Yes.
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.
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.
6:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This amendment comes from the testimony of someone who—I know him personally—has an amazing legal mind, Professor Kent Roach, who looked at the situation and said in his own evidence:
...I spent a lot of time this summer looking at all of the jurisprudence from the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court on jury selection. Frankly, judges are somewhat conservative on these issues. My worry is that, as the amendment is now written—which, as you noted, simply adds “maintain confidence in the administration of justice”—it doesn't guide the exercise of judicial discretion. Different judges will exercise the discretion differently.
Just as we saw with the sentencing provisions, and as we see in other parts of Bill C-75 relating to bail, it behooves Parliament to give judges a signal that we are concerned about the overrepresentation of indigenous and other groups in our criminal justice system.
That is why it is highlighted here, to ensure that the judiciary in applying Bill C-75 has strong consideration of the fair representation of our aboriginal people and other vulnerable populations overrepresented in our criminal justice system.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I just realized I spoke to Green Party-42. I'm so sorry. I spoke to the aboriginal issue. It's Green Party-41 that I meant to be speaking to, which is also Professor Kent Roach, but deals with repealing a provision on the validity of the plea, looking at whether this new provision, which will add new requirements for the failure to determine whether the facts support the charge before accepting the guilty plea, could affect the validity of the plea.
I apologize for speaking to the wrong amendment at this time.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Sorry about that. It's amendment Green Party-41, which is also based on the testimony of Professor Kent Roach.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Is there any discussion on PV-41?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The NDP amendments in my package are not numbered, but my understanding is that NDP-12 was identical to PV-41. Is that correct?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Then that one falls as well. We'll have a vote on clause 270.
(Clause 270 agreed to)
Now we get to a proposed new clause 270.1. There are X-150 and X-151, related to juror panels and challenging jury panels. These are from the committee's original discussions. Is there anyone here who wishes to move X-150 or -151?
Not seeing anybody, we would then move to NDP-13.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
It's maybe not as nuanced as you might like. NDP-13 is derived from Professor Kent Roach, who testified before the committee. It's about the selected jury, not the jury pool. The idea is to be able to challenge if it's not representative of a particular community, and the challenge has to be submitted in writing.
This amendment would allow the prosecutor or the Crown to challenge the composition of the panel of prospective jurors not only on the grounds of partiality, fraud, and wilful misconduct, but also on the grounds of significant under-representation of aboriginal peoples or other disadvantaged groups that are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
There was a similar amendment you'll recall proposed by the Canadian Bar Association and the Criminal Lawyers' Association as well. The Colten Boushie trial, I think, captivated the attention of the country, and there's a significant under-representation of indigenous people on our Canadian juries despite the fact that they're overrepresented both as accused and as victims. It's only logical, Mr. Chair, that persons who are the most affected by our criminal justice system be represented on the juries of that same system.
Kent Roach made the following statement: “Juries are here to stay. They are a symbol of the community that we are, and they are a symbol of the community we want to be.”
That is the motivation of NDP-13.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
While I find our colleague's amendments very laudable in terms of addressing the under-representation on juries, I think this amendment may lead to some unintended consequences and may possibly create some practical challenges.
I think we heard in testimony some really great ideas as to how to deal with the under-representation, and that could include the actual pool from which jurors are selected. I think that may be a better way to address the issues that my colleague is trying to get at. I'm concerned that these changes could possibly lead to delays, where additional jury panels have to be summoned.
We can address what Mr. Rankin is trying to get at through other measures. I believe we are writing a letter to our provincial and territorial counterparts by way of the minister, to see how we can address the crux of the issue we're trying to get at here.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I appreciate the first point in particular that my friend Ms. Khalid made.
The issue of jury pools was one that Justice Iacobucci, doing a report for the Ontario government, spent a great deal of time on. I concede immediately that the administration of justice, and hence the selection of jurors, is entirely a provincial matter.
I'm not prepared, Mr. Chair, to leave this to the provinces. I'm not prepared to believe that Premier Ford is going to run with this particular amendment any time soon. I think the travesty that we saw in Saskatchewan this past year led a lot of people to do some sober soul-searching on what to do in the circumstances. Now, I'm not convinced either—as to her second point—that delay would necessarily occur. As soon as we have a system in which this kind of provision is in place, I'm sure the people responsible for the administration of justice—prosecutors, sheriffs, etc.—will rise to the occasion.
That's the reason I'm not prepared to simply say that the provinces will fix it. They haven't, and I don't think they will any time soon.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
If there is no further discussion, let's move to a vote on NDP-13, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Just to note, NDP-13 applies to consequential amendment NDP-17. It would only make sense if this NDP one was adopted.
(On clause 271)
We move to clause 271 and CPC-116.
Mr. Cooper.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What this clause would do is strike down the language eliminating peremptory challenges. The reason we're introducing this as an amendment rather than simply voting against the clause is that the clause does more than one thing. We support part of the clause, but we object to the other part of the clause that would eliminate peremptory challenges.
While I certainly recognize the sensitivity around the representativeness of the composition of juries, there was a fair bit of evidence that peremptory challenges are an important tool to increasing the representativeness of juries. Moreover, there was a fair bit of evidence before the committee that the system isn't broken.
On that basis, we think that, at the very least, further study and further consideration is required before eliminating peremptory challenges.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal