Justice Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Following discussion with the legislative clerks, one of the issues is that subsection 7.1(1) is not in the act. The amendment, then, becomes outside the scope of the bill.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It was to be added as a clause after line 20.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

But that's not your motion.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I've got it right here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I don't know, but your motion says:

Subsection 7.1(1) of this Act is replaced by the following,

But there is no 7.1(1) in the act.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Preceding that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I mean in the bill; I'm sorry.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It proposes adding it after line 20.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I've ruled it outside the scope of—

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

So amendment G-2 will not be voted on.

There is no place, then, for amendment G-3. It was consequential to amendment G-2.

We now have amendment NDP-21.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

NDP-21 is an amendment—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'm sorry, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to provide support for the ruling, which comes from the principle of relevance in the legislative process in the House of Commons, which says:

An amendment to a bill must be relevant in that it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or to the clause thereof under consideration [in particular]. In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

I think that supports what you just did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, sir.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

That sounds awfully close to a ruling that you've made in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

NDP-21.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

NDP-21 is an amendment to clause 42. Clause 42 has two sections in it. One talks about notice that is required. Before a court is required to impose a minimum punishment, it must be satisfied that the offender, “before entering a plea, was notified of the possible imposition of a minimal punishment”. Given the fact that all of the amendments have been lost, this notice is important, but it does give rise to the problem that Mr. Cotler referred to, essentially putting the sentencing power in the hands of a prosecutor, which is not where it should be. It should be in the hands of a judge. Unfortunately, that notice is certainly necessary. At least it ameliorates, to some extent, the minimum punishment. So we would reluctantly support that particular portion.

The second part of clause 42 includes a section 9 in the CDSA, to report “within five years after this section comes into force”, to have “a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, including a cost-benefit analysis” of the mandatory minimums. We are proposing to amend that to two years after the section comes into force.

Our next amendment is to the next clause, so I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Clause 42, on the NDP-21 amendment....

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Does anyone want to speak to it?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

No, that is fine.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 42 agreed to)

(On clause 43)

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I just want the record to show that although our amendment wasn't accepted on the two years, we're satisfied to have a review in five years and a report to Parliament included in that. So we do support that, just for the record, despite the fact that our amendment was lost.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Now we're at clause 43, amendment NDP-22.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

NDP-22 is replacing lines 18 to 28 on page 26. This is the drug treatment court. Despite the comments of my friends opposite about drug treatment being an exception if you prove you're an addict, etc., you don't have a mandatory minimum. The concern is that it only refers to participation in a drug treatment court program approved by the Attorney General or established under subsection 720(2) of the Criminal Code. We propose an amendment to replace those provisions with the following:

convicted of an offence under this Part is not required to impose the minimum punishment for the offence for which the person was convicted if the offender is participating in a drug treatment rehabilitation program.

This eliminates the requirements of there being a drug treatment court and they have to successfully complete the program under proposed subsection 10(4) in order to avoid the mandatory minimum.

I'll speak to that. I just wanted to put the amendment on the table first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.