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.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm trying to follow the logic of that ruling, Mr. Chair, and I'm not.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Excuse me. We have the two amendments. If your amendment NDP-8 were to carry, as I understand it, you're removing a portion of clause 41. If that amendment were to carry, you'd be unable to move amendment NDP-9, because it wouldn't exist.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm going to need to look at this. I think we may have the wrong lines. What I'm attempting to do with NDP-8 is to delete those, and I think I may be moving to delete the wrong ones. You have to do NDP-8 in relation to NDP-10 and NDP-11.
What I'm attempting to do, and perhaps the clerk can be of assistance here, is to take that section out--in fact, replace it--and I think I may have made an error. Perhaps, Mr. Chair, we could stand these down, but we'll have to stand down NDP-10 and NDP-11 as well.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I'll need unanimous consent from the committee to stand down amendments NDP-8, NDP-9, and NDP-10—
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm sorry, I still want to proceed with amendment NDP-9. Can we stand down NDP-8, NDP-10, and NDP-11?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
My understanding is that you want to stand down amendments NDP-8, NDP-10, and NDP-11.
I think the best way to handle this is probably to stand the clause down, because if there is some confusion around which lines you meant to remove, if we move forward on your amendment NDP-9, Mr. Comartin, it actually eliminates the ability to move amendment NDP-8, so if—
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if we can stand down the whole section of it. We may be having a break at some time later this morning, and then I can speak to the clerk about it.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Mr. Comartin, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I believe you are moving that we stand down clauses 41 and 42 for the time being and that we come back to those two before the end of the day.
Do we have unanimous support to do that? Is it agreed?
Mr. Keddy is next.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Mr. Chair, my understanding is that it is not his intent to stand down the entirety of clause 41 but simply his amendments NDP-8, NDP-10, and NDP-11 in clauses 41 and 42, and to go ahead and vote on his amendment NDP-9 in clause 41.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
That may have been Mr. Comartin's intent. If he so moves that, we run into the problem that he will not be able to move amendment NDP-8, because as the two amendments stand, they conflict with each other.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I would have to ask that all of clauses 41 and 42 just stand down for the time being. I'm not comfortable about where the error has been made, but I have made an error.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Okay.
We have had the request from Mr. Comartin to stand down clauses 41 and 42 for the time being with—
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
No. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to clause 42 and I'm reluctant to stand it down.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I would suggest that you begin by asking for consent of the members to stand down clause 41. Those only have NDP amendments.
On clause 42, Mr. Lee has his own amendment, and Mr. Comartin has suggested that he would be prepared to stand down amendment NDP-10, but Mr. Lee has the right to go forth with his own amendment. I would suggest that you might wish to take a short break now to allow Mr. Comartin to attempt to sort out the confusion and conflict with his amendments. When we come back, we may be able to accommodate both Mr. Comartin and Mr. Lee.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I think that's a good suggestion. It may also allow Madam Jennings to get some water.
Why don't we suspend for five minutes to see if we can get this straightened out?
Thank you.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I know our clerk doesn't like it when I overuse the gavel, but I would like to just get everyone back to the table. It seems we have had some clarification, and we did not have the unanimous consent to stand down clause 41.
Mr. Comartin, the floor is yours regarding amendment 8.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't need to have it stood down. When I had indicated I had made an error, I was wrong. It's like that old story, Mr. Chair. I've only once made a mistake in my life, and that was because I thought I had made a mistake and then I was proven to be wrong about that.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you.
I do want to proceed with NDP-8. The purpose here is in keeping with what I was attempting to do in the earlier amendments, to, in effect, reduce the usage of the reverse onus in these circumstances. Mr. Chair, what I believe is going to happen as these sections get challenged, as we heard from numerous witnesses, is it is going to get challenged, probably the very first time this part of the bill is used, and it probably will end up going all the way to the Supreme Court. What I'm attempting to do here is to forestall that and try to make this part of the bill charter-proof. I believe strongly that it is going to be successfully challenged. You may hear me repeat this a number of times.
I've gone back and looked particularly at the Lyons decision. The dangerous offenders section of that, as it is now, was challenged. The court used quite clear and strong language, saying, look, this is what we have now, the use of this is very restricted, and they said appropriately so. By both using the designated offences, primary and otherwise, and this section, which will trigger the application by the prosecutor, it goes way beyond the directions we had from the court as to what was permissible with regard to the use of the dangerous offenders section.
So I just feel very strongly that this is ultimately what's going to happen. It will probably be after a number of us are no longer here. This is one of those cases that will take five or seven years to wind its way through the courts and back up to the Supreme Court of Canada. At some point, I believe strongly that these sections, and this one specifically, will be struck down. So we might as well do it now and save all that time and effort.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
November 20th, 2007 / 10:10 a.m.
Catherine Kane Acting Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It appears to those of us who have looked at it that this amendment is seeking to remove the provision of the bill that requires the crown to declare their intention to bring a DO application or to indicate the reasons they're not bringing the DO application.
That would be my only comment. If Mr. Comartin's comments might suggest that he's seeking to do something broader, the effect of the amendment would simply be to—well, not simply, because it's quite a significant amendment, but it would be to remove that whole provision that requires the crown to state their intentions.
