Debates of Nov. 20th, 2018

Criminal Code

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, this is something that is quite important to me. The appointment of judges who bring a breadth of experience and diversity to the bench is quite important.

As a government, we have taken some very important steps by establishing a process of appointment of judges that is one of the finest in the world and will withstand any type of scrutiny. We see our benches being filled with exceptionally talented people from all walks of life. As a government, this is something we fulfilled. We are on the right path in appointing the type of judges who should be on our benches.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned delays, moving away from the peremptory challenges which caused a lot of delays in our system and going toward the set aside provisions in the current proposed legislation to streamline the jury selection process, give control to the judges to make sure we have diversity. Could the hon. member talk about how that could improve our efficiency in the court system going forward?

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the outcomes we see, the numbers we see year after year from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, should trouble all Canadians. They should really raise questions as to why certain provisions and practices exist and how they affect racialized people. It is very clear that peremptory challenge is one of those issues where we have seen some serious miscarriages of justice over the years. It is a very important step in Bill C-75 that would address a major concern of many victimized communities that have been seeking justice.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Before I begin my speech, I want to thank the hon. member for Victoria for the excellent work he did on this file in committee. He worked very hard. He proposed many amendments, asked witnesses questions, and made some insightful and very impressive remarks. That is what will fuel my remarks today.

Why are we voting against the bill? The purpose of the bill was to respond to the Jordan decision, but it does not respond to it correctly. That is one of the reasons we are voting against the bill. It does not go far enough, and it fails to achieve what it set out to do. That is the problem.

The stated objective of the bill was to comply with the Supreme Court's 2016 Jordan ruling and to clear the backlog in the justice system, which is very important.

The problem with the Jordan decision is that now the Charter guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time. That is fine. The Jordan decision set out a timeframe. The time limit between the laying of charges and the conclusion of the trial was set at 18 months, or 30 months in some cases.

If that deadline cannot be met, situations may arise—much like the notorious cases I mentioned earlier in my question—where real criminals who have committed very serious crimes can be let off without a trial. That is awful. That should never happen again. Our government should be ensuring that it never happens again.

That is why Bill C-75 was so highly anticipated. It should have corrected that situation, but unfortunately, it does not.

One of the major reforms in Bill C-75 is not based on sound evidence, and that is very problematic. The stated objective of the bill is to respond to the Jordan decision. However, we have serious doubts about whether the proposed amendments will actually help reduce case completion times in the criminal justice system.

Many of the proposed measures will likely have the opposite effect and could actually add to the delays.

The Liberals claim that this bill is a bold reform of the criminal justice system, but there is one problem, in addition to what I mentioned just now. The Minister of Justice's mandate letter has something very important in it, something we very strongly believe in: eliminating the mandatory minimum sentencing system. All of the leading legal minds and experts have told us repeatedly that mandatory minimum sentencing is bad for our justice system. It is bad for offender rehabilitation and reintegration, and it undermines judges' ability to exercise their judgment in unique cases.

What does Bill C-75 have to offer on that score? This was in the minister's mandate letter, so we expected the elimination of minimum sentencing to be a key component of the bill, but apparently it does not even bear mentioning.

The Liberals broke their promise, and that is a major disappointment. As I said, defence attorneys and legal academics agree that the reversal of this practice would have been a huge step toward unclogging the court system. Unfortunately, the Liberals chose not to tackle this key issue. That is inexplicable. I do not understand why they made that choice.

My first concern has to do with reducing the use of preliminary inquiries, which are essentially dress rehearsals for trials. They are used in only 3% of cases, so eliminating them in most cases, which is what Bill C-75 proposes to do, will not save a lot of time right away. One could argue that preliminary inquiries help narrow the issues to be presented at trial and that, in some cases, they completely eliminate the need for a trial if the Crown's evidence does not hold up. Eliminating preliminary inquiries is a solution that was proposed to reduce delays, but it will actually do the opposite.

My second concern is about the regressive change to summary offences. Imposing harsher sentences on those who commit less serious crimes, namely increasing the maximum sentence from 18 months to 24, is just one element of this reform. Many accused would be better helped by being given more social support, rather than being criminalized. This amendment would disproportionately affect members of racialized groups and indigenous communities, more specifically those with a low socioeconomic status and those struggling with addiction and mental health issues.

Another major shortcoming of this bill is that it does not propose any measures to address the root causes of crime, such as poverty. In fact, today is national anti-poverty day. Other root causes include addiction, mental health problems and marginalization. There is nothing concrete in the bill to address those factors. Unfortunately, many people end up in the legal system when their situation is actually a result of social problems that we should be addressing. Sometimes those problems are of long standing. Take, for example, the social problems in indigenous communities and mental health problems.

The government needs to sit down with the affected communities to come up with solutions to these problems and try to improve their situation. Unfortunately, this bill has no plan to that effect.

