Evidence of meeting #70 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 code.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Good afternoon, everyone. It is a pleasure to be joined this afternoon by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Accompanying her from the Department of Justice is Laurie Wright, who is the assistant deputy minister, public law and legislative services sector. Carole Morency is back again. She is director general and senior general counsel, criminal law policy section, policy sector.

We begin our study of Bill C-51, an exciting act split into three parts.

Minister, the floor is yours. Thank you so much for coming to join us today.

3:30 p.m.

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all members of this committee for inviting me to appear again at this time to speak to and discuss Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

As you know, the Prime Minister has mandated me to review the criminal justice system, which is critically important and a long overdue task. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I am committed to making our laws fairer, clearer, more relevant, and more accessible to all Canadians. Bill C-51 reflects that commitment.

As I continue to work with the provinces and territories, as well as criminal justice system stakeholders, I am guided by a set of clear objectives.

First, using the criminal law to keep Canadians safe, and holding offenders to account for their crimes in a just and appropriate way. Second, making sure that our criminal justice system shows compassion and responds to the needs of victims of crime. Third, responding to the needs of vulnerable populations, and ensuring that the system does not exacerbate the challenges faced by already marginalized groups. Finally, working to make clearer links between the justice system and other social systems, so we are able to more effectively respond to the root causes of crime.

Bill C-51 reflects these objectives through changes that will have a positive and lasting impact on victims of sexual violence. This bill also affirms the fundamental truths upon which our justice system is based, including that criminal law should be used with restraint, that the state bears the responsibility of proving alleged criminal conduct, and that all criminal law must respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, you will already be familiar with the content of the bill. In the time available to me, I don't think I can comprehensively speak to all aspects of the bill. Instead, I will provide a brief overview of the main aspects of the bill, and spend the remainder of my time focusing on some key points of discussion that have arisen since I first introduced the bill on June 6.

It may be useful to think of Bill C-51's proposed amendments as falling into four broad categories. Most of these changes are to the Criminal Code; however, the bill also proposes important improvements to the Department of Justice Act.

The first broad set of reforms under the Criminal Code seek to clarify and bolster the laws surrounding sexual assault. Second, Bill C-51 seeks to build on the proposed changes included in Bill C-39, which I introduced on March 8, by repealing or amending Criminal Code provisions that have been found unconstitutional by the courts. The third area of reform involves amendments that would remove a number of obsolete or redundant criminal offences. Finally, amendments to the Department of Justice Act would create a new statutory duty for the Minister of Justice to table in Parliament a charter statement for every government bill that sets out the bill's potential effects on rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter.

Turning first to the sexual assault law reforms, all parliamentarians recognize the importance of taking steps to ensure that the criminal law is as clear and unequivocal as possible in its response to sexual violence. We all know that sexual assault complainants face significant challenges. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that our laws be both clear and clearly understood. This is important for all parties involved in such proceedings: judges, prosecutors, defence counsel, accused, and victims. It is also important for the proper functioning of the system overall.

In this respect, the proposed changes clarify that persons cannot consent to sexual activity when they are incapable of doing so, including when they are unconscious. This change is in line with the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. J.A.

Second, changes would clarify that accused persons cannot rely on the defence of mistaken belief in consent if their mistake is a mistake of law, or if their belief is based on the complainant's passivity. In this way, it would codify the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Ewanchuk.

The bill will also fill the gap in law by introducing a specific procedure for determining the admissibility of private records relating to the complainant such as private journals that are in the hands of the accused. This will complement existing procedures that apply when the accused seeks to obtain records held by persons other than the crown, for example, a therapist.

I pause here to respond to the concerns that have been expressed around these changes. It has been suggested by some that these amendments amount to a codification of a defence disclosure obligation. I want to be very clear that this is simply not true. These changes provide no rights to the crown to receive evidence, nor do they mean that the defence would be obligated to hand such evidence over. Rather, the changes concern rules of evidence and seek to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the complainant and to support the truth-seeking function of the courts.

