Debates of June 5th, 2018

Criminal Code

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Shepard.

Bill C-75 is an enormous 302-page omnibus bill that includes major reforms to our criminal justice system. This is the second large bill that has been proposed by the Liberals. Under the proposed changes, many serious offences may be prosecuted by summary conviction and thus will result in lighter sentences.

I would like to spend much of my time talking about human trafficking and what it looks like in Canada.

First, I would like to talk a little about the government's record. The human trafficking offences are being changed a bit by this bill. I have addressed this issue many times in this place already. Modern-day slavery and human trafficking are a horrific form of injustice. They are extremely profitable. They are growing in Canada and around the world, and are probably taking place within 10 blocks of where we live.

We know the vast majority of human victims in Canada are female and young. While those most at risk include indigenous women and youth, teenage runaways, and children who are in protection, we know anyone can become a victim of human trafficking.

Sadly, the government has been in power for 30 months, and never has a government done anything so little to fight human trafficking in so much time. Every time I have asked the government what it is doing, its only response is that it is reviewing the Criminal Code. We know that fighting complex and clandestine crimes, like human trafficking and modern-day slavery, require more than just changes to the Criminal Code. They require vigorous development and application of policy.

Since coming to power, the Liberals have done little to fight against human trafficking, and they have allowed the fight to languish. The Liberals allowed the national action plan to combat human trafficking to expire and they made no effort to replace it. It is not that they did not have the time or were not prepared, they could have announced an extension or launched a new one. However, they let it lapse, becoming one of the few developed countries that no longer has a comprehensive plan to eliminate human trafficking.

The Liberals ended federal funding to NGOs that provided support and options for victims of human trafficking. They blocked important tools that were adopted in the House over five years ago. Then the Liberals introduced legislation in Bill C-38 to lighten sentences for sex traffickers. The contents of Bill C-38 are now in Bill C-75.

It was not until budget 2018 that the Liberals finally addressed human trafficking and committed to funding the national hotline and a referral mechanism. While I applaud this, and it is important, it is long overdue.

I also want to recognize the fact that the announcement came after the Canadian Centre To End Human Trafficking, which is a great Canadian NGO, partnered with an American NGO, the Polaris project, to launch the official Canadian hotline. After it was public that Canada's national hotline was supported and funded by the United States, the government stepped in to offer support to it.

In 2011, the Conservative government became the first and only party to include a campaign promise in its platform to end human trafficking. Specifically, the Conservative Party committed to developing and launching the Canadian national action plan to combat human trafficking.

On June 6, 2012, only 13 months after the election, the Conservative Party launched its four-year national action plan to combat human trafficking. The primary goals of the national action plan were focused around the four Ps, prevention, prosecution, protection and partnerships, and included launching Canada's first integrated law enforcement team dedicated to combatting human trafficking; increasing front-line training to identify and respond to human trafficking and enhance prevention in vulnerable communities; providing more support for victims of this crime, both Canadians and newcomers; and strengthening coordination with domestic and international partners that contributed to Canada's efforts to combat human trafficking.

It is also worth noting that the Conservative Party was the only party in 2015 committed to fighting human trafficking, with its promise to establish new RCMP human trafficking teams in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Winnipeg, at an annual cost of $8 million for five years, and to renew the national plan to combat human trafficking for five years at a cost of $20 million.

Here we are today. It has been two years since the national action plan has expired under the current government and, interestingly, in December, the government's own Department of Public Safety quietly released a report called “The 2016-17 Horizontal Evaluation of the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking”. I want to share with the House what the report said. It stated:

There is a continuing need to have a National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking in order to consolidate federal initiatives, for federal organizations to partner together, and to strengthen accountability:

Prior to the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking, each federal organization conducted its own anti-human trafficking initiatives. The National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking consolidated federal initiatives to combat human trafficking under one plan;

The National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking is required to meet Canada’s ongoing international commitments to combat human trafficking:

That means without one, we are not even fighting human trafficking at the same level as other countries. It further states, “There are opportunities for the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking to evolve.” The department was preparing to help the government develop and advance further action items to combat human trafficking.

Human trafficking is an extremely profitable crime that preys on young and vulnerable Canadians, especially in indigenous communities. Police officers and NGOs across Canada work incredibly hard to end human trafficking and help victims, but their resources are strained. Many hours go into this, and a lot of their own time. They are asking for federal support and leadership. As I mentioned earlier, the Conservative government committed $25 million over four years to build on and strengthen Canada's significant work to date to prevent, detect, and prosecute human traffickers. The Liberal government allowed that plan to expire in 2016 and, with it, critical funding for victims of human trafficking and law enforcement. Many organizations appeared at the justice committee's study on human trafficking and urged the government to renew its national action plan.

When the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-38 in February, she misled Canadians and the House by claiming that it had tools for police and prosecutors to combat human trafficking. Bill C-38 was only one paragraph and it is now included within Bill C-75. Let me be clear that the changes proposed by the minister, first in Bill C-38 and now in Bill C-75, have no provisions whatsoever to give police and prosecutors new tools to investigate human trafficking. However, the tools that Liberals pretend are in Bill C-38 and Bill C-75 were, in fact, unanimously adopted by the House over five years ago in an NDP private member's bill, Bill C-452.

