Subcommittee on Private Members' Business Committee on June 19th, 2012

[Sebastian Spano]

This bill would amend the Citizenship Act with respect to the residency requirement for permanent residents who are members of the Canadian armed forces. It also provides for the consequences of an act of war against the Canadian armed forces. This bill does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction and does not violate the Constitution, including the charter. It is not similar to a private member's bill already voted on in the current session, and it is not similar to a government bill already voted on in the current session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Are there any concerns?

Seeing none, we will proceed to M-382.

[Sebastian Spano]

This motion with respect to Canadian foreign policy on the right of freedom of religion and conscience does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution. It is not substantially similar to a motion already voted on in the current session, and it's not similar to a government motion already voted on in the current session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Any concerns?

Seeing none, we'll proceed to C-420.

[Sebastian Spano]

This bill will establish the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young Persons in Canada. The measures provided in this bill do not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the charter. There's no similar private member's bill that had been voted on in the current session, and there's no government bill already voted on in the current session. Once again, there might be a need for a royal recommendation for the adoption of this bill, but that is not a question for the subcommittee to decide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

There are no concerns regarding C-420 to proceed, so it will proceed.

Next is C-424.

[Sebastian Spano]

This bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to increase fines for certain offences. It would also permit the Chief Electoral Officer to contest the election of a candidate. This bill does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the charter. There's no similar private member's bill that had been voted on in the current session, and there's no government bill that had already been voted on in the current session similar to this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Toone, go ahead.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Is there a question of royal recommendation here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Yes. Again, I think some of these will require that, but that doesn't come into consideration by this committee.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Why would they need a royal recommendation? Is expenditure involved?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

There are fines. It's possibly a form of taxation.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I think that's okay.

My point was a different one. I'm wondering at what point you make a penalty high enough that it can no longer be dealt with by summary conviction. It needs to be treated as a criminal matter. Some of these numbers are pretty large, a year in prison and $20,000. Does that not create a problem?

[Sebastian Spano]

I'm not sure there is a criterion or given threshold upon which summary procedure is no longer permitted. With regard to the criteria, this committee is—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

No, what would happen is it would relate to.... Let's say for the sake of the argument, to make the point in a very stark fashion, that for the summary conviction the fine were hanging or imprisonment for life. That would be problematic. You would have to have a criminal proceeding before you could carry out something so severely punitive. The line is drawn somewhere, but I'm just not sure where the line is drawn. I don't know if it's a bright line or a fuzzy one.

[Sebastian Spano]

I mentioned the bill. If you look on the first page, at the proposed paragraphs 500(5)(a) and (b), the first of those paragraphs is with respect to summary convictions, and the amount of the maximum fine is increased to $20,000. The second paragraph is with respect to conviction on indictment. Then the fine is established at the maximum of $50,000. The bill makes a distinction, as currently the act does too.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

At some point you are making a distinction between being hanged and being hanged, drawn, and quartered, right, if it's severe enough?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I think we're getting into the content of the bill. At this committee we need to limit ourselves to the question of votability. If I could ask us to limit our remarks to that, are there any further remarks on all four criteria? Seeing none, I am assuming that you are all in agreement to allow this to proceed? Okay.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I actually have a reservation about that. My criterion is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question is that at some point you—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You want to make that point? That's what the committee is for.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Yes, I guess I am making the point that I have this concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay. We're about ready to vote on this one, then.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Can I just point out that you might be going into the cruel and unusual punishment section, right?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Obviously pain is cruel and unusual punishment, so you actually can't do that. I'm aware of that. But you see my point that—

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I understand the point.