As was noted in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Darrach, a voir dire held to determine whether evidence of past sexual history is admissible is not defence disclosure. Additionally, the bill proposes changes to remove laws that have been found unconstitutional by appellate courts. One example is the proposal to remove the restriction that prevents sentencing courts from giving enhanced credit to persons detained prior to being tried and convicted because they've breached a condition of bail. This was found unconstitutional by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Bittern.

Next, Bill C-51 proposes to repeal 20 different offences that are either redundant of other offences of general application, or no longer have relevance in Canada today. Examples include challenging someone to a dual; posting a reward for a return of a stolen item, no questions asked; possessing criminal or crime comics; and publishing a blasphemous libel. These changes are expected to make our laws fairer, clearer, and more relevant and accessible to Canadians.

I've received a number of letters from Canadians expressing concern about Bill C-51's proposed repeal of section 176, which appears to offer specific protections to Christian clergymen. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to respond to these concerns now.

I want to be clear that removing this offence will not in any way undermine Canadians' ability to practise their religious faith, nor do I expect it to lead to an increase in violence in such situations. Many criminal offences of general application will continue to be available to address all of the conduct that is prohibited by section 176. It remains an aggravating factor in sentencing if an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on religion.

Finally, changes to the Department of Justice Act would require the Minister of Justice to table charter statements that would identify and highlight key charter rights and freedoms that are engaged by any government bill. They would also set out considerations that support the justification of any limits that a bill may have on charter rights or freedoms.

As members are aware, I have been tabling charter statements for bills that I have introduced since becoming Minister of Justice. We have also begun to expand this practice to bills introduced by other ministers as well. The amendments would entrench this practice in law and extend it to all future government bills. These changes, as well as those proposed to the Criminal Code, reflect our government's unwavering and deep commitment to respecting the charter.

Quite simply, we can never abdicate our responsibility as a government to ensure that our decisions, including those reflected through law reform, comply with our fundamental rights and freedoms. That is why I'm so pleased to sponsor a bill that reinforces the obligation of current and future governments to adhere to this most basic duty.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this committee and I look forward to all of the questions and discussions.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

I also wanted to salute and say hello to Mr. Tabbara and Mr. Angus, who are joining our committee today. It's nice to have you gentlemen with us.

We're going to do one round of questioning and then general questioning while the minister is here with us, and we're going to start with Mr. Nicholson.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your appearance here today.

You will remember, Minister, that earlier this year there was quite a bit of discussion in Parliament, and a number of motions and debate, with respect to the protection of people's religious freedom. Also, with respect to the charter and the Constitution, people's right to practise their religion is a fundamental right that Canadians have.

I was surprised when I had a look at the details of this bill that one of the things it does is to remove the specific protection for religious services and members of the clergy. Now I notice that at the time it was announced, there was no mention of this. It was just said that it was obsolete, redundant, and no longer relevant.

I think most people in this country would agree with me that it is serious when anybody disrupts, threatens, or interrupts anybody's religious service, no matter what it is, and that it's worthy of the special section in the Criminal Code. Most people I think would agree that it's not the same as causing a disturbance at an arena or interrupting a meeting.

Why don't you agree with me that this section is in fact still relevant?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Thank you for the question. I remember a lot of the discussion that took place back then.

In terms of section 176, as I stated in my opening remarks, there are certainly other provisions in the Criminal Code offences of general application that could capture all of the activities that could potentially occur in a religious facility against a religious officiant, such as provisions or offences around causing a disturbance, assault, uttering threats, mischief to property, or inciting hatred.

I recognize, as you do, that freedom of religion is a fundamental right that's guaranteed under section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This bill in no way proposes to make any changes in that regard. I know and am confident that Canadians can continue to practise their religious faith without fear of violence and disturbances. That is due to the protections in the charter, and to the offences of general application in the Criminal Code that will capture any activity. It's simply ensuring that we remove provisions that are already accounted for in the Criminal Code.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

I agree with you that somebody could be charged with mischief or threats and assaults, but I cannot see why this specific protection for people's right to practise their religion, or members of the clergy, would somehow get on the radar. It wasn't mentioned, if you remember, when the announcement was made.

