Debates of May 24th, 2018

Criminal Code

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that the hon. member should have a look at the legislation tabled here before Parliament.

Let us just ask those organizations, MADD and others we have heard from over the years, which are quite concerned about impaired driving, how they like this Liberal idea that someone could get a summary conviction, the lightest possible sentence, if he or she is convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm. How about that? Is there anybody in the Liberal Party who is saying that this is going to be a bit of a problem for the Liberals?

I will be neutral on it, to the extent that we should hear from the witnesses and see if they happen to agree with the Conservative Party. I bet they will.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and contribute to what has been a passionate debate. Who knew that criminal justice could be that? Like the colleagues who have spoken before me, we, on the NDP side, have done an enormous amount of consultation with folks from the criminal defence bar, university prosecutors, deputy attorneys general, and the like. Regrettably, as a consequence of that, we have had to conclude that we must oppose this bill.

However, I want to make it clear to my colleagues that our goal is to work with the government, take it at its word, and offer our hand to see whether we can make this a better bill in the justice committee. After all, it is over 300 pages. It is an omnibus criminal justice amendment. We want to work constructively to make it better for Canadians and get it to committee as quickly as possible for that purpose.

Obviously, in any criminal justice reform, there are two goals. The goal of efficiency is clearly the government's stated objective: making our courts more efficient, doing away with the backlog, and dealing with the consequences of the Jordan case, in which the Supreme Court confirmed that we need to have speedy justice in this country. Efficiency is the government's stated objective, and I will come back to that. At the same time, we can never, of course, lose sight of the rights of the accused in our justice system.

With the research and consultation we have done, I want to say at the outset that we recognize there are some good things in this bill, which I will refer to, but there are also some deeply problematic things, which, in some cases, everyone we spoke to thought to be problematic. It is in that spirit that we engage in this debate.

For example, Ms. Sayeh Hassan, a Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer, summarized what many have told us when she wrote:

While there are parts of Bill C-75 that have the potential for improving the criminal justice system, many other parts will not only be unhelpful when it comes to reducing delay but will also wipe out numerous rights currently afforded to an accused person.

The big, ugly elephant in the room is the fact that the government chose to completely ignore what so many people have talked about, which is the need to get rid of mandatory minimum sentencing. That was a hope that people had the right to expect the minister to address. After all, justice writer Sean Fine of The Globe and Mail notes:

As far back as October, 2016, the Justice Minister told the Criminal Lawyers' Association in a speech that she would change the minimum sentencing laws “in the near future.” Days later, she told The Globe that new legislation would be coming soon, “certainly in the early part of next year.”

It is now 2018, and here is a 300-page bill that does not even talk about that reform initiative, which would have dealt with the issue of delay in a much more effective way. I also note that it was in her mandate letter and was ignored in this 300-page bill. Although I have enormous respect for the minister, it needs to be pointed out that the absence of reform of mandatory minimum sentencing is a significant missed opportunity.

We all know we have a clogged-up justice system and so forth. As has been pointed out, we all know the serious injustices that have occurred. Just last month in Calgary, there was a high-profile case involving Nick Chan, an alleged gang member and leader, who was acquitted of charges of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and leading a criminal organization. Why? Because of the inability to have a court trial resolved in a short period of time, according to the 2016 Jordan decision. All Canadians find that unacceptable.

The question that must be asked is whether this bill helps address that problem head-on. The argument from many is that it remains a serious problem. For example, in its position paper, the Criminal Lawyers' Association states:

Mandatory minimum sentences frustrate the process of resolving cases by limiting the crown’s discretion to offer a penalty that will limit the crown's ability to take a position that will foster resolution before trial.

Here is what happens. Defence lawyers have this mandatory minimum sentence, so they are not going to take a chance on the court's discretion, because the Harper Conservatives essentially took away the discretion that our trial judges had. The result is that we have people going to trial who, in the past, would not have chosen a trial; they would have pleaded to a lower charge. It is inexcusable that this issue did not even get addressed in this bill.

Another thing, which my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith has spoken about numerous times, is that we have a crisis in Canada with the overrepresentation of indigenous women, in particular. My colleague has done that work as a member of the status of women committee. During testimony at that committee, Jonathan Rudin, of Aboriginal Legal Services, highlighted the government's inaction with regard to abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing and its effect on indigenous women. He said:

[W]e have to look at the fact that there are still mandatory minimum sentences that take away from judges the ability to sentence indigenous women the way [the judges] would like [them] to be sentenced. There are still provisions that restrict judges from using conditional sentences, which can keep women out of prison.

The first thing that he urged the committee to recommend was to bring in legislation to give judges that discretion, which the Liberals promised to do. The elephant in the room is that they did no such thing. In 2015, and it is probably worse now, the proportion of indigenous adults in custody relative to their percentage of the population was eight times higher for indigenous men and 12 times higher for indigenous women. Any measure that could address that problem head-on has to be looked at seriously, and the government's failure to address what the mandate letter by the Prime Minister told it to is a serious missed opportunity.

I promised I would focus on some of the positives in this bill, from the perspective of the NDP.

First, the elimination of so-called zombie provisions of the Criminal Code is a good thing. For example, the criminalization that has existed for anal intercourse could have been removed long ago, so we are pleased that finally the government has done it. I wish it had done that with other zombie provisions, such as water skiing at night, which remains an offence in the Criminal Code. Maybe the government will look at that one later.

Second, it is a good thing that the bill would restore the discretion of judges to impose fewer victim fine surcharges or not to impose victim fine surcharges at all. I commend the government for doing that. As I believe my Conservative colleague has also pointed out, broadening the definition of intimate partner violence is also a good step. Creating an alternate process for dealing with some of the alleged breaches of bail is another good step. Codifying the so-called ladder principle, requiring that the least onerous form of release be imposed, is a good thing.

I personally think that abolishing peremptory challenges is a good thing. Although I recognize there is disagreement among many on that, I think it is a good thing. I want to put that on the record.

On the other hand, here are some of the negative things.

Absolutely every single person we talked to said that the provision on admissibility of so-called routine police evidence is overly broad and could be problematic to marginalized people in particular. Everyone agreed that routine police evidence language has to be fixed. Many people were happy that the time of day when the offence occurred, the weather, or routine lab results would be made available. However, the way it is drafted, it could even include the ability of the crown to not have a police officer come and provide eyewitness testimony. I do not think this was intended by the government, but it is an example of what appears to be a hastily drafted bill that needs to be fixed. The irony is that most judges are going to allow cross-examination of police officers, so Sergeant Brown will have to be brought back at some later time, with more delay as a result. That is surely unintended. It is surely something we can work together to fix.

Professor Peter Sankoff of the University of Alberta went so far as to call this measure extremely dangerous and ineffective. It is not just we who are saying this.

We have heard a lot about hybrid offences today. I am sure the government would agree that there seems to be a need to change the hybridization offences aspect. As colleagues have pointed out, the downloading to provincial courts of many offences is only going to move the problem of clogged courts at the superior court level to the provincial courts because more cases will be dealt with as summary conviction matters. I wonder if the consultation with the provincial and territorial ministers has made that point clear. The provincial court in British Columbia already hears 95% of all criminal matters. I am sure it is not that much different elsewhere, so I would invite the government to consider how we can work together to address that problem of obvious downloading.

Another area of concern, perhaps a sleeper, is that the government intends to increase the maximum penalties for summary convictions. In practical terms, what that means is that agents like law students and paralegals, who are currently able to represent people accused of an offence with a maximum penalty of six months or less, will not be able to do so for a whole range of offences if these changes go forward. It is an unintended consequence, but it certainly has to be addressed, because we not only have a problem already with unrepresented people in the provincial courts and judges bending over backwards, appropriately, to help those people who cannot afford or obtain the services of a lawyer, but now they will also not be able to get paralegals or law students to represent them in some cases. That again is something that I would have thought the government did not want to occur, but it appears to be something that would occur.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge that increased funding was provided for legal aid in budget 2018. I think that is something everyone agrees was long overdue. I commend the government for doing it. However, in the province of British Columbia, as we saw in yesterday's Vancouver Sun, it is simply too little, too late. It is a gigantic increase compared to the past, but now, according to Mark Benton, the CEO of the Legal Services Society, “Many lawyers providing services to the poor are doing it at a loss—the tariffs too low for most to earn a living, and so low that LSS is having trouble attracting and retaining lawyers.” We have got to deal with that.

I talked earlier about the preliminary inquiry issue with my friend from Niagara Falls and I understand that there is a difference of opinion on this issue. However, the facts are that these proposed changes would only save about 3% of court time. While the government proudly said the legislation will reduce the use by 87%, which sounds great, it did not tell us that it is not going to save a lot of time. Then why do it? Why do it when there is a risk, according to the chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Bill Trudell, that there will be more wrongful convictions? Why would we take away a right? The government says we have the Stinchcombe disclosure and it is a different world from when we started with preliminary inquires, but what is the risk-benefit equation here? We are saving 3% of court time and we are causing perhaps a wrongful conviction. I do not think that lines up. It is overbroad. Therefore, I think it is something we need to worry about.

I commented on intimate partner violence and bail; in the interest of time, I will not say any more.

There is a concern about the impact of this bill on those who have suffered the legacy of residential schools and the like, such as in the sixties scoop. For example, the Criminal Lawyers' Association said as follows:

Sadly, intimate partner violence is one of the recognized legacies of residential schools and the 60s scoop. Creating a reverse onus at the bail stage and increasing the sentence on conviction will likely aggravate the crisis of the over-representation of indigenous people in our prisons.

A similar concern was echoed by Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, as well as Professor Isabel Grant, so I think we need to get our hands around this issue and figure out whether we can find another way, despite the fact that I believe it was well intentioned.

In conclusion, what I want to point out now are some of the things we think could be used to address some of these problems.

First, the government claims it has made judicial appointments, which we heard the Conservatives say as well, but there still appears to be a problem with judicial vacancies. I am not saying that is a singular solution, but it needs to be addressed as part of a comprehensive solution.

Second, as I have said, we wish the government would reconsider the failure to review mandatory minimum sentences.

Third, the NDP believes that decriminalizing small amounts of drugs in this opioid crisis that we are experiencing would definitely have an impact on the clogged courts that we face. Who are the people in our provincial courts often unrepresented? Disproportionately, they are people with mental health challenges, people with addictions, people who are poor and simply cannot afford a lawyer, and legal aid does not have the ability to look after them. That is what is clogging up the system.

If we look at it from that end of the telescope, we would make truly important reform efforts. Jagmeet Singh has made a bold statement that decriminalizing small quantities of drugs is something we need to give serious thought to as part of the solution to our clogged-up courts. Not criminalizing these issues, but treating them as mental health issues and health issues generally is the way to go. We have to find a better way.

In Vancouver and Victoria we have drug courts and some creative ways to address this problem, but they have not been adequate. We still have serious problems.

By criminalizing people, we give them criminal records. What does having a criminal record mean? It means people cannot get a job in many cases. Are we thinking about that? It is really important.

I have talked in the House many times about the injustice of thousands of Canadians having criminal records for possession of small quantities of cannabis. There are still people who are unable to find a job because they are still being charged under the current law, which is about to change. I commend the member of Parliament for Hull—Aylmer for his intention to implement a bill that would see these records expunged. I do not think that goes far enough, but I will certainly join with him in that initiative.

Finally, we would offer greater social supports. They are at the core of this issue. We need greater funding for legal aid, which would surely cut down on the number of unrepresented individuals and ensure that more accused people would have access to much-needed resources.

Earlier today, I referred to an excellent summary about the consultations that the government undertook in this regard, a March 2018 report of the Department of Justice entitled “What we Heard—Transforming Canada's Criminal Justice System”. I want to read into the record its fundamental conclusion and ask the House whether the bill does the job.

It says:

Almost all roundtable participants stressed the same major concern. They said that most people who come in contact with the criminal justice system are vulnerable or marginalized individuals. They are struggling with mental health and addiction issues, poverty, homelessness, and prior victimization. Most felt the criminal justice system is not equipped to address the issues that cause criminal behaviour in these groups, nor should it be. Participants felt these issues are worsened by an over-reliance on incarceration.

We are very much in agreement, and I hope that my hon. colleagues will consider these concerns and work with us at the justice committee to make the kinds of changes to our criminal justice system that are so obviously needed.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for his comments, which I found to be very constructive, and for his recognition of the fact that Bill C-75 is about addressing systemic barriers for marginalized people, for vulnerable people, and for victims.

To build on that, with regard to the comments he made about preliminary inquiries, I hope on reflection he will acknowledge that by reducing the eligibility of offences for preliminary inquiries, what we are trying to do is avoid unnecessary retraumatization of victims of intimate partner violence.

I would also encourage him to reflect on the fact that when he cites one particular statistic with regard to 3% of charges, it is charges, not court time. It may be 3% of charges, but it represents disproportionately much more expenditure of court time and resources.

The last thing I would like him to do is to expand on his personal support for the abolishment of peremptory challenges, which are inexorably linked the difficulties and the challenges that we have had around under-representation of indigenous peoples and other marginalized peoples on our juries. It is very important that we move closer to a more open and transparent jury selection process. I hope he will take the time and effort to expand on why he supports the abolishment of peremptory challenges.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are two points.

First of all, my understanding on the preliminary hearings is that they account “for only about three per cent of all court time.” Maybe we have a difference in terms of the statistics here, but if that is all preliminary hearings do, then I think most people would agree that on a benefit-cost analysis, they are not effective. I would point out that there is still the ability to have preliminary inquiries on some of the more serious matters.

In terms of re-victimization and the trauma of having to testify, I completely agree that there are cases in which that aspect is indeed relevant. We heard in the justice committee about human trafficking and some of the trauma that victims face when they have to testify not once but twice. I am sensitive to that, but I think drafting can provide better discretion to deal with that problem head-on. It is an issue, and I acknowledge that issue, but in terms of a time saver, it troubles me greatly, and it should trouble all members of the House, when an experienced criminal justice lawyer like William Trudell, head of the association, says that it is going to result in more wrongful convictions. I have to say that I find that very troubling.

I understand that greater disclosure is possible now, unlike when we first brought preliminary inquiries into our system, but that is not a sufficient answer to look the witness in the eye, recognize that they are going to be a terrible witness in trial, and in fact not have a trial because we realize that it would never stand up with that witness.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for Victoria for his speech. It perhaps would not surprise many that as a Conservative member, I would not agree with the member on everything, but nonetheless I think he raised a number of good points in his speech.

The member raised the issue of hybridization of offences and the fact that it would download cases onto the provincial court and onto the provinces. However, one of the purported objectives of Bill C-75 is to deal with the Jordan decision, which imposes strict timelines before delay is deemed to be presumptively unreasonable. It is 30 months for matters in Superior Court and 18 months for matters in provincial court.

How does downloading cases to provincial court by making them prosecutable by way of summary conviction address the issue of Jordan? It seems that instead of reducing the number of cases that could potentially be thrown out, it might increase the number.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question, because I think he is absolutely right. I would love to know what the record of consultation of which the minister spoke earlier would say about this point.

I consulted with a former deputy attorney general for one of our provinces, who told me in no uncertain terms that it was inextricable, that this would lead to further clogging of the provincial courts where most of the our criminal matters are dealt with already. To make it worse by adding more of these offences to be dealt with summarily in the provincial court is deeply problematic.

