street and that they will not have the appropriate sentencing is a mischaracterization of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments will not change the fundamental principle of sentencing, requiring courts to impose sentences that are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility to the offender. The crown will still have that ability.

The legislation would allow the crown to choose whether to proceed with an indictment or a summary conviction. The severity of an offence is greatly dependent on the circumstances around each case. Uttering threats, assaults, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, again, the crown will have the opportunity to decide whether the particular offence and the circumstances around that offence requires a much graver sentence.

Again, when we look at the justice system and we go back to the overrepresentation of indigenous and vulnerable groups, it is important to recognize that there are biases and there are systemic barriers within the system that keep those individuals in a perpetual revolving door in that system.

Our government has also taken a comprehensive approach to looking at housing, mental health, and other social determinants of health and well-being that will keep these individuals out of our justice system.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the bill. You may have observed that the Conservatives are in a very good mood tonight, but it is not because of the content of the legislation. It is actually other things going on tonight in the province of Ontario.

[Some hon. members]

What?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Members are asking “what?” They may not know, but it seems there will be a Progressive Conservative majority government in Ontario. I am sorry to have to break that news to my friends across the way, but the Liberals may still get official party status. It is a harbinger of things to come in a year and a half in federal politics. One of the reasons we are likely to see a similar result for the Liberals in a year and a half is precisely their failures with respect to the justice system.

I will turn now to a much less happy subject, and that is the content of the Liberals' Bill C-75. We can call it a justice omnibus or “injustice” omnibus bill. It is over 300 pages, making various changes with respect to the framework around criminal justice. There are certainly problems with the way the Liberals are administering the justice system, problems in need of solutions. However, the proposals by the government do not improve the situation. In fact, they make the situation much worse.

There are so many different aspects of the bill. It pays to mention to some extent that this is an omnibus bill. The Liberals talked in the last election about not doing omnibus bills. They said that omnibus bills limited the scrutiny that could be applied to individual items, that they forced members to vote all at once on provisions, some of which they may think were laudable and others which they may think were not.

Coming from that election promise, we now find ourselves in a situation in this Parliament where it seems virtually all of the legislation we debate is omnibus legislation. It is interesting that we had previous bills before this Parliament that included many of the same provisions and then the government decided it would roll them all together in one massive omnibus bill. I guess the Liberals felt they were not being as effective in advancing their legislative agenda as they wanted to, but this is yet another case where we see the government going back on its promise. On the one hand is the commitment about how it would manage the parliamentary process, then we see, in practice, the government doing the exact opposite.

The arguments the Liberals use for bringing in these omnibus bills, which go against their previous commitments, are usually something to the effect of they think it is a really good bill, that there are a lot of good things in it, so they want to get it through. Whether it is a good bill is precisely what a robust parliamentary process is supposed to determine. That is why the appropriate level of scrutiny is necessary. There will probably be an opportunity to pull all sorts of quotes from the member for Winnipeg North and others decrying these process elements, which are now being deployed with full force under the Liberal government.

We have in front of us an omnibus bill. There are a number of different elements I want to discuss, as well as more broadly the government's failure to manage the justice system effectively.

Members will understand and appreciate how important the effective functioning of our justice system is, especially in a context where the courts have ruled that cases can be thrown out if they do not proceed within a particular time frame. We have seen very serious charges not proceed, simply on the basis of time and delay. Therefore, the management of the criminal justice system so these delays do not happen, so people are actually brought to justice on time, is critical for the protection of society and for ensuring justice is done for victims, for the criminal, and for everyone.

Why do we have this growing problem of delays? The most obvious reason, and a reason the government has been steadfast in refusing to address, is the government's failure to appoint judges.

The fact is, it took six months for the justice minister to appoint a single judge. The government lauds its judicial appointments on various fronts. I am sure that any justice minister would laud their own appointment choice, but we have to get the job done. It is fundamental to the effectiveness of our justice system that we achieve quality and the necessary quantity so that the work can proceed. Appointing justices should be the easy part. I do not suspect that there is any shortage of qualified people in this country who are interested in the position, yet the government has been very slow to proceed, and this has created a significant concern.

It is not as if nobody was suggesting the Liberals take action. Thank goodness we have a strong opposition, and a strong shadow minister and shadow deputy minister of justice who were specifically calling very early on for the government to move forward with the appointment of justices.

I can hear my friend for St. Albert—Edmonton asking the justice minister when she would finally do her job and start appointing judges. The justice minister responded to those questions day after day in question period, yet despite those questions being posed by the Conservatives, we simply did not see action.

