Evidence of meeting #73 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Mr. Comartin, thank you for that. I can see that the NDP amendment is the same amount as the government amendment. It's like duelling banjos, both playing the same song.
Mr. Moore, are you speaking to the amendment of Mr. Comartin?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Sure. I will be supporting Mr. Comartin's amendment and, when I get to it, then withdrawing the government amendment.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
There is a request to withdraw.
I see no further discussion on amendment NDP-2, so I'll put that amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
And then, Mr. Moore, you've requested withdrawal of the government amendment G-7?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
And there is consent. Well, it would actually be out of order or redundant or something. So it's either redundant, out of order, or withdrawn—whatever the clerks wish to call it—and we don't have to put it.
(Clause 44 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 45 agreed to)
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
We go to new clause 45.1, and we have an issue of admissibility. This is government amendment G-8.
9:40 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
An earlier clause in Bill C-23 amended section 145 of the Criminal Code. That particular amendment has already been adopted by the committee. However, the text of section 145 is reproduced in Form 12 in clause 45.1. Unfortunately, the wording does not reflect the proposed amendment to a previous provision in Bill C-23. If no changes are made, then section 145 of the Criminal Code would be different from the text reproduced in Form 12.
Again, this is a technical amendment. I understand that at first glance, this amendment is inadmissible because it has to do with a form not covered by Bill C-23. However, to my mind, there is a very clear link between the bill and the proposed change, in that we only want the new wording of section 145 to be reflected.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
All right. It was the prima facie response of the committee clerk that the amendment, as proposed, was inadmissible. Your chair is looking for any reasonable nexus between the amendment and the existing bill that would allow it to be admissible. I'm hoping to hear some more on this.
I know that the amendment is technical.
We'll have Monsieur Petit.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
On looking at the proposed amendment, we note that there is the section of the legislation as such and, as is often the case in the Criminal Code, some forms. The fact of the matter is that these forms are established to ensure uniformity across Canada. However, each form must also correspond to a provision in the code. Whether it relates to an appearance notice, a bail order or some other thing, each form must correspond to a provision in the legislation.
A form is a means of expression. It must not be equated with the substance. We have voted in favour of the substance and therefore, the form, the means of expression, the paper on which the substantive message is conveyed, must correspond. A form is therefore the vehicle for conveying the message, not the message itself.
Of course, you can say that we did not show it to you. If you come before a judge, I know he will say that the form must correspond to a Criminal Code provision. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve? The form is but an adjunct to the legislative provision, the key component.
Mr. Chairman, if you can bear with me for another 30 seconds, I want to stress that the form must correspond to the Code's provisions. Moreover, we have already voted in favour of it.
These are valid arguments that you can use to reverse your position.
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Okay, by George, I think he's got it. That's a good enough rationale.
Mr. Comartin had a comment.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
It's a really good argument from Monsieur Petit. I recognize it. As a lawyer, I think it's very appropriate. But it still breaks the existing rules. So as much as I don't have a problem with your ruling this way, it's wrong, and we need to....
I suppose it should come from the justice committee. There should be a recommendation coming out of this committee at some point. We should look at this and make a recommendation to the procedure and House affairs committee to change this rule. It is simply too rigid. As much as we come up with these arguments, this is a semantic argument.
The rule is very clear. If it's not within the scope of the legislation, or if you're going to a section that has not been mentioned in the bill--private member's or government--you can't change it. That's the rule, and it has been rigidly enforced by our Speakers consistently, Mr. Chair. So as much as it's appropriate....
This is a classic example. We need this amendment. These amendments to the code will not function properly without it. But if you look at the history of the way those rules have been interpreted, we can't do this.
So again, the point I'm simply trying to make at this stage is go ahead and do it here, and I hope you get it through the House. But the committee, at some point in the near future, I hope, should address this point and make a recommendation to the committee, and I suppose to the House as a whole.
