Evidence of meeting #30 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 majority.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Minister, when you laid out your government's approach to justice, you established what you said were three pillars. On the second of those, I agree in principle with what you say you're trying to do here, which is to support those on the front lines.
We have had before this committee law enforcement officers representing police associations, representing police departments and representing the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and every single one of them has said that your government's firearms confiscation scheme should not be a policing priority and will not improve public safety.
Why is this still a priority for your government, when almost every police service in the country wants nothing to do with it?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Lawton.
With respect, this is a file that rests with one of my colleagues, the Minister of Public Safety—
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Yes, but he doesn't know what a firearms licence is, so I'm asking you, sir.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
You can continue to put your questions to him in that regard. However, we did make a commitment to Canadians that we would advance this particular priority. We work very closely with law enforcement, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which you referred to, and I'll note that they are supportive of the criminal justice agenda that I described during the opening.
With respect to questions that are entirely on a colleague's portfolio, I'll defer to their answers.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
You are the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. You are here talking about your priorities in the main estimates, on which your government is spending, I believe, three-quarters of a billion dollars at a minimum, and police services have been cut—
Liberal
Marilyn Gladu Liberal Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON
I have a point of order.
Chair, the minister has been clear that this is not his file. It's Minister Anandasangaree's. I think we should move on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Gladu.
It is pretty clear, Mr. Lawton, that we're a bit off the beaten track here. Maybe get back to being focused on the matters at hand, if you don't mind.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate my colleague Ms. Gladu's interventions on criminal justice in the past. For example, on Bill C-14, one of the points that Ms. Gladu raised is that it does not remove the principle of the least restrictive punishment at the earliest possible opportunity. She says it is a reason that this bill is not going to fix crime—
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I believe that the witnesses are over there and are not any of our colleagues on this side. If we can please direct questions to the witnesses, that would be really helpful.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I was looking at the minister and directing a question to him. Thank you, Ms. Khalid.
Minister, do you agree with your Liberal colleague, Ms. Gladu, that Bill C-14 is not going to fix crime?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I think it's going to have a significant and positive impact, and since you've referred to one of my colleagues, I will share with the committee that I think she's been doing her job precisely the right way.
She may be new to our caucus, but she's a long-time friend. Upon joining our caucus, she asked for time—which I would have given to her, regardless of which party she was affiliated with—to sit down to discuss some concerns that she had. She raised her understanding of the principle of restraint with me.
One of the things that I'll share with you, which reflects the perspective I shared with her, is that the principle of restraint exists independent of legislation that had put it into place, and if it were simply repealed, it would still exist and be enforced largely as is. We thought there was a better approach, which is to specifically clarify how it should be applied and to make it absolutely clear that if a court is not satisfied that it can manage the public safety imperative—the second ground, so to speak, for bail hearings—then the person should not be released.
This is a better and stronger approach, in my view, than repealing the principle of restraint from the code altogether, given its continued existence in the common law.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I had the pleasure last week of spending some time in Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong. I spoke to a couple of firearms owners there who I think will be incredibly frustrated that their member of Parliament just tried to defend gun confiscation by blocking you from having to answer questions about this important criminal justice issue.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say, first of all, that the line of questioning relates to a jurisdiction that is public safety, not justice. Number two, this is a constant effort to harass Ms. Gladu, and I find it really unfortunate that this is happening at this committee.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Lawton, we have had this discussion about showing respect for our colleagues in many different contexts in the past, regardless of the circumstances. I would just ask you to continue to bear that in mind and to continue to keep the questions....
To other colleagues, this is not a free-for-all discussion. If others would speak only when they have the floor, I would be grateful, as would others.
Mr. Lawton, we are speaking about the estimates too, so let's bear that in mind as well.
Thank you.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I didn't realize that quoting members disrespected them, Chair. I appreciate that nudge in a different direction here.
On Bill C-16, Minister, you have put a safety valve in this bill that allows judges to basically decide on their own if they believe a mandatory minimum sentence is going to be “cruel and unusual punishment”. I delved into this with some of the officials from your department during the clause-by-clause review, and I want to get your clarification on this.
Could a judge use a convicted offender's immigration status as justification to waive a mandatory minimum penalty if that penalty would jeopardize their status as a non-Canadian?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Not in ordinary circumstances. There would be the ability to use the residual discretion only if the result would be grossly disproportionate, to the point where a common person would understand that it's not an appropriate result.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
You said, “not in ordinary circumstances”, but your design on the so-called safety valve is that it is an extraordinary circumstance, so is it legitimate, in your view—
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's not specific to the circumstances you've identified, though.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Do you not believe it would be legitimate to use someone's immigration status to formulate a view of a mandatory minimum sentence as being cruel and unusual?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It would have to result in a grossly disproportionate outcome, and we've left that discretion to be determined—
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
But is deportation a grossly disproportionate—
