Evidence of meeting #92 for Status of Women in the 44th 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.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
Madame Larouche, are you clear now? Okay.
Shall clause 3 as amended carry?
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we are on clause 6, amendment G-9. I'll ask the member if she wants to move it.
Lisa, go ahead.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
If there are no amendments, don't we still need to say, “Shall clause 4 carry?”, and carry it?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
On your point of order, Anita, we already adopted clauses 4 and 5, on December 4.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
Now we are on G-9. In order to be coherent throughout the bill, members should keep in mind the decision made on amendment G-3 while considering amendment G-9, since they are related.
Now we are going to G-9.
Lisa, you have the floor.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
As you said, this is another technical amendment that ensures the wording matches some of the amendments that we have already agreed to. It relates to form 32. This is used by a judge to indicate which conditions a defendant would have to comply with once they are bound under a recognizance. This motion proposes to amend clause 6 of the bill so that it would modify the form in a way that ensures consistency between form 32 and the language in the new paragraph that we have passed here at this committee. It requires the Attorney General to consent before a condition of wearing an electronic monitoring device can be imposed.
I'm not sure if we can turn to the officials for any further insight into why this is necessary.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
Do the officials want to explain that, or is everything okay? Is everyone clear?
12:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If people have questions, we can answer, but basically, as was said, it's to make the form match the provision that was adopted at a previous meeting, just so there's consistency from one place to the next.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mrs. Roberts just wanted to point out that I would like to speak.
If possible, I would like the legal experts to provide a brief response.
I'm told that amendment G‑9 is closely related to amendment G‑3, which we discussed seven or eight weeks ago. Since amendment G‑3 was a page and a half long, I'd like a brief summary and an explanation of the changes introduced by amendment G‑9 in relation to the Attorney General. That would help us get up to speed.
12:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Line 15 on page 3 of the bill reads as follows: “to wear an electronic monitoring device, with the consent of the Attorney General.”
This provision, which amends section 810.03 of the Criminal Code, differs from the provision amending form 32 of the Criminal Code. That provision, on page 7 of the bill, line 33, reads as follows: “wears an electronic monitoring device (section 810.03 of the Criminal Code).”
The proposed amendment to form 32 of the Criminal Code adds the elements already included in the proposed amendment to section 810.03 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the monitoring device.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
How is this amendment related to amendment G‑3?
12:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It was already in amendment G‑3.
Sorry. Amendment G‑3 isn't related to amendment G‑9.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
We're told that amendment G‑9 is directly related to amendment G‑3 and that we need to study both amendments together.
Since amendment G‑3 is almost two pages long and we studied it a long time ago, could someone explain the relationship between the two amendments?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, I don't believe that we—
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I know that.
Ms. Moore, do you have an answer to my question?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't believe that G-9 is consequential to G-3. The reason for G-9 is that this additional wording, “if the Attorney General has consented to this condition”, was actually added in the Senate, I believe, so the original bill didn't have that wording. When they added this wording in the Senate to this particular provision, they forgot to add it to the form as well. This is simply correcting this oversight from an amendment that was done in the Senate earlier.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Madam Chair, I would like to clarify my question. I'm not disputing that amendment G‑3 was adopted. We were told that amendment G‑9 was related to amendment G‑3 and that they should be read together.
Am I wrong? Should we look at amendment G‑9 with amendment G‑3?
12:40 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, that isn't necessary.