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

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

I know Mr. Comartin is not here yet, but he has been sighted in the building, so we will endeavour to get started.

We've given all of us about 10 minutes. Before I actually call the meeting to order, I just want to note that there's coffee, juice, fruit, muffins in the back, so no one needs to go hungry this morning. I want to make sure everybody is feeling good, it's a positive meeting, and we get everything started off correctly.

Pursuant to the order of reference of October 26, the legislative committee will now resume its study of Bill C-2.

I just want to make a few brief remarks and outline a couple of things for this morning—and I guess potentially for this afternoon—in terms of where we are at. Obviously, we have finished with our witnesses. We have the ministry folks here this morning to respond to any specifics from our bill, to see what questions, if any, arise during clause-by-clause. So they are available for us to question and receive comment from.

I know I joked a bit about the fact that we do have some coffee and juice here this morning. I'd just make a very simple request of everyone. I think we've done a very good job at staying professional, staying focused on what we're trying to accomplish here. I would just ask the members of the committee to indulge for at least another day to do the same and keep everything as professional as we possibly can.

In terms of a couple of things with respect to clause-by-clause, before we proceed to take up this bill, I need to share some information with the members in regard to tie votes. As most of you are aware, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains the casting of votes. Basically, the chairman does not participate in debate and votes—only in cases of equality of voices. In such an eventuality, the chairman is responsible for breaking the tie by casting a vote. So I did want to just briefly mention that. I certainly don't want to anticipate any results in clause-by-clause, but I do want to inform members that if there are tied votes on clauses of the bill, I will vote in the affirmative to leave the bill in its existing form. If there are tied votes on amendments or subamendments, the chair will vote in the negative, in order to maintain the status quo and to keep the question open to further amendment, either here in committee or in the House at report stage. I obviously will notify the Speaker of any casting votes delivered on amendments.

There are a couple of other things with respect to debate on clause-by-clause. Obviously, the preamble and the short title I'll postpone until—welcome, Mr. Comartin—we've completed this specific clause-by-clause review. I'd like to point out that any member may ask questions about provisions in the clause or may debate any part of a clause, even if he or she has no amendments to propose.

Second, any member wishing to move an amendment should keep a number of rules in mind. One is obvious. Only members of the committee may propose amendments. I should say at this stage too—in fairness to everyone—a legislative committee works a little differently from a standing committee. We have a couple of subs this morning, so keep in mind that if and when your committee replacement comes back, you need to make sure that the individual subs back in to be able to vote this morning on any of the clauses. If you're not subbed in, obviously your vote will not actually be counted by the clerk.

No seconders are required to move amendments in committee, and obviously amendments may be proposed in either official language.

I'll just note that the committee will consider only one amendment at a time, so I'll try to keep us as tight as possible on that. Likewise, subamendments are obviously amendments to amendments, and the committee can have only one subamendment before it at one time. And when a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it's voted on first.

So I think that basically covers our procedures for this morning. I guess we can jump right into this. I'll just read for the record that the preamble shall be postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1) and also that clause 1, the short title, shall be postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1) as well.

Just before we get started, there are a number of clauses in this bill. I know it's been our past practice, at least at the justice committee, if there are no questions on specific clauses, to move a number of clauses at one time. I'll leave that open to the committee's jurisdiction, or at least your decision on that. Obviously, we need unanimous approval to do that, but I'd like to think if there are no amendments we could potentially shorten our timeframe by doing that.

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, how does the committee make that recommendation, to move a group of clauses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Essentially we just need one person to move the number of clauses, get a general consensus from everyone else that it is okay and there aren't specific questions to a clause, and then we could move in that direction.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Could I suggest that the way we conduct the clause-by-clause is that we look at Bill C-2 in light of the prior bills, that we move on four of the five sections of Bill C-2 that have already been through a standing committee or special legislative committee, that we deal with them in the same manner, and that we move all of them, since they already have been passed. I have one amendment involving that, but it would be included in that section.

I don't know if it's possible to do that, Mr. Chair. I'm looking at the officials and the parliamentary secretary to see if it would be possible to break Bill C-2 into those kinds of sections, get through the ones that have already been passed as quickly as possible, and move to the old Bill C-27, the dangerous offender section, and spend our time on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Just indulge me for a second to see if we could actually work that out, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Comartin, your suggestion is a positive one, but I think it's going to create a bit more confusion. We have a couple of amendments that have a potential impact. I have a feeling that if we were to move clauses in groups versus trying to achieve what you suggested, we might end up creating a bit more confusion than help.

