CC2 Committee Meeting

The Legislative Committee on Bill C-2 met in a televised session at 9:11 a.m. this day, in Room 253-D, Centre Block, the Chair, Rick Dykstra, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the Preamble is postponed.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 is postponed.

The Chair calls Clause 2.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 2 to 33 inclusive carried on division.

Clause 34 carried on division.

On new Clause 34.1,

“34.1 Subsection 462.37(2.02) of the Act is amended by striking out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (a), by adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):

(c) an offence under any of the following provisions:

(i) section 212 (procuring),

(ii) section 334 (punishment for theft), when prosecuted under paragraph (a),

(iii) section 344 (robbery),

(iv) section 347 (criminal interest rate),

(v) subsection 380(1) (fraud), when prosecuted under paragraph (a), and

(vi) section 449 (making counterfeit money).”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

On new Clause 34.2,

“34.2 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 467.14:

467.15 (1) Every person who knowingly wears or displays a name, word, symbol or other representation that identifies, or is associated with, an organization deemed or declared by a court to be a criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1), it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew the identity of any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 35 and 36 carried on division.

On new Clause 36.1,

“36.1 Section 492.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) Despite subsection (2), a warrant issued under subsection (1) may be valid for a period mentioned in it exceeding sixty days and not exceeding one year, where the warrant is in relation to

(a) an offence under section 467.11, 467.12 or 467.13;

(b) an offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization; or

(c) a terrorism offence.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 37 and 38 carried on division.

On new Clause 38.1,

“38.1 Section 718.3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

“(2.1) Despite the fact that an enactment prescribes a minimum punishment in respect of an offence, the punishment to be imposed is, unless the offence is committed under section 47 or 235, in the discretion of the court that convicts a person who commits the offence. The court shall not impose the minimum punishment if it does not consider it necessary to do so having regard to the public interest, the needs of the community and the best interests of the person who commits the offence.””

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Whereupon, Joe Comartin appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division: YEAS: Harold Albrecht, Larry Bagnell, Richard Harris, Gerald Keddy, Daryl Kramp, Réal Ménard, Rob Moore, Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac — 8; NAYS: Joe Comartin, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Brian Murphy — 4.

On new Clause 38.2,

“38.2 Subsection 719(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(3) In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may deduct a number of days not exceeding the number of days spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Clause 39 carried on division.

On Clause 40,

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Joe Comartin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.

The question was put on the amendment of Joe Comartin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 7.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following four (4) amendments which are therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 40, be amended by deleting lines 17 and 18 on page 36.

That Bill C-2, in Clause 40, be amended by deleting lines 29 to 31 on page 36.

That Bill C-2, in Clause 40, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 38.

Clause 40 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Harold Albrecht, Larry Bagnell, Richard Harris, Marlene Jennings, Gerald Keddy, Daryl Kramp, Derek Lee, Réal Ménard, Rob Moore, Brian Murphy, Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac — 11; NAYS: Joe Comartin — 1.

On Clause 41,

Debate arose thereon.

At 9:58 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 10:08 a.m., the sitting resumed.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Joe Comartin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.

“least five years of imprisonment for each of”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Joe Comartin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 8.

Clause 41 carried on division.

On Clause 42,

“to have been met, after the prosecutor has informed the offender, in writing, of the criteria to be used by the court in making its finding, unless the contrary is proved”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Derek Lee and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 7.

“that imposition, and at the time of the application under subsection (1) — that is not later than six months after the imposition of sentence — it is shown that relevant evidence that was not reasonably available to the prosecutor at the time of the imposition of sentence became available in the interim; or

(b) at any time after the offender begins to serve the sentence, the prosecutor gives notice to the offender of a possible intention to make an application under section 752.1 and an application under subsection (1), and it can be shown that the offender has refused and continues to refuse any treatment available to the offender while in custody and that the offender continues to constitute a threat to society.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Joe Comartin and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Joe Comartin — 1; NAYS: Larry Bagnell, Richard Harris, Marlene Jennings, Gerald Keddy, Daryl Kramp, Réal Ménard, Rob Moore, Brian Murphy, Daniel Petit, Scott Simms, Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac — 11.