I also want to reiterate that appointing more judges to fill judicial vacancies is absolutely crucial. We can no longer tolerate all these judicial vacancies. This government has been in power for over three years now. These judicial vacancies must be filled.

Let me remind members of the Nick Chan case in Calgary. Everyone is still talking about it today. This notorious gang leader was accused of murder and other serious crimes, but he was let off because his right to be tried within a reasonable time, as laid out in the Jordan decision, had been violated due to the shortage of judges.

This is a very serious problem that the government must address as quickly as possible. Of course, we have an independent judicial appointments process, but that process needs to go a lot faster. The vacancies must be filled, because we simply cannot let other notorious criminals escape prosecution because of a lack of judges.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for his speech.

I want to touch on the point he made at the end of his speech about how many judges we have appointed. We have already appointed 31 judges in Quebec, the province my colleague represents in the House. He knows full well that we inherited a flawed system from the Conservative Party. We have revamped the system to put more emphasis on diversity in the judiciary. We have increased the percentage of women from 32% to 56%. We have increased the percentage of indigenous judges by 3.1%. We have increased the percentage of racialized judges to 12% and LGBTQ judges to 6%.

Among all of the candidates appointed in Quebec and across the country, 30% are bilingual. I am pointing this out because my colleague is a staunch defender of official languages in the House and across the country.

Does my colleague agree with the appointment of these individuals, who more widely represent our communities?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Icongratulated the government on its new approach to appointing judges. I think that the diversity of the new appointments is a very good thing. The increased number of bilingual judges is also a very good thing. However, the remaining vacancies do need to be filled as soon as possible.

My colleague did not address a very important aspect of my speech, the part about mandatory minimum sentences. It is so important that it was included in the Minister of Justice's mandate letter.

The Liberals have been in power for three and a half years. When will they finally put an end to mandatory minimum sentences?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice suggested that somehow the appointment process was broken under the Harper government. I hope he is not impugning the character of the very many good justices who were appointed under Prime Minister Harper, as well as the many good justices who have been appointed by the government. The problem, however, is that the Liberal government did not do it quickly enough, at least in the first year after it was elected.

The member for Drummond just commented on the new appointment process established by the government, but it took it a full year to appoint new judicial advisory committees.

Does the hon. member agree that this demonstrates that when it comes to appointing judges and when it comes to filling judicial vacancies within a reasonable period of time, the government has not taken it seriously?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the new process is indeed a good thing. We are pleased that the newly appointed judges represent a greater diversity of Canadians.

However, we are disappointed by how long it took and by the outstanding vacancies. That is what we find deplorable.

I would like to reiterate that abolishing mandatory minimum sentences is in the mandate letter of the Minister of Justice. Legal experts Amanda Carling, Emily Hill, Kent Roach and Jonathan Rudin have said that mandatory minimum sentences are a bad idea and that it is impossible for the legislator to know all the different types of offences and the offenders who might commit them. They believe that mandatory minimum sentences do not take into account the fact that some offenders live in abject poverty, have intellectual disabilities or mental health problems, or have been victims of racism or assault.

Why has the government not accomplished what is set out in the mandate letter?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts, which is an important part. I intend to focus my remarks on the sentencing issue.

At the outset, it is important to address the hybrid offence issue, because we are hearing a lot of misinformation coming from the other side about how this process works. This means offences that are punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or less. These reforms would allow the Crown to proceed by summary conviction in appropriate cases. There is the suggestion that this minimizes the seriousness of the offence. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is being said from the other side, and the concerns and misinformation they are raising, shows a lack of trust of the judiciary, of police officers and of Crown prosecutors.

The opposition is the party that pretends to be the law and order party, the party that gets tough on crime, the party that never really talks about significant issues to reduce crime, but will wrap itself in the flag and pretend to go forward based on that. It will spread misinformation about Bill C-75 to build itself up to make it seem like the bill would accomplish nothing. The rules in the Canadian judicial system changed with the Supreme Court decision in Jordan, that justice had to be quicker. We have all heard the phrase justice delayed is justice denied, but it is true. It is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Minister of Justice met with provincial and territorial counterparts of all political stripes, all parties that are represented in the House, to come up with a way to make justice quicker, to get people before a judge as quickly as possible. I think that is something on which we can all agree. If someone is charged with a criminal offence, he or she should be in front of a judge as quickly as possible, that gets to sentencing and an outcome as quickly as possible.

The proposal to hybridize offences is procedural in nature and is intended to allow the prosecution by summary conviction of conduct that does not currently result in a sentence of more than two years. For instance, it is a mischaracterization of the reclassification of amendments to assert that hybridizing, for example, section 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code, which is participation in activities of a criminal organization, is sending a message that we do not take organized crime offences seriously. There is not a member of Parliament in the House who does not take organized crime seriously. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.

