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
Tom Dyas, Judith Veresuk and Clayton Campbell made statements and answered questions.
Larry Brock moved, — That, at the conclusion of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14, the committee immediately proceed to the consideration of Bill C-16.
Debate arose thereon.
Andrew Lawton moved, — That the motion be amended by replacing the words “the committee immediately proceed to the consideration of Bill C-16” with the following:
"the next priority of the committee be the consideration of Bill C-16, provided that:
i) no less than eight meetings, totalling at least 16 hours, be provided for the purposes of receiving witness testimony, wherein the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety be invited to appear for one hour each on separate panels;
ii) the witnesses include victims and their advocates, police services and associations, municipal leaders, and any other witnesses the committee deems relevant;
iii) the Chair only be permitted to schedule a meeting for the purposes of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill after both the Ministers of Justice and Public Safety appear as prescribed in this motion, the number of hours of witness testimony received is at least equal to the number prescribed in this motion, and the Minister of Justice has separately appeared on his mandate and priorities for two hours as unanimously requested by the committee on September 23, 2025".
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Andrew Lawton and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
The debate resumed on the motion.
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That the motion be amended by replacing the words “immediately proceed to the consideration of Bill C-16” with the following: "return to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 as agreed to on January 26, 2026, and if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 by 1:00 p.m. on February 9, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9; and, that the committee begin consideration of Bill C-16 at the next meeting following the completion of clause-by-clause on Bill C-9".
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The chair ruled the amendment in order.
Debate arose thereon.
At 5:40 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 5:56 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4.
The debate resumed on the amendment.
At 6:03 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 6:05 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The debate resumed on the amendment.
Andrew Lawton moved, — That the committee proceed to the consideration of the second panel of witnesses on Bill C-14.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the motion out of order.
Roman Baber moved, — That the debate be now adjourned.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
The debate resumed on the amendment.
Larry Brock moved, — That the debate be now adjourned.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the motion inadmissible as a member cannot moved the same dilatory motion twice in a row.
The debate resumed on the amendment.
Andrew Lawton moved, — That the committee proceed to clause-by-clause study of Bill C-14.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the motion out of order.
At 6:19 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 6:35 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Whereupon, Andrew Lawton appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4.
The debate resumed on the amendment.
Andrew Lawton moved, — That the committee proceed to the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-14.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the motion out of order.
Whereupon, Larry Brock appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4.
The debate resumed on the amendment.
Larry Brock moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “and if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 by 1 p.m. on February 9th, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9”.
Debate arose thereon.
At 7:10 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 7:32 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The question was put on the subamendment of Larry Brock and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Amarjeet Gill, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio, Andrew Lawton — 9;
NAYS: — 0.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4.
After debate, the question was put on the motion, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4.
The motion, as amended, read as follows:
That, at the conclusion of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14, the committee return to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 as agreed to on January 26, 2026, and, that the committee begin consideration of Bill C-16 at the next meeting following the completion of clause by clause on Bill C-9.
Matt Poirier and Paul McKinnon made statements and answered questions.
At 8:32 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 8:49 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 (short title) was postponed.
The Chair called Clause 2.
Clause 2 carried.
Clause 3 carried.
Clause 4 carried.
Clause 5 carried.
Clause 6 carried.
On new Clause 6.1,
Roman Baber moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 2 the following new clause:“6.1 (1) Subsection 269.01(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
269.01 (1) When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in paragraph 264.1(1)(a) or any of sections 266 to 269, it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence was, at the time of the commission of the offence, a public transit employee engaged in the performance of his or her duty.
(2) The definition public transit operator in subsection 269.01(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
public transit employee means an individual who works for, or is contracted to work for, an organization that provides passenger transportation services to the public. (employé des services de transport en commun)”
At 8:59 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 9:06 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Roman Baber and it was agreed to.
“6.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 279.03:
279.031 A sentence imposed on a person for a second or subsequent offence under sections 279.01, 279.011, 279.02 or 279.03 shall be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
Clause 7 carried.
Clause 8 carried.
On Clause 9,
Rhéal Éloi Fortin moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 7 on page 3.The question was put on the amendment of Rhéal Éloi Fortin and it was negatived.
The question was put on the amendment of Rhéal Éloi Fortin and it was negatived.
Clause 9 carried.
Clause 10 carried.
On Clause 11,
Rhéal Éloi Fortin moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 11.The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as stated in section 16.78 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Clause 11 carried.
