House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2025, with 53% of the vote.
Committees of the House June 15th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the 12th report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Turning Outrage into Action to Address Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Canada”.
Criminal Code June 13th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).
Members in the justice committee have had a chance to study Bill C-23 and are now well aware that this bill is not about major substantive reforms. Bill C-23 proposes technical amendments to update, improve and modernize the law by enhancing the efficiency of criminal procedures, strengthening sentencing measures and clarifying court related language rights provisions.
I am pleased to see that most of the Bill C-23 amendments as introduced received support by committee members during clause by clause, which reflects a shared understanding of the importance of its reforms. I am pleased also with the collaborative work demonstrated by all members of the committee and I am sure that the members would agree.
This government has introduced several legislative initiatives in the House that aim at tackling crime which remains one of this government's key priorities. Ensuring that the law is up to date and efficient is an important component of this priority. The amendments, as introduced, have been developed in collaboration with justice system partners that were influential in helping us identify areas of the Criminal Code that were in need of change.
Bill C-23 touches on several areas of the Criminal Code. Most of the amendments are technical in nature and fall within three main categories, namely: criminal procedure, language of the accused and sentencing. I will address each of those in turn.
Most of the criminal procedure amendments are technical in nature and seek to improve procedural efficiencies and rectify certain shortcomings in criminal proceedings. These technical changes include amendments to: expedite the execution of out of province search warrants by allowing the use of current technologies; harmonize and consolidate provisions dealing with proof of service of documents; identify the proper appeal route for judicial orders to return seized property; and finally, to improve the process with respect to the challenge of jurors to assist in preserving the jury's impartiality.
Other Criminal Code procedure amendments of a more substantive nature include: the reclassification of the offence of possessing break-in instruments, which is currently a straight indictable offence, to a dual procedure offence to allow the prosecution to either elect to proceed by way of indictment or by way of summary conviction; the creation of an offence for the breach of a non-communication order imposed on an accused who is remanded to pre-trial custody; and, a new election right for the accused as to his or her mode of trial where a preferred indictment has been filed against him or her or where the Supreme Court of Canada orders a new trial.
On the issue of language of the accused, allow me to now mention not all but some of the language provisions addressed in the bill.
These proposals are the result of numerous consultations once again, not only with the provinces and territories but also with the Commissioner of Official Languages, the association of francophone jurists and its national federation. In fact, both the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression français de common law and the Commissioner of Official Languages appeared as witnesses before the committee. They were generally satisfied with the proposals found in the bill.
They did, however, express concerns with respect to some of the amendments being proposed and these concerns were reflected in the amendments proposed by the opposition parties at clause by clause consideration of the bill.
The government supported some of these amendments that were consistent with the scope and the principle of the bill. Sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code have been in force across the country since January 1, 1990, and they grant all the accused the right to trial in the official language of his or her choice.
Numerous studies and reports have confirmed that barriers continue to stand in the way of the exercise of these rights. Moreover, court decisions have highlighted a number of interpretation problems. The amendments proposed by Bill C-23 would resolve these problems and thus contribute to the evolution of language rights in the criminal law context.
One important amendment would heed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada by requiring the court to inform all accused persons of their right to be tried in their official language whether they are represented by counsel or not.
The Commissioner of Official Languages, in a 1995 study entitled “The Equitable Use of English and French before the Courts in Canada”, had also recommended that all accused persons be better informed of their right to a trial in the official language of their choice.
Another amendment would require the charging document to be translated in the language of the accused upon request. This is a logical complement to accused persons exercising their language rights. By the same token, to satisfy the need for certainty and precision in criminal proceedings where the charging document has been translated, a further amendment would make clear that where there is an inconsistency between the original version of the charging document and the translated version, the original document ought to prevail.
Some of the other proposals found in Bill C-23 relate to bilingual trials and would provide the presiding judge with the power to issue appropriate orders to ensure that bilingual trials run smoothly and efficiently.
For example, Bill C-23 would require that, if the circumstances warrant, a joint trial in both official languages should be ordered in the case of co-accused who do not share the same official language. Such an amendment not only brings greater clarify to the code, but also ensures that a proper balance is struck between the rights of the accused person and the efficient administration of justice.
The language of trial amendments propose workable and balanced solutions to problems that have been identified and promise to bring greater efficiency to minority language trials. They will also ensure better publicity of the language rights provision in the Criminal Code.
Finally, dealing with sentencing, Bill C-23 proposes both technical and substantive amendments which are meant to streamline processes, clarify the intent of certain provisions and update the law in this area.
Let me remind hon. members of some of the amendments that are of a more substantive nature. One amendment would raise the maximum fine that can be imposed upon conviction of a summary conviction offence. The current $2,000 amount has remained unchanged over the last 20 years. As introduced, the amendment raised the maximum fine amount to $10,000.
During clause by clause, the government supported an opposition amendment to reduce the proposed maximum fine to $5,000, which is still a tremendous update over the $2,000 amount that had been in place over the last 20 years and better reflects changes over that time.
