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.
Minutes of Proceedings
Liberal
- Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member
Conservative
The Committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The witnesses answered questions.
The Chair called Clause 162.
On Clause 162,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 162, be amended(a) by replacing lines 30 to 33 on page 53 with the following:
“431 is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.”
(b) by replacing lines 8 to 11 on page 54 with the following:
“under section 431.1 is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 162 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 163 carried on division.
Clause 164 carried on division.
On Clause 165,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 165, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 7 on page 55 with the following:“part, the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 165 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 166,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 166, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 19 on page 55 with the following:“son or damage to property is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
Clause 166 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 167 carried on division.
On Clause 168,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 168, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 56 with the following:“five years who intentionally prevents or impedes, or”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 168 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
On Clause 169,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 169, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 13 on page 56 with the following:“purposes of navigation is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 169 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 170,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 170, be amended(a) by replacing lines 20 to 23 on page 56 with the following:
“forms a natural protection to such a bar, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years.”
(b) by replacing lines 31 to 34 on page 56 with the following:
“able, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“movable property permanently attached or joined to the immovable property, is guilty of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Colin Fraser and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Clause 170, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 171,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 171, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 57 with the following:“five years who intentionally pulls down, defaces, al-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 171 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, clauses 172 to 176 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 177,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 177, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 16 on page 58 with the following:“guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
Clause 177 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 178,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 178, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 58 with the following:“years who, with intent to defraud, knowingly utters”
The question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 178 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 179,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 179, be amended(a) by replacing line 26 on page 58 with the following:
“English version of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the fol-”
(b) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 58 with the following:
“five years who”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 179 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, clauses 180 to 184 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 185,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 185, be amended(a) by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 60 with the following:
“for a term of not more than 10 years, if the alleged”
(b) by replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 60 with the following:
“ment for a term of not more than five years, if the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 185 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 186,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 186, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 60 with the following:“ganization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 186 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, clauses 187 to 191 inclusive carried on division severally.
Clause 192, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
By unanimous consent, clauses 193 to 211 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 212,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 212, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 65 with the following:“cer, justice or judge shall give consideration to”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in clause 212, be amended by adding after lline 6 on page 66 the following:
“(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), no condition should be imposed to punish the accused or change their behaviour.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“circumstances of Aboriginal accused.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“(2) For the purposes of this Act, vulnerable population means a group of persons who are living in poverty, who are homeless, who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, who have a mental health problem, who provide sexual services for consideration, who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system or who are disadvantaged.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Clause 212 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 213 carried on division.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 214, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 66 with the following:
“economic loss, the peace officer shall, without laying a”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 214 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
On Clause 215,
Murray Rankin moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 215, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 68 the following:“(2.1) Subparagraph 498(1.1)(a)(iii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(iii) in the case of an offence that poses a real and substantial risk to the safety and security of any person, particularly any victim of or witness to the offence, prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence,
(iii.1) prevent the commission of another offence, or”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 215 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 216 carried on division.
On Clause 217,
Murray Rankin moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 217, be amended(a) by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 70 with the following:
“lowing conditions, if the condition is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the offence, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, and necessary to ensure the”
(b) by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 70 with the following:
“continuation or repetition of an offence that poses a real and imminent threat to the safety and security of the victim or witness or the commission of another offence likely to cause harm to the victim or witness:”
(c) by replacing lines 27 to 29 on page 70 with the following:
“ing any geographic area, which condition must be:
(i) delimited reasonably, having regard to the circumstances of the accused, including if the accused is an Aboriginal person or belongs to a vulnerable population, and
(ii) reasonably necessary to ensure the safety and security of any person referred to in paragraph (d), except in accordance with any specified conditions;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 217, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 70 with the following:
“circumstances of the offence and of the accused, necessary, and reasonably practicable for the accused to comply with, to ensure the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 217, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 70 with the following:
“accused’s attendance in court, or because there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will endanger the safety and security of the public, or to prevent the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 217, be amended
(a) by deleting lines 16 to 21 on page 70.
(b) by deleting lines 30 to 36 on page 70.
(c) by deleting lines 3 to 12 on page 71.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
“suring the safety and security of any victim of or witness to the offence.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Colin Fraser and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“(3.1) If the undertaking contains a condition relating to the consumption of alcohol or drugs by the accused, consideration must be given to the accused's level of dependence on the substance and priority must be given to harm-reduction measures rather than abstinence, to the extent that it is possible to do so without compromising the safety and security of a victim, a witness or the public.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 217, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 218 carried on division.
