Debates of Nov. 8th, 2018

Criminal Code

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, no matter how much we improve legislation and talk about amendments, if there is no judge to enforce the law, then Canadians end up with a system that does not work. That is what happened to Dannick Lessard, a constituent of mine who had to cope with seeing the man who tried to kill him released because of the Jordan decision.

Does my colleague agree that dealing with the shortage of judges in the justice system should be the top priority?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. There are 59 vacancies in Canada's court system. That is disconcerting. If every judicial vacancy were filled, there would not be so many delays in the justice system.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-75 is at report stage. The purpose of this bill, introduced by the Liberals, is to improve the compliance rate with the Jordan decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 2016 and to reduce the backlog in the justice system.

Unfortunately, we have heard many times that Bill C-75 was rushed. Some of the wording is very vague, and the bill does not meet the main objective, which is to improve the justice system so it works better for everyone.

One of the biggest disappointments, which was not addressed in committee, is the lack of bold reforms for the criminal justice system, such as abolishing the mandatory minimum sentences that proliferated under the Harper government. That is a major element, because unfortunately, although mandatory minimums are respected in most cases, there are many unusual cases for which judges would have liked to have some flexibility.

Unfortunately, judges' hands are often tied by mandatory minimum sentences, and they have no choice but to impose them, despite circumstances that can be extremely sad. I am thinking about the rise in “suicide by cop” attempts, which primarily involve police.

Some people reach a point in their lives where they are in extreme distress and feel suicidal. They sometimes threaten on-duty police officers with real guns or paintball guns, fake guns that look real, in order to get themselves shot. These situations are unfortunately known as “suicide by cop” and are a sign of someone who is suffering tremendously.

Gun crimes are often subject to mandatory minimum sentences. During the trial, if the judge recognizes that the problem is not a criminal issue, but an issue of mental illness or distress, and that the offender would be better off receiving treatment than being branded a criminal, this judge has very few legal options. I think it is especially important to give back some flexibility to judges by eliminating mandatory minimums. It is also important to understand that in cases where the accused truly committed the crime, the sentences go far beyond the mandatory minimums.

Mandatory minimum sentences often have a perverse effect on the justice system. They do not allow judges to consider the extenuating circumstances surrounding the events or the accused's past, experiences, personal situation or family responsibilities. Mandatory minimums allow for absolutely no flexibility.

Another problem this bill does not fix, a problem that impacts the justice system, is lack of financial support for victims and their families, as well as for the accused. The poverty threshold for access to legal aid is very low when the accused does not have a family or dependents. One must be very poor to get legal aid.

Some people simply cannot afford a lawyer. They cannot get legal aid because their income is too high. For example, a young man in his early twenties who earns $30,000 or $40,000 a year cannot get legal aid because his income is considered too high. There is no way he can afford $30,000 in legal fees, so he cannot get good legal advice. That young man will find himself caught up in a system that does not allow him access to legal advice.

The legal system also needs to take victims into consideration, because the whole process would go more smoothly if they had better support. In many cases, they get absolutely no support. Many a parent whose child was killed in a car accident, which is such a tragedy, says they have no access to resources of any kind, no financial support to attend court proceedings. They pay for everything out of pocket.

Lack of access to justice for financial reasons is a serious problem that hinders the effectiveness of our justice system. Bill C-75 does nothing to address that. In the case of both victims and the accused, we need to take a more logical approach and be able to support them. We must be able to ensure that they understand what is happening. For instance, when victims' families get completely lost in the procedures, they often have to pay for lawyers out of their own pockets in order to understand what is going on, get advice and figure out all the procedural rules. That is one particular aspect of the bill that could have been explored, or at least corrected, in committee. It still has not been corrected or addressed. I also have to say that, since it was not done at the outset, we were more limited.

Furthermore, if we want to make the judicial system more efficient, we absolutely must separate acts that genuinely criminally motivated from acts committed as a result of social problems. So many charges related to simple possession of any kind of drug wind up in court.