The government believes that this amount would still meet the policy objective of updating the law in this area and would still provide the Crown with more flexibility to proceed by way of summary conviction procedure.
Another substantive amendment to the sentencing provisions of Bill C-23 provides the Crown with the ability to seek forfeiture of computers and other related property used in the commission of the offence with respect to Internet luring offences. This is indeed a substantive change that I think all members in the House can support, dealing with the forfeiture of the property of individuals who are involved in what is a very heinous crime.
As well, Bill C-23 would provide sentencing courts with the power to order an offender not to communicate directly or indirectly with victims, witnesses and other identified persons during their period of incarceration. A corresponding offence for breeching such an order is also proposed.
These amendments would provide the courts with an additional tool to protect victims of crime from unwanted communications. As this type of order is currently being imposed by courts at various stages of the criminal process, such as when an accused is remanded to pretrial custody or released on bail, this amendment would fill a gap with respect to such orders when an offender is serving a term of imprisonment.
Another important amendment includes the power of a sentencing court to refer an offender in appropriate circumstances to a provincially or territorially approved treatment program under the supervision of the court before sentence is imposed.
By delaying the imposition of the sentencing to allow an offender to have early access to treatment programs, the offender is given a strong incentive for behavioural change and successful rehabilitation.
I will now provide a few examples of the technical amendments. One of them includes a change that would provide a court of appeal with the power to suspend a conditional sentence order until an appeal from sentence or conviction is determined.
A series of other amendments would serve to clarify the application of impaired driving penalties. For instance, in response to uncertainty in judicial decisions with respect to impaired driving penalties, one important amendment would clarify that the minimum penalties that apply for a first, second and third impaired driving offence, such as operation of a motor vehicle while impaired and refusal to provide a breath sample, do apply to the more serious situations of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death.
By the same token, this legislation would also make it clear that repeat impaired driving offenders, whose new offence causes bodily harm or death, will receive a mandatory period of incarceration and will therefore not be eligible for a conditional sentence order.
Another impaired driving amendment would clarify that an offender is only permitted to drive while being the subject of a driving prohibition order if the offender is not only registered in an alcohol ignition interlock device program, but also complies with the conditions of that program.
We as a government are proud of the work accomplished today with Bill C-23 and we hope the bill will be passed expeditiously. I would like to remind hon. members that the provinces, territories and other justice system stakeholders are keen to see this bill enacted, as it would improve the effectiveness of and access to the criminal justice system.
I, therefore, urge all members to join me in ensuring quick passage of Bill C-23 into law.
Mr. Speaker, we can have that debate also on the court challenges program.
The member said that unless there is proper access to legal aid and to the court challenges program, only the rich will have equal rights which is unacceptable. He asked if the Minister of Justice would improve access to legal aid to provide Canadians with the justice they are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is based on that question that I am providing this answer on what our government is doing to enhance legal aid and therefore enhance access to justice for the individuals whom the member referenced in his question, those who need help through legal aid.
The permanent funding over 10 years is unprecedented. It provides the provinces with stable funding for their legal aid programs. Over the next five years, the government will contribute $560 million to the provinces--
Mr. Speaker, I will read from the hon. member's question referencing improved access to legal aid. This was a question he put to the Minister of Justice and he asked that if the minister refuses to budge and does not save the court challenges program, would he at least improve access to legal aid to provide Canadians with justice.
It is the question's premise, that somehow this government is not paying its share for legal aid, that I want to completely reject. I want to speak of the contribution that our government is making toward the court system and ensuring that accused in our system have access to justice and access to legal aid.
One of our government's key priorities is to protect Canadian families and communities through a strengthened justice system that is accountable, efficient, accessible and responsive. Criminal legal aid ensures that an accused will not go free simply because in the absence of being able to pay for a lawyer himself or herself, the right to a fair trial would be violated.
Since the 1970s, the federal government has been contributing to the cost of criminal legal aid through agreements with the provinces. The federal government has also provided resources to the territories for both criminal and civil legal aid through contribution agreements.
In recent years, growing pressures on the legal aid system have led the federal government in collaboration with the provinces and territories to conduct extensive research to examine the needs and to consider innovative ways of ensuring that the legal aid needs of economically disadvantaged Canadians are met. I think this speaks to some of what the hon. member was saying in his speech to ensure that there is access to justice.
The agreements respecting legal aid covering fiscal year 2003-04 to fiscal year 2005-06 initiated a legal aid renewal strategy. These agreements were subsequently extended by one year by our government.
With regard to the provision for civil legal aid, which is quite distinct from criminal legal aid, the federal government has contributed to the provision of civil legal aid since the early 1970s. Initially, funding to the provinces was provided through the Canada assistance plan. Then in 1995-96, the Canada assistance plan was absorbed into the Canada health and social transfer, known as the CHST. Now the Canada social transfer has replaced the Canada health and social transfer.
