Debates of May 29th, 2018

Bill C-75—Time Allocation Motion

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a comment the minister just made.

We have heard during question period and during debate about the delays in court proceedings, about how people are getting off from being convicted and all of the injustices that are happening as a result. Now we have an opportunity to vote for the bill to go to committee.

Members across the aisle should be happy about the work that the Minister of Justice has been doing, including the fact that she has appointed a record number of judges and is now introducing a piece of legislation that would allow even more of her great work to take place.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all members of the House take delays in the criminal justice system seriously.

We have put forward Bill C-75 with a huge amount of consideration and consultation to ensure that we have the provinces and territories on board with the bold reforms we have proposed. We have had consultation across the country via round tables. The Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs has submitted a substantive report, and many of their recommendations are contained in Bill C-75. These bold reforms are necessary.

I look to the members across the way to ensure that we do everything we can to answer the Supreme Courts of Canada's call and to make these necessary changes. If we get this bill to committee, we can have the necessary conversations and debate to ensure that we put the best piece of legislation forward.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I echo my whip's concern about the government's excessive use of time allocation and omnibus bills. I hear groans from many of the Liberals MPs who were not here in the last Parliament when their deputy House leader used to say repeatedly that these were assaults on democracy. They are assaulting the House today in particular.

What troubles me about this omnibus legislation is that our Minister of Justice is also the attorney general, the chief prosecutor in Canada. The defence bar in Canada does not want Bill C-75 rushed. In fact, it has said repeatedly that it denounces both the elimination of preliminary hearings and the stipulation that police evidence can only be introduced in written form and not as viva voce evidence. Speaking on behalf of the defence bar, Michael Spratt, who is someone I do not generally agree with politically, said that these changes “will erode fundamental safeguards of trial fairness.” Now they are not allowing any debate. How can our chief prosecutor do this?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand up to speak to the measures we propose putting into place via Bill C-75. This is a very comprehensive piece of legislation that deserves the necessary discussion and debate, including from defence counsel, when it arrives in committee. I look forward to that dialogue and discussion.

I certainly recognize that this is a very large bill, but it deals with measures to amend the Criminal Code. Amending the Criminal Code is its theme. I would reference my hon. colleague across the way when he was talking about section 159 in what was then Bill C-32. This has been amalgamated into Bill C-75, and it is a necessary provision that needs to be repealed.

We are entirely supportive of all the provisions in Bill C-75 and we look forward—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Mr. Speaker, one gets the sense that someone in the government House leader's office looked at the parliamentary calendar and suddenly started panicking when they saw how much time they had left.

That aside, Bill C-75 is like a giant amoeba: it has swallowed three previous justice bills, one of which had swallowed another bill. We now have four previous justice bills in Bill C-75.

The Minister of Justice came to power with a very strong mandate to reform our criminal justice system. If that is the case, why did she let those four previous justice bills languish at first reading for so long, and only now, in the third year of her mandate, move ahead with Bill C-75 and cutting off Parliament's ability to properly debate this bill?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House have had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-75. It is my understanding that the members from the New Democratic Party have had the opportunity to speak to this legislation. The members of the official opposition have refused to speak to the bill, and they want to cut off second reading debate.

The member opposite is correct in that we amalgamated a number of justice bills, which represent very important pieces of potential legislation around the victim fine surcharge, around human trafficking, and around phase one of the charter cleanup, which includes section 159. These are incredibly important pieces of legislation that would amend the Criminal Code. We have put them into Bill C-75, which speaks to efficiencies and effectiveness.

This is an important piece of legislation that deserves a debate in committee.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, so far I have been completely unimpressed with this minister's justification for pushing this bill forward so quickly.

I have a great respect for the legal community. When New Zealand had a major reform of its criminal justice system, it took five years for it to go through a process in which the legal community was able to sort out what things should go forward. It was actually a very good process for that country.

On the contrary, this minister has not given the legal community that kind of consultation. Worse than that, the Parliament of Canada deserves to have input and a say in these kinds of matters before the bill goes to committee. Why is she shutting out members of Parliament? Does she not think that members on this side or on that side have something to say about justice reforms that she is carrying out without proper consultation with this place?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about being impressed or not impressed. I am not impressed with the misrepresentations and the hyperbole that is coming from the other side of the House from the official opposition.

