Justice Committee on Sept. 26th, 2018

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I guess the reason I raised it is that it would be interesting to see, from your point of view, whether those types of sentences have ever been given. It would be awfully hard to say they should be hybridized if there's never any situation where it could attract a sentence of two years less a day or less. That's why I raised it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

We have three minutes left, so I'll just jump in here.

First of all, I want to thank all of you for your advocacy work—the wonderful work done by Barbra Schlifer in Toronto, the incredible work done by CIJA and B'nai Brith, and of course the wonderful work done by our prosecutors.

I want to come back to the issue that was raised by Mr. Rankin. My sentiment, and I'm saying this in a bit of a different way than Mr. Fogel did, is that I believe there was an attempt to homogenize everything. They took all the offences that were in a certain category and didn't carve anything out. While I don't agree that what the sentence is deters anybody, because I don't think they look at the Criminal Code and decide it, I understand the very important symbolic nature of the population realizing that terrorism offences and genocide offences are ones that shouldn't be, in any circumstances, two years less a day. I really appreciate the symbolism.

Mr. Fogel and then Mr. Herman, I know that this is a Canadian issue. I want to make that very clear. It is not a Jewish issue; it is a Canadian issue. You're here advocating for Canadians, not just for the Jewish community. But the Jewish community has a history with genocide, and has a recent history with experiences of terrorism. Because of that, because your community has been especially hard hit in these areas, could you talk about the feeling in the community about why those offences are more serious or at least should be judged to be only indictable offences as opposed to summary offences?

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

Frankly, I think it's self-evident. These particular crimes, as I noted earlier, are crimes that don't simply impact on the intended initial targets. They flout the very core of Canadian values, and they do so in a way that signals that we are not going to follow through in protecting Canadians from the range of these kinds of existential threats that exist. But it goes one step further than that. If you look at the categories that are in question over here, it's not just the perpetrator of a terrorist act. It's about holding accountable those who are going to foment that kind of ideology, those who are going to take the vulnerable and twist their minds in ways that will have them go and act in a particular way.

Really what we're saying, what we're collectively saying, is that the message is going out that if you are somebody who's promoting something that is antithetical to everything we stand for, you are going to be held to account, and held to account in a meaningful way rather than in some administrative way.

For us, I think that's what resonates most powerfully and what I hope is shared by members of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you. That's very powerful.

I have one short question for you, Ms. Hendel, before my time runs out. You didn't get into peremptory challenges. What is your feeling as a prosecutor about the value of peremptory challenges? Would you agree with getting rid of them, or do you think they're valuable and should be retained?

[Ursula Hendel]

There isn't unanimity in the membership on this issue. I think it's a tricky one.

To the extent that there's research out there, I think it does support the concern that peremptory challenges are often used in a discriminatory way. I think there's reason to be concerned. When I think about when I've used my peremptory challenges, it's very difficult for me to articulate why it was I felt uncomfortable with a person. He glowered, maybe...? How would you explain that?

You know, it's really a tricky issue. I think there are folks on both sides, prosecutor and defence counsel, who feel it's valuable, but I don't know that any of us are really able to articulate why.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Fair enough.

To the members of the panel, thank you. You were all incredibly helpful. We really appreciate it.

Thank you, colleagues.

The meeting is adjourned.