Evidence of meeting #8 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
We have the first NDP amendment, proposing new clause 38.1.
Mr. Comartin.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This specifically addresses the mandatory minimum penalties that have been introduced into clause 38. What I'm attempting to do—and I won't go on for any length, anticipating your ruling on the admissibility of this—is reintroduce judicial discretion with set criteria. You will see this in the last three points, in basically the last sentence of the amendment I'm proposing; namely, a judge would have the discretion to vary from the mandatory minimums in circumstances where the judge “does not consider it necessary to do so”—and then here's where the test applies—“having regard to the public interest, the needs of the community and the best interests of the person who commits the offence”.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Thank you, Mr. Comartin.
Basically, my ruling on this is that Bill C-2 amends the Criminal Code to provide for escalating minimum penalties for offences involving the use of a firearm. This amendment proposes to allow for the court to exercise its discretion and select a lesser punishment than the minimum provided for by the bill.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In my opinion, the introduction of the concept of discretion is actually contrary to the principle of Bill C-2, and is therefore inadmissible.
On the ruling, Mr. Murphy.
November 20th, 2007 / 9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
We went at this before, but I'll just say briefly that I disagree with the ruling. Proportionality in the code on sentencing, in section 718—
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I'm shocked, I'm shocked.
Mr. Murphy has chosen to exercise an option that is available under the rules of procedure. Obviously, a member appeals a ruling by requesting that the committee vote on the motion, and that has happened.
Basically, I'm going to ask the committee members to confirm the ruling of the chair. If you vote yes, it's to confirm that my ruling on this is in fact something you agree with.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8; nays 4)
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
This is not really a point of order but a point of clarification. It's not at all calling into doubt the vote that just took place. It's just a clarification on your actual ruling.
Why did you not rule that it was out of order because it was touching on a section of the Criminal Code that Bill C-2 was not amending? Your rulings on the previous amendments that had been presented were on the basis that they dealt with a section that Bill C-2 did not amend, and therefore were beyond the scope. That was not the wording you used in ruling this particular amendment out of order.
I'm just confused on that, and I'd like some clarification.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
The request for clarification is reasonable. Basically, determining which of these amendments actually were within the scope of the bill and which were outside the scope of the bill certainly was part of the discussion. It was determined, though, that this ruling, specifically dealing with the amendment, first and foremost, goes against the principle of the bill itself.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, and secondly, had it not gone against the actual principle of the bill, by virtue of the fact it was seeking to amend a section of the Criminal Code that was not being amended by Bill C-2, it was also out of order on that basis.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
It's a fair and valid point. The fact is it went against the principle of the bill, and that was where I determined to stop in terms of the research.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, I believe that when you talk about this committee a few years down the road, you will have very fond memories of the members working harmoniously together. It will certainly go down as one of your personal accomplishments as chair of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, my one wish would be for the committee to adopt this amendment, since it was discussed at the federal-provincial ministers conference. This amendment proposes an end to the practice of deducting double the amount of time spent in custody from the sentence to be ultimately served. I know that the provinces were in agreement on this. I know that even the Conservatives conducted surveys to gauge the public's support for this initiative.
Of course, I will not challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I ever you sense unanimous support for this measure among committee members, I think our friendship would be further solidified.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Mr. Ménard, your success, I'm sure, in the constituency is due very much to your very capable means of speaking. Unfortunately, we are at a legislative committee here and the amendment does seek to amend subsection 719(3) of the Criminal Code. Since the section actually is not being amended by Bill C-2, it is therefore inadmissible, and the amendment is inadmissible in itself.
Thank you. It's as close as we have to always being friends.
(Clause 39 agreed to on division)
(On clause 40)
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a number of amendments that flow in the same vein, so I don't want to repeat the arguments each time. Essentially, what I'm attempting to do here by these series of amendments is to remove from the list of designated offences and primary designated offences those charges that are of a less serious nature.
I'm sure we'll have some argument over whether they are of a less serious nature. But we did hear evidence from a number of witnesses who suggested that by simply saying if you break and enter with intent—I'm just using that as one of the examples because it's one of the ones I'm moving to delete—there is such a wide range of factual occurrences that the expectation of the Canadian public in terms of what is being attempted here...by saying we want to get a list of offences where, if you commit them and you get more than two years, you are putting yourself in a category as a dangerous offender. It's my firmly held belief and opinion that a number of these charges that are listed do not call for that type of a designation if you've committed these offences, and the range of violent conduct, which may or may not be included in the factual realities, is so wide that it in fact undermines the credibility of the legislation.
So I'm moving that motion for that purpose.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative