Evidence of meeting #48 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 amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order. Of course, we're still considering Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms).
I know some discussion has taken place over the last few days and some more is yet to be considered this morning. So I'm going to open the floor, and I know the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Moore, has something he would like to put on the table.
Mr. Moore.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thanks, Chair.
Yes, there's been ongoing discussion with regard to this bill. We just received some further amendments. In the interest of studying those amendments for a few minutes and then having some more informal discussions, I'm wondering if we could take 15 or 20 minutes to digest some of these new amendments and also to discuss, perhaps more informally, where we can go.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
All right.
Does anyone wish to make a comment?
Do you have something you wanted to say, Monsieur Ménard?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Chairman, do you want to adjourn the meeting for a specified period of time to allow some discussions that would be off the record, or do you merely want to postpone the start of the clause-by-clause study phase, all the while keeping any discussions officially on the record? If that's the case, then the proceedings would not be adjourned. The meeting would simply continue.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
What is the will of the committee? Some informal discussions off the record?
Okay, we'll suspend.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I call the meeting to order.
Before we get into clause-by-clause study, I'm going to give the floor to Monsieur Ménard. I believe he has a notice of motion that he wants to put before the committee.
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, if we are to vote on Thursday, I would simply ask the committee to take note of the following. I would like the committee to vote on a motion, further to the testimony that we have heard. I think all of my colleagues present will agree to this motion, which reads as follows:
1. That the government amend the definition of “criminal organization” in section 467.1 of the Criminal Code to include the commission of offences involving gratuitous violence (e.g.: drive-by shootings) that yield no material benefit for the said organization, as defined in section 467.1.
I'll have an opportunity to explain this further next Thursday. Moving right along:
2. That the government amend the Criminal Code to make warrants authorizing the use of a GPS system to monitor the movements of a motor vehicle (s. 487.01) valid for the same period as warrants for electronic surveillance; namely, one year.
This was something mentioned to us by the witness, Mr. Bélanger. I should also have included a reference to section 492 in addition to section 487.01. Continuing on with the reading of my motion:
3. That the federal government make available to the provincial attorneys general a fund of at least $5 million over three years to help train Crown prosecutors specializing in combating street gangs.
You may recall that according to the witnesses, few persons have specialized training in this field. Moving along:
4. That the federal government implement a web site accessible by police officers; federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers; and Crown attorneys, with links to the following:
I don't think I need to read the following three points. In short, the motion calls for evidence and court decisions to be made available to members of the legal system. I am optimistic that as a friendly gesture, you will unanimously support this motion.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Monsieur Ménard.
Notice has been served. We will now go to clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10.
(On clause 1)
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I know there is an amendment for clause 1 from the Liberals. That amendment is inadmissible. It's a simple matter of voting either for or against the clause.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I disagree. If amendment L-1 deletes the section—If the subsequent amendments we bring forth are adopted, then clause 1 would no longer be required, but if you rule this out of order and our subsequent amendments are adopted, then amendment, L-1 would in fact be required.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
The proper way to deal with this particular clause is to delete it by voting against it.
10:10 a.m.
Bloc
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
There is a government amendment on the clause as well.
Is someone going to move the government amendment?
Go ahead, Mr. Moore.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I'll move the government amendment. Do you need an explanation for the government amendment?
10:10 a.m.
Julie Besner Counsel, Criminal Policy Section, Department of Justice
The government amendment proposed to clause 1 essentially would give effect to amendments that are proposed for other clauses. It may be wise for the committee to consider standing down clause 1 until other amendments related to part III of the Criminal Code in the bill are dealt with--to see what remains standing, so to speak. Then we could go back to clause 1 and ensure that it reflects the outcome of the offences in part III.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Policy Section, Department of Justice
Clause 1 could be stood down and brought back after subsequent clauses are dealt with.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes. You ruled the Liberal amendment on clause 1 out of order. Why wouldn't the government amendment on clause 1 also be out of order?
The explanation being given is that we propose to stand down any discussion on clause 1 because the validity of our amendment on clause 1 will depend on whether or not subsequent government amendments are adopted. It's exactly the argument I gave for the Liberal amendment.
If my amendment was out of order, then the government's amendment to clause 1 should also be out of order, if you're going to issue rulings that are coherent.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Yes. I didn't understand that that was in fact what you had ruled, Mr. Chair. Is it possible to stand down any amendments to clause 1, including clause 1, until we see how the rest of the amendments play out?