Justice Committee on May 17th, 2022

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I can't highlight enough the import of my colleague Mr. Moore's commentary on the nature of this particular offence. Actually, where I disagree just a bit with my colleague is.... He made a reference—I don't know if it was a reference to this particular section or about firearms in general—to firearms generally having a victim component. I view this more in a regulatory format, as opposed to a victim-centred type of offence.

That's the beginning of my discussion, Mr. Chair.

I do have a question. Maybe I should put it to the DOJ witnesses first.

In the amount of time I had to prepare for today's meeting, I didn't have an opportunity to do any charter-compliant research on this particular section. Are either of you aware of the jurisprudence across the country at the appellate level, where this section has been charter-proofed?

[Matthew Taylor]

I only have limited information. I do have one lower court decision—it's a bit dated—that found the provision unconstitutional, but I don't have the specifics on whether it was for the second or third offence. We'd have to do some more digging on that.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Is it a lower court decision in a particular province?

[Matthew Taylor]

It's a lower Ontario court decision.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

The other aspect—and I'll move on to debate—is that, unless you're living under the proverbial rock, people in this country know that, when you're in possession of a weapon, it is a highly regulated device. In fact, Canada leads the world in terms of the licensing requirements: the courses that you have to take, the costs associated with them, the rules and regulations with respect to purchasing the firearm, registration of that, transporting that from the place of purchase to your home, the storage, the makeup of the container in which you store it and the separation of weapon and ammunition. All of that is widely known across this country. The reason this is important for this committee to hear is that I heard, as a new parliamentarian, when this bill was introduced that it was targeting the low-risk, first-time offender. This isn't what section 92 talks about.

In fact, just today in question period, my colleague Mr. Anandasangaree talked about not punishing those first-time offenders, those low-risk offenders. There is a built-in safety mechanism already legislated in the Criminal Code. A first-time offender, to Gary's point, the the Attorney General's point, to the Minister of Public Safety's point, the points of all the other ministers I've heard from, the back bench I've heard from.... There is a built-in safety mechanism, because a first-time offender who finds himself mysteriously in possession of a weapon, loaded or not, without being a licensed holder, which could attract the attention of the police and hence a charge, is not going to jail on a first offence.

The section talks about the maximum being 10 years. The language in the case of a first offence to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years should never be synonymous to the non-lawyers on this committee as being applicable to a starting point of jail. It doesn't talk about that, and in my version of the Criminal Code...and I always use Tremeear's because I find it extremely helpful. There are annotations, case law, charter analysis—

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

I prefer the Martin's version.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

There is a section in my code—and I don't think Martin's has this so you may want to reconsider this, Gary—that's an offence table. Mr. Naqvi can appreciate this. Whenever you look at an obscure offence...and I'll be the first to admit there are a lot of firearm offences and they're nuanced. You have to be very careful with the language and in terms of how you screen a file to see what options you have available to you.

Under the offence table for this particular matter, it says that a first-time offender, for this particular section, is eligible for a conditional or an absolute discharge, the most lenient of sentencing options available to judges across this country. That way, if someone asks a person, “Do you have a criminal record?”, the person can respond lawfully, “No, I do not.” The only exception would be if a person were to ask or an employer were to ask, “Have you been convicted of a criminal offence?”, then the person would be lawfully required to say, “I have been discharged.”

That is available. Moving up the ladder of offences for a first-time offender is a suspended sentence, which is commonly known as probation. You mind your Ps and Qs, don't engage in any further criminal activity and, depending on the length of that suspended sentence, your sentence is complete. There's a fine. There's no minimum and no maximum fine. There's a fine and probation or the conditional sentence, which we know Bill C‑5 talks about.

Again to my point and to reiterate and highlight and support my colleague Mr. Moore, the section already achieves what Bill C‑5 is designed to do and, in particular, with respect to the emphasis and the talking points to try to reduce the overincarceration, there is a built-in safety mechanism already in place.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

We go now to Mr. Morrison.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are a couple of things. One, I'm not disagreeing with Mr. Brock, but I know from my history in policing that there are some people who don't know what a prohibited firearm is and some people might have a handgun and not realize that it's prohibited. That's a possibility on a first offence. With respect to the clause we're discussing right now, I can understand a first offence not having a mandatory minimum. I totally understand that.

On the second or even the third offence, a serious offence, I couldn't imagine myself going to my rural community, standing up and saying to the people who are there, who have been victims or who are afraid, “Oh, by the way, we parliamentarians just struck down and we don't feel there's any need to have a mandatory minimum penalty for someone who's convicted three times of having a prohibited firearm.” I just can't imagine anyone here going home and saying, “We had a great day in Parliament today. We just decided that we wouldn't have mandatory minimums on a third offence.”

I don't even know why we need to discuss this. We should be able to vote on this without even thinking about it. Of course there should be a mandatory minimum for the third offence.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The fact that the Liberals are repealing mandatory jail time in respect to this particular Criminal Code section, which deals with mandatory jail time for not first-time offenders, as Mr. Moore, Mr. Brock and Mr. Morrison have pointed out, but persons who were convicted twice and subsequent times of a serious firearms offence, means that Bill C-5 is not as advertised.

The Liberals had advertised this bill as being about first-time offenders, people who make a mistake and might have been caught in the wrong set of circumstances. In those cases, rehabilitation and seeing that such persons are not incarcerated might be a better course, but, Mr. Chair, that isn't what this section deals with. This section deals with mandatory jail time for a serious offence of persons who were convicted more than once. It's not a case of a one-off. It's not a case of someone just making a mistake. It's not a case of someone who was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's a case that provides for mandatory jail time for recidivists.