On Clause 219
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 219, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 74 with the following:
“the justice considers necessary and to which the prose-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 219 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 220 to 226 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 227
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 227, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 78 with the following:
“(e) unless the prosecution establishes to the satisfaction of the justice that an order con-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 227, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 78 the following:
“(2.021) Before making an order requiring that the accused have a surety, the justice shall cause notice to be given to the accused and be satisfied that the condition to have a surety is necessary.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 227, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 78 with the following:
“satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that this requirement is necessary and is the least onerous form”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 7.
“ographic area specified in the order, which condition must be:
(i) delimited reasonably, having regard to the circumstances of the accused, including if the accused is an Aboriginal person or belongs to a vulnerable population, and
(ii) reasonably necessary to ensure the safety and security of any person referred to in paragraph (d), except in accor-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
“(4.01) If, when making an order under subsection (2), the justice specifies a condition relating to the consumption of alcohol or drugs by the accused, the justice shall take into account the accused’s level of dependence on the substance and give priority to harm-reduction measures rather than abstinence, to the extent that it is possible to do so without compromising the safety and security of a victim, a witness or the public.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 227, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 29 on page 80.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Murray Rankin — 1;
NAYS: Randy Boissonnault, Michael Cooper, Earl Dreeshen, Colin Fraser, Iqra Khalid, Dave MacKenzie, James Maloney, Ron McKinnon — 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 227, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 80 with the following:
“indictable offence or offence to be prosecuted by indictment under the provisions of this Part or section”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 227, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 81 with the following:
“siders necessary.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(8) Paragraph 515(10)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) if, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(8) Paragraph 515(10)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence that is likely to cause harm to the public, a victim or a witness, or interfere with the administration of justice; and
(9) Section 515 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (10):
(10.1) The justice may not order that the accused be detained if the justice is of the opinion that there is little or no likelihood that the accused would be sentenced, on conviction, to imprisonment.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 227 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
On Clause 228,
Colin Fraser moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 228, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 8 on page 81 with the following:“oath, solemn declaration or solemn affirmation in Form 12 that”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Colin Fraser and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 228, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 229 carried on division.
On Clause 230,
Randy Boissonnault moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 230, be amended by(a) replacing line 20 on page 82 with the following:
“230 (1) The portion of subsection 519(1) of the Act”
(b) adding after line 24 on page 82 the following:
“(2) Subsection 519(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (a), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):
(c) any condition in the order that an accused abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any victim, witness or other person identified in the order, except in accordance with any specified conditions, is effective from the moment it is made, whether or not the accused has been released from custody.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 230, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 2.
Clause 231 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 232 to 235 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 236
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 236, be amended
(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 24 on page 84 with the following:
“the circumstances described in subsection (2), the”
(b) by replacing lines 2 to 10 on page 85 with the following:
“that an appearance notice has been issued to the accused for failing to comply with a summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order or to attend court as required and the prosecutor seeks a decision under this section.”
(c) by deleting lines 33 to 37 on page 85.
(d) by replacing line 4 on page 86 with the following:
“subsection (2).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 236, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 85 with the following:
“court as required and the prosecutor or the accused seeks a decision”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 236, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 85 with the following:
“victim physical harm, the judge or justice shall review any con-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 236, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 86 the following:
“(6) If a charge for which a summons, appearance notice or release order was issued, or an undertaking was given, is dismissed, withdrawn or stayed, or if the accused is acquitted of that charge, the Attorney General must review any charge pending against the accused under any of subsections 145(2) to (5) for failure to comply with the summons, appearance notice, release order or undertaking in order to determine whether the prosecution of the charge should proceed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
“this section; or”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
Clause 236, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
On Clause 237
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 237, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 89 the following:
“(5.1) The judge shall make the release order referred to in section 515 if, following the hearing, the judge is of the opinion that the continued detention of the accused in custody is no longer appropriate as there is no likelihood that a term of imprisonment would be imposed on conviction.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 237, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 89 the following:
“(5.1) The judge shall make the release order referred to in section 515 if, following the hearing, the judge is of the opinion that the continued detention of the accused in custody is no longer appropriate as there is no likelihood that a term of imprisonment of more than 30 days would be imposed on conviction.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 237, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 89 the following:
“(5.1) The judge shall make the release order referred to in section 515 if, following the hearing, the judge is of the opinion that the continued detention of the accused in custody is no longer appropriate as there is no likelihood that a term of imprisonment imposed on conviction will exceed the period in custody pending trial.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“(5.1) The judge shall make the release order referred to in section 515 if, following the hearing, the judge is of the opinion that the continued detention of the accused in custody is no longer appropriate as there is little or no prospect that a term of imprisonment would be imposed on conviction, or as the period of detention in custody pending trial would likely exceed any term of imprisonment imposed on conviction for the offence.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 237 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, clauses 238 to 240 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 241
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 241, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 44 on page 91 with the following:
“(4) The justice shall, subject to section 577, hold a preliminary inquiry into a charge, on the request of the accused or the prosecutor made at that time or within the period fixed by rules of court made under section 482 or 482.1 or, if there are no such rules, by the justice, if
(a) the accused is referred to in subsection (2) and elects to be tried by a judge without a jury or by a court composed of a judge and jury or does not elect when put to the election or is deemed under paragraph 565(1)(a) to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury;
(b) the accused is charged with an offence listed in section 469 that is punishable by imprisonment for life;
(c) the accused or the prosecutor, as the case may be, consents to the inquiry being held; or
(d) the justice is satisfied that it is in the public interest to hold an inquiry, having regard to any of the following:
(i) the nature and seriousness of the charge, including the potential sentence arising from conviction,
(ii) the age and vulnerability of any witness giving evidence at the inquiry,
(iii) the issues to be decided at the inquiry, including whether or not committal is at issue,
(iv) the length and complexity of the case,
(v) the length of the inquiry proposed and whether or not holding the inquiry would cause undue delay, and
(vi) whether or not alternative measures for taking evidence are available.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS:0; NAYS: 7.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment, deemed moved by Elizabeth May, was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also negatived:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 242, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 41 on page 93 with the following:
“(3) The justice or judge shall, subject to section 577, hold a preliminary inquiry into a charge, on the request of the accused or the prosecutor made at that time or within the period fixed by rules of court made under section 482 or 482.1 or, if there are no such rules, by the judge or justice, if
(a) the accused is referred to in subsection (2) and elects to be tried by a judge without a jury or by a court composed of a judge and jury or does not elect when put to the election or is deemed under paragraph 565(1)(a) to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury;
(b) the accused is charged with an offence listed in section 469 that is punishable by imprisonment for life;
(c) the accused or the prosecutor, as the case may be, consents to the inquiry being held; or
(d) the justice or judge is satisfied that it is in the public interest to hold an inquiry, having regard to any of the following:
(i) the nature and seriousness of the charge, including the potential sentence arising from conviction,
(ii) the age and vulnerability of any witness giving evidence at the inquiry,
(iii) the issues to be decided at the inquiry, including whether or not committal is at issue,
(iv) the length and complexity of the case,
(v) the length of the inquiry proposed and whether or not holding the inquiry would cause undue delay, and
(vi) whether or not alternative measures for taking evidence are available.”
Clause 241 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, clauses 242 to 252 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, the Committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 278 of the Bill.
After debate, Clause 278 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.
On Clause 253,
Colin Fraser moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 253, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 31 on page 98 with the following:“(2) Subsection 551.3(1) of the Act is amended by”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Colin Fraser and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 253, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
By unanimous consent, clauses 254 to 269 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 270
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 270, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 111 the following:
“(1.1) Paragraph 606(1.1)(b) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of subparagraph (ii) and by adding the following after subparagraph (ii):
(ii.1) if the accused is not a Canadian citizen, the consequences of the plea, including those related to paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 270, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 111 the following:
“(3) Subsection 606(1.2) of the Act is repealed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 7.
Clause 270 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
On new Clause 270.1,
Murray Rankin moved, — That Bill C-75 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 111 the following new clause:“270.1 (1) Subsection 629(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
629 (1) The accused or the prosecutor may challenge the jury panel on the ground of partiality, fraud or intentional misconduct on the part of the sheriff or other officer by whom the panel was returned, or on the ground that there is among the jurors significant underrepresentation of Aboriginal people and other vulnerable populations that are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
(2) Subsection 629(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) A challenge under subsection (1) shall be in writing and shall state that the person who returned the panel was partial or fraudulent or that he intentionally misconducted himself, as the case may be, or that there is among the jurors significant underrepresentation of Aboriginal people and other vulnerable populations that are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
On Clause 271,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 271, be amended(a) by replacing line 28 on page 111 with the following:
“271 Section 633 of the Act is replaced”
(b) by replacing line 34 on page 111 with the following:
“cause; the judge may also allow a juror to be challenged peremptorily under section 634.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 271, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 111 with the following:
“the administration of justice, including having regard to fair representation of Aboriginal people and other vulnerable populations that are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, or any other reasonable”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
Clause 271 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
Clause 272 carried on division.