By unanimous consent, the committee proceeded to Clause 29.
On Clause 29,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 14 to line 16 on page 15 with the following:“(3) Subsection 524(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) If the judge or justice cancels the summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order, the judge or justice shall, in the following circumstances, order that the accused be detained in custody unless the accused, having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so, shows cause why their detention in custody is not justified under subsection 515(10) by clearly demonstrating that their proposed release plan addresses the risks posed by the accused as they relate to the grounds referred to in that subsection:
(a) the judge or justice found under paragraph (3)(a) that the accused has contravened or had been about to contravene the summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order;
(b) the judge or justice found under paragraph (3)(b) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed an indictable offence while being subject to the summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order; or
(c) any of the outstanding charges against the accused include charges for an offence referred to in subsection 515(6) or 522(2).
(4) Section 524 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (5):
(5.1) For the purposes of subsection (5), subsection 515(2.01) does not apply to an accused referred to in subsection (4).
(5) Section 524 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):
(6.1) If the judge or justice cancels the summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order in respect of an accused to whom subsection (4) does not apply, the judge or justice shall, unless the prosecutor shows cause why the detention of the accused is justified, make a release order referred to in subsection 515.
(6.2) If the judge or justice does not make a release order under subsection (6.1), they shall make a detention order referred to in section 515.
(6) Subsections 524(9) and (10) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(9) An order made under subsection (4), (5), (6.1) or (6.2) respecting an accused referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is not subject to review except as provided in section 680.
(10) An order made under subsection (4), (5), (6.1) or (6.2) respecting an accused other than the accused referred to in paragraph (1)(a), is subject to review under sections 520 and 521 as if the order were made under section 515.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
By unanimous consent, the committee moved to New Clause 11.1.
On new Clause 11.1,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 35 on page 3 the following:“11.1 Paragraph 485.2(7)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(c) set out a summary of subsection 145(3), section 512.1 and subsections 524(4) and (6.2).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 12 carried.
On new Clause 12.1,
Larry Brock moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 4 the following new clause:“12.1 Section 493 of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
major offence means an offence mentioned in any of subparagraphs 515(6)(a)(i) to (iii) or (vi) to (viii) or in paragraph 515(6)(b.1), (b.2), (c) or (d). (infraction majeure) ”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
Clause 13 carried.
On Clause 14,
Larry Brock moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 4 to line 4 on page 5 with the following:“14 Section 493.1 of the Act is replaced by the following:
493.1 In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the protection and safety of the public.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
At 10:11 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 10:22 p.m., the meeting resumed.
“one to whom subsection 515(6), 522(2), 523(2.1) or 524(4) ap-”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, carried.
Clause 15 carried.
On new Clause 15.1,
Andrew Lawton moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 5 the following new clause:“15.1 Section 501 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
(3.1) If the accused is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the undertaking must require that the accused deposit all their passports with a peace officer or other specified person.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Andrew Lawton appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5;
NAYS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4.
“15.1 Subsection 500(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) An appearance notice shall set out a summary of subsections 145(3) and (6), section 512.2 and subsections 524(4) and (6.2) and the possible consequences of a failure to appear at a judicial referral hearing under section 523.1.
15.2 Paragraph 501(1)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(c) a summary of subsections 145(4) and (6), sections 512 and 512.2 and subsections 524(4) and (6.2).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 16 carried.
Clause 17 carried.
Clause 18 carried.
Clause 19 carried.
Clause 20 carried.
On new Clause 20.1,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 6 the following:“20.1 Subsection 509(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) The summons must set out a summary of subsection 145(3), section 512.1 and subsections 524(4) and (6.2).”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 21 carried.
Clause 22 carried.
On Clause 23,
Andrew Lawton moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 7 the following:“(1.1) Section 515 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2.1):
(2.11) Despite subsection (2.1), a judge, justice or court shall not name a person as surety if the person was convicted of an indictable offence within ten years before the day on which the release order is made.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Andrew Lawton and it was agreed to.
“(xii.1) that is an offence in the commission of which violence was allegedly used and that would constitute the accused's third or subsequent indictable offence in the commission of which violence was used,”
The question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was agreed to.
“(9.1) Subsection 515(6) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.1) with an indictable offence, other than an offence listed in section 469, and, if the accused is a foreign national within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a conviction would make them inadmissible to Canada under section 34, 35, 36 or 37 of that Act;”
Debate arose thereon.