It's interesting, on this theme of Bill C-5 not being as advertised, with the Liberals saying one thing and doing another, we have a government that likes to talk a lot about firearms. They obsess about firearms. There's good reason to be concerned about firearms being used out on the street by people involved in gangs and organized crime that have impacted and undermined the safety and security of our communities.

One would think that if one is concerned about public safety that one would go after folks who go out and commit serious firearms offences, who commit crimes with guns. The Liberals take exactly the opposite approach. Their approach is to go after law-abiding firearms owners while giving those who go out and commit crimes with guns a free pass. That's what this rollback, this repeal of this particular section of the Criminal Code with respect to the mandatory jail time provided for in it, would do. It would give criminals a free pass.

There is some level of consistency with the Liberals. In the last Parliament, my former colleague Bob Saroya introduced Bill C-238. Bill C-238 would have increased mandatory jail time for criminals convicted for being in known possession of smuggled firearms. We hear about the fact that most of the firearms that are used in the commission of firearms offences are smuggled, illegal firearms from the United States—around 80% or so. Bill C-238 would have demanded increased accountability, but the Liberals defeated Bob Saroya's legislation.

I think some are newer members, but others are not. One thing about Bob Saroya is that he always was a tireless advocate for his constituents. He represented a part of Toronto that had experienced serious issues with firearms-related crime. He put forward a common-sense bill to hold criminals accountable—criminals who are knowingly in possession of smuggled firearms—having regard for the fact that smuggled firearms are really the root of the problem when it comes to firearms crime.

What did the Liberals do? Being soft on crime, they voted against it. Now, consistent with that soft-on-crime approach, they want to eliminate mandatory jail time for those who are in knowing possession of an unauthorized firearm, for criminals who are convicted not on their a first offence but on their second and subsequent offence.

It underscores, Mr. Chair, just how misplaced the priorities of this Liberal government are and how their rhetoric doesn't align with their actions. They talk a good game and a lot of Canadians buy into it. When one actually looks at what they put forward in the way of legislation or how they respond to legislation introduced by then-Conservative member of Parliament Bob Saroya, it's very different from what you would think they would do based upon what they portray in public, on the campaign trail and in their talking points.

Mr. Chair, again, it's a case of a bill that is not as advertised. It's a further example of how misplaced the priorities of the Liberals are.

We as Conservatives believe that firearms aren't the issue, but those who go out and commit crimes with firearms are the issue. That was repeatedly emphasized at committee by law enforcement. Several witnesses were asked that question and in every instance they said that was the problem, but the Liberals want to go after the people who obey the law. They're not really interested in dealing with those who are recidivists, who commit offences and who intentionally and knowingly possess smuggled or unauthorized firearms.

Mr. Chair, I'm hopeful that the members opposite will spend some time and really reflect on what is happening. I would encourage them because I don't think we're going to get through the clauses in the 25 minutes that we have left today. I would really encourage the members opposite to spend some time going through the testimony of what some of our witnesses who came before the committee—from law enforcement and victims—had to say about the impact that firearms-related offences have. Then they could ask themselves how eliminating mandatory jail time for criminals who commit two, three or four offences helps and makes sense.

I would be very interested in hearing how they would say that does make sense and how it squares with their false advertising that this bill targets people who were caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time and who made a one-off mistake. This specific rollback mandatory jail sentence in terms of subsection 92(3) is not an example of that. It's quite the opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Next is Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Chair, briefly, I put to the Department of Justice witnesses whether or not they were aware of any appellate case law that dealt with a charter-compliant consideration with respect to this section. They referenced one lower court decision in Ontario.

My suggestion is that we adjourn debate and voting on that particular clause until such time as that particular case is tabled for consideration, because one of the issues addressing one of the witness's comments was that he was unaware whether or not that decision spoke to charter compliance with respect to the second or subsequent offence issue. I think it's important for this committee to have that information before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I'm told that the only way we can move forward with that is if we have unanimous consent to postpone.

Do we have unanimous consent to postpone?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

On a point of clarification, Chair, do we need unanimous consent to skip a clause? Do we have to go sequentially? We couldn't move on to clause 4 if they're not related...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Mr. Brock, I'm told that it's by majority to skip over. We would have to have a vote if we want to skip over this motion, go to the next motion and then study this clause and this amendment afterwards.

If you like, we can take a vote to skip.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Chair, I think it probably wouldn't take a ton of time to get that information for our next meeting, so I would think that we should skip clause 3, move to clause 4 and come back to clause 3 at our next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

We can go to a vote.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I would request a roll call.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Before we do that, can I get some clarification under what authority the clerks are referencing that particular clause?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

It's under chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”. I think it's on page 767, under “Clauses Allowed to Stand”:

The committee may, by motion, decide to stand a clause, or a group of consecutive clauses en bloc. Debate on a motion to postpone consideration of a clause is limited to the issue of postponement, and may not touch upon the merits of the bill or of the clause in question. Unless provision to the contrary is made in the motion, clauses which were allowed to stand are considered after all the other clauses of the bill have been disposed of.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

We will have a recorded vote of all those in favour of postponing hearing clause 3 and its amendment.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We'll now go to a vote on Conservative amendment 2.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 3 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clause 4 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(On clause 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

On clause 5, we have Conservative amendment 3.

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.