The proposed amendment simply recognizes that this offence can, by virtue of the range of conduct captured, include circumstances where a appropriate sentence falls within the summary conviction range. Proceeding summarily in these circumstances allows for more expeditious proceedings, without undermining public safety or impacting the range of sentences for this offence.

Let us go back in our time machine to 2011-12. There was, as the Conservatives would call themselves, a tough on crime government. In those years, there were 49 guilty verdicts issued under section 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code. Of those 49 offences, only 34 were given a custodial sentence. Of those, one received one month or less. Six received between one and three months. Ten received between three and six months. Nine received from six to 12 months. Four received from 12 to 24 months. The remaining four, less than 10% of offences, received a sentence of 24 months or more. That is from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. This was during the Stephen Harper era of tough on crime.

[An hon. member]

They don't believe in statistics.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

We have heard in question period, as my hon. friend mentioned, that belief in statistics may not necessarily be the Conservatives' thing, but I will put that forward.

This bill, Bill C-75, gives the Crown discretion on how to proceed. The Crown knows, when it is going forward with a case, the sentence it would ask for if a conviction happened. The Crown then has to make arguments within the range of sentences.

In my riding, the Crown has been doing this for five, 10, 15, 20 years. The Conservatives say that we do not trust them. We do not trust them to make that call even though—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

We trust judges. We do not trust prosecutors. I said that we trust judges.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, “we do not trust judges”. We just heard that from the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton who is yelling, for some reason.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I just want to remind the hon. members that while someone is talking, shouting across the floor is not regular parliamentary procedure.

I will let the hon. member for St. Catharines continue.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I may have misheard the hon. member screaming and shouting. He may have said that he trusts judges. However, opposing this bill shows that they do not trust judges.

At the end of the day, it is the Crown and the defence who make the arguments. The Crown will say this requires a sentence for a certain period of time and the defence will say, “No, we believe it is less”. The judge will make that decision.

It is the Crown prosecutor's job in this business is to put dangerous people behind bars. They have gone into the business for that reason. If they believe that the sentence should be less than 24 months, why not make a proceeding to get these people behind bars quicker? This bill achieves a tougher on crime approach. It gets those charged with offences before a judge faster.

Members from the other side scoff, but they cannot dispute that fact. They cannot dispute the fact that they do not trust Crown prosecutors, which is shameful. How does one surround oneself with a law and order agenda while not trusting one of the most significant aspects of the system, which is the Crown prosecutors? They do not trust the police to lay the appropriate charge. They do not trust the Crown and they may or may not trust the judges either. That is just disappointing.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

That is just pure rhetoric. Get to the substance.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we still hear the heckling. I think I have touched a nerve in terms of the truth of this. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton continues to heckle. I have not seen the recent reports. I believe he has been the most called out in terms of his heckling. He continues to do so, which is truly unfortunate. I am sure he has had plenty of opportunity to speak but wishes to shout me down. Again, speaking the truth, sometimes that stings and we are seeing that in this particular situation.

It is clear that keeping section 467.11 of the Criminal Code, which I had mentioned, a straight indictable offence, will not in any way prevent the Crown in appropriate cases from seeking a non-custodial sentence or a sentence of imprisonment that is in the summary conviction range or seeking a sentence that is even higher. It all comes down to the Crown attorneys who are on the ground and know the facts of the case. Who are we as members of Parliament to say that they are not the best people in the position to make that decision? They live in the communities where they are trying these cases. They do not want to see bad people out on the streets.

If I look to the opposition members, is that what they believe? That is what they are suggesting. What they are suggesting is going on in this bill is a complete lack of trust from some of our chief law officials who are living in their communities who want to see bad people go to jail and have dedicated their careers to that goal.

It is utterly shameful that the opposition would try to spin the narrative that this is soft on crime legislation. This is getting people to a judge faster. It is getting people to jail faster and it is meeting the charter requirements as set out by the Supreme Court.

As we heard from the leader of the opposition in his plan, which was rated full of baloney, they have no plan to make Canada safer. We have a plan. This plan will get people to justice faster. It will allow Crown attorneys to have discretion and it will make the justice system more efficient. Justice delayed is justice denied and this is going to help our Canadian justice system.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was certainly long on rhetoric but short on substance.

The hon. member talked about giving prosecutors discretion and that is all this is about. If that were the case, then why would we have solely indictable offences at all? Why would every offence not be a hybrid offence? Why would murder not be a hybrid offence, if it is all just about giving prosecutors the appropriate discretion? We do not because there are certain offences that are serious, that need to be treated seriously in all cases and, therefore, are indictable.