On Clause 273
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 273, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 16 on page 112 with the following:
“273 Paragraphs 638(1)(b) to (f) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(b) a juror is not impartial, including if they have voiced discriminatory stereotypes against Aboriginal accused, witnesses or complainants or against persons from a particular group based on a prohibited ground of discrimination, making it difficult to determine whether they would act on those discriminatory stereotypes;
(c) a juror is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;
(d) a juror, even with the aid of technical, personal, interpretative or other support services provided to the juror under section 627, is physically unable to perform properly the duties of a juror; or
(e) a juror does not speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or both official languages of Canada, if the accused is required by reason of an order under section 530 to be tried before a judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or who speak both official languages of Canada, as the case may be.
(1.1) Despite paragraph (1)(e), jurors from Aboriginal communities who speak Aboriginal languages, but speak neither of the official languages of Canada, may be allowed to be part of the panel if sufficient interpretative services are available, including the use of interpreters during jury deliberations who would be subject to section 649.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 273 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 274 to 277 inclusive carried on division.
Clause 278 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 279 to 289 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 290,
Kent Hehr moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 290, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29 on page 119 with the following:“the person be detained in custody or be released on recognizance, with or without sureties.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kent Hehr and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
Clause 290, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
On Clause 291,
Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 291, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 120 with the following:“be discharged or to be released on recognizance, with or without sureties, so that”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Clause 291, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
By unanimous consent, clauses 292 to 294 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 295
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75, in Clause 295, be amended
(a) by deleting lines 4 to 6 on page 124.
(b) by deleting lines 4 to 6 on page 125.
(c) by deleting lines 27 to 30 on page 125.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 295 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
By unanimous consent, clauses 296 to 303 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 304,
Michael Cooper moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 304, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 129 the following:“(1.1) Subparagraphs 737(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(i) $125 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction, and
(ii) $225 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michael Cooper and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
Clause 304 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 305 to 312 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 313,
Kent Hehr moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 313, be amended by(a) replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 132 with the following:
“763 (1) If a person is bound by an undertaking, release order or recognizance to appear before a court, provincial court judge or”
(b) replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 132 with the following:
“sureties continue to be bound by the undertaking, release order or recognizance as if it had been entered into or issued with”
(c) adding after line 15 on page 132 the following:
“(2) A summary of section 763 must be set out in any undertaking, release order or recognizance.”
(d) replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 132 with the following:
“(4) A summary of subsections (1) to (3) must be set out in any undertaking or re-”
Debate arose thereon.
At 6:31 p.m.,the sitting was suspended.
At 8:17 p.m., the sitting resumed.
(a) replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 132 with the following:
“763 (1) If a person is bound by an undertaking, release order or recognizance to appear before a court, provincial court judge or”
(b) replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 132 with the following:
“sureties continue to be bound by the undertaking, release order or recognizance as if it had been entered into or issued with”
(c) adding after line 15 on page 132 the following:
“(2) A summary of section 763 must be set out in any undertaking, release order or recognizance.”
(d) replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 132 with the following:
“(4) A summary of subsections (1) to (3) must be set out in any undertaking or re-”
The question was put on the amendment of Kent Hehr and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Clause 313, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 314 carried on division.
On Clause 315,
Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 315, be amended by(a) replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 136 with the following:
“posite “Ontario” in column I, is replaced by a reference to “a release order or recognizance”.”
(b) replacing, in the English version, line 20 on page 136 with the following:
“(2) The reference to “all other recognizances” in column II”
(c) replacing line 23 on page 136 with the following:
“to “undertakings or all other release orders or recog-”
(d) adding the following after line 24 on page 136 with the following:
“(3) The references to “a recognizance” in column II of the schedule to Part XXV of the Act, opposite “British Columbia” in column I, are replaced by references to “an undertaking, release order or recognizance”.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 315, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 316 to 318 inclusive carried on division.
Clause 319 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.
Clause 320 carried on division.
On new Clause 320.1,
Randy Boissonnault moved, — That Bill C-75 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 137 the following:“320.1 Section 802.1 of the Act is replaced by the following:
802.1 Despite subsections 800(2) and 802(2), a defendant may not appear or examine or cross-examine witnesses by agent if he or she is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term of more than six months, unless
(a) the defendant is an organization;
(b) the defendant is appearing to request an adjournment of the proceedings; or
(c) the agent is authorized to do so under a program approved — or criteria established — by the lieutenant governor in council of the province.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 321 to 328 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 329,
James Maloney moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 329, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 141 with the following:“taking, release order or recognizance.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Clause 329, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 330 carried on division.
