Evidence of meeting #114 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you for that, but I'm still Monday-morning confused here. Are we being asked by this process now to re-enact a mandatory minimum? Is that what we're doing here right now?
12:55 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Well, that's what my understanding—
12:55 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
The motion is seeking to increase the maximum from 18 months to two years less a day for victims over the age of 16. But in doing so, the process in this motion, the way it's drafted, would repeal what is there in the Criminal Code now—
1 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
—and re-enact the entirety, which includes a mandatory minimum as well as a higher maximum on summary conviction.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I think I'm very clear now on the amendment and the provision. Thank you very much for the explanation.
Is everybody on the committee clear?
We'll move, then, to a vote on CPC-53, if that's okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 99 to 103 inclusive agreed to on division)
Amendment X-65 was already dealt with. PV-11 was already dealt with. X-66 was already dealt with. LIB-8 was already dealt with. They were all already dealt with by our other votes.
Sorry for the confusion, everybody. Clause 104 is adopted as amended, with the bawdy house amendment.
(Clause 104 as amended agreed to on division)
Just so everybody's clear, these were changing lines in the bill. Based on the substantive decision we made to repeal sections 210 and 211, this clause will be amended to remove sections 210 and 211. We already made those decisions by the substantive one, so there are no further amendments. Those amendments are now included in the clause we've adopted on division.
(Clause 105 agreed to on division)
(On clause 106)
We are on CPC-54.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're back now onto some of the amendments dealing with the reclassification of offences. I was quite alarmed that Bill C-75 seeks to water down sentencing for the offence of material benefit from trafficking. Right now, the maximum sentence is 10 years. Bill C-75 would make it possible that the maximum sentence for material benefit from trafficking would be two years less a day, and of course as little as merely a fine.
It's really unclear on what basis the government has decided to treat a material benefit for trafficking, which, I think we should agree, is a serious offence, as something that could be punishable by as little as a mere fine. I would encourage members to support this amendment by maintaining that this very serious offence as strictly indictable, and I would call for a recorded vote.
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I would just like to comment again that whether this is hybrid or not, the maximum sentence remains at 10 years. Hybridization does not change that. Even if we don't hybridize, there's nothing to say that a court or prosecution couldn't come in and recommend a sentence of a year, or six months, or 18 months. That doesn't change. What does change of course is that the prosecutor can elect to proceed in a way that seems more appropriate to the circumstance. It increases the flexibility of the Crown in deciding how to prosecute an offence. That's why I can't support this amendment.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I have a comment in relation to that. What it actually does, as Mr. Rankin alluded to earlier, is to take away the discretion of a judge. It takes away the discretion of a judge to impose sentence with respect to sentencing. In fact, it would tie the hands of a judge when it comes to sentencing, from 10 years to two years less a day, and that decision would be made without any level of transparency by likely an overworked Crown prosecutor. We think it's the wrong approach.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I just want to ask Mr. Cooper a question, because time and again I hear that somebody could be subject to a penalty of as little as a fine.
Wouldn't you agree with me that if the Crown elects to proceed by indictment, or for something that is a straight indictable offence, many of those offences could be dealt with by way of a fine?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It makes it far more likely that a mere fine would be handed out, and of course with respect to any jail time, anytime you go by way of summary conviction, you're basically taking jail time completely off the table for all intents and purposes. It waters the sentencing down; there's no question about it.
Again, it's unclear why we're watering down this specific offence, other than because the government just said that it would reclassify anything that was for 10 years.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
With great respect, Mr. Chair, the two years less a day can be a maximum, but that can easily be completed as jail time. That is obviously still up to the judge based on the sentencing principles. I note that he didn't directly answer the question, but I would submit that most indictable offences can actually be dealt with by way of a penalty as mere as a fine, despite the rhetoric from the other side.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Of course when you look at statutory release provisions and so on, first of all, there's a big difference between 10 years and two years less a day, and even if the judge gives the maximum of two years less a day, when there is regard for a statutory release etc., serious meaningful jail time for, again, a very serious offence is virtually, or nearly, being taken off the table.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I have one final point on that. It has to do with the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender, and that doesn't change with respect to the sentencing principles.
Thank you.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We've been asked for a roll call vote on CPC-54.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 106 agreed to)
(On clause 107)
We're now on CPC-55.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is dealing with yet another part of Bill C-75 that waters down sentences for indictable offences. This amendment would address the offence of withholding or destroying documents in the context of trafficking, to maintain that offence as a solely indictable offence.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Is there any further discussion on CPC-55?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 107 agreed to)
(On clause 108)
We will move to clause 108 and CPC-56.
Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is an amendment again dealing with watering down sentences. Among the serious offences that this government saw fit to water down is none other than abducting a person under the age of 16. I can't believe it, but we actually have an amendment in Bill C-75 that would potentially water down sentences for kidnapping a minor. That is obviously a very serious crime and should be treated as a solely indictable offence in the same way that Liberal MPs rightfully saw fit to make terrorism-related offences subject to being prosecutable solely by way of an indictable process.