Bill C-452 was supported by a Conservative government and voted for by the current Prime Minister. It was Bill C-452 that contained provisions to provide tools to police and prosecutors. It created a presumption with respect to the exploitation of one person by another, added the offence of trafficking in persons to the list of offences to which the reverse onus forfeiture of proceeds of crime provisions applied, and it corrected a technical discrepancy and included a provision that human trafficking sentences be served consecutively.

Bill C-452 received royal assent in June 2015 and when the Liberal government came to power, it blocked that bill from coming into force. Why? It is because the Liberals do not like the idea that sex traffickers might face consecutive sentences. They feel it is too harsh to expect that a child trafficker could serve a long sentence for exploiting a minor in sex slavery. The only thing the proposed amendments would do in Bill C-75 is prevent sex traffickers from receiving consecutive sentences. That is it. It does nothing more. This certainly does not help the police.

Eighty per cent of the victims of human trafficking never come forward out of fear. All of the human trafficking investigators who testified on Bill C-452 welcomed the consecutive sentences and highlighted that long sentences gave victims the confidence to come forward and testify. They also pointed out that without consecutive sentences, a pimp who trafficks one minor would receive the same sentence as a pimp who trafficks five or 10 minors. Consecutive sentences allow for punishments that better reflect the gravity of the offence.

When will the government stop misleading the public about its intentions with this bill, when will it stop blocking important tools for the police, and when will the Liberals stand up for victims of sex trafficking rather than blocking tough sentences for those who enslave them?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear from the member on this particular piece of proposed legislation. It is a combination of three other justice bills, namely Bill C-28, the victims surcharge bill; Bill C-38, the exploitation and trafficking in persons bill, which I know the member has a great interest in, as he has formed a bipartisan group of legislators in the House to study the issue much more deeply; and Bill C-39, the unconstitutional provisions bill.

I would like the member speak on the fact that the bill is a few hundred pages of what would otherwise be considered an omnibus justice bill, as it combines different parts of the justice system into one bill.

Does the bill speak to the failure of the Liberals to push forward reforms in our justice system in a meaningful way and in a reasonable time line?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the great question, and the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for listening so intently to my speech. I know that she very much loves it when I speak in the House of Commons, and I appreciate her audience here this evening as well.

To the point about the particular bill before us, it is 302 pages long. It would reduce sentences for over 27 different heinous crimes. When I look at the bill, I see kind of a mad scramble to do something. As I said in my speech, within 13 months of the Conservative government's coming into power, we had passed the national action plan to end human trafficking. It was something that was a priority and therefore we did it.

The bill before us would do nothing more to reduce the backlogs in the justice system than just reduce sentencing, which I do not see as going to speed up anything whatsoever.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member just stated something that I do not believe is accurate, and I just want to get his comment on it.

The bill deals with many things that actually would increase efficiencies in the justice system. One very important one is dealing with the administration of justice offences, which clog up a great deal of time in our courts and do not focus the resources of the court on dealing with the actual serious offence, the subject that brought an offender to court.

I wonder if my friend would at least agree that the administration of justice provisions in this bill would help increase efficiencies, and that it has nothing to do with the sentencing he was just talking about.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I look at the bill, I definitely see a significant list of offences for which sentencing is being significantly reduced. For example, prison breach, punishment for infanticide, concealing the body of a child, abduction of a person under the age of 16, abduction of a person under the age of 14, forced marriage, extortion by libel, advocating genocide, participating in the activities of a criminal organization, and advertising and dealing in counterfeit money. These are just a few of the things that I have on my list that the bill deals with. I have a list of over 27 things the bill would significantly reduce sentencing for.

If the member thinks that the bill would not reduce these things, we could have put the things he is concerned about in a separate bill. However, when I look at the bill, it looks like a hug-a-thug bill.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining this debate at this late hour on behalf of my constituents of Calgary Shepard, and I want to thank the member for Peace River—Westlock for the intervention he made and for his exposition on the problem of human trafficking in Canada. It is usually a crime and an activity that we think about in the context of international human trafficking.

I know that oftentimes when looking at the International Justice Mission and other not-for-profit organizations that are trying to fight against international human trafficking, it is easy to forget that it happens right here in Canada as well, and it is a problem in our communities. I know that there was a former member of this House, Joy Smith, who did quite a bit of work on the subject. She will be putting out a book on it very soon.

It is a problem here, and we should think of it in the domestic context. Whenever we make changes to the criminal justice system, we should be ensuring that issues like human trafficking are not reduced and that we do not send a signal to individuals in our communities that they will possibly face a lighter sentence at the end of the day for this type of activity if they are convicted of it.

I asked a previous question about Bill C-75. I listened attentively to many interventions and speeches in the House, and I listened to the member for Mount Royal when he went through a list of potential issues that the justice committee could look at, if and when this particular piece of legislation is sent there. I thought he did a very good job of presenting some of the issues that different members of the House had brought forward.

