Debates of June 5th, 2018

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, while there is much in Bill C-75 that I support, particularly getting rid of peremptory challenges in choosing juries, I am very disturbed by the changes being proposed to section 657 of the Criminal Code. I cannot imagine how this came so far. I hope the hon. member knows I am referring to changes that will mean police officers need not be on the witness stand, available to a defence attorney who sent word to cross-examine those police officers. They could submit an affidavit or previously submitted evidence.

The credibility of a police officer on the stand very often is the difference between an innocent person going to jail or not. This has been universally condemned by the criminal laws. Was there any consultation on this? Is it a mistake? Could it be changed at committee? I hope the answer is that this was a mistake.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that we have been listening very closely to the Criminal Lawyers' Association as well as other stakeholders who have given us input on this provision.

I also want to assure her that the objective of this provision, along with a suite of other measures, is to ensure that our courts are allowed the proper flexibility to streamline hearings so we are not quibbling over non-contentious immaterial facts. As someone who practised in the criminal justice system, we see far too much of this bad judgment exercise.

It is not just about revising the bill; it is about a change in the culture of complacency, at which the Supreme Court of Canada has encouraged all of us to look very closely. I look forward to further discussions with my hon. colleague as well as others on this provision.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy we were addressing peremptory challenges in the bill. When I did my first jury trial, one of the most surprising things for me was how little information we had when we made these decisions about our jury. We had very basic information about the person. We do not ask questions like we see on TV and we had to make a quick judgment call, as a lawyer, as to whether that person could stay on the trial.

I believe there is more work to be done. There are also questions at the provincial level about how a jury list is selected. How does the member see these changes to peremptory challenges? How does he see it as helping to get stereotyping and those kinds of prejudicial things that we can make when we have very little information and we are looking at a person and deciding whether he or she should be on the jury?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all of her work in this area. I know she was a member of the legal profession prior to her taking office. I always invite and welcome her thoughts and her input on this. However, perhaps one of the most important things she has mentioned is the notion that the problem about the chronic under-representation of indigenous peoples and marginalized peoples on our juries far predate our time in office.

There have been reports that go back as far as when Senator Sinclair was a judge in Manitoba. More recent, retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci submitted a report in 2013 to the Attorney General of Ontario in which it was well-documented that much work needed to be done, including taking a close look at the use of peremptory challenge.

Bill C-75 would enhance the accountability and transparency around the methods by which the parties would contribute to the selection of juries. It would require them to provide a reason. In other words, it would open up that box of thinking that currently is able to be exercised without any review, without any comment from the courts.

We are confident that by doing this, we will see more individuals step forward and contribute to juries that are composed of and are reflective of the diversity of our communities, and that is a very positive thing.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the previous Parliament and the previous government, I sat on the subcommittee for judicial appointments of the justice committee. That was quite an experience learning about the process by which judges are employed in this country.

Since we have arrived in government here, this member has played an integral role in transforming the appointments process. I think it would be helpful for the House if Canadians watching, listening, or reading this debate understood the kind of steps that have been taken by this member and the Minister of Justice in transforming the way in which we are recruiting, selecting, and appointing judges to the bench.

Can he help us understand that better?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, if for no other reason than it allows us to take a step back from Bill C-75, and take a look at one of the many other areas that we are approaching reform of our justice system. Of course, in addition to Bill C-75, we have a judicial appointments process, which I am quite proud to say the Minister of Justice has completely renewed, in consultation with her colleagues. By renewing it, I mean that it is now open, merit based, and reflective of the diversity and tremendous talent and experience that we see across the continuum of the country.

In direct response to my hon. colleague's question, I am quite proud to say that we now have, since taking office, appointed over 170 federal judges across the country. My hon. colleagues from the Conservative benches often take the opportunity to criticize this government wrongly and unjustifiably about our lack of progress in the province of Alberta. I would simply point out that there are now five more judges in Alberta than at any point under the Harper Conservatives. That is something we should all celebrate.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he could elaborate more on administrative justice offences. I do not think the general public realizes what a burden these are on the system.

