Justice Committee on Nov. 7th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments on the amendment?

Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I need a little clarification from you here with regard to the testimony that was just given by Ms. O'Sullivan and Mr. Spratt. It has to do with the text just above lines 33 through 35, where both of them had indicated the word “or” be replaced with the word “and”. I don't know if we're there, but that's a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I can't do anything about it. The committee needs to amend things if they'd like to, and then we have our clerk decide whether....

Mr. Hoover, you heard that testimony. Could you speak to that issue?

[Douglas Hoover]

Yes, I think you have to look at the context of the provision as a whole. Certainly, the rule of interpretation is what is plainly meant by the language in the provision. So if you read the provision within the clause as a whole, I think it is fairly obvious that it's not intended to imply one or the other. The word “or” is often used in the Criminal Code to provide choices, and if you read it so that it says clearly that you can do this or you can do that, but not both—they have to be mutually exclusive—there would have to be some other language to indicate that.

Certainly, as we read the provision and the motion, the court could do one or the other, or both.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, that is the Justice department's interpretation.

[Douglas Hoover]

Again, it's up to the courts to interpret what the intent is, and certainly they would look at proceedings of this committee, for example, and the discussion in Parliament if there were some ambiguity. But generally speaking, I think the “or” is interpreted quite liberally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Are there any further questions on amendment G-3?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 4)

We have amendment G-4.

Mr. Goguen, are you speaking to this one, too?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Yes, this amendment is required by what we perceive to be a drafting error. The fourth government amendment proposes two changes to clause 4. Clause 4 would require a court hearing a section 810.1 peace bond against individuals likely to commit a child sexual offence to consider imposing a condition prohibiting contact with any person, or going to any place unless there is consent or there are exceptional circumstances not to impose such a condition.

The government motion to amend clause 4 would delete altogether the exceptional circumstances exception, given that the non-contact condition is already discretionary. As is in the case of all conditions imposed under a section 810.1 peace bond, every condition imposed under a peace bond has to be justified as necessary in the circumstances.

The motion to amend clause 4 also proposed to delete the requirement of the court to provide written reasons, given that all peace bonds are required to be provided in writing and filed with the court.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, sir.

Are there any questions or comments on this amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5)

We have amendment G-5.

Mr. Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Actually, we've pretty much rewritten clause 5 to make it consistent with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

This government motion would amend clause 5, which deals with conditions imposed as part of the conditional release of an offender from a federal penitentiary under the authority of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. As introduced, clause 5 proposes to amend the CCRA to ensure that the releasing authority has the power to impose non-contact or geographical conditions to restrict offenders.

While current legislation and policies authorize the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Services of Canada to impose special conditions and instructions to manage an offender's risk in the community, there is no specific obligation to consider the input of victims in establishing appropriate conditions.

The proposed government amendment would ensure additional emphasis in legislation to victims' needs and consideration of the conditions that would be appropriate to protect a victim or others. We've heard Ms. O'Sullivan talk about their security.

The releasing authority would be obliged to impose reasonable and necessary conditions on offenders, including non-communication or geographic restrictions, if a victim or other person has provided a statement regarding the harm done to them, the continuing impact of the offence, and safety concerns or comments on the possible release of the offender.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Monsieur Goguen.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I simply want to check with Mr. Warawa because it's completely different.

I'd be curious to know what you have to say about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Warawa, I'll let you answer that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

So the changes in the amendment satisfy you? I think it's better written too, but just to make sure. That's excellent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

Are there any other questions on the amendment?

Seeing none, all those in favour?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

Now we have a clause 6—a new clause. It's presented as an amendment or new clause by the government.

Mr. Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

This proposes that the bill come into force three months after royal assent. Obviously, it's to give lead time for the correctional authorities and the administration preparing the reforms. Of course, the provinces with the administration of justice will want a little lead time as well to put in place the changes required.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Have you validated with the officials that the three months is ample time?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Yes, it should be good.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That's excellent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Are there any other questions on the amendment or new clause?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the bill as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.