I listened attentively to the member for Eglinton—Lawrence as well when he gave the government's position and presented what the government believes is the upside of the bill. Obviously his role here is to present the best possible case on this particular piece of legislation, and not to present the potential defects or downsides of the bill. That is all right, because that is really the job of opposition members and those individuals who have differences with the content of the bill.

It has been said that some of the portions of the bill are specific to how offences will be treated in the lower courts. What I am talking about is how some offences will be hybridized and how most hybridized indictable offences will be punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less. It will increase the default maximum penalty for two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months. Several members of the opposition, members of the Conservative Party, have discussed how this hybridization, this transferring to offences that would carry a lower sentence that a person could face if convicted, is the wrong way to go.

I believe deeply that the list of offences, 27 of them, that could be reduced in terms of the maximum time a person could face in jail is the wrong way to go. I have a few of them that I am going to mention. I will not read the whole list. They include obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman; concealing the body of a child; infanticide; impaired driving offences causing bodily harm, including impaired driving causing bodily harm; blood alcohol over legal limit—bodily harm; failure or refusal to provide sample—bodily harm; and abduction of a person under the age of 16 and 14.

The list goes on, but this gives a feel for the types of offences that are being modified or are proposed to be modified in this piece of legislation by the government.

Thus, I have a difference of opinion. I think the House should be setting a pretty high bar on what prosecutors and judges can consider in punishing those individuals that they convict of the offence. I do not think two years less a day or two years and under is the right way to go.

We have heard from others, and I address these issues as a layperson. Of course, as I said, I am not a lawyer. I say this often at committees. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. I am not bothered by considerations of 20 years. I just look at it as most Canadians would look at it. If individuals are alleged to have committed a certain crime, what is it that they are going to be facing? I look at it as an outsider looking in on the judicial system.

When I look at an offence like concealing the body of a child, I think that is quite serious. I think a person convicted of such an offence should face many, many years in jail as a deterrent, as a form of punishment, and also as an opportunity, I think, for rehabilitation in jail. I have said it before in this House, and I said again just a few days ago that I believe our prison system should be focused more on rehabilitation. There is a patchwork of success in the United States. Every single state there has a different system when it comes to rehabilitating their prisoners, and that is the case in the European model as well. I do not know if we have struck the right balance in Canada, but it is something that absolutely is worth looking at.

It has been said in the House that prosecutors and judges will be able to decide what type of offence they will go after, whether they will go for an indictable offence or a summary conviction in these types of cases.

I believe the House should indicate what the minimum sentence should be for these types of offences, and I do not mean the minimum sentence on these cases. I simply mean the up to 10 years in jail should be the upper bar. It would be our direction to prosecutors and judges on the seriousness of the offence being considered by them instead of this hybrid model.

This legislation is over 300 pages long. I just want to go back to that for a moment as well. Those of us who are not practised in law, who do not have a deep background of many years of service on justice committee, will obviously struggle to consider the finer points of what will happen.

We set the Criminal Code. We in the House determine the contents of the Criminal Code, but provincial governments operate the provincial courts. They appoint a lot of judges themselves. They operate the court houses. They have quite a large role to play in that administration.

Police officers enforce the law, but they do not run the judicial system in the courts. Those two are separate. One sets policy and one is the administrative arm of the activity.

Our provincial governments are stressed. They are stressed with respect to the public treasury. They have a difficult time financing public services, but they also have a difficult time finding new judges. The federal government has struggled with this as well.

There have been federal judiciary vacancies. Forgive me for using an older statistic, but as of April 1, there were 59 vacancies. Appointing more federal judges, appointing more provincial judges, and ensuring courthouse space is available will allow for faster prosecution of criminals and alleged criminals. Those who will be proven innocent will be let go.

As right as that is, we need to ensure people have appropriate access to our judicial system. It is not just about judges, it is not just about having the right laws; it is also important to have the necessary court space for cases to be heard.

I mentioned yesterday in the House that Calgary had a gang problem, not just the FOB gang but many others. The FOB gang leader was let go just a few weeks ago, partly because of the Jordan decision, partly because he could not get his hearing on time, and partly because he could not appear before a judge. Delays were built in by his lawyer, who did his job in defending his client, but he could not get his client in front of a judge to be prosecuted for his alleged crimes. He was out on bail as well, and this is another issue.

We have a revolving door for career criminals. This is a serious issue in our communities. These people commit new crimes, especially organized crime.

One charge that will be modified under the proposed legislation is participation in a criminal organization. I have serious problems with this. We should be doing more to ensure career criminals are put away. Part of that involves ensuring they face up to 10 years in jail. It is the multiplicity, the series of criminal acts, that sends them back to jail.

The arresting officer in the case of the FOB gang leader arrested him on a lower charge. There were litany of other offences for which he was going to be charged. The issue was finding him, stopping him, and arresting him so he could face justice. That is the problem.

I do not see the right focus in Bill C-75 at this time. I just do not see us going after the right things. The government claims that this legislation would give us better access to the judicial system, that it would improve things, that it would speed things up.

