Evidence of meeting #19 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We're resuming the meeting. I think we are now at Conservative amendment 9 on page 43 of the package.
Mr. Moore, would you like to say anything on this or shall we vote?
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
For the same reason.... This is one that is, again, ripped from the headlines. It's robbery with a firearm. This would maintain a mandatory minimum. The mandatory minimum of four years is going to be eliminated entirely. In an effort to reach across the aisle and in the spirit of compromise—and as always, protecting our communities—this would maintain a three-year mandatory minimum for robbery with a firearm.
I think it sends the appropriate message. I hope that all members will support this very reasonable amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 13)
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We have a Green Party amendment 31 on page 44 of the package. Again, if Green Party amendment 31 is adopted, Bloc amendment 4 and Conservative amendment 10 cannot be moved as they amend the same line.
(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next, we go to Bloc amendment 4 on page 45 of the package.
Again, if Bloc amendment 4 is adopted, Conservative amendment 10 cannot be moved as they amend the same line.
Monsieur Fortin.
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's the same as the previous amendments. This time it's extortion with a firearm. Mandatory minimum sentences should not be abolished for these very serious crimes. This would again send a startling message to the public, who are concerned about the rise in violent gun crime. It would be like telling them that these crimes aren't that serious because we are abolishing minimum sentences. I don't want to be sensationalist, but it would be almost disastrous for social peace.
I think we need to maintain the mandatory minimum for these serious crimes. This would achieve the objective that government members have set for themselves, which is to allow the courts to waive minimum sentences in exceptional circumstances. It would add the possibility for the court to waive the minimum sentence as long as it can be established that there are exceptional circumstances justifying that decision. Otherwise, the mandatory minimum would remain.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.
Shall Bloc amendment 4 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next, we have Conservative amendment 10, on page 46 of the package.
Does Mr. Moore or somebody want to speak on that?
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Shall Conservative amendment 10 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 13 carry?
We have five yeas and six nays. Clause 13 does not carry.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I'd like to challenge the ruling of the chair, please.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Unfortunately, Mr. Anandasangaree, it's not the chair's decision. It's a vote and to have a revote—
May 20th, 2022 / 2:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr Chair, I have been suffering from continuous technical problems. Were you calling a vote on clause 13 as a whole?
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I'm sorry. My vote is incorrect. I'm voting in favour of clause 13, but I am still having continuous technical problems here.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Okay, so let's redo the vote. Is that okay? I'll do a recount on that vote.
Yes, go ahead, Mr. Fortin.
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
I think that in order to redo a vote that has already taken place, unless I'm mistaken, unanimous consent of the members is required.
If there is no unanimous consent of the members to redo the vote, we move on to the next motion, because the vote has taken place and is on the record.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Chair, I think it's clear that Mr. Garrison has been having some technical difficulties throughout the afternoon. I know that we just recessed several minutes ago, and given the hybrid format, I think it would be appropriate to give Mr. Garrison the opportunity to clarify.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Monsieur Fortin, I'm going to make a ruling that we vote again, because Mr. Garrison was having technical difficulties. We had just suspended before. It is the will of the committee if it wants to challenge me on that, but my decision stands that we'll redo the vote.
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I respect your decision, Mr. Chair. However, with all due respect for this decision, it wasn't a technical issue that led Mr. Garrison to change his vote. He had voted and simply changed his mind. We saw and heard him vote.
Nevertheless, I respect your decision, Mr. Chair.
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
The technical problems made it impossible for me to hear clearly which section you were calling, and I made a mistake in thinking what you were calling.
I've been on the phone with IT. We've rebooted things, and we've done everything we can. I apologize for the inconvenience to the committee. I'm not changing my vote. I voted incorrectly, because I could not hear correctly what you called.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
We will redo the vote. Shall clause 13 carry?
(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Next, we have PV-32 to PV-37.
They all seek to repeal of parent provisions. It is therefore the opinion that, since they invoke on the parent act, they are inadmissible, so I'll be ruling PV-32 to PV-37 inadmissible.
Next, have Bloc amendment 5, which is on page 53, and I'm also making a ruling on that.
Would a member of the Bloc like to move Bloc amendment 5?
Go ahead, Monsieur Fortin.
2:25 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, the purpose of this proposed amendment is similar to that of the previous proposed amendments.
We believe that mandatory minimum sentences are detrimental to the justice system because they prevent the court from considering the particular circumstances that would allow them to be waived. However, we think they are useful for sending a clear message to criminals and people who commit these types of offences, particularly firearms offences.
We therefore propose this amendment, which has been suggested to apply the same reasoning to all minimum sentences. This amendment aims to maintain minimum sentences, except in exceptional circumstances. The president of the court or the judge presiding over the hearing will have to explain why the circumstances of the case they are dealing with are exceptional. Otherwise, the judge must maintain the minimum sentence provided for by the legislator in the Criminal Code. This seems to us to be an appropriate solution, which offers a perfectly acceptable compromise between the vision of those who wish to maintain the hard line on mandatory minimum sentences and the vision of those who wish to soften them.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.
Bill C-5 amends the Criminal Code by repealing certain mandatory minimum penalties. The amendment, BQ-5, seeks to add a new section in the Criminal Code that would allow the court to waive any minimum punishment of imprisonment under exceptional circumstances.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, allowing the court to waive any minimum penalties in the Criminal Code goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
2:25 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I appeal your decision and I would ask the members of the committee to reconsider.
Again, I don't believe that this amendment is out of order.
Mr. Chair, would you allow me to make my case on this decision?