Evidence of meeting #29 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
I just want to make sure I understand what we're talking about here. I think, if I'm understanding it right, we're dealing with what we have as NDP-3 at the top and NDP-2 is not proceeding. Is that right? But I thought you read NDP-2.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I read 161 which is the one that we intended to present next. We may have another one but we thought this one might be, at least initially, more satisfactory given the remarks of Mr. Woodworth.
As far as Mr. Goguen says, if he's going to vote against it because time is a problem, we'd be very happy to come back on Tuesday and give my friends an opportunity to consider this. Because it is so in tune with what Mr. Woodworth was saying earlier, that maybe they would like to consider it rather than forcing it to be dealt with today because it happens to be one o'clock.
We can talk until one o'clock anyway if we wish.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
Although I always appreciate it when Mr. Harris finds my remarks persuasive, I regret to say that in this particular case he wasn't listening closely enough to my remarks.
My remarks had to do with a judge who in fact would not convict but would instead dismiss a charge where he felt that the offence was not appropriate to the offender. The motion before us deals with the suggestion that there might be a conviction, but no minimum punishment. If I was minded to be scrupulous about the rules, I would wonder why this motion is even before us since it seems to be inimical to the actual intent of the bill, which is to impose a minimum mandatory penalty. In effect what this motion purports to do, in a certain sense, is to work against the policy of the bill. I am only inviting the chair to consider that. I am not making a motion to declare the motion out of order.
Thank you.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'll be encouraging members on this side of the table to vote against this motion.
What this amendment seeks to do is, as Mr. Woodworth has said, circumvent the mandatory minimums. It's based on a premise that's unnecessary. It says that if a persons wants to make reparation they should be given the time to do so. Obviously there's going to be a considerable amount of time between the laying of the charge and the ultimate disposition. If an individual is so inclined to make reparation, I would suggest that he or she will have had adequate time to do so prior to sentencing but after the charges have been laid. I don't think we need any more time on this side of the table to vote no to this amendment, Mr. Chair.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
I have to say that, at the extent of disagreeing with my colleagues, I find this amendment to be interesting. I share the disappointment of my colleague that we've received this amendment today. I think I'd certainly like to have more time than the two minutes that we have available to look at this amendment and ruminate on it.
I'm in the hands of the committee as to whether or not we're going to have to vote. If we're voting now I suspect I'm going to have to vote no. If we're voting another day, then who knows.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I think it's fair to say that you'll be voting another day because the room is going to be occupied very shortly.
We'll see everybody on Tuesday. Meeting is adjourned.