Justice Committee on June 10th, 2014

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government will not be supporting this amendment. As Ms. May will know, the court can, in making any prohibition order, weigh the individual personal circumstances of the accused as part of the sentencing process. She'll also know that any condition can be subsequently buried at a later date if there are circumstances in which the change would be desirable, to take her point about getting a job or something of that nature.

Typically, I find it kind of ironic looking at this particular amendment, Mr. Chair, because typically the opposition is telling us to grant greater discretion to the court. In this case they're actually asking us to take discretion away from the court.

So, on that basis, Mr. Chair, we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, I'll call the question on PV-7.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment PV-8, Madam May....

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the same concern. PV-8 ensures that the prohibition may be for any period that is “reasonable”, and then it goes on to itemize them.

Just in response to Bob for a moment, I don't think what was being proposed, or what is being proposed here, reduces the discretion of the court. It is asking the court to make an order in what it views as “reasonable”, and in the previous amendment, “conditions or exemptions that the court considers to be necessary”.

Again, there's a certain amount of judicial discretion, but it's the role of Parliament to give the judiciary guidance in applying this law. I don't think any of us would want somebody who's been found criminally responsible, has been appropriately sentenced, and has served their sentence to be unable to continue to basically rehabilitate themselves and have the opportunity to access such things as jobs through the Internet.

That's why the court, in my amendment, is given the opportunity to consider a prohibition based on what's reasonable under the circumstances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Are there any comments on PV-8?

Mr. Dechert.

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

Mr. Chair, the government opposes this amendment. We don't believe this will have a substantive impact on the interpretation of the provision.

As Ms. May will know, the Criminal Code—in section 380.2, for example—uses the word “appropriate” in similar circumstances. In our view, changing “appropriate” to “reasonable” would create an inconsistency within the Criminal Code and would cause confusion.

On that basis, we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, I will call the vote on amendment PV-8.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on amendment NDP-2.

Just so the committee understands, assuming that amendment NDP-2 is moved, that deems PV-9 also moved, because they're absolutely identical. So whatever happens to NDP-2, we don't need to deal with PV-9.

I'll turn the floor over to Madam Boivin, because I'm sure she'd like to speak to her amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since my birthday is approaching, I am feeling generous. So I would say that great minds think alike.

Amendment NDP-2 is in line with what we have heard over the last few minutes. The committee has heard testimony of various groups that have appeared before it.

It is nice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice—who has more often than not introduced bills that provide mandatory minimum sentences—is giving the court a degree of discretion.

I am not talking about minimum sentences here, but rather about the idea of imposing a cap. That's the objective of Bill C-13. It was a good idea to stipulate “for any period that the court considers appropriate”, but it would be much more reasonable to specify that this period could not exceed five years. In this context, that would also provide guidance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there any further comment?

Mr. Dechert.

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

Mr. Chair, the government does not support this amendment. As in the previous amendment, we believe it does unduly restrict the court's discretion. We can certainly imagine cases, in terms of distribution of child pornography and other things, where five years would not be a sufficient length of time. We would want the court to prohibit the continuing distribution of such images by that individual beyond that period of time. It restricts judicial discretion.

Further, as I mentioned earlier, any condition imposed on the offender can be buried in the future, upon application to the court, where there's a change in circumstance that renders the change desirable.

On that basis, we will be opposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

A final word, Madam Boivin...?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

With all due respect, I would retort to the parliamentary secretary that clause 3 that follows ensures that people can always return to the court to change the conditions. The legislation does not take away a judge's discretionary power, but the judge can order an individual not to use the Internet for a maximum period of five years. If other requirements are involved, that individual could always come back before the court.

That's probably more prudent. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle the government sometimes forgets, but this clarification will guarantee that, across Canada—which is a large country—justice will be served in the same way, regardless of the location. While providing the court with broad discretion and the possibility to make an individual appear again in order to change the conditions imposed on them, this meets all the criteria set by the government and establishes a safeguard. That approach is more consistent with the state of the law in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Any further discussion on NDP-2? Seeing none, all those in favour?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

This means that PV-9 is removed, of course.

There are no more amendments on clause 3 and there were none that carried.

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 8)

Now we're at NDP-3.

Madam Boivin, the floor is yours.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

The objective of the amendment is to establish a timeframe. Under the circumstances, it is important to make the provision more reasonable. This was confirmed by various witnesses concerned with a balance between the offence created and tool modernization.

