Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2010

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

“Mise en accusation” , there we go. Thank you.

In law, this is a choice the prosecutor makes. So, if the limitation period for summary conviction is over and he still feels that the crime is serious enough, he always has the option of proceeding by indictment in the time-honoured way. So we are not depriving the prosecutor of any option to proceed against someone after the limitation period has expired. We are just taking away his option to do so by summary conviction. He can always do it by indictment.

Did I understand correctly?

[Elaine Ménard]

I think so.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Now, in the situation that Ms. Chow brought to our attention—a person adversely affected by a consultant's decision that resulted in financial losses or the loss of opportunities to reunite a family—would it be correct to say that that the limitation period mentioned here would apply to the legal sanctions against the consultant but would not apply to any civil action that an individual might want to bring against the consultant for those losses?

[Elaine Ménard]

Mr. Chair, yes, I agree that the applicant who feels that he or she has been wronged would always have the ability of pursuing a civil action.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Before I finish, I would really like to understand. The amendment before us suggests extending the limitation period to 10 years for a summary conviction. But Bill C-35 already amends the act to make that limitation period five years.

Is it true that it is six months at the moment? If Bill C-35 were not passed, would it be six months for a summary conviction?

[Elaine Ménard]

Let me check.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Okay.

[Elaine Ménard]

Yes, sir, it is six months.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're now onto clause 5, amendment G-5.1.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Sorry, where are you?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I assume you're not proceeding with G-5; you're proceeding with G-5.1.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Reference 4753579.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

So moved, that Bill C-35--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Debate.

Well, he said, “so moved”.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's fine. If you don't need me to read it out, I don't need to read it out. Everybody has read it. Everybody knows this bill inside out.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry. Is there anyone who wants him to read it?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you know what? I think we all want him to read it.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I move that Bill C-35 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 32 on page 3 with the following:

referred to in any of paragraphs 91(2)(a) to (c) in

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Seeing no debate...?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Well, after I read it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We understand it.

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Dykstra, G-7.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're not going to proceed with G-6, I don't think.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

No, I'm not.

I move that Bill C-35 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 33 on page 3 with the following:

connection with a proceeding--other than a proceeding before a superior court--or application

(Amendment agreed to)