Evidence of meeting #115 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 move.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Again, I'll be brief.
I have several concerns with this amendment, the first being that basically you'd be asking a judge, on bail, to consider what considerations should be made on sentencing. Also, there are good reasons why there are conditions on bail, such as to ensure the attendance of the accused, to take into account whether or not there's a risk to public safety, irrespective of what the principal offence they're charged with would be.
I believe that this amendment would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, and I won't be supporting it.
5:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I appreciate the fluidity with which the words rolled off your tongue, Colin, but this is not against fundamental principles of justice. It's the Supreme Court of Canada that said, “An accused is presumed innocent and must not find it necessary to plead guilty solely to secure his or her release”.
There are other ways to ensure people show up for trial, which I mentioned in previous debate before this committee.
I find it bizarre, and I happen to have been wondering for some time why it is that when we demand sureties, the custom and the tradition.... I think that a lot of the general public would assume that if someone puts down bail and then someone bolts and doesn't abide by their conditions, that the people who put down the surety are out the amount of the surety. The reality is that the criminal justice system almost never goes after the people who posted bail to say, “Sorry, mom, your son bolted. You've lost your house.” The number of ways you can put conditions on bail could include actually treating these sureties seriously.
In this amendment, we're talking about whether they would be sent to custody pending trial. Judges have a pretty good sense of whether somebody's offence is going to lead to jail time or not; whereas the amount that you can, pretrial, be held in custody, can go into years.
It's pretty straightforward. I only reacted, because you said it offended the fundamental principles of justice. Clearly, it does not.
Thank you.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
All I'll say is that I was referring to the seriousness of the offence, which is already taken into account on bail.
I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Let's move to a vote on PV-35.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Then we get to PV-36.
5:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is similar, in that it would guide the judge or justice to consider the likelihood that the accused would receive a sentence of more than 30 days if convicted. If that were not the case, the judge would suggest that it might be an occasion when the accused should be released from pretrial detention.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I think the spirit of this PV-37 and NDP-11 are very similar, yet the wording is different. I accept that.
Would the defeat of PV-37 still...?
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
No. We'll be there in a second, and then I will mention that the wording is similar to NDP-11. I promise and I'll try to figure out which one we use.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We're on PV-36 right now.
If there is no one else, can we have a vote on PV-36?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we get to PV-37, and if adopted, NDP-11 cannot be moved.
Because PV-37 was the first submitted, it's the first one in the package. Ms. May would go first, and then you could bring in NDP-11, if PV-37 is defeated.
Ms. May.
5:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have seen this happen over and over again in Canada, that someone's pretrial detention exceeds the amount of time that they would spend in jail if they were convicted when they eventually got to trial. Delays in timely hearing lead to this problem.
My amendment and, as Mr. Rankin said, NDP-11 would deal with this issue by saying that the accused would be allowed to bring an application for immediate release, if they can establish that they have already been detained for longer than the likely sentencing range that would be considered upon conviction.
It's a satisfactory response to a real-life situation. People spend a long time languishing in pretrial detention for crimes which, even if they had gotten a timely trial and been convicted and given a serious sentencing, wouldn't amount to as much time as waiting to get to trial.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Then we move to NDP-11.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I have a feeling this isn't going to go well, Chair.
It sounds like exactly the same argument. The language is a bit more robust in NDP-11, but the principle is exactly the same.
It's really irrational and frankly unjust for an accused to be in detention for security reasons while awaiting a trial, if the crime they're charged with is not even serious enough to lead to imprisonment or would lead to imprisonment for only a very short time.
The amendment would remove unnecessary restrictions on the liberties of the accused. That's the purpose of the amendment. It seems like a common-sense amendment to me.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 237 agreed to)
(Clauses 238 and 239 agreed to on division)
(On clause 240)
Clause 240 is the first where we get to the issue of preliminary hearings. There are two amendments that, if anybody wishes, they can propose. These came from the committee's original discussions.
One of them in X-144 changes the term “life” to “10 years”. In X-145 it's changing the term “life” to “five years”.
It's up to anyone on the committee if they wish to move these. If not, we'll move on.
I'll give Mr. Rankin a second.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We have nobody moving these amendments. Therefore, there are no amendments to clause 240.
(Clause 240 agreed to on division)
(On clause 241)
On clause 241, X-146 and X-147 are different options with respect to preliminary hearings. One of them would have been, had “10 years or more” been passed in the previous...and the other would be, had “five years or more” passed in the previous....
I would rule that it would be inconsistent at this point, because we didn't change “life” in the previous two. To change 10 years or five years in this section, I think would create an inconsistency in the Criminal Code that we couldn't have.
That would be my ruling. If anybody wants to challenge that, please let me know.
Not hearing any, I'll rule those two out of order.
We will move to PV-38, Ms. May, which retains “life” and has other options, so that one is not inconsistent.
5:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This again deals with evidence from the Canadian Bar Association and the Criminal Lawyers' Association, looking at the reality that we should expand the eligibility criteria for preliminary inquiries. They very rarely take place.
The effect of this, according to the evidence that the committee has heard, is that preliminaries are useful in eliminating weak charges, focusing the issues and closing cases earlier. It was submitted that:
...without a preliminary inquiry, the Crown will have often unfettered access to ask questions of witnesses prior to trial, and the defence, in most cases, will have no ability to do the same, further tilting the already significant power imbalance between accused and state.
My amendment attempts to redress that imbalance, at least slightly, by increasing the opportunity for the accused to seek preliminary inquiries expanding eligibility criteria.
Thank you.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you, Ms. May.
Is there anybody who wishes to intervene on Ms. May's amendment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 241 agreed to)
On clause 242, again, I would rule that X-148 and X-149 are inconsistent with previous defeated resolutions because they seek to change.... Wait. Let me just check that.
X-148 and X-149 are different. X-148 is inconsistent because it says “10 years”. X-149 is inconsistent because it's “five years”.
I would say PV-39, with the defeat of the previous PV-38, becomes inconsistent with a different section of the code as well. Unfortunately, I think I have to rule that one out of order as well.
(Clauses 242 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 243 to 252 inclusive agreed to on division)
On clause 253, we have LIB-15. Who is speaking to Liberal-15?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Mr. Boissonnault was supposed to, but I see he's not here.
Sorry. One second....
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
This is related to routine police evidence, so we should move to clause 278. This would then come into effect if clause 278 were voted down. That is my understanding.
Folks, this is a change to this clause that would be consequential to the voting down of clause 278, on routine police evidence, so we should move, I believe, to clause 278 on routine police evidence, to determine if the committee wishes to support it or vote it down. Does everybody understand that?