On Clause 331,
Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 331, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 142 with the following:“with “release order or recogni-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.
Clause 331, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 332 carried on division.
On Clause 333,
Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 333, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 142 with the following:““To” and ends with “(territorial division):” is replaced by the following:
Whereas (name of person) has been convicted under the Criminal Code, discharged under section 730 of that Act or, in the case of a young person, found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or the Youth Criminal Justice Act of (offence), which, on the day on which the person was sentenced or discharged, was a primary designated offence within the meaning of section 487.04 of the Criminal Code;
Therefore, you are authorized to take or cause to be taken from (name of person) the number of samples of bodily substances that is reasonably required for forensic DNA analysis, provided that the person taking the samples is able, by virtue of training or experience, to take them by means of the investigative procedures described in subsection 487.06(1) of the Criminal Code and that, if the person taking the samples is not a peace officer, they take them under the direction of a peace officer.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 333, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
On Clause 334,
Randy Boissonnault moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 334, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 142 to line 5 on page 143 with the following:“334 (1) The portion of Form 5.04 of Part XXVIII of the Act that begins with “Whereas” and ends with “the “offender”,” is replaced by the following:
Whereas (name of person), in this order called the “person”,
(2) The portion of paragraph (b) of the English version of Form 5.04 of Part XXVIII of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:
(b) has been convicted under the Criminal Code, discharged under section 730 of that Act or, in the case of a young person, found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or the Youth Criminal Justice Act, of, or has been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for, (offence), which, on the day on which the person was sentenced or discharged or the finding was made, was one of the following secondary designated offences within the meaning of section 487.04 of the Criminal Code (check applicable box):
(3) The portion of Form 5.04 of Part XXVIII of the Act that follows subparagraph (b)(v) is replaced by the following:
Whereas the person’s criminal record, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission, whether the person was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a designated offence, and the impact that this order would have on the person’s privacy and security have been considered by the court;
And whereas the court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to make this order;
Therefore, you are authorized to take or cause to be taken from (name of person) the number of samples of bodily substances that is reasonably required for forensic DNA analysis, provided that the person taking the samples is able, by virtue of training or experience, to take them by means of the investigative procedures described in subsection 487.06(1) of the Criminal Code and that, if the person taking the samples is not a peace officer, they take them under the direction of a peace officer.
This order is subject to the following terms and conditions that the court considers advisable to ensure that the taking of the samples is reasonable in the circumstances:
Dated (date), at (place).
(Signature of judge of the court or clerk of the court)”
The question was put on the amendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 334, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 335 and 336 carried on division.
On Clause 337,
James Maloney moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 337, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 5 on page 145 with the following:“be issued (Section 512 or 512.1 of the Criminal Code)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
Clause 337, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 338 to 342 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 343,
Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 343, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 11 on page 160 with the following:“(Signature of justice or clerk of the court)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.
Clause 343, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 344 to 346 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 347,
Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 347, be amended by(a) replacing line 23 on page 162 with the following:
“347 Form 25 of Part XXVIII of the Act is re-”
(b) by deleting line 29 on page 163 to line 4 on page 165.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.
Clause 347, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 348 to 350 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 351,
Randy Boissonnault moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 351, be amended by(a) replacing line 14 on page 168 with the following:
“(Sections 2, 462.34, 490.9, 550, 683, 706, 707, 779, 810, 810.01, 810.1,”
(b) replacing line 6 on page 169 with the following:
“5 Conditions in effect
I understand that the conditions in this recognizance remain in effect until they are cancelled or changed or until I have been discharged, sentenced or otherwise detained by the court (sections 763 and 764 of the Criminal Code).
6 Signatures”
(c) replacing line 48 on page 170 with the following:
“(n) appears in court as required (sections 550, 706 and 707 of the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 351, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 352 carried on division.
(a) replacing line 32 on page 172 with the following:
“353 Form 38 of Part XXVIII of the Act is re-”
(b) deleting line 24 on page 173 to line 14 on page 174.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 353, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 354 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 355 to 360 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 361,
Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 361, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 176 with the following:“tered into under subsection”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 361, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
On Clause 362,
Randy Boissonnault moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 362, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 177 with the following:“other mode of trial not later than 14 days before”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 362, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 363 carried on division.
