Skip to main content Start of content

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. 77
 
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
 

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 3:37 p.m. this day, in Room 705 La Promenade Building, the Chair, Andy Scott, presiding.

 

Members of the Committee present: Chuck Cadman, Hedy Fry, Marlene Jennings, Christian Jobin, Derek Lee, Paul Harold Macklin, John Maloney, Richard Marceau, John McKay, Pat O'Brien, Andy Scott and Kevin Sorenson.

 

Acting Members present: Joe Comartin for Lorne Nystrom and Bob Wood for Sarmite Bulte.

 

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Philip Rosen, Principal; Robin MacKay, Analyst. House of Commons: Joann Garbig, Legislative Clerk; Jeffrey LeBlanc, Legislative Clerk.

 

Witnesses: Department of the Solicitor General: Normand Payette, Acting Director, Corrections Policy. Department of Justice: Michel Laprade, Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Correctional Service of Canada; Richard G. Mosley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Law Policy and Community Justice Branch; Carole Morency, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; Catherine Kane, Senior Counsel, Policy Centre for Victims; Lisette Lafontaine, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, May 13, 2003, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-33, An Act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences.
 

The witnesses answered questions.

 

At 4:07 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:13 p.m., the sitting resumed.

 

Clause 2 carried on division.

 

On Clause 3,

Kevin Sorenson moved, — That Bill C-33, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 2 with the following:

3. The purpose of this Act is to enable offenders to”

The question was put on the amendment of Kevin Sorenson and it was negatived.

 

Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive carried on division severally.

 

On Clause 10,

Joe Comartin moved, — That Bill C-33, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 6 on page 5 with the following:

“residence;

( c ) whether the offender has social or family ties in Canada; and

( d ) whether the foreign entity or its prison system presents a serious threat to the offender's security or human rights.”

The question was put on the amendment and the result of the vote was announced: YEAS: Chuck Cadman, Joe Comartin, Hedy Fry, Richard Marceau, John McKay, Kevin Sorenson — 6; NAYS: Marlene Jennings, Christian Jobin, Derek Lee, Paul Harold Macklin, John Maloney, Bob Wood — 6.

Whereupon, the Chair voted in the affirmative.

Accordingly, the amendment was agreed to.

 

Clause 10, as amended, carried.

 

Clauses 11 and 12 carried on division severally.

 

On Clause 13,

Kevin Sorenson moved, — That Bill C-33, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5 on page 6 with the following:

“with the laws of the country in which the conviction occurred.”

The question was put on the amendment of Kevin Sorenson and it was negatived on division.

 

Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive carried on division severally.

 

On Clause 17,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-33, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 7 with the following:

“( b ) the Minister provides evidence that their sentence is longer than the maxi- ”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was negatived on division.

 

Clause 17 carried on division.

 

On Clause 18,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-33, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 7 with the following:

“( b ) the Minister provides evidence that their sentence is longer than the maxi-”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was negatived on division.

 

Clause 18 carried on division.

 

On Clause 19,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-33, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 8 with the following:

Justice Act only if the Minister provides evidence thereof. They are eligible for full parole on”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was negatived on division.

 

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-33, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 8 with the following:

Justice Act only if the Minister provides evidence thereof.”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was negatived on division.

 

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-33, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 42 on page 8 with the following:

Justice Act only if the Minister provides evidence thereof.”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was negatived on division.

 

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-33, in Clause 19, be amended(a) by replacing line 8 on page 9 with the following:

Criminal Justice Act and the Minister provides evidence thereof,”

(b) by replacing line 20 on page 9 with the following:

“sentence within the meaning of that Act and the Minister provides evidence thereof,”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was negatived on division.

 

Clauses 19 to 43 inclusive carried on division severally.

 

The Short Title carried on division.

 

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-33, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, April 1, 2003, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.
 

The witnesses answered questions.

 

By unanimous consent, Clauses 1 and 2 carried on division.

 

On Clause 3,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 3, be amended(a) by replacing line 41 on page 2 with the following:

“exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or ”

(b) by replacing line 45 on page 2 with the following:

“months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three months.”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Chuck Cadman, Richard Marceau, John McKay, Pat O'Brien, Kevin Sorenson — 5; NAYS: Joe Comartin, Hedy Fry, Marlene Jennings, Christian Jobin, Derek Lee, Paul Harold Macklin, John Maloney, Bob Wood — 8.

 

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 3, be amended(a) by replacing line 11 on page 3 with the following:

“exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or”

(b) by replacing line 15 on page 3 with the following:

“months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three months.”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Joe Comartin, Hedy Fry, Marlene Jennings, Christian Jobin, Derek Lee, Paul Harold Macklin, John Maloney, Bob Wood — 8; NAYS: Chuck Cadman, Richard Marceau, John McKay, Pat O'Brien, Kevin Sorenson — 5.

 

Clause 3 carried on division.

