Evidence of meeting #44 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I appreciate Mr. Ménard's giving us his position, because I didn't understand it. But I will move the motion that we override your finding that it is out of order. I really like doing this, and I might even win this one. But I think we should. I'm cognizant of what's going to happen when it goes back to the House. But of course that can be taken care of...which we probably are not going to get, based on the position that Mr. Ménard has now taken. But if we all spoke to our House leaders about unanimous consent to the amendment, I'm sure the Speaker will not rule it out of order.
So I would move my motion that the amendment with regards to the summary conviction section be allowed to proceed and we override your ruling in that regard.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Before we entertain your motion, Mr. Comartin, I think there was some confusion on my part in bringing the parent rule into play here. The confusion arose out of the fact that the amendment referred to a different section in the code and not the same section as we were actually dealing with when it comes to punishment.
The amendment as noted is incorrect. The amendment should have reflected paragraph 172.1(2)(b), which also falls into the same section as the bill itself, which is paragraph 172.1(2)(a). So the parent rule would not actually apply to this particular....
I'm sorry to disappoint you again, Mr. Comartin. I know you wanted to catch me on something.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
But you actually did. There may be some question about scope, but it's minor in nature.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
No, but the amendment would be presented orally by Mr. Thompson, which I believe he did already. So there is no interpretation of that, other than through the interpreter.
Mr. Lee.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
On that basis, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson should withdraw the previous motion as being out of order and propose a new motion with proper section numbers. Then you can deal with it.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
That is in order.
Would you withdraw your previous motion and submit anew?
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I withdraw the previous motion and the submit the following motion. I move that paragraph 172.1(2)(b) read as follows:
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Okay, that's the motion, seconded by Mr. Murphy.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Now we're going to clause-by-clause.
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
Shall the title, as amended, carry?
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, I wanted to get something on the record with regard to the proposal.
Conservative
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you.
I just want to make these three points and get them on the record.
One--as I always get this on the record--the government continues to bring forward a number of different bills when a great deal of these could be consolidated into one omnibus bill. This section that we're dealing with...and I applaud Mr. Fast for bringing it forward, because it does address an issue. But the points he made with regard to some of the other sections that are inconsistent to the point of being absurd, and the penalties they have as compared to this type of crime, are very well taken. It seems to me it behooves the government to take a look at an overall review of the Criminal Code and do a major reform and restructuring of it to get rid of those absurdities.
The second point, as I raised in my questions, is that I am concerned about its potential impact on conditional sentences. So I'm just putting on the record that this is not the intent of this committee. We are very cognizant of what we did in Bill C-9, and the introduction of this increased penalty does not take this section of the code out of the ambit of the conditional sentencing regime we have.
Finally, Mr. Chair, I'm just going to put this on the record in case we start to see it coming. I'm concerned that we're going to see a series of either private members' bills or perhaps other bills from the government along the lines of trying to get around the provisions of Bill C-9 as passed by the House. I'll just put on the record that I hope we won't see that happening, but I have to say cynically that I'm expecting it to come.
Those are the points I want to make. Thank you.
I am going to support the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Comartin. Your cynical comments have been noted.
Monsieur Ménard.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois will also support the bill at the committee stage, but I also want to be clear that we believe that minimum mandatory sentences are not effective. We are not dealing with a minimum mandatory sentence in this case, but a maximum sentence.
So at this stage, we will support the bill, first because we are quite aware that the sponsor of this bill has good and noble intentions, but also because we were reassured by what the senior official said, namely that judges will have the latitude they need. Further, this bill is in line with provisions which have already been adopted.
Conservative
