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.
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Members have invited us to adopt a number of clauses in blocks, so I'll put them all now.
(Clauses 26 to 36 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 37)
Liberal
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I'll move the amendment and Ms. Desaulniers will speak to it.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Clause 37 of Bill C-23 seeks to amend the way in which information regarding probation is conveyed to the offender. In the past, pursuant to the existing provision, the court arranged for the accused to obtain certain information whereas pursuant to the new clause 37, the court itself will be required to supply certain information to the accused, while other information will be conveyed to him by, for example, the clerk.
However, by proposing new wording for section 732.1, our intention was certainly not to modify in any way the information to be supplied to the accused, only the way in which that information is conveyed. Unfortunately, in our new version, we neglected to mention one bit of information, namely the procedure that the offender should follow to obtain changes to his probation order. For that reason, the government amendment proposes to add subsection 732.2(3) which was omitted from the new wording proposed in clause 37.
Liberal
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I see you're removing the last...I see. Okay. Sorry.
I understand.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
We're okay?
Seeing no further comment or questions, I'll put the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 37 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 38)
On clause 38, we have a government amendment.
Mr. Moore, amendment G-5.
Conservative
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Again, this is a drafting amendment. If you compare the English and French versions, you will see that the word “maximale” does not appear in the French version, when it fact it should. Once again, this amendment corrects a drafting error.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Any questions? Comments?
Seeing none, I'll put the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 38 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 39)
On clause 39, we have government amendment G-6.
Mr. Moore.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The purpose of amendment G-6 is the same as that of amendment G-4. Clause 39 seeks to amend the way in which certain information about the procedure to be followed for paying fines is conveyed to the offender. However, there is no attempt on our part to alter the nature of the information being conveyed, only to change the procedure for so doing.When the new clause was drafted, we unfortunately neglected to mention the existing program referred to in section 736 and program eligibility requirements. Again, we are dealing with a drafting oversight and this amendment would correct this technical error.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you.
Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll put the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 39 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 40 to 43 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 44)
There are three amendments proposed for clause 44. Let me consult with the clerk.
Mr. Ménard, on a point of order.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I moved an amendment of a social democratic nature, just as you like them, calling for limits on fines to be increased from $500 to $2,000 and from $2,000 to $10,000. These limits were found to be somewhat high, but I am prepared to go along with my NDP colleague's amendment and with the government's amendment as well, so that a person convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of no more than $5,000.
Therefore, with the committee's consent, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. The Bloc Québécois would then throw its support behind the NDP and government amendments.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Monsieur Ménard requests unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Derek Lee:) It's done. It's withdrawn.
Mr. Comartin, did you wish to speak to the NDP amendment?
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Okay, Mr. Comartin. You can either put the amendment or just raise a point of order.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
No, I'll put the amendment, Mr. Chair.
Like Monsieur Ménard, when I saw the increase in the fine from what is now $2,000 to $10,000, it certainly jumped out at me that this was excessive. The last time we increased this, I think, was about 20 to 25 years ago—somewhere in that time range. At that time, I believe the fine was $1,000; we increased it at that time from $1,000 to $2,000.
If you look at the inflation rate or cost of living increase in the period of time since it went to $2,000, it certainly has not increased fivefold. It probably has increased by about 100%. So at most, this really should have gone to just about $4,000. But I think my amendment reflects a realistic approach in moving it to the $5,000 figure.
The other point I would make in this regard, Mr. Chair, is that any time we're passing legislation, we always have to be careful of imposing more severe penalties on those in society who are at the lower end of the economic scale. A fine of $10,000, even though it's a maximum fine of $10,000, I believe would have that impact.
Thank you.
