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.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm pleased to speak to this amendment.
I think what we're trying to do is identify those crimes so heinous that they should be excluded from the safety valve. I think the Liberal government has put themselves in a pickle here, because they have created an arbitrary line to say that certain crimes should be excluded but others shouldn't be. They have as yet been unable to provide a cogent reason for some of those exclusions. I think we're offering to them some of the crimes that we would suggest are so heinous that they should be excluded.
The response about fears of a constitutional challenge, which I continue to hear, suggests to me a lack of courage on the other side to take up their responsibility as legislators to make laws. We believe in the supremacy of Parliament and we respect the independence of the judiciary, but that is the separation of powers. Abdicating your responsibility to make laws because of the fear you hold of the judiciary is an abdication of your role and an abdication of our constitutional arrangement.
I was perplexed by the comments made by my colleague from Mississauga. I'm glad she's speaking to this as an issue that affects her area more than others and on this particular amendment with respect to aggravated sexual assault, but she suggested in her comments that excluding aggravated sexual assault would somehow harm victims. I don't follow that logic, so maybe she can explain that in a further intervention.
In my view, putting the bad person in jail will not hurt the victim. Victims, as I understand it, demand justice, and that means removing the offender from society as a means of showing our condemnation of that heinous crime and keeping them out of society so that they cannot commit that crime again. I'm confused by her logic in saying that doing so will somehow hurt the process or hurt victims. Maybe she could explain that to the committee and to her community.
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Before I return to the amendment, I'd like to respectfully express my concern to the officials, specifically to Ms. Burt. As lawyers, we operate in a very uncertain environment. I used to say, as a litigator, that there was no such thing as a slam-dunk case. I used to say that if you thought you had a slam-dunk case in commercial or civil litigation, it was probably 70%. Then you had to split success. Then you had to factor in the costs. Then you walked away. Hopefully, you did better than you thought you might.
I am not convinced, Ms. Burt—I say this with the greatest respect to both you and Mr. Taylor—because I do not see how the mandatory minimum sentences are restored by virtue of the safety valve. You may wish that they're restored. You may wish that judges will now say, “I have a safety valve, and therefore I'll consider the safety valve”, but that applies directly to the case before the justice. It does not apply to the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum penalty. I'm not sure it does. I think we'll have to be cautious.
None of this is political. With the greatest respect to Ms. Khalid, my colleague from Mississauga, she said that eliminating judicial discretion will not help victims. I hope I'm quoting her correctly. I have to very respectfully and very strongly disagree with this.
I refer her to the basic principles of sentencing. There are two primary principles behind sentencing. The first is denunciation. We condemn the conduct. We express that as a society by condemning aggravated sexual assault. The second principle, which in my view is the most important principle of sentencing, is deterrence. Deter this specific offender and other and future offenders from committing aggravated sexual assault. That's what a stiff sentence will do. That still can account for the individual circumstances.
If you stand by your legislation and introduce a safety valve, and you have some sort of absurdity in a situation where a person is convicted of an aggravated sexual assault, then we will put our faith in the court to have an off-ramp, which is what the safety valve is really about. However, let's not get to the point where we're claiming the absurdity that deterrence by imposing a stiff sentence will not help future or other victims.
Thank you.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, I'll be relatively brief.
As Mr. Baber correctly said, there's general agreement among most members of this committee that the use of reasonable hypotheticals—which created a poor decision in the Senneville case—is something we want to eliminate as a variable to the court's striking down of the mandatory minimum sentences Parliament adopts.
As a result, we've arrived at a situation where we have a suggestion in Bill C-16: a safety valve. I think that is a very good suggestion. It would prevent the use of reasonable hypotheticals to strike down mandatory minimum sentences for a class. It may lead to one problematic decision on one offender in a certain case, but it would not lead to the whole class being thus exempt from mandatory minimum sentences.
I understand. Everybody is reasonable in terms of where they're coming from. The way the legislation now works is, I think, a reasonable way to deal with things. Where the mandatory minimum sentence is life, the reasonable hypothetical would very likely never be used to strike anything down. It hasn't been by the courts. We're saying, “These sentences are the highest because they're for the most serious crimes, so we will not allow judges discretion on those. For everything that is not a minimum life sentence, we're allowing the safety valve to apply.”
The Conservatives, reasonably, are saying, “For this sentence or that sentence, we don't think this should be.” The line is here. The line could be there. Different people have different lines. Different people will take different charter risks. They'll say, “I accept this level of charter risk” or “I accept that level of charter risk.”
Again, I think we're all in agreement on the concept. As you said, we're in a different place with the line we're choosing to take on this. I think we're all here in good faith. I'm going to be voting against this amendment because I'm comfortable with minimum life being the line and threshold, and with where the charter risk would be if you start adding one. There are also the variables. There are many heinous crimes that don't have minimum life. If I take one, why am I not taking another one? Then that line gets blurrier and blurrier. You might say, “It's for any sentence that's 20 years, or any sentence that's 15 years, 10 years or 14 years.” It's difficult.
Again, I get it. I respect my colleagues and where they're coming from on this, but I'm going to vote against this one.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to address a couple of things my colleagues have pointedly said about my remarks. I stand by them. There is no solution to intimate partner violence without wraparound services in communities such as Mississauga and Peel, or all across our country.
My colleagues have been talking about how judges should not be able to use reasonable hypotheticals in their decisions, as we discussed earlier. However, I have spent a very long time listening to legislators present hypotheticals in order to decide whether certain things should or should not be moved in a bill such as this one. Bill C-16's intent is to provide safety and security to women when combatting intimate partner violence.