This is an incredibly important bill. The member opposite is alluding to consultation or engagement with the legal community. I have engaged, my parliamentary secretaries have engaged, and my officials have engaged for two and a half years, and then some, with respect to getting feedback from the legal community, from all actors in the justice system, including having two federal, provincial, and territorial meetings with my counterparts in the provinces and territories, the justice ministers, all of whom are supportive of the bold reforms that we are putting forward.

This is a necessary measure to answer the call to action of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it is nearly unbelievable that we have had three time allocations in one day today.

In this debate period, we do not usually speak to the merits of the legislation. In Bill C-75 there is much that is important with respect to reforms. For instance, I am pleased to see it is getting rid of peremptory challenges to jurors. That was clearly a big issue in the Colten Boushie case.

However, we stand here today to ask the government why time allocation is being used time and time again. It is anti-democratic. There is no way around it. The minister can say that this bill is so important that it deserves full debate in committee—it deserves full debate in the House.

I ask the hon. minister if she can please explain why this bill is now an emergency that requires that we shorten the opportunities for those of us particularly in smaller parties to have a chance to debate this bill.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward with Bill C-75. We want to get it to committee to have this discussion.

There have been conversations among the parties with respect to Bill C-75. From those discussions, members on this side have spoken to this bill, the New Democratic Party has exhausted its speakers, and members from the official opposition see fit to not speak to this bill at all, and in fact to cut off second reading debate.

We want to get this bill to committee so that the legal community and others can have further dialogue and debate, make suggestions, and put forward potential amendments to improve this legislation. This is an important piece of legislation, and we would like to get it to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, in response to the question posed by the hon. member for Niagara Falls, stated that she is committed to getting tough on impaired drivers. It was this Minister of Justice who opposed tougher sentences in Bill C-46 for the most serious of impaired driving offences, including impaired driving causing death, and it is now this minister who has introduced legislation in Bill C-75 that will make the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm prosecutable by way of summary conviction. In other words, instead of facing up to 10 years behind bars, individuals who commit the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm may be able to get away with a slap on the wrist and a mere fine. How is that taking impaired driving seriously?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are two questions there. The member opposite references Bill C-46, which is the impaired driving legislation. When passed, this measure will create among the toughest impaired driving regimes in the world. I find it remarkable that the opposition members are talking about impaired driving when members of the Conservative Party in the other House voted to gut Bill C-46 to remove mandatory alcohol screening, which has proven to save lives, which is supported by MADD Canada, and which is supported by the chiefs of police. This is remarkable.

In terms of sentencing, which is what the member opposite is talking about with respect to impaired driving, we are looking at reclassifying offences. This is not to change the fundamental principles of sentencing, which require proportionality, but to ensure that we provide prosecutors with the necessary tools to utilize their discretion to proceed by way of summary conviction or by indictment to ensure that they can use their discretion and assist with respect to court delays.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a big part of Bill C-75—the stated purpose of it, anyway—is to try to address delay within the court system. However, we know from debate in the House and from reports in the media that an important cause of delay in the court system is that a lot of judicial vacancies have not been filled.

I am wondering if it is possible to move a time allocation motion on the period of time that the minister takes to appoint judges when there are vacancies, because if it is possible, I think she would find that there is support on the opposition benches for that time allocation motion. If it is possible, would she move it?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the judicial appointments process, which we dramatically reformed. I have to say that I am incredibly proud of the 179 Superior Court judges that I have appointed. Last year, 100 appointments were made, which is more than any other minister of justice has made in more than two decades.

In terms of judicial appointments, of course this is something that I take seriously. I am going to continue to fill the necessary vacancies. This is one aspect that could potentially contribute toward the delays. However, 99% of criminal cases are heard in provincial courts. We are continuing to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that we are moving forward with Bill C-75, which is an incredibly collaborative bill.

I am going to continue to address the appointments of judges, but the member opposite should know that this is only one aspect. There are more complicated issues that need to be addressed as well.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to change the channel and look at some facts on victims. One thing that I have been studying as I have been writing my speech for Bill C-75 is about human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

We know that the average age is from 11 to 14. We know that this is a growing epidemic. We also know that there were a number of cases in 2012 and 2014, and we put in hard legislation, but these perpetrators, these pimps that allow this to happen to our children, are going to be provided a summary conviction. I am wondering why we are taking the side of criminals and not the side of victims who are like our children.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, every member in this House, I am certain, takes the issue of human trafficking extremely seriously. These are among the most vulnerable people in our society, and we need to protect them.

