Evidence of meeting #68 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
On a point of procedure, and maybe the clerk could advise, I always thought that members in a committee couldn't put forward deletions. They could make substantive amendments in committee, and deletions would have to wait for report stage.
That might be another reason why there weren't deletions put forward at this point, but perhaps I'm incorrect on the procedure.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I think that you can't propose to delete an entire clause, because that way you would be.... The right thing is to vote against the clause. However, for specific lines you can.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
These would be specific lines, because they are only one portion of a much longer clause. That's why I was confused as to the way it was done.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Clarification accepted. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
LIB-5 basically seeks to delete the words “punishable on summary conviction” from that specific clause, for the purpose that it capture charges that are proceeded with both on indictment and on summary. I think it just makes sense.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Next, we move to CPC-10. Let me just check if CPC-10 is in conflict with anything.
There is a new one, LIB-5.1—we should give copies of it to everyone—and if CPC-10 is adopted, LIB-5.1 cannot proceed, because they amend the same lines.
All right. I understand that the document has now been distributed, so we'll move to CPC-10 in the name of Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Warawa, go ahead.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CPC-10 would amend proposed section 320.2 by introducing a mandatory minimum for repeat impaired drivers, and also, again, for refusing to blow, for those who have caused bodily harm. Before, it was just the offence; now it's the causing bodily harm part of the offence.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
I'd like to thank the chair for the endorsement of this, and I hope everyone will follow his example.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I didn't know that I had endorsed it, but thank you. Maybe you inferred my smile as an endorsement.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we move to LIB-5.1, which I could heartily endorse. I shouldn't say that.
Mr. Fraser, go ahead.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
This is a new one that was put forward. It affects the same lines as CPC-10 did. CPC-10 was increasing what is currently in the law dealing with the mandatory minimums on those offences for impaired.
What LIB-5.1 does is basically leave the state of the law the same as it is now with regard to the mandatory penalties for this type of offence. That was not included in the bill as presented.
It's replacing lines 16 to 20 on page 19 with basically the mandatory minimums for first, second, and third or subsequent offence that are known at law, and known notoriously to the public. They have been proven effective and are consistent with the other elements of the Criminal Code that deal with similar types of provisions.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
This is an improvement from the original bill that didn't include this.
As you can see from the amendments from my colleague, Mr. Cooper, we wanted to increase these, but, again, this is better than nothing.
Liberal
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
No, that's fine. Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Next we move to amendment CPC-11.
We have an amendment, LIB-5.2, that would also conflict with the lines of amendment CPC-11, which is the same issue as before. It's pretty much doing the same thing again. They had not put in the minimum mandatories. LIB-5.2 would insert minimum mandatories as in the current scheme.
The first one is amendment CPC-11. I will let Mr. Warawa explain amendment CPC-11.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Having just passed LIB-5.1 dealing with impaired driving causing bodily harm mandatory minimums, I would suggest that amendment CPC-11 would harmonize very nicely with that in dealing with impaired driving causing death. I would therefore move that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Perfect.
If there are no other comments, let's move to a vote on amendment CPC-11.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Again, it's dealing with the same lines as amendment CPC-11, which was seeking to add a mandatory minimum of five years.
I would like to seek clarity from the Justice officials, if I can, on the amendment that I put forward...in the case of death, putting in the mandatory minimums that are currently in the code now. I just want to verify that these mandatory minimums exist now, even in the case of death.
Greg Yost Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, they do exist now.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
My intention was to replicate the current state of the law that is well known and dealt with effectively, and ensure that, for these, while the minimum may in most cases not be sufficient, that at least the minimums that are currently the state of the law now be put in the law.
That's why I'm making that amendment.