I have the utmost respect for Mr. Brock, but when he talks about the context of diversity, equity and inclusion not being necessary in sentencing or in finding a solution to X, Y or Z, I take exception to it. I do think it is necessary. I do think such context matters. What happens in an urban city like Mississauga is very different from what happens in rural Quebec, for example. I think judges need to be able to look at a situation and work from there. I trust the jurisprudence. I have full faith in the justice system in our country. Yes, we can obviously make it better, but not by overstepping the bounds and imposing our hypotheticals on judges as they try to make just decisions and set jurisprudence that defines how laws are interpreted in our country. Absolutely, we write the laws, but that interpretation matters. That interpretation is different in different parts of the country, as it should be.
There's a reason, in our country, for the separation between all the different branches of government. It is to secure fairness. It's to ensure that communities are safe and that we're rehabilitating them, not punishing and holding everybody to account at the same level. We should be nimble and allow our judges the discretion to apply the law as is just.
I'll stop there, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
With respect to my friend Mr. Housefather, he said that he was feeling out the line and was comfortable with the line being here, or perhaps not here but over here. He said that he was fairly comfortable. What, in effect, Mr. Housefather is suggesting is an arbitrary line—and I think he's nodding in agreement. I'm glad we agree on this point, because we should not be drawing an arbitrary line when it comes to sentencing. We have enough faith in the judges to exercise discretion. No one is taking away that discretion. The safety valve adds it, as you say.
I can't believe that somehow we would now here apply a line of turpitude to the guilty mind, where we say that, on this guilty mind, we throw the book at you, but on that guilty mind, you can have an off-ramp without looking at the specific circumstances of the case. An aggravated sexual assault is an aggravated sexual assault. I don't even want to describe the elements of that case. Applying this arbitrary approach, in our respectful suggestion, is incorrect.
To Ms. Khalid, we are well within our rights to use hypotheticals, because we make the law, for better or for worse, and judges apply it. That's our entire job description. For better or for worse, Parliament is supreme. We get to write the statute, and judges get to apply it. We should not shy away from that duty. We should embrace it.
Most importantly, no one is saying that somehow stiff sentencing will eliminate the need for wraparound services or rehabilitation. Of course rehabilitation is another very important component of all of this. All I'm saying is, let's not forget the most important principle of sentencing, and that is deterrence. Sitting here, if we have the opportunity to deter aggravated sexual assault in Peel and we don't avail ourselves of that, then I think we've failed in our duty as legislators.
Thank you.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Very briefly, to the officials, without holding you to the actual decision itself, the general theme in sentencing in this country for a number of serious offences, particularly aggravated sexual assault, is that you don't talk about rehabilitation. You talk about denunciation, you talk about removal from society and you talk about deterrence as the primary sentencing factors. Is that the case? Give me a yes or no.
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thanks for the question.
Certainly the Supreme Court has emphasized that the more serious the offence, the more emphasis there is on those types of sentencing principles, without necessarily excluding some of the others.
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
You are correct, Mr. Brock. There is a greater focus on denunciation in those situations.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thanks, Mr. Brock.
Shall CPC-25.2 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are on CPC-25.3.
Go ahead, Mr. Gill.
Conservative
Amarjeet Gill Conservative Brampton West, ON
Thank you again, Chair.
I would like to move amendment CPC-25.3, which is that Bill C-16, in clause 63, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 71 with the following:
ment for life or to an offence under section 346.
It seeks to expand the safety wall to include mandatory minimum charges under section 346 of the Criminal Code. This section deals with extortion, and it carries a mandatory minimum of five years for first offences, and seven years for reoffenders, for extortionists who use firearms.
Communities like Brampton and Surrey have been dealing with massive increases in extortion over the last five years. Business owners and families are living in fear. People are fearing for their lives. Extortionists are so unafraid of getting caught that they are filming themselves firing guns at homes in Brampton. We will never stop these extortionists with weak penalties. That will put them right back out on the streets and back to threatening families. We need strong and long sentences to keep these violent criminals behind bars, where they belong.
I would like to say that I spoke about extortion and crime happening in our neighbourhoods and on our streets many times. This is something I am receiving every week. Brampton residents and residents in my riding are calling me and expressing their concerns regarding extortion. They keep getting demands for money from these extortionists.
I always say that crime is a non-partisan issue. We are all here to make our communities safer and stronger. We, as parliamentarians, are here to make our laws robust so that these criminals cannot benefit from crime. In my opinion, putting repeat violent offenders behind bars will help victims, create confidence among Canadians and restore justice for victims.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Gill.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
We'll have to defer clause 63 because of our deferral on CPC-23.
(Clause 63 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 64 to 67 agreed to)
(On clause 68)
Clause 68 takes us to NDP-21.
Ms. Kwan, go ahead.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
NDP-21, as with the previous NDP amendments, would extend protections in legal proceedings to all those victimized by intimate partners and not just for a limited number of offences.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
Is there anybody else? No. Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 68 agreed to)
(On clause 69)
That brings us to clause 69 and NDP-22. If NDP-22 is adopted, G-32 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Ms. Kwan, it's back to you.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, similar to previous NDP amendments, this would extend protections in legal proceedings to all those victimized by their intimate partners, and not restrict protections to a limited number of offences. In echoing the recommendations of the National Association of Women and the Law, New Democrats are committed to ensuring that survivors of all forms of intimate partner abuse are protected while testifying in court. We urge all parties to vote in favour of this amendment to ensure these protections are in place.
Liberal