Evidence of meeting #96 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 information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I'm worried that the individuals who do these reports are going to think that they have to get it all in, and that it's up to the court to decide whether something is relevant.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
It could be that an enlightened judge in the future would simply say that there are heath concerns. He or she wouldn't necessarily blurt out, “Oh, by the way, this guy has schizophrenia.” The judge could just say, in open court, that there are health concerns, and the world does not need to see all the documentation later on.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
They're already doing this, generally speaking. The judges are already determining what issues are relevant, either the circumstances of the offence or the circumstances of the offender. They're taking this stuff into account.
It's not done now, and there is no issue. I get that we're now requiring them to at least turn their mind to it, but with the restriction that it has to be relevant for sentencing purposes, I'm not sure. We're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist right now, as far as I can tell. This would cause more problems than it would solve.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Are there other interveners?
The department was invited but unfortunately didn't come. I would be interested to get the perspective of the department on this amendment.
Mr. Rankin has introduced original language. In order to amend that original language, somebody would need to move an amendment to the amendment, or a subamendment, and it can't be Mr. Rankin. If the language is to change, somebody else needs to move the revision to the language that Mr. Rankin suggested.
At that point, I'll turn to anybody, and see if Mr. Rankin would like that to happen. Is somebody prepared to do that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Mr. Nicholson is moving a subamendment to change the language of the initial paragraph.
Could you read to us, Mr. Rankin?
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
It reads as follows: “(3.1) Information on the matters referred to in paragraph (3)(a.1) shall be filed with the court, and the court shall examine the document and determine whether it ought to be disclosed in light of the privacy interests of the defender.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Sorry, we're going to get a copy so we can read it. I got some of it, but not all. I think he's going to write it out right now.
Oh, my God, you should have been a doctor.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Could you write out the whole thing in one straight paragraph? I don't think we're going to be able to even pass it like this.
We'll suspend for a minute.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Folks, thank you for your patience, and thank you to Murray for writing it out.
I'm going to ask now that the clerk read back how the clause would read with the subamendment. I don't know if anybody else can read the handwriting.
Olivier Champagne Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
It reads, “(3.1) Information on the matters referred to in paragraph (3)(a.1) shall be filed with the court, and the court shall examine the document and determine whether it ought to be disclosed in light of the privacy interests of the defender.”
I wonder if we should have a comma after the word “disclosed”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'm just writing it down for tidiness. Yes.
Basically, the subamendment is deleting the words in lines 5 to 7 of the paragraph and replacing them with “whether it ought to be disclosed in light of the privacy interests of the defender”. We're deleting “whether disclosure of any of the information contained in it would be contrary to the best interests of the offender” and replacing it with the new proposed language.
That is moved by Mr. Nicholson out of courtesy.
Is there discussion on the subamendment?
Mr. Fraser, do you have a comment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We'll have a vote on the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
The subamendment means that Mr. Rankin's original amendment is amended to include the new wording, as opposed to the old wording. To vote on the amendment itself will require a new vote where we would decide whether to add Mr. Rankin's amendment with the subamendment to the bill.
Basically, that's my understanding of what we're doing right now. We've amended Mr. Rankin's original amendment to now read as revised. Now we would move back to the core of the amendment itself, as revised.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment as revised? Do you want to offer any comment, Mr. Fraser?
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Sure, if you insist.
Right now we're talking about the main motion as amended. Is that correct?
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I respect that this is better, but I still feel that there is an issue with regard to how this would be interpreted by the courts and the administration. I think it's solving a problem that I don't think is real, in large respect, because pre-sentence reports deal with this type of information all the time. They're before the courts and there's extraneous information that is then known to the public, which may not form part of the decision of a judge. I think that this information, which is part of a sentencing hearing that is then decided upon by a judge, can't just allude to certain things in the report. Most of the time a sentencing judge has to determine what information is relevant to the sentence that is meted out. That information then forms part of the record that could be the subject of appeal.
If, in the example that was given earlier, rather than talking about the specifics in the substance of the report, a sentencing judge only refers to a limited type of health issue, that could be problematic. I don't know if it is necessary to make this amendment to the bill. I think the best way to approach it is that we're already seeing these types of pre-sentence reports now disclosing perhaps extraneous information. I believe the amendment we made earlier, making this bill consider only information relevant to the sentencing, narrows it down enough to leave out any kind of concern that this is trying to address.
For those reasons, I'll be voting against the main motion as it now stands.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I respect that.
I want to go back to first principles. The summary of the bill that's before us is very simple:
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require that a presentence report contain information on any mental disorder from which the offender suffers.
If we're going to say that Bill C-375 is worth passing, the only attempt in my amendment is to simply say that this is a good idea, but we ought to respect the privacy interests of the offender if we're going to go ahead with the requirement about the pre-sentence report. I don't know whether they do or don't, but this bill requires that information about a mental condition now be made available. I'm simply saying that, if we're going to do that, I would like to do what Mr. Embry and the criminal defence people told us to do, which is to respect the privacy of the offender. That was the only purpose of the amendment.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
I don't believe that it is required to be present categorically. It is required if it is relevant to sentencing. According to Mr. Fraser, if it's relevant for sentencing, it probably needs to be brought out in court when the sentence is brought down.
I guess I'm in the middle as a non-lawyer here. I don't know which way to go in this, but on balance, I will support Mr. Fraser.