While he is thinking about that, I just want to express some thanks to him. One is to thank him for coming to my riding and talking to the various people in the justice system. He is right: it was a very comprehensive consultation across the country.

Second, I am delighted that this bill is reducing the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the justice system, and people with mental health issues. People have been talking about this for years, but finally someone is doing something about it.

I want to just give an example of people with FASD. They do not understand that they have to be at an appointment. They do an administrative offence and they are back in the system, taking up all sorts of time for absolutely no reason at all, because they should not have been in it in the first place, and it is slowing down the justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did have the great privilege of visiting my hon. colleague's riding to conduct one of the over 20 round tables across the country, in partnership with the Minister of Justice, as part of the criminal justice review. I also want to take the opportunity to thank him in this chamber for his very deft and agile driving to get me back to the airport on time so that I could catch my flight back home. It was quite an adventure and with all the daylight, certainly it helped our navigation through the busy streets of Whitehorse.

However, to his question, in particular when it comes to administration of justice offences, this may be an area that much of the public does not have a lay understanding of. If a person gets charged with an offence and they are on bail, the person is asked to abide by certain conditions. In my remarks, I refer to a curfew, which is one of the more routinely imposed conditions. There may be good reasons why a curfew is needed in some cases to protect the public, but in many other cases it is not required.

There are far too many of these administration of justice offences in the courts. In Ontario, they take up nearly 40% of all judicial resources. We need to reduce those offences so that we can get to the serious cases. Bill C-75 helps us achieve that.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech. He is very learned and comes from a profession that understands things well. I did pass through law school at one time, but decided that another profession was of more interest to me, so my speech will probably be a little more the layman's type, and will probably have some rhetoric in it that I am sure he will rather enjoy.

I will be speaking on Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts. That is quite the title, and it probably should come as no surprise that it is an omnibus bill. It makes massive reforms to our criminal justice system, and in fact, it re-tables three bills already on the Order Paper: Bill C-28, on the victim surcharge; Bill C-38, on consecutive sentencing for human trafficking; and Bill C-39, which repeals unconstitutional provisions.

The government simply cannot seem to manage its legislative agenda. It waited until late in its mandate, and now Parliament is expected to rush through debate on these important matters.

What is apparent is that Bill C-75 is a big, complicated bill that is supposed to fix the issues facing our justice system. It does contain provisions that I could support. Repealing unconstitutional provisions in the Criminal Code is a positive proposal. Increasing the maximum term for repeat offenders involved in domestic violence also makes a lot of sense.

However, the bill also introduces a host of other issues. This legislation should have been split so we could have debated and voted on some of its parts, rather than as an omnibus bill. There is far too much here to be considered in such a short time. The Liberals promised they would not introduce an omnibus bill, but here we are.

We have known for a long time that our justice system is dangerously backlogged. A primary stated objective of Bill C-75 is to reduce delays in our justice system. The R. v. Jordan ruling, now known as the Jordan rule or principle, imposes strict timelines on criminal trials: 30 months for the criminals, and 18 months for the indictable.

This objective is very important. Thousands of criminal trials across Canada have been stayed, including murder trials, for going over the imposed time limits. We have seen the stories of individuals accused of horrendous crimes being let off because of massive delays in the court system. The problem is only getting worse, but this bill is finally supposed to do something about this serious problem.

Before I get into the details of this bill, I have to ask: Why has this government not taken steps to appoint more judges? It has been pointed out that the government has appointed many, but we still have 59 vacancies. Let us get them all filled so that we can improve the justice system. Appointing judges may have been a faster way to address the delays in our justice system, rather than forcing an omnibus bill through Parliament. I know that the Liberals have left appointments unfilled in other government agencies, but the judicial ones are critical. At the very least, they need to fill those. I am sure that is something they will do quickly, right?