Clause 42 carried on division.

On Clause 43,

“753.02 Any evidence adduced during the hearing of an application made under subsection 753(1) is deemed also to have been adduced during any hearing held with respect”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Joe Comartin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 11.

Clause 43 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 44 to 56 inclusive carried on division.

On new Clause 56.1,

“56.1 Subsection 93(3.1) of the Act is repealed.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

The Chair ruled that the following eight (8) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also inadmissible:

“56.11 Section 119.1 of the Act is repealed.”

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 8 on page 50 the following new clause:

“56.2 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 127:

Merit and Rehabilitation

127.1 (1) An offender is not entitled to be released under section 127 unless

(a) the Board determines, in accordance with the procedure set out in this section, that the offender has earned the release and is likely to be rehabilitated; and

(b) the offender participates in any rehabilitation program determined by the Board.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Board shall, for the purpose of statutory release, review the case of an offender at least four months before the offender’s statutory release date under section 127.

(3) The Board is not required under subsection (2) to review the case of an offender

(a) who has advised the Board in writing that he or she does not wish to be considered for statutory release and who has not in writing revoked that advice;

(b) who is serving a sentence of less than six months; or

(c) who is unlawfully at large.

(4) The Board shall, for the purpose of statutory release, direct a prescribed professional to assess the risk of an offender reoffending, and the professional shall submit a report to the Board in respect of the assessment.

(5) With respect to a review commenced under this section, the Board shall, after examining the report referred to in subsection (4), determine

(a) whether the offender has earned the statutory release;

(b) whether the offender is likely to be rehabilitated;

(c) any rehabilitation program in which the offender must participate while the offender is on statutory release.

(6) If the Board determines that the offender has not earned the statutory release or is not likely to be rehabilitated, or if a review is not made by virtue of subsection (3), the Board shall conduct another review within two years after the later of the date on which the first review under subsection (2) took place and the date on which it was scheduled to take place, and thereafter within two years after the date on which each preceding review under this section took place or was scheduled to take place, until

(a) the offender is released on full parole;

(b) the sentence of the offender expires; or

(c) less than four months remains to be served before the offender’s statutory release date under section 127.

(7) Where an offender has been released under section 127, the Board may, after a review of the case based on information that could not reasonably have been provided to it at the time the Board determined that the offender had earned the statutory release or that the offender was likely to be rehabilitated, cancel or vary its determination if the offender has not been released or terminate the statutory release if the offender has been released.”

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 8 on page 50 the following new clause:

“56.12 (1) Subection 124(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

124. (1) The Board is not required to review the case of an offender who is unlawfully at large at the time prescribed for a review under section 122 or 123, but shall do so as soon as possible after being informed of the offender’s return to custody.

(2) Subsection 124(3) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(3) Where an offender has been granted parole under section 122 or 123, the Board may, after a review of the case based on information that could not reasonably have been provided to it at the time parole was granted, cancel the parole if the offender has not been released or terminate the parole if the offender has been released.”

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 8 on page 50 the following new clause:

“56.13 Sections 125 to 126.1 of the Act are repealed.”

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 8 on page 50 the following new clause:

“56.21 Paragraph 140(1)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) the first review for full parole pursuant to subsection 123(1), subsequent reviews pursuant to subsection 123(5) and a review conducted pursuant to section 127.1;”

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 8 on page 50 the following new clause:

“56.3 Subsection 225(2) of the Act is repealed.”

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 8 on page 50 the following new clause:

“56.4 Schedule I to the Act is amended by replacing the section references after the heading “SCHEDULE I” with the following:

(Subsection 107(1) and sections 129 and 130)”

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 50 the following new clause:

“57.1 Schedule II to the Act is amended by replacing the sections references after the heading “SCHEDULE II” with the following:

(Subsection 107(1) and sections 129, 130 and 132)”

By unanimous consent, Clauses 57 to 63 inclusive carried on division.

After debate, Clause 64 carried on division.

The Preamble carried on division.

The Short Title carried on division.

The Title carried on division.

The Bill carried on division.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill to the House.

At 11:44 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.