Justice Committee on Oct. 29th, 2018

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thanks, Chair. My comments are fully along the lines of Mr. Fraser's.

I want to mention that there is certainly a philosophical divide between the two sides of this table regarding the matter of hybridization. I want to emphasize that this bill waters down no sentences.

The realm of sentencing that's possible after hybridization is the same as it was before hybridization. It just gives the prosecution more discretion when it comes time to prosecute an offence, which we know is going to be helpful in terms of helping things proceed more expeditiously through the system. There's no sense whatsoever of watering down any offence. That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We have Ms. Khalid, and then Mr. Cooper to close.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I echo the words of my colleagues Mr. Fraser and Mr. McKinnon in saying that we worked very hard through Bill C-46 to ensure that our roads are safe. I spent a lot of time on it.

I will reiterate what I've said—and what my colleagues have said—over the past number of days as we've gone through clause-by-clause, specifically in dealing with hybridization. We have to take a more contextual approach to how we deal with the challenges that our court system is facing, including delays. I believe that hybridization is going to be one of the factors to ensure that delays are cut down within our court system by making our system more efficient and actually more fair as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think some of the comments made by my colleagues, all of whom I respect as members of this committee, are off base, with due respect.

Mr. Fraser has suggested that Bill C-75 does not impact upon sentencing principles, and other Liberal MPs have repeatedly said something similar, including the Minister of Justice. I know Mr. Fraser is not attempting to mislead the committee, but I think it is a misleading statement.

Of course it doesn't impact on sentencing principles. Sentencing principles weren't impacted in relation to the terrorism-related offences, but that wasn't why we proposed these amendments on the terrorism-related offences or on impaired driving causing bodily harm. Evidently, that was also not the basis for the Liberal MPs last week to do the right thing and support our amendments on the terrorism-related offences.

What Bill C-75 does do, contrary to the statement of Mr. McKinnon, with respect to terrorism-related offences and with respect to impaired driving causing bodily harm, is water down sentences for those offences. It waters down those sentences by making the maximum sentence go from 10 years to a maximum of two years less a day if prosecuted by way of summary conviction. That has absolutely everything to do with sentencing, Mr. Chair, and there was no basis, no evidence tendered before the committee, to justify why impaired driving causing bodily harm should be treated in this way instead of the way it is, rightly, presently treated, which is strictly as an indictable offence.

Of course we know, generally speaking—and I've made this point before, but I think it's important that it be made yet again—that the evidence before the committee is that, in terms of giving discretion, it is in fact going to be far less transparent, in terms of electing whether to proceed by indictable offence or summary conviction offence. We know it's going to result in more cases being downloaded onto our overburdened and overstretched provincial courts, since 99.6% of criminal cases are already heard before provincial courts. It's going to reduce the Jordan timeline from 30 months to 18 months before a delay is deemed presumptively unreasonable.

Bill C-75 does not address those issues, but it does send the wrong message. It makes it more likely that individuals who are charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm are going to get nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and quite frankly, Mr. Chair, victims and all Canadians deserve better than this.

I would just read into the record a quote from Markita Kaulius, the president of Families for Justice, who lost her daughter at the hands of an impaired driver. She said, “Bill C-75 is a terrible bill for victims and for public safety.” Sheri Arsenault, who lost her son Bradley, appeared before this committee and said, “This government bill is telling Canadians loud and clear that impaired driving is not considered serious and, in fact, it's not even considered dangerous.”

Mr. Chair, I would encourage members opposite to listen to the victims and do the right thing: treat impaired driving causing bodily harm as the serious offence it is and support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Mr. Rankin, go ahead.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I've been silent and will not likely participate in much of the back and forth about each of these efforts to hybridize. I would just like to say again for the record, because we've been away for a while, that we also take the view that hybridization is not the way to go here.

We have said over and over again that the minister has failed to accept the mandate in her mandate letter to deal with mandatory minimum penalties, something that was promised to the Canadian people, and something that is studiously avoided in a 402-page bill. That would make judges accountable for the sentences they deliver.

This bill allows Crown council, in the privacy of their offices, to decide with no transparency how to proceed. We think that's wrong. We think it doesn't do the job. I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague Mr. Cooper. This is a massive downloading to the provinces, where most of the action in criminal law already is. There's a certain ad hocery about choosing some that we won't hybridize and others that we will. I find the whole thing misguided.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I think everybody has put back on the record what they had on the record from the first meeting in terms of everybody's positions.

