Evidence of meeting #17 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 c-14.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Yes. I'd like to put this on the record.
The title appears to be “an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing)”.
There's very little in this bill that deals with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The only thing is that it allows for publication of the name in urgent circumstances, and you close the loophole on the definition of violence.
Time and time again, we heard testimony from various police forces who said that we have a crisis in terms of youth participating in gang violence. We heard from Mr. Brock earlier today, who said that, when he used to prosecute young offenders, it used to be them breaking into vending machines. Now we have a completely different crisis.
I'm not sure if we're actually amending the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
What I take greater exception to is the word “sentencing”, in the words “bail and sentencing”.
You provide some direction on principles. You say that the government says that maybe they're looking at principles of deterrence and denunciation, but there are no sentencing amendments in Bill C-14. There's one. There's only one where a sentence becomes a harsher sentence, and that is with respect to contempt of court.
I'd like to understand why the government is calling this “sentencing reform” when there is no sentencing reform?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Baber.
The title has already carried.
Shall the bill as amended carry?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Chair, I'm asking for unanimous consent to ask the officials one question. It dovetails on my colleague Mr. Baber's reference to the one clause in this bill that deals with a sentencing adjustment.
I understand that the Liberals will agree to give me consent. I'm wondering if my good colleague from the Bloc Québécois, Monsieur Fortin, would give me the opportunity to ask one question of the officials.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you, colleagues.
It's in relation to paragraph 37.
I'll be very quick. It's one o'clock in the morning. We're all tired. It's been a long day. I'm very pleased with the level of collaboration that has taken us this far.
On Mr. Baber's commentary about contempt of court, of all the serious criminal activity happening in this country, with all of the headlines formulating in this country, particularly extortion, use of firearms, drug offences and the fentanyl opiate crisis, please provide some context as to why on earth you chose an obscure criminal offence that I have never prosecuted in 20 years nor defended in 12 years.
I've repeatedly asked police officers with upwards of four decades of service whether they've investigated a contempt of court charge. Under what circumstances, in the context of reforming bail and sentencing, did your department choose contempt of court?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Certainly, Bill C-16 will have a number of other sentencing amendments that your committee will get to study.
In terms of the reason for the change to the contempt provision, as you'll know, the existing penalty is inconsistent with the normal penalty for summary conviction offences of two years less a day. You'll remember or may be aware that Bill C-75 hybridized the number of offences. This offence was not one that had been included, and I'd have to go back to see why that was the case.
This amendment is like a number of other amendments in its origins, which is that it comes from work that the federal government has done with the provinces through the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. It was identified as a technical change that was felt important to be advanced at an opportunity. This was an opportunity, and that's the reason it's included.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
That's very helpful. I've asked some of my Liberal colleagues to provide the justification. It was never as clear to me then as it is now. I really appreciate that explanation. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you.
Before we adjourn, I just want to thank all of the members for collaborating and getting this thing done today.
I want to thank all of the staff again.
Most of all, I want to thank the people beside me and behind me, because without the analysts, the clerk, the interpreters, all these people.... The work that you all put into this to make this happen, especially in a condensed period, is heroic, and I just want to say thank you on behalf of all the committee. Honestly, we couldn't have done it without you.