At 10:54 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 10:59 p.m., the meeting resumed.
“(9.1) Subsection 515(6) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.1) with an indictable offence, other than an offence listed in section 469, and, if the accused is a foreign national within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a conviction would make them inadmissible to Canada under section 34, 35, 36 or 37 of that Act;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Andrew Lawton and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
“(10.1) Section 515 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6.1):
(6.2) If the justice orders that an accused to whom subsection (6) applies be released and the accused is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the justice shall add to the order a condition that the accused deposit all their passports as specified in the order.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Andrew Lawton and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
“(10.1) Paragraph 515(10)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) if 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
(i) whether it is reasonably foreseeable that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice, and
(ii) the criminal history of the accused, with particular attention to convictions for major offences, past failures to comply with the conditions of a judicial interim release order and any history of reoffending while at large on a release order; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
Clause 23, as amended, carried on division.
On new Clause 23.1,
Larry Brock moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 10 the following new clause:“23.1 Section 515 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (11):
(11.1) If an accused who is charged with a major offence is taken before a justice, the justice shall order that the accused be detained in custody until they are dealt with according to law, if
(a) at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, the accused was at large after being released in respect of another major offence; and
(b) the accused was convicted of a major offence within ten years before the day on which they were charged with the current offence. ”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
Clause 24 carried.
Clause 25 carried.
Clause 26 carried.
Clause 27 carried.
Clause 28 carried.
Clause 29, as amended, carried.
Clause 30 carried.
Clause 31 carried.
Clause 32 carried.
Clause 33 carried.
Clause 34 carried.
On new Clause 34.1,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 17 the following:“34.1 The portion of subsection 680(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
680 (1) A decision made by a judge under section 522, a decision made under subsections 524(3) to (5), (6.1) or (6.2) with respect to an accused referred to in paragraph 524(1)(a) or a decision made by a judge of the court of appeal under section 320.25 or 679 may, on the direction of the chief justice or acting chief justice of the court of appeal, be reviewed by that court and that court may, if it does not confirm the decision,”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 35 carried.
Clause 36 carried.
Clause 37 carried.
Clause 38 carried.
Clause 39 carried.
On new Clause 39.1,
Roman Baber moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 38 on page 19 the following new clause:“39.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 718.201:
718.202 A court that imposes a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender’s immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Roman Baber and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
Clause 40 carried.
Clause 41 carried.
Clause 42 carried.
On Clause 43,
Larry Brock moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 43, be amended(a) by adding after line 4 on page 21 the following:
“(ii.01) subsection 85(1) (using firearm in commission of offence),
(ii.02) subsection 85(2) (using imitation firearm in commission of offence),
(ii.03) subsection 95(1) (possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition),
(ii.04) section 99 (weapons trafficking),
(ii.05) section 100 (possession for purpose of weapons trafficking),
(ii.06) subsection 102(1) (making automatic firearm),”
(b) by adding after line 7 on page 21 the following:
“(ii.3) section 279.01 (trafficking in persons),
(ii.4) section 279.011 (trafficking of a person under the age of eighteen years),
(ii.5) section 279.02 (material benefit — trafficking),
(ii.6) section 279.03 (withholding or destroying documents — trafficking),
(ii.7) section 344 (robbery),
(ii.8) section 355.2 (trafficking in property obtained by crime),
(ii.9) section 355.4 (possession of property obtained by crime — trafficking), or”
At 11:52 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:53 p.m., the meeting resumed.
At 11:55 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 12:03 a.m., the meeting resumed.
The question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Roman Baber, Larry Brock, Amarjeet Gill, Andrew Lawton — 4;
NAYS: Wade Chang, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Anthony Housefather, Patricia Lattanzio — 5.
Clause 43 carried.
Clause 44 carried.
Clause 45 carried.
Clause 46 carried.
On Clause 47,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 22 with the following:“sult, you may be detained in custody (subsections 524(4) and (6.2)”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following four amendments which are therefore also adopted:
That Bill C-14, in Clause 49, be amended by(a) replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 22 with the following:
“49 Paragraphs (d) and (e) of Form 8 of Part XXVIII of the Act are replaced by the following:
□ (d) the accused has contravened or was about to contravene a (summons or appearance notice or undertaking or release order) and it was cancelled, and the detention of the accused in custody is justified [515(10), 523.1(3), 524(3), (4) and (6.2)];”
(b) replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 22 with the following:
“the accused in custody is justified [515(10), 524(3), (4) and (6.2)];”
That Bill C-14, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 22 with the following:
“(subsections 524(4) and (6.2) of the Criminal Code).”
