Debates of Nov. 28th, 2018

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary a question regarding judicial appointments. He talked about the fact that the government has been appointing judges, but I say it is too little, too late. He can cite whatever number he wishes, and he did mention that the government is establishing new judicial posts. In the Budget Implementation Act of 2017, funding for 14 new judicial posts was provided for in the province of Alberta. Today, a year and a half later, seven out of the 14 remain vacant. Is that a record of action?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the record of action is actually quite clear, and it is what I outlined in my opening statements. The actual record of the government is tremendous in respect to appointing judges. Was there a delay at the start of our mandate? Absolutely there was. Why was there a delay? It was because we took under our wing and under our mandate reforming the system of judicial appointments to make it inclusive of people's lived experience, to make it inclusive of merit that was hitherto ignored by the previous government. What has resulted is a diverse judiciary that actually reflects the community that it adjudicates.

The previous government's record was 30% appointment of women. We have appointed 56% women. We have appointed 3.1% indigenous individuals, 12% persons who are visible minorities, 6% who are LBGTQ and 30% who are bilingual. That point needs to be underscored in terms of the threats that Conservative governments at a different level are putting on bilingualism in this country.

That is a record that we will stand by and we will defend, and it applies across this country including in Alberta, the area that the member represents.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we heard just a few moments ago that the priority for the government was eliminating mandatory minimums. I remind the member that Liberals have now been in power for well over three years. With the idea that they get around to things or that something is a priority, they obviously need to understand that they are in government now and need to take action.

I am deeply concerned by certain provisions that the Liberals seemed to ram through committee. On the reverse onus positions, the considerations have been flagged by some witnesses, including Jonathan Rudin of Aboriginal Legal Services, that the provisions could actually perpetuate the overrepresentation of indigenous women in incarceration. Michael Spratt pointed out the concerns around restricting of preliminary inquiries. There are witnesses who brought forward concerns. The Liberals did not seem willing to address those concerns in any way.

Finally, the Liberals have now been in power for three years. Crime prevention programs that were gutted under the former Conservative government have not been restored in any way by Liberals. We know that $1 of crime prevention funding saves us $6 in policing, justice, court and prison costs. Why is the government not willing to get things right, and why is it so slow to meet the commitments it made back in 2015?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will take issue with pretty much all of what the member just articulated in this chamber. In terms of the position of Aboriginal Legal Services, what it did at committee was laud our initiative in respect of the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. Specifically, Jonathan Rudin gave testimony at that committee about the elimination of peremptory challenges and what that will mean to avoid the situation such as the trial of Gerald Stanley, which had a homogenous all-white jury rendering a verdict with respect to an indigenous accused. That is specifically the kind of change needed to address concerns that the member opposite and I share with respect to the overrepresentation of individuals.

With respect to intimate partner violence, there was clearly a discussion about it at committee. There was discussion about the important steps we are taking to address intimate partner violence, and about expanding the definition so dating partners and former dating partners are included in the analysis so adjudicators and actors within the criminal justice system could take more seriously domestic violence and address this serious scourge on our system.

With respect to what we are doing with the broader system delays, we are acting on multiple fronts. We have a role to play, as do the provinces and territories. I note for the member's edification the contribution we made just yesterday to Pro Bono Ontario, a system that was gutted by the current provincial government in Ontario. We are shoring it up with $250,000 of new funding to reduce the number of self-represented litigants in our courts, which contributes to the delays that we would seek to address and I am sure the member opposite would seek to address as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise once again to speak to Bill C-75. One of the biggest problems with Bill C-75 is that, although the objective of the legislation is to reduce delay in Canada's courts, it actually does very little to reduce delay. For a bill that is designed to reduce delay, the fact that it does not reduce delay is a pretty big problem.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and other Liberal MPs who have spoken on the bill in this place have patted themselves on the back about, as they have put it, the good work of the justice committee, which heard from 95 witnesses, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice just stated, and that Liberal MPs listened to the key stakeholders and acted on the concerns raised by stakeholders.

In the three years I have been a member of Parliament I have never seen a piece of legislation more widely criticized in virtually all aspects of this massive 300-page bill than Bill C-75. Despite the rhetoric from across the way about listening to key stakeholders, the reality is that on issue after issue, the Liberals did not listen. They ignored the concerns raised by key stakeholders at committee. Instead they rammed the bill through committee and, other than a few minor changes, we are largely stuck with a very flawed bill, a bill that is problematic in so many different ways.

