No.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We will now resume.
I'll let you guys all settle down.
I think we were at Green Party amendment 17 for clause 10.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
The Green amendment is designed to take the existing Bill C-5 as proposed by the government and essentially wipe out every single mandatory minimum under section 244.
Section 244, entitled “Discharging firearm with intent”, reads:
Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person — whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.
The “Punishment” section, which the Greens wish to annihilate, reads as follows:
Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.
Subsection 244(3) lists the provisions for subsequent offences. I'm not going to get into that discussion.
I'm looking at my Tremeear's Criminal Code. I do see a section regarding charter considerations. From what I can see here, by way of an annotation, there was a provincial Court of Appeal decision from New Brunswick, Regina v. Roberts, 1998. The minimum punishment provided for in that section does not offend charter section 12.
I will postpone my debate at this point, Mr. Chair, and I will turn to the Department of Justice witnesses.
Gentlemen, in addition to that particular case, are you aware of any decision, whether it be a lower court or an appellate decision, across this country that speaks to this particular offence?
8 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We are aware of a number of decisions. I'll quickly go through them.
A New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision from 1998 upheld the four-year MMP—
8 p.m.
Conservative
8 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I have “M.D.R.” as the initials.
8 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It is 1998 N.B.J. No. 160.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I have 125 CCC, third edition, 471. They could be one and the same case.
8 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We have a 2011 decision from Newfoundland, with the provincial court upholding the four-years.
There is a 2017 decision from the Ontario Superior Court, Reis.
We're also aware of a 2018 decision from B.C., upholding the five-year MMP as well in that provision.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
The majority of the jurisprudence that you just referenced upholds the mandatory minimum penalties as they relate to the areas that Bill C-5, as drafted, does not capture. Is that correct?
8:05 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. Of the four cases I referenced, three speak specifically to the MMP that would be repealed in Bill C-5. Two of those decisions, as I said earlier, predate both Nur and Lloyd from the Supreme Court. One follows Nur in 2015.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Right.
Am I correct—because I don't have the actual bill in front of me—that Bill C-5 speaks to paragraph 244(2)(b), which reads, “in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.” That's what Bill C-5 is trying to eliminate. Is that correct?
8:05 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
For my benefit and for the benefit of committee members, can you offer us some examples of what type of weapon is contemplated under section 244, which is not otherwise delineated in paragraph 244(2)(a)?
8:05 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
For the four-year MMP, it essentially involves long guns that don't involve organized crime. The five-year and seven-year MMPs relate specifically to prohibited or restricted firearms or if the offence was committed “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization”, so that could be long guns and organized crime.
Paragraph 244(2)(b) would encompass situations in which a long gun was used but it wasn't linked to organized crime.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
That's right.
Could either of you opine, based on your legal experience, on any such cases in which this type of criminal activity involved a long-arm weapon—a rifle of sorts—used in the context of what we as lawyers know of individuals charged with this offence, actually being discharged with the intent to wound, maim or disfigure? When you look at the constellation of all of those offenders who are captured by the language in section 244, can you opine on what percentage of cases we're actually talking about involving the use of a long firearm?
8:05 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't think I can give you that today. The best we would be able to provide would be information on charge data under paragraph 244.2(1)(b), but we wouldn't be able to give you a percentage breakdown in terms of handguns or restricted firearms today.
