Evidence of meeting #29 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 punishment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
On the basis of the way you put it, I don't have anything to answer, because I had a number of questions while we were suspended. If you have a specific question you want to ask me or that Mr. Gill wants to ask me—
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Yes. I'll make it very specific, Chair.
Ultimately, if hypothetically we moved to a vote on Mr. Baber's amendment and Mr. Mantle's subamendment, that would take us to the rest of clause-by-clause consideration and ultimately you would be putting a question to this committee. That question is: Shall the bill, as amended, carry? I want to know, as members of my party wish to know, whether that issue is debatable.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
When we get to that point, if somebody asks to make submissions on that, I will allow it.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you, Chair.
On that basis, I understand that the Conservative position is that we move to a vote on Mr. Baber's amendment and Mr. Mantle's subamendment at this time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay. We'll have to vote on the subamendment first.
We will read the subamendment again.
The Clerk of the Committee Michelle Legault
In English, it's to replace the text after 1.1 with: “In determining the constitutionality of any mandatory minimum penalties, the court shall not consider reasonable hypotheticals.”
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to propose a friendly amendment to Mr. Baber. It's a bit odd to write in a piece of legislation that reasonable hypotheticals can't be considered. I think what he's getting at is that hypothetical scenarios can't be considered. I would agree with that. I would remove the word “reasonable”. Saying that the court “shall not consider reasonable hypotheticals” is like saying that it can consider hypotheticals if they're unreasonable. That makes no sense, and it's not what we want to do. If he accepts my proposal, I'm fine with that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Fortin, I believe we were getting to the point where we were going to vote on the subamendment, and we are at that point.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
(Clause 63 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
This takes us to the concluding parts of the process. We have four items before us, just so we're clear.
Shall the short title carry?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay. I had Baber and then Caputo, but I don't suppose it matters if you want to switch. I'll leave it up to you.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
It's really great to back here at the justice committee. I wonder if I was missed. I just heard a “no” from across the way. Mr. Fortin says I was missed. The chair is giving me a hard time and I'm hearing—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We're glad you're back, Mr. Caputo, but let's get to this important issue, shall we?
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
All right.
This is for the officials. One of the things I find very interesting in the bill is the importation of “cruel and unusual”, which has been defined in the jurisprudence. One of the things you said, Ms. Burt, is, “we can expect”. Is it a grossly disproportionate threshold? Is that still the threshold for cruel and unusual punishment?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, that's what we expect that the courts would follow. It's the threshold of gross disproportionality.