In that regard, let me first highlight the issue of hybridization. Putting aside the issue of watering down serious indictable offences, which is certainly a serious concern, from the standpoint of reducing delay, hybridization is going to download even more cases onto provincial courts. Some 99.6% of criminal cases are already heard before provincial courts, and if any member questions my statement about the fact this would result in the further downloading of cases, do not take my word for it. Take the Canadian Bar Association's word. The Canadian Bar Association, in its brief to the justice committee said that hybridization, “...would likely mean more cases will be heard in provincial court. This could result in further delays in those courts....” No kidding. Despite what the Canadian Bar Association said, the government said, “No problem. We'll just download more cases on to provincial courts”.

Then, there were public safety concerns raised about hybridization. One of the concerns raised was by John Muise, a former member of the Parole Board. He noted that offences being reclassified included breaches of long-term supervision orders. Long-term supervision orders apply to the most dangerous sexual predators in our society. We are talking about individuals who are so dangerous that after they complete their sentence, they are subject to a long-term supervision order for up to 10 years, with many stringent conditions.

John Muise said that it is a serious problem to treat breaches of these orders which are imposed on the most dangerous of people and that they should remain solely indictable, mainly because a breach of a long-term supervision order is a sign that these very dangerous offenders are returning to their cycle of violence and exploitation of vulnerable persons. We are not talking about marginalized people here, as the hon. parliamentary secretary referred to with respect to minor administration of justice offences, breaches of orders, which should be treated seriously. In this case, we are talking about the most serious offenders. Instead of heeding the advice of John Muise, the government said, “No problem; we'll move ahead”, forgetting about what a member of the Parole Board of Canada had said.

As well, Mr. Chow, deputy chief constable of the Vancouver Police Department, appeared before our committee. He said that there was another problem to reclassifying some very serious indictable offences as it relates to taking a sample and putting it into a national DNA database. Right now, if someone is convicted for one of those offences as an indictable offence, the Crown could apply to a judge to take a DNA sample to be put into the national DNA data bank. However, with Bill C-75, if the offence was prosecuted by way of summary conviction and the individual was convicted, it would be a summary conviction offence rather than an indictable offence, and no such application could be made.

In talking about the impact that might have upon police investigations, Deputy Chief Constable Chow noted in his testimony that of the 85 offences that are being reclassified, as a result of DNA samples being taken over the last number of years, 19 homicides and 24 sexual assaults were solved. However, instead of listening to Mr. Chow, instead of listening to Mr. Muise, the government said, “We don't care. We're moving ahead.”

Then there is the issue of preliminary inquiries. The government is limiting preliminary inquiries to be held if the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, and for all other offences with a lesser maximum penalty, a preliminary inquiry would no longer be available. The government claims that this will help speed up the court process. Witness after witness begged to differ with the government. The brief submitted to the committee by the Canadian Bar Association stated on limiting preliminary inquiries:

This would not reduce court delays and would negatively impact the criminal justice system as a whole.... Any connection between court delays and the preliminary hearing is speculative at best.

If members do not want to take the word of the Canadian Bar Association, perhaps they might be interested in taking the word of the Barreau du Québec, which stated:

The Barreau du Québec opposes this amendment. By limiting the use of preliminary inquiries, some argue that we can speed up the judicial process and thus reduce delays. We believe that limiting preliminary inquiries in this way would be ineffective or even counterproductive.

Then there was Philip Star, a criminal defence lawyer from Nova Scotia, who said before the committee in respect to preliminary inquiries:

They're incredibly helpful, not only to the accused, but to the Crown and ultimately to our system, by cutting down on delays....

So much for the government's assertion that limiting preliminary inquiries is somehow going to reduce delays.

It gets better, because Laurelly Dale, another lawyer, a defence counsel, who appeared before the committee said:

Two major studies have concluded that preliminary inquiries do not contribute substantially to the problem of court delay. Preliminary hearings facilitate the resolution of potentially lengthy and expensive trials in superior court. They are often used instead of rather than in addition to trials. They expedite the administration of justice. It is far easier and quicker to get a two- to four-day prelim, as opposed to a one- to two-week trial in superior court.

Then there is Michael Spratt, who said:

There is a delay problem in our courts, but preliminary inquiries are not the cause of that delay.