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I appreciate the sentiment behind Mr. Comartin's remarks. The big issue is how you define and implement “scope”. The implementation of those rules falls to the chair in the House and all the chairs of all the committees that deal with legislation.
If, in executing and implementing those provisions, a chair is of the view that there is a tangible connection that allows something to come within the scope of the bill, and the chair looks around the table and sees that all the parties support it, and one considers the costs--real, imputed or otherwise--of having to do a one-off, maybe a miscellaneous statutes amendment to the Criminal Code to fix up something that was omitted during passage of a bill, something that was in one way or another connected to the bill, then it gets easier for the chairs to define the scope of the bill as having some edges that aren't quite as hard as you've articulated and that you properly say the chair has been fairly rigid in interpreting.
I'm just going to guess that from time to time the Speaker in the House appreciates the flexibility of chairs and committees around the House in helping him to give an interpretation of scope of the bill that works for our electors. And in this case I see a connection. I'm going to accept that the reason we have to amend the form is that we've just amended the bill.
So I'm going to rule it in order. I'm going to put the amendment.
I thank members for their comments.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Now we move to government amendment G-9 and new clause 45.2. Do we have a similar issue here?
Okay, the chair will indicate that the clerk has reasons to advise that this amendment is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.
Monsieur Ménard.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
We need more information because otherwise, we will oppose this amendment. I want to understand the government's rationale or reasons for taking this stand.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
We have to deal with admissibility first, unfortunately, rather than the policy question.
The chair is, at this point, rather inclined to the advice of the clerk that the amendment is inadmissible because it deals with the Prisons and Reformatories Act, which definitely is not and has not been intended to be amended by this particular legislation.
9:50 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The committee has already agreed to an amendment to clause 43 of Bill C-23. Henceforth, when a young offender is serving a youth sentence and is also sentenced as an adult... At present, the method of calculating sentences for adults applies to the full sentence imposed on a young offender under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We are proposing to amend clause 43 so that adult sentencing provisions would now apply only to the balance of the youth sentence, not to the entire sentence, which makes an important different in the calculation.
Take, for example, a young offender who receives a 24-month sentence and is then subsequently sentenced as an adult. If adult sentencing measures were applied in all cases, the offender would be eligible for parole after serving two-thirds, or 16 months, of the sentence. So, if the offender has served one year of his sentence, he would have four months left to serve before becoming eligible for parole. However, if only the balance of the sentence is considered in the calculation, two-thirds of the outstanding balance equals eight months. Therefore, instead of becoming eligible for parole in four months, under the amended clause 43, he would be eligible in only eight months. The regime as such clarifies the fact that combining the two sentences does not reduce the sentence handed down to the young offender in any unreasonable way.
This was an attempt to explain clause 43 to you. Two sentencing regimes apply to young offenders. Clause 43 amends a Criminal Code provision, but we also have subsection 6(7.1) of the Prisons and Reformatories Act which covers situations in which the adult sentencing regime will apply to all sentences. Therefore, this particular provision must also be amended if the Criminal Code amendment is to make any sense.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I am not sure I understand. First of all, I think you should declare the amendment inadmissible. Should you be tempted to rule otherwise, we will not support it. It is not clear to me.
You are saying that there could be two concurrent parole eligibility regimes. We want assurances that a young person is subject to the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, or is subject to the justice system as amended by Ms. Anne McLellan, namely the youth criminal justice system. So, if we adopt this amendment, the young offender would be eligible for parole sooner.
Did I understand you correctly?
May 31st, 2007 / 9:55 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This committee...
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Excuse me, we actually don't need an answer at this time. The issue is admissibility or inadmissibility.
The chair is going to rule that it's inadmissible. It's outside the scope of the bill. If we're going to change the Prisons and Reformatories Act and other things, we'll have to find another way to do it. So I'm going to rule that if there is no reaction from members to having that ruled inadmissible, then clause 45.2, which is the amendment, fails.
(Clause 46 agreed to)
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Colleagues, we've completed our work. We just have to do the last of the formalities.
Shall the title carry?
9:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
On division.