Evidence of meeting #38 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was restitution.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Yes. On the merits, could you explain? You added these words: “If a victim seeks restitution and...”.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Yes, and I regret I didn't have a chance to ask our witnesses a question about this. Proposed subsection 380.3(5) is saying that in every case a judge must give reasons for not making a restitution order—in every case, even where there isn't a request for a restitution order, even when the prosecution isn't looking for one.
It struck me as odd that we would impose on the judiciary an obligation to give reasons when in a particular case neither the prosecution nor the victims have requested, or wanted to request, a restitution order. That seems to me to be overdoing it.
What my amendment provides is that it's only when a victim seeks restitution and the court decides not to make a restitution order that the court has to give reasons. That would seem to be more appropriate, keeping in mind that, further up in the section, the victims must be asked if they wish to make a restitution request and the prosecutor is involved in that. There's a whole procedure set up in this section.
If all of that is set up to request of the victims whether or not they want restitution—and as I read the section, the court can decide even on its own to impose a restitution order—then I do not see the need to require the court to give reasons for not making a restitution order if nobody wants one, including the court, or the victim and the prosecutor.
My amendment is there to remove that 100% obligation of the court to give reasons every time it doesn't make a restitution order.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I have just a few comments. There are a number of provisions included in this bill to basically strengthen the opportunity that restitution might be ordered for fraud cases. The first requirement is that the judge must consider restitution in such cases. In the general restitution provisions, there is no obligation on the court to consider restitution. It's a “may”, and they “may” impose, but there's no obligation to consider.
So when you start off with the requirement that the judge “must” consider imposing restitution, it may well be not appropriate in the circumstances, but they have to turn their mind to it. And then, at the very end of that process, to ensure that this has been considered whether or not the victims have done the forms, indicated their losses and so on, it just completes that requirement that the judge then has to put on the record, “No restitution has been ordered”.
It wouldn't be very burdensome to indicate that the reason is because no victims have sought restitution and that no ascertainable losses have been presented to the court, but it would at least guarantee for all involved that this had been considered. Obviously, where the victims have been identified and they have indicated what the losses are, and the judge may or may not be able to order restitution, given the other elements of the sentence or the amounts it involved--or may only be able to indicate partial restitution--that would also be set out.
I appreciate your amendment to relieve the burden on the judge to put reasons on the record where it seems obvious that there is no victim seeking restitution, but I think there are still benefits to having that requirement there. That will ensure that indeed restitution was considered.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Ms. Kane. I think Mr. Lee's amendment is well intentioned, but the purpose of the bill is to protect victims of white-collar crime. In that vein, I think it's incumbent--
Conservative
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Given the purpose of the bill it's incumbent upon the trial judge or the sentencing judge to apply his or her mind to the issue of compensation. It may very well be that the reason that a compensation is not ordered is because none has been sought, and if that's simply the reason the judge will say it on the record and he will have completed his duty under this provision. I encourage all members to vote against this amendment.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on Liberal amendment 1.1? I'll call the question. All in favour? All opposed?
(Amendment agreed to)
The amendment carries. Shall clause 4 as amended carry?
(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 5 agreed to)
There is an amendment that proposes a new clause, clause 5.1, and that's Liberal amendment 2.
Before I read a ruling from the chair, I did say that I was going to give Ms. Jennings an opportunity to explain this particular amendment.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I appreciate that, Chair.
It's very simple. My particular amendment, which goes into the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, would ensure that anyone found guilty of the offences that are dealt with in Bill C-21 would not be eligible for release at one-sixth of their sentence, period.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
My ruling is actually addressing the parent act rule. I believe it's called the parent act rule. The amendment seeks to amend section 125 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at pages 766 to 767 that “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.
Since section 125 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is not being amended by Bill C-21, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment, and therefore the amendment is inadmissible.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
The chair's ruling has been challenged. Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
The ruling of the chair is sustained, so we'll move on to clause 6. There are no amendments to clause 6. Shall clause 6 carry?
(Clause 6 agreed to)
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?