Marco Mendicino

[Criminal Code, February 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-217. As we have heard, this bill, which proposes changes to certain bail provisions under the Criminal Code, was introduced in reaction to the senseless shooting of a police officer in St. Albert, Alberta.

Words fail to express the sadness felt by all Canadians when a police officer is killed in the line of duty.

Constable David Wynn's family suffered an unimaginable loss, and I want to offer my sincere condolences to Shelly MacInnis-Wynn, her three boys, and the entire RCMP community.

As a former member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I have studied the many challenges facing first responders in the line of duty. We must ensure that all Canadians are protected by our criminal justice system.

While I support the bill's laudable objectives, I am unable to support Bill S-217, as I believe it would interfere with the proper functioning of our bail system by eroding at the independence of the crown and adding further delays in our courts.

Constable David Wynn tragically died and Auxiliary Constable Derek Bond was seriously injured after being shot by Shawn Rehn. Rehn, who killed himself after the shooting, had a lengthy criminal record, including crimes of violence and failure to comply with court orders. Months before the shooting, Rehn was arrested. He was not, however, detained in custody at that time. There was no crown counsel present at the bail hearing and the court was not made aware of Rehn's criminal record.

Clearly, it is important that those who preside over bail hearings have all of the relevant information before determining who should be detained in custody prior to trial.

As we know, in response to Constable Wynn's murder, the Alberta government did a comprehensive review of the entire bail process in that province.

Last April, the Alberta government released a report entitled “Alberta Bail Review: Endorsing a Call for Change”. This report, produced after consultation with key stakeholders, makes over 30 recommendations. The recommendations range from operational changes to resource allocation. Notably, the Alberta report does not call for the legislative changes proposed in Bill S-217. The report recognizes the complexity of both the problem and the solutions and the importance of engagement with stakeholders in the criminal justice system.

Here in this House members will recall that the Prime Minister has asked the Minister of Justice to conduct a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, including the bail system. Specifically, the minister has been asked to strengthen bail conditions in cases of domestic assault, with the goal of keeping victims and children safe. The minister has been working diligently on these important priorities for over a year now and is continuing to work on their implementation, in collaboration with our federal, provincial, and territorial partners and criminal justice stakeholders.

As part of this strategy, the minister has completed a series of round tables in nine provinces and territories where reforming bail procedures is a subject of concern for many stakeholders. While public safety of course remains a top priority, major concerns have also been raised about the efficiency of our courts.

I understand that similar concerns have been raised before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which is also studying delays, and I look forward to reading the final report.

Let me turn to the bill itself. Bill S-217 proposes two changes to the Criminal Code bail regime.

First, under clause 1, it proposes to modify the grounds for detention under subsection 515(10) of the code by adding specific consideration of the accused's record to the third ground for detention. Under this ground, detention is justified when it is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. It is not clear why this consideration would be specified under the third ground, which provides a discrete basis for denying bail. The accused's record is already considered under each ground for detention and at multiple junctures in the bail process, both under the primary and secondary grounds. This amendment would therefore cause duplication and unnecessary confusion in the already established bail provisions, and it would benefit no one.

Second, clause 2 of Bill S-217, the one that has garnered the most attention, proposes an amendment that would mandate prosecutors to lead specific evidence, evidence of the accused's personal record, outstanding charges and breaches. Prosecutors would be required to lead evidence to “prove the fact” of a prior record, prior offences against the administration of justice, or outstanding charges.

This a higher evidentiary burden than is currently required. In other words, the bill could make it more difficult to detain an accused person in custody rather than under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code.

For instance, formalizing the evidentiary process could result in prosecutors having to call additional witnesses or lead additional affidavit evidence at every bail hearing. We know that the bail system simply cannot operate effectively in this way.

The bill process strives for accuracy in decision-making, but because of the volume of cases currently before the courts, the process also places a premium on efficiency, expediency, and flexible rules of evidence.

We must trust that crown attorneys will call the relevant evidence that they determine is needed and relevant and in the manner that they choose. The Criminal Code does not dictate what evidence a crown attorney should call. To do so raises the issue of crown discretion and independence, an essential feature and constitutional principle within our criminal justice system. Mandating crown attorneys to lead specific evidence would arguably encroach on this discretion. They must act independently in carrying out their responsibilities as officers of the court, as quasi-judicial officers of the court.

