Evidence of meeting #14 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was organizations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Clause 5 is complicated. It contains a number of amendments to certain subsections. By and large, we're trying to specify that murder in specific instances will automatically be first degree. The two instances are where the murder is committed for the criminal organization, and where another indictable offence is committed for the criminal organization and a murder occurs.
(Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 8)
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
On clause 8, I understand the Bloc has an amendment.
You're making the amending motion. Is that correct?
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
The intent of my amendment is to reflect the position that the Bloc Québécois has held for several years. The Bloc is opposed to mandatory minimum sentences in bills dealing with criminal activity. The committee has heard witnesses on several occasions—there was even a study done by the departments of Justice and Public Safety—tell us that mandatory minimum sentences are not effective. Proper investigations and arrests are effective. I have good reason to hope that this amendment will be supported by all my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Chair, I'll be opposing Mr. Ménard's motion. One of the very reasons this bill was brought forward was to disrupt the criminal organization. We've heard testimony today about criminal organizations. Every clause of this bill is designed to go after criminal organizations and as well disrupt them. That's what this clause does.
By adopting Mr. Ménard's motion we would be weakening the bill, and so the government will be opposing the motion.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I remind my colleagues that there are already minimum prison sentences when a firearm is used. It is already in the Criminal Code. Adding other penalties will change absolutely nothing. There are already minimum terms of imprisonment when a firearm is used in the commission of a crime. It is redundant and useless. I support the amendment. I hope that we are going to remove this passage.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I would ask the department what the effect of this amendment would be.
6:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The amendment is relatively straightforward. It proposes to remove the mandatory minimum penalty scheme. How that would fit more broadly in the Criminal Code is that it would create somewhat of a disconnect with what currently exists.
As Monsieur Lemay already pointed out, there are a number of offences involving the use of firearms where mandatory minimums apply; for example, attempted murder, sexual assault with a weapon, etc. By removing the mandatory minimum, as the amendment proposes, you would have a serious offence involving a firearm that doesn't have a mandatory minimum. If you juxtapose that with the existing Criminal Code offences that do have mandatory minimums, there is somewhat of an inconsistency in its application and perhaps most clearly when one compares it to section 244, the existing offence, which this offence is modelled on.
Section 244, as I've already said, requires proof that a person intentionally discharged their firearm with the specific intent to cause bodily harm. That's the highest level of proof that's required, evidence that's required, of an investigator. This offence is somewhat slightly below that, where you can't prove that specific intent where the person consciously appreciates the fact that what they're about to do is going to put somebody's life at risk and they go ahead and do it anyway. It's slightly less onerous, or perhaps not onerous but slightly less standard from a mens rea requirement, and so you'd have on the one hand an offence with a mandatory minimum and on the other hand an offence without one.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm not sure, but the amendment says up to line 6 on page 5. If I'm reading this correctly, that would eliminate clause 9, which is there in bold print. I don't think Mr. Ménard intends that. I think he wants to stop at line 4 on page 5.
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I do not have the bill, but we wanted to remove any mention of mandatory minimum sentences. We do not have the same version of the bill. I have the latest printed version.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Yes.
(Amendment negatived: nays, 8; yeas, 3)
(Clause 8 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive agreed to)
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Mr. Comartin, I'm not hearing much from you, so when I say it is carried, I assume that's carried unanimously.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Yes. If I'm opposed, Mr. Chair, I'm sure you will know from me. I can assure you of that.
(Clauses 14 to 16 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 17)
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I would like to ask a question.
On several occasions, the bill refers to section 727 and the notification that must be given. I would like to have more information about that. Does it mean anything to you?
6:15 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I have to admit I'm a bit lost. Perhaps you could just point to....