I love Yiddish proverbs. I always use them in the House. Here is another one “Better an honest slap in the face than an insincere kiss.” It is an older Yiddish proverb but it is quite a good one. I would rather the Government of Canada just come clean. I know it is an unusual Yiddish proverb, but the government should just come clean. If the goal of the legislation is to give lighter offences for certain types of criminals, then the government should just say so, and do so. If the goal of the legislation is to download to the provincial courts, then it should just say so, and do so.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member what he thinks about the jury selection items in the bill.

First, I want to make a comment. I want to make sure that the public is aware, and I am a layperson, too. There seems to be some indication that some people think that this would reduce the maximum sentences. There is nothing in this bill that reduces maximum sentences. The judges still have access to all the same maximum sentences, and they still have access to indictment. In fact, certain summary offence penalties have actually increased.

My question is related to jury selection. Peremptory challenges are proposed to be removed. For the person in the street, a peremptory challenge means that when people line up to be jurors, the defence lawyer or the prosecutor can say, “Oh, I don't like that one” and throw them out for no reason at all. Does that sound like natural justice? This has been an issue for decades. It is being removed, and that could actually be used to increase diversity.

Also in the bill is that judges can stand aside certain jurors to obtain diversity, and they can decide on challenges for cause, to make sure that if the defence or the prosecutor is suggesting that someone leave for a certain cause, the judge can decide on that.

I think these are improvements, but I would like to hear the member's thoughts on these proposed changes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with the member for Yukon at the procedure and House affairs committee. I hope it will be very short from now until the end of June. That is my hope, and I am sure it is the member's hope as well.

On peremptory challenges, the member makes an interesting point that it is an attempt to get more diversity in our jury system. Diversity is important, but I always try to go back to the fact that people should be tried by a jury of their peers, as much as possible. When people are accused of a crime, the entire weight of the judicial system is standing against them. They truly are in an unfortunate position. If they have committed the crime, it will hopefully end with a just sentence being applied to them, a just outcome of the court trial. Diversity is important, but I do not think we can lose track of the fact that our goal should be achieving a trial where people are facing their peers and are able to know that their peers will understand where they are coming from, understand their particular situation.

How diversity plays into that is an interesting point. I have read portions of the bill, but I am not certain that the government has struck the right balance in it.

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

Madam Speaker, like Saul on the road to Damascus, I was glad to hear my hon. colleague say that the Conservative Party should be more focused on rehabilitation. I encourage him to speak to his colleagues who were here when the Conservatives formed the last government, which woefully and insufficiently funded legal aid and victims funding; cut programs that promoted rehabilitation for offenders trying to get back on the right track while serving their time; systematically introduced legislation that stripped away the independence and discretion of the courts to impose proper and fit sentencing; and made it harder to get parole and to get pardons.

If justice is what the member seeks, I encourage him to speak to his colleagues, because that is the way they can restore justice.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member is still very much focused on the past, on what has happened before.

However, as the parliamentary secretary, the member should be defending the bill, not focusing on what happened in the previous 10 years. The contents of the bill is what is important. I do not see how this is connected to pardons. I do not see how the bill is directly connected to seeing an individual pardoned by civic society for actions taken in the past.

I know many individuals with criminal convictions who have reformed and are contributing members of society today. They were tried and convicted, and they served their time in jail first. It is where they found an opportunity to pay back society and then sought rehabilitation themselves. A person has to want to find that in order to achieve it.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I wish to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the outstanding member for Niagara Centre.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-75. This legislation seeks, among other things, the streamline the criminal justice system and reduce case completion time.

Today I want to talk about Bill C-75's provisions on preliminary inquiries.

Currently, after an accused is charged with an indictable offence and they elect to be tried before a superior court, the accused or the crown can request a preliminary inquiry before a justice of the provincial court.

During the preliminary inquiry, the crown submits evidence and the accused may as well. The crown and the defence may cross-examine witnesses.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to commit an accused to trial. Preliminary inquiries have become a forum where the accused can discover the case against them, providing a candid forum for negotiation discussions and generating transcripts available at trial should a witness be unable to attend.

At the conclusion of the inquiry, there is no guilty or not guilty decision. Rather, the accused is either sent to trial or discharged, meaning no further action is taken. Under existing law, preliminary inquiry is not available in all circumstances. For example, it is not available for indictable offences under the absolute jurisdiction of the provincial court.

In light of the stringent crown disclosure obligations, the Supreme Court of Canada in a 2009 case, R. v. S.J.L., ruled that there is no constitutional right to a preliminary inquiry.

This process is not used the same way in all provinces and territories. Some jurisdictions, like New Brunswick, hold very few preliminary inquiries, while other jurisdictions, like Ontario, hold many. Furthermore, some jurisdictions, like Ontario and Quebec, have developed preliminary out-of-court examination procedures that complement, or, in some cases, replace, preliminary inquiries.

Under Bill C-75, the availability of preliminary inquiries would be restricted to the most serious offences punishable by life imprisonment, such as murder. Currently, preliminary inquiries consume significant time and resources due to scheduling issues, the complexity of the evidence, the number of witnesses to be heard, and/or issues to be resolved.

