Bill C-75 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) re-enact the victim surcharge regime and provide the court with the discretion to waive a victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that the victim surcharge would cause the offender undue hardship or would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.
Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is again an amendment related to the reclassification of offences under Bill C-75 from strictly indictable to hybrid offences. This relates to subsection 291(1) of the Criminal Code, which is the offence of bigamy. This amendment would maintain that offence as a strictly indictable offence.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

This is another amendment dealing with another section of the Criminal Code being watered down under Bill C-75. This amendment relates to the offence of material benefit from sexual services. Bill C-75 would water down that sentence. This amendment would maintain it as a strictly indictable offence.

I would ask for a recorded vote.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an amendment again dealing with watering down sentences. Among the serious offences that this government saw fit to water down is none other than abducting a person under the age of 16. I can't believe it, but we actually have an amendment in Bill C-75 that would potentially water down sentences for kidnapping a minor. That is obviously a very serious crime and should be treated as a solely indictable offence in the same way that Liberal MPs rightfully saw fit to make terrorism-related offences subject to being prosecutable solely by way of an indictable process.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is dealing with yet another part of Bill C-75 that waters down sentences for indictable offences. This amendment would address the offence of withholding or destroying documents in the context of trafficking, to maintain that offence as a solely indictable offence.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're back now onto some of the amendments dealing with the reclassification of offences. I was quite alarmed that Bill C-75 seeks to water down sentencing for the offence of material benefit from trafficking. Right now, the maximum sentence is 10 years. Bill C-75 would make it possible that the maximum sentence for material benefit from trafficking would be two years less a day, and of course as little as merely a fine.

It's really unclear on what basis the government has decided to treat a material benefit for trafficking, which, I think we should agree, is a serious offence, as something that could be punishable by as little as a mere fine. I would encourage members to support this amendment by maintaining that this very serious offence as strictly indictable, and I would call for a recorded vote.

Criminal Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be partaking in today's debate on Bill C-84. It touches some subject matter which is difficult to talk about, but that is often the case with the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a gigantic statute that has to cover everything that could possibly go wrong in society and figure out how we amend and correct that behaviour, but also how we dole out punishment.

Bill C-84 is specifically aimed at addressing gaps in the Criminal Code that exist with respect to animal bestiality and animal fighting. Supreme Court decision R. v. D.L.W., from 2016, was referenced by both the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

Specifically, Bill C-84 would update section 160 of the Criminal Code to include a broader and more comprehensive definition of “bestiality” and would amend paragraph 445.(1)(b) and subsection 447(1) to address animal fighting, specifically building facilities to harbour animal fighting and also promoting or making money from the event.

Canada's animal welfare laws have not been substantively changed since the 1890s, which has to say something to anyone listening to this debate.

I want to acknowledge the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who brought forward a private member's bill on this issue, Bill C-388. In her drafting of Bill C-84, the Minister of Justice lifted Bill C-388 and included it. Therefore, that is an acknowledgement of the work the member for Calgary Nose Hill has done.

I know the member for Calgary Nose Hill was recently in a bit of a tussle with an iPolitics columnist on an article he recently wrote. He was looking at some of the statistics that existed with this crime. There is the Supreme Court of Canada case I mentioned and there has been one case in federal court. Even in the province of Alberta, which is home to 4.3 million people, six people were charged with that offence between 2013 and 2017. Therefore, it is not a very wide ranging crime. It is certainly an abhorrent one and one we should we should rightfully close in the Criminal Code.

What I am concerned about is not really what is in Bill C-84, which I hope will receive unanimous consent in the House to have it sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I am mostly concerned about what is not in it. I also agree with the member for Calgary Nose Hill's assessment of the glacial pace of justice reform by the Liberal government.

The minister came to power with a mandate letter from the Prime Minister, signalling bold criminal justice reform. We had a series of four government bills, which I will not number. Every time a new justice bill was added, like an amoeba, it would swallow the components of the first one and progressively get bigger and bigger. However, they were all languishing at first reading. Finally, we arrived at Bill C-75 and there was action on that bill, which I believe is currently at the justice committee. However, it has been a pretty glacial pace.

