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. 42
 
Thursday, June 2, 2005
 

The Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness met at 9:24 a.m. this day, in Room 371 West Block, the Chair, John Maloney, presiding.

 

Members of the Committee present: Garry Breitkreuz, Joe Comartin, Hon. Roy Cullen, Hon. Paul Harold Macklin, John Maloney, Richard Marceau, Anita Neville, Hon. Judy Sgro, Myron Thompson, Vic Toews and Mark Warawa.

 

Acting Members present: Benoît Sauvageau for Serge Ménard.

 

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Robin MacKay, Analyst; Philip Rosen, Principal. House of Commons: Susan Baldwin, Legislative Clerk.

 

Witnesses: Department of Justice: Carole Morency, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; Lisette Lafontaine, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; Catherine Kane, Senior Counsel, Director, Policy Centre for Victim Issues.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Monday, October 18, 2004, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.
 

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

 

The Chair called Clause 1.

 

The witnesses answered questions.

 

Clause 1 carried.

 

On Clause 2,

Vic Toews moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 2 with the following:

“2. (1) Subsection 150.1(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

150.1 (1) Where an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152 or subsection 153(1), 160(3) or 173(2) or is charged with an offence under section 271, 272 or 273 in respect of a complainant under the age of sixteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.

(1.1) Paragraph 150.1(2)(c) of the Act is”

 

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

 

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following three (3) amendments which are therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 2 the following:

“(1.1) Section 150.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is fourteen years of age or more but under the age of sixteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge unless the accused

(a) is less than five years older than the complainant; and

(b) is neither in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant nor is a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency.”

That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing line 24 on page 2 with the following:

“(2) Subsections 150.1(3) and (4) of the Act are”

(b) by adding after line 33 on page 2 the following:

“(4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant was sixteen years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.”

That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 2 with the following:

“(3) No person aged twelve to fifteen years”

 

Clause 2 carried on division.

 
On Clause 3,
 

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on a previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 2 with the following:

“person under the age of sixteen years”

 
Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 3, be amended by

(a) replacing line 42 on page 2 to line 4 on page 3 with the following:

exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

(b) replacing lines 15 to 19 on page 3 with the following:

exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was agreed to on division.

 

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on a previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by replacing line 7 on page 3 with the following:

“age of sixteen years to touch, directly or”

(b) by replacing line 12 on page 3 with the following:

“of sixteen years,”

 

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on a previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following:

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

 

Clause 3, as amended, carried on division.

 
On Clause 4,
 

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on a previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 4, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 3 with the following:

“(2) Subsection 153(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:”

(b) by adding after line 17 on page 4 the following:

“(2) In this section, “young person” means a person sixteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.”

 
Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 7 on page 4 with the following:

exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was agreed to on division.

 

Clause 4, as amended, carried on division.

 
On Clause 5,
 

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on a previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 33 on page 4 with the following:

“5. (1) Subsection 161(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

161. (1) When an offender is convicted, or is discharged on the conditions prescribed in a probation order under section 730, of an offence referred to in subsection (1.1) in respect of a person who is under the age of sixteen years, the court that sentences the offender or directs that the accused be discharged, as the case may be, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence or any other condition prescribed in the order of discharge, shall consider making and may make, subject to the conditions or exemptions that the court directs, an order prohibiting the offender from

(a) attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of sixteen years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground or community centre;

(b) seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of sixteen years; or

(c) using a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) for the purpose of communicating with a person under the age of sixteen years.”

 

Clause 5 carried.

 

On Clause 6,

Joe Comartin moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 6 with the following:

“good, are in the public interest or are committed in the process of journalistic investigation for the purpose of preparing, publishing or distributing public news.”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Joe Comartin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 9.

 

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 37 on page 6 with the following:

“(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), it is a question of law whether an act serves the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged goes beyond what serves the public good, but it is a question of fact whether the act does or does not extend beyond what serves the public good.”

 

Clause 6 carried.

 

On Clause 7,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 7, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 17 to 21 on page 7 with the following:

(2) Paragraphs 163.1(2)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of ninety days.

(b) replacing line 32 on page 7 to line 5 on page 8 with the following:

years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of ninety days.

(4) Paragraphs 163.1(4)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

(5) Paragraphs 163.1(4.1)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was agreed to on division.

 
Myron Thompson moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 8 with the following:

“medicine or education; and”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Myron Thompson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

 

Clause 7, as amended, carried.

 

Clause 8 carried.

 

Clause 9 carried.