Witness after witness, as I said, told the government that this is not going to work. It is not going to reduce delay. Did the government listen? Did the Liberal members on the justice committee listen? Apparently not.

Further testimony on prelims was from Sarah Leamon who said:

...87% of them actually resolve after the preliminary inquiry process. It saves the complainant,—

—in the context of a sexual assault complainant—

—in the vast majority of circumstances, from having to testify again and from being re-traumatized.

While the Liberal members opposite say they listened, the evidence before the committee and the response of the government to the evidence before the committee demonstrates exactly the opposite.

Even if one accepts the reasoning of the government, despite all of the evidence before the committee that limiting preliminary inquiries will in fact reduce delay, it is important to note that preliminary inquiries only take up about 3% of court time across Canada. To the degree that this is going to have a beneficial impact, the fact remains it is a very small piece of the much larger problem of backlog and delay in Canada's courts.

Let us look at the issue of judicial referral hearings, and the evidence that was before the committee on judicial referral hearings. Serious concerns were raised, including by John Muise, a former member of the Parole Board of Canada, as well as from Mr. Chow from the Vancouver Police Department, about the fact that individuals who commit an administration of justice offence, who are referred to a judicial referral hearing, would not have that breach of an order or other administration of justice offence entered into CPIC.

Right now, if someone does commit an AOJ offence, it is entered into CPIC, but thanks to the government's judicial referral hearing process, that would not happen. As I mentioned when I posed a question to the hon. parliamentary secretary, the consequences of not presenting the full CPIC record before a judge or justice of the peace can have devastating consequences. My community learned this when Constable David Wynn was shot and killed by someone who had an extensive criminal record, including an extensive record of administration of justice offences.

Now the government is saying that the court would not even have the benefit, if that CPIC record were to be presented, of the totality of that offender's criminal record because, after all, those offences would not be entered into CPIC. When I asked the parliamentary secretary what the government intended to do to fix this serious public safety issue, which was brought up more than once before the justice committee, he regretfully did not have an answer.

I should note again that in terms of judicial referral hearings, while they will have an impact on undermining public safety because those breaches will not be entered into CPIC, the impact of administration of justice offences on the backlog in our system is actually quite limited. That is because AOJ offences are typically dealt with as tagalong offences. What I mean by that is that they are usually dealt with at the same time that the main or underlying charge is dealt with. Therefore, in terms of the amount of court time and court resources that are being used for the purpose of dealing with administration of justice offences, in fact, it is quite minimal.

Again, members should not take my word for it. They should take the word of Rick Woodburn, the president of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel. Here is what Mr. Woodburn said to the justice committee:

I can tell you from the ground, they don't clog up the system. They don't take that much time. A breach of a court order takes very little time to prove, even if it goes to trial—and that's rare. Keep in the back of your mind that these charges aren't clogging up the system.

Did the Liberals keep that in the back of their minds? Apparently not because they just went ahead with the judicial referral hearing process without a plan, without any thought of the serious public safety issues that were raised before the justice committee.

Then there is the issue of peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges have nothing to do with delay, but they were added to this bill. The basis upon which the government has decided to eliminate peremptory challenges is that somehow it will increase the representativeness of juries. Witness after witness said quite the opposite, but instead of listening to those witnesses, the government just moved ahead.

Taken together, the record is very clear. Ninety-five witnesses gave evidence at committee and on issue after issue, the Liberals ignored the evidence. The Liberals ignored the witnesses and as a result, we have a very flawed bill that is not going to get to the heart of the problem, which is to reduce the delay and backlog in Canada's courts.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contribution to today's debate and, again, for his contribution to the justice committee. To assert as the member just did that somehow the government is not listening attentively to, or indeed hearing, and validating the work being done in committee is just patently false. Fifty amendments to the bill were accepted at committee. Some were from the member opposite and his party. They included four key areas relating to routine police evidence; the use of illegal agents; the hybridization of terrorism and genocide offences that I outlined in my speech, with amendments proposed by the Conservative Party; and finally, the bawdy house and vagrancy provisions, which were also addressed and accepted at committee. Therefore, to assert in this chamber that somehow the committee's work was not validated is simply incorrect.