Canada's new government in budget 2007 extended the CST to 2013-14. The budget also provides that support for social assistance and social services, including civil legal aid, will increase to $6.2 billion in 2007-08. As a result of the 3% annual CST escalator, this funding will increase to $7.2 billion by 2013-14.
In addition to civil legal aid resources contained in the CST, since 2001-02 the federal government has also provided through the legal aid agreements an additional $11.5 million annually for immigration and refugee legal aid to the six provinces currently providing these services. Those include British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Canada's new government is committed to continued funding for criminal legal aid. That is why for the first time in over 10 years, and this is important, we are increasing permanently the ongoing funding for criminal legal aid by the $30 million provided as interim resources--
Jean Gauvin June 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jean Gauvin who passed away on Wednesday evening at the age of 61.
Mr. Gauvin served the province of New Brunswick as a member of the legislative assembly from 1978 to 1987 and again from 1991 to 1995. He will be fondly remembered for his heartfelt concern for fishing issues, which he championed while serving in the Hatfield government as fisheries minister.
In 2000, Jean and I were both candidates in the federal election when I ran in Fundy Royal and Jean ran in Acadie--Bathurst. I witnessed firsthand his continued commitment to improving the lives of New Brunswickers and in fact all Canadians.
On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, I extend my sympathy to his family and his friends at this difficult time.
Justice June 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for all of his work on making Canada a safer place.
Despite Liberal efforts to gut the bill, Bill C-9 has received royal assent and comes into effect six months from now. On that day, criminals who commit serious personal injury offences will no longer get a Liberal get out of jail free card to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes. Instead, they will receive a Conservative go directly to jail card.
Canada's new government does not play games with violent criminals. We are committed to making our streets and communities safer and, as the Minister of Justice said, we are just getting started.
Justice May 18th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her unwavering support for our criminal justice agenda.
The issue of raising the age of protection from 14 to 16 has been driven by members of the Conservative caucus for over a decade, and it took a Conservative government to take action on this important issue.
The House of Commons held fulsome debates on Bill C-22 and the committee thoroughly studied it. It is now up to the Senate. We call on senators to get the job done by respecting the will of Parliament and passing C-22 before they rise for the summer.
Criminal Code May 3rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I noted that the hon. member ran into the chamber as I was ending my speech but if he had been here to listen to my speech he would know that twice in my speech I mentioned that in Canada for exploitative relationships the age of protection and the age of consent remains at 18.
What we have decided as a government and what Canadians have told us and child exploitation experts have said is that if there is an age difference, if someone is 55 years old and that young person is 14 or 15, then it is exploitative on its face.
We are raising the age of protection for sexual activity to 16. The reason the age is being raised is based on the testimony we heard at committee. What we heard was that the laws that were put in place, whatever merit they had, were not strong enough. The current provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with exploitative relationships or positions of trust or authority are also not strong enough. I was here when some amendments were made to the Criminal Code to protect young people. Even after that, we saw relationships where it was someone much older preying on someone who was 14 or 15 and the police said that there was nothing they could do about it, which is why we have this bill.
Not enough was done in the past and there was a reluctance by past governments to do what had to be done, which was to raise the age of protection to protect young people, which is, very clearly, what this bill does.
Criminal Code May 3rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, at the justice committee we heard testimony dealing with the sexual health of young people and the need for them to have access to their doctors. We also heard, overwhelmingly, that it was now time for the Government of Canada and all parliamentarians to act and to raise the age of consent from 14 years old to 16 years old.
What that says to those parents who are concerned about their young people is that it will no longer be illegal in Canada for a 25, 35 or 45 year old to have a sexual relationship with a 14 or 15 year old child.
Child exploitation experts have, overwhelmingly, called for this bill and it has been welcomed. I am pleased to see the support it now has in Parliament. It was a long time coming and probably way too long, but there was a need to bring our age of protection in line with what is currently the case in other jurisdictions. We needed to say, in a very meaningful way and in the strongest way possible, that we as a government do not condone these exploitative relationships. It was serious enough that we felt we had to amend the Criminal Code to tell adult sexual predators that our children in Canada are off limits to them.
Criminal Code May 3rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is designed for what people have been calling for years, which is that we not criminalize activity between young people of a similar age but that we protect our young people against adult sexual predators.
We have all heard the stories and have read them in newspapers of individuals who, in their own countries the age of consent might be 16 years, come to Canada to have relationships with 14 year olds. They develop the relationships over the Internet and then come here to have sexual activity with 14 year olds.
We heard at committee of a young person who may be in a relationship with someone much older, perhaps a 14 year old who has left home and is now in a relationship with a 30 or 40 year old. The parents try going to the police to see what can be done but are shocked to learn, as I think Canadians are shocked to learn, that it is perfectly legal in this country for someone who is the age of a parent or even a grandparent to pursue a sexual relationship with a 14 or 15 year old.
Bill C-22 would end that. Adults would no longer legally be able to prey on young people. However, Bill C-22, as the member mentioned, does have a close in age exemption, which means that a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with someone who is no greater than five years older. Therefore, we are clearly not criminalizing relationships between young people who are of a similar age.