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.
Conservative
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Yes. I move that all amendments relating to clause 1, whether originating from the government or from the Liberals, be allowed to stand.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Clause 2 is in the same situation in that it affects not only clause 2 but also clause 9. Could I have a motion to stand those?
Monsieur Ménard.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Is there agreement?
(Motion agreed to)
(Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 7)
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Would it be possible to hold separate votes? We agree with the first part which calls for the creation of a new offence. However, obviously, we wouldn't be comfortable with the second part. I'm referring here to the original text.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
There's no new offence. For what we have categorized as serious non-use offences, clause 7 raises the minimum penalty—in the case of a first offence, three years, and in the case of subsequent offences, five years—but it does not create a new offence. And the minimum now is one year.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
The first part contains a reference to subsection 95(1), while the second part mentions mandatory minimum penalties, as proposed. Is that correct?
Counsel, Criminal Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. Some of the same terms are used at the beginning of section 95. This provision contains nothing new. Some terminology has been dropped to update the act, but no new offence is created. It's simply a matter of making a substantive change, with a view to increasing minimum penalties.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I don't support this, and I believe my colleagues do not support this.
It's clear from the testimony this committee heard on the very principle of minimum mandatories that in general they do not work and they have no effect on deterrence. They could, however, be effective on the side of denunciation should society speak through its government to say that there are certain crimes that we simply will not tolerate and that therefore will require a minimum mandatory.
Therefore, we will not be supporting the government amendment. As you know, we have our own amendment for clause 7. We'll speak to our amendment should the government amendment not—
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Excuse me.
Oh, that's why you've been waiting. I've been looking at the wrong line.
I move Liberal amendment 2, which would remove the escalator clause and establish a minimum mandatory of two years where the current provision now provides for a minimum mandatory of one year.
I apologize for holding up the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
That's all right.
I would consider that amendment to be inadmissible.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
It removes the subsequent higher offences and it's also against the principle of the bill.
Liberal