My question is about those important changes to the bawdy house and vagrancy provisions, because more than just those, there is a key provision in the bill to repeal section 159 of the Criminal Code. To simplify matters for people watching, section 159 basically says that consensual sexual activity among a gay young couple is illegal, whereas among a heterosexual young couple it is perfectly legal. By removing 159 we would be creating equality for young gay couples in Canada. Does the member opposite agree with this kind of change being commensurate with the approach that is necessary in 2018 to address LGBTQ discrimination in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, section 159 is an unconstitutional and inoperative section of the Criminal Code. In other words, it is one of these zombie laws. I fully support the removal of zombie laws, including section 159.

I am surprised that the hon. member would pat the government on the back for taking this step, given the government's record of dragging its feet. It was all the way back in the fall of 2016 that the government introduced Bill C-28 to remove section 159 of the Criminal Code. What happened to Bill C-28? Two years later, it is stuck at first reading. The Liberals could have passed that bill with unanimous consent, but because of the inaction of the government, section 159 remains in the Criminal Code.

To highlight the incompetence of the government, after introducing Bill C-28, in March of 2017, it also introduced Bill C-39. It also would have removed section 159 and other zombie sections of the Criminal Code. What happened to Bill C-39? It is stuck at first reading. Quite frankly, the only thing keeping section 159 from being removed from the Criminal Code is the government.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton and I sat on the justice committee last year. I certainly appreciated the subject matter we dealt with. It is a committee that demands a lot of responsibility from its members. It requires a lot of maturity, because the subject matter is always very weighty. When we are deliberating on legislation affecting the Criminal Code, there is a real sense that the actions we take when we amend that statute will have real-life consequences for people.

He is right when he talks about the government's slow legislative agenda. I will just correct him, however. Bill C-28 was actually the victim surcharge bill, but it was residing at first reading. Bill C-32 was also residing at first reading. We also had Bill C-38 and Bill C-39. The Canadian public got the feeling that the Minister of Justice, despite coming to power with a bold agenda to reform our criminal laws, was just kind of stringing the public along and giving us little crumbs, saying “Yes we're going to fix this”. Now, we finally have Bill C-75, which I liken to a giant amoeba that has swallowed all of those previous bills, but also added a whole bunch more. We are finally getting to the stage, three years later, where we get to debate this.

I agree with him that some of these bills could have been passed really quickly, like the zombie provisions of the Criminal Code. Scholars and professors have been calling for decades for the Criminal Code to be cleaned up, and we could have passed that bill very quickly, but we are only dealing with it now.

Would the hon. member agree that when we are looking at sections, like section 287, which deals with abortion, and section 159, that they could have been dealt with very quickly by the House and that it is a real shame that we are only doing that now?

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree that the Criminal Code should accurately reflect the law in Canada. Therefore, inoperative sections of the Criminal Code should be removed. The consequences of not doing so can be very, very serious.

We saw that happen in the case of the conviction of Travis Vader in respect of two second-degree murder convictions that were overturned because the trial judge applied an inoperative section, section 230, of the Criminal Code, which had been struck down in the Martineau decision all the way back in September 1990 when I was just starting grade 1, and yet almost three decades later, that inoperative section is still there in the Criminal Code.

The McCann family pleaded with the government to move forward. I stood with them. They are from my community of St. Albert. They cannot believe that almost two years later, Bill C-39, which would remove sections 230 and 159, is stuck at first reading.

Here we are, all because the government simply cannot get it done

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton for the fine work he does on the justice committee and for serving as the deputy shadow minister of justice.

The intent of Bill C-75, as indicated, is to streamline our justice system. I am wondering if the member could comment on the government's inability or unwillingness to fill judicial vacancies and how that impacts the streamlining and efficiency of our justice system.

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

Madam Speaker, on the issue of judicial vacancies, I feel like a broken record. I wish I could stop talking about it, because I would have thought that after two years, the government would actually have done something about filling judicial vacancies. However, they have not done anything. Filling judicial vacancies is the easiest and most straightforward thing to do to address the backlog in our courts. It's not the be-all and end-all. It would solve all of the problems, but it would certainly be a starting point.

With respect to the government's record, it can cite all of the appointments it has made, but, frankly, only after it let judicial vacancies reach record levels. When it comes to filling the vacancies, the government has established 14 new spots in Alberta and provided the funding to fill them. However, a year and a half later, seven out of the 14 judicial vacancies remain vacant.

That is simply unacceptable. That is the record of a government that does not take filling judicial vacancies seriously.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, very briefly, as to the competency of the government, I would point to our medical assistance in dying bill, Bill C-45, and Bill C-46, and our appointment of 240 judges.