 

On Clause 4,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 4, be amended(a) by replacing line 42 on page 3 with the following:

“exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or”

(b) by replacing line 46 on page 3 with the following:

“months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three months.”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Joe Comartin, Hedy Fry, Marlene Jennings, Christian Jobin, Derek Lee, Paul Harold Macklin, John Maloney, Bob Wood — 8; NAYS: Chuck Cadman, Richard Marceau, John McKay, Pat O'Brien, Kevin Sorenson — 5.

 

On motion of Marlene Jennings, it was agreed, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 11 on page 4 with the following:

“(1.2) A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including

( a ) the age of the young person;

( b ) the age difference between the person and the young person;

( c ) the evolution of the relationship; and

( d ) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.”

Clause 4, as amended, carried on division.

 

Clause 5 carried on division.

 

On Clause 6,

 

On motion of Marlene Jennings, it was agreed, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 6, be amended(a) by replacing line 21 on page 5 with the following:

“explicit sexual activity;”

(b) by replacing line 24 on page 5 with the following:

“or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the”

On motion of Richard Marceau, it was agreed, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 4 on page 6 with the following:

"sells, advertises or makes available the recording, or has the recording in his or her possession for the purpose of printing, publishing, distributing, circulating, selling or advertising it or making it available."

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 6 with the following:

“exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Chuck Cadman, Richard Marceau, John McKay, Pat O'Brien, Kevin Sorenson — 5; NAYS: Joe Comartin, Hedy Fry, Marlene Jennings, Christian Jobin, Derek Lee, Paul Harold Macklin, John Maloney, Bob Wood — 8.

 

On motion of Marlene Jennings, it was agreed, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 6 with the following:

“(7) For the purposes of subsection (6),”

Clause 6, as amended, carried.

 

On Clause 7,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 7 the following:

"(6.1) For the purposes of this section, an act serves the public good if the act

( a ) has a medical, educational, psychiatric, scientific or crime-prevention purpose; or

( b ) is performed by a person involved in any of the following journalistic activities:

(i) a newspaper or other printed form of public information, or

(ii) a broadcast by a broadcaster or a supplier of electronic news licensed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to carry on a broadcasting undertaking or exempt from the application of the Telecommunications Act by order of the Commission."

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was negatived on division.

 

On motion of Marlene Jennings, it was agreed on division, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 17 on page 7 with the following:

“(7) For the purpose of subsection (6), acts or material that serve the public good include acts or material that are necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice or the pursuit of science, medicine, education or art.

(8) For the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether any written material or visual representation advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (6),

( a ) it is a question of law whether an act or any material related to an act serves the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged or the material goes beyond what serves the public good, but it is a question of fact whether the act or the material does or does not extend beyond what serves the public good; and

( b ) the motives of the accused are irrelevant.”

Clause 7, as amended, carried on division.

 

Clause 8 carried.

 

On Clause 9,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 9, be amended(a) by replacing line 2 on page 9 with the following:

" of the Act before paragraph ( b ) is replaced "

(b) by adding after line 18 on page 9 the following:

“( a ) give an electronic copy of the material to the court and provide the court with any password or other information required to access the material;”

The question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was negatived on division.

 

Clauses 9.1 and 9 to 24 inclusive carried on division severally.

 

On Clause 25,

 

On motion of Marlene Jennings, it was agreed on division, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 23 with the following:

16. (1) Where a proposed witness is a person of fourteen years of age or older”

Clause 25, as amended, carried on division.

 

On Clause 26,

 

On motion of Marlene Jennings, it was agreed on division, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 22 on page 23 with the following:

16.1 (1) A person under fourteen years of age is presumed to have the capacity to testify.

(2) Despite any provision of any Act requiring an oath or a solemn affirmation, a proposed witness under fourteen years of age shall not be required to take an oath or make a solemn affirmation.

(3) The evidence of a proposed witness under fourteen years of age shall be received if they are able to understand and respond to questions.

(4) A party who challenges the capacity of a proposed witness under fourteen years of age has the burden of satisfying the court that there is an issue as to their capacity to understand and respond to questions.

(5) Where the court is satisfied that there is an issue as to the capacity of a proposed witness under fourteen years of age to understand and respond to questions, the court shall, before permitting them to give evidence, conduct an inquiry to determine whether they are able to understand and respond to questions.

(6) The court shall, before permitting a proposed witness under fourteen years of age to give evidence, require them to promise to tell the truth.

(7) No proposed witness under fourteen years of age shall be asked any questions regarding their understanding of the nature of the promise for the purpose of determining whether their evidence shall be received by the court.

(8) For greater certainty, where the evidence of a witness under fourteen years of age is received by the court, it shall have the same effect as if it were taken under oath.”

Clause 26, as amended, carried on division.

 

Clauses 27 and 28 carried on division severally.

 

The Preamble carried.

 

The Title carried.

 

The Bill, as amended, carried.

 

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

 

ORDERED, — That Bill C-20, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

 

At 5:34 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

 



Jean-Philippe Brochu, Diane Diotte
Clerks of the Committee

 
 
2003/11/07 9:04 a.m.