I like and respect the Minister of Justice. I was our party's justice critic for the entire 2017 year. It is a complex subject matter and requires a lot of responsibility and maturity to approach it. However, I have to judge the minister on her performance and I would not really give her a passing mark on the legislative front with respect to the promises made within her mandate letter.

I want to now move to a story from my riding, a story of Teddy the dog. This really goes to the heart of what is not included in Bill C-84. I will give my support to the bill, but I know constituents in my riding will be sorely disappointed. Teddy the dog was one of the most brutal cases of animal abuse the BC SPCA has ever witnessed.

In February of this year, officers came onto a property and found an adult dog tethered by a few inches. It was standing out in the wet and the cold in a pile of its own feces. The officers found a collar imbedded in that dog's neck that had caused the dog's head to swell to three times its original size, because it had been left on the dog from the time it was a puppy. The collar had never been loosened. When the officers removed the poor animal named Teddy and brought it to the veterinarian, the vet had to surgically remove that collar, which exposed the dog's trachea and a mound of infected flesh. Unfortunately, that dog passed away from its injuries.

It is far too often in this country that we hear of cases like that. Changing our laws would not be the magic bullet to solve this problem, but it would be one key, critical component, especially when we have such obvious gaps in our system.

There was a rally in my riding in March, where, as I said earlier, we had people from across the political spectrum. We had supporters of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, my party and the Green Party. They were all united, because they cared about animal welfare, and they cared that the state of our animal cruelty laws is not up to what it should be right now.

During that rally, I made a commitment that despite the defeat of Bill C-246, put forward by the member for Beaches—East York, I would continue pressuring the Minister of Justice to close these gaps and address the shortcomings of our current criminal law.

The unfortunate fallout from the case of Teddy the dog was that some people in the community felt that they could take the law into their own hands. A great deal of racism came out of it, because it involved a property on a first nation reserve. Therefore, I want to take this opportunity to remind constituents in my riding that racism and vigilantism have no place in our community. While we must always stand on guard for animal welfare, and certainly prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who are found guilty, we have to let the law do its job. We have to believe in the rule of law. We cannot support or condone in any way people taking up a case for themselves. I want to make that very clear.

As I mentioned in my question to the Minister of Justice, not only this Parliament but previous Parliaments have wrestled with the idea of the inadequacy of the Criminal Code provisions with respect to animal cruelty. There have been a number of Liberal bills and New Democrat bills over previous Parliaments that have dealt with this issue.

I will get to the bill put forward by the member for Beaches—East York, but first I want to mention the bill put forward in a previous Parliament by the great Irwin Cotler, probably one of the most revered Liberals ever and a former minister of justice himself. He introduced Bill C-610. It only made it to first reading, but that particular bill tried to make some important updates, specifically with respect to failing to provide adequate care. Bill C-610 was introduced on June 6, 2014. I want to read into the record the speech Mr. Cotler gave at that time:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and introduce this legislation, which amends the Criminal Code's provisions on animal cruelty. In particular, it creates a new offence of inadequate and negligent care of animals. The bill establishes an offence for anyone who negligently causes unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird, or, being the owner, wilfully or recklessly abandons it or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter and care for it. It also punishes those who negligently injure an animal or bird while it is being conveyed.

He went on to say that “Canada's animal cruelty laws are woefully out of date.” He left it at that.

The former member for Parkdale—High Park, Peggy Nash, introduced Bill C-232 in the last Parliament. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, in the previous Parliament, introduced Bill C-277. There has been multi-party support for these initiatives, but every time, they seem to have run into roadblocks.

Coming up to the most recent attempt in this Parliament, Bill C-246, which was introduced by the member for Beaches—East York, unfortunately I was not present for that second reading vote. I was travelling with the Special Committee on Electoral Reform at that time. I was substituting on it. We were hearing from the great people of Atlantic Canada about how great it would be to have some electoral reform. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not see it the same way. We will see how that conversation goes on in the future.