If the Government of Canada is serious about dealing with Jordan head-on rather than simply making it more efficient for the superior courts, it must figure out a way to work with the provincial courts to fix this problem.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could expand a little on some of his concerns. He drew on some examples that we have issues with and are problematic in the bill. Perhaps he could discuss a little about the implications of the poorly drafted section on routine police evidence being able to be admitted by way of affidavit.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for the question and for the opportunity to elaborate on this subsection.

It is subsection 657.01(1), for anybody listening, which would allow “routine police evidence” to be brought in by an affidavit rather than having, usually, the police officer come and testify. However, “routine” is left completely to our imagination. Many people have pointed out that it could include eyewitness testimony, and in that case we would not have the ability to cross-examine a police officer, look them in the eye, and see if we conclude that they are telling the truth. Not being able to face one's accuser is a very serious problem. Putting it all on paper and pretending that is all we need to do is deeply disturbing.

I ask the government to think about the consequences. It is only going to add to further delay, because I cannot imagine a judge, when a defence lawyer wants to cross-examine a police officer and it is not routine evidence, ever denying that request. If a judge is never going to deny it, then it will require a subsequent trial where the police officer may come back in two weeks and we do it all again. How on earth does that address the stated objective of the bill, which is to deal with the Jordan decision and the consequences of overburdened courts?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, during an exchange with one of the Conservative members, my colleague asked what the record is with regard to consultations on Bill C-75 and the overall criminal justice review process.

I thought it would be helpful to inform the member that we have conducted over 20 round tables across the country; have received 11,400 written online submissions; and have engaged with our federal, provincial, and territorial partners, and with members of the judiciary at every level. It is on the basis of those engagements that we decided to put forward this historic, bold legislation, which is going to cure delay. With that now on the record in the chamber, I am hoping that the member will join us in addressing the culture of complacency that was identified as one of the great challenges by the Supreme Court of Canada in its Jordan decision.

I also encourage my hon. colleague to address the question that I put to him earlier about his support for the abolishment of peremptory challenges.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, given the time constraints imposed upon me, it will be difficult to do justice to the two questions put.

I am not denying that there was consultation with thousands of Canadians. I am sure that judges were involved. At least one important and very experienced deputy attorney general from the past says this is nothing but downloading. I would be interested in what others have to say about that.

I personally support the provision on peremptory challenges. It would mean that the colour of a person's skin would not be sufficient reason for someone to simply stand in a courtroom and challenge a proposed juror because the person does not think that juror would do justice as an indigenous person. We know cases where that has occurred recently, and that is why I thought this was useful, but on the condition that we have a more robust ability to challenge for cause. The Americans do that much better, much longer, and with much more gravitas than we do. We need to put that out there as well: the quid pro quo for not having that historic right.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. 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 Regina—Lewvan, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Veterans Affairs; and the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, Pensions.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a follow-up to my seeking consent for a motion earlier today. I understand there have been discussions among all parties and if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to ensure expeditious debate, study, and a vote on Bill S-245. I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill S-245, an act to declare the Trans Mountain pipeline project and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada, be deemed votable.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is no unanimous consent. The motion is therefore defeated.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-75, another omnibus bill introduced by a government that said it would never introduce an omnibus bill, but here we are again with another 300-page bill.

Quite frankly, there are some provisions in Bill C-75 that I support, but on the whole I believe this legislation to be deeply problematic.

Before I address the substance of Bill C-75, I want to talk a bit about the process surrounding Bill C-75.

This omnibus legislation reintroduces four government bills currently before the House of Commons: Bill C-28, Bill C-32, Bill C-38 and Bill C-39. This is the third piece of legislation the government has introduced to repeal section 159 of the Criminal Code, the unconstitutional section related to anal sex.

With much fanfare, the Liberals introduced Bill C-32. They wanted to take tremendous credit for introducing that bill that proposes to repeal section 159. It was such a priority for the government that a year and a half later, Bill C-32 remains stuck at first reading.