We have this issue with court delays, and the government now seems to believe that one of the solutions to court delays is to reduce the penalty to allow for summary convictions. The effect of that is lower sentences for very serious crimes. That is sold by the government as a solution to a problem that it has created, but let us apply Occam's razor and try and take that obviously simpler solution, which is that the justice minister should do her job and appoint the necessary number of judges to ensure that we do not have court delays.

In the context of justifying itself, the government is saying that we are going to have summary convictions to try to fix the problem that we created. The Liberals are not admitting it, but that is the implication of what they are saying. We see proposals for summary convictions, meaning reduced charges for all kinds of various serious crimes. I think it is important for the House to identify and look at some of these crimes for which they are proposing reduced sentences. This is not an exhaustive list, but I want to identify some of the key ones.

There is participation in the activity of a terrorist group. I do not recall ever receiving phone calls in my office from people saying that we should have lighter sentences for those who participate in terrorist groups. Maybe members across the way have had a different experience. However, I do not think, especially in the present time and climate, that people are looking for that kind of approach with regard to those who are involved in a terrorist group.

As well, there is leaving Canada to participate in activities of a terrorist group. There is a possibility now that going to fight abroad with a terrorist organization like Daesh could be a subject of summary conviction and therefore lower sentences. There are other serious offences, but I would highlight those two terrorism-related offences, which are the first ones on my list for which we are hearing proposals in the proposed legislation for lighter sentences.

Concealment of identity while taking part in a riot would be a possible summary conviction, as well as breach of trust by a public officer. The idea of lighter sentences for public officers who breach trust is interesting. Why would the Liberals be proposing lighter sentences for public officers who breach trust? I cannot imagine why the Liberals are proposing lighter sentences for public officers who breach trust. We might pontificate about that, but I would perhaps risk venturing into unparliamentary territory.

There is municipal corruption. For example, if a former MP became the mayor of London, hypothetically, there is a possibility of lighter sentences for municipal corruption.

There is selling or purchasing office. I want to reassure the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities that this does not refer to selling or purchasing office equipment. This is selling or purchasing an office itself, which is a criminal offence. However, now it would possibly be a matter of summary conviction.

Another is influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices. It is interesting that so many elements of political corruption are being proposed for lighter sentences in this bill. It is very interesting, but I cannot imagine why that would be.

For prison breach, there is a proposal for lighter sentences. Assisting a prisoner of war to escape is something that I hope does not happen often. It does not seem to me that this offence would be a good candidate for a lighter sentence, but the justice minister, and through this bill the government, is proposing lighter sentences in that case.

Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergymen is an item I want to come back to. It is something dealing with section 176 of the Criminal Code that we have already had some discussion on in this place. The government made some commitments with regard to not changing that section, and now it has gone back on those commitments by trying to re-engage that section through Bill C-75. I will come back to that and talk about it in more detail in a few minutes.

There are also lighter sentences proposed for keeping a common bawdy house and for causing bodily harm by criminal negligence.

There are three drunk-driving-related offences: impaired driving causing bodily harm; blood alcohol level over legal limit, with bodily harm; and failure or refusal to provide a sample, with bodily harm. Canadians who are concerned about combatting drunk driving and drug-impaired driving should be, and I think are, a bit frustrated by some of the back-and-forth that we see from the current government. It is frustrating to me as I follow the positions the Liberals take on some things and not on others.

A member of the Conservative caucus proposed a very strong private member's bill that included a number of provisions dealing with drunk driving. That bill was supported by, I think, all members of this House at second reading. Then it was killed after committee, yet many very similar provisions were included in the government's bill, Bill C-46. The government has not been able to pass that bill ahead of its marijuana legislation. The Liberals said it is critical we have these provisions around drunk driving in place, and they proposed it at the same time as Bill C-45, the marijuana legalization bill. They said these things were important together, and they are willing at the same time to pass the marijuana legalization bill ahead of the drunk and drug-impaired driving bill.

Many of the same provisions were already proposed by a Conservative private member's bill. I recall the speech the parliamentary secretary for justice gave at the same time with respect to my colleague's private member's bill, when he quibbled with the bill on such trivial grounds as the coming-into-force date of the bill being too soon. They said they could not pass this bill combatting drunk driving officially because the coming-into-force date was too soon. They can propose an amendment to change that. It was really because the Liberals wanted to try to claim credit for some of the provisions there. Again, we have this further question about the government's response on issues of alcohol-impaired driving because they are creating conditions for a summary conviction around that issue.

Let me list some other offences: receiving a material benefit associated with trafficking; withholding or destroying documents associated with trafficking; abduction of a person under 16; abduction of a person under 14; material benefit from sexual services; forced marriage; polygamy; marriage under age of 16 years; advocating genocide; arson for fraudulent purposes; participating in activities of criminal organizations.

