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.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
In the meantime, then, I guess I will speak to it.
I think that one of the main objectives of Bill C-75 was to address the issue of juries, and peremptory challenges are a big part of that. We had a really fulsome discussion with our witnesses with respect to how we could have a better representation on juries. The removal of this would address the issue of maybe perhaps unconscious bias, etc.
I believe that a fulsome approach, including the provinces and territories, as well as the elimination of peremptory challenges, would address that issue of diversity and inclusion on our jury pools.
I cannot support this motion. Thank you.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I would simply say, in conclusion, that I would have preferred the route that Mr. Rankin was proposing to the route the government is proposing, which is to eliminate peremptory challenges. I would note that there was a considerable body of evidence before the committee that was quite critical of this aspect of the bill, including numerous lawyers who appeared before the committee. In any event, the evidence was voluminous in opposition to this bill. It's unfortunate that the government has not heeded that evidence.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'd like to make a quick point, and thank you for patience, Mr. Chair. I know we have a lot to get through.
I want to note that challenge for cause would still be a part of the process. Perhaps that would address my colleague's concerns with respect to the selection of the jury.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
We can save some time now, Mr. Chair, because I accidentally spoke to it when I was supposed to be on PV-41.
This is the one that would ensure that we create, in this section, some direction to judges in the exercise of discretion, so that the concerns of the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups is emphasized in this section.
Thank you.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you so much.
Is there any discussion? Not seeing any, let's move to a vote on PV-42. It's identical to NDP-14.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 271 agreed to)
(Clause 272 agreed to on division)
(On clause 273)
Then we move to clause 273, where we have the identical PV-43 and NDP-15. I'll leave it to whichever one of you wants to speak to that.
6:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you
For this, again, there was evidence from Professor Kent Roach. What we're trying to get at here, as a matter of policy, is that we do have a problem that juries tend to under-represent the very groups that are overrepresented in our prison system. That may be a coincidence, but it does seem that the principle that one faces a jury of one's peers is undermined when the juries, just through the structure of our society and the way our jury system is organized, are not necessarily likely to be the peers of those who are in the groups that are overrepresented. The proposal in PV-43, which is identical to NDP-15, again follows the advice of Professor Roach that we should amend this to allow permanent residents to serve on juries. Allowing permanent residents to be jurors could help with the problem of the under-representation of marginalized people who are recent Canadians.
We should also remove language barriers for indigenous jurors. If there are interpretive services available, and a juror who doesn't speak English or French can participate fully in the jury, that would also be a way of ensuring that juries are not composed of people who are extremely likely not to be the peers of the people who appear at the prisoners' bench.
The accused and the jurors who judge them should have a chance, under this amendment, to actually have some small chance at not a full jury of one's peers but at least some representation of under-represented groups on juries that are overrepresented in prison.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion? Not hearing any, we'll move to a vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 273 agreed to)
(Clauses 274 to 277 inclusive agreed to on division)
We defeated clause 278.
(Clauses 279 to 289 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 290)
For clause 290 we have LIB-17. All the rest of the amendments we have are technical amendments, so hopefully we can go really fast and get this done.
Mr. Hehr.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kent Hehr Liberal Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We're amending clause 290 to replace a reference to a release order with “recognizance, with or without sureties”, in proposed section 706. It replaces the term “release order” with “recognizance, with or without sureties.” An order that is used to bind a witness to appear in court is not part of the bail regime and should continue to be referred to as “recognizance”.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Hehr.
This ties into other amendments we've already adopted.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 290 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 291)
We have LIB-18 on clause 291. Who is going to speak to that one?
Mr. McKinnon?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Chair.
This amends clause 291 to replace a reference to a release order in proposed subsection 707(3), again, with “recognizance, with or without sureties”.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It ties into the other amendments.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 291 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 292 to 294 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 295)
On clause 295, we have PV-44.
6:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you very much.
In three difference places found within clause 295, I'm suggesting deleting the sections that require a judge give reasons that.... They're very strangely worded sections, but the effect of proposed section 715.23, for example, is that “the court may order an accused to appear by audioconference or videoconference, if the court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate”.
The way it's worded may inadvertently create the default position that it's expected that the accused in very remote geographical situations are expected to show up in person.
The deletions that are proposed here came at the suggestion of the Canadian Bar Association to say that we ought to have more of a presumption that those who are remote have that opportunity to participate by audio conference or video conference. Right now, these proposed sections reverse the presumption of personal appearance in suggesting remote appearance should be the norm, unless the court otherwise orders and records a statement of reasons to that effect.
The view of the Canadian Bar Association is that, at worst, this contradicts the general principle found in proposed section 715.21, and at best, it is confusing.
That's why amendment Green Party-44 suggests amending the proposed section by deleting those references to providing reasons.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
It looks to me like this is the Green Party's last amendment on this bill. I would just like to comment that I appreciate the interventions of Ms. May and the considerable work that she obviously does and has done on this bill.
Thank you.
6:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That's very kind of you.
I think I still have one more, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the remark.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Let's move to a vote on Green Party-44.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 295 agreed to)
NDP-16 in clause 296 is consequential to NDP-1, which was not adopted, so that one falls.
(Clauses 296 to 303 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 304)
We've moved to clause 304. We have CPC-117.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment proposes to increase the victim surcharge by a nominal $25. We consider this to be a very reasonable proposal. It is well known that the victim surcharge is an important source of funding for many programs that support victims, and we think this is an entirely reasonable thing to ask, increasing the sum by a very nominal amount of $25.