Not to be outdone, they proceeded to introduce Bill C-39, which would remove unconstitutional sections of the Criminal Code, also known as zombie laws. That included section 159 of the Criminal Code. It was introduced on March 8, 2017, and it was such a priority of the government that more than a year later, Bill C-39 remains stuck at first reading.

Now, for the third time, the government has introduced, with Bill C-75, another attempt to remove section 159 of the Criminal Code.

How many bills is it going to take the Liberal government to repeal one simple section of the Criminal Code? It speaks to the utter incompetence of the government and its complete inability to move justice legislation forward. In light of that record of incompetence and failure, Canadians should be left to ask the question: how it is that the government can be trusted to address delay in our courts when it cannot even manage its own legislative agenda?

The purported objective of Bill C-75 is to deal with the backlog in our courts. It arises from the Jordan decision that was issued by the Supreme Court almost two years ago. The Supreme Court of Canada determined that there would be strict limits before delay would become presumptively unreasonable. The remedy that the Supreme Court provided in the case of delay was that the charges against the accused person would be stayed, in other words, thrown out of court. The strict timeline that the Supreme Court provided was 30 months between the laying of charges and the anticipated or actual conclusion of a trial for matters before superior courts, and 18 months for matters before provincial courts.

It has been almost two years since the Jordan decision and in those nearly two years, the Minister of Justice has sat on her hands and done absolutely nothing to deal with delay and backlog. The minister is so incompetent that she could not get around to doing the simplest and easiest thing, which is to fill judicial vacancies in a timely manner.

Under this Minister of Justice's watch, we have seen a record number of judicial vacancies. Indeed, the average number of vacancies has consistently been between 50 to 60. In the province of Alberta, where the issues of backlog and delay are most acute, the provincial government tried to respond in 2016, by way of order in council, establishing 10 new judicial positions, nine Court of Queen's Bench positions and one Alberta Court of Appeal position. The government, to its credit, in budget 2017, provided funding for additional judicial positions. All the minister had to do was fill them.

Do members know how long it took the minister to appoint a new judge in Alberta?

[An hon. member]

How long?

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

More than a year, Madam Speaker. It was not until December 2017 that Justice Grant Dunlop, my former colleague by the way, was appointed as a justice of the Court of Queen's Bench. He is a very good appointment, but, unfortunately, it is only one. Now that we are in May 2018, the government still has not filled most of those new judicial spots.

Thus, while the minister talks about taking action, her record demonstrates otherwise. This is not just an academic or abstract issue. There are real and serious consequences to the minister's inaction. We have seen hundreds of cases thrown out of court due to delay, and thousands more are at risk. Some of these cases involve the most serious of charges, including murder and sexual assault. We are talking about cases that are stayed or thrown out. The accused person, even when there is overwhelming evidence that he or she did the crime, are free to walk our streets.

In his speech, the hon. member for Victoria alluded to Nick Chan, whose case was was recently thrown out in Calgary. Who is Nick Chan? He is someone who was facing first degree murder charges. He is someone who was charged with directing a criminal organization. Nick Chan is the head of the so-called “Fresh off the Boat” gang, a gang that is linked to more than a dozen murders. Some have called Nick Chan one of the most dangerous, if not the most dangerous, men in Calgary. Today, Nick Chan is a free man.

The minister does bear some responsibility for that outcome by her failure to get judges appointed in Alberta and across Canada. Nick Chan is not the first dangerous criminal who is now a free man or woman. Unfortunately, because of the government's inaction he will not be the last.

After two years of doing nothing, the government has now come forward with Bill C-75. This is really a ramshackle piece of legislation. One of the things the government has touted as doing a lot to reduce delay is the limiting of preliminary inquiries. Indeed, the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision said that in light of the Stinchcombe decision, which is more than a quarter of a century old, that perhaps it is time for Parliament to reconsider the utility of preliminary inquiries. Since the Stinchcombe decision, defence counsel have a constitutional right to full disclosure, and preliminary inquiries are a form of disclosure.

