Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on Nov. 20th, 2007

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair, in terms of the result of that prior vote, I believe the same attempt on my part to delete those sections runs through amendments 3, 4, 5, and 6, and I'm not sure about 7. I was just about to look at that.

Amendment 7 is one as well?

I'm accepting Mr. Kramp's assessment appropriately. So if I can, Mr. Chair, I suggest that I move all five of those amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Do we have unanimous consent to move all amendments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you.

Those in favour of the amendments—

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Sorry, is Mr. Comartin not going to speak to them? He's just going to move them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Yes, he's moving them.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

He's not going to speak. Could I speak to the amendments, then?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

You certainly can, Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

I'm rather attracted by the logic that Mr. Comartin brings to these sections. As I look through the listing in this statute of the primary designated offences, all of the Criminal Code offences, I'm struck by the degree to which they include offences involving violence, which is one of the intentions, and then offences involving sex, some aspect of sexual conduct.

I know the intent of the legislation was to incorporate offences that dealt with the most serious and most violent types of offences that might be out there. But in drawing the line here and in sketching out and painting the picture of the most serious offences, the bill, as drafted now, includes offences that, while involving some aspect of sexual conduct, would not in many cases be regarded by the public as being really serious. Mr. Comartin has identified some of those, and other offences, for example, the offence of pointing a firearm, which, on the face of it, is simply the pointing, it's not the shooting and not the threat to kill; it's simply pointing a firearm, not involving physical violence, although it may scare somebody.

I'm rather taken by the principal line behind Mr. Comartin's amendments, but in the interest of getting the bill passed, if it is to have warts, I guess it will have warts that will attempt to protect society a little better. So I won't be supporting the amendments, but I did want to express some support of the principle enunciated by Mr. Comartin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I must say that I hold a completely different view from that of my colleague Mr. Lee. Of all the criminal offences that would be removed from the list as a result of Mr. Comartin's amendments, we would have, for instance, “assault”, and “assaulting a police officer”.

Now when one hears “assault causing bodily harm” or “assaulting a police officer”, people will necessarily believe it involves some serious injury. In fact, if I get into a verbal altercation with a police officer and at some point I merely put my hands on the police office—I don't push him, I simply put my hands on him—that's assault of the police officer.

[An hon. member]

Or an MP.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Unfortunately, or fortunately, we're not listed in the Criminal Code. It's not a specific criminal offence to assault a member of Parliament.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

So the point is—We heard testimony that some of these criminal acts or infractions are so broadly defined that it would capture many infractions that in fact the public, if it had the details and facts of the actual infractions, would say no, these should not be among the three convictions that would lead to the reverse presumption, for instance, of a dangerous offender.

Simply on that basis, amendments 3 to 7 from Mr. Comartin seek to remove from the list of primary designated offences those criminal acts that are so broadly defined that they will not only capture the violent and serious infractions, they will also capture, under that broad definition, what most Canadians—ordinary Canadians who are concerned with violence, who are concerned with repeat offenders, who are concerned with offenders who do in fact represent a real, high risk of danger to the protection of the public and public safety—would clearly say are not the ones that should be included.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Madam Jennings.

We'll go to Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to get in the back door what I couldn't get through the front door, but if this bill had been properly characterized and coloured as a bill dealing with mandatory minimum sentences and not as a bill that was quintessentially about escalating mandatory minimum sentences, and if 718.3 included some discretion for a judge in these, I would suggest, greyer instances of offences, I would be happy to have kept them in. But we're dealing with three groups of offences, I would say.

The first, which we all agree on, which most of us agree on, that should be subject to mandatory minimum sentences escalating—some of them—are those that, even in the best light, in the best light of the facts of the case, deserve those mandatory minimums. These, however, in their best light, might not deserve the mandatory minimums this law will put forward.

So I just wanted to point out that by virtue of what I think is a logical flaw in the rulings of your predecessor, Mr. Hanger, and you—this is not personal, it's just my view—I will be supporting Mr. Comartin's amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Never let it be said, Mr. Murphy, that you are not entitled to your view.

We'll have Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Just quickly, I believe that on the offences Mr. Comartin set out, we're not dealing with mandatory minimum penalties. We're talking about the dangerous offender provisions of the bill. That's number one.

Number two, we have to also couple the offence with the sentence a convicted offender received for that offence. Under this bill, in order to trigger the provisions of this bill, a person has to have been tried, convicted, and sentenced to two years or more. So to Ms. Jennings' point, a person is not convicted and sent to prison for two years for putting his or her hands on someone. A judge would not convict someone with a two-year sentence for that.

I think that in the vast majority of cases for which someone gets a sentence of two years or more, it's going to be a more serious circumstance, and that is why that additional provision is in the bill.

I hear what the members are saying, but they have to take that in light of the further trigger, that being that the person had received a sentence of two years or more for each of those acts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I just wanted to go on record to explain my view on this, but it will apply to some other clauses in this bill in the future too. Basically, I agree with all my colleagues. What I disagree with is an omnibus bill. It should never have been brought forward this way, because you've got a whole bunch of different topics, so that if you want the bill to pass with good things, then you're going to have to vote for bad things.

So I'll be voting the same way as Mr. Lee, but certainly if I were ever to form a government, I would be agreeing with what my colleagues said and would want to get Supreme Court references to certain things, or make amendments to the bill to take out the things that don't make any sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Mr. Bagnell, thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just so Mr. Moore is clear, I understand that these amendments don't have anything to do with the mandatory minimum part. I think Mr. Murphy's argument is a good argument. It's just that it's not really relevant to the amendments that are before the committee right now.

I do want to challenge Mr. Moore on his statement with regard to the two years. Of course, he's right about that, that even these lesser offences—as I see them—can call for two years or more in a number of cases. Obviously he didn't understand the point I was making, and that may be my fault rather than his, Mr. Chair.

Let me take as an example—because this is where the flaw is in the legislation—breaking and entering again. I say this from experience and from looking at a large number of cases. You will get a series of convictions for breaking and entering. I know how demeaning that is—my house has been broken into I think three times in the last 20 years, and I know the consequences. One time my daughter was present, and that was quite scary, Mr. Chair.

But the reality is that this was a petty criminal, and if that person—I don't think he has ever been caught—had been caught, we probably would have found that he had a series of B and Es and probably had been convicted. On the first occasion he would have been given either probation or a short provincial jail term, but escalating. The reality still is that this is a petty criminal, and you can see quite easily—I know Mr. Hoover and I disagree over this—hundreds of cases in which there would be that exact situation and in which the judge would finally say,“I give up. You're not listening. I'm sending you away for two years plus, into federal prison.” We could have a series of those, and then the dangerous offender application would come for a person who was clearly, by any objective standards, not a dangerous offender. You can repeat that same argument for a number of the other sections. That's why I moved them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Okay. To be clear, by unanimous consent we are going to apply the result of the decision on NDP-3 to the amendments 4 through 7.

(Amendments negatived)

(Clause 40 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 1)

(On clause 41)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

We have amendment NDP-8.

Mr. Comartin, just before I give you the floor, I want to note that there is a conflict between your amendment 8 and your amendment 9. It's a line conflict with NDP-9. If NDP-8 is adopted, NDP- 9 cannot be proceeded with. I'd like you to be aware of that.

Mr. Comartin.