JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Meeting No. 14

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 3:32 p.m. this day, in Room 306, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Dave MacKenzie, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Françoise Boivin, Charmaine Borg, Hon. Irwin Cotler, Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Robert Goguen, Jack Harris, Pierre Jacob, Brian Jean, Dave MacKenzie, Brent Rathgeber, Kyle Seeback and Stephen Woodworth.

Acting Members present: Sean Casey for Hon. Irwin Cotler, Hon. Stéphane Dion for Hon. Irwin Cotler, Phil McColeman for Brent Rathgeber, Jasbir Sandhu for Françoise Boivin and Rathika Sitsabaiesan for Charmaine Borg.

Associate Members present: David Wilks.

In attendance: House of Commons: Lucie Tardif-Carpentier, Legislative Clerk ; Mike MacPherson, Legislative Clerk ; Joann Garbig, Procedural Clerk ; Alexandre Roger, Procedural Clerk . Library of Parliament: Robin MacKay, Analyst ; Dominique Valiquet, Analyst.

Witnesses: Department of Justice: Catherine Kane, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section. Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: Daryl Churney. Department of Justice: Paula Kingston, Senior Counsel, Youth Justice and Strategic Initiatives Section; Carole Morency, Director and General Counsel, Cabinet and Leg, Criminal Law Policy Section; Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, September 28, 2011, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts.

Catherine Kane, Daryl Churney and Paul St-Denis answered questions.

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

The Committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 105 of the Bill.

Clause 105 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 106 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 107 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 108,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 108, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 62 with the following:

“An Act to provide for the relief of persons who have been”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, be amended by replacing “record suspension” with “pardon” in the following provisions:

(a) Clause 110, line 15, page 63;

(b) Clause 111, lines 18, 19 and 20, page 63;

(d) Clause 114, lines 28, 29 and 33, page 64;

(e) Clause 115, line 39, page 64, lines 20 and 31, page 65;

(f) Clause 116, lines 24, 25 and 32, page 66 and line 2, page 67;

(g) Clause 117, lines 15, 27, 30, 41 and 43, page 67;

(h) Clause 118, line 6, page 68;

(i) Clause 120, lines15 and 19, page 68;

(j) Clause 122, lines 18 and 19, page 69;

(k) Clause 123, line 3, page 70;

(l) Clause 124, lines 7 and 20, page 70;

(m) Clause 125, line 26, page 70;

(n) Clause 126, lines 3 and 20, page 71;

(o) Clause 127, lines 28 and 29, page 71;

(p) Clause 128, line 34, page 71; and

(q) Clause 130, lines 23, 24, 27 and 31, page 72.

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition and also because it proposed to amend more than one clause of the bill, as provided on page 763 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Clause 108 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

On Clause 109,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 109, be amended by deleting lines 33 and 34 on page 62.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 109, be amended by deleting lines 7 and 8 on page 63.

The question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 109 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 110 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 111,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 111, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 63 with the following:

“application for a pardon, to decide whether to revoke a pardon under”

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

After debate, Clause 111 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 112 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 113 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 114 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 115,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 65 with the following:

“(b) three years, in the case of an offence that is”

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

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 115, be amended by deleting lines 19 to 28 on page 65.

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

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 65 with the following:

“coercion in relation to the victim; or”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

Stéphane Dion moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 115, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 6 on page 66.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Stéphane Dion and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 115 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 116,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 116, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 17 on page 66 with the following:

“4.1 (1) The Board may grant a pardon for an offence if the Board is satisfied that”

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

Clause 116 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 117 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 118 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 119 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 120 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 121,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 121, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 68 with the following:

“who has received a pardon under section 4.1 or”

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

After debate, Clause 121 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 122 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 123 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

Clause 124 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 125 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 126 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 127 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 128 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 3.

After debate, Clause 129 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 130 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 131 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 132 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 133 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 134 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

At 4:49 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 5:14 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Clause 135 carried on division.

On Clause 136,

Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 136, be amended by deleting line 28 on page 73 to line 45 on page 74.

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

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 73 with the following:

“must consider the following factors:

(a) whether the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 74 with the following:

“(b) whether the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 74 with the following:

“(c) whether the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 74 with the following:

“(d) whether the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 74 with the following:

“(e) whether the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 136, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 37 on page 74.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 136, be amended by deleting lines 41 to 43 on page 74.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 136, be amended by deleting lines 44 and 45 on page 74.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 136 carried on division.

At 5:34 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 6:05 p.m., the sitting resumed.

After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 137 to 166 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 167,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 167, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 87 with the following:

“(a) an offence committed intentionally or recklessly by a young person”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 167, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 87 with the following:

“young person intentionally or recklessly endangers the life or safety of”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 167 carried on division.

On Clause 168,

Sean Casey moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 168, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 31 on page 87 with the following:

“ intended to

(i) prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person’s offending behaviour,

(ii) rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society, and

(iii) ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence

in order to promote the long-term protection of the public;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Sean Casey moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 168, be amended

(a) by replacing line 18 on page 87 with the following:

“intended to”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 19 on page 87 with the following:

“(i) hold young persons accountable”

“(ii) promote the rehabilitation and re-”

(d) by replacing, in the English version, line 27 on page 87 with the following:

“(iii) support the prevention of crime by”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Françoise Boivin moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 168, be amended

(a) by replacing line 18 on page 87 with the following:

“intended to promote the long-term protection of the public by”

(b) by replacing, in the French version, lines 20 to 27 on page 87 with the following:

“(i) obligeant les adolescents à répondre de leurs actes au moyen de mesures proportionnées à la gravité de l’infraction et au degré de responsabilité,

(ii) favorisant la réadaptation et la réinsertion sociale des adolescents ayant commis des infractions,

(iii) contribuant à la prévention du crime”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Robert Goguen moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 168, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 24 on page 87 with the following:

“(ii) favoriser la réadaptation et la réin-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to.

Clause 168, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

Clause 169 carried on division.

Clause 170 carried on division.

Clause 171 carried on division.

After debate, Clause 172 carried on division.

Clause 173 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 174 to 182 inclusive carried on division.

On Clause 183,

Sean Casey moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 183, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 93 with the following:

“72. (1) The youth justice court may order”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 183, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 93 with the following:

“that an adult sentence be imposed if, having considered the seriousness and circumstances of the offence, the personal circumstances of the young person — including their age, maturity, character, background and previous record — and other relevant factors, it is satisfied that”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Sean Casey moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 183, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 93 with the following:

“satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 183, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 93 with the following:

“sections 3 and 38”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 183 carried on division.

Clause 184 carried on division.

On Clause 185,

Sean Casey moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 185, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8 on page 94.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 185, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 94 with the following:

“court may decide whether it is appropriate to”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 185, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 94 the following:

“(5) The Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province may, by order, exempt the province from the application of this section or fix an age greater than 14 years for the purpose of its application.”

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.

Clause 185 carried on division.

After debate, Clause 186 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 187 to 204 inclusive carried on division.

At 7:13 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Jean-François Pagé
Clerk of the Committee

2012/04/03 1:14 p.m.