The biggest red flag in this legislation is the hybridization of many indictable-only offences, done by adding summary convictions as a sentencing option. Simply put, serious crimes deserve serious penalties, but some of the offences listed in the bill are undoubtedly, to me and many of my constituents, serious crimes. These include participating in a terrorist group; impaired driving causing bodily harm; kidnapping a minor; possessing stolen property over $5,000, which is a huge concern in my rural riding; participating in activities of a criminal organization; municipal corruption or influencing a municipal official; committing infanticide; extortion by libel; advocating genocide; arson for fraudulent purpose; advertising and dealing in counterfeit money; and many more. There are a lot of serious crimes in here that are going to change. Many of these crimes are classified as indictment-only for a reason. They should not be punishable under a summary conviction, with a possible mere fine. That option has been included, and it should not be there.

The bill would also delay consecutive sentencing for human traffickers. Human trafficking is a severe crime. There is a cross-party committee dealing with this crime. It is a severe problem and deserves severe punishment. We know it is taking place in Canada. It is an international issue that needs to be combatted with all the tools at our disposal. Why would the government weaken our criminal justice system with these changes? We all need to address the backlogs in our courts system, but some of these measures just do not make sense.

In my riding of Bow River, we have been dealing with serious issues involving rural crime. I am happy that motion by the member for Lakeland, Motion No. 167, was passed last week in this House. I believe it will be an important step toward actually doing something about rural crime. The statistics show that crime in rural areas has increased significantly in all three prairie provinces. However, right on the heels of adopting this important motion, we have this bill taking two steps backwards. This is going to be hard to explain to the constituents in my riding who are dealing with constant rural crime. Residents across the country are going to be shaking their heads in disbelief at this one. I have heard from many constituents who have suffered break-ins, property theft, and threats to person. We have held round tables in locations in ridings across Alberta and heard from many people who are living in fear. They do not have confidence that the criminal acts taking place around their homes will be addressed. In many cases, the RCMP is simply stretched too thinly across the vast rural areas to respond promptly.

I am particularly concerned that this bill would relax sentences for crimes like possession of stolen property and participating in criminal gangs. It is hard enough to catch criminals engaged in rural crimes. In many cases, the criminals are long gone before anyone can show up to deal with them. When it takes police officers hours or until the next day to get to the scene, there is plenty of time to disappear. This is not like crime in a city where people reasonably expect police to show up on their doorstep in minutes. When criminals are caught, there is a reasonable expectation that they will face serious consequences for their actions. It is hard enough to convince people to report crimes when they occur. We encourage them to do so because it is very important for the statistics of the police services. The police need to know what is actually happening in communities, but people are afraid to report crimes, or they say it is a waste of time. The police need the statistics to make decisions related to how to best enforce the law, but my constituents do not always believe they will make any difference in the justice system anymore. It is going to be that much harder to encourage people to report rural crimes if this bill receives royal assent. At a bare minimum, people need to know that if they report a crime and the criminal responsible is actually apprehended, there will be serious consequences for that individual. We need real deterrents, not slaps on the wrist, to keep Canadians' faith in the justice system.

They talk about Alberta judges, and yes, we are short of judges, but here is the other side of it. I have spoken with legal people and they say that the number of crown prosecutors is drastically short. There are few crown prosecutors willing to do it. As the number of crown prosecutors has decreased, there are fewer of them who will work on this huge workload. The average caseload that crown prosecutors have is twice what it used to be years ago. Legal aid lawyers are quitting. The pay they are getting has decreased, or they are not being paid at all. If they are moving to summary convictions, two years less a day, the jails are full. I have seen downloading from governments before; this is a huge download from the federal government to the provincial governments. They are going to download into the provinces' judicial systems by changing convictions from indictable to summary convictions. As the prosecutors have told me, they have been told to clear the docket and keep only the very serious cases and kick all the rest of the cases out, not to take them to court but to get the charges dropped, to kick them out.

There is a joke around the provincial jail system that if there is an arrest for car theft, the officers should make sure their car is locked when the criminal goes out the door, because the criminal is likely to steal their car to go home. With the shortage of prosecutors, the time that is available to put people in jail for two years less a day is a huge download to the provincial system.

