Evidence of meeting #65 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was accused.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Maloney Liberal Welland, ON
Is it available only on a guilty plea, or after a finding of guilt, after a trial?
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Good afternoon, Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Tremblay and Ms. Desaulniers. Thank you for your attendance here.
I would like to ask you two or three questions. Possessing break-in instruments was, up until now, an indictable offence punishable by 10 years of imprisonment. You are making it a hybrid offence.
Why is that? What is the purpose of this amendment?
4:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can tell you that this suggestion was made in the form of resolutions presented by three provinces, on three different occasions, at the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. Prosecutors explained that the offence "possessing break-in instruments" was often committed at the same time as the break and enter into a place other than a dwelling house, which may be a summary conviction offence. Because it is a hybrid offence, it can be prosecuted by way of indictment or summary conviction.
Because this offence of possessing break-in instruments could not up until now be prosecuted by indictment, Crown prosecutors who could not hold two separate trials and wanted to deal with both offences at the same time were forced to proceed by indictment, a more complex procedure. It requires a preliminary inquiry, perhaps a trial before jury, etc.
We have often heard that these offences could be prosecuted by way of summary conviction and that it would be preferable to deal with them at the same time.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Thank you.
In the bill you also amended the peremptory challenges. This is under clause 26 of the bill. Can you explain to us how this new measure will improve jury impartiality?
4:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There is an attempt to mitigate certain risks like in the case of a challenge for cause. When there is reason to believe that a perspective juror may be biased, questions are asked in that regard. He will be asked, for instance, about knowledge of newspaper articles or media reports. It is possible, in asking these questions—usually the jury is present, the sworn jury and the other candidates in the room—for the person being questioned to provide an answer which may be very prejudicial to the accused. He could say, for instance, that he has already got an opinion on the accused's guilt because he heard such and such a thing on television. That is what we are trying to avoid.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Very well.
My final question has to do with gambling and bets. In this bill, you add provisions regarding the use of telecommunication tools—and I understand the purpose of that—but you do not address the issue of virtual casinos. In my riding, I am fortunate enough to have the Kahnawake Indian reserve, where there are virtual casinos. It is a serious problem for us. We are all aware of it, as we are of other problems like tobacco and arms smuggling, which are problems from a legal standpoint. I would like to know whether this bill addresses the issue of virtual casinos.
4:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, the bill—
4:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This bill proposes amendments that we consider to be technical and minor corrections to be made to the current system. That particular amendment would apply in situations involving Internet betting. The other controversy you raised is a significant one, and we are working on it at the department. However, it has not been included in this bill, which is more technical in nature, and non-controversial.
May 2nd, 2007 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you. Good afternoon minister. Good afternoon Ms. Desaulniers and Mr. Tremblay.
My question is rather simple, but I want to make sure that it has been properly understood. In Quebec, there's currently a huge ad campaign underway to prevent car accidents. We know that many car accidents are the result of drunk or impaired driving. Naturally, my government has proposed doing something about this. Because this issue is important, I would like for you to explain something. In Quebec, each year, many people die as a result of drunk driving, or driving under the influence of drugs, an issue that we will talk about later. Minister, you are the sponsor of Bill C-23, and I would like to know what impact it will bear on serious offences such as impaired driving causing death. That is the issue which is important in this bill, and one which is of great interest to me.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Petit.
It actually clarifies some of the Criminal Code provisions that currently exist. At the present time it's been brought to our attention that it wasn't completely clear. Minimum sentences--and there are escalating sentences, as you know, with respect to impaired driving--did not also apply to the offence of causing death while being impaired. It seemed to me that this was an opportunity for us to clarify that yes, of course it does, because it only makes sense. That's the reason we are putting it in there.
With respect to impaired driving, as you know, we have another piece of legislation before Parliament that is substantive in nature and helps clarify some of the issues with respect to impaired driving, in particular with respect to impaired driving as a result of a drug. You would of course be aware of that. I think it provides some of the tools that law enforcement officers have been looking for. It's of substantive nature and certainly underscores the government's commitment with respect to impaired driving. As you pointed out, this provision in this bill is more of a technical nature, and it's consistent with the philosophy of a bill like this.
In answer to Madame Freeman's question, Madame Desaulniers pointed out that it's not meant to introduce either controversial or large substantial changes to the Criminal Code, because that would be more appropriate, in my opinion, for a stand-alone bill. This bill strictly deals with technical amendments. There are, of course, some substantive amendments that we believe are non-controversial, and we're hoping to move them through the system.
Thank you, Mr. Petit.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here.
This is a good bill. We believe in giving credit where credit is due. You're a very capable minister. You're just in the wrong party.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Could I react to that, Mr. Chairman?
You see, I want to get this bill through. You can throw anything my way at all. We want to move this legislation through, so you go right ahead.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I've been very complimentary. I said he belongs with us, and that's the highest form of compliment, really.
Absolutely, we are all in favour of that.
On the face of it, this bill attempts to improve the linguistic aspects of this delivery of a product called justice.
As you know, in New Brunswick, we have a bilingual judicial culture, as well as bilingual services. However, not all is perfect. I am happy that Mr. Godin is here to comment on this.
In any case, during the process to improve this bill, several questions were raised regarding clauses 18 and 21 in particular. There seems to be a lack of clarity on what will occur when a justice decides to call an investigation or hold a trial in French or in English. How will the judge proceed upon deciding which language the hearing will be held in? Or upon deciding, at the start of a trial or investigation, to hear certain witnesses in French and others in English? I imagine that it would be very difficult for a judge to decide ahead of time, because one never knows what can occur during a trial. Mr. Petit is fully aware that it is very difficult to not only predict a result, but also the pace of a trial. Is there an example that judges could draw from in implementing the new provision, clause 531, which can be found in section 21 of the bill?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Minister, before you reply, I would just note the time. I know you have a pressing engagement, so after your reply, feel free to leave.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for your question.
As you know, we are guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Beaulac case. With respect to that case and the provisions that are currently provided for in terms of bilingual trials, we are guided by that.
As you quite correctly pointed out, your home province of New Brunswick has a long history with respect to the handling of cases in both official languages, and certainly has been a model for the rest of the country, quite frankly.
In terms of how a judge can make the decision in each particular case, that's part of the challenge that we have: to make it fair to all the individuals involved with that. That's the balance we try to strike.
Monsieur Tremblay, would you like to add to that?