In its Jordan decision, the Supreme Court of Canada established strict time frames within which criminal cases must be completed, beyond which the delay would be presumptively unreasonable and cases would be stayed. The court also noted that Parliament should consider the value of preliminary inquires in light of expanded disclosure obligations.

Also, in its 2017 final report on delays, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs took a similar view as the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan by recommending that preliminary inquiries be restricted or eliminated.

On a number of occasions over the course of many years, reform of preliminary inquiries has been the topic of discussion and consultation, for example, at federal-provincial-territorial meetings.

Most recently, at their meeting in September 2017, the ministers pointed out that reforms were needed to limit the use of preliminary inquiries in the criminal justice system, since these inquiries can cause legal delays, and there are now other mechanisms that serve the same purpose.

Though these proposals clearly represent a significant change in how cases would be conducted, provincial and territorial justice ministers demanded bold reforms to bring about the transformation of the criminal justice system required to respond to the reality adopted in the Jordan decision, and our government took action. These bold reforms respond to calls not only from provincial and territorial justice ministers, but also from the Supreme Court of Canada and the Senate, acknowledging that transformative changes are required to bring about the change to the culture of complacency in regard to delays.

Bill C-75 would fulfill our mandate to improve the efficiency of the Canadian criminal justice system by limiting preliminary inquiries to the most serious offences. This move would reduce court backlogs and ensure that victims would receive the justice they deserve in a timely manner. As noted by the Minister of Justice, restricting the availability of this procedure to offences punishable by life imprisonment would reduce their number by 87%, according to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Restricting preliminary inquiries, as proposed in Bill C-75, would reduce demands on provincial court resources and would have more serious cases heard more expediently in superior court.

This bill would also give the justice of the peace presiding over the preliminary inquiry more powers to limit the questions to be examined and to reduce the number of witnesses heard as part of the inquiry.

As such, Bill C-75 would streamline the conduct of preliminary inquiries and would reduce the number of cases in which some witnesses would have to testify twice. These changes would reduce the re-victimization of vulnerable victims and witnesses, such as children, and would protect them from long-drawn-out proceedings.

Bill C-75 recognizes diverse views, from those who oppose any changes to the existing procedure to those who would completely eliminate this procedure. It would introduce a significant and bold response. Our balanced approach would maintain the preliminary-inquiry process for more complex and serious offences, where the jeopardy for the accused is the greatest.

These reforms would not impact trial fairness. Furthermore, the flexibility for existing processes, such as out-of-court discovery, implemented in Ontario and Quebec, would not be impacted and would remain a practical option.

These reforms would make the courts' use of time more efficient by getting rid of procedural steps that are unnecessary for less serious offences. The proposed restriction would not fundamentally change the nature of criminal trials in Canada or evidence requirements for a guilty verdict against someone with outstanding charges, nor would it change the crown's responsibility to prove all the necessary elements of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Canadians expect our criminal justice process to be just, equitable, and expedient, to protect victims, and to hold offenders to account. These reforms, together with the other measures in Bill C-75, would help achieve these expectations. Bill C-75 would ensure that the accused's charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was respected and that those involved in criminal justice proceedings were not subject to protracted criminal proceedings. I urge all members to support Bill C-75.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is in relation to the kind of consultation that went into this bill. I have raised a number of concerns. Primarily the concerns I have had in reading the bill myself have been echoed when I have looked at the commentary from members of the criminal bar, particularly the Criminal Lawyers' Association, which said that the association was not consulted at all. In bringing forward fundamental reforms to the criminal justice system, I would have thought that the members of the practising bar would have been part of a consultation process.

I wonder if the hon. member can tell me what will be done in committee to ensure that, rather belatedly, we hear from people who are doing this work day to day.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I personally had a hand in the consultations that led to this bill. The hon. member would know that before becoming Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice and personally attended round tables that included members of the criminal defence bar in multiple provinces and territories throughout the country. There has been extensive consultation. I was personally party to those extensive consultations. I am also, as a result of being in that role, acutely aware of the very thorough and comprehensive work that is routinely done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in this place, and I have every confidence that no stone will be left unturned in the course of the committee review of this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who previously served as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, and who I think was justice critic in the opposition.

I want to ask him about the issue of delay and the Jordan decision. In that respect, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that delay is deemed presumptively unreasonable between the laying of charges and the conclusion of trial after 30 months versus 18 months at provincial court.

Bill C-75 hybridizes a lot of offences, potentially downloading a lot of cases to provincial courts, wherein the timeline is not 30 months, but 18 months. How does that deal with the issue of delay and minimize cases being thrown out of court?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to be debating my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton on issues touching the justice file once more. I would say to my friend that he needs to look at the bill as a whole.

I just gave a speech that focused very much on the elimination and reduction of the need for preliminary inquiries. My friend would be acutely aware that preliminary inquiries are most often conducted at the provincial court level. This is one thing that will be taken off the plate at provincial courts.

The hybridization of offences will allow more plea bargains to take place. This will not only reduce the burden at provincial courts, but in many cases also dispense with the need for a trial.