In any case, I think the member for Beaches—East York acknowledged that his particular private member's bill probably bit off more than it could chew, as it was trying to cover so many different angles. The more a private member's bill covers, the more areas people can find problems with and reasons to shut the whole thing down. I know that there were concerns raised by my Conservative colleagues, especially with respect to legal activities such as ranching, hunting, fishing, trapping, medical research and so on. I think there are ways to proceed with legislation that would address those concerns.

My wife and I have a small farming property. I come from a rural area of Vancouver Island. My constituents like to hunt and fish, and many of them are farmers. I would not support a piece of legislation unless there were specific provisions to protect those activities. I have some of the best salmon fishing in the world right off the west coast of Vancouver Island, which I enjoy. That is something that is a part of our heritage.

I raise animals. Most farmers will say that looking after the welfare of their animals is good for business. We do not want to have animals that are sickly or in poor health. I can attest to that. I have chickens, turkeys and lambs. When they are happy and well looked after, they do very well. It is in my interest not only from a moral point of view but from a commercial standpoint. There are always going to be those few bad apples who give everyone a bad name. However, that is specifically what this law has to be designed for, to weed out the bad apples and go after those who are the poor farmers who give everyone a bad name, and so on.

In 2016, when the member for Victoria, who was our party's justice critic and is now back to being the justice critic, rose to give our party's response to Bill C-246, he addressed those concerns. He said that we can insert clauses into the Criminal Code that start off with the phrase “For greater certainty” to make the necessary changes.

I heard concerns during that debate from Conservatives who wondered about jurisdictional and constitutional issues, because we know that the provinces have their own animal cruelty laws, as does the federal government. However, the supremacy of the criminal law power could easily override provincial legislation to ensure that we were not ending up with a patchwork quilt and that the law applied equally in each province, no matter where one lived. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that valid criminal law requires a prohibition, a penalty and a criminal law purpose, such as peace, order, security, morality and health. A change with respect to animal cruelty could easily satisfy all of those.

Here we are three years into the government's mandate, which I alluded to in my opening remarks. With respect to Bill C-84, there is so much more that could have been included in this bill. I said to the Minister of Justice during questions and comments that, with respect, the provisions in Bill C-84, which is not a very big bill, are very much the low-hanging fruit. I do not see how anyone in this place could raise any legitimate concerns about the bill, except for tinkering around the edges, such as whether some words could be modified. The general purpose of the bill is to broaden the definition of “bestiality” and to make sure that we have an all-encompassing law that goes against animal fighting. We are not going to find any significant objection to that.

However, the minister saying, after the defeat of Bill C-246, that the conversation would continue, that the Department of Justice would be having ongoing consultations with stakeholders, I think led many Canadians to believe that reform was actually coming. Therefore, when I announced to my constituents that we had Bill C-84 and what was missing, I had to convey a sense of disappointment.

Honestly, I think I and many constituents and many Canadians across this country were expecting a lot more, not only because it is three years into the government's mandate but because it is also two years after the defeat of Bill C-246. I know that the member for Beaches—East York has conveyed publicly that Bill C-84 is an obvious choice and is the low-hanging fruit. However, there is a sense of wondering what else is coming.

The Liberals are masters of the long promise. They say that they are continuing to engage with people, but I would not be surprised if we have to wait until the 43rd Parliament before we get some action. Who knows who will be in power at that point to deliver it?

My party has long supported animal cruelty measures. I have mentioned all the private members' bills. We could have included in this legislation, and I hope this is something the committee on justice and human rights will look at, some provisions for basic standards of care.

If I look at the case of Teddy the dog, in my riding, he was tethered with a chain just a few inches long and was having to stand in his own pile of feces. The B.C. SPCA has some specific recommendations the government could take note of. Basically, they want to see, for any dogs or animals that are tethered, five freedoms respected: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom from distress; freedom from discomfort and freedom to express behaviours that promote well-being. That is a starting point. There are lots of suggestions out there. There are many different stakeholders involved in this issue, and this is something the government could have taken note of.

As I referenced in my earlier questions and comments, I have written to the minister on this issue on behalf of constituents. Prior to Bill C-84 being introduced, I conveyed in my correspondence to the justice minister the concerns of my community about how many cases of animal cruelty exist across this country and that this particular case acted as a catalyst. People are demanding more action.