The member opposite took issue with peremptory challenges. The question I would put to him is on this issue. First of all, we have not just eliminated peremptory challenges, but are allowing judges to ensure that any jury will be diverse and represent the community it serves. We emphasize challenges for cause.

Does the member opposite believe, as in England, as it was done 30 years ago, that it is important that if one seeks to stand aside a juror, one has a reason for that, other than simply just the way that juror looks, and that one can enunciate that reason in front of an impartial adjudicator?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

A brief answer from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Madam Speaker, I would cite the Canadian Bar Association, which has said that in the case of peremptory challenges, “they are more frequently used to the benefit of Indigenous and other racialized persons”. The Bar Association went on to say that the bill's amendments to the jury process “abolishing peremptory challenges, seem insufficiently considered. If legislative reform is required, it should be based on empirical data generated through a thorough examination of the jury system.”

Indeed, that was said before the committee. There was a lot of evidence about how this is actually going to make it less likely that juries are representative. One of the proposals was perhaps in—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I did ask for a brief answer. Maybe the member for St. Albert—Edmonton will be able to add that to a question.

Resuming debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would have thought the Conservatives would be a bit more excited about the fairly comprehensive changes in Bill C-75 that would serve our country well.

Prior to the last election, our government made some commitments, and we are seeing some of those commitments fulfilled within this legislation. That is a positive thing.

I want to pick up on the bigger picture of justice. If we were to canvass Canadians and many different stakeholders about their expectations of the judicial system, I would suggest that they would have three big expectations.

The first would be keeping our communities safe, which is also very important to this government, and I would like to think important to all members. This legislation makes significant strides towards keeping our communities safe.

A second would be protecting victims. When it comes to our justice system, one would like to think there is a vested interest in protecting victims. When I say “protecting victims”, I mean that we should be going out of our way to prevent having any victims in the first place. I will comment briefly on that shortly.

The third priority, or expectation, is accountability for offenders.

These three priorities would be accepted by all Canadians. Bill C-75 moves the ball further ahead on these three principles.

There is a difference between the Conservatives' approach to justice issues and this government's approach. Put differently way, there is a difference between the Stephen Harper approach to justice issues and the approach this Liberal government has taken on justice-related issues, whether in this or previous legislation.

We need to recognize that a vast majority of incarcerated individuals will leave our jails. They will go back into our communities. As such, we have a responsibility to ensure that our system allows for better integration. If we are successful at that, we will prevent having further victims in the future. We on this side of the House recognize that.

Listening to speeches given by members on the other side of the House, whether about this or other legislation, one gets the impression that once someone enters our jail system, that person is never going to return to our communities. There is a very good chance that many of those individuals will not return.

However, we must have a system that will work for Canadians by keeping our communities safe, by ensuring that we protect our victims, and ensuring that there is offender accountability.

It is just wrong for the Conservatives to give the impression that this government is looking at ways of minimizing the consequences for serious crimes.

Under this legislation, opposition members say that we would hybridize too many crimes. As a result, they are trying to give the false impression that there would be less serious impacts for those offenders when it came to the weight of the law and incarceration, fines or whatever it might be.

It is important to recognize that we have summary convictions and indictable offences. However, within this proposed legislation, there would be a third component, that being hybridized. We are saying that here is a list of crimes for which the Crown would have some discretion to help determine whether an offence would be an indictable offence.

During second reading, I had the opportunity to listen in on some of the debate. I recall one intervention that bears repeating, because I think most people who are following the debate could relate to the differences. This is what we mean by discretion. At second reading, I recall a Conservative member, and Hansard will reflect this, saying that “kidnapping is kidnapping” and is a serious crime, end of story. It is indictable, so lock up the person and put him or her away for many years.

There is no doubt that kidnapping is a very serious crime. Canadians recognize it as a serious crime. We as a government recognize it as a serious crime. The Conservatives ask why we would hybridize that particular crime. Let me give members a tangible example. I think the constituents I serve would understand why it is important that this be one of those hybridized crimes.

When we think of kidnapping, the first thing that comes to mind is an individual at a school playground identifying a potential victim, putting the victim into a van and disappearing and taking all sorts of horrific actions or maybe kidnapping an individual for the sex trade. There are all sorts of horror stories about kidnapping. I, for one, want those individuals locked up. However, there is a “but”.