It is especially wrong that this bill is being introduced at the same time we are considering Bill C-71. That bill would do nothing to address rural crime and gang violence. Nothing in it would make a difference to the criminals using illegal firearms. All the bill does is target law-abiding firearms owners with new, poorly designed, heavy-handed regulations.

Farmers in my riding make use of all kinds of firearms on their property. Firearms are basic to rural life in many cases. I have heard from many constituents who are very concerned about Bill C-71. Why would the government treat farmers like criminals, while reducing sentences for rural criminals at the same time? Summary convictions and fines are just kicking the cases out, because there is no time to deal with them.

Again, it makes no sense. The government's agenda is looking increasingly incoherent, especially from the perspective of rural residents. Will these measures do anything to reduce the backlog? No. They are just downloading the problem on the provinces. Just as Chrétien did with the transfer payments, the current government is going to do it with the judicial system to download to the provinces.

Our legal institutions are overwhelmed by the number of cases that need to be addressed. The bill could stretch them to a breaking point, as the crown prosecutors in Alberta told me. We could have many more cases thrown out for taking too long. Jordan's principle is going to come in and many people will walk the street because of it. In other words, criminals will walk. That is not a result anyone wants to see, especially when rural crime is involved. It is deeply painful for victims of crime and it is dangerous for the Canadian public at large to lose faith in the justice system, like the rural residents in my constituency.

The government seems to be dumping more problems on provinces and municipalities. It leaves them to clean up the mess. We have already seen how the government has done this with cannabis legislation. Its approach has left provinces and municipalities scrambling to accommodate the new laws and pay for their implementation.

I have heard from town councillors across my constituency how concerned they are about the cannabis legalization and how they are going to pay for it. They do not know how the small towns and villages will handle all the issues that are coming down the pipe, just like the carbon tax. The Alberta Urban Municipalities Association has expressed grave doubts about how its members are going to get ready for legalization. It has been conveying these concerns to the government for a long time, but the Liberals are not listening.

The federal government simply punts its problems on to subnational governments and claims to have taken action. That is exactly what it did with the cannabis legalization, and that trend is continuing with Bill C-75. We need real leadership, not just passing the buck to the provinces.

The legislation would weaken our criminal justice system by relaxing the sentences for many serious crimes. That list was not even the extent of it. It is a very broad bill. It downloads the delays in our court system onto the provinces. It also changes the victim surcharge, which is a deeply disappointing departure from our former government's priority of putting victims first. It would remove the requirement of the attorney general to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances. It would remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence. It would delay consecutive sentencing for human traffickers, and that is wrong. It would make our justice system more like a revolving door than it is now. It would make rural crime in my riding and across Canada even harder to deal with, and it would make people not trust the justice system.

We need to deal with the problems in our justice system, but this is not the way to do it. This is simply a huge, poorly designed bill. It would make many changes that I simply cannot support.

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

Mr. Speaker, where to begin? There is just so much that is fundamentally wrong in my learned colleague's remarks.

Let us start with the Conservative record on judicial appointments: based on partisanship, and at a slow rate that prevented individuals from getting access to justice. Let us then continue to the member's comments on what this bill would do when it comes to the hybridization of offences. When it comes to Conservative commentary, there is scarcely another area that is more misrepresented and more misleading to the public than the hybridization of offences.

The hybridization of offences is informed by the independent, properly exercised discretion of the crown, the prosecutor. One of the things the prosecutor is required to take into consideration is the seriousness of the offence, whether or not somebody has been hurt. That will determine where the offence goes, whether it goes to superior court or whether it stays in summary court. However, in no way does it detract from the fitness of a sentence, which will be imposed by a judge.

Lastly, my friend touched on a number of other bills besides Bill C-75, one of which is Bill C-46. This is perhaps the most perplexing of all his comments. I hear my hon. colleagues heckling. He wants to keep the roads safe, but his Conservative colleague in the Senate is now opposed to mandatory alcohol screening, the number one deterrent that would keep our roads safer. How does the member explain that?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to the hon. member for Bow River, I will say that I am very interested to hear what he has to say, so I assume everybody will stay quiet and let the hon. member for Bow River give his answer.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that you are interested in my answer.

