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.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
--with my picture, which I've approved of, next to it.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
--there's no amendment to the bill as presented by Mr. Dreeshen. Now I see that there's another member of the Liberal Party who apparently is amending the bill.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
I think we can resolve this.
Mr. Ménard, you had some comments, and then I'll go back to Mr. Lee.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
If we approve Mr. Lee’s suggestion—I am personally in favour of it—it would read as follows: “Where a person is convicted of an offence, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor...”. It won’t be necessary to specify that it is “an offence under section 130”.
That being said, I will just add one more thing. We could very well, once again, approve the bill in its present form right away and add a section to the Criminal Code. The good intentions of the proposer will be respected. But, in my opinion, it is desirable to write legislation correctly. It seems to me that the Criminal Code has been awfully complicated to read for at least a generation now. So, adding more elements to it, when there is no logic, is not desirable.
The best thing to do would be to send the bill to be drafted using language that complies with the drafting conventions of the Department of Justice. If we unanimously agree that it has to be added, we also agree that it has to be added in a similar way to what is already in the Criminal Code. This is because it has to do with adding an aggravating factor that will determine the sentence in the case of another offence.
It would actually be a lot easier to send it to the drafters. They know what we want and they will provide us with a text that will have unanimous support.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
He's consulting in depth.
He asked why there would be an amendment. I'm going to make an inference that Mr. Dreeshen drafted his bill more than a few months ago. It was drafted under the old section 130. Old section 130 was amended in 2009. If you look at the old section, you can kind of see why Mr. Dreeshen's bill was drafted the way it was. Given that section 130 has already been changed and it now has two subsections, there is no apparent need to create a whole new section of the Criminal Code to deal with a sentencing aspect of section 130. It's much more rational to have the sentencing issue drafted by Mr. Dreeshen added to section 130. I see Mr. Dechert nodding his head.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
You're not correct, and I'm going to tell you why.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Okay. Go ahead.
You're nodding, but you should be shaking your head.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
While there's nothing wrong with the subsection, I just don't see the need to create a whole new Criminal Code subsection to deal with a sentencing aspect of the section above.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I'm anxious to hear what Mr. Dechert says. However, I just have a question.
Mr. Dreeshen, you've sought the advice of the drafters?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Did they have before them the amended section 130, the newest version of section 130?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Can I ask you when you actually had it drafted and presented? That should be on the bill, I guess.