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

I would request a roll call vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Clerk, we will have a roll call vote on amendment CPC-51.

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

(Amendment agreed to)

There are no amendments on clause 91, so it's deemed carried.

(Clause 91 agreed to on division)

(On clause 92)

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We have CPC-52.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is again an amendment dealing with the reclassification of offences under Bill C-75. This amendment would maintain the status quo by keeping the offence of impeding the attempt to save a life as a solely indictable offence, as opposed to what Bill C-75 would do, which would make it a hybrid offence prosecutable potentially by way of summary conviction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Is there any discussion? If not, we'll move to a vote on CPC-52.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 92 agreed to)

On clauses 93 to 98, there are no amendments, so we'll deem them carried on division.

(Clauses 93 to 98 inclusive agreed to on division)

We have a new clause, clause 98.1, proposed in CPC-53.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an amendment that I believe deals with a gap that was identified during the committee hearings on Bill C-75, in which, for whatever reason, the maximum sentence for sexual assault as a summary conviction offence is 18 months, as opposed to two years less a day. What this amendment would do is increase that to two years less a day so that it's consistent with the other offences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We're on CPC-53.

Mr. Rankin, go ahead.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

This is probably a question best addressed to the officials.

Is the objective here to create a mandatory minimum of jail time or not? The proposal is to create a mandatory minimum for disarming a peace officer. Am I right? It's currently a hybrid offence in the code, with a maximum penalty of 18 months on conviction. I'm not clear what the intent here would be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We're on CPC-53.

My understanding is that this is a sexual offence where there's a mandatory minimum for children under the age of 16—if the victim is under 16—and there's no mandatory minimum if the victim is over the age of 16. What is being proposed is two years less a day for those over 16, but because there's a mandatory minimum, you didn't change the clause for those 16 and under, and you've left the summary offence at 18 months instead of two years less a day.

The Conservative amendment would conform the two years less a day for both under 16 and over 16, especially given that it would be deemed to be a more serious offence if the person was younger, which is why there's a mandatory minimum there and not for over 16. I think that's what the amendment is.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

All right. Thank you.

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

That summarizes the intent of this amendment perfectly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Can I ask the justice officials about this? Given that the sentence for a younger person.... I mean, there's a mandatory minimum there because I guess we deem that to be even more serious than the other sentence. Would there be an issue, in your view, with making them conform at two years less a day? Is there any justice issue that you see?

[Matthew Taylor, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

The only thing I would say is that if you adopted this amendment, you would be re-enacting the mandatory minimum penalty that's currently provided. The maximum penalty, as Mr. Cooper has said, would then be consistent with the other maximum penalties proposed for summary conviction offences, but you would want to apprise yourself of the fact that you would be re-enacting the mandatory jail sentence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

When we say “re-enacting”, though, I understand that the law, whether we re-enact it or not, is there. If we do nothing, it's there. If we re-enact it, it's there. It's still the same mandatory minimum period. Is that correct?

[Matthew Taylor]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

It's only a political question of re-enacting, but in Bill C-46, did we not re-enact mandatory minimums in different places?

[Carole Morency]

One, it's a drafting protocol. In terms of why Bill C-75, as introduced, does not propose to increase the maximum to two years less a day for those over 16, it would have involved repealing the provision that is there now and then re-enacting the provision with the mandatory minimum penalty. In this case, as the minister has said before and as I answered before as well, this bill is not addressing mandatory minimum penalties, pending a broader review of sentencing issues writ large.

In Bill C-46, there were some mandatory minimum penalties that were omitted and that this committee adopted, again, to put back into the package. Those mandatory minimum penalties, including $1,000 fines, are everywhere in the impaired driving provisions and have not been subject to charter challenges in the way that higher MMPs in the other areas are.

This committee may also know that under the previous government, Bill C-26 had increased all of the maximum penalties for all child sexual offences to two years less a day. At that time, that was done knowing that it was at a different maximum than it was for adults as well, in section 271.

The chair is correct in the sense that it's there already, but as a drafting protocol, that would be a factor that influences government bills in terms of how they're prepared and produced.