I know that my learned colleague is waiting with bated breath to hear what I might say. I obviously got him very excited with what I said before, which I thought I just might do.

I really believe that, fundamentally, this is a download onto the provincial governments. It is just another example of a senior level of government dumping the expenses down on the next level of government. The member referred to the prosecutors making decisions, but in Alberta there may not be any left. They are quitting. They are tired of it. The caseload in Alberta for crown prosecutors is double the average of a few years ago. They have had it. They are not going to be there to do what the member said. This will be just too much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about parts of this bill, but I see much in it that is welcome and important.

Does my hon. friend from Bow River not agree that doing away with peremptory challenges would help create fairer juries for the accused? I do not know if he has any thoughts on the Colten Boushie case, but we do need to do better in this country in having juries that are able to fairly assess a criminally accused.

I do not want to comment on a particular case, but clearly this is an important reform.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member said she would not respond to a specific case, so I will not either.

As with my colleagues in the legal profession, I do believe we have a tremendous legal profession. I trust the process they have used in choosing how it works. They have a tremendous responsibility on their hands. I believe in both the defence and the prosecutor, and the system they have. It should be a process they use, and historically it has worked. I want to leave it there. It is not for me to step into that one.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his assessment and analysis of this. As he pointed out, he is bringing a sort of lay perspective to this. I appreciate the fact that he has been consulting with his constituents, as I know he does during the summer. In fact, that is one of the good things about the bill. The Liberals are putting it in at the end of June, just as they did with a bill last year, and by the time the summer was over, so many people found out that they were going to remove protection for religious services and members of the clergy that they had to rethink this. That is what I am thinking is going to happen here.

When the hon. gentleman is talking to his constituents this summer, I am sure he will bring this up and get some feedback from them. For instance, do they like the idea that people convicted of human trafficking will not get a consecutive sentence if they trafficked 25 human beings as opposed to one human being? If his constituents agree with that, it would be interesting to hear. I would also be interested to hear if some of his constituents say that it is more serious if people traffic 25 human beings, so they should get a consecutive sentence. I would also be interested to know whether his constituents think, after they get a chance to analyze this over the summer, that if people are participants in and members of a terrorist organization they should be eligible for the lowest possible criminal offence.

The Liberals are saying that everyone loves this and that all these different changes to the Criminal Code are just wonderful, but I think this is one of the good things about the summer. We get a chance to hear from our constituents, and I know the hon. member will do that.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know from my colleague's background how learned he is. I am home virtually every weekend, and this is an issue about which people address me on the street, in meetings, and at round tables. My fear is that a number of people do not trust the justice system anymore, because of examples like the ones the member gave. What I fear is that a number of people have said that they will take care of their own rural communities themselves—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind hon. members that some members are gifted with very piercing voices, and when they are sitting next to the microphone that is on, it pierces that much more. I want to remind them that if they are going to say something, they should whisper it and not shout it or speak in a loud voice.

The hon. member for Bow River.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have never been accused of having a piercing voice, so I assume it was not me.

The member mentioned those specific things. I get letters and notes. I have a stack on my desk tonight that talk about these things, which I read through before I came here. I get written comments and telephone calls, and I meet people on the street. My fear is that people now do not trust the justice system to keep them safe and to deal with the criminals. They feel like they are victims over and over again. I fear that we are creating people in our communities who want to take the law into their own hands to protect themselves because the judicial system in our country is not going to do it. They fear for themselves, and that is wrong.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, nothing shows the difference between Liberals and Conservatives more than this idea of hybridization of offences, which takes away the discretion and knowledge of judges, who have heard all the evidence, to make decisions. It has been a constant theme with the Conservatives, and of course we disagree with that. It does not give good decisions.

In cases where the level of the offence should be lower because of the conditions, sometimes the prosecutor has to throw out the whole case because it is not hybridized. The penalty would be too serious, and it would be cruel and unreasonable justice. Having that philosophy is actually allowing criminals to go free.

However, that is not my question. My question is related to the root causes. We all want to reduce rural crime and remove the root causes. For example, if there is broken glass in a rural kitchen and people keep walking across the floor and cutting their feet, putting Band-Aids on every time is not the way to deal with it. We need to deal with the root cause and clean up the glass. Therefore, I would like to know some of the suggestions the member is making to his party to remove the root causes of rural crime, which we would all like to remove.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that parking the ambulances at the bottom of the cliff to take care of the bodies does not make any sense. They need to go to the top of the cliff to find out why they are going there.

At the status of women committee, members will find my name on the unanimous report on the percentage of indigenous women who are incarcerated. It will be submitted within days in this House. Whose name? It is my name. It is there in support of the recommendations to find ways to reduce the number of indigenous women who are incarcerated.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Surrey—Newton.

I am pleased to rise today to lend my support to Bill C-75, introduced by our government on March 29, 2018. Today my remarks will address how the bill would contribute to eliminating intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence is one of the most common forms of gender-based violence. The term includes physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and controlling behaviours by an intimate partner.

I would like to reiterate some very shocking statistics the Minister of Justice shared when she spoke to Bill C-75 at second reading.

In 2016, according to police-reported data from Statistics Canada, over 93,000 people in Canada experienced intimate partner violence. Sadly, intimate partner violence is a reality for at least one in two women in Canada. Women who are indigenous, trans, elderly, new to Canada, or living with a disability are at increased risk of experiencing violence due to systemic barriers and failures. The personal and often lifelong consequences of violence against women are enormous.

This data also shows that in 2016, violence within dating relationships was more common than violence within spousal relationships. These statistics are devastating. I believe that we, as a government, must work to continue to strengthen our responses to this complex social problem that so disproportionately impacts women, particularly those who are in certain types of relationships.

During the 2015 election, our government campaigned on a promise to give more support to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment and to ensure that more perpetrators were brought to justice. As well, the minister's mandate letter included implementing our platform commitment to toughen criminal laws and bail conditions in cases of domestic assault, in consultation with stakeholders, with the goal of keeping survivors and children safe.

In Bill C-75, we are fulfilling these commitments. This bill would standardize the meaning of “intimate partner” for all Criminal Code purposes by defining the term. The new definition would specify that an intimate partner would include a current or former spouse, a common-law partner, and a dating partner.

These changes are long overdue. As I just noted, the data demonstrates that a substantial number of violent incidents are committed in the context of a dating rather than a cohabiting relationship. Since violence against a dating partner has long been recognized in Canadian courts as a form of intimate partner or domestic violence, the reforms would codify what is already standard practice in many jurisdictions, thereby clarifying the law. Specifying that “intimate partner” includes a person's current or former spouse, common-law partner, and dating partner would reflect sentencing decisions that have considered abuse of both current and former intimate partners as an aggravating factor, even though the existing provision does not specify that abuse of current or former intimate partners should be taken into account. Specifying that sentencing judges must consider any evidence of abuse of current or former spouses, common-law partners, or dating partners as an aggravating factor would not only clarify the law, but as previously mentioned, would support one of our government's platform commitments to ensure that all forms of intimate partner violence were considered an aggravating factor at sentencing.

Bill C-75 would also clarify that strangling, choking, or suffocating another person would constitute the more serious form of assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, which is punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. These types of assaults, which often occur in the intimate partner violence context, have serious and even deadly consequences for victims. However, under existing law, courts do not always recognize this greater harm. The proposed amendment would ensure that this type of assaultive conduct was treated more seriously.

Further, in support of our government's electoral platform commitments, Bill C-75 would also allow for the imposition of a higher maximum penalty where offenders have been repeatedly violent toward an intimate partner. In such cases, the crown would be able to give notice that a higher maximum penalty would be sought. Allowing courts to impose a term of imprisonment that was higher than the applicable maximum penalty in repeat intimate partner violence cases would better reflect the severity of the conduct and assist in better protecting victims. For example, in some cases, the higher maximum penalty would ensure that sanctions other than imprisonment, such as conditional sentence orders, were not available.