Interestingly enough, in April of this year, it was reported in the paper that there was an attack in Saint Patrick Basilica on Kent Street. Someone broke the arm off a statue of Jesus on a crucifix just before an evening mass. A woman was charged with breach of a judicial release and disturbing a religious worship in relation to that incident. This is not obsolete, and it's not something that's not being used. This was right here in Ottawa about five or six months ago.

Therefore, I'm going to be bringing an amendment—and I'm hoping it will have the support of the members here—to delete the section that will remove the special protection for religious services. There are many great sections that you have in this bill, the codification, a number of the areas of sexual assault.

I'm hoping you will consider that and agree with me that we should remove the deletion of section 176.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Thank you for your additional questions. As I have said every time that I appear, I would welcome any potential amendments that would seek to improve this legislation.

I will say, and the member likely knows this as well, that section 176 has not been charged very frequently. I am familiar with the case he is referencing in terms of the situation that happened in Ottawa.

Section 176 is difficult to prove. The various elements contained therein are limited to clergymen or ministers in the Christian faith, and it's not inclusive of other religious leaders. Again, I will say—and the member has agreed with me—that there are other provisions that will adequately capture all of the activity that potentially could take place.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Let me ask one more. We will be following that up, you can imagine.

The very first section that was deleted, and again this didn't get any publicity, was the special section that makes it an offence if you in any way threaten or attempt to attack Canada's head of state, the Queen. Wouldn't you think it's maybe bad timing on the 65th anniversary of the Queen's reign that we would be removing this specific section for somebody like her, who has an unparalleled public service record among public figures throughout the world?

Again, I would believe that most people would say that if you rough up somebody somewhere in a bar some night, this is not quite as serious as if you attempt to attack the Queen, who is the head of state. As I say, in many countries that would be treated as treason. Why would you find it necessary to remove that one this year?

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

We've done a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code, engaged with many academics. We conducted round tables across the country, and had working groups in terms of federal, provincial, and territorial ministers that have discussed this.

In terms of the redundant provisions, the offence of alarming Her Majesty under section 49 is a historical provision. It has its origins in mid-19th century England. Again, as with other redundant provisions, we're confident that there are other offences within the Criminal Code that would account for this type of behaviour, whether it be uttering threats or assaults or the like.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

I think you would agree that the woman is Canada's head of state and that section protects her against any act that's intended or likely to cause bodily harm to Canada's head of state.

I believe if you ask most people, they will say that it is more serious than if you threaten your neighbour, not that it's correct either way. Again, I think most people would agree that this raises it to a whole new level, particularly in a day when public security and the security of public figures is so critical.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

I would perhaps echo the utter respect that I have and our government has for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. I would say again that this in no way detracts from the necessary protections and criminal offences articulated that could be relied on. I could reference other Commonwealth jurisdictions that have also repealed these provisions, such as Australia and New Zealand.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Ms. Khalid.

Ms. Khalid.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming in today.

Minister, over the past week or so we've been seeing #MeToo on social media. These are tens of thousands of women who have come out and claimed that they have been sexually assaulted or have experienced sexual harassment. I begrudgingly added my own name to that list of tens of thousands. Can you talk about what kind of impact this will have on sexual assault and sexual harassment for those tens of thousands of women?

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

I am familiar with the #MeToo campaign, and thank you for sharing your lived experience. I would say it is paramount. We had members in the House today speak to that campaign. It is critically important for individuals who are victims of sexual violence, sexual crimes, to come forward.

The intent behind Bill C-51, with respect to amendments to the sexual assault provisions and clarifying the law, is to do as much as we can to make it easier for victims of crime to come forward to share their stories. We know the statistics say that individuals do not come forward as much as they should. What we can do, in terms of amending the Criminal Code, and that's the intent behind Bill C-51, is to clarify the law around consent and to speak to disclosure and evidence with respect to records held by the accused around the complainants.

