JUST Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met in a televised session at 3:31 p.m. this day, in Room C-110, 1 Wellington Street, the Chair, Ed Fast, presiding.

The Chair presented the Eighth Report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure which read as follows:

Your Subcommittee met on Monday, February 14, 2011, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendations:

1. On Bill C-4

That, beginning on Monday, February 28, 2011, the Committee resume consideration of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, and invite witnesses to appear; and

That panels consist of no more than three groups or individuals per hour; and

That the Committee invite:

• witnesses who have requested an appearance before the Committee and have not yet appeared;

• witnesses who have appeared but have been requested by Committee members to return for a second appearance.

It was agreed, — That the report of the Subcommittee be concurred in.

Julie McAuley made a statement and, with Craig Grimes and Mia Dauvergne, answered questions.

At 4:19 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:23 p.m., the sitting resumed.

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

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

The Chair called Clause 2.

Clause 2 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Joe Comartin, Bob Dechert, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Marc Lemay, Serge Ménard, Brian Murphy, Rick Norlock, Daniel Petit, Brent Rathgeber, Stephen Woodworth — 11; NAYS: — 0.

On Clause 3,

“(2) Section 151 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 151(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), the court may impose a sentence of detention of lesser duration than the minimum punishment of imprisonment if it is of the opinion that compelling circumstances relating to the offender or the nature of the offence warrant it. If the court does impose a sentence of lesser duration, it shall provide a written statement of its reasons at the time of sentencing and include it in the record of the hearing.”

Debate arose thereon.

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Brian Murphy appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Bob Dechert, Rick Norlock, Daniel Petit, Brent Rathgeber, Stephen Woodworth — 5; NAYS: Joe Comartin, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Marc Lemay, Serge Ménard, Brian Murphy — 6.

“(2) Section 151 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 151(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), the court may impose a sentence of detention of lesser duration than the minimum punishment of imprisonment if it is of the opinion that compelling circumstances relating to the offender or the nature of the offence warrant it. If the court does impose a sentence of lesser duration, it shall provide a written statement of its reasons at the time of sentencing and include it in the record of the hearing.”

The question was put on the amendment of Serge Ménard and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Joe Comartin, Marc Lemay, Serge Ménard — 3; NAYS: Bob Dechert, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Brian Murphy, Rick Norlock, Daniel Petit, Brent Rathgeber, Stephen Woodworth — 8.

Debate continued on Clause 3.

At 5:17 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.