I think we will have to explore whether drug possession is actually more of a health problem. That is a very important issue that absolutely must be addressed.

In order to find a better solution, should we not consider drug possession and ultimately drug use as a health issue, rather than a criminal justice issue?

Would that not give us more time to focus on serious crimes and free up our judges who have to deal with offenders who have been charged with drug possession? I believe these offenders would be much better off if they were treated at a hospital and given quick access to detox services.

Would it not be better to treat these cases as health issues and save our resources to deal with cases involving serious sexual violence, human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and violence against indigenous women? Many such crimes are committed, and unfortunately, our justice system does not deal with them very effectively.

We could set better priorities by rethinking the way our justice system works. Many offences are related to social problems. People living in extreme poverty will commit small offences to try to survive. Is the solution to criminalize them or, on the contrary, is it to better address those social issues and dedicate our resources to people with truly sick criminal behaviour? I think we would all benefit from that.

Since my time is up, I now hope to provide thoughtful answers to my colleagues' questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her speech.

She spoke about access to justice for many people in Canada who cannot afford to hire a lawyer.

I want to underscore and ask for the member's comment on the changes that were made at committee that addressed this very important issue.

Something that was raised with us was the issue of when we are changing summary conviction offences and moving them to two years less a day in terms of the penalty, what does that mean in terms of those people who are either unrepresented or are represented by law students, paralegals or agents?

At committee, there has been an important change, which has been supported, that would allow the provinces and territories to change to 802.1 of the Criminal Code. That allows the provinces and territories to permit agents to appear on summary conviction offences that are punishable by more than six months of imprisonment.

Is that the kind of change the member is encouraged to see, because it would address the very access to justice issues she raised in her speech?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, having access to law students or people in the legal system who can provide representation can help. However, that does not work for every type of offence.

Access to law students often depends on having law schools nearby. There are no universities offering law programs in Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

The people in my riding will not have access to law students, even if the law changes. That is a fundamental problem.

If a 21-year-old has to take out a loan to pay $30,000 or $40,000 in legal fees, the rest of their life is ruined. This debt will have an impact on their life and career for 10, 15 or 20 years.

Even if the person earns too much to qualify for legal aid, legal fees are so high now that some people plead guilty simply because they cannot afford a lawyer.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to address the issue of limiting preliminary inquiries.

The government, in Bill C-75, would limit preliminary inquiries to only when the maximum sentence is life behind bars. Anyone charged with an offence with a lesser maximum penalty would not have the benefit of a preliminary inquiry. However, the government has provided no empirical data to back up its assertion that this would reduce the backlog in our courts.

We heard a considerable amount of evidence before the justice committee that preliminary inquiries help narrow issues. They allow both parties to test their cases. They provide a discovery function, and in terms of data, 86% of cases that have a preliminary inquiry are resolved.

I wonder if the member could comment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has just over a minute to respond.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned that there will be no more preliminary inquiries. A preliminary inquiry is like a rehearsal for the trial. In particular, it is an opportunity to test the evidence.

Sometimes, the preliminary inquiry shows that there is no need for a trial. If there is no preliminary inquiry, that means that cases that do not need to go to trial will automatically go to trial anyway. There may be insufficient evidence, or it may be determined that the case does not meet the criteria for an indictable offence.

Preliminary inquiries are extremely important, especially given that the entire justice system will be competing against itself. For example, matrimonial cases are also dealt with in the same justice system. When a trial that could have been avoided is held anyway, less time is available for matrimonial cases. As a result, family cases that require immediate intervention by a judge take longer.

There are many aspects to consider, and I think that it was not a good idea to eliminate preliminary inquiries.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to join the debate. I have been listening for a few hours to what different members believe are the most important parts of the bill, the biggest defects and the biggest advantages given to it.

I thought the member for St. Albert—Edmonton gave one of the best, most succinct rundowns of the bill in terms of its many defects. It is an omnibus justice bill. I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance, so we are well versed on omnibus legislation there for three years now from the government, a government that during the last election promised not to ram any more omnibus legislations through the House. It was a promise that they have continuously broken since then. The Liberals failed to lived up to their promise.