Of equal concern is the potential for these amendments to make it harder for prosecutors to quickly and efficiently prove past criminal activity. It is unclear how clause 2 would be interpreted. It could result in the presiding justice at a bail hearing scrutinizing the prosecutor's decision as to whether to introduce certain evidence and how it is introduced. This could potentially compromise trial fairness and the effectiveness of the bail hearing. At the very least, an amendment of this nature would require consultation and engagement with prosecutors who exercise their discretion ethically and professionally every day in bail courts across this country and who benefit from the current flexibility in the rules of evidence to ensure the best case is presented.

It is essential that our police and the public are kept safe from accused persons who belong in custody prior to trial. This requires that the courts, police, and crown attorneys have the relevant information about the accused, the victim, and the circumstances of the offence in a timely way. This cannot however, be accomplished with piecemeal legislation such as the one currently before the House. It requires a comprehensive strategy for bail reform and consultation with stakeholders who work with these provisions every day.

To summarize, the impact on the effectiveness of the criminal justice system has to be considered when any amendment to the Criminal Code is proposed.

The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized the importance of bail hearings being held expeditiously and the rights of individuals to reasonable bail. This flexibility is an important factor to keep in mind when considering the amendments proposed in the bill. It allows the prosecutor in a bail hearing to lead evidence that is credible and trustworthy, but that might not otherwise be admissible according to the usual rules of evidence at trial. This includes evidence of prior criminal activity, outstanding charges, and administration of justice offences.

The Supreme Court has also repeatedly emphasized the independence of prosecutorial discretion, itself a fundamental principle under our Constitution. By removing that discretion of the crown to determine which evidence it will lead at the bail hearing, the bill arguably undermines that principle.

As a former federal prosecutor, I know that my fellow prosecutors benefit from the flexibility in the rules of evidence at bail hearings to ensure that the correct evidence is put before the justice quickly and efficiently. Victims of crime also benefit from the timely disposition of cases.

While I cannot support the bill, I do want to thank the sponsors of it for all of the work that they have done. Reform of the criminal justice system benefits from the input and involvement of as many Canadians as possible.

[Justice, February 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his congratulations. I, too, look forward to working with him.

Part of the process requires careful consideration and in the context of that careful consideration, it would be premature to identify the exact sections or criminal offences which our government at this stage is going to be revisiting mandatory minimum sentences.

Before we get to that point, we would want to consult with the criminal law profession, which we are doing. We would want to consult with other stakeholders, including the families and the victims and those who are negatively impacted by crimes. We would want to consult with communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system. We would want to do that so we can take a balanced approach, a measured approach, one that is not vulnerable to the same kind of constitutional challenges which we have seen successfully brought before the Supreme Court of Canada in the last 10 years.

[Justice, February 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss both the question from my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, as well as our government's answer.

As we have said on numerous occasions, there is going to be a comprehensive criminal justice review. As part of that process, we will take a careful look at mandatory minimum sentences. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have been quite clear that, as a matter of principle, our government believes in and supports mandatory minimum sentences for the most serious offences. In her mandate letter from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice has been asked to review the changes to sentencing reforms over the past decade to ensure that we are increasing the safety of our communities, addressing gaps, and ensuring that current provisions are aligned with the objectives of the criminal justice system.

Our government believes that it is important to ensure that all of our laws, including those with mandatory minimums, are effective in meeting their objectives, promote public security, and are consistent with individuals' constitutionally protected rights.

The cornerstone of sentencing in Canada is that sentences will be both fit and just. This means that they must reflect the degree of responsibility of the offender and the gravity of the offence. Responsible sentencing and making sure that the punishment fits the crime is essential to ensuring a safer Canada, a Canada with communities that are better served and protected by our criminal justice system.

While mandatory minimums may be appropriate for the most serious offences, their increased use over the past decade presents pressing issues and challenges. Particularly, their increased use has resulted in a large number of challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A number of these challenges have been successful before the Supreme Court of Canada. For instance, in the case of Regina v. Nur and Regina v. Lloyd, the Supreme Court of Canada found that both mandatory minimum sentences that were in question were unconstitutional, but at the same time provided important new direction on mandatory minimum penalties and how they should be addressed in the context of the criminal justice system. If they do not comport with the new direction that has been given by the Supreme Court of Canada, we believe that mandatory minimums will be vulnerable to constitutional challenge and may constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which in and of itself would be a violation under the charter.

