Evidence of meeting #78 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.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I know you have, but I want to beg the indulgence of the committee, since the committee went ahead and scheduled this meeting through the time when public safety normally meets. I would have challenged that, but I was already gone to that meeting last time when we did that.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Okay. Without any further explanation, quickly put your comments forward.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I want to make two points.
First, I was going to move similar amendments. I think we should be doing this. Given that we are introducing a new regime to this country, we should not be going to the third stage of the DRE process because we don't have any standards with regards to drugs, and we've heard this.
More importantly, it's because of the prejudice of this evidence going in front of a judge and potentially, in some cases, in front of a judge and a jury. Even in front of a judge, in most cases, there is the prejudicial effect of this evidence going in that the person has consumed drugs or has drugs in their body. But we have no idea what that means in terms of impairment. I understand why the police want it, I understand why the prosecutors want it, and I understand why the government wants it, but with regard to basic justice in the courtroom, it really has a prejudicial effect.
Having said that, Mr. Chair, I'll stop with my comments, but if I had been in the room, I would have asked for that section of the bill to go on division, because I don't know what my party is going to do at this point when it gets before the House.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Comartin.
I don't think there's going to be any need for further debate on something that has never been moved and never been entered on the record, so we're going to pass on that, Ms. Jennings and Mr. Bagnell.
I'm on to amendment BQ-1. Mr. Ménard has the floor.
June 19th, 2007 / 11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Given all of our previous positions, this amendment is obviously extremely consistent. In paragraph 255(1)(a) and so on, we are setting out mandatory minimum sentences. We are not calling into question the offence, but we are opposed to mandatory minimum sentences, and we have been for as long as we've been a political party, with the exception of Bill C-2, as some people will not hesitate to remind me from time to time. So, we are introducing an amendment to strike mandatory minimum sentences.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the majority of the committee does not share this opinion, but I think that we need to be consistent with our previous positions. That is the purpose of this amendment.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
No, we don't support the amendments. I think that the fines and the terms that are in place are completely reasonable and in keeping with what we're trying to do with this bill, and that's to discourage people from impaired driving, whether by alcohol or drugs.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, I have a question for our witnesses.
Should the amendment that Mr. Ménard has proposed be adopted, what would the penalties be for the infractions?
11:20 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The current minimum penalty is a fine of $600 for a first offence. Imprisonment the second time for a second offence is 14 days, and it's 90 days for a third or subsequent offence. Those are the existing minimums.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
So there are existing minimums for first, second, third, and subsequent offences?
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
So Bill C-32 simply increases the existing minimum mandatories?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I'll call the question on amendment BQ-1.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to on division)
(On clause 7)
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
You're forgetting that I have an amendment. Are you asking me if I'm going to move my amendment?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I'm sorry. Yes, I'm asking you to present your amendment, Madam Jennings.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I'm going to make it easy for everyone. Given that I withdrew—it's not something I'm wont to do, I like people to earn—LIB-2 and LIB-3, in order to be consequential with that withdrawal I need to withdraw LIB-4, LIB-5, LIB-6, LIB-7, and LIB-9.
So the only Liberal amendment that remains to be discussed, debated, and obviously carried is LIB-8, and we're not there yet.
(Clause 7 agreed to on division)
(On clause 8)
