Evidence of meeting #28 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
The readout will then be:
(1.1) In determining whether the specified term of imprisonment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment, the court shall consider the particular circumstances of the offender and shall not consider any reasonably foreseeable circumstances or hypothetical scenarios.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm going to give everybody a moment to absorb that.
Mr. Fortin, do you have the French language portion clear?
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
What I understand is, basically, amendments CPC‑23 and CPC‑24 are the same.
Liberal
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay.
We're now discussing amendment CPC‑23, but I don't understand its purpose. Can you explain it to me?
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Fortin, you understand that it's “for the offender” that needs to be removed.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I got that, yes.
I'm trying to imagine in what circumstances that might apply. I think “cruel and unusual punishment” is always from the offender's perspective.
Are we looking for something else? If you could explain it to me, it would help me better understand the amendment.
Conservative
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Fortin, I think what we have here is a drafting error by legislative counsel. The point of this amendment is to eliminate the court's use of reasonable hypotheticals. As presently drafted, the amendment states: “In determining whether the specified term of imprisonment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender, the court shall not consider”. We're trying to deviate from the individual circumstances. We're trying to put it to the courts that they should not consider reasonable hypotheticals vis-à-vis the constitutionality of the legislation.
I might also add that I think everybody understands the intent of the main amendment, and I'm very happy with any proposed subamendment. If Liberal friends or the Bloc member would like to propose any clarifying language, I'm very much amenable to that.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I simply disagree with the amendment. I just don't see the point of removing “for the offender”. I don't think it changes anything to the text, but I won't make a big deal out of it.
Mr. Chair, on another note, if I may, at what time will you suspend the meeting before oral question period?
Liberal
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Chair, along the same lines, from what you told us, I thought if amendment CPC‑23 was adopted, amendment CPC‑24 would be set aside.
The question I'd like to ask my colleagues is this: Was the amendment made with the goal of keeping amendment CPC‑24, in order to distinguish between the two amendments? I'd like some clarification on that.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I believe the answer to that is no. I believe you'll find consent. It's up to Mr. Brock to consider whether he will withdraw his amendment, but I understand your concern. You're wondering whether CPC-24 would still be considerable if we amend CPC-23, as is.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Yes, because the chair, at the onset, established that if one is adopted, the other one drops. Is the amendment made in the scope or in the goal of maintaining CPC-24?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I'm prepared to withdraw CPC-24 at this time.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I have a question for the officials.
I want to understand better. My understanding is that based on the way the safety valve is drafted, there would no longer be hypotheticals that would be used for the purposes of determining whether a minimum mandatory sentence should be struck down or not. Am I correct in that understanding?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, that's correct. The proposed section 718.4 would require courts to consider whether a mandatory minimum penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for the offender, so that would—
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Exactly. It would eliminate the requirement to look at reasonable hypotheticals.