We have a great deal of discussion about the government's feminist agenda, and yet on some of these crimes, such as forced marriage or polygamy, crimes that very often involve an abusive situation targeting young women, the government is reducing sentencing that targets those who commit those kinds of crimes. It is unfortunate to see the government talking about trying to respond to some of these problems that exist, and then when it comes to criminal justice, they think it is acceptable to propose lighter sentences in these cases.

I have a number of other comments I will make about this bill in the time I have left to speak.

There is a proposal in this legislation to get rid of peremptory challenges. This is a provision that we are interested in studying and exploring, but I think that even if there is an inappropriate use of peremptory challenge in some cases, we should be careful not to throw out a provision if there may be other negative consequences that have not been discussed.

Some of the discussion around peremptory challenges suggests, on the one hand, that they can be used to remove people from juries on the basis of racial profiling. Essentially, somebody is racially profiled and presumed to think in a certain way, so they are removed on the basis of a peremptory challenge.

People have countered those criticisms by saying that on the other hand, peremptory challenges could be used against those who express or have expressed or give indication of having extreme or bigoted views. Sometimes the law needs to recognize other potential impacts that are maybe not being fully foreseen.

We think this issue of peremptory challenges is very much worthy of study at the committee level, but I encourage members, in the spirit of appropriate legislative caution, to work out and consider the full consequences of changes to the structure of our jury system, recognizing that even if there may be negative consequences to this provision in particular situations, removing peremptory challenges may create other unconsidered negative consequences as well.

I want to speak about section 176. This is a very important section of the Criminal Code that specifically addresses the targeting of religious officials or the disruption of worship, things that in many cases would likely lead to some charge anyway, though not in every case. It ensures that somebody who is trying to disrupt the practice of faith is treated in an proportionate way. That is what section 176 does.

The government had previously tried to get rid of section 176, to remove it from the Criminal Code. The justification was weak. It said that because the language used was “clergymen”, it was somehow narrow in its definition and applied to only one faith and one gender. The point was amply made in response that although the language was somewhat archaic, it was very clear that it applied broadly to any religious official and to any religious institution.

The section was subsequently qualified. There is nothing wrong with clarifying the language, but it was always clear and never seriously in dispute that it applied broadly and on an equal basis.

It was through public pressure, the work of the opposition in partnership with many groups in civil society in raising the alarm about this, that the government backed away at the time from its proposal to remove section 176. Now section 176 is back before us. The government is not proposing to remove it; it is just proposing to change it to a possible summary conviction, again meaning a lighter sentence.

Again we are raising a question that is similar to the discussion around drunk driving. There is this kind of back-and-forth, bait and switch approach with the government, but it is clear that there is this repeated attempt to weaken the laws that protect religious institutions and the practice of faith. Some of the time the government is very glad to trumpet its commitment—for instance, in its talk about combatting Islamophobia—but when we have a concrete provision in the Criminal Code that protects people's ability to practise their faith without interruption, we see not one but multiple attempts by the government to move against it.

There is so much more to say about Bill C-75, which is over 300 pages, that I could talk for hours, but my time has expired.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I note that my friend across the way mentioned judicial vacancies as one thing that needs to be dealt with. I agree that it is a work in progress. We have seen, though, many appointments made by the justice minister over the last number of months, over the last year, at least. There are more federally appointed judges than in any year previously. We now see appointments to the court that take into account a number of things, such as its inclusive nature, with minorities being represented on the court, more women appointed to the bench, and people with disabilities. Those vacancies are being filled.

I note that there are more federally appointed judges now in Alberta. I know that my friend represents a riding in Alberta. I know there are more federally appointed judges now in Alberta than there were at any time during the previous Conservative government. I wonder if my friend could tell us how many times he complained about the number of judicial vacancies in Alberta when the last government was in office.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I address my friend's question, I want to express my condolences over the closure of the Bangor Sawmill Museum in his riding. I know there is a great deal of concern about that. People at the museum have spoken out about how the Canada summer jobs program, the fact that they were being forced to sign an attestation, played a key role in the closure of that museum. I want to express my own concern about that and my hope that the member will be able to work toward getting that museum back open. We said all along that there would be impacts on the program because of the attestation requirement, and I think the member is seeing those impacts, unfortunately, in his own constituency.

To the issue of appointments, the member says it is a work in progress. The government has been in power for two and a half years, yet it took six months to appoint the first judge. I accept the fact, absolutely, that it is desirable to appoint judges from across a full range of backgrounds, experience, and demographic groups. The bottom line is that it has to get done. The necessary number of judges have to be appointed, and I do not think it is fair to anyone to use the pursuit of diversity in appointments as an excuse for being behind on appointments. Frankly, qualified people from a diverse range of backgrounds can be found quickly. It could have been done more quickly than the government did. Unfortunately, it did not do that, and that was a source of delay.