The bill would strengthen the bail provisions of the Criminal Code by imposing a reverse onus at bail for an accused charged with an offence involving violence against an intimate partner if the accused had a criminal record with at least one prior conviction involving intimate partner violence. In the context of bail, a reverse onus means that the accused, rather than the crown, would have to justify why he or she should not be detained in custody until the start of the trial, having regard for the safety of the victim and public confidence in the administration of justice. This would ensure that an accused's history of intimate partner violence would be brought to the attention of the bail court at the outset of the hearing, regardless of whether the current charge involved the same victim or a different one. The reverse onus would also signal to the bail court the seriousness of the alleged offence as well as the increased risk of recidivism in this context.

Bill C-75 would require all bail courts to consider, in making any order relating to bail, whether an accused was charged with an offence where violence was used, threatened, or attempted against an intimate partner. Bail courts would be required to take this factor into account when making a number of possible bail-related determinations, including the decision to impose an order not to communicate with a particular victim, witness, or other person; a detention order; or an order to release the accused on bail.

In particular, if the accused was to be released into the community pending trial, the bail judge would have to consider the fact that the alleged offence was against an intimate partner in determining whether bail conditions were necessary, and if so, what types of conditions would be appropriate. Requiring bail courts to consider the safety of the accused's intimate partner before releasing an accused on bail would afford increased protection to victims of intimate partner violence.

Bill C-75's intimate partner violence amendments would provide the courts with the means to denounce intimate partner violence to better protect victims, including prior to trial, and to ensure that the sentences imposed were proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Concisely put, Bill C-75 would make marked improvements to the treatment of intimate partner violence in our criminal laws. It would establish a higher maximum sentence and reverse onus at bail for repeat offenders, recognize strangulation as an elevated form of assault, and broaden the parameters of intimate partner violence, which would now include current or former spouses, common-law partners, and dating partners.

These reforms are sorely needed. I hope that all my colleagues will join me in seeking to end intimate partner violence and will support Bill C-75.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have touched on a few other aspects of Bill C-75, and I certainly agree with my hon. colleague that doing more to deal with intimate partner violence is critical.

I am troubled that the bill would eliminate preliminary inquiries. A preliminary inquiry is typically a time when the defence gets to test the evidence. It is something of a dry run or dress rehearsal for what is going to come at trial, and it allows the defence to properly prepare and may even lead to deciding not to proceed to trial because the evidence is too weak.

I do not understand the rationale for eliminating preliminary inquiries, all for efficiency. It is trampling the rights of the accused, who may be innocent, in the interest of efficiency. At least that is how I see it right now, standing here tonight.

I would love to know what the defence and rationale is for getting rid of preliminary inquiries.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as stated earlier, getting rid of preliminary inquiries would not only make the system more efficient but would also help to serve the victims. We have seen through speaking with stakeholders that when we have preliminary inquiries, we are actually subjecting victims to being re-victimized, and that is certainly something we do not want. There are two benefits right there. One is to have the system be more efficient. Second, it is more compassionate, because we would not re-victimize victims.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives often talk about their biggest objective being the protection of victims of crime and getting justice for victims of crime.

I would like to thank the member for his eloquent speech and for his answer to the first question about how this legislation would protect victims of crime and provide some justice. It was excellent.

I would like to ask him about something totally different in the bill. We have all heard stories about back in the middle ages when a starving child would steal a loaf of bread, and the justice was to cut off his hand, which obviously did not make any sense.

In the bill there could be an exemption to paying the victim surcharge if the court was satisfied that the payment would cause the offender undue hardship. I would ask if the member agrees. If people are poor and have no means to get along, and an undue financial hardship is added to that, it forces them into crime, into petty theft, to feed their children or pay the rent. Does that really make any sense? Does that help the justice system? Does he agree with that provision that no one has talked about yet in tonight's debate?