Justice Committee on April 8th, 2022

[Andrew Di Manno]

A community-based sentence like a CSO will be imposed when the judge is of the opinion that a sentence of less than two years is appropriate. What's particularly effective about this sanction is that it can be coupled with mandatory treatment. When a person serves a sentence of imprisonment, the judge cannot order that offender to undergo treatment. Therefore, the sentence is one that allows the court to help the offender attack the root causes of offending. When you attack those causes, you get significant reductions in recidivism.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Yes, 100%.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Next, for two and a half minutes, is Monsieur Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to return to Mr. Di Manno, and resume our discussion from where we left off earlier.

In your view, Mr. Di Manno, wouldn't discharging a firearm with intent at people always deserve a sentence of imprisonment?

Do you feel there are situations in which that would not merit imprisonment?

[Andrew Di Manno]

What I can tell you is that, depending on the circumstances, the offence may be broader in scope. It's up to the court to decide on a penalty appropriate to the circumstances.

For these offences, Bill C‑5 maintains the minimum penalties of five years and seven years of imprisonment if a prohibited or a restricted firearm was used and the offence is linked to organized crime.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

We are talking about paragraph 224(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, which sets the mandatory minimum penalty at four years for discharging a firearm with intent.

Earlier, the minister said that if someone fired into a wall, it would not necessarily mean that person would be sent to prison. I agree with that, and concede it.

However, if a person intentionally fires towards one or more individuals, does that not always deserve imprisonment?

[Andrew Di Manno]

In fact, the court, in determining the sentence, will always take the circumstances in which the offence was committed into account. When a crime committed with a firearm endangers public safety, the principles for assessing the penalty and the charge are what the court will use in sentencing.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I agree with you. The judge will surely Impose a sentence of imprisonment in a case like that. That's a problem for me, because in Bill C‑5, the population is being sent a message that says we, the legislators, do not believe these offences are serious and that the mandatory minimum penalties can be dropped.

I am convinced that in a situation like the one I described, the judge will assess a sentence of imprisonment. I have no fear of that. I can't believe that the judge would assess a fine of $100 to someone who shot at someone else. The problem is that we, the legislators, have a responsibility to the people—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

—and it seems to me that the message is somewhat dubious.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Next is Mr. Garrison, for two and a half minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, too, want to go back to where I was the last time, but I have to say, since Mr. Brock made a comment about my position, my position on this is not that we save money for efficiency reasons, but that we save court time and court money to be applied to the most serious offences, which are the most threatening to the community. We need to ensure that people aren't released in very serious cases because of court delays, when we're taking up court time with things that I don't believe belong in the court system to start with.

It's not just about efficiency; it's about the use of our resources efficiently in the court system to better protect the community.

I'd rather be talking about decriminalizing the personal possession of drugs, but we're not, so I am going to talk about the discretion that's given, again, to police and prosecutors. That's where I left off.

There doesn't seem to be a clear criterion set out in Bill C-5 for how that discretion by prosecutors and police would be applied. I think it's an increase in discretion for police. I'm not sure it's really an increase for prosecutors, but there don't seem to be clear criteria on how to apply discretion.

[Matthew Taylor]

It's not really an increase in discretion for police or prosecutors, Mr. Garrison. It's an acknowledgement of the discretion that they already have, and the bill itself seeks to nudge them to use their discretion in a way that addresses the concerns in the bill.

To go back to some of your earlier comments about concerns around the use of discretion, that's a concern we've heard consistently with respect to the bill. It's something the minister has acknowledged, as well, in terms of the importance of not just proposing legislative reforms, but also looking at those other, larger systemic issues: the government's commitment, for example, to an indigenous justice strategy and a Black justice strategy. We're very much looking at those broader systemic issues.

However, legislation in and of itself and the federal government on its own can't address these larger issues.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

There doesn't seem to be a requirement in Bill C-5 to keep any record of the use of that discretion. I'm wondering how we're going to check on whether that's being used fairly and whether we're meeting the goals of anti-racism. If we don't keep any records at all about the use of that discretion, how will we know it's being effective?

