Evidence of meeting #115 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 move.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 179 agreed to)
(Clauses 180 to 184 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 185)
We're moving to clause 185, CPC-111.
Mr. Cooper.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Again, it's a reclassification amendment dealing with the offence of conspiracy to maintain it as a solely indictable offence.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 185 agreed to)
(On clause 186)
On clause 186, we have CPC-112.
Mr. Cooper.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
This amendment would maintain the offence of participation in activities of a criminal organization to remain as a solely indictable offence.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 186 agreed to)
(Clauses 187 to 191 inclusive agreed to on division)
For clause 192, we've already dealt with the amendments in clause 192 as well. It's the clause that deals with the bawdy house.
(Clause 192 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 193 to 211 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 212)
We will now move to clause 212, where there are various amendments.
We are now getting back into a substantive change. Can everybody turn to clause 212, please? It is on the end of page 65 and page 66 in the bill.
The amendment to clause 212 that we have in front of us is CPC-113. If CPC-113 is adopted, CPC-114 and PV-14 cannot be moved as there are line conflicts. We then have CPC-115, and if it's adopted NDP-1 can't be moved for consistency. We have three different ones. CPC-113 does not interfere with CPC-115 or NDP-1, but it does interfere with PV-14 and CPC-114, because the lines are the same.
I'll give Mr. Cooper a moment to sort that out and then—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I think what we'll do is withdraw CPC-113 and move forward with CPC-114, and in anticipation of the likely outcome, just vote against the clause.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Yes.
Just to clarify, although we're withdrawing CPC-113, the issue we have is with the language that, as we see it, expands beyond the Gladue decision to incorporate undefined “other vulnerable populations” in addition to indigenous people. That was the basis upon which we proposed that amendment, and why we will likely be voting against the clause in its entirety.
With respect to CPC-114, this is an amendment, again, to clause 212. It would remove the word “primary” in the “primary consideration” being the release of someone in custody. This is already considered by the courts. It's already incorporated into case law. We object to its being incorporated into the statute, given that it's already taken into account by the courts.
It seems to us that this is a way of giving criminals a leg up.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I'm not sure this is in order because of the way these are grouped together in the lines. I'm not able to speak to NDP-1 because it covers the same lines. The issue, of course, is vulnerable populations—
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
That's line 14 on page 66. This is replacing line 34 on page 65, and then NDP-1 would be line 14 on page 66. I don't think that removing the word “primary” would interfere with NDP-1.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I believe CPC-115 would interfere with NDP-1, because that changes the populations. CPC-115 would, but not CPC-114. The lines don't conflict. It just removes the word “primary”.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
This is about “primary consideration” as opposed to just whatever else—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It's “consideration”, yes. It would delete that word, “primary”.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Just explain, if you would, the logic of that. Why would you want to do that?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
We don't see it as necessary. The release of an accused is already considered by the courts.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Could officials comment on the implications from their perspective of deleting the word “primary”?
4:40 p.m.
Shannon Davis-Ermuth Legal Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Sorry, I'm just considering that. This is CPC-114.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Yes, it's CPC-114, which changes line 34 on page 65, to remove the word “primary”, and it would just read, “consideration” instead of “primary consideration”.
4:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
The principle is described as “primary” precisely because it is to be at the forefront of every decision that is made in the context of bail by police and the courts, in this part of the Criminal Code dealing with release of accused by police and courts. The policy behind it is that because of the overcrowding of individuals still awaiting trial—they are considered to be innocent—and although it is already in the case law and already required by the courts, this would give some more emphasis to it and put it as a forefront consideration.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment would bring the Criminal Code in line with the change proposed for the Youth Criminal Justice Act, to prohibit imposing a bail condition on a situation where you're intending to use the bail condition to modify or punish undesirable behaviour, particularly in contexts where the person who's receiving the bail condition is really not in a position to adhere to it.
We know we have really significant problems, a disproportionate number of problems, with people who are incarcerated with issues of addiction, mental health issues. It follows the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Antic that terms of release imposed under subsection 515(4) may only be imposed to the extent they are necessary. To emphasize, they must not be imposed to change an accused person's behaviour or to punish an accused person.
I'd like to assist this committee in moving through the bill more rapidly, so I'm going to stop myself there. I will remind you, though, of Senators Pate, Cordy and Hartling, and the points that they made on this bill.