For example, divorces occur every day, and some of those divorces are very emotional and involve young children. At times, with a divorce, there are all sorts of issues a child will often have to deal with. There might be a situation where a child has a bad week or a bad day and decides not to go home to the parent who has 100% custody but goes to the non-custodial parent. The other parent then says that the child has disappeared and has been kidnapped. One parent did not have the right to have custody of that child at that time, but the child went to that parent's home, perhaps in tears, or whatever the circumstances were. The point is, the child should not have been at that parent's house, and as a direct result, there is now a kidnapping charge.

I would like to think there is a big difference between that situation and the first situation I described. If members believe that what I just said is accurate and takes place in real life, they should acknowledge that there is a need to support the idea that for certain crimes, for certain actions, we need to incorporate hybridized crimes.

I have a great deal of confidence in our Crowns and the ability of our judicial system to make good decisions. What we are saying is that if a kidnapping like the first example came before the judicial system, I would suggest that the Crown would say that it was an indictable offence and the individual would have to go through a process where, ultimately, there could be years of incarceration, versus another case where it could be classified as a summary conviction. We have seen a number of those crimes that are now eligible, and I suspect that arguments could be made for each and every one.

When we looked at the legislation, one of the major concerns raised by the Conservative Party was the issue of hybridization. Hopefully they now have a better understanding. They raised the issue at second reading and then brought it to the committee stage.

I am actually quite pleased that we are at third reading today, in the sense that it has been a long process to get to this point. The Minister of Justice has demonstrated very clearly that this has been a project of consultation, working with a wide variety of stakeholders, from the beginning right up to the standing committee. Maybe I should expand on that point for a moment.

Our justice system is a joint responsibility. We do not have sole responsibility for judicial matters in Canada. We have shared responsibilities with the provinces. That means that the minister, with the assistance of the parliamentary secretary, and others, no doubt, canvassed and worked with the different provinces and territories to establish priorities that needed to be changed. Those changes, those priorities, are fairly well reflected in this legislation. The minister even went beyond that, in terms of consultations with indigenous people and other stakeholders, to formulate Bill C-75 so that it was ready for first reading, followed by second reading and committee.

That is where I interjected. My interjection was to comment that even when we, in opposition, brought it to committee, a number of changes were introduced by members after listening to the committee presentations. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights amended Bill C-75 at committee to, for example, remove the provisions regarding routine police evidence, which had laudable intentions but had some undesirable and unintended consequences, particularly for unrepresented accused. It removed the terrorism and advocating genocide offences from the list of those being reclassified. That is the amendment I thought of when I was talking about hybridized offences.

The Conservatives presented that issue in the form of an amendment, and we accepted it, which was completely foreign when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The Conservative Party never ever accepted an opposition motion. Not only—

[Glen Motz]

That is because you did not have any good ones. Those were horrible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we had plenty of amendments, and they went absolutely nowhere with Stephen Harper. Under this government, there have been many amendments, even from the official opposition. This is yet another example of an amendment actually being accepted. Therefore, I believe that the Conservatives accept the principle of what is being suggested when we talk about hybridized crimes and the importance of that. It is a major aspect of the legislation.

The other aspect is preliminary trials. It is interesting to hear the Conservatives and NDP saying the same thing about preliminary trials. What caught me was what the critic for the Conservative Party said today. He said it was not really going to reduce waiting times. I do not believe that. The member opposite said he could quote X or Y, who are somewhat suspicious of it reducing waiting times. I do not believe it. Maybe the member across the way will have to do a little more convincing.

Preliminary hearings consume a great deal of court time. I am not a lawyer, but I used to be the justice critic in the province of Manitoba, and I can recall many of the frustrations of provincial and other Crowns in dealing with preliminary trials. I can remember a discussion I had with a judge on the issue. It was fairly well received by a good number of people who recognized that it would reduce delays.

The NDP and Conservatives said they were highly suspicious that delays would be reduced. The Conservatives were a little more affirmative in saying that they would not be reduced. They said it would only be 3% of cases going before the courts, so what good was it? Three per cent is thousands and thousands of hours. That would make a real difference.

Preliminary trials might have been needed years ago, but this emphasizes why it was so important for this government to do what it made a commitment to do, which was overhaul and improve the system. To give the impression that minimizing the number of preliminary trials will not reduce court delays is just wrong. I believe it is wrong, based on what limited experience, and I underline the word “limited”, I have on this issue. When I look at that number, 3% is a significant number of court cases, not to mention thousands of hours. I believe it would make a difference.