[Matthew Taylor]

It's a good question. The use of discretion in the criminal justice system exists already in terms of the ability to dig into the improper use of discretion. There is recourse available in the context of prosecutorial discretion, abuse of process and complaints to police bodies—things of that nature—but you're right, the bill itself doesn't speak to that issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

The last five-minute round will go to Mr. Moore. Right after that, we will have some budget issues to deal with.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing today on what I think is an important bill.

There's a myth that's being perpetuated out there, and I want you to quickly confirm something. We've heard many of these mandatory minimums referred to as “Harper-era mandatory minimums”. While it's true that under the Safe Streets and Communities Act the Conservative government removed the application of conditional sentences for such crimes as arson, trafficking in persons for material benefit, sexual assault and criminal harassment, I want to speak specifically on the mandatory minimum penalties for gun crime. I'm going to list some of them: using a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a prohibited or a restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon by a commission of offence, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, weapons trafficking, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and discharging a firearm with intent.

I know you're all familiar with those provisions, but could you confirm for the committee that all of those mandatory minimums that were put in place predated the previous Conservative government and were, in fact, brought in by Liberal governments?

[Matthew Taylor]

I think we'd have to confirm the list with you, Mr. Moore.

Certainly there were a number of firearms MMPs that predated the previous administration. As you likely recall, a number of those MMPs were increased during that period of time, the five- and seven-year MMPs, for example, involving prohibited or restricted firearms, or organized crime.

We'd have to circle back, though.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Could you do that, and provide it to the committee? I've taken the liberty of checking on all those. I can confirm that they were all brought in by previous Liberal governments. However, if you could confirm that and get back to the committee, I would appreciate it. I don't expect the other members to take my word for it, but they'll take your word for it.

I'm a little alarmed to hear that there was no specific consultation. I heard about polling on mandatory minimum penalties, but specific consultation with specific groups who are more likely than others to be victims of criminals, and their feelings about a response to what's being proposed in Bill C-5....

Just quickly, Statistics Canada reports that those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual are at greater risk of being violently victimized. Now, this legislation—and I asked the minister about its impact on women—provides for conditional sentences for some serious crimes, as well as the removal of mandatory minimums. Were there specific consultations with various communities on how they would be impacted, from the perspective of a victim, if this legislation were to pass?

[Matthew Taylor]

I'll elaborate on what Mr. Di Manno said earlier.

The government did fairly extensive consultations on the ideas, the areas of reform reflected in Bill C-5. I'd point you to the Justice Canada website. There's a publication there that summarizes the consultations they did on the criminal justice system review, the round tables that were held by the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary.

Yes, there was fairly extensive consultation and input sought on issues such as conditional sentences and mandatory minimum penalties. The earlier question was, were those groups consulted specifically on the reforms as drafted in the bill? They were not.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Taylor, thank you for that. I guess that concerns me because we're talking about different identified groups. We're talking about first nations and indigenous people. We're talking about the Black community. We're talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual people. What we've found out is that these communities were not consulted even though they are more likely to be the victims of the very crimes that the government is going soft on in this legislation. That's obviously concerning, and we'll be bringing forward witnesses at committee to further explore that. I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Moore. We're out of time.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I want to thank all the witnesses for their very valuable testimony and their time today. I want to thank all the members today as well.

We have a brief budget matter. We have to approve the budget for this report.

Witnesses, by the way, you're dismissed. You're more than welcome to leave if you like, but you can stay on and listen as well.

I believe all members have received the budget. I want to warn you that the budget may have to change, as there has been a new House decision. I believe in-person witnesses are permitted after we come back from the break, so budgets may have to be changed to adjust for travel and accommodation for them. Keep that in mind.

Are we all in favour of the budget?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you. Have a great weekend and constituency break. We'll see you back when the House resumes.