However, at the same time, to the degree that it makes sense to limit preliminary inquiries, and to the degree that that will speed things up, it is important, I think, to know what the hon. member for Victoria stated in his speech, which was that preliminary inquiries account for a very small number of cases.

The Canadian Bar Association has indicated that the proportion of cases that involve preliminary inquiries is less than 5% of cases, and takes no more than 2% of court time.

Perhaps this is a good measure, one measure in this massive bill that is a positive. However, with respect to the larger scheme of dealing with the backlog and the delay, at best, it is a very small step in the right direction.

Then there are aspects of the bill that instead of actually reducing the delays and backlog, they will likely contribute to the backlog. Again, I did not agree with everything the hon. member for Victoria said, but I thought he raised a good point about routine police evidence in the bill, which more than likely will result in defence counsel having to bring forward an application, which will cause delay, an application that in all likelihood will be granted.

With respect to the issue of routine police evidence, it seems that it provides a solution in search of a problem that does not exist, and in so doing has created another problem, a problem that will contribute to delay.

Then there is the hybridization of offences. This the part of the legislation that I, and I think most of my colleagues on the Conservative side, have the biggest issue with, and that is the watering down of sentences.

Before I address how Bill C-75 waters down sentences for some very serious crimes, I want to comment on what this impact would be from the standpoint of the Jordan decision. After all, that is why we are debating Bill C-75.

The hybridization of offences means that indictable offences that are currently prosecuted in Superior Courts now will be prosecutable in provincial courts by way of summary conviction. The timeline that the Supreme Court provides in Jordan is 30 months in which a case must be concluded, successfully prosecuted or a determination made about the guilt or innocence of the accused person, before a delay is deemed presumptively unreasonable, upon which it is at risk of being thrown out of court. By contrast, there is only an 18-month timeline in provincial court. It is reducing the time by almost half before the case is at risk of being thrown out.

How does that help address Jordan? It does not. It is a matter of simply downloading cases onto the provinces. It is similar to what the government did with the marijuana legislation. It said that it would throw legislation together, take some political credit, but when it would come to sorting out all the issues, when it would come to the costs related to implementation and enforcement, the provinces could deal with it. The government washed its hands clean.

That is what the government is doing with respect to the hybridization, the watering down of sentences for serious indictable sentences. It is downloading them onto the provinces, onto provincial courts, which already have and deal with the bulk of criminal cases that go before courts across Canada.

It will not solve Jordan, but what will it actually do? Under the guise of creating efficiencies in our justice system, the government is watering down sentences for serious crimes. By introducing this just before Easter, it hoped Canadians would not notice.

What sorts of offences are being watered down? We are talking about participating in a terrorist organization, impaired driving causing bodily harm, kidnapping a minor, forced marriage, polygamy, or arson for fraudulent purposes. Do those not sound like serious offences? The minister said that she was doing this so the serious cases could go to superior courts. I have news for the minister. Kidnappers, terrorists, child abductors, arsonists, and impaired drivers are serious criminals who deserve serious time for serious crime, which the government is taking away, or opening the door to not happening. Instead, it is opening the door to these serious criminals getting away with a fine instead of up to 10 years in prison, which is currently provided for in the Criminal Code for those offences.

The government talks about the discretion of judges. It makes a big deal about the discretion of judges. Under Bill C-75, the government would be taking away the discretion of a judge, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, to lift the publication ban of a young offender to protect public safety, when the judge determines there is evidence that young offender will commit another serious offence.

The government is always talking about judicial discretion when it helps criminals, but when it comes to protecting the public, the government does not want them to have that discretion. It speaks to a government which time and again works hard to reward criminals, makes life more difficult for victims, and has no regard for the public safety of Canadians. This is evidenced by taking away the discretion from judges, failing to appoint judges, and watering down sentences for kidnappers, arsonists, terrorists, among other offenders.

In short, Bill C-75 would make it easier for criminals and would download cases onto the provinces. It contains measures that would increase the delay in our justice system instead of decreasing it, resulting in more criminal cases potentially being thrown out of court as a result of Jordan. In so doing, it undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. It is an absolutely terrible bill that needs to be defeated.

