Justice Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes.

Chair, I have a difficult time following your reasoning. If in fact the whole principle of the bill is to, one, create escalator clauses on subsequent second, third, etc., offences, then the government amendments remove escalator clauses that we found in Bill C-10, which then means that those amendments are out of order. They are removing escalator clauses that we find in the original provisions of Bill C-10.

First, where there is no change to existing Criminal Code provisions, if your ruling is to have weight, then Bill C-10 should have addressed every single criminal provision and introduced escalator clauses for every single sentencing provision in the Criminal Code. Second, it should also have included escalator clauses beyond third offences.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

On your ruling, Mr. Chair, I take the purpose of the bill not to be the press releases on the nightly news from former Minister Toews, but to be the preamble, as we're supposed to be doing here in interpreting legislation, which says that Canadians are entitled to live their lives in peace, freedom, and security, and violence is awful, that Parliament should take measures to protect Canadians—I'm paraphrasing. But the key phrase, which must be interpreted and which must be the basis of your ruling, is:

AND WHEREAS these measures include legislation to impose higher minimum penalties on those who commit serious or repeat offences involving firearms;

The purpose of the legislation, therefore, is to increase mandatory minimums on certain offences whether they are first-time or repeat offences, and there is nothing in the preamble—unless I have the wrong copy—that uses the word “escalation”. I doubt escalation is even anywhere in the legislation per se, because it will say second or third and so on.

I think your ruling is completely out of order, and frankly, you must make the same ruling on any of the government amendments that take away the escalation clauses by their amendments.

What we're trying to do—and I don't mean to be mean-spirited in this—in the spirit of cooperation in which we're trying to get good law passed—I suggest that what we're really trying to do is increase some mandatory minimums in some cases and not be hoist with our own petard of escalation per se.

That's what I think, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We're not going to get into a debate over the chair's ruling—

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I challenge.

[An hon. member]

I have requested to be recognized, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, I have you down on a list. I have three or four others as well.

I believe the bill and the preamble do permit that and the government amendments do allow room for escalation.

The chair has ruled, and the issue now is what is the will of the committee?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, please don't take this as a personal criticism, but you are setting a dangerous precedent, much like you did in the case of BillC-9. Regrettably, under the circumstances, we will have no other choice but to openly challenge your ruling, for two reasons.

First, of course, is the fact that it refers back to the preamble. Second, on reading the bill, we note that some offences are listed by order of importance. For example, in the case of a first, second or third offence, the penalty escalates. That's not always the case, but the fact remains that there's an old legal principle at play here, namely that less is more.

The idea of choosing to escalate penalties in the case of the first and second offences, but not in the case of a third one, is entirely acceptable. We could opt to do away with the third one, but keep the first and second ones. I think your interpretation of what is admissible is much too broad. Committee members cannot back your ruling.

Regrettably, we must challenge you on this. Undoubtedly, the Speaker will have the final say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard. It sounds as if you're challenging the ruling.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay, then we will vote on my ruling.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

On a point of order. I have a point of clarification, so I understand how to vote on this.

If we are just softening the increase, can you explain to me why it's out of order? I just want to understand your rationale.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Well, the principle of the bill...it waivers substantially from that, as well as the issue of the higher sentences, which the bill initially brought forward. So it deviates substantially from that. And there is clearly indication in the preamble that there's room for escalating sentences.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

In our amendment there is an increase, is there not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

No.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I'm going to let you deal with that question, but I'll make a point of order here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, you've already indicated that you would recognize me. Having said that, you were apparently prepared to proceed to the next step. I think I should be recognized.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay. I recognize you, Mr. Lee.

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

I appreciate Mr. Bagnell's request to the chair to clarify the basis for his ruling. The chair's reasoning here is still not clear to me.

He uses the phrase “the principle of the bill”. I am not familiar with that concept. I understand the concept scope of the bill but not the principle of the bill. If the chair is of the view that this or other amendments are outside the scope of the bill, then he may wish to take that point.

But I'm looking at the briefing book that we've received from staff, with or without the assistance of the government. In looking at clause 7, in effect the subject of the bill explicitly described says section 95 deals with the illegal possession of restricted or prohibited firearms, either loaded or with ammunition that is available.

It is precisely what we're dealing with. This removes the reference to section 95. It's precisely what we're dealing with on this page. It's the same scope in which we're dealing with the prescribed penalities, which is what the government amendment deals with. We're dealing with the penalties for those offences. I don't understand why the penalties for those offences are outside the scope of the bill.

The chair said the amendment deviates—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Lee.

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

I'm on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You're debating the merits of the amendment. The chair made a ruling on it.

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

I think the chair should hear from the members before the chair makes a ruling.

The chair has said it deviates. Of course, an amendment is going to deviate. An amendment always deviates from the original because it is different. When something may say $100 and something else may say $10, there's a deviation, but it doesn't take us outside the scope of the bill or the section.

I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

The chair has been challenged. Now for the vote.

(Ruling of the chair overturned)

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay. The amendment can now go forward.

Ms. Jennings.