Evidence of meeting #16 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was see.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Amarjeet Gill Conservative Brampton West, ON
Would stronger sentences for repeat offenders be an effective way to combat the extortion crisis?
Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I think so. I'd be happy to build on the comments by Mr. Sundberg. He's quite right that deterrence is not just a factor of severity of sentence; it's the predictability and swiftness of enforcement. Prosecution capacity and enforcement capacity are very important there, as are court delays, but predictability at the judicial level—we're talking about the Criminal Code here—is under the government's control through this legislation.
Things like mandatory minimums, moving to guidelines rather than principles, making sentencing outcomes more certain and amending the Crown prosecution manual to create presumptions that certain serious, violent and repeat offences are prosecuted by indictment rather than summarily can go some way to getting there.
Conservative
Amarjeet Gill Conservative Brampton West, ON
You mentioned that our law and order problems are a lot bigger than bail. In Brampton, one of our issues is illegal firearms. Almost all of them are smuggled in from south of the border.
Does this bill do anything to stop the flood of illegal firearms in Canadian cities?
Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
To my knowledge, it doesn't. The government is focused on a buyback of legal firearms, which is not addressing the border security issue. They do have a border security bill with many admirable components, but ultimately our organized crime and foreign state actor risks are significant because we have many gaps in our law at present that make Canada a target for organized crime groups and foreign state actors like Russia, China and Iran and their proxies to operate in.
I put forward a number of proposals earlier at committee today and in past writing asking that we look at exemptions to the Stinchcombe disclosure requirements. We know that our allies are not sharing sensitive information because it must be disclosed through hearings. Unlike our allies, we don't have the same type of capacity to ensure it is secure.
Also, there are the case timelines. The Jordan principle has set a range that is not adequate for the complex cross-border cases that involve a lot of intelligence. That is resulting in a number of stays and withdrawals that we don't want to see.
Conservative
Amarjeet Gill Conservative Brampton West, ON
Conservatives have proposed Bill C-242, which is the jail not bail act. It includes a measure that would prevent convicted criminals from being a surety for another person. Bill C-14 would not.
I know that you have written about organized crime being one of the biggest problems in Canada. Should fellow gang members be allowed to advocate for the pretrial release of their associates?
Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
This does seem like an appropriate measure. I think scrutiny is warranted to the extent that you don't want to—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'll have to ask you to wrap up, Mr. Copeland, because we're very tight for time.
Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
It seems like a proposal that should be studied further and possibly included.
Liberal
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much.
I would like to thank all the witnesses, including Mr. Murias, Mr. Copeland and Mr. Sundberg.
I just want to start from the principle that this is a bill about bail reform. Generally, it's called the bail reform and sentencing bill, but it is primarily about bail reform. It is a bill that happened after varied consultations with the provinces, with police and with a number of groups across the country. We are at a point right now at this committee where we are looking at this bill and deciding on what amendments to put forward for Wednesday, when we'll be doing clause-by-clause on the bill.
It's wonderful to have a wide-ranging discussion on wide-ranging issues within the justice system, but I would remind the witnesses and my colleagues that they are beyond the scope of this bill. The bill cannot be amended to go beyond the scope of what the House of Commons had already passed at second reading when it referred it to the committee. These discussions don't bear fruit if you're suggesting wide-ranging things that have nothing to do with what is actually in the bill.
Dr. Sundberg, can I start with you? First of all, let me say how impressed I was by your testimony, because like you, I'm a pragmatist. I'm concrete. This is a concrete bill and we can only put forward what is in the scope of the bill.
I was very intrigued by what you said about the discrepancy between immigration law and this bill. I think you've presumed we've already received your document, but unless it's been translated, we didn't get it.
Can you talk to us in a bit more detail about the amendment you proposed and what clause it would be? Can you just go over it in more detail so I have it in my head?
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I would appreciate some direction from you, Chair. Our witnesses have been very forthright in their thoughts on what is in the bill and also on what should have been in the bill. I'm worried that Mr. Housefather's question is directing witnesses to basically say that they can't identify shortcomings on things they believe should have been in the bill or amendments they believe would improve the bill.
Liberal
Professor, Mount Royal University, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be very brief. I know that time is of the essence.
My view of the bill, thinking of bail.... When I spoke to this committee in October, some of the discussions were around the issue or incongruence relating to foreign nationals. There were concerns that foreign nationals are engaged in the issues that you, Mr. Gill, were speaking of, with the extortion we've seen becoming quite an issue from coast to coast in this country. My thought was that this is about bail.
There's one aspect I thought could be surgically adjusted: aligning the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which Parliament passed in 2001, by simply saying that if any foreign national—I'm not talking about permanent residents; I'm talking about those who are temporarily here—is arrested and charged with an offence under section 34, 35, 36 or 37, which are for security grounds, for human and international rights violations, for serious criminality and criminality and for organized crime, and if they are convicted, that would result in them becoming inadmissible to Canada under one of those four provisions.
Having the reverse onus provides a trigger point or a point of interjection where the police could have some connection with the Canada Border Services Agency and the immigration authority to ensure that we, in essence, understand that we have roughly three million foreign nationals in our country at a given time. If we think of only half a per cent of those three million, that's 15,000 people.
We talk about organized crime and how some of our system has been gamed, because for 15 years we haven't had the rigour I would like to see in our immigration program. Nevertheless, we have laws that allow that to exist. If there were one simple addition to this bill specifically addressing foreign nationals, that would eliminate one of the issues, in my view.
There are a lot of issues at play, and I was focusing on one fairly narrow aspect, but it would have a specific impact when we think of issues of terrorism, the extortion that's occurring and the exploitation. I see it as a way of building trust in our system so that those who have come to Canada after fleeing countries because of these concerns can know that the home they now call Canada protects them from the threats they were escaping.
I thought it was a surgical implant into the legislation. There you go.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I think it was a very helpful answer and a very helpful suggestion.
Thank you very much.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sundberg, in his opening remarks, Mr. Murias said the Supreme Court recently mentioned that the best way to fight crime is rehabilitation.
Do you think there's enough rehabilitation being done? Should more be done? If so, what could be done to eliminate or reduce crime in our society?
Professor, Mount Royal University, As an Individual
It's a wonderful question. Thank you.
My answer is no, we're not doing enough.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I always have wonderful questions. The problem is that I don't have time.
Professor, Mount Royal University, As an Individual
Reflecting on the testimony of Regional Chief Terry Teegee from the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations—and it's kept in my mind—he mentioned the unforeseen circumstances when we change the law and how this could impact our indigenous communities. That's where I see the lack of resources. If we can have more rehabilitation programs, especially for first nations youth, we will have a significant impact and will get the greatest value out of this.