In terms of issues I raised previously with respect to the situation before, the previous Conservative government had a very strong record on judicial appointments. The member is right that I never spoke about the issue in the House before 2015. I wish I had had the opportunity. I was elected for the first time in 2015, so I did not have the chance to do that then, but after 2019, I look forward to engaging another Conservative government on the issue of judicial appointments.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's debate, and not one time did he mention anything about racism in our criminal justice system. Indigenous people are overrepresented in correctional facilities. No, it is not a laughing matter. It is very concerning that Conservatives are talking about other things. This is very important. This brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

What does the member have to say about poverty, which is a vicious cycle and contributes to crime over and over? People have mental health issues, and they are being locked away. What does he have to say about these things? Does he not believe that such a bill would be helpful to the most vulnerable in our society?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that the issues she raised are very serious. Next time I give a speech on a 302-page omnibus justice bill, I will make a point of asking the member which aspects of the bill I should talk about beforehand so I do not make this mistake again. There are so many issues in this omnibus bill, and the member is criticizing my speech by saying that there were aspects of it I did not discuss. I only had 20 minutes. The government should write shorter bills if it wants specific issues addressed in speeches.

I will say that the issue of racism, be it in the justice system or elsewhere, is something I am very concerned about. On Saturday, I will be in Toronto hosting round tables specifically on the issue of discrimination. I do this because it is important for me to hear about those issues and to bring that discussion into Parliament.

I do not think the fight against bigotry should be a partisan issue. It should be an issue on which we all work together, yet that member chose to attack us on the basis that I spoke about other very serious issues in a very long bill. That is quite revealing about whether the government is interested in working collaboratively with other parties on these important issues.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit the topic of judicial appointments, specifically in Alberta.

I had the absolute privilege of practising law for a number of years in Alberta before I arrived in this place, and I remember that while I was there, I led a session as an instructor for the Legal Education Society of Alberta. I laid out the civil procedure process. When I got to the issue of mandatory judicial dispute resolution, which was a required process under the Alberta rules of civil procedure, I had to instruct the audience that, in fact, it was not technically mandatory, because the chief justice had given an order that because of the shortcomings of the previous government's judicial appointments practices, the courts did not have the roster of judges available to enforce the mandatory provisions of the rules of the court and the rules of civil procedure in Alberta.

I remember that in early 2013, the then minister of justice for the Province of Alberta requested that his federal counterpart, now the hon. member for Niagara, appoint four more superior court judges. I remember reading headlines in the Calgary Herald that said that he refused to make this commitment at the time.

In 2017, we had 100 judicial appointments or elevations made by the Minister of Justice, which is the most in at least two decades. Could the member at least acknowledge that the minister is doing her job and is certainly doing her job much better than the previous government when it comes to judicial appointments?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no, absolutely not.

It is quite sad that we have a government that, two year and a half years into its mandate, insists, on every file, on trying to assign blame to the previous government.

I think the member overstates the previous situation in certain respects, but if the situation were so dire, why did the justice minister take six months to appoint the first judge? This maybe suggests that the justice minister did not actually think things were as dire as the member is trying to suggest. The fact that she was so delayed in actually getting the job done is quite revealing as well.

The government should not persist in trying to lay all of its failures at the feet of someone else. I think Canadians will see through this. Ultimately, personal responsibility is more of a Conservative value than it is a Liberal value, but at some point, the government will have to take some responsibility for its own failures.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend pointed out many of the shortcomings in Bill C-75. Every member in the House either has a family member or friend or knows a close community member who has been impacted by impaired driving.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of reducing the penalty for impaired driving in cases where it causes bodily harm or death. Currently it is an indictable offence, and in Bill C-75, it is indicated as being either indictable or summary. I wonder if my colleague would comment on how it would make the victims of impaired driving and their families feel if we lessened the severity and reduced the deterrent impact of the sentence.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend about the importance of having a strong response to impaired driving. We need to be concerned about the rights of victims. Most importantly, we need to minimize the number of victims. In many cases, that is done by sending a strong deterrent effect. We have this strong social pressure in many environments against impaired driving that did not exist in the past. However, the government is moving in the wrong direction by bringing forward these measures that would reduce sentences in these cases. We should be concerned about that and the very serious issue that the Liberals voted against the Conservative private member's bill, which could have done the job on so many things. They decided to put it in a government bill, when we could have already passed my friend's private member's bill. It should already be law.