The member spoke about the range of conduct captured, such that it would be appropriate to prosecute by way of summary conviction. Just what range of conduct captured does he envision in the case of infanticide or concealing the body of a child, or perhaps administering a date-rape drug? In just what circumstances does he see those offences being on the level of a ticketable offence or a minor property crime?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I again go back to this law and order government. I will give the hon. member an example that he can chew on a bit himself in terms of the offence of sexual assault. Sexual assault is a hybrid offence. It remained a hybrid offence under the Harper government. Why did the Conservatives not change it? Maybe it is because it is best to give Crown attorneys discretion, maybe it is because it is best to give judges discretion, or were they soft on crime? I do not know at the end of the day.

We gave the hon. member statistics as to the particular offence that was provided that at the end of the day, again under the law and order Harper government, the individuals charged and convicted under that particular offence were not getting sentences of more than 24 months. Fewer than 10% were. Therefore, why not come up with a plan to get those cases that are going to be less than 24 months to a judge quicker and get those people behind bars quicker? The Conservatives have no plan, and that is truly unfortunate.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the government talk about being a law and order government when it is clearly a common spin government.

I am not an expert on these matters, but all I can say about this bill is that everyone including the member for Papineau can see that the justice system is clogged up because of these very mandatory minimums.

Why not deal with the bigger problem, which is mandatory minimums? It is as though they called a plumber to fix a leak in the water heater and he is wasting his time fiddling with the taps.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to respectfully disagree. We are fixing the problem. There are two different methods in two different courts, one at the superior court and one at the provincial court. Provincial court matters move quicker and if Crown attorneys know at the end of the day that they are going to seek sentences of less than 24 months, they can move far more expeditiously through the provincial court system. That is what we are doing in this case. If Crown prosecutors know that they are going to seek only 20 months, why send the accused through superior court? Why incur all that extra delay? Why not get offenders before judges as quickly as possible and get them behind bars?

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion about trusting judges. A key aspect of this bill that has not been touched on much is the power of judges to stand aside jurors. Normally, they can only do this in the context of personal hardship, but this bill would amend the Criminal Code so that judges can stand aside jurors to ensure a more representative jury.

What does that mean to the member's constituents in St. Catharines and around this county so that they can ensure there are more diverse juries hearing cases and rendering verdicts in criminal matters?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary and the committee for their incredible work on this.

This bill speaks to a whole host of issues throughout the justice system, be it bail, juries and the like. I am very pleased to support this bill and at the end of the day, I hope opposition members come to their senses and support this bill, because it would get offenders to judges quicker than the previous government ever could.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. I will point out to the hon. member that she will have nine minutes and then I will have to cut her off.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak at third reading to Bill C-75. I had the opportunity recently to speak on another bill that also sought to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-375. In that speech, I drew attention to the Liberals' alarming track record on criminal justice. I would like to continue with these thoughts today in the context of the bill before us.

Bill C-75 continues a disturbing pattern from the Liberal government. Where previous governments of all stripes sought to protect victims of crime, the Liberal government seems to favour the protection of criminals instead. From their first days in government, the Liberals have used the levers of power to shield and protect criminals while leaving victims and their families in the cold.

We have seen this time and time again, with the Liberals' $10.5-million payout to Omar Khadr and their subsequent snubbing of Tabitha Speer, their shocking response to Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer from a secure prison to a healing lodge, their abysmal response to gang crimes through Bill C-71, along with countless other examples.

When Canadians dared to raise their concerns, the Prime Minister labelled them ambulance chasers. Perhaps the most tangible examples of the government's disordered protection of criminals have come in this bill. When Bill C-75 was introduced, it reduced the penalties for advocating genocide and participation in terrorist activities to possibly as little as a fine. It was only at the insistence of my Conservative colleagues at committee that these clauses were removed.

I am glad the Liberal members on that committee saw the folly of the original text, but it begs the question: how could the government have thought those clauses were in any way appropriate in the first place? Unfortunately, I believe that this is not a one-time occurrence, but as I said, a disturbing pattern regarding terrorists from the government.

As I already mentioned, take the case of Omar Khadr which resulted in a convicted terrorist becoming a millionaire at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, and this is just one example. Recall that long before the Liberals tried to use Bill C-75 to lower the penalties for engaging in terrorist activities, one of the first items on the Prime Minister's agenda was to pull our air force out of the fight against ISIS. This was a backward decision at the time and in retrospect, almost indefensible.

Just days ago, a mass grave holding the remains of more Yazidi victims of ISIS was discovered in Kar Azir town. This is the 71st mass grave found in the area. The men, women and children in these graves were slaughtered by members of ISIS, some of whom are from this country. These ISIS terrorists stoned women to death for the crime of being raped. They killed families for believing in their own God or being the wrong ethnicity. They burned men alive for refusing to join their evil cause or threw them off buildings for being gay.

As I previously pointed out in this place, the Minister of Foreign Affairs could not even bring herself to call these monsters terrorists--