The lens I want to give to this piece of legislation is mostly consideration of some of the hybridized offences in it. Like I have mentioned in the House before, I am not a member of the legal profession, so my eyes on it are basically the eyes of any regular member of the public and what they would think are serious offences versus non-serious offences.

We have been told that one of the reasons for this legislation is that it would drastically reduce the bottleneck at our provincial courts, that the court system would be somehow liberated from having to deal with all of these cases that are clogging it up and all the court delays.

With the Jordan decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, that bottleneck of court cases is even more important now because we have individuals being charged with offences but never seeing a court or going through the system to be judged. I would call this piece of legislation as the Yiddish proverb says, the gift that is not as precious as first thought. There are so many defects that the member for St. Albert—Edmonton pointed out that would actually create an even greater bottleneck at the provincial courts.

Those courts closest to the people are the ones that deal with the vast majority of criminal offences. They deal with family law, young persons aged 12 to 17, traffic bylaw violations, regulatory offences, small claims and preliminary inquiries. The judges are actually doing most of the work. Every province has been set up slightly differently in how they proceed with different types of offences. Many of these would not be directly affected by this legislation, but the ones that deal with criminal offences would be because a great deal of the hybridized ones would be going to the provincial courts. The Liberals are not making it simpler, they are actually creating a greater bottleneck.

I thought that it was the House of Commons and the Senate that together decided what was a serious enough offence to warrant five to 25 years, not prosecutors. It is this House that decides on behalf of our constituents what are serious offences and what is deserving of consideration by a judge, whether a judge should consider the maximum offence of 25 years to life, whether it should be 15 years or 10 years. It is not up to prosecutors, who are not responsible to any constituents. They are not responsible directly to the public. They do not have to go to the public every four years and make a pitch for the retention of their job. Neither does a judge, but we ask judges to consider the particulars in an individual case and determine whether it warrants five years, 10 years, or something in between and to make a judicious decision based on the facts of the case. We would actually be taking away that ability of the justices to be able to render a decision.

I am sure there will be a member of the Liberal caucus who will stand and attack some past Conservative government's record, that we can go back and forth to the 19th century if we want to, to what previous governments did or other previous governments did not do, but we are looking at the record of the past three years. That is where the focus should be.

This piece of legislation comes to us as an omnibus bill. It should have come to us as pieces of legislation, different focus areas that could have been proposed in the House. It is not as if we have a maximum load that we can take on and afterwards we say we simply cannot take on any more legislation in the House. The government has shown a great interest in guillotine motions. The Liberals have used over 50 now, even after saying they would not do so and would allow fulsome debate in the House. There is no reason why this piece of legislation could not have been broken up into different pieces so that members could consider whether in fact criminal acts of sabotage were serious enough to perhaps warrant full consideration by indictable offence, and whether that would be the best way to proceed.

Forgery or uttering a forged passport, the selling or purchasing of an office, and the bribery of public officials are serious offences and there should be no opportunity for a prosecutor to elect to have them hybridized and go by summary conviction. The same applies to prison breach, assisting an escape, infanticide and participation in activities of a criminal organization.

Just this morning, as I was providing a tour for my my constituents through the House of Commons, the Minister of Public Safety was outside announcing that the government would spend $86 million to fight organized crime. On this same day, his government is proposing that we hybridize the offence of participating in the activities of a criminal organization and handing such decisions over to a prosecutor to decide whether the offence is serious enough, even before a judge has a chance to listen to the facts of the case and an individual's particular circumstance or participation.

This is why I used this Yiddish proverb, “The gift is not as precious as first thought”. It is a very good proverb and someday I will be able to actually say it in Yiddish.

If the gift is that we are going to reduce the bottlenecks in our provincial courts and reduce wait times, then we need to appoint more judges so they can hear more cases.

