Yes, Mr. Moore.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 9.
(Clause 9 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
Next we have proposed clause 9.1.
On PV-5, I will rule that this is non-admissible due to the parent act.
I'll go one by one.
I'm going to rule PV-6 inadmissible for the same reason. None of the act that it's proposing to amend is being debated.
On PV-7, section 153 of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-5. It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
On PV-8, section 155 of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-5. It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
On PV-9, paragraphs 160(3)(a) and 160(3)(b) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5. It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is not admissible.
On PV-10, since subsections 163.1(2) to 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is not admissible.
On PV-11, since sections 170 and 171 of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
On PV-12, since paragraphs 171.1(2)(a) and 171.1(2)(b) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
On PV-13, since paragraphs 172.1(2)(a) and 172.1(b) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
On PV-14, since paragraphs 172.2(a) and 172.2(b) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
On PV-15, since paragraphs 173(2)(a) and 173(2)(b) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
On PV-16, since subsection 202(2) of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
(On clause 10)
Now we will move to Green Party amendment 17. Note again that if Green Party amendment 17 is adopted, Bloc amendment 1 and Conservative amendment 7 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.
7 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair; can you repeat that, please? I'm a bit confused here.
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We've already voted on clause 9. We're on clause 10, at Green Party amendment 17. Again, if Green Party amendment 17 is adopted, then the Bloc amendment 1 and Conservative amendment 7 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.
Shall Green Party amendment 17 carry?
Would you like to intervene, Mr. Morrice?
7 p.m.
Green
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Sure.
This is the same justification that Ms. May shared for Green Party amendment 1. It is based on the principle of judicial discretion and the fact that mandatory minimum penalties don't actually deter crime and disproportionately affect marginalized populations.
Thank you.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On this Green amendment—I know you've ruled the others out of order, so I'm not going to speak to them—it would have been interesting to hear Green members defend removing the mandatory penalties that Canadians have seen fit to put in place for making child pornography—
7 p.m.
Conservative
7:05 p.m.
Green
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
On a point of order, I believe we're speaking to Green Party amendment 17.
Can the member speak to Green Party amendment 17?
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I agree 100%. If I were Mr. Morrice, I wouldn't want to speak to all those things either, but they dumped eliminating mandatory penalties for serious offences against children into our committee, and now they don't want to speak to it, so it's a little confusing. If you're going to put forward an amendment that deals with these types of sexual offences against children, I think you should be prepared to speak to it and defend it.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Moore. We'll go to Mr. Brock.
Is it Mr. Brock or Mr. Morrison? I saw a flurry of hands—
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Green amendment 17, which has been ruled in order, removes the mandatory minimum penalty even if the offence is in association with a criminal organization, so I think we're starting to peel back some of the layers on the rationale on this piece of legislation.
We've already made it abundantly clear on other offences that there's significant concern around guns in Canada and that the crimes being committed are being committed not by law-abiding farmers, duck hunters and sport shooters but by the criminal element.
This amendment takes things one step further and specifically references criminal organization and repeat offenders. Most of these offences that we're dealing with involve criminal organizations, and some of the amendments we spoke to do specifically reference recidivism and repeat offenders. In fact, we discussed a particular Criminal Code provision that provided for escalating penalties, as there should be, on second and third offences. This Green amendment 17 relates to a criminal organization or an accused who is a repeat offender. It's for those reasons that I will be voting against Green amendment 17.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I think we have bells. I will need unanimous consent to go on through the bells.