Evidence of meeting #113 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:20 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Yes.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Are we ready to vote, colleagues?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 81 agreed to)
(Clauses 82 and 83 agreed to)
(On clause 84)
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We turn to CPC-45.
I just want to understand. Has LIB-7 been judged to be an administrative error, Mr. Clerk?
7:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, it's just a letter.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It's a letter. That will be fixed administratively, so it's deemed to be done.
7:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
On LIB-7, I just want to make sure that there's nothing conflicting and we don't do anything wrong.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It's missing “a” in the the word “coupable” in French.
They're saying that we don't actually have to pass an amendment to do it. They can do it administratively.
Is that understood everyone?
7:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay, perfect. Thank you.
LIB-7 is deemed to correct the spelling of “coupable”.
We will move to CPC-45
Mr. Clement.
7:20 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
I understand now.
This crime is titled “Neglect to obtain assistance in childbirth”. Of course, we all want to protect our newborns.
I would encourage members to keep this as an indictable offence only.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thanks very much.
If no one wishes to speak to that one, we'll move to a vote on CPC-45.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 84 agreed to)
(On clause 85)
On clause 85, we get to CPC-46.
7:20 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
This amendment involves the administering of a noxious thing—
7:20 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
It is, just ask Socrates
It's causing a person to take poison.
7:20 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
No, he did not. I mean, he drank it. He was in the jail alone, but after a very long and boring speech, he did in fact administer it himself.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It must have been a political speech then.
Sorry, Mr. Clement, back to you.
7:25 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
I know we're joking, but we all know that this is serious.
Certainly to cause to be administered poison or something similar to that, in our view, should remain a solely indictable offence.
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Can I ask a question to the department again? I'm looking at this as an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.
Are there many 14-year offences that are hybridized?
7:25 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
No. The decision, as I think has been articulated, relates to the indictable offences punishable by 10 years or more.
If you look at proposed paragraph (b)—
