Bill Blair

[Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law), May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in the second reading debate of the private member's bill, Bill C-225, an act to amend the Criminal Code, injuring or causing the death of a pre-born child while committing an offence.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the member for Yorkton—Melville for her compassion and sincerity in bringing the bill forward. I also want to assure her that I have listened very carefully to her speech. In addition, I have read her bill very carefully and I have also examined some of the case law and some of the preceding matters brought before the House.

Bill C-225 would make it a separate offence to cause injury or death to a fetus during the commission of an offence against the fetus' mother. Similar reforms, but not identical, have been proposed by two former private members' bills before the House: Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence); and Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a child before or during its birth while committing an offence). Bill C-484 died on the Order Paper in 2008, and Bill C-291 was designated a non-votable item in 2006 because it was deemed not charter-compliant.

Unlike these previous private members' bills, Bill C-225 seeks to codify abuse of a pregnant woman as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. We can all agree that protecting women from violence, including pregnant women, is a pressing objective. I, quite frankly, have spent much of my adult life in attempting to deal with issues of domestic violence and the protection of the most vulnerable citizens in our society, in particular women and pregnant women.

However, I am concerned that most of the proposals in Bill C-225 will not ultimately meet this objective. In order to reach this objective, the focus must be placed upon violence against women and not on the fetus. In fact, by focusing on the fetus, we may have the unintended effect of negatively impacting women, in particular women's right to choose. Please allow me to explain.

First, providing protection from violence to pregnant women would likely involve ensuring longer sentences in these types of cases. However, sentencing an offender for two separate offences in cases involving abuse of a pregnant woman, one for the harm caused to the fetus and the other for harm caused to its mother, will very likely result in not a longer sentence since sentences are generally served concurrently in cases involving two convictions arising out of the same set of facts or series of events. In other words, it is unlikely the convictions for two offences would result in a lengthier sentence than a conviction for one offence under these aggravating circumstances.

Second, the law already protects pregnant women from violence. First and foremost, case law shows that abusing pregnant women in committing an offence is already considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes and is punished severely. As an example, in 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in R. v. Grandine, a 15-year sentence was imposed and the offender convicted of manslaughter in the killing of his 20-week pregnant wife. In that case, the judge very specifically stated, “...I consider the fact that the deceased was pregnant to be an aggravating factor”.

Acts of violence against pregnant women are already addressed by existing criminal law in several ways.

Subsection 223(2) and section 238 of the Criminal Code, which carry a maximum penalty of life in prison, prohibit causing the death of a child, who has not become a human being, in the act of birth under certain circumstances. Subsection 223(1) of that section provides that a child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother...”.

The Criminal Code contains comprehensive assault and homicide offences which apply to violent acts against pregnant women, and case law shows that abusing a pregnant woman in committing an offence is considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes and is punished severely.

I realize that Bill C-225 would not directly impact a woman's right to choose. However, because its proposed offences apply to a fetus at any stage of its development before birth, which means they could apply from the moment of conception, they give the fetus a status that is not currently recognized in law.

Moreover, unlike Bill C-484, Bill C-225, as the member for Yorkton—Melville has mentioned, does not specify that its proposed offences do not apply to cases involving lawful termination of pregnancy, persons acting in good faith to take steps to preserve the life of the mother or the fetus, or any act of omission by the mother.

The fact that the bill's proposed reforms indirectly implicate women's rights issues is deeply problematic in my view. The possibility of restricting a woman's right to choose was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 in the Morgentaler decision, and we have known for quite some time now that any kind of limit on access to abortion implicates women's section 7 charter rights.

A woman is indivisible from her fetus. Protecting her necessarily means protecting her fetus. We must therefore focus on protecting pregnant women from the violence that they experience, and supporting legislative changes that may lead to a loss of a woman's section 7 charter rights is not the answer to the serious problem of violence against pregnant women. Simply put, gender-based violence has no placed in our society.

Our government has committed to addressing violence against women in all of its forms. A federal gender violence strategy and action plan is being developed which will include measures to better protect victims of domestic violence. This approach will include prevention, support for victims and appropriate criminal justice responses. Examining this issue through the violence against women lens is the best way to ensure the protection of pregnant women.

The criminal law already treats abuse of pregnant women very seriously. Judges routinely consider abuse of pregnant women as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. While there may be some merit in ensuring that this is clearly stated in the Criminal Code, I am not convinced that Bill C-225 is the right legislative vehicle to effect that, since the bill's main purpose is to protect the fetus by creating separate offences for those who would cause it harm, not to protect pregnant women by codifying a principle already routinely applied by sentencing judges.

I acknowledge the very good intentions of Bill C-225. I acknowledge the compassion and sincerity that the member has demonstrated in bringing this matter forward. However, with great respect, I do not think it would achieve the important objective of protecting pregnant women. Therefore, I will be opposing it for the following reasons.

