Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 542
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
At some point, to comment on Bill C-215 in its entirety--and this is a point that's likely appropriate to make--if you reflect back, starting originally with Mr. Daubney from the Department of Justice, the Canadian Bar Association, last Thursday's witnesses, representatives of other NGOs active in criminal justice, the Canadian Council on Criminal Defence Lawyers, and Professor Kent Roach, one of the leading scholars in Canada on charter issues, I think we have heard that this whole bill, really, raises serious constitutional concerns.
Although this amendment that's being put forward, amendment 1, is attempting to deal with this, I don't think it comes even close. Even Steve Sullivan, who is president of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, agreed that there was credence to the concerns raised by the Department of Justice about the numbers in the bill—that is, numbers speaking to the amount of time one would get—and as to whether they would be constitutional.
Other witnesses have found that the bill as tabled contravenes section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't believe the amendment that has been proposed here, once again, is bringing us close to where we should be in terms of charter compliance.
If we go forward, and Bill C-215 were ever to become enforced--by some fluke, I suppose, based on today's situation--in its present form, it would clearly be subject to a charter challenge. I don't believe any of the amendments that have been presented today would get us to the point where we could save this bill.
The Supreme Court did strike down the seven-year mandatory minimum penalty for drug importation—that was trafficking in R. v. Smith—but upheld the four-year minimum in R. v. Morrisey for criminal negligence causing death. Again, I think the whole concept here is that you have to manoeuvre all of the penalty provisions that are proposed into the limited room to manoeuvre, I guess you would say, as seen by our justice system. Clearly, to have this viable, we have to work within that context.
I've asked justice department officials to examine and look at these amendments that were being proposed, and in their opinion, we couldn't find any that would in effect deal with these serious charter flaws that the bill reflected. Almost all of them would have had the effect of raising the mandatory minimum penalty to at least ten years, and in some circumstances we don't think that could have been sustained under the charter.
No amendment proposes to eliminate clause 2, which has the five-, ten-, and fifteen-year consecutive mandatory minimum penalties for murder. Murder already carries a mandatory minimum of life imprisonment, so one can't really, in all fairness and candour, attach an additional mandatory minimum on top of life. I think that brings us into not only disrepute but ridicule. In addition to the charter flaws that are in this, the entire approach of the bill is problematic in that it's not really sound in criminal policy and sentencing policy.
Each and every one of us feels, and I mentioned this the other day, that in fact this bill has helped us focus on a very important issue. It is an issue that deserves study and a response. But I respectfully submit that this response, even with the amendments, is not the response that will be able to deal with the issues in a constructive way. Rather, we would be sort of putting ourselves in a position where the bill would simply be a key to open a charter challenge, and likely a successful charter challenge.
I just want to put it on the record that although we're very appreciative, from my perspective, of the bill being here to help us go forward with the debate, in the end I don't think it would have been helpful. As I say, it's doubtful it will ever go before the House again, but had it gone forward, I certainly would have had some serious concerns.
I just thought I should put on the record today the principle that we're driving and striving to achieve, and that is to deal with those who have guns and who are involved in gang activities and violence within our communities. It absolutely needs to be denounced, but this denunciation goes way beyond the ability to be effective; therefore, I think it loses its ultimate goal.
So I thank the member for bringing it forward, but I believe this is where it should likely end.
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
On the amendment that's proposed.
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Well, as to the meaning and the intent of 90 days. Is that 90 sitting days, first of all? Secondly, if we're really being pragmatic about this, what amount of time do you think is required for a Parliament to initiate and complete an amendment through all stages and through both the Commons and the Senate? I think in practical terms you would be cutting yourself extraordinarily short. I don't know whether it would be possible, short of absolute unanimous consent in Parliament, to have any amendment that would retain this within that period of time.
As I say, I raise that to be pragmatic. If we're going to approach this in a meaningful way, I think that needs to be examined.
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
On a point of order, the orders of the day that I'm looking at say that we're doing committee business, and that we're going to deal with Mr. Warawa's motion. Has there been a change? If so, I'm sorry, I just wasn't informed.
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm looking at the orders of the day, and I'm just wondering....
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
All right, that's fine. If they've got an issue, that's different; I just didn't know. Because there will be debate.
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Well, no, I'll withdraw the request, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to know if there was a reason why we were not following the orders. There is a reason, and that's fine.
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
You don't think their concern about getting a plane is a reason?
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
But there's going to be debate as well.
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
I would oppose that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that one of the witnesses we were supposed to see today has not been able to make it because of the weather. Hopefully he can make it on Monday.
I think the whole idea of terminating our deliberations and witness testimony and moving on to clause-by-clause is premature. When the committee voted for an extension of time to hear witnesses, it was also voting for more time to gather and consider evidence in relation to the sentencing. We have not received the evidence that was promised by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics on sentencing practices and patterns. We will not likely have it in time, between now and Monday, to be able to assess that data. In fact, we invited Mr. Jones, who appeared here, to come back with his data before this committee and offer a further presentation on it. Finally, I would note that members from more than one party expressed interest in getting his interpretation on the range of statistical data, including homicide rates in other countries involving firearms.