The minister did respond in June of this year. Again, it was not really anything concrete. She assured me that the government was intending to review all the options to improve any gaps in protection resulting from the existing Criminal Code provision, which is something that has not been done yet. The minister agreed publicly that animal cruelty is a significant social issue that needs to be addressed, and so on. There are many public comments that come from the government that signal an intent to do something, but when we actually get something concrete, like Bill C-84, we see that it has not amounted to much.

Just to highlight how important this particular issue is and why these gaps are so important, I want to speak about some of the statistics. It was reported, I think a couple of years ago, that there are approximately 45,000 animal cruelty complaints in Canada every year, but only one in 1,000 result in charges and far fewer in convictions. That is a significant difference between complaints and actual action in the court system. It says to me that there is definitely a need for this legislation.

I will conclude by saying that we support these gaps being addressed in the Criminal Code. Bill C-84 is an important first step. The Minister of Justice can be assured that we, as a caucus, will be supporting this bill going forward to committee, but we will remind Canadians that there was so much more that could have been done. It is a sad day that, after three years, we are still going to have to wait for those meaningful parts to be addressed.

[Carole Morency]

One, it's a drafting protocol. In terms of why Bill C-75, as introduced, does not propose to increase the maximum to two years less a day for those over 16, it would have involved repealing the provision that is there now and then re-enacting the provision with the mandatory minimum penalty. In this case, as the minister has said before and as I answered before as well, this bill is not addressing mandatory minimum penalties, pending a broader review of sentencing issues writ large.

In Bill C-46, there were some mandatory minimum penalties that were omitted and that this committee adopted, again, to put back into the package. Those mandatory minimum penalties, including $1,000 fines, are everywhere in the impaired driving provisions and have not been subject to charter challenges in the way that higher MMPs in the other areas are.

This committee may also know that under the previous government, Bill C-26 had increased all of the maximum penalties for all child sexual offences to two years less a day. At that time, that was done knowing that it was at a different maximum than it was for adults as well, in section 271.

The chair is correct in the sense that it's there already, but as a drafting protocol, that would be a factor that influences government bills in terms of how they're prepared and produced.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an amendment that I believe deals with a gap that was identified during the committee hearings on Bill C-75, in which, for whatever reason, the maximum sentence for sexual assault as a summary conviction offence is 18 months, as opposed to two years less a day. What this amendment would do is increase that to two years less a day so that it's consistent with the other offences.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is again an amendment dealing with the reclassification of offences under Bill C-75. This amendment would maintain the status quo by keeping the offence of impeding the attempt to save a life as a solely indictable offence, as opposed to what Bill C-75 would do, which would make it a hybrid offence prosecutable potentially by way of summary conviction.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think some of the comments made by my colleagues, all of whom I respect as members of this committee, are off base, with due respect.

Mr. Fraser has suggested that Bill C-75 does not impact upon sentencing principles, and other Liberal MPs have repeatedly said something similar, including the Minister of Justice. I know Mr. Fraser is not attempting to mislead the committee, but I think it is a misleading statement.

Of course it doesn't impact on sentencing principles. Sentencing principles weren't impacted in relation to the terrorism-related offences, but that wasn't why we proposed these amendments on the terrorism-related offences or on impaired driving causing bodily harm. Evidently, that was also not the basis for the Liberal MPs last week to do the right thing and support our amendments on the terrorism-related offences.

What Bill C-75 does do, contrary to the statement of Mr. McKinnon, with respect to terrorism-related offences and with respect to impaired driving causing bodily harm, is water down sentences for those offences. It waters down those sentences by making the maximum sentence go from 10 years to a maximum of two years less a day if prosecuted by way of summary conviction. That has absolutely everything to do with sentencing, Mr. Chair, and there was no basis, no evidence tendered before the committee, to justify why impaired driving causing bodily harm should be treated in this way instead of the way it is, rightly, presently treated, which is strictly as an indictable offence.

