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. 50
 
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
 

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 9:13 a.m. this day, in Room 705, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Art Hanger, presiding.

 

Members of the Committee present: Hon. Larry Bagnell, Patrick Brown, Joe Comartin, Carole Freeman, Art Hanger, Hon. Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Réal Ménard, Rob Moore, Brian Murphy, Daniel Petit and Myron Thompson.

 

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Robin MacKay, Analyst; Dominique Valiquet, Analyst.

 

Witnesses: Department of Justice: William C. Bartlett, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; Julie Besner, Counsel, Criminal Policy Section.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, June 13, 2006, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.
 

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

 

The witnesses answered questions.

 

On Clause 14,

Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 656 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

 

Clause 14 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

 

On new Clause 14.1,

Marlene Jennings moved, — That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 9 the following new clause:

“14.1 Paragraph 117.07(1)(g) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(g) removes, alters, obliterates or defaces either a firearm marking required by regulation or a serial number on a firearm in the course of the public officer's duties or employment.”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

 

Whereupon, Marlene Jennings appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

 

On new Clause 14.2,

Marlene Jennings moved, — That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 9 the following new clause:

“14.2 Paragraph 117.08(g) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(g) removes, alters, obliterates or defaces either a firearm marking required by regulation or a serial number on a firearm,”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

 

Whereupon, Marlene Jennings appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

 

On new Clause 14.3,

Marlene Jennings moved, — That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 9 the following new clause:

“14.3 Section 117.11 of the Act is replaced by the following:

117.11 Where, in any proceedings for an offence under this Act, any question arises as to whether the accused is the holder of an authorization, a licence or a registration certificate, the onus is on the accused to prove that he or she is the holder of the authorization, licence or registration certificate.”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

 

Whereupon, Marlene Jennings appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

 

On new Clause 14.4,

Marlene Jennings moved, — That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 9 the following new clause:

“14.4 Subsection 117.13(3) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(3) No certificate of an analyst may be admitted in evidence unless the party intending to produce it has, before the trial, given to the party against whom it is intended to be produced reasonable notice of that intention and a copy of the certificate.”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

 

Whereupon, Marlene Jennings appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

 

By unanimous consent, Clause 15 was allowed to stand.

 

Clause 16 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

 

On Clause 17,

Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 17, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 17 to 20 on page 10 with the following:

“(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 30 on page 10 with the following:

“committed a second or subsequent”

 

The question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore 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 seven (7) amendments which are therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-10, in Clause 18, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 31 to 34 on page 11 with the following:

“(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years; and”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 41 on page 11 with the following:

“committed a second or subsequent”

That Bill C-10, in Clause 19, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 33 to 36 on page 12 with the following:

“(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 3 on page 13 with the following:

“committed a second or subsequent”

That Bill C-10, in Clause 20, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 38 to 41 on page 13 with the following:

“(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 10 on page 14 with the following:

“committed a second or subsequent”

That Bill C-10, in Clause 21, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 1 to 4 on page 15 with the following:

“(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 14 on page 15 with the following:

“has committed a second or subsequent”

That Bill C-10, in Clause 22, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 16 with the following:

“(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 36 on page 16 with the following:

“has committed a second or subsequent”

That Bill C-10, in Clause 23, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 31 to 34 on page 17 with the following:

“(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 3 on page 18 with the following:

“committed a second or subsequent”

That Bill C-10, in Clause 24, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 38 to 41 on page 18 with the following:

“(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 10 on page 19 with the following:

“has committed a second or subsequent ”

 

Clause 17 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

 

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on Clause 17 be applied to Clauses 18 to 24, which are therefore also negatived.

 

By unanimous consent, Clause 25 was allowed to stand.

 

Clause 26 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

 

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on Clause 26 be applied to Clauses 27, 29 and 30, which are therefore also negatived.

 

By unanimous consent, Clause 28 was allowed to stand.

 

By unanimous consent, Clause 31 was allowed to stand.

 

On Clause 1

 
The Committee resumed consideration of the amendment of Rob Moore, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 1, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 2 with the following:

“subsections 85(3), 95(2), 99(2), 100(2) and 103(2), whether a con-”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 8 on page 2 with the following:

“victed person has committed a second or”

 

By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

 

Clause 1 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

 

On Clause 2,

Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 11 on page 3 with the following:

“(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.”

 

The question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

 

Clause 2 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

 
Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 9, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 21 to 28 on page 6 with the following:

“offence and liable to imprisonment for life. ”

(b) replacing lines 33 to 39 on page 6 with the following:

“offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.”

 

The question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Larry Bagnell, Patrick Brown, Joe Comartin, Carole Freeman, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Réal Ménard, Rob Moore, Brian Murphy, Daniel Petit, Myron Thompson — 11; NAYS: — 0.

 

Clause 9, as amended, carried.

 

Clause 15 carried.

 

Clause 25 carried.

 

Clause 28 carried.

 

Clause 31 carried.

 

The Preamble was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

 

On Title,

Derek Lee moved, — That Bill C-10 be amended by replacing the long title on page 1 with the following:

“An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences involving firearms)”

 

The question was put on the amendment of Derek Lee and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

 

The Title, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

 

The Bill, as amended, carried.

 

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

 

ORDERED, — That Bill C-10, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

 

At 10:04 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 10:10 a.m., the sitting resumed.

 

The Committee proceeded to the consideration of matters related to Committee business.

 

The Chair presented the Ninth Report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.

 

It was agreed, — That the vote concerning the motion of Mr. Ménard about some proposed amendments to the Criminal Code be postponed until after the adjournment period of March 2007.

 

It was agreed, — That the next meeting concerning Bill C-299 take place on Thursday, February 22, 2007 and that the agenda be as follows: 1) witnesses: departmental officials and Mr. James Rajotte and 2) clause by clause study.

 

It was agreed, — That, in relation to the study of Bill C-18, four groups/individuals be invited to appear on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 , and that the clause by clause study take place on March 1, 2007.

 

It was agreed, — That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure revisit the question of the study of the provisions of Bill C-53 later this year.

 

It was agreed, — That the notice of motion from Mr. Ménard concerning the study of the process of appointment for judges be debated at the meeting of Thursday, February 22, 2007.

 

At 11:01 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

 



Diane Diotte
Clerk of the Committee

 
 
2007/02/21 3:25 p.m.