The reforms that we are making in the criminal justice system are broad-based. They ensure that we are protecting public safety, that we are showing compassion and respect for victims, and that people are held to account for their offences.

Contained within Bill C-75 is the bill that we had introduced to deal with human trafficking. However, because this is a difficult offence to prove, the bill proposes to provide additional tools to prosecutors and law enforcement in order to prove the offence of human trafficking. That is one measure.

In terms of assisting victims, we are doing many different things, including in the areas of domestic violence and sexual assault. We are bolstering the intimate partner violence provisions within this bill, among many other things. Recognizing that this is Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, we have engaged in a number of ways to assist with respect to victims and to ensure that we are showing our compassion and respect to them.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing from across the way that this piece of legislation would reduce sentencing and make it easier for those who perpetrate crimes to get away with them. Could the minister please speak to that and correct the record so that constituents in my riding and in fact all Canadians can understand that there are some things being said across the way that are just factually incorrect? I would like her to set the record straight.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to correct the mischaracterization that members opposite are projecting on the reclassification of offences.

Reclassification of offences is not about sentencing ranges. Instead, these amendments would give crown prosecutors, as I said, the necessary discretion to elect the most efficient form of prosecution, whether that be by way of summary conviction or by indictment. This measure does not speak to or change the fundamental principles of sentencing; what is does speak to is the amount of court time.

All offences are serious, but if the offence merits moving by way of summary conviction, it can be dealt with in the provincial court, where matters are less complicated, thereby expediting and leaving room and time in the superior courts for the more complex cases. This measure would contribute, as do the other measures in this bill, to a comprehensive approach that will tackle delays in a fundamental way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says the government is not watering down sentences. The fact is that the government has taken a whole series of indictable offences that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and is now making them hybrid offences that could be prosecuted by way of summary conviction. The maximum penalty for a summary conviction is two years less a day.

Individuals who are convicted of offences ranging from promoting terrorism to kidnapping a minor to arson for fraudulent purposes to impaired driving causing bodily harm could get away with, literally, a fine, thanks to the minister.

What part about sentencing does the minister not understand when she is watering down sentences from up to 10 years behind bars to two years less a day?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the absolute mischaracterization by the member opposite with respect to what we are doing in terms of the reclassification of offences.

We are not touching the sentencing ranges. We are providing the necessary discretion in terms of additional offences for a prosecutor to proceed by way of summary conviction or by way of indictment. This does not change the facts of a specific offence. This does not change the fact that the prosecutor, given the gravity of the offence, will proceed in the necessary and appropriate manner.

We are not changing the fundamental principles of sentencing at all. I want to be very clear about this. The members opposite can try to work really hard to incite fear, but what we are doing is working with the provinces and territories that have agreed to these bold reforms, including the reclassification of offences, to tackle in a fundamental way something their government was not able to do to ensure that we address delays in the criminal justice system.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight debating Bill C-75, which has been crammed with a lot of different changes taking place from other legislation. It is now receiving less time in the House here before going to committee.

Could the minister explain to the House, or at least go on the record to say if she believes that her process and her government's process right now to fast-track this bill and limit debate and cram it together like this is going to lead to better legislation, or to potential problems later on?

In the minister's opinion, is this the best professional way to deal with the criminal justice system in Canada?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-75, we have introduced a very comprehensive piece of legislation.

In my view and in the view of the government, the best way to deal with the criminal justice system is to ensure that we have done our homework, ensure that we work with officials not just within my department but across the country, ensure that we are working with the provinces and territories to bring forward and understand a shared responsibility on the administration of justice, and ensure that there is agreement around the bold reforms that are necessary.

We have had extensive consultations and discussions with the provinces and territories. We are taking heed of the report of the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs, which did a detailed study on justice delays, and we are taking heed of online surveys as well as round tables right across the country in every jurisdiction.

We are taking this incredibly seriously. We have the evidence to support the reforms that we are making. I would invite the members opposite to support alleviating the delays in the criminal justice system.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says she spoke to the provincial representatives. That is good, but did she listen to them? We know there are delays everywhere, especially in Quebec. If she wants us to debate this bill, then let's debate it.

Will she accept amendments from other parties in the House?

She says she worked with officials, but did she even talk to the main people involved, the victims of crime? I doubt it. I would like—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. Minister of Justice.