Madam Jennings.

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

My question is, given that there are no amendments being proposed to clause 2 up to clause 33, would there be a problem in moving all those clauses at once?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

All we need, as I indicated, Madam Jennings—

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

I would propose that I move that this committee vote on clause—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

I think what Madam Jennings is suggesting is that we get started by moving clause 2—I would just ask, as you mentioned clause 33, that you might want to include clause 34.

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

I hadn't finished my sentence—clause 2 to clause 33.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Would we leave clause 34 because clause 34.1 is a new clause?

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

I would prefer to leave clause 34.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

(Clauses 2 to 33 inclusive agreed to on division)

(Clause 34 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

There is a new clause, 34.1. Procedurally I do have an issue that I need to speak about with respect to this clause.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if you deem this amendment in order, I will invite my colleagues to vote in favour of it. My colleagues may recall that in June, the Bloc Québécois put forward a series of fifteen or so alternative measures to the Canadian justice system. The inspiration for these measures came from a federal-provincial conference held three years ago. It was suggested at that time that a reverse onus provision apply to permit the confiscation of property in the case of a certain number of offences.

This measure was discussed at a federal-provincial conference of justice ministers and common sense dictates that a reverse onus provision should apply. Moreover, this would be in line with the wishes of the majority of Quebeckers. I hope that you will deem this amendment admissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Monsieur Ménard, but the ruling on this actually is that the amendment seeks to amend section 462.37 of the Criminal Code, and based on House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 654:

an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Section 462.37 of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-2; therefore it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment, and the amendment is ruled inadmissible.

So new clause 34.2, Monsieur Ménard. I obviously have comments on this with respect to procedure as well.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly found of this amendment. As you know, the Bloc Québécois has been especially interested in fighting organized crime. It was the first party to table a bill to fight organized crime and criminal “gangs”. As you may know, a British Columbia trial court ruled that Hells Angels members belonged to a criminal organization.

If the committee saw fit to adopt this amendment, persons would not be allowed to wear a symbol or representation that identifies them with an organization deemed by a court to be a criminal organization. I hope that you will find this amendment in order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

We have a couple of questions on this. I do have a ruling that is similar, if you'd like to get my ruling first and you have a question on that, or is this specific to...?

Yes, Mr. Lee.

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

This is a very minor point of order, but it would be really helpful to me if you could refer to the amendments by their proper number. You've referred to the first amendment as a new clause and you've referred to the next amendment as a new clause 34.2. What we're dealing with here on the record is an amendment that has been shown as BQ-1 and BQ-2. That would tie the record into the documents we have in front of us.

It's a very minor point, but it would help me immensely.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

All right, let me do this. Going forward, technically speaking, they are actually new clauses, but with the permission of the committee, I will refer to them as amendments, with the understanding that we're talking about them as new clauses.

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

I'm not going to get into reading exactly the same thing on each of these rulings, but I will, just for the record, note that the amendment seeks to amend section 467.14 of the Criminal Code, and based on the fact that that section is not being amended by Bill C-2, it's inadmissible, and therefore the amendment is inadmissible.

That is BQ-2.

We now have clauses 35 and 36.

(Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

We have BQ-3.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the regular members of the justice and human rights committee will recall that we heard from some witnesses—specifically chiefs of police—who made representations when Bill C-95 and even Bill C-24 were adopted. Thirty-day warrants authorizing the use of electronic eavesdropping devices have been extended. Judges can now issue a warrant authorizing the use of an electronic eavesdropping device for a period of one year. However, no similar changes have been made regarding warrants authorizing the use of other investigative tools, such as GPS tracking devices.

Therefore, the Bloc is proposing that, as per the wishes of law enforcement officials, judges be allowed to issue a warrant that is valid for a period of one year, rather than 30 days. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we will respect your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard. Unfortunately, however, the amendment seeks to amend section 492.1 of the Criminal Code. The amendment is inadmissible because of course that section is not being amended by the bill itself.

(Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to on division)