Evidence of meeting #8 for Subcommittee on Private Members' Business in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clearly.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
This is meeting number eight of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Today we're dealing with one issue, to determine the status of non-votable items pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1). It's Bill C-489. It has been circulated.
I'll turn it over to the analyst.
Michel Bédard Committee Researcher
Bill C-489 would amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act respecting prohibition orders. It would prevent the offender from knowingly being within two kilometres of the residence of the victim. It would also make amendments to the provisions respecting probation orders, conditional sentencing, peace bonds, and parole provisions with respect to the offender communicating with the victim or being in a specified place.
The bill is clearly within federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to be clearly unconstitutional. There might be some amendments that could be made to the bill, but there is nothing that is clearly unconstitutional. There is no similar bill on the order paper, either a private member's bill or a government bill.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
What do you mean by it may need some amendments, but it's not clearly unconstitutional? That means that you thought about it, and had some hesitation maybe, and then decided it was constitutional.
Committee Researcher
It's not necessarily a hesitation. As members know, the threshold is whether it's clearly unconstitutional. By looking at one provision, in particular clause 1, which would amend subsection 161(1) of the Criminal Code with respect to a prohibition order, it would prohibit the offender from “being within two kilometres of a dwelling house where the offender knows or ought to know that the victim is present or can reasonably be expected to be present”.
Liberal
Committee Researcher
That's the proposal of the bill. This language is only to be found in this clause of the bill. The language in the other provisions of the bill is different. The language that we find elsewhere in the bill merely reproduces language that is already used in the Criminal Code with respect to bail provision.
Going back to the language of clause 1, which would amend subsection 161(1) of the Criminal Code, there might be some discussion with respect to how to know that the victim is there. It seems to impose positive obligation on the offender to know where his past victim is. So there might be some amendment or discussion. I'm just saying that it's not.... I cannot say today without the benefit of all the evidence and the benefit of the case—
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
The thing is it's the kind of issue the House will have to consider.
Committee Researcher
There are some issues, but as long as the threshold is whether it's clearly unconstitutional, I suggest that it meets the criteria.
Conservative
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
I agree that it's something that colleagues should look at.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Okay.
Should the subcommittee present a report listing the item which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, and recommend that it be considered by the House?
Liberal
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
It looks like a professional [Inaudible—Editor] by the Parti Québécois government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I'll report it to the procedure and House affairs committee probably today.
Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.