We'll start at the beginning again, committee, with clause 1.
There is a government amendment to clause 1, and the vote on this particular amendment will apply to G-2 and G-4.
Mr. Moore.
Evidence of meeting #50 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
We'll start at the beginning again, committee, with clause 1.
There is a government amendment to clause 1, and the vote on this particular amendment will apply to G-2 and G-4.
Mr. Moore.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
The government is withdrawing amendment G-1 that applies to clause 1.
Conservative
Conservative
Counsel, Criminal Policy Section, Department of Justice
The motion to amend clause 2 of the bill seeks to remove the third-level minimum penalty of five years that would apply on a third or subsequent offence. It also brings up proposed paragraph 2(2)(c), which is currently placed elsewhere in the existing Criminal Code provision, so there is both a technical and a substantive amendment within that motion.
But on the substance, there remains a minimum penalty of one year on a first offence, and three years on a second or subsequent offence, which would be equivalent to the current law.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 2 negatived)
(On clause 9)
Conservative
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, does that mean we could vote on clauses 9, 15, 25 and 28 as a unit?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
We have to deal with amendment G-4 first, as it relates to clause 9. Then if there's a consensus with the committee, we can apply it.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
We are dealing with clause 9. This vote can be applied to clauses 15, 25, and 28 as well.
Is there agreement to apply the vote?
Conservative
Conservative
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
There has been some confusion; perhaps we acted too hastily. If the government's purpose in tabling amendment G-4 is to introduce two new offences, robbery to steal a firearm and breaking and entering to steal a firearm, with no mandatory minimums, we would vote in favour of that.
I would call for the question to be asked once again, because there was this confusion. We agree with the idea of adding these two new offences to the Criminal Code, robbery to steal a firearm and breaking and entering to steal a firearm. If these offences do not involve mandatory minimum sentences, we are prepared to reconsider the vote.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
On behalf of my Liberal colleagues, given the confusion over G-4 and clause 9, and I believe the subsequent clause 15 if I'm not mistaken, which also creates a new offence—
Conservative
February 20th, 2007 / 10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
We would be prepared to have a recorded vote on G-4, which amends clause 9.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)