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
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
You've challenged Mr. Taylor a number of times now.
Going forward, Mr. Barber, I just want people to be reminded of that. That's all I'm saying.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I heard Mr. Fortin interpreting, on the basis of what Mr. Taylor said, that somehow this amendment may be ultra vires, may not be in line with the charter.
If that is what Mr. Taylor suggested, I wanted to clarify that this is not the case, and that is not what he suggested, for the benefit of my Bloc colleague.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
It's fair to ask him a question for clarification, but you put the question to him and then told him you didn't want an answer. If you want to clarify it, let him answer the question.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I did let him answer the question, and I believe that I was correct.
I would like to ask my—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Well, you didn't, because I asked if you wanted an answer and you said no.
Mr. Baber, you still have the floor.
February 4th, 2026 / 11:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Here's what I'm going to say. Again, I sought elected office, I sought to come here, in my capacity as a professional. That is why I'm sitting at this table right now. I don't care for the politics. I don't care for the fact that we sit here for hours, accusing each other on who's filibustering what bill. I want professional honesty from everyone involved. I'm entitled to insist on that, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
You're entitled to professional honesty, but your suggesting that you're not getting it is what I'm taking issue with. I would ask that we just assume we are getting professional honesty—because we are—and that we refrain from suggesting that we're not, particularly with regard to the witnesses.
Does anybody else want to address CPC-10.1?
Mr. Housefather.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Yes, I understand all of this. I just want to give Mr. Taylor....
Mr. Taylor, I'm so sorry. You seem to be the object of some scrutiny.
R v. Pham, if I recall, focused on common-law sentencing principles; it didn't focus on charter principles. I think all that we're trying to understand is.... However, that doesn't mean there weren't charter-adjacent principles that might have been conveyed in R v. Pham.
Do you have charter concerns related to...or is the answer just that you don't know because you don't know if the court of appeal has opined on the charter-related concerns about whether or not...? Certainly, Parliament, from a common-law perspective, can change the common law and pass a statute saying this.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so I'd like you to have a chance to answer, but I think what you were trying to say before is that you were never disputing that Parliament changed the common-law principles by statute. What I think you were saying is that you don't believe that a court has yet opined on the question—or that you don't know if a court of appeal has opined on the question—of whether there were also charter issues that might be involved with respect to the collateral issues that the appeals court, I think, reversed the superior court on in R v. Pham. Is that correct?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, and thanks for the question.
It is late. If my answers haven't been clear, I do apologize for that, Mr. Baber.
In my answer with respect to R v. Pham, I don't believe I discussed the charter at all. I think in my clarification to Mr. Baber I said as much.
Sentencing is an individualized process. Where sentencing runs into charter risk is where specific outcomes are mandated; it's where judicial discretion is curtailed.
As I understand this amendment, it would simply direct courts that they would not be able to take into consideration a certain thing when arriving at a fit sentence. They will still be required, though, to impose a fit sentence. For that reason, I don't think it runs into the same kinds of charter concerns as other types of sentencing provisions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
All right. Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
Does anybody else want to be on the speaking list?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Is that a yes, Mr. Baber? If it is, I would prefer that you address me, and then I can give you the floor.
Mr. Baber.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I thank Mr. Taylor for his clarification and professionalism.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Baber.
I see no other hands, so shall CPC-10.1 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clauses 40, 41 and 42 carry?
(Clauses 40 to 42 agreed to)
(On clause 43)
That takes us to CPC-11.
Mr. Brock.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Before I provide any justification, I'm going to turn to the officials.
Officials, you have CPC-11 before you, the content. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a substantial number of those offences as listed in that amendment carry mandatory minimum penalties. Is that accurate?
Leah Burt Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, that's correct.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I have an idea as to which ones do not carry a mandatory minimum penalty. Can you identify those for us, please?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The (ii.01) of subsection 85(1) does not carry an MMP. Subsection 85(2) and subsection 95(1).... Under section 99—and this would apply to both section 99 and section 100—they do carry MMPs where the trafficking or possession for purposes of trafficking involves a firearm, prohibited device, parts, ammunition. There's no MMP when the offences involve any other prohibited restricted weapon. Subsection 102(1) only carries an MMP for the indictable offence. Next, all of the human trafficking offences carry MMPs. The material benefit offence, which is section 279.02, only carries an MMP when the victim is under the age of 18. It's the same with section 279.03. Section 344, robbery, only carries an MMP when it involves a restricted or prohibited firearm or a connection to organized crime. Then the next two, section 355.2 and section 355.4, do not carry MMPs.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you for that clarification.
Colleagues, clearly one of the limitations of the imposition of a conditional sentence is where that offence has a mandatory minimum penalty—a number of the offences, as listed. The heart of this particular amendment is to preclude the availability of conditional sentences. Bearing in mind that list that was provided by the official, I would like to narrow my amendment to only include those offences that could proceed by way of summary conviction, or those offences that currently do not have mandatory minimum penalties.
I have one final question for the officials.
On the offences that you indicated do not have mandatory minimum penalties, is that as a result or partly as a result of the passage of Bill C-5 in the 44th Parliament?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Partly, Mr. Brock, and I say “partly” for the following reasons. For example in section 95, the MMPs were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Nur. They were inoperative. They were on the books. Bill C-5 removed them. We talked about the trafficking ones already. They weren't touched by Bill C-5. Under robbery there was one MMP removed there that dealt with long guns. I think it was a four-year MMP. There was one MMP that was removed—there had been three; there are now two.
Liberal
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Am I understanding that Mr. Brock is amending his motion or amendment to only include the ones that were cited by the officials?