Clause 8 should be amended by replacing line 3 on page 7 with the following:

related to the execution of the authorization, that the urgency of the situation requires the warrant or the order and that it can be reasonably executed or complied with within 60 days.

This amendment aims to restore balance and show once again that, while condemning the distribution of images and taking into account tool modernization, the authorities respect privacy and act in a reasonable manner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that.

Monsieur Dechert.

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

Mr. Chair, the government does not support this amendment. In our view, it is counterproductive to other proposals in Bill C-13 that seek to harmonize the periods of validity of warrants and orders that are used in conjunction with wiretap authorizations.

As Madam Boivin will know, in the context of section 184.2 of the Criminal Code with respect to consent wiretaps, which are primarily used for undercover operations in the organized crime context, such a limitation makes little sense and would create an inconsistent approach between consent wiretaps and regular wiretaps. On that basis, we will not be supporting this amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Anything further? Seeing none, all those in favour?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 8 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 12)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have an amendment. It's NDP-4 and it's from Mr. Garrison.

I'm going to give you the floor, Mr. Garrison, to speak to your amendment.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to be here today.

When I saw Bill C-13, it was interesting to note that clause 12 opened up the hate crime section of the Criminal Code to add additional grounds for prohibited discrimination. It seemed to me that this would be an appropriate place to have an amendment to add “gender identity” to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code.

This is half of my private member's Bill C-279, which passed in the House of Commons more than a year ago and is stuck in the Senate. It's also half of the previous private member's bill, which passed in the previous Parliament. So twice the will of Parliament has been to include gender identity in the hate crime section of the Criminal Code.

When this matter was raised with the minister when he was here, I believe that he said to Madam Boivin that he had no problem in principle with this. So I was optimistic that we could make this amendment in this committee and until just a few minutes ago a majority of the members present at this committee had voted in favour of the bill. But there appears to have been some changes on the government side, so now I am concerned. Those who are the most subject to hate crimes in our society are transgendered individuals and it is more than past time that we add this to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code. It will certainly serve the purposes of public education and of denunciation, and help provide some protection to a group who, as I said, have some of the greatest difficulties in our society.

I'm hoping the changes on the other side of the government don't indicate an intention to defeat this amendment because that would be to thwart the will of Parliament as twice expressed before. So I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison, and thank you for your optimism.

Is there anything further?

Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We do not support this motion at this time on this bill. As Mr. Garrison will know, there was no witness testimony heard by the committee on this point. He's pointed out that this is contained in Bill C-279, which is currently before the Senate. Therefore we believe that it would be inappropriate to bring it here where we haven't heard witness testimony. We should allow the Senate to complete its work on that matter.

So that's our position and on that basis we will not support this amendment at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, thank you.

Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I'm utterly shocked because honestly I think this is, again with all due respect, a lame excuse. The minister was very clear. I took the time to ask the minister and when the minister tells you that he has no problem with the concept of amending to make sure that it complies with what has already been adopted by Parliament, to now put it back to the fact that it's in front of the Senate.... I'm really shocked. I mean, why not do right now what we already all agreed to do? So it's just making sure that we won't have to come back later to just make sure that the two laws

are saying the same thing. Seriously, either the minister said something false when he appeared or something else...

I am being told that we have not heard from witnesses concerning this, but I think the best witness is the Minister of Justice, and he accepts the amendment. If that is not enough for the government members, I would have a few words for the Minister of Justice regarding his credibility with his colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much.

With regard to the parliamentary secretary's comments about not hearing witnesses, it was in fact this justice committee that heard the witnesses on my private member's bill in this same session of Parliament. So the witnesses have been here. The testimony has been in front of this committee.

As for the fact that the bill's in front of the Senate, precisely what happened with the first version of this bill is that it died in the Senate without the Senate acting on the bill. So the Senate has now had my private member's bill for coming up on 16 months and has failed to pass the bill.

It would be, I guess, a way for the government to hide their opposition of this bill by having it defeated by inaction in the Senate. But as I said, the House of Commons has twice pronounced on this very point. This committee heard the evidence during this session of Parliament, and I would urge the government to reconsider that position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I see no other interventions on NDP-4.

Those in favour of NDP-4?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 12 carry unamended?

(Clause 12 agreed to on division)

(Clause 13 to 19 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 20)

The next one is NDP-5 and it is moved by Madam Boivin.