Provincial governments should be looking at more court space. The City of Calgary built a brand new court building expressly because there was a problem with securing court space. Judges needed the space to hear cases.

If this legislation is the government's gift, if this legislation is its attempt to resolve the problem, and it is not worth it, then the government should go back to the drawing board. This legislation could be dealt with piece by piece and the parts that many members of the official opposition said they could agree with could be expedited to the other place.

To their credit, government members on the justice committee agreed that terrorism and genocide are pretty serious offences and, therefore, should not be hybridized. I think members would agree with me that the selling or purchasing of an office, and I do not mean in this case a corporate office, but an elected office, is a serious offence and does not deserve to be hybridized in any way.

It is a matter of process here. Had this omnibus piece of legislation been broken out into its parts and there been an attempt to reach consensus on certain parts, I think it would have passed, because we agree with most pieces of it. That has happened before in the House. I have seen all parties agree that a particular piece of legislation should pass more quickly than another. Maybe certain portions of Bill C-75 could have been passed more quickly. Instead, we are having a more fulsome debate so that members on all sides can explain the concerns their constituents have expressed about the contents of this legislation.

Sabotage is a serious crime. It should not be up to a prosecutor to decide whether it is deserving of a faster process because people are busy. Attorneys general in every single province give direction to their prosecutors. They are told to prioritize certain cases over others. There is only so much time in a prosecutor's day and I understand that cases need to be prioritized, and that is led by the attorney general of the respective province. That is a fair process.

At the same time, however, it is Parliament that is supposed to decide what is or is not a serious offence. What the government is doing here looks like a copy and paste job. It is just taking giant sections of the Criminal Code and dumping them into the bill. It is as if all of those sections should be hybridized in a vain attempt to find some type of time saving for judges. Judges will not have a chance to listen to the contents of every particular case like we expect them to do.

I will not be able to support this piece of legislation. It is simply defective in its content. It is defective in its process. Perhaps the small number of amendments that government members on justice committee accepted is a good step in the right direction. There should be far more amendments to this piece of legislation before it would, in any way, be permissible to pass it through the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Shepard for his contributions in the House.

With respect to judicial appointments, the Minister of Justice has appointed 235 judges thus far in each of the past few years. That is more judges than have been appointed by any minister of any political stripe in the last two decades, and it includes 34 judges in the member's province alone.

The member questions the ability to speed up the processes in compliance with the Jordan decision. I am going to put to him three statistics and I ask for his comments.

The first statistic is that an administration of justice offence is an offence such as breach of curfew. This type of offence has increased by 8% in the system since 2004. One in 10 incidents reported to the police involved an administration offence and four in 10 cases in adult criminal courts included at least one administration of justice offence.

Given those statistics would the member opposite agree with me that when we take those types of administration of justice charges, which are criminalized right now and are clogging up the system, and move them to a separate administrative judicial referral hearing, we are addressing the very backlog he has identified as a problem in this country for delivering justice more quickly?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member prefaced his commentary with statistics, and there is one point that I cannot pass up mentioning, because it was that justice minister who blew up the entire judicial advisory committee appointment process, where they heard advice from those committees on who should be appointed to become judges.

The Liberals created the system that led to the backlog of appointments, so they do not deserve any credit for any appointment they have made since then. The Liberals are the ones that caused the situation that they are catching up on to fix today.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's speech, but there were a number of things that I cannot agree with.

First of all, the member indicated that it should not be up to a prosecutor to determine the seriousness of an offence. I wonder if my hon. friend understands that currently 152 Criminal Code offences are hybrid offences, some of which can be very serious, including sexual assault. Some of these hybrid offences can be completed in a range of ways. We trust our Crown prosecutors to make determinations on a case-by-case basis every day.

Would the member not agree with me that the Crown does an effective job dealing with the cases before it, based on the circumstances of the offence?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the previous contributions to the debate by the member.