Of course we know, generally speaking—and I've made this point before, but I think it's important that it be made yet again—that the evidence before the committee is that, in terms of giving discretion, it is in fact going to be far less transparent, in terms of electing whether to proceed by indictable offence or summary conviction offence. We know it's going to result in more cases being downloaded onto our overburdened and overstretched provincial courts, since 99.6% of criminal cases are already heard before provincial courts. It's going to reduce the Jordan timeline from 30 months to 18 months before a delay is deemed presumptively unreasonable.

Bill C-75 does not address those issues, but it does send the wrong message. It makes it more likely that individuals who are charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm are going to get nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and quite frankly, Mr. Chair, victims and all Canadians deserve better than this.

I would just read into the record a quote from Markita Kaulius, the president of Families for Justice, who lost her daughter at the hands of an impaired driver. She said, “Bill C-75 is a terrible bill for victims and for public safety.” Sheri Arsenault, who lost her son Bradley, appeared before this committee and said, “This government bill is telling Canadians loud and clear that impaired driving is not considered serious and, in fact, it's not even considered dangerous.”

Mr. Chair, I would encourage members opposite to listen to the victims and do the right thing: treat impaired driving causing bodily harm as the serious offence it is and support this amendment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Chair, this amendment is, in my opinion, a fairly significant amendment. It deals with the very serious indictable offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm. Bill C-75 seeks to water down the sentence for impaired driving causing bodily harm, an offence that currently carries a maximum 10-year sentence, taking it down to a sentence that could be at most two years less a day, and as little as a mere fine, if it were prosecuted by way of summary conviction. We heard overwhelming testimony from victims of impaired driving who pleaded with the members of this committee to amend Bill C-75 to not water down sentences for impaired driving causing bodily harm.

I remind members of the committee that when we're talking about impaired driving, we're talking about the leading criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. Each and every day, between three and four Canadians are killed at the hands of impaired drivers. In addition to that, dozens more are injured at the hands of impaired drivers. Reclassifying impaired driving causing bodily harm to a hybrid offence from what it is today, which is strictly an indictable offence, sends the wrong message. It sends the message that impaired driving is really not that serious an offence.

Should there be any doubt about that message, I would reference some of the statements that were made by Liberal MPs on this committee last week when we were dealing with Conservative amendments related to terrorist-related offences. Bill C-75 waters down several terrorist-related offences. We said that it was wrong, that it shouldn't be, and we brought forward amendments. It was very encouraging to see members on that side do the right thing and support those amendments.

Randy Boissonnault, the member for Edmonton Centre, is on record at the committee as saying that he supported those Conservative amendments because terrorist-related offences are “very serious offences”. Well, Mr. Chair, so is impaired driving causing bodily harm. I urge members of this committee to be consistent, to do what they did with respect to terrorist-related offences and to treat impaired driving causing bodily harm as a serious offence by keeping it a strictly indictable offence.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is again related to reclassification. It's amazing how many serious indictable offences are being reclassified in Bill C-75. This would maintain the offence of failure to stop at the scene of an accident as an indictable offence. Bill C-75 would make it prosecutable by way of summary conviction, potentially.

On this one, I would ask for a roll call vote.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is another amendment dealing with reclassification. Bill C-75 would water down sentencing for an offence related to an unseaworthy vessel and unsafe aircraft. This would maintain the status quo, which is to treat that offence as strictly indictable.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment again relates to the reclassification of offences in Bill C-75. Bill C-75 would make the offence of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing bodily harm to be prosecutable by way of summary conviction. This amendment would maintain that offence as strictly indictable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue our clause-by-clause review of Bill C-75.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the personnel who were able to work so hard to have this early extra meeting. Thank you to the clerk, the legislative clerks, and the analysts. It is really appreciated. Thank you as well to the translators and everyone else who really helped out. It is much, much appreciated.

I also want to thank the members and the officials from the Department of Justice who were able to accommodate their schedules. It is much, much appreciated.

Before I go to our next clause—that will be clause 87—I want to advise members of the committee that over the weekend the vice-chairs and I had a conversation. To expedite the bill, we agreed that on those clauses where there are no amendments, we will agree that they are deemed adopted on division. That's with the exception of clause 278 of the bill, which relates to routine police evidence.

This will allow us not to have to put our hands up each time to vote on the clauses where there are no amendments. Can I confirm whether that is okay with everyone?