Evidence of meeting #28 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
We're also using the words “any reasonably foreseeable circumstances”. Would there be any reason whatsoever outside of these hypotheticals—which we understand would not be used—for “reasonably foreseeable circumstances” to be considered separately?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, our view would be that the language in proposed subsection 718.4(1), which speaks specifically to the offender, would bar any analysis relating to reasonably foreseeable circumstances.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
In your view, this amendment would not only be redundant, but it might even be confusing, because it would seem that with the way we structured the entire section, this might still have been considered.
I find it confusing. We're saying that there would be no reason to do this anymore and you can't do this anymore, and now we're introducing the concept that you shouldn't do this anyway. I find it a bit weird.
I wanted to understand for my head that both of these things would not be part of any analysis.
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
This is the amendment to the amendment. It's not a subamendment.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Ms. Burt, I have to say, with greatest respect, that while there is an intent to suggest that judges should consider whether it would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the accused, there is no prescription for the court not to consider the constitutionality of the entire section because of reasonable hypotheticals. There is nothing in Bill C-16 that says that the courts should depart from that practice.
I'm saying this to Mr. Housefather: Why not give it greater certainty? If what we want to do is eliminate the use of reasonable hypotheticals to strike down mandatory minimum penalties, let's clearly spell that out for the court. If my friend is concerned about the words “any reasonably foreseeable circumstances or” and wants to stick to “hypothetical scenarios”, then I'm sure I'll find a friend on my side to move a subamendment to Mr. Brock's amendment.
I think the chair wants to gavel us out.
I invite anyone to have a conversation about this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We're suspending until after question period and after whatever votes follow question period.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I have to call this meeting back to order.
When we suspended, we were on the subamendment to CPC-23 proposed by Mr. Brock.
Was it Mr. Baber...?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
It was Mr. Baber, but it's my subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Yes. However, I think Mr. Baber was still speaking. That's where I got confused.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I appreciate that, sincerely.
I understand that there were concerns with respect to some other phrases in the proposed amendment. I also understand correctly from Ms. Lattanzio that, right now, we're debating a subamendment by Mr. Brock.
In other words, we cannot propose a subsequent amendment that will remove additional language, although I anticipate that Mr. Gill may move such an amendment.
I also propose, at this time—just like we did with a previous amendment—to stand down CPC-23 and revisit it towards the end.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
It sounds like we have consent, Mr. Baber.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
CPC-24 was withdrawn. That's right.
Okay. That will take us to Ms. Kwan on Zoom.
Ms. Kwan, I'll go over to you, then, for NDP-20.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
NDP-20 is similar to the last NDP amendment.
This would eliminate Bill C-16's exception to the safety valve for particular offences, which currently increases the likelihood of charter rights violations, particularly for racialized people, who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
We cannot pick and choose when it comes to charter rights. We must ensure that they are upheld for everyone, so I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
Before I hear from anybody else, if NDP-20 is adopted, CPC-25, CPC-25.1, CPC-25.2 and CPC-25.3 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I cannot support this amendment because excluding offences that carry life sentences from the ambit of judicial discretion was a deliberate choice to reflect the seriousness of these crimes. Mandatory life sentences and periods of parole ineligibility have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.
For these reasons, I will not be supporting the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you.
Shall NDP-20 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On CPC-25, we have Mr. Brock.
Actually, before you go, if CPC-25 is adopted, CPC-25.1, CPC-25.2 and CPC-25.3 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.