I would also note that there was a strong concern raised by victims advocate Steve Sullivan, when he appeared before us, concerning the use of plea bargaining by crown prosecutors. He suggested that we hear from crowns about the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on plea bargaining practices, as well as the impact of extreme maximum sentences. As I recall, Mr. Moore agreed that the crowns should be heard from.
We know there are serious concerns also about the constitutionality and legality and the ultimate effectiveness of most of the individual sections of this bill, so I think it would be at the very least precipitous to move so quickly to a clause-by-clause stage.
As well, a factor that I think we could take into consideration is the fact that the Minister of Justice recently announced that he would be bringing forth very shortly--and I believe “very shortly” may be this week--a strategy to deal with gun crime, including legislative proposals to create new offences and to impose mandatory minimum sentences in some areas, and an initiative to work with provincial crowns on firearm-related prosecutions.
I'm suggesting that it really isn't productive to race to clause-by-clause when so many members have requested more material that in fact has not been brought forward. I think Mr. Marceau asked for information on the American sentencing patterns for assault offences. Mr. Comartin wanted to know further whether the cause of the decline in the U.S. murder rate was attributable to the aging population or to gun control measures. Mr. Toews and Mr. Breitkreuz wanted crime data broken down by riding.
Much of what we as a committee have asked for in fact hasn't been brought before this committee, and I just don't see the rush to go forward when in fact another few days might give us the answers we would need.
Thank you.
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'll just take my five minutes, thank you. No, we'll try to share.
One of the things we're talking about here is denunciation. That clearly is, I think, a major thrust of the bill. We can say what we want to say through our legislation in that regard, and through lengthy mandatory minimum sentences we can be effective in delivering the message.
I guess the other question I have, and it comes back to what you just said, Mr. Rady, is that one of the things we really don't seem to have received any statistics on or any knowledge about is whether these individuals who are committing the crimes really know what the sentences are that they are actually facing because of their participation. If we're out there saying we want something that's effective.... Do they know?
Does anyone have a comment on that, because, again, that's the premise upon which we're going forward?
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Another thought goes through my mind when I look at this whole issue. We have a mandatory minimum for murder. Aren't we dealing with murders, for which the mandatory minimum is life? But that doesn't seem to deter people from committing murders. Is it because we don't educate them, or is it because they don't care?
There's a frustration here on my part. Why are we putting in heavier sentences when we have the heaviest of all sentences out there apparently being ignored, or that potential for sentencing?
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
That's right.
I'll pass off to—
View Paul Harold Macklin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much. I do extend to Mr. Kramp my thanks for his bringing forward the bill, because I think it does get us concentrating on the issues that surround the bill itself.
As he knows, I have a great deal of difficulty with the way the bill has been constructed. I think we can start with constitutionality as being a problem, but I think in the end one of the things that keeps focusing our attention is the number of deaths that are occurring through the use of guns in the city of Toronto. Yet, as I think I pointed out with our last witnesses, we do have for premeditated murder the highest sentence that we have available to us, which is life, and that doesn't seem, as a mandatory minimum, to be in any way deterring these individuals from doing that particular act.
So we do have a problem. One is that we are on the one hand trying to make certain that we denounce the activity, and truthfully, in order to denounce, we as legislators only have certain ways of sending messages, and one of the ways is by setting out penalties that have either a mandatory minimum standard or at least a high maximum level that one can actually achieve if in fact a person is obviously a repeat offender.
The question becomes one of effectiveness, and I think that's where our witnesses today were somewhat helpful, because it's all right for us to denounce and send out the denouncement from our communities, but in the end, what really keeps our communities safe is when these are effective.
Today I think it was suggested that simply doing mandatory minimum penalties isn't the only way to be effective. We have to work with root causes within our community. We have to deal with law enforcement and, as I think was mentioned a number of times, the likelihood of being caught.
If I could go back to Mr. Thompson's comments earlier about when he was running a school and he said there were going to be certain consequences for certain acts that occurred within his school, I suspect he had a fairly good police force, if I can use the term broadly, within that school who were going to bring to his attention all these acts that were committed within that school, and therefore it was a combination of things. Yes, it was setting an absolute penalty, but it was also the likelihood of being caught that was part of the process.
So I think you have to look at our legislative function. You have to look at our enforcement function, and I think in the end you have to look at the community, the social fabric, that we need to work on.
You've brought forward at least a point of focus. You have brought it forward, and we've had a good discussion so far. It's unfortunate we aren't able to continue it, because if you believe as strongly as I think you do in the bill, you won't be voting to dissolve this Parliament, but rather to see us go forward and to see what resolution we could achieve that would be helpful in bringing forward your legislative ideas. I think I've likely said enough about the principle involved. I think there is a combination of ways in which we can seek a better solution, but I thank you anyway for bringing it to focus, because I think this committee always needs a catalyst to get us to focus on issues. So thank you very much.
Results: 1 - 15 of 542 | Page: 1 of 37

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data