Justice Committee on Dec. 9th, 2010

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I appreciate the sometimes tepid and sometimes strong support I've received around the table, but I really don't think I have any interest in prolonging this.

I was really trying to fix what I saw was a gap, to the benefit of victims. If that's not acceptable, it's fine with me. I'm quite okay with it—that is, with moving ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

There is one little comment I often make: poorly drafted laws are often poorly understood and then poorly applied.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay. We have Liberal amendment number one before us. I will call the question on it.

(Amendment negatived)

Now we move to Liberal amendment number two. You should have that in front of you.

Ms. Jennings, do you want to introduce it?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes.

I would like to move this amendment.

This amendment would make it mandatory for the judge, whether he decides to make an order under proposed subsection 745.51(1) or not to make an order under that subsection, to give the reasons for that decision, either orally or in writing. The only thing it changes in the bill is that the bill, as it now stands, only requires a judge to give reasons orally or in writing when the judge makes a decision not to issue parole ineligibility on a second or subsequent first-degree murder conviction—if I can use that as an example—to be served consecutively. So if this bill were adopted, as it's now written, the judge who says that for a second conviction of first-degree murder or a third conviction of third-degree murder, the parole ineligibility of 25 years will be served concurrently, he or she will now have to give the reasons orally or in writing. But if the judge says it will be served consecutively, the way the bill is written now, the judge does not have to do so.

So my amendment simply says, regardless of the judge ordering multiple convictions for first-degree murder and parole ineligibility to be served concurrently or consecutively, in both cases the judge shall give his or her reasons orally or in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I don't believe this amendment is necessary.

My view is that any judge who is going to impose multiple parole ineligibility periods in the neighbourhood of 50 years is going to provide reasons. I don't think we need to tell them that.

But having said that, the opposition is being consistent in proposing amendments that support the rights of criminals rather than the rights of victims, which of course is what this bill is trying to do.

Having said that, I would encourage all members to vote against this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have Mr. Rathgeber, Mr. Lemay, and then Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Rathgeber first.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I'm good.

I had a question for Ms. Jennings, but I think it's been resolved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I support the amendment because it is a decision that can be appealed. So there could be a judge who might say that the judge is required to give reasons, orally or in writing, their decision is not to make an order, but if the judge makes an order, we don't know what they're basing it on, how they're doing it, and bang. That can happen.

So I think we should vote for the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Personally, I support the amendment because it seems to me that the wording of this provision is insulting to judges. We are well aware of this kind of distrust of the judiciary, that the judge has to justify not being harsher. So in my opinion, the amendment restores the balance. Judges have to justify what they do in both cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Is there anybody else?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

I simply wish to state that given that a conviction can be appealed, and taking note of the statement of the legal counsel of the justice department that, had Mr. Murphy's amendment gone through it would have required amending other sections in order to ensure the crown would have an opportunity to appeal, I find Mr. Dechert's comments offensive. I don't mean offensive to offenders but offensive to our judicial system and to all Canadians. We have a judicial system that is built on the basis that it is better that 99 guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted. It's based on law and order. I heard that being stated by members of the government.

So to say that bringing this amendment in—which would require a judge to give reasons orally or in writing for either decision that's been made and not just when the decision has been made in one way—is indicative of Liberals again being on the side of criminals rather than Canadians.... I hope to God that no one in his circle of friends ever gets caught up in the justice system, because if they ever do, they will be happy that there are protections for their rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and built into our Criminal Code.

I move that we vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I can't do that.

Mr. Comartin, and then Mr. Murphy.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

It's interesting to listen to the parliamentary secretary. You obviously didn't hear the advocate for victims in this country and the points I've tried to raise on a number of occasions about making absolutely sure that the maximum amount of information goes to victims. This section would guarantee that. I agree, I can't conceive of very many judges who wouldn't, in the circumstances that they were going to apply this law, give written reasons. Quite frankly, if they didn't give written reasons, they would be admonished by the court of appeal for not having given written reasons.

More importantly, setting that technical part aside, the victims will hear very clearly from the judge why this person should get an extra 25 years with no opportunity for parole. That's the reason we should support this section. Government should support it as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy, you had one last question.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I'd ask the technical expert. I gather from the documents from the government that there'd be an appeal if the decision were made by the judge not to grant the 25 years.

That's a “yes”, right?

Is there an appeal when the decision is to make the order as well? You know enough about how courts work. Wouldn't it be better to appeal a decision for which there are reasons than for which there's no reason?

[John Giokas]

Yes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Okay. I just wanted to know that.

Wouldn't it therefore be a perfect ground for striking down the law that in one case you said there had to be reasons and in the other case there didn't? This passed a charter opinion. Did you do the charter opinion, or somebody higher up in the DOJ? If you did it, I suppose it did pass.

[John Giokas]

No, I didn't do the amendments.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Oh, you didn't. Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We're dealing with LIB-2, and I'm going to call the question on that.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 6 to 11 inclusive agreed to)

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.