He raises a good point. Right now prosecutors have a great deal of leeway in how they proceed with their cases. Again, as I mentioned, in cases such as sabotage, prison breach, participation in the activities of a criminal organization, I think the judge should be the one to determine, based on the matters of the case, both how long the person should spend in jail and the conditions, in cases where they convict the person of the crime involved.

It is the House that decides what the maximum and the minimum should be in those particular cases. The prosecutor makes the case; the defence defends them. We do entrust unto them a great deal of leeway. However, in cases of sabotage, as I mentioned, and selling or purchasing an office, infanticide, no, it should then be up to the judge to hear the complete case.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Calgary Shepard is absolutely right.

What this bill does is to take discretion away from judges to fashion sentences having regard for the individual circumstances of a case, and it puts it in the hands of prosecutors in a non-transparent and arbitrary way.

The member made reference to some of the offences that are hybridized. I would draw his attention to another, including selling young women and men into sexual slavery, as well as administering date rape drugs. If we are going down this road, where do we draw the line? Maybe murder should be a hybrid offence next.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton is right.

Herein lies the problem, in that simply too many offences are being hybridized. If it were a piecemeal approach, section by section, and if they had combined them together into bite-sized pieces of legislation, including an easier way to explain why we are doing this, we would not be in a situation where the list of the offences the government is proposing to hybridize raises red flags all over the place.

This is the wrong way to build legislation. Omnibus justice legislation in the House simply does not work. It raises too many questions. Too many members have issues with particular sections they want to see removed. The government should go back to the drawing board and start over.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, during this debate today we heard words such as hybridization, tough on crime and speeding up the judicial system. I will remind the House and Canadians who are listening and are tuned into this debate that it was probably on day 10 of the 2015 campaign that the member for Papineau said that, under his government, he would let debate reign and would not resort to such parliamentary tricks as closure and limiting debate. He also said his government would not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny, such as omnibus bills. Here we have a bill that is well over 350 pages long, legislation that encompasses three bills. I think that probably speaks more to the current government's legislative failure than a lot of other things.

One of the things the Liberals always say is that they are protecting Canadians. I do not feel that Bill C-75 does that. That said, I will preface my speech by saying that I am not a lawyer, nor do I profess to be one, but we have seen instances over the course of the last three years where the Liberals and the government like to say they are tough on crime and that they are standing up for victims' rights, and yet we have seen recently a convicted murderer being transferred to a healing lodge. She had a key to her room and could come and go as she pleased. This murderer had lured an eight year old away from her school and then she and her partner murdered young Tori Stafford. For weeks the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety said that it was not in their power to change that. However, it was done. They probably blame the Conservatives for that, because they blamed us for politicizing this event. Then last week, Tori's father and family came to the Hill and protested on the steps of Parliament. They not only begged the Prime Minister and the minister to change that, but they also shamed them into changing the rules, and today, as a result of that public shaming, we saw the Liberals change the rules, and that murderer is now behind bars.

Why am I bringing this up? It is because we are talking about Bill C-75, which hybridizes certain offences that were previously dealt with by indictment only. Why were they classified by indictment? It is because they include some of the most serious offences. I know our hon. colleague from Calgary Shepard brought this up. Actually, his speech was bang on.

Let us talk about some of these offences that have now been hybridized. There is the punishment for infanticide, concealing the body of a child, abduction of a person under 16 or abduction of a person under 14, administering a noxious substance, and enslaving a male or female into prostitution. Those are some of the crimes that will be hybridized and take away the discretion of a judge to be able to levy serious punishment for some of these serious crimes.

I sat at committee during some of the testimony relating to Bill C-75. I had the opportunity to sit through two sessions of that. Criminal defence lawyers who witnessed at committee offered that, while there were some good changes in Bill C-75, one of the key points that was missing from the bill was the filling of judicial vacancies and how that would help.

I heard the arguments of those across the way who are blaming the previous government. The Liberals want to put their record up against the record of the Conservatives. As our hon. colleague from Calgary Shepard so aptly put it, why are they always doing that?

