Justice Committee on Oct. 29th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you so much.

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

It's an amendment that I hope will pass. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Does anyone else wish to comment on this amendment?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Then we move to the conflicting CPC-115 and NDP-1. Since CPC-115 was submitted first, it will go first. Then we'll move to NDP-1, if CPC-115 is defeated.

We go to CPC-115.

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

Yes, it's in line with the previous amendment and I would submit it on the same rationale.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you so much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We move to NDP-1, the definition of “vulnerable population”, which is receivable because the original definition that Ms. May proposed for the preamble was not accepted.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

Many of the NDP amendments that are going to be coming forward in the next few minutes are derived from what I thought was persuasive testimony by Marie-Eve Sylvestre of the University of Ottawa.

Members will remember that it was her position that it was necessary to define the term “vulnerable population” in the bill. It doesn't do that in the current formulation. She was concerned about people experiencing homelessness, drug or alcohol users, people with mental health problems, sex workers, racialized minorities, all of whom are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are placed at a disadvantage because they're overexposed to police surveillance and often the victims of profiling and discrimination.

The purpose of my amendment would be to follow her recommendations in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Is there any discussion? We have Mr. McKinnon and Mr. Fraser.

Mr. McKinnon.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My understanding about the nature of these changes is that this is already encompassed in the principle of restraint that's incorporated into the bill. I would ask the officials if they would like to comment on that.

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth]

As you mentioned, it is already incorporated into the principle in the bill. In particular, there is a bit of a characterization put on what is meant by “vulnerable population” in terms of its seeking to address vulnerable populations that are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and that are disadvantaged in obtaining release under this part, so as characteristics related to their vulnerability would make it hard to obtain bail.

This is an example of—when we were discussing the Green Party amendment in relation to the definition of vulnerable population—the danger that defining it as a closed list like this risks leaving certain vulnerabilities out. One example that I don't see when I look at this definition is vulnerability due to racial minorities or cultural groups. That wouldn't be covered by this.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I guess only those who were overrepresented in the criminal justice system would be covered based on this.

Is there any further discussion?

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth]

Sorry, I meant they wouldn't be covered by the suggested definition in NDP-1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

No, I understand.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 212 agreed to)

(Clause 213 agreed to on division)

(On clause 214)

We have PV-15. Ms. May.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is, as you've said, to clause 214. What I'm proposing to do in PV-15 is to replace the discretionary “may” with an obligatory “shall” to ensure that a police officer is required to send the accused who is found in breach of bail conditions to a judicial referral hearing so long as there is no harm that's been done to any member of the public. Of course, the effect of this would be that it would no longer be at the officer's discretion whether this step was taken.

This was, again, recommended strongly in testimony before the committee by the Society of United Professionals who represent legal aid lawyers across Canada, as well as the testimony of Jane Sprott, Cheryl Webster and a number of others.

The question is really this. Our police officers are trained in many things, and they do a fine job in the things for which they are trained. They are not trained for this. They are not equipped to make this determination. By making it obligatory except if there is a significant threat of harm to a member of the public, it will enforce the direction the government wishes to go in this bill, and it would be an improvement and one that comes recommended from a group of legal professionals who deal with this client group more than anyone else.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

While I appreciate Ms. May's intervention and rationale behind it, I respectfully won't be supporting the amendment because I do think it is important for police officers on the ground, who have the full context of each and every case coming before them, to use their best discretion in making these determinations. This takes away that discretion that they're exercising their best judgment when presented with the circumstances of the individual before them, so I think it's better to leave it with their discretion. Therefore, I won't be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 214 agreed to)

(On clause 215)

We move to clause 215, on NDP-2.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

As I indicated in my last intervention, the basis of NDP-2, and NDP-3 and others that are following, is the analysis conducted by Professor Sylvestre in her empirical work. The number of adults placed in interim detention is significantly more than the number of persons sentenced to imprisonment in Canada.

The high interim detention rates have a disproportionate effect, she said, on groups like aboriginals and people with mental health issues. The decision to detain is first made, of course, by the police, and directly influences the continuation of the proceedings. Indeed, a detained person who appears before court is much more likely to plead guilty in the earliest opportunity, the research shows.

The purpose of NDP-2 is to address when a person may be denied from release only if they pose a real and substantial risk to the safety and security of any person—a victim or a witness. It thus brings clarity to the term “reasonable grounds”, and that is the purpose in doing so.

I would commend her work and the amendment to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin.

Is there discussion?

Mr. McKinnon.

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

I appreciate Mr. Rankin's perspective; however, I suspect this is also encompassed in the principle of restraint, as we saw in the previous amendment.

I would ask the officials to weigh in on this.

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth]

Thank you.

Subsection 498(1.1) of the Criminal Code, which would be amended by NDP-2, is in fact not amended currently by Bill C-75.

What is contained in subsection 498(1.1) are the grounds for which police can detain the accused. Bill C-75 actually does not amend the grounds of detention of either police or the courts. It maintains the existing case law and structure of the bail regime in Canada.

The principle of restraint does look to the grounds of detention and in fact refers to the grounds of detention, but it doesn't modify them. The effect of NDP-2 would be to depart from the existing bail regime and could have unintended operational impacts on the reasons for which police currently detain the accused.

Remembering that this decision is made hundreds of times daily throughout Canada, it could have very big operational impacts in terms of not allowing police to detain for reasons that it is currently done.

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

Did I hear you correctly that subsection 498(1.1) is not amended in Bill C-75 at all?

[Shannon Davis-Ermuth]

Correct.

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

I would ask the chair if this is receivable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I believe it is receivable, yes.