Justice Committee on Nov. 25th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Casey, do you want to go back on the speakers list to comment on that?

Okay, the floor is yours, and Madam Boivin will be next.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

If the court is able to retain some discretion over the timing of the payments, that could very well put the victim in a position whereby they would be able to enforce a civil order, because that right is suspended as long as there is a restitution order. The mandatory language indicates that a restitution order would have to be put in effect, and that could conceivably, in some circumstances, result in the victim's rights being delayed by the very presence of an order where the judge has no choice but to impose it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I may have been having trouble understanding where my colleague saw that because I was reading the French version and not the English version, but now I think I understand. In English, it is a lot more like an obligation than it is in French. I did not see what the problem was in French because it says, “Lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance. . . .” In other words, the court will not necessarily make an order. The French goes on to say, “le tribunal enjoint au délinquant de payer la totalité de la somme indiquée dans l’ordonnance au plus tard à la date qu’il précise ou, s’il l’estime indiqué. . .”—so again, it is left entirely to the court's discretion—“de la payer en versements échelonnés, selon le calendrier qu’il précise”.

I really thought that the provision was giving the court full discretion and describing how the court would make an order if it deemed doing so appropriate. It is true, though, that it reads a bit differently in the English version, which says:

It says, “In making an order under section...”, here's what may....

I think it is perfectly fine in French. But the English wording may need to be revisited.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further on amendment LIB-16?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have amendment G-9, Monsieur Goguen, for clause 30, and then I'll have a comment.

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

This motion proposes to amend proposed subsection 739.4(2) of the Criminal Code to allow a public authority responsible for enforcing a restitution order to be designated by a provincial or territorial order in council or a minister's order. The amendment encourages, but does not require, the provinces and territories to undertake greater measures to increase the payment of restitution orders.

Allowing a public authority responsible for restitution order enforcement to be designated by the order in council will allow such biases to be designated more quickly and efficiently by provinces and territories. This amendment may avoid lengthy delays that may result from the proposed requirement for the creation of regulations. This will assist the provinces and territories with speedy implementation of the bill.

This amendment will also ensure that victims receive the assistance they require in enforcing a restitution order as quickly as possible. The creation of provincial or territorial enforcement programs may improve collection efforts for victims of crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything else to amendment G-9?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I have a quick question for the officials.

You're going to have to enlighten me. The word “regulation” is being replaced by the word “order”. I understand what was just read, but what is the idea behind it? What will change?

[Pamela Arnott]

The difference lies in the procedure that will be used. Rather than relying on a regulatory procedure, the provinces and territories will be able to use an order in council, which is much easier.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

In that case, would it not be a better idea to say “may, by regulation or by order”?

I am trying to understand the rationale. An order is a very specific type of government action, whereas a regulatory procedure takes a different form. If the idea is to give the provinces a certain degree of flexibility—and if I understand you correctly, that is indeed the objective—I have a subamendment whereby the provision would read “may, by regulation or by order”. That seems to be consistent with the objective of giving the provinces flexibility.

[Pamela Arnott]

I can tell the committee that, when the bill's implementation was being discussed with the provinces and territories, they were the ones who asked us to put that in, precisely because it would be faster and easier for them.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Then there would be nothing wrong with saying “may, by regulation or by order”. It gives the provinces and territories what they want. My understanding is that that is what the government would like to do. One province may want to use a regulatory procedure and another may wish to proceed by order. As I see it, the wording I am suggesting would be even better and give the provinces even more flexibility. I see Ms. Arnott is agreeing with me.

Do you have any objections to that?

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

We are satisfied with the proposed amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Do you mean the subamendment whereby it would read “may, by regulation or by order”?

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

No, we want to keep what we had proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Amendment G-9 is on the table.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 30 as amended agreed to)

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

We're nine minutes over. I'm sorry, but we need to stop this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm just finishing—

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I'm glad you're finishing, but I have to go, so let's leave it for another time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I need a motion to adjourn, but here's what I want to let the committee know. That was number 50. We have 14 left, and two are going to be ruled...because the Liberals have moved, the PV ones won't.... We have 12 amendments left. If somebody moves adjournment, we'll adjourn, but what I'm saying is that if we're doing it next Tuesday, we should be able to finish it within an hour for 12 amendments, I would say.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

So let's adjourn.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That's okay. Actually, we should be adjourned since it's 5:30.

Why do you need a motion to adjourn when we're supposed to be adjourned?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's not actually the rule. You do accept the motion to adjourn.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Regardless, we move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I always ask if we're adjourning.

I think we're moving to adjourn.

(Motion agreed to)

That's carried.

The meeting is adjourned.