The evidence also demonstrates that mandatory minimum penalties negatively impact the criminal justice system in some circumstances. Mandatory minimums have lengthened the time required to complete cases by causing increases in charter challenges and thereby extending the amount of time required for trials. This is unfair to victims and their families who have to wait longer for a resolution of their case. By reducing the number of mandatory minimums, our government will also reduce delays in our courts, and I know that is something that the hon. member across the aisle would support.

Canadians want a criminal justice system that is compassionate to victims, that holds offenders to account for their crimes, and that protects Canadians. These are the objectives that guide our government in its consideration of reforms to the criminal justice system, to the sentencing regime, and to mandatory minimum sentences.

[Justice, February 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that we all acknowledge that child sexual assault crimes are wrong, and we are doing everything in our power to prevent them from occurring again.

Our government firmly believes that mandatory minimum sentences are appropriate for the most serious offences. It is also clear that the last government introduced a number of mandatory minimums that have been systematically struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is why we must take a careful look at mandatory minimums going forward.

Our government is committed to doing that so that we have an efficient, fair, accessible criminal justice system.

[Justice, February 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by reiterating that our government extends deepest sympathies to the family of the deceased.

The reference to a zombie provision, as my colleague puts it, is a stark reminder about the importance of conducting a broad, comprehensive review of the criminal justice system.

Our government is undertaking that process. We look forward to working with my hon. colleague across the way to ensure that we have a fair, relevant, and accessible criminal justice system.

[Justice, February 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, our government believes in the charter. That is why our government is committed to protecting Canadians from the possible misuse of genetic information.

The Senate public bill is a step toward helping prevent genetic discrimination and protecting the privacy of Canadians. Preventing discrimination and other forms of misuse of genetic information is an important goal. That is why our government believes in the amendments, which we introduced earlier in the House. It is about striking the right balance between the roles that should be played by the federal government and the provincial governments.

We look forward to further debate in the House so we can achieve the goals of that bill.

[Points of Order, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the point of order, all I would say is that I was listening attentively to my colleague across the way and made no comment at all whatsoever during her S. O. 31.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would echo some of the sentiments the member expressed with respect to inclusivity, pluralism, and diversity, which are part of the bedrock of our nation.

To pick up on the analogy the member drew to the LGBTQ2 community, I wonder whether she would tell this House if she would refuse to support a motion that made reference to homophobia, much in the same way that my hon. colleague's motion makes reference to Islamophobia. By her logic, I think that would be a motion that ought to be supported.

[Family Reunification, February 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to welcome the entire Brimo family, who will finally be reunited this Thursday, in Toronto, after being separated for a year.

The Brimos are a Yazidi Kurdish family from a village called Afrin, which is north of Aleppo, in Syria. They were forced to flee in 2013 after Daesh obliterated their home and their way of life.

It was in their darkest hour that the Brimos found out that they had been accepted as refugees here in Canada, that is, all except for one of their five daughters, Zeinab, who was left stranded back in Syria.

After much hard work and coordination with the Minister of Immigration, I am happy to report that Zeinab will be arriving in Canada this week and will be reunited with her family once more.

I am very proud of the generosity of the people of Eglinton—Lawrence and especially the people from St. Clement's Church. We all share the responsibility of helping people who have been displaced and persecuted, and who need protection the most.

Welcome home to the Brimos.

[Dementia, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Alzheimer's and dementia are heartbreaking diseases that cause people to lose their independence, their dignity, and their very loved ones. They affect more than one-half million Canadians, and that number will go up.

To support those affected, we need to invest in research and better treatments, which is why I was proud to welcome the Minister of Health to my riding of Eglinton—Lawrence where we announced $1.4 million in federal funding for the Canadian Centre for Aging and Brain Health Innovation at Baycrest Health Sciences.

Baycrest is an institution known around the world for geriatric care and research, and especially for its contributions in the areas of cognitive neuroscience and aging.

I am a proud advocate for Baycrest, and I am proud that our government is committed to ensuring that those who suffer from Alzheimer's and dementia get the best health care we can afford.