 

On Clause 9.1,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 11 the following:

9.1 Sections 170 and 171 of the Act are replaced by the following:

170. Every parent or guardian of a person under the age of eighteen years who procures the person for the purpose of engaging in any sexual activity prohibited by this Act with a person other than the parent or guardian is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months if the person procured is under the age of fourteen years; or

(b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days if the person procured is fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.

171. Every owner, occupier or manager of premises, or any other person who has control of premises or assists in the management or control of premises, who knowingly permits a person under the age of eighteen years to resort to or to be in or on the premises for the purpose of engaging in any sexual activity prohibited by this Act is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months if the person in question is under the age of fourteen years; or

(b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days if the person is fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was agreed to.

 

Clause 9.1, as amended, carried.

 

Clause 10 carried.

 

On Clause 10.1,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 11 the following:

10.1 (1) Subsection 212(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Despite paragraph (1)(j), every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.

(2) Subsection 212(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(4) Every person who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was agreed to on division.

 

Clause 10.1, as amended, carried on division.

 

Clause 11 carried.

 

Clause 12 carried.

 

Clause 13 carried.

 

Clause 14 carried.

 

On Clause 15,

Richard Marceau moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 15, be amended by

(a) replacing line 30 on page 13 with the following:

accused, the judge or justice shall,

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 41 on page 13 with the following:

the judge or justice may, on applica-

(c) adding after line 5 on page 14 the following:

(2.1) An application referred to in subsection (1) or (2) may be made, during the proceedings, to the presiding judge or justice or, before the proceedings begin, to the judge or justice who will preside at the proceedings.

(d) replacing line 27 on page 14 with the following:

ceedings against an accused, the judge

(e) replacing, in the English version, line 40 on page 14 with the following:

against an accused, the judge or

(f) adding after line 3 on page 15 the following:

(2.1) An application referred to in subsection (1) or (2) may be made, during the proceedings, to the presiding judge or justice or, before the proceedings begin, to the judge or justice who will preside at the proceedings.

(g) replacing line 16 on page 16 with the following:

the witness, unless the judge or justice

(h) replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 16 with the following:

witness if the judge or justice is of the

(i) replacing line 42 on page 16 with the following:

victim unless the judge or justice is of

(j) adding after line 48 on page 16 the following:

(4.1) An application referred to in subsection (1), (2) or (4) may be made, during the proceedings, to the presiding judge or justice or, before the proceedings begin, to the judge or justice who will preside at the proceedings.

(k) replacing lines 24 to 26 on page 18 with the following:

486.5 (1) Unless an order is made under section 486.4, on application of

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Richard Marceau and it was agreed to.

 

Clause 15, as amended, carried.

 

Clauses 16 to 25 inclusive carried severally.

 

On Clause 26,

Joe Comartin moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 24 with the following:

“twelve years of age or older whose mental”

 

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

 

Clause 26 carried.

 

On Clause 27,

Joe Comartin moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 27, be amended

(a) by replacing line 19 on page 24 with the following:

“16.1 (1) A person under twelve years of”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, lines 23 to 41 on page 24 and lines 1 to 12 on page 25 with the following:

“witness under twelve years of age shall not be required to take an oath or make a solemn affirmation.

(3) The evidence of a proposed witness under twelve 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 twelve years of age has the burden of satisfying the court that there is an issue as to the capacity of the proposed witness to understand and respond to questions.

(5) If the court is satisfied that there is an issue as to the capacity of a proposed witness under twelve years of age to understand and respond to questions, it 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 twelve years of age to give evidence, require them to promise to tell the truth.

(7) No proposed witness under twelve 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, if the evidence of a witness under twelve years of age is received”

 

By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

 
Joe Comartin moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 27, be amended

(a) by replacing, in the English version, lines 21 to 25 on page 24 with the following:

“(2) A proposed witness under fourteen years of age shall not take an oath or make a solemn affirmation despite a provision of any Act that requires an oath or a solemn affirmation.”

(b) by replacing line 8 on page 25 with the following:

“the promise to tell the truth for the purpose of determining”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Joe Comartin and it was agreed to.

 

Clause 27, as amended, carried.

 

On Clause 27.1,

Paul Harold Macklin moved, — That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 25 the following new clause:

“ 27.1 (1) Five years after this section comes into force, a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that is designated or established for the purpose shall undertake a comprehensive review of this Act and its operation.

(2) The committee shall submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any changes that it recommends, within six months after it undertakes the review or within any further time authorized by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be.”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Harold Macklin and it was agreed to.

 

Clause 27.1, as amended, carried.

 

Clause 28 carried.

 

Clause 29 carried.

 

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-2, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

 

At 11:21 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

 



Diane Diotte
Clerk of the Committee

 
 
2005/06/07 11:21 a.m.