The Liberals have been in government now for three years, yet they always say we should have seen it when the Conservatives had it or could we imagine if the NDP had it. However, their failures are their own. At times, the Minister of Justice has held records for the most judicial vacancies.

I will offer this for our hon. colleagues across the way who are going to point their fingers at us. The Jordan decision came about in July of 2016. We would think the Jordan decision would have spurred the minister on to fill those judicial vacancies. Why is that such a key issue? In rural communities such as mine and other areas right across Canada, it is tough to get a judge at times. What happens is that those cases get thrown out. Prolific offenders in some of our communities are the ones who are getting out and 90% of the crimes are committed by them.

The Liberals talk about being tough on crime. The Minister of Public Safety could not say the word “murder”. Now it is a bad practice. The people who are crossing our borders illegally are now crossing the border irregularly.

Also, that brings me to another point. With Bill C-75, I cannot call my wife a spouse anymore. The term is “intimate partner”. I have never introduced my wife that way. I think I would probably get slapped. That goes along the lines of the Prime Minister's comments about “peoplekind”. We cannot say “mankind” anymore. It is “peoplekind” He said he was joking. I doubt it.

Service Canada is changing the vocabulary on its forms. It is removing “father, mother, Mr. Miss, Mrs.” I do not know whether my colleagues have ever introduced their partners or spouses as their intimate partners. It is ridiculous. How far we have fallen? It is crazy.

The Liberals said they were going to do away with omnibus bills. Here we have a 350-page document that does not give opposition members an opportunity to fully engage. It does not give the electors who elect opposition members an opportunity to fully have a say.

The government has shown contempt for the House time and again by closure and by continuing to table these omnibus bills. It is quite shameful.

The Liberals like to say that they are consulting with Canadians. By that, they mean they will invite somebody to speak for seven minutes at committee, and that is consultation. They also like to say they work collaboratively across the floor with the opposition and that all parties have a say. However, we know that it is their way or the highway, that they know best. It really is quite shameful. What the Liberals are doing and saying behind closed doors is completely different than what they want their public image to be. I should probably watch what I am saying. Maybe the Prime Minister will not agree to take a picture with me now.

Bill C-75 is flawed legislation. We have heard it is rushed legislation.

I want to go back to some of the hybridized offences, such as polygamy, forced marriage and marriage under the age of 16. If Canadians are listening, that is right. Their government wants to make forced marriage and marriage under the age of 16 a hybridized offence. That is shameful. Canadians should be afraid of that and alarmed at what the government is doing. It is not standing up for victims and it is making it harder for police agencies to do their job. This legislation is flawed.

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

Madam Speaker, I am quite troubled by some of the comments of the member opposite. I appreciate the fact that there is an effort to simplify vocabulary and make things understandable for people in the chamber and those watching on television. However, the reason the definition of “intimate partner violence” is entrenched in law is because domestic violence and violence between sexual partners is a very troubling and problematic matter about which all parliamentarians should be concerned. Today in this chamber, even members of his caucus, in response to questions I raised or on their own volition, have agreed that the changes to intimate partner violence form a critical part of the legislation with which most members can agree.

I will give the member one more opportunity to not make light of the situation. Does he believe that when a definition is expanded so things like “strangulation”, “choking” and “suffocation” are deemed an elevated form of assault that judges need to take note of when issuing orders and harsher sentences for such violence, whether it involves a current partner or a former partner, is a step in the right direction?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was not referring to that part of legislation. I was referring to the fact that we cannot talk about our spouse anymore as a spouse and we have to use the term “intimate partner”. Violence against intimate partners, spouses or loved ones is shameful and wrong. I stand here unequivocally in support of what our colleague across the way has said. I question the terminology, not the law behind it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear Conservatives try to come across as if they are really tough on crime and stand for the victims when it is just not true. Let me give the example of Tori Stafford. At least three times today, the Conservatives have stood in their place trying to give the impression they are really tough on crime. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, murders were transferred to healing lodges, sadly, over 12 of them.