We're also taking substantive measures, from day one as a government, to work as hard as we can to ensure we provide effective resources in terms of victim support and victim services. We've allocated $12 million in that regard in our victims fund. We're also committed to ensuring that individuals who sit on our superior courts across the country are provided and can take advantage of the necessary training in terms of recognizing implicit bias.

We've also invested substantively in other ways, including working with the Minister of Status of Women around a gender-based violence strategy that looks at prevention and that looks to ensure the criminal justice system is responsive to victims of sexual violence.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Part of the debate that arose out of the #MeToo campaign was on what consent is, and Bill C-51 addresses that issue. Can you review what changes are being made to the law of consent, and why you think they are important?

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

What we're seeking to do in Bill C-51 is to clarify the law around consent. Specifically, in terms of the sexual assault amendments relating to situations where there is no consent, the amendments would make clear that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting, and in a separate paragraph it would equally make clear that a person may be incapable of consenting for other reasons other than being unconscious.

This is activating or putting in place the clarity that was provided by the Supreme Court of Canada, as I mentioned in my remarks, in decision R. v. J.A., and ensuring that there's clarity around when consent is obtained and when it's not.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

There is another part of that discussion, which is that the accused's rights, or anybody making an accusation against an individual for sexual assault or sexual harassment, are somehow being diminished. Can you explain how the rights of the accused were considered in the drafting of this bill?

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

We have engaged in substantive consultations and round tables across the country. We've engaged in a specific round table in terms of victims' advocates, and recognize that in order to have a fairer justice system, we have to take into account the accused, the victims, and find the right balance.

What we sought to do to ensure there is that balance is to look at fair trial rights for the accused person. We took that into account when we were considering and drafting the expansion of the rape shield provisions, but we also recognized we needed to respect the privacy rights of the complainant, and the interests of justice in terms of the determinations on admissibility. We took into account a significant number of necessary interests in terms of drafting the provisions.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Thank you for your efforts in addressing this issue, and all your work with respect to gender-based violence. You're definitely an inspiration to a lot of people.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Thank you.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you very much, Ms. Khalid.

Mr. Angus.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'm honoured to be here at your committee.

My uncle, who's in your riding, says you're a nice guy. If my uncle says you're a nice guy, I'm going to say nice things about you.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you so much, and thank you to your uncle.

October 18th, 2017 / 3:55 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

It's certainly an honour to have you with us, Madam Wilson-Raybould, and your incredible work as the justice minister.

I want to talk mostly today on the issue of the gender lens and how it applies in the indigenous communities. You have experience in many portfolios. Particularly when you were talking about #MeToo, it seems to me that the issue of the obligation of the state to prove the alleged criminal conduct of the defendant is a fundamental principle. But when it comes to sexual assault, it always ends up that the woman seems to have to prove the case herself.

We have situations and issues of sexual assault, the practice of “whacking the complainant”, as they call it, where the credibility of the victim is put on trial. We see in the example of the Ghomeshi trial that the question of the violence that he committed was never ever the issue. The issue was the credibility of the women who came forward, after the police asked for witnesses to come forward.

I don't know if the provisions that you're bringing forward on consent are enough to protect women, to encourage them to come forward, and also to make sure that we maintain a balance of justice in terms of the rights of defendants. How are we going to square that circle?

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

I'll say from the outset that it is an incredibly important question. The objective that you articulated in your question in ensuring that we do everything we can to protect victims of sexual assault, to ensure that we provide and create the space as best we can for them to come forward, is an objective that I think everybody around this table shares.

We have sought to ensure in Bill C-51 that we clarify the law around consent in the Criminal Code, that we ensure we expand the rape shield provisions, recognizing the twin myths, and that the ability to introduce evidence that's held in the hands of the accused's personal records regarding the complainant certainly can't be introduced for purposes of the proclivity of the complainant in the activity or that she's less worthy of belief. We set in place a procedure to provide discussion or advise whether or not those personal or private records of the complainant should be introduced in the procedure. Also, the proposed legislation provides legal representation to the complainant in these procedures.

Beyond what's reflected in Bill C-51, we have a lot of work to do. I'm happy that the government has thought to start doing substantive work in that area.