Evidence of meeting #51 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 aboriginal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I still think that this is a useful addition, even though I believe that most judges would consider such behaviour to be an aggravating circumstance.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Okay.
Mr. Dreeshen, we know each other because we are both members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. You talked about a Bill S-4 clause that would amend section 130 of the Criminal Code, which deals with sentences. I would like to know which clause you had in mind. You talked about it in your presentation. You talked about a section that would be amended so that a five-year sentence, I think, is imposed. I would like to know which clause you were talking about.
In addition, do you think that the amendment you are proposing will result in the imposing of a consecutive sentence, or could the judge impose a concurrent sentence under section 130?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
The amendment is strictly to section 130. What I had described was section 718, which described various aggravating circumstances. So that was what I was speaking of at that particular point.
When it comes to consecutive sentencing, that, in my mind, is still being left with the judges.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
All right, but you are proposing to amend the section by adding section 130 because section 718 does not contain this provision.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I don't have any questions. I'll just indicate I'm supportive of the bill, and hopefully we could move on to try to get it done today.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Anybody on the government side? Everyone's okay?
Mr. Dechert.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Just a brief comment in the spirit of cooperation I'm seeing around the table. I also want to commend you, Mr. Dreeshen, for bringing this bill forward. We need to send a message to people that they shouldn't be posing as police officers and using that in any illegal activity. People are taught from a very young age in this country that the police officer is your friend, he's your protector, he's somebody you can rely on, you look up to. That's certainly what I was taught as a young person in this country. I don't want to see that changed, so I'm really pleased that you brought this bill forward. Good for you.
I'd also like to thank Ms. Jennings, as the Liberal Party justice critic, for indicating that the Liberal Party will support this bill unamended. I appreciate that.
I'd like to share my time with Mr. Norlock.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
If I might, I guess I always say for the people at home who might be interested in what we're doing here—and I'm sure they are—that the amendment actually says “peace officer”, not “police officer”. I think that's a very important thing to note, because in Ontario and in our parks, we have people who wear uniforms and do carry out many of the duties that a police officer does, although it's restricted in nature. The appropriate word, of course, is peace officer, and the intent is for anyone who is exercising the duties of someone who would be in uniform, which is very important. I mention that only because some folks at home might say “police officer”? It's actually peace officer, which includes other people who wear uniforms, etc.
Thank you.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you very much.
I think we appear to have general consensus on the bill. We can move to clause-by-clause.
There is the issue that Mr. Lee raised, on whether it should be a separate section. I'm just consulting here to find out exactly how that would be numbered, to make sure it's properly drafted.
It can be done either way.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
This looks easy. It always does until you take it to a drafter. I know this from many years' experience. But my suggestion is that this be added to section 130 as a new subsection (3), and that the wording within the amendment be changed; instead of referring to section 130, it simply say “this section”.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Mr. Lee, the analyst is suggesting that we actually include it under the punishment section. That would be 130(2)(c).
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
As opposed to 130(1).
Does anyone have any objection to setting it up that way? We can do it by consent.
Right now we're with Mr. Dechert, and then we'll go to Monsieur Ménard.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
As I mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Chair, I have no objection to the substance of the bill at all. However, Mr. Dreeshen consulted with Department of Justice officials and they recommended to him that it be numbered as it's currently drafted. In the absence of the Department of Justice officials to answer Mr. Lee's question, I think it would be a mistake for us to go off and add it to some other provision. I don't know, and there's no one here today who's an expert who can answer what the impact might be of adding it to the subsection you're suggesting. I don't think that's good legislative drafting.
I'm wondering what the purpose of suggesting the amendment is. I thought we had an agreement. I heard the Liberal justice critic say that the Liberal Party would support Mr. Dreeshen's bill unamended. Maybe we could have that transcript read back to see what exactly that was. She apparently suggested we put it in our householders and our ten percenters, and I even volunteered to frame it and hang it on the wall in my office—
