Justice Committee on Oct. 24th, 2018

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

I think what we've forgotten about is that, in terms of pretrial release, at this point we've relied heavily on the criminality of breach, and it requires a lot of police training to decide who you're going to be putting under failure-to-comply charges.

We've virtually forgotten in Canada and it's been a long time since we actually enforced the security deposits that are made on pretrial detention and release from pretrial detention. If we are to be serious about those terms of bail and pursue that money, it's quite likely that very few people would want to see their mom lose their house.

In the normal course of things in criminal justice in Canada, the financial penalties for breach and for failure to comply are essentially non-existent. If we resurrected those as a matter of course, it would be much more effective for the cost of law enforcement, and the cost of detention and correctional services. We would be able to have people feel much more obliged to appear without the criminality if they also knew that whoever was their near and dear who had put up a surety on their behalf would face consequences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Is there any other discussion? Not seeing any, we will put Green Party-3 to a vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will move to LIB-2.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a technical amendment to clause 49(2), which makes consequential amendments to both the new bill provisions. This would reflect the new terminology being used to replace “recognizance” with “release order” to provide consistency with other aspects that have been modified in the bill. It's a technical amendment changing that terminology.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are there any comments? We will proceed to a vote on LIB-2.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 49 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 50)

On clause 50, we move to CPC-27.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an amendment dealing with reclassification. The offence of permitting or assisting escape is reclassified in Bill C-75 to be a hybrid offence from an indictable offence. This amendment would keep it as an indictable offence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Is there any discussion? We will move to a vote on CPC-27.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 50 agreed to)

(On clause 51)

On clause 51, we move to CPC-28.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Chair, this is the same as my last amendment in terms of what it would do, which is to keep something that is in the Criminal Code as an indictable offence so it will remain an indictable offence. This particular offence relates to rescue or permitting escape.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Does anybody wish to comment on CPC-28?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 51 agreed to)

(On clause 52)

On clause 52, we have CPC-29.

Mr. Clement.

[Tony Clement]

I would request a roll call vote on this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay. Do you want to speak to your amendment so we know what it is?

[Tony Clement]

No. It's on assisting a prisoner of war to escape.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

All right.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, could you give me a minute. I would like to read it. I haven't read it yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Of course. Absolutely.

This is CPC-29, lines 15 and 16 on page 20.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We will move to a roll call vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 52 agreed to)

(Clauses 53 to 55 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 56)

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

On clause 56, there are no amendments.

Mr. Boissonnault, would you like to speak?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I just want to talk about this clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Sure.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

This is former section 159 in the Criminal Code. The LGBTQ community has been asking for decades for it to be removed from the Criminal Code. It criminalizes same-sex consensual activity between consenting young men. This discrimination doesn't exist for young women, but it exists for men aged 16 to 18. It's the right thing to do. We need to have this removed from our Criminal Code. I'm very happy we're doing this.

I'd like a roll call vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Sure.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully support this clause. I certainly support the repeal of section 159, but I have to say I don't understand why it has taken this government so long to repeal this zombie section of the Criminal Code.

I can remember back in the fall of 2016 the government announced Bill C-32, with great fanfare about how it was going to repeal section 159. It was such a priority of this government, but that bill remains stuck at first reading, two years later. Then it tried again and introduced Bill C-39 on March 8 of 2017, to again repeal section 159. That was such a priority of this government that the bill remains stuck at first reading—by the way, to the chagrin of the McCann family in my riding, who have suffered as a result of the misapplication of the zombie law.

Now finally they've thrown it into this very flawed piece of legislation. Perhaps it's one of the few good things to come out of Bill C-75. Again, I'm happy to support it. It's just disappointing that it's been two years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I guess it's disappointing that it was ruled unconstitutional a decade ago and it was not removed until now.

Mr. Boissonnault.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, assuming the vote goes in a good way and the bill passes through the House, I'll be very happy with our government's record on this, as opposed to the other side that had 10 years to do the same, but did nothing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay. We've all had some fun. It's a very important clause. I think this is an important moment in history that we're actually doing this.

(Clause 56 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

I'm sure Ms. May would have voted yes also if she could have voted.