The criminal law already takes violence against women, including pregnant women, very seriously. The bill fails to address the broader issues of violence against women. In addition, it is very likely in my opinion that the bill would be challenged under the charter.

I would like to thank the sponsor for bringing this important issue forward for debate. Violence against women is a terrible crime and impacts us all. It has no place in our society and I join with the member in condemning it.

[Justice, April 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our government takes its responsibility for the safety and health of all Canadians very seriously. We are not introducing legislation to legalize and regulate marijuana to improve the profits of any enterprise. We are doing it to fulfill our responsibility to keep communities safe.

I would urge all Canadians to respect and uphold the laws of Canada as they exist and we will work diligently toward the development of an effective regulatory framework that will help us achieve our public aims. We are looking forward to the opportunity of working with the provinces and territories, with Canadians from coast to coast, to find the best way to do that.

[Justice, April 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to provide some clarification that he clearly requires with respect to this file. I would like to speak at some length on this, but I want to be very clear on his questions.

He asked me very specifically if the Government of Canada will decriminalize marijuana immediately. The answer is no. He also asked if there is at the present time any contemplation of pardons or amnesty. I want to be very clear so that he is not further confused on this. The answer is no.

With respect to the suggestion of decriminalization, this has been a matter of some discussion over a number of years. I would simply point out to the member opposite that in 2012, the leader of his party, the hon. member for Outremont was asked very directly in a televised interview if he would decriminalize marijuana. His reply is very helpful and may assist the member in understanding some of the issues associated with his recommendation.

In response to the question of whether he would decriminalize marijuana, the member for Outremont stated, “No. I think that that would be a mistake.” He then went on to say that before ever contemplating any changes to the current control of marijuana regime, the criminal sanctions, we need to get the best medical experts, the best legal experts, and the best law enforcement experts around the table to see what is realistic. That is precisely what this government is doing.

The member for Outremont went on to say, “but to decide in advance that it should simply be opened I think would be a serious mistake”. I agree with the comments of the member for Outremont in 2012. It would be a serious mistake.

Decriminalization would only achieve one thing. It would make it easier for the police to enforce the existing sanctions against the possession of marijuana. It would do nothing to protect our children. It would do nothing to keep marijuana out of the hands of our kids, and this is a serious health and safety problem in our communities.

It would do nothing to remove the profits of organized criminal activity associated with the marijuana trade from organized crime. It would do nothing to keep our communities safe. What it would do is make extremely difficult the implementation of an effective regulatory regime that would enable us to control the production, distribution, and consumption of marijuana.

Our government is absolutely committed to working with the scientific community to base our regulations on the best evidence, the best science, and the best advice of experts. I can talk about what the police are dealing with currently, and my knowledge of what the police deal with in this country with respect to these laws is based on more than simply a conversation at a reception. For over 40 years I was a police officer and for 10 years I was the chief of the Toronto Police Service. I can say that police officers across this country know their responsibilities and know the law. They know their responsibility is to keep their communities safe. They have the discretion to exercise their authority according to what is in the best public interest and in the interest of keeping their communities safe and I, for one, have confidence in their ability to do the job we ask them to do.

[Justice, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the further enquiry from my friend from Victoria. I will say a number of things in response to that. The enforcement of the current law is really determined through judicial discretion. Our expectation is that law enforcement, prosecutors, and our courts will continue to uphold our laws to maintain a safe environment.

Earlier, the member for Victoria suggested that we could have an interim step of decriminalization. It is important to address that particular suggestion. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in its review and recommendations for a public health framework, clearly identified and stated this, and I will try to quote it as accurately as possible: decriminalization is a half measure that “does nothing to address the health harms” that we are attempting to effect with a regulatory framework. It does nothing to protect our children or to reduce organized crime's involvement in this. It does nothing to improve Canadians' health. What it does do is facilitate easier enforcement. Therefore, the decriminalization would likely—

[Justice, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, may I also express my gratitude to the member for Victoria, both for his question but also for his ongoing interest. We have worked closely together over the past several months and I am really looking forward to his continued contribution, advice, and assistance as we move forward on this very important issue of public policy which I truly believe, when done effectively and right, will result in safer communities, better protection for our children, and a more just society.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to attempt to bring more clarity to the government's position. With respect to the comments just quoted from Justice Selkirk, who said that the Prime Minister rose in Parliament, and perhaps he was alluding to the throne speech, and said that we were going to “legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana”.

If the judge recognized the entire quote and the clear articulation of the government's intention, he would have a better understanding of the path forward. It is this government's intention to replace the existing criminal sanction with what we believe to be a far more effective regulatory regime of a public health framework to respond to the risks associated with the use and abuse of marijuana.

We believe that through regulation we could do a better job of protecting our children. We could do a better job of taking profits away from organized crime. We could do a better job of making our communities safer from the violence and victimization associated with the involvement of organized crime in the illegal trade of marijuana. We believe that we can do a better job of providing real, factual information to Canadians about the very real risks that marijuana use presents to them and through public education, we can help keep Canadians safer and healthier.

While that work takes place, it is important that it be done right. It is important that it be based on the evidence and the best advice that we can obtain from experts, so that we are given an opportunity to examine other places around the world. If we follow down this path, we could learn from their experience and we could do the right job of ensuring that the regulatory regime that we put in place allows us to effectively control and regulate the production, distribution, retail, and consumption of marijuana in this country to affect our very important public interest purposes of keeping our kids safe, our communities safe, and all Canadians healthy.

The control that currently exists for marijuana in this country is the criminal law. It has been that way since the 1920s. We believe that it could be done better, but until that regulatory framework is put in place, we have to rely on the existing criminal model to proceed. There is, within that criminal law, discretion for police officers, prosecutors, and judiciary. We acknowledge and respect that, but the law is also required to help keep our communities safe. In some instances we see flagrant abuses of that law.

We remind all Canadians that the law must be upheld. The law should be obeyed and enforced. Until we replace the existing criminal law with a more effective regulatory regime, it is necessary and appropriate that we continue to uphold the laws that have been passed by Parliament and deemed to be constitutional by our courts.

[Justice, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been very clear that we are going to replace the criminal sanction with an effective and strong regulatory framework that will achieve our purposes of protecting our kids, making our communities safer, and taking the profits of this crime away from criminals.

Decriminalization has been described by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health as a half measure. It does nothing to protect our kids and nothing to make our communities safer. The experience of other jurisdictions has made it very clear. The implementation of half measures undermine and make ineffective our efforts to introduce stronger effective regulations. Therefore, we will do this job right, and take the time to do it right.

[Justice, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and the opportunity to clarify.

Yesterday, the director of public prosecutions indicated that of the 1,136 judges in Canada, one had expressed confusion and concern about the law.

This matter has been very clear, and this government has been very clear. We are resolved to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana, and that work has begun.

In the interim, the law of this land is still in effect. Therefore, I would remind the member and all Canadians that the rule of law remains in effect. The law should be obeyed. The law should be upheld.

[Justice, March 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in the throne speech, the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that marijuana would be legalized, regulated, and restricted in this mandate, and that is the work we are undertaking.

On the issue of decriminalization, I will be very clear. We rely on evidence and the advice of experts. A report by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto has indicated that decriminalization is a half measure that will do nothing to reduce the social harms of marijuana, that it does not protect our kids, that it does not take away the profit from organized crime, and that it does not facilitate a robust public health response.

The evidence of other jurisdictions has told us that ineffective half measures, such as decriminalization, will only complicate and undermine the implementation of an effective regulatory regime that will achieve our public health and public safety goals.

[Justice, March 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the hon. member opposite for opportunity to clarify some of the issues she raises.

With respect to her initial question concerning the Federal Court decision on the Allard matter, what I subsequently answered, and, frankly, I should have done much better job at and answered the member more directly, was that this is a very complicated decision. It is now in the hands of our Justice officials in consultation with our ministry of health officials.

There is an important discussion taking place between those officials because of our interest in maintaining the safety and health of all Canadians. That review is taking place, and when it is completed a decision will be made by the ministry with respect to how the Federal Court's decision will be dealt with. However, I want to assure the member opposite and the House of our unwavering commitment to work expeditiously to address the public safety and public health concerns of all Canadians.

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify exactly what has been said.

During the campaign, our Prime Minister was unequivocal. He said that it was our government's intention to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana. We set our goals on the protection of our children, to reduce and restrict access that children have to this drug, because the overwhelming evidence of the science is that marijuana can be a very unhealthy thing for developing minds in adolescence and young adults. We want to protect our children and believe that can be done far more effectively through a regulatory regime than through criminal sanction.

We also want to take the profits of the illegal marijuana market away from organized crime and reduce its influence on our communities. I can say from experience, having worked in many of our disadvantaged communities, that the level of violence and victimization that takes place in those communities as a direct result of the illegal activity around marijuana takes a terrible toll on those communities. We believe that a strictly regulatory regime based on a public health model will protect our communities, as well as protect our children.

We believe that a public health approach will enable this country to assure all Canadians in all communities that marijuana can be made available legally to responsible adults, but that its production, distribution, retail, and consumption would be controlled by regulation to ensure that we can achieve both our public safety aims and public health aims.

Now the member opposite has also asked the very important question of when this will be done.

Our Prime Minister said that he would begin this work right away, and the work has begun. I have been given direction by my minister to be the government's liaison on this initiative. Our minister has indicated that she is establishing a federal-provincial-territorial task force responsible for the development of these regulations based on research and evidence. That task force is currently being assembled, and I am hoping for an opportunity in the coming weeks to advise the House of the progress we have made.

[Justice, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the only controls that currently exist on the access that our kids have to marijuana are the laws that currently exist in this country. It would be irresponsible to put our kids and communities at risk by removing all controls until a new stronger, clearer regulatory regime can be put in place.