Could the member tell me why this so-called tough on Stephen Harper Conservative Party crime file did nothing on those files, on those child killers? Why were they allowed to go to medium-security prisons when the Conservatives sat in government?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was not elected at the time so cannot comment on that. However, I can comment on the current Prime Minister and the current Minister of Public Safety's inability to get the job done and act when it matters the most. Instead, it took the family of Tori Stafford to come to Ottawa to publicly shame and beg the Prime Minister and minister to act, and that is shameful.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Cariboo—Prince George went through a long list of what are currently serious indictable offences the government is watering down by reclassifying them to be hybrid offences. Another offence he did not mention, which I would be interested in his comments on, is impaired driving causing bodily harm.

We know impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada. However, instead of holding to account those individuals who make the choice to drink and drive and, as a result, injure another person, the government is going to hybridize that offence. What kind of message does that send?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was not going to touch on that because, as most in the House know, my brother Fabian was killed by a drunk driver on March 17, 1990. It is shameful what the government is doing. To hybridize bodily harm by impaired driving is shameful. It begs the question as to what the thoughts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving are on this, because it just re-victimizes us and brings up the old wounds of those we have lost.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Poverty.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to add my insight to this very important discussion surrounding 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. I am speaking on behalf of the constituents in my beautiful riding of Haldimand—Norfolk.

As we know, one of the core functions of government is to provide a framework and a set of laws to protect those who it governs, whether it be through the creation and maintenance of a strong military to defend us from foreign threats or, as is more applicable to today's discussion, to protect Canadians from domestic threats and administer just consequences for those who break the law. We, as Conservatives, take this very seriously.

Before speaking to the shortcomings of the bill, I agree with the reforms proposed to deal with repeat offenders of violence against intimate partners. I see this as a step in the right direction.

That said, with the few steps forward that are made in Bill C-75, the Liberals seem to run backward with much of the rest of this bill. The Liberal Party, in particular the Prime Minister, seems to jump to the defence of serious offenders and violent criminals, disregarding the rights of victims.

The previous Conservative government worked hard on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of victims. We brought forward legislation designed to reduce the re-victimization that occurred because of shortcomings in our justice system, bills like the Tackling Violent Crime Act come to mind. That one implemented conditions such as a reverse onus on bail, which requires that those accused of serious gun crimes show why they should not be kept in jail while awaiting trial.

Our initiatives aimed at ending the revolving door form of justice that was all too common and put people who had committed serious crimes, particularly serious gun crimes, back out on the street with bail. This law was targeted squarely at organized crime and tackling gun violence. The Tackling Violent Crime Act also introduced tougher mandatory jail times for serious gun crimes, which again targeted organized criminals and gangs.

The truth is that tougher and longer sentences are about deterrence and protecting society from violent and dangerous offenders. Violent and dangerous behaviour cannot be changed simply by prematurely returning an offender to the environment that bred that very behaviour in the first place. Sadly, the Liberal position seems to be quite the opposite.

Of course we all recall the recent transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic from the Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener to a healing lodge with no fence around it. Rightly, Canadians were outraged. They were outraged that one of Canada's most notorious criminals, convicted of first-degree murder in the kidnapping, rape and killing of an eight year old, was being moved to such a weakly enforced facility. What was the Liberal response to Canadians' outrage? It was a vehement defence of that decision. Yes, it is sad, but unfortunately that is true.

This speaks to the low position that victims have in the eyes of the Liberal government. It speaks to the undeniable Liberal bent toward making life better for even the most offensive and deplorable criminals. This bill further displays that view.

The number and types of offences that could result in lighter sentencing as a result of the bill, even going so far as to reducing some of them to just a fine, sends a clear message to victims and also to criminals.

I think that most of us would agree that Canadians are largely compassionate, willing to forgive and give second chances to people who might have made some bad choices. That said, the types of offences that the Liberals seem to be making light of in Bill C-75 are well beyond what Canadians would consider just bad choices.