There are multiple steps and measures being taken within the bill as a whole, the cumulative effect of which will be to reduce court delays throughout the system.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-75 and to address more specifically those reforms that deal with juries. Hopefully, the comments I will make will answer some of the questions by the members opposite that my colleagues have been answering for the last little.

Juries are a cornerstone of our criminal justice system and are guaranteed as a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for offences carrying a maximum penalty of five years or more under section 11(f). For some offences, such as murder and terrorism, there is a presumption that the accused will be tried by a judge and jury, and for other offences, such as robbery and sexual assault, an accused can elect to be tried by a judge alone or judge and jury.

Canada is a diverse country, underlined by a core value of respect. We should not expect anything less of our juries. The Supreme Court of Canada has noted that the jury acts as the conscience of the community and must in fact be a representative cross-section of society, and be honestly and fairly chosen.

The Supreme Court of Canada has also made it clear that a process that promotes a diverse jury furthers the confidence of the community, including the accused, victims, and the public at large, in the administration of justice. We know there is discrimination in our criminal justice system and, as a result, certain communities have different experiences in the system.

We know that we have to do better to address the problems that plague our system and have contributed to high rates of incarceration among indigenous persons and those suffering from mental health challenges or battling addictions. We also know that if the challenges are left unaddressed, confidence in the system will continue to be eroded. That is why the proposed jury reforms included in Bill C-75 are so important.

Canada's jury selection process has long been the subject of concern. Several reports have documented discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges. There is also a clear record of under-representation of indigenous persons and other minority groups on Canadian juries. Bill C-75 seeks to address these concerns through reforms to the in-court jury selection process, recognizing that laws governing jury selection exist at both the federal and provincial-territorial levels.

For example, Parliament has jurisdiction over the criminal law, including the rules in the Criminal Code governing jury trials and in-court jury selection, whereas the provinces and territories are responsible for legislation that governs matters such as the criteria of who may serve as a juror and the process by which the jury roll is prepared and compiled.

Bill C-75 respects the division of powers over juries and proposes to abolish peremptory challenges and give judges a greater role in the jury selection process. As many are likely aware, peremptory challenges give both the crown and defence counsel the ability to exclude potential jurors from participating in jury duty without having to provide a reason. Senator Murray Sinclair, in his earlier work on the 1991 report on the Manitoba aboriginal justice inquiry, documented the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges and recommended that they be abolished.

More recently, retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci, in his 2013 report on first nation representation on Ontario juries, recommended that consideration be given to amending the Criminal Code to prohibit the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. Similar calls for reform have been made by legal experts and advocacy groups, such as Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto.

Abolishing peremptory challenges would settle the concern that this aspect of the jury selection process may be used to discriminate unfairly against potential jurors and would strengthen public confidence in the jury selection process.

The proposed amendments will signal that discrimination of any kind, including through the use of peremptory challenges based on a hunch or based the way a potential juror looks at an accused, has no meaningful role in promoting fairness and impartiality in the criminal justice process.

I strongly support this proposed change and note that Canada will join countries like England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, which have also abolished peremptory challenges.

This bill would also amend the “stand aside” provision, which currently permits a judge to stand aside jurors for reasons of personal hardship or any other reasonable cause. This tool helps to ensure that potential jurors are impartial and capable of performing their duties if they are selected. Amendments will clarify that a judge can stand aside a juror to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, a concept that is already used in other parts of the Criminal Code, and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. St-Cloud, 2015, in the context of bail.

The use of this power would be context-specific, approached from the perspective of a properly informed public that understands the legislative provisions of the code, charter values, and the circumstances of any given case, and recognizes the important role judges can play in promoting a jury that is impartial, representative, and competent.

Bill C-75 would also modernize and streamline the challenge for cause process, including by empowering judges to decide all challenges for cause. The challenge for cause process is frequently used in jury trials as an important aspect of jury selection because it seeks to ensure that only eligible and impartial jurors are selected to try a case.

The proposed reforms address some long-standing concerns with the jury selection process in Canada and will help to increase the diversity of juries, while respecting the rights of the accused, maintaining public safety, and creating a criminal justice system that is fair, efficient, and equitable for all Canadians. I urge all members to support this legislation.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Environment

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, this adjournment proceeding stems from a question I asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change back on March 2. We had just heard reports that the High Arctic had seen record high temperatures, more than 30°C above normal, leading to melting ice in the middle of winter. Let us think about that: sea ice was melting in mid-winter near the North Pole when the sun was not shining. Something is clearly wrong with this picture.

We all know what is wrong with the picture. The climate is changing because we are putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Canada committed in Paris, with countries around the world, to keep global temperature change below 2° Celsius. Other countries have stepped up and done their bit. Many European countries have already met ambitious targets. However, the Liberal government chose to stick with the weak, inadequate targets set by the Harper government, and every analyst will tell us that Canada's action plan, if we can call it that, will not get us anywhere near even those targets.

