Justice Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call this meeting to order.

The justice committee will now be dealing with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9.

I see before me that there are three amendments, two of which to be dealt with at the outset.

The first amendment, L-1, is submitted by Ms. Barnes, London West.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Do you want me to speak to it?

Mr. Hanger, I can say right off the bat that I've had the opportunity to speak to your legislative clerk and the head of her team before she was assigned to this bill. She told me that especially because of the one-paragraph way in which the bill was formulated, it is very difficult to amend this bill at this stage.

There were many people who in testimony brought in the idea of discretion and the concept of denunciation. Basically this is the way the former Liberal government envisioned this section in the previous Bill C-70, going with some of these elements that under the rules—whether because of those two elements—I'm told will be out of order.

I was also told, and had verified by both her and the head of the department she works in, that any list would be out of order.

I am aware that this is out of order. I would still like to table it for the record for all those people who testified, saying that this is the way they would have preferred to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay, fair enough.

In that particular case then, I will just put the ruling on the record as well.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, in terms of the description we've just had from Ms. Barnes, could we have the legislative clerk confirm that in fact they determined it's out of order and give a brief synopsis of the reasons for it being so? I'd like that on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The explanation is given in the ruling, if I may read it here.

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

I'm sorry. I didn't know you had it there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, I will read the ruling. Then if any other questions come up, you can bring them up at that time.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you're reading what you refer to as a ruling. By any measure, what you're about to read is not a ruling, it is your ruling.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

That's right.

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

Any clerks we have at the table give advice to the chair and the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

That's right. It's an admissibility statement I am making.

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

You can't delegate this decision to anybody else, whoever he or she may be—

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

That's why he wants to read it.

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

—and therefore I wanted to clarify it. This is what you're going to rule; you've made the decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

This is my ruling on the admissibility of the amendment L-1.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Further to that, Mr. Chair, I'm saying that it's on the advice of your clerk. I want it confirmed that what I said from her was accurate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, the clerk is not the party.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I know that.

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

There are any number of clerks who serve us very well. As I understand it, the chairman is about to make a ruling—not the clerk.

Is that right, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

That's right, Mr. Lee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I also understand Ms. Barnes' position here, as she sought information often from the same source, Mr. Lee.

So I'll go through the ruling here now.

Bill C-9 makes just one substantive change to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code. It provides that conditional sentences will not be available for offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment for 10 years or more.

The amendment proposes to replace this with an alternate scheme. The offences to which the amendment would apply are in some cases outside of what is covered by the bill.

In addition, proposed subsection (2) of the amendment allows for the exercise of discretion, which is not in keeping with the principle of Bill C-9.

On page 654, Marleau and Montpetit state: “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.”

I must therefore rule the amendment inadmissible, as it introduces an alternate scheme, which goes against the principle and beyond the scope of the bill.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Chair, if you could indulge me, I wanted the clerk to verify that I had met with her for advice, and that the type of advice you just ruled on, including the listing, is what was given to me.