Offences like participation in the activities of a terrorist group and leaving Canada to participate in terrorist group activities may now see reduced sentences. This includes people who have left Canada for the sole purpose of joining and fighting with ISIS. For a Prime Minister who claims to be a progressive and a feminist, it is hard to see how granting a softer consequence for ISIS fighters fits this narrative. This is a group that represents the very antithesis of everything Canada represents and tries to be. These people burn homosexuals alive and throw them from buildings. They take sex slaves. They commit public mass executions, and they have declared war against our own western values, but the Prime Minister and thejustice minister think that perhaps a softer touch is the best way to deal with ISIS fighters.

Again, as concerning as this is, sadly, based on what we have already seen from the government, it is not surprising. ThePrime Minister seems to think that government programming to reintegrate returning ISIS members is a suitable option.

We all remember Omar Khadr. Mr. Khadr is directly and admittedly responsible for the grenade attack that led to the death of allied U.S. special forces Sergeant Christopher Speer and the injury of retired U.S. special forces Sergeant Layne Morris. Is Khadr in jail? Courtesy of the Prime Minister, he is now $10.5 million richer, thanks to the Canadian taxpayer. Canadians are appalled, and rightly so.

The bill also brings in softer sentencing for, among other things, advocating genocide, participating in activities of criminal organizations, arson for fraudulent purposes, human trafficking-related offences and material benefit for sexual services. Listening to the list of some of these offences on which the Liberals are going soft, one really cannot help but wonder if some of the stakeholders who were consulted on the bill were actually organized crime leaders.

Municipal corruption, selling or purchasing office, influencing appointments or dealing in offices may also receive lighter sentencing. One cannot help but wonder what the Liberals are preparing for with these types of changes.

In all seriousness, the list goes on and on. Even the abduction of a child, a defenceless child like Tori Stafford, could see lighter sentencing under the Liberals' soft-on-crime bill. Back home in Haldimand—Norfolk, people are shocked to hear that these are the views of the modem Liberal Party and our Prime Minister. They are shocked by the disregard for victims of crime shown by bills like Bill C-75. They are baffled by the doublespeak of the Liberals, who claim in one breath to be opposed to gun crime but then introduce bills like Bill C-71, which provides no meaningful way of addressing illegal gun crime but implies that law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters are part of the problem. They, like Canadians right across this great country, are genuinely concerned that the soft-on-crime policies of the Liberals are going to put their communities and their families at greater risk.

There are some good aspects of the bill, but they are needles in a 300-page haystack of bad policies. I do not recall reading about reduced sentencing for terrorists, child abductors and organized crime members in the Liberals' election platform. I did not see it in the justice minister's mandate letter, and I would wager good money that no Liberal candidates will put that in any of their next campaign literature. I am confident that this is not the mandate Canadians gave them, nor would they in 2019.

I implore the Liberals to take this monster of a bill, split it up into more reasonable-size bills, and set their partisan, self-serving tactics aside so the House can come together and vote in agreement for the good bits that are in Bill C-75. Then we can have a more thorough debate on the merits of the rest of the policies and a discussion about the lack of a mandate from Canadians to legislate the rest of it.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start with a comment and end with a question.

Hybridization occurs regularly throughout the Criminal Code. It did under the previous government's watch, and it continues to occur today. Over 100 offences are already hybridized. Hybridization is about giving the Crown attorney a choice to proceed summarily or to proceed by way of an indictable offence. It does not predetermine the sentence, and the choice is critical, as highlighted in the instance of kidnapping. It can be extremely heinous, in the context of kidnapping someone who is then trafficked for prostitution, or it can be in a context that is usually much more benign, such as the case of a parent who shares custody with an estranged spouse who simply extends a stay with a grandparent and has the child for an extra day. Those require different responses by Crown attorneys.

The member spent a lot of time debating whether our government's position on crime is sufficient or tough enough, from her perspective. How does she explain the fact that under our government's watch, all summary conviction offences are moving from six months to two years less a day, a much more significant penalty for those types of offences?