With that, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and (e) potentially reducing penalties for very serious crimes by proposing to make them hybrid offences, including the abduction of a child under 14, material benefit from trafficking, breach of prison, participation in activity of a terrorist group or criminal organization, advocating genocide, amongst many others.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my hon. colleague across the aisle. He spoke at length about this government's record on judicial appointments. The irony is that when put to him what the precise record was, he acknowledged that one of the most recent appointments in his home province of Alberta was Justice Grant Dunlop, who he said was a very good appointment. I encourage my hon. colleague to not divorce himself from the facts when he speaks about the criminal justice system in our country.

To that one very good appointment, which my hon. colleague acknowledges was a strong one, we have made 32 other appointments in the province of Alberta, bringing to a total of 80 federal judges in the province of Alberta, five more than at any point in time under the Harper Conservative administration.

If the hon. colleague was concerned about victims and about ensuring there were not miscarriages of justice, then he would have supported the historic investments to provide additional judges to the court and to provide training and resources to the members of the judiciary. He chose not to do that. He chose to oppose those investments. Now he has an opportunity to redeem himself by supporting Bill C-75. I hope on reflection he and his colleagues will do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, the record of the government when it comes to filling judicial vacancies is a lesson in exactly what not to do. It was very nice that Justice Dunlop was appointed. Yes, he is a very good judge. However, why did it take the government more than a year to fill one out of the 10 new judicial spots created by the provincial Government of Alberta? Why is it that only in May of 2018, more than a year and a half later, they still have not gotten around to filling most of them, and the only other new judges they have appointed, other than Justice Dunlop, were appointed in the last month. That is hardly a record of action. That is hardly a record of taking judicial vacancies seriously.

What else is not a record of taking judicial vacancies seriously when it comes to the Minister of Justice and her record? How long did it take the minister to appoint a single judge? It took her six months into the job before she got around to appointing a single judge. The Minister of Justice bears a lot of responsibility for the serious criminal cases being thrown out of court because of her inaction, which rises to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. Unfortunately, I do have to allow for other questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

As the member for Victoria indicated in his speech, we oppose the bill simply because it is far too flawed. Yes, it does contain some measures that have been lacking for a long time, but it also fails to include an extremely important measure, the review of mandatory minimum sentences, even though that was included in the minister's mandate letter. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that because the previous government is the one that established those minimum sentences.

It has been proven that mandatory minimum sentences do not reduce the crime rate in our communities. On the contrary, taking away the discretionary power of judges does nothing to keep the public safe. Republican legislators in the United States came to the same conclusion, even though they, like the previous government, were strong supporters of this policy.

Does the member agree that the minister should deal with this important issue, which is part of her mandate, once and for all?

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

Madam Speaker, I would respectfully disagree with the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly. Mandatory sentences have always been in the Criminal Code. They play an important role in our criminal justice system. What they simply do is to ensure that serious criminals are held accountable for the seriousness of the offences they have committed and were convicted of. Therefore, no, I would not be in favour of rolling back and reducing sentences. Indeed, victims of crime have been very clear that what they want is mandatory sentences. They want tougher sentences, not lesser ones. However, given the current government's track record, it would not surprise me if the next thing the Liberals do is introduce legislation to roll back mandatory sentences.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that yet again the Conservatives are opposing what I believe is good, sound legislation. The New Democrats recognize the value of this and how it would make our system that much more robust, but yet again the Conservatives are feeling that this is not the way to go and are coming up with some extreme circumstances to try to downplay the importance of passage of this legislation.

My question is related to the amendments. An hour or so ago, one Conservative member stood up and moved an amendment, and now my colleague across the way moved an amendment. What is the real purpose of the amendments? Is it try to improve something or to delay a potential vote? I do not quite understand the real purpose behind the two Conservative amendments to the same piece of legislation. I do not think that happens very often.