Justice Committee on Oct. 4th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We'll now move to a vote on amendments CPC-4 and CPC-13 together.

(Amendments negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move to amendment CPC-5. Amendment CPC-5 is also in the name of Mr. Cooper.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I will move it, and I don't think it's necessary to speak to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Does anyone else feel a need to speak to it?

Not hearing any, we'll move to a vote on amendment CPC-5, which is to change the name of the offence.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you for that reminder.

Markita Kaulius—again, for Families for Justice—feels very strongly that the offence should be called what it is. Instead of “impaired driving causing death”, they would like it called “vehicular homicide”.

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Now we move to amendment CPC-6.

Mr. Warawa, I think this is rather the same issue of changing the name.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

It is. I think I'll provide one more short comment.

The Prime Minister has spoken in Parliament a number of times highlighting promises made during the campaign. Prior to the election, Families for Justice—Markita Kaulius—received a letter from the Prime Minister saying that he would support mandatory minimums, that he would support changing it to “vehicular homicide”. I just remind members of the committee that these are the promises that were made. This is another example of broken promises.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have one more in clause 5, amendment CPC-7, again in the name of Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Basically, colleagues, this is giving the judge discretion on making some sentences consecutive, just so that you all know what it is.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I understand the point of this, but it's already in law that a judge has the discretion to impose consecutive sentences, so I'm not sure exactly what this is trying to achieve.

My concern, and the reason I'm opposed to the amendment, is that it would highlight an area in which it's codifying what is already in law, saying that the judge has discretion to impose a consecutive sentence, whereas other areas of the law wouldn't be so highlighted, and that difference might call into question the consistency in the code.

I don't think it adds anything, and therefore I wouldn't support adding this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Nicholson.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think Mr. Cooper put this forward after hearing the testimony of a number of the witnesses emphasizing the seriousness and the tragedy that takes place; that it's more of a tragedy if two people or three people or five people are killed because of somebody's drinking and driving.

Again, you're giving guidelines in a sense to the courts and pointing out that this is one of the possibilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

That's fair enough.

Let me ask the Justice officials this question, just so that everybody has clarity.

As I understand the law, it is, as both Mr. Fraser and Mr. Nicholson have identified, the state of the current law that the judge has a discretion to impose consecutive sentences. There are many other sections of the code in which this would be the case.

Let me ask this: is this codified anywhere else in the code?

[Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

The Criminal Code provides discretion to the courts to impose consecutive sentences generally and then in some instances directs the court to impose consecutive sentences for certain types of offences.

Examples include some terrorism offences. If a child sexual offence—a contact offence—is committed and the individual is being convicted at the same time as for a charge dealing with child pornography, that would draw a mandatory consecutive sentence.

Otherwise, the Criminal Code codifies what was the common law practice, to tell the court that it has the discretion to oppose consecutive sentences when it's appropriate rising out of separate chains of events.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Then, if I understand correctly, in the other areas, where it is actually inserted in the code for specific offences, it is mandatory, whereas this proposed amendment would be permissive.

Is that right?

[Carole Morency]

Section 718.3 specifies where there is discretion; then you have, peppered throughout the Criminal Code in other spots, situations in which it's mandatory. Where it's mandatory, however, it's done sparingly and done typically for the very serious, high-level types of offences—terrorism, as an example, and some firearms offences. Otherwise the idea is to leave the discretion to the sentencing court to determine what's appropriate in all of the circumstances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Let me just try to clarify before the vote the question Mr. Fraser had and that I originally tried to ask.

There's one general provision in the code wherein it's permissive; in other locations, it's required—the judge does not have discretion. Mr. Cooper's amendment is permissive, meaning that it's allowed.

Is there any other occasion, besides the general provisions in section 718, in which the permissive language here is used?

[Carole Morency]

There is not one that I'm aware of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay, that was what we wanted to clarify.

Mr. Nicholson.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Could you give us a briefing about people who have been convicted of multiple cases of first-degree murder? For instance, in the case of the RCMP officers who were murdered in New Brunswick, the individual got 75 years instead of 25 because the judge had the discretion to make the sentences consecutive, and that was set out in the legislation.

[Carole Morency]

That's correct. The previous government had brought forth reforms to the Criminal Code to deal with mandatory consecutive sentences, up to a maximum of three. When you were dealing with multiple murders, you'd have a life sentence, so, yes, the example—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's still within the discretion of the court.

[Carole Morency]

The norm is to provide discretion to the sentencing court. The exception is to direct mandatory consecutive, in very limited circumstances, for the more serious offences, as I have just described.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Do any other colleagues have any questions?

All right. Would you like to close?