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.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Is there any discussion on that?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 35 agreed to)
(Clause 36 agreed to)
(On clause 37)
Next we move to clause 37 and we have amendment CPC-17.
Mr. Clement.
4:50 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
Thank you, Chair.
This pertains to the offence of breach of trust by a public officer, and certainly that should be seen as a very serious offence and certainly one that is offensive to our democracy and trust in government. In that case, I would be happy to move this amendment to keep this as an indictable offence only.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Is there any discussion? We'll move to a vote on CPC-17.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 37 agreed to)
(On clause 38)
Next we move to clause 38 and CPC-18.
4:50 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
Thank you, Chair.
This clause relates to the crime of municipal corruption, obviously a very serious offence and one that offends not only taxpayers but also our democracy. I would put it to you that it is in the public interest that this remains solely an indictable offence, which is the purpose of my amendment.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
Does anyone wish to speak to that? We'll move to the vote on CPC-18.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 38 agreed to)
(On clause 39)
Clause 39 brings us to CPC-19.
Mr. Clement.
4:50 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
This offence relates to the selling or purchasing of an office, again, a very grave offence that offends both citizens and the nature of our democracy. I would urge my colleagues to vote with me to make sure that this is solely an indictable offence.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion? We will now vote on CPC-19.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 39 agreed to)
(On clause 40)
On clause 40, we have CPC-20.
Mr. Clement.
4:55 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
Thank you, Chair.
This involves influencing or negotiating appointments or dealings in office. Again, it's a corrupt activity and I would put to you a serious one that offends our democracy. Again I would encourage colleagues to support this motion, which has the impact of keeping this as an indictable offence.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Does anyone wish to speak to that? We will vote on CPC-20.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 40 agreed to)
(On clause 41)
We now move to clause 41. Clause 41 takes us to CPC-21.
Mr. Cooper.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Chair, this is an upper amendment dealing with the reclassification of an indictable offence that under Bill C-75 will be made a hybrid offence relating to the disobeying of a statute. This amendment would ensure that it remains an indictable offence.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Mr. Clement, did you have something to add?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'm looking at people who are just touching their hair and I'm thinking their hands are going up. Sorry about that.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I've a question for the department.
Do the Standing Orders of Parliament fall into the purview of this law at all?
4:55 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I don't think I know the answer to that question. The focus is on contravening an act of Parliament. We would have to look to see whether a standing order constitutes an act of Parliament. We would perhaps have to look to the Interpretation Act for some guidance on that.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Any other comments or questions? Not hearing any, we'll have a vote on CPC-21.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 41 agreed to)
(Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to)
(On clause 44)
On clause 44, we move to CPC-22.
Mr. Cooper.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is an amendment to deal with another reclassification under Bill C-75. This specific offence is reclassified in Bill C-75 as a solely indictable offence, and this offence relates to affidavit.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion? We will move to a vote on CPC-22.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 44 agreed to)
(On clause 45)
On clause 45, amendment CPC-23, I'm going to guess it's Mr. Cooper.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is yet another amendment dealing with the reclassification of what is currently an indictable offence under the Criminal Code that Bill C-75 will make a hybrid offence. This amendment would maintain it as an indictable offence. That offence is the serious offence of obstructing justice.
The only comment I would make as we're having some of these votes is that at the beginning of the debate around reclassification of offences, a number of Liberal MPs—Mr. Fraser, I believe—said that this has nothing to do with sentencing and nothing to do with treating certain offences more seriously than others; rather, this is all about giving prosecutors the discretion they need in the appropriate circumstances, and to more broadly deal with the backlog in our courts.
Yet, when it came to some amendments related to terrorism offences, Liberal MPs took a very different position. They seemed to rightfully treat those as very serious offences, and that on that basis they should not be reclassified as hybrid offences.
I think it speaks to the fact that when we are talking about the reclassification of offences, it does go to the seriousness of the offence, and that's reflected by the votes taken by Liberal MPs on various of the amendments put forward.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you.
First I'd like to say that rather than reiterating my point on each one of these amendments as they came forward, the discussion in the beginning was meant to apply to each and every one of these amendments. We're all busy, so I didn't want to just say the same thing over and over again. However, I hope it's understood that my comments at the beginning with regard to hybridization apply. I made separate and distinct comments with regard to why the terrorism-related offences and the one relating to advocating genocide were distinguishable from all of the others.
I would pose, perhaps rhetorically, to my colleagues on the other side, that if hybridization is such a terrible thing and we shouldn't allow Crowns to have this sort of discretion, why didn't they get rid of hybrid offences when they were in government?
This is important stuff. I believe my colleague earlier made an extremely good point. We heard from people who came to our committee on the offences relating to terrorism and advocating genocide. This committee listened to those concerns, and I stand by the points I raised earlier, in particular on the rationale for distinguishing those offences from the rest of them.
I guess I'll leave it at that. Thank you.