That Bill C-14, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 23 with the following:
“tions 524(4) and (6.2) of the Criminal Code).”
That Bill C-14, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 25 with the following:
“tions 524(4) and (6.2) of the Criminal Code).”
Clause 47, as amended, carried.
Clause 48 carried.
Clause 49, as amended, carried.
Clause 50, as amended, carried.
Clause 51, as amended, carried.
Clause 52 carried.
Clause 53, as amended, carried.
Clause 54 carried.
Clause 55 carried.
Clause 56 carried.
Clause 57 carried.
On Clause 58,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 58, be amended by(a) replacing line 21 on page 26 with the following:
“Criminal Code, as enacted by sections 8, 9, 11, 37, 40”
(b) replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 26 with the following:
“Criminal Code, as enacted by sections 10, 34 to 36, 38 and 39, also apply with respect to any matter”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, carried.
On new Clause 58.1,
Larry Brock moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 34 on page 26 the following new clause:“R.S., c. J-2
Department of Justice Act
58.1 The Department of Justice Act is amended by adding the following after section 4.2:
4.3 (1) Every year, the Minister shall prepare a report on the state of judicial interim release in Canada and cause it to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 sitting days of that House after January 1.
(2) The report must include the following:
(a) data on judicial interim release outcomes, including in respect of compliance with release conditions, recidivism by accused at large on release orders and incidents requiring public attention;
(b) an analysis of the effectiveness of release conditions; and
(c) data on the accessibility of judicial interim release and disparities between different groups.”
The question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was agreed to on division.
On Clause 59,
Rhéal Éloi Fortin moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 59, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 27 the following:“(2) The definition violent offence in subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):
(d) an offence committed by a young person under section 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100 or 102 of the Criminal Code. (infraction avec violence)”
Debate arose thereon.
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “under section 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100 or 102 of the Criminal Code” with the words “involving the use or trafficking of a firearm”.
At 12:25 a.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 12:30 a.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rhéal Éloi Fortin, as amended, and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 59, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 60 carried.
Clause 61 carried.
Clause 62 carried.
Clause 63 carried.
On Clause 64,
Rhéal Éloi Fortin moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 28 with the following:“the credit granted for the time spent in detention by the”
The question was put on the amendment of Rhéal Éloi Fortin and it was negatived.
Clause 64 carried.
Clause 65 carried.
Clause 66 carried.
Clause 67 carried.
Clause 68 carried.
Clause 69 carried.
On Clause 70,
Rhéal Éloi Fortin moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 70, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 30 with the following:“diate publication is necessary for all of the following rea‐”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rhéal Éloi Fortin and it was agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, carried.
Clause 71 carried.
Clause 72 carried.
Clause 73 carried.
Clause 74 carried.
Clause 75 carried.
Clause 76 carried.
Clause 77 carried.
Clause 78 carried.
Clause 79 carried.
Clause 80 carried.
Clause 81 carried.
On new Clause 81.1,
Rhéal Éloi Fortin moved, — That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 34 the following new clause:“Review of Act
81.1 (1) As soon as possible after the fifth anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the provisions enacted by this Act are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the provisions.
(2) The committee to which the provisions are referred is to review them and submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends.”
The question was put on the amendment of Rhéal Éloi Fortin and it was agreed to.
On Clause 82,
Patricia Lattanzio moved, — That Bill C-14, in Clause 82, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 21 and the heading before line 17 on page 34 with the following:“Transitional Provisions
82 (1) For greater certainty, the provisions of the National Defence Act, as enacted by sections 79 and 80, also apply with respect to any matter or proceeding that is ongoing on the day on which those sections come into force.
(2) For greater certainty, section 302 of the National Defence Act, as enacted by section 81, applies only with respect to an offence that is committed on or after the day on which that section 81 comes into force.”
The question was put on the amendment of Patricia Lattanzio and it was agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, carried.
Clause 83 carried.
Clause 84 carried.
Clause 1, Short Title, carried.
The Title carried.
The Bill, as amended, was adopted.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-14, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at report stage.
At 1:06 a.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.