The minister answered my question by saying that the government has brought in a national carbon pricing plan. I applaud the government for that. It is a good first step and might get us almost halfway there. The fact is that most Canadians were living under a carbon pricing plan before the federal government stepped up. In British Columbia, we have been living with a carbon tax for almost a decade.

The minister mentioned that many provinces have phased out or are in the process of phasing out coal. That is admirable and necessary as well. However, again, it was not the result of federal government action.

The minister also mentioned that we are saying the right things on the international stage. However, that will only work for so long, until Canada actually comes up with a plan to do the necessary work here at home. We cannot implore other countries to make deep cuts to their carbon emissions if we are not doing the same.

Last December, Canada's progress report to the UN showed that we will be 66 megatonnes short of our target by 2030, and that gap has doubled since the Liberals came to power. We are going in the wrong direction. Eighty percent of our emissions come from the transportation and the oil and gas industries, and now we have bought a 65-year-old leaky pipeline for eight times the cost that Kinder Morgan paid for it just a decade ago. How can the government square this with meeting our climate goals? How can the government square this with its promise to do away with subsidies for the fossil fuel industry? We are dealing with the low-hanging fruit right now, and getting to our 2050 target of an 80% reduction will be more difficult still.

I hear the government is trying to use land use and forestry carbon sequestration to fudge its own efforts. Whether this is allowed under the Paris Agreement is unknown, but I know that the Climate Action Tracker website states that such a move would change its assessment of the climate actions of Canada from “insufficient” to “highly insufficient.”

The minister finished her answer by saying, “We are all in on climate action. We are serious. We owe it to our kids.” When will the Liberals actually get serious and do what is necessary to fight climate change?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, Canada's first ministers adopted Canada's clean growth and climate plan in December 2016 to take ambitious action to fight climate change, to adapt and build resilience to the changing climate, and to drive clean economic growth.

A landmark achievement of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change is the first climate change plan in Canada's history to include joint and individual commitments by federal, provincial, and territorial governments and to have been developed with input from indigenous peoples.

The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change lays out over 50 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, enhance our adaptation and resistance to the impact of climate change, and encourage the development of clean jobs that contribute to a strong economy.

We have been actively implementing the pan-Canadian framework, and we are starting to see results, putting Canada on the path to meet our Paris Agreement greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

As published in December 2017 in Canada's third biennial report to the UNFCCC, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are currently projected to be 583 megatonnes of CO2 in 2030, which is 232 megatonnes lower than what was projected in our second biennial report, which was released in early 2016. This decline in projected emissions is the biggest improvement in Canada's emissions outlook since reporting began, and it is widespread across all economic sectors, reflecting the breadth and depth of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

However, it is important to note that these projections do not account for expected emissions reductions in several other areas as a result of historically significant investments in public transit, where $20 billion is being invested to improve public transit infrastructure; extensive investments in clean technology and innovation that will promote clean growth and lead to new technologies to reduce emissions from industry and other sectors; and storage of carbon in forests, soils, and wetlands, which can be significant for a country the size of Canada.

These projections also do not reflect policies that may be adopted by federal, municipal, provincial and territorial governments by 2030.

Along with the provinces and territories, Canada is committed to reporting on and examining the results of these policies so we can become more ambitious over time. Once that process is complete, we may have identified other policies that will be needed in the future.

When the policies and programs within the pan-Canadian framework are fully implemented, they will not only allow Canada to meet its 2030 target in full but also position Canada to set and achieve deeper emission reduction targets beyond 2030, as is required by the Paris Agreement.

This government is firmly committed to addressing the threat of climate change. Canada has played a constructive role on the international stage. We have worked with provinces, territories, and indigenous peoples to develop a comprehensive and detailed plan that will ensure that we meet our Paris Agreement targets. We are firmly committed to actively fighting climate change and to creating and growing a clean growth economy.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the minister said, we need to go all in on climate action, electrification of our transport systems, energy retrofits, and home solar systems. Just think of what $4.5 billion would do there.

Ministers stand every day in the House and say loudly that this pipeline will be built and the economy and the environment go hand in hand. If the economy and the environment go hand in hand and this pipeline will be built, I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary a firm promise that we will meet our 2030 Paris targets and would like to see the plan that will actually get us there.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member and I have worked together productively on other files, and I have great respect for him.

We are very focused on achieving the 2030 target. That is absolutely a key focus of this government. We included all of the upstream emissions associated with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in the pan-Canadian framework to ensure that they were addressed in the context of Canada's plan to achieve its Paris reduction targets. In the pan-Canadian framework, we address issues around transportation and the electrification of transportation, the phase-out of coal, methane regulations, clean fuel standards to reduce the carbon content of the fuels that we use, building codes to improve energy efficiency, and a range of other measures. I certainly would encourage the member to have a look at that plan, because it plan will actually get us to our targets.

International Trade

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to follow up on a question I raised in the House of Commons on February 26 of this year. I also had a follow-up question on March 19. The question has to do with the unfair duties and tariffs that have been imposed on the Catalyst Paper Corporation and some pulp and paper operations across Canada. This has affected my particular riding quite severely because of the fact that we have a large mill in the Crofton area, which is a great small community in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

When I raised this issue on February 26, I noted the fact that earlier in the year, on January 8, the Department of Commerce in the United States had imposed a 6.09% countervailing duty deposit on exports of uncoated groundwood paper products. This was followed up in March by a 22.16% anti-dumping duty deposit on the company's exports of the same product.