On new Clause 363.1,
James Maloney moved, — That Bill C-75 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 177 the following:“Section 83.3 of the Criminal Code
363.1 (1) If, in accordance with section 83.32 of the Criminal Code, section 83.3 of that Act does not have effect on the day on which section 26 comes into force, then that section 26 is deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.
(2) However, if, after the day referred to in subsection (1), Bill C-59, introduced in the 1st session of the 42nd Parliament and entitled the National Security Act, 2017, receives royal assent and, by operation of section 157.1 of that Act, section 83.3 of the Criminal Code becomes effective again, then, as of the day on which that section 157.1 comes into force, the portion of subsection 83.3(6) of the Criminal Code before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
(6) Unless a peace officer is satisfied that a person should be released from custody without conditions before their appearance before a provincial court judge in accordance with the rules in paragraph (a) or (b), and so releases the person, the person detained in custody shall be taken before a provincial court judge in accordance with the following rules:”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
On Clause 364,
Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 364, be amended by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 177 with the following:“4.1 (1) Extrajudicial measures are presumed to be adequate to hold a young person accountable for a failure or”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
Clause 364, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 365 to 381 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 382,
Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 382, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 7 on page 183 with the following:“adding “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and by”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
Clause 382, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 383 carried on division.
On Clause 384,
Randy Boissonnault moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 384, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 12 and 13 on page 184 with the following:“(6) Subsections 770(2) (transmission to clerk of the court) and (4) (transmission of deposit) of the Criminal Code do”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
Clause 384, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 385 carried on division.
Clause 386 carried on division.
New Clause 386.1
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-75 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 184 the following new clause:
“Five-year Review
386.1 (1) Five years after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the Minister of Justice must have a review of the operation of the amendments made under this Act undertaken.
(2) Within one year after the review is undertaken, the Minister must cause a report on the review to be laid before each House of Parliament within the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
Clause 387 carried on division.
Clause 388 carried on division.
On Clause 389,
James Maloney moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 389, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 185 with the following:“day on which a Bill entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, introduced in the 1st”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
Clause 389, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 390 to 399 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 400,
Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 400, be amended(a) by replacing line 5 on page 188 with the following:
“notice, the requirement to attend court in accordance with a summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order, the conditions in the undertaking or release order”
(b) by replacing line 10 on page 188 with the following:
“(5) The requirement to attend court in accordance with a summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order, the conditions in an undertaking or release order”
(c) by replacing, in the French version, line 13 on page 188 with the following:
“cessent d'avoir effet au moment où le défendeur est avisé de la”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.
Clause 400, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 401 to 403 inclusive carried on division.
On new Clause 403.1,
Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-75 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 189 the following:“Cannabis Act
403.1 Subsections 87(3) and (4) of the Cannabis Act are replaced by the following:
(3) A warrant issued under subsection (1) may be executed at any place in Canada. Any peace officer who executes the warrant must have authority to act as a peace officer in the place where it is executed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 404 and 405 carried on division.
Clause 406, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 407,
Colin Fraser moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 407, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 199 with the following:“to commit a terrorism offence without identifying a specific terrorism offence is guilty of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Colin Fraser and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Colin Fraser and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 407, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 408 carried on division.
On Clause 409,
James Maloney moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 409, be amended by(a) replacing line 2 on page 200 with the following:
“63, 65, 66 to 71, 72 to 74, 76 to 78, 81 to 90, 92, 94 to 99, 105 to 112 and 114 to”
(b) replacing line 7 on page 200 with the following:
“252, 253, 254 and 255, subsections 256(1), (4) and (5) and”
(c) replacing lines 13 to 17 on page 200 with the following:
“339(1), sections 341 to 347, subsection 348(1), sections 349 and 350, subsections 351(1) and (2) and 352(1) and (2), sections 353 to 356, subsection 373(1) and sections 379 to 382, 385, 388, 402 and 403.1 come into force on the 90th”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 1.
Clause 409, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
On Clause 410,
Randy Boissonnault moved, — That Bill C-75, in Clause 410, be amended by(a) replacing line 20 on page 200 with the following:
“410 Subsection 1(3), sections 5, 26, 32 to 34, 49”
(b) replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 200 with the following:
“subsection 339(2), section 340, subsections 348(2), 351(3) and 352(3), sections 364 to 372,”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Clause 410, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
The Title carried on division.
The Bill, as amended, carried on division.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-75, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.
At 8:49 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.