The Conservatives should be supporting this legislation because this is the type of legislation Canadians want. It would keep our communities safer. It would ensure that there was more justice for victims. It would ensure—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the time is up. I am sure the member will be able to add more during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am a big fan of departmental plans. These are the plans that every single department has to publish at the same time the estimates come out. These plans are signed off by the minister. The plans provide the departmental priorities for the year. They lay out the goals and the priorities.

My colleague across said that the number one priority of the government is keeping communities safe. I would like him to comment on the fact that in the public safety departmental plan, which has been signed off by the Minister of Public Safety, there is something called the “crime severity index”. Under the current government, it is increasing compared to the previous government.

There is another line there that shows the percentage of Canadians who think that crime in their neighbourhood has decreased. My colleague mentioned the priority is keeping communities safe, when the government's own plan calls for a 33% decrease in the number of Canadians who feel their community is safe.

My colleague's second comment was that another priority is protecting victims. In the departmental plans for both public safety and justice, victims are not mentioned once.

My question for my colleague across the way is this. Was he misinforming the House when he said that was a Liberal priority or were the ministers of justice and public safety misinforming the House when they tabled their departmental plans? Which is it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I talked about a comprehensive approach to deal with the issue of justice. For example, members will find that there is some legislation we have brought in that enshrines victims rights. They will find legislation we have brought in that will ensure mental health services are being provided in our institutions. At the end of the day, the priority areas are keeping our communities safe, ensuring protection for victims, and from my own personal perspective preventing victims in the first place, and ensuring there is a sense of accountability for offenders. To me, those are very much high priorities that we on this side of the House believe in. If we look at not only this piece of legislation but all the different actions the government has taken to date, we will find that we are going to have safer communities.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member was talking a lot about the hybridizations contained in Bill C-75. I was wondering if he is willing to look at that from a different perspective.

One of the concerns we had in particular is regarding the problems we have with access to legal aid right across Canada. The member would be aware of this if he is knowledgeable of the work of the Standing Committee on Justice with respect to access to justice. It is very much a patchwork quilt, because different provinces have different abilities to fund their systems. Often we have cases where paralegals and students of law are coming in to help represent clients who are being charged with offences that could result in a sentence of six months or less. The hybridization of some offences in Bill C-75 is going to bring the maximum penalties to some of these summary offences to two years less a day. One of the consequences of that is that in many provinces, paralegals and students in law school will be unable to represent these clients. Therefore, we are going to have a lot more backlog.

I am wondering if the member can comment on that and why the government was not aware of that particular consequence.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would not jump to the conclusion, as the member has just done, by saying that the provinces were not aware because we have to remember that this is legislation that has been in play for a couple of years now. The parliamentary secretary and the minister actually met with the different departments and stakeholders, including our provinces. When I made reference to the fact of being a justice critic, it was the provincial justice critic in Manitoba.

The member is right in terms of the stress level that is on legal aid services, which are in high demand. In Manitoba there is a need for additional dollars. I like to think that, when we talked about the consequences of this legislation passing and what might be taking place shortly thereafter, there were all sorts of considerations that were given.

I would like to think the issue of future demand and potential increase for legal aid will be monitored over the years ahead. That is the nice thing about having interprovincial discussions between the different ministries and incorporating the national minister, because then we are able to do it in a collective fashion to ensure that there is good representation.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to comments just made by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, we specifically understood that concern and that is why the amendment was made to 802.1, to allow provincial regulatory bodies and law societies to permit agents to appear for summary convictions of up to two years less a day.

With respect to the member for Edmonton West and what we are doing for victims, we are increasing the penalties for summary conviction offences to two years less a day, up from six months. We are also increasing the penalties for intimate partner violence because we take that seriously on this side of the House.

I want to thank the member on this side of the House for his comments and reference something he raised extensively with respect to preliminary inquiries. That was highlighted in the Supreme Court Jordan decision. It was raised at the consultations by the minister across the country, including the province of Manitoba, where various attorneys general indicated a need to reduce the backlogs by eliminating preliminary inquiries.

In respect of preliminary inquiries in sexual violence trials, does the member appreciate that there is a concern about re-traumatizing the victims, making them go through a preliminary inquiry where they would relive the experience and subsequently reliving it again a second time at a subsequent trial? Is that an important aspect of why we have moved forward to remove preliminary inquiries—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am going to get the parliamentary secretary to answer the question within one minute please.