When we add both of those up, Catalyst simply cannot survive with those duties, nor can any company. Indeed, it is putting many American consumers at risk, because the cost of newsprint has now skyrocketed. The U.S. cannot meet its own demand.

If these duties remain, the Crofton mill stands to lose hundreds of good-paying, union jobs, and the benefits of the resource industry that forms the bedrock of regional economies.

I will outline a few points on what Catalyst means to my local community of Crofton.

Catalyst Paper Corporation is BC Hydro's largest consumer. If that company were to fold or have any of its operations shut down, it would be a huge loss to provincial revenues in BC Hydro. Catalyst is also a big consumer of waste fibre from local saw mills. In fact, many saw mills depend on Catalyst for a source of revenue, but also as a place where their “waste” can be turned into a value-added product.

The Catalyst mill employs about 570 people, and it pays millions of dollars in municipal taxes to the district of North Cowichan.

This mill that produces about 350,000 tonnes of newsprint each year. It is quite incredible in what it does.

Both by the company and Premier John Horgan in British Columbia have raised concerns about the softwood lumber action plan. In fact, Premier Horgan wrote to the Prime Minister last month. He noted that there was confusion on how to access the program. There was concern that the nature of the programs did not offer support in time to shield against the impact of tariffs. In fact, when I was speaking directly with the leadership of Catalyst, it told me that the current softwood lumber agreement aid package was of “no value” to it.

I go back to the question I raised in February and again in March. What specifically is the government doing with these onerous and unfair tariffs? I would like to have specifics that I can take back to not only the company, but also to the many constituents who depend on this mill. We really want to know that Canada is standing up for this mill and is doing everything it can. I hope the parliamentary secretary can spell that out for me tonight.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, the Department of Commerce's decision on supercalendered paper did not comply with the NAFTA panel's decision. We have therefore requested that a NAFTA panel review the determination by the Department of Commerce, and we will be challenging this decision on the World Trade Organization rules. We will always defend our industry and its workers against protectionist trade practices.

I would like to thank the member from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for raising this issue. Our government was deeply disappointed by the U.S. Department of Commerce's decision to impose preliminary anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of Canadian uncoated groundwood paper.

British Columbia's forestry products industry is vital to the province and to the communities and workers it supports. Is it important that they have a federal government that is willing to stand up and fight for them, and I would like to reassure my colleague, and reassure those workers, that our government is doing exactly that.

We have repeatedly raised with the United States how unjustified and unfair these punitive duties are. Not only that, but they will have a direct and negative impact on U.S. newspapers, especially those in small cities and towns, and will result in job losses in the American printing sector. These duties are not in the interest of Canadians or Americans.

These investigations are an unwarranted use of the U.S. trade remedy system by a single company, North Pacific Paper, which operates one mill in Washington State. It is not right that one company should cause economic hardship to the whole forest products industry on both sides of the border.

We are making this point directly with U.S. interlocutors. We are particularly aware of the fact that Catalyst, the source of 1,200 jobs in small communities such as Crofton, Powell River, and Port Alberni, is facing high preliminary rates. Our government is working closely with the Canadian companies targeted by these investigations, such as Catalyst. We are arguing our points directly with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission as part of the ongoing process.

Canada's forest industry sustains good, middle-class jobs and provides economic opportunities for rural and indigenous communities across our country. As such, our government is very much committed to helping our forest industry enhance existing trade relationships and diversify trade with new international markets. We are also working with the affected provinces, very much including B.C., to discuss options to assist exporters facing preliminary duties.

We will continue working to advance the interests of the Canadian forest industry to protect those good, middle-class jobs in so many communities across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's words. However, I go back to the points I raised in my speech: the fact that Premier Horgan's letter to the Prime Minister mentioned that there is confusion on how to access the softwood lumber action plan and that there is a concern that the nature of the programs will not offer support in time to shield against the impact of tariffs. I also have correspondence saying that the current structure is of no help to Catalyst.

Again, how is the parliamentary secretary's government going to address these specific concerns so that Catalyst can access these programs while we wait for a final determination in August of this year?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are working very actively with the relevant provinces, and very much with British Columbia, with Minister Donaldson and Premier Horgan, on a file that is very important to all British Columbians. Both of us are actually members of Parliament from British Columbia.

The U.S. International Trade Commission will make its final injury determination at the end of the summer, and we are forcefully defending Canada's interests at the ITC. The only right course of action is for the U.S. ITC to make a negative finding and for the U.S. Department of Commerce to revise its final determination and remove fully and entirely these duties.

I can assure the member that our government will continue to actively participate in the U.S. investigation, working with our forest industry, provinces and territories, and communities across Canada. We are working very actively with provincial governments, including Premier Horgan, to defend this vital sector against unfair and unwarranted U.S. trade measures and practices.