Justice Committee on Oct. 29th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue our clause-by-clause review of Bill C-75.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the personnel who were able to work so hard to have this early extra meeting. Thank you to the clerk, the legislative clerks, and the analysts. It is really appreciated. Thank you as well to the translators and everyone else who really helped out. It is much, much appreciated.

I also want to thank the members and the officials from the Department of Justice who were able to accommodate their schedules. It is much, much appreciated.

Before I go to our next clause—that will be clause 87—I want to advise members of the committee that over the weekend the vice-chairs and I had a conversation. To expedite the bill, we agreed that on those clauses where there are no amendments, we will agree that they are deemed adopted on division. That's with the exception of clause 278 of the bill, which relates to routine police evidence.

This will allow us not to have to put our hands up each time to vote on the clauses where there are no amendments. Can I confirm whether that is okay with everyone?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay. I will deem that confirmed. We will adopt on division the clauses that have no amendments, other than clause 278.

(On clause 87)

We have amendment CPC-48.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment again relates to the reclassification of offences in Bill C-75. Bill C-75 would make the offence of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing bodily harm to be prosecutable by way of summary conviction. This amendment would maintain that offence as strictly indictable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper.

Is there any debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 87 agreed to)

(On clause 88)

We will move to CPC-49.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is another amendment dealing with reclassification. Bill C-75 would water down sentencing for an offence related to an unseaworthy vessel and unsafe aircraft. This would maintain the status quo, which is to treat that offence as strictly indictable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 88 agreed to)

(On clause 89)

We have amendment CPC-50.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is again related to reclassification. It's amazing how many serious indictable offences are being reclassified in Bill C-75. This would maintain the offence of failure to stop at the scene of an accident as an indictable offence. Bill C-75 would make it prosecutable by way of summary conviction, potentially.

On this one, I would ask for a roll call vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Clerk, we'll have a roll call vote, please.

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

(Clause 89 agreed to)

(On clause 90)

We have amendment CPC-51.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

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

This amendment would simply maintain for the applicable section the current 18-month sentence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Do you mean that it would maintain the current 18-month sentence as opposed to moving it to two years less a day?

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

Let me just seek clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Maybe we could ask the official.

Carole, could you please clarify?

[Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

That's my understanding, because it's already—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

It would leave it at 18 months instead of making it two years less a day.

[Carole Morency]

—under summary conviction. That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are you sure you want to move that?

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

Sorry, I was on the wrong amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Currently I'm at CPC-51.

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

Now I'm clear as to which amendment we're on. I apologize for the delay. As you can appreciate, the amendments are voluminous here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

They are.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment is, in my opinion, a fairly significant amendment. It deals with the very serious indictable offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm. Bill C-75 seeks to water down the sentence for impaired driving causing bodily harm, an offence that currently carries a maximum 10-year sentence, taking it down to a sentence that could be at most two years less a day, and as little as a mere fine, if it were prosecuted by way of summary conviction. We heard overwhelming testimony from victims of impaired driving who pleaded with the members of this committee to amend Bill C-75 to not water down sentences for impaired driving causing bodily harm.

I remind members of the committee that when we're talking about impaired driving, we're talking about the leading criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. Each and every day, between three and four Canadians are killed at the hands of impaired drivers. In addition to that, dozens more are injured at the hands of impaired drivers. Reclassifying impaired driving causing bodily harm to a hybrid offence from what it is today, which is strictly an indictable offence, sends the wrong message. It sends the message that impaired driving is really not that serious an offence.

Should there be any doubt about that message, I would reference some of the statements that were made by Liberal MPs on this committee last week when we were dealing with Conservative amendments related to terrorist-related offences. Bill C-75 waters down several terrorist-related offences. We said that it was wrong, that it shouldn't be, and we brought forward amendments. It was very encouraging to see members on that side do the right thing and support those amendments.

Randy Boissonnault, the member for Edmonton Centre, is on record at the committee as saying that he supported those Conservative amendments because terrorist-related offences are “very serious offences”. Well, Mr. Chair, so is impaired driving causing bodily harm. I urge members of this committee to be consistent, to do what they did with respect to terrorist-related offences and to treat impaired driving causing bodily harm as a serious offence by keeping it a strictly indictable offence.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We have Mr. Fraser, and then Mr. McKinnon.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to this offence in particular, I note that impaired driving is a problem in Canada. Bill C-46, which this committee dealt with not long ago, includes a number of measures to deal with impaired driving on our roads caused by alcohol or other substances. It provides a whole host of measures that will actually have the impact of deterring people from driving while impaired, as well as having resources available for police in order to get convictions for those offences.

My friend references the terrorism-related offences and advocating genocide, which were the subject of a good discussion at the last committee meeting. I would note that there were a number of reasons why Liberal members decided that those ones should not be hybridized and were distinguishable in many respects from the other offences that are not to be de-hybridized, so to speak.

The rationale for the hybridization of offences is to allow Crowns proper discretion, in the appropriate cases, to proceed by way of summary offence. The sentencing principles remain the same. It allows Crowns more discretion in order to judge on a case-by-case basis the appropriate procedures to use and to actually help deal with delay.

That was the purpose of hybridizing offences. There's no question that there is a distinction from other offences that this committee has already debated. I note that Bill C-46 deals in a comprehensive and effective way with the scourge that is impaired driving on our roads. That's why I will not be voting in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. McKinnon, go ahead.