JUST Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 9:17 a.m. this day, in Room 705, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Art Hanger, presiding.

The witnesses answered questions.

At 9:22 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 10:07 a.m., the sitting resumed.

Réal Ménard gave the following notice of motion:

1. That the government amend the definition of "criminal organization" in section 467.1 of the Criminal Code to include the commission of offences involving gratuitous violence (e.g.: drive-by shootings) that yield no material benefit for the said organization, as defined in section 467.1.

2. That the government amend the Criminal Code to make warrants authorizing the use of a GPS system to monitor the movements of a motor vehicle (s. 487.01) valid for the same period as warrants for electronic surveillance; namely, one year.

3. That the federal government make available to the provincial attorneys general a fund of at least $5 million over three years to help train Crown prosecutors specializing in combating street gangs.

4. That the federal government implement a web site accessible by police officers; federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers; and Crown attorneys, with links to the following:

a. the decisions of all Canadian courts pertaining to the fight against organized crime and street gangs; and

b. all evidence used by the defence and Crown in cases in which charges were laid under sections 467.1, 467.11, 467.12 and 467.13 of the Criminal Code;

c. and that this secure web site be accessible only by police officers; federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers; and Crown attorneys.

5. That the Chair of the Committee report the adoption of this motion to the House of Commons as soon as possible.

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

On Clause 1,

RULING BY THE CHAIR

This amendment proposes to delete clause 1. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 656 that “An amendment is out of order if it simply attempts to delete a clause, since in that case all that needs to be done is to vote against the adoption of the clause in question.” Therefore this amendment is inadmissible.

(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

Debate arose thereon.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 1, 2 and 9 were stood.

Clause 3 carried.

Clause 4 carried.

Clause 5 carried.

Clause 6 carried.

On Clause 7,

“(2) Paragraph 95(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) is guilty of 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 two years, or”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Whereupon, Réal Ménard appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Patrick Brown, Rob Moore, Daniel Petit, Myron Thompson — 4; NAYS: Larry Bagnell, Joe Comartin, Carole Freeman, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Réal Ménard, Brian Murphy — 7.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Marlene Jennings and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

Clause 7 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 8 was negatived.

On Clause 10,

“10. Subsection 99(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of 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 two years.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of 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 overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Patrick Brown, Rob Moore, Daniel Petit, Myron Thompson — 4; NAYS: Larry Bagnell, Joe Comartin, Carole Freeman, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Réal Ménard, Brian Murphy — 7.

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

Clause 10 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

On Clause 11,

“11. Subsection 100(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of 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 two years.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Whereupon, Larry Bagnell appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Patrick Brown, Rob Moore, Daniel Petit, Myron Thompson — 4; NAYS: Larry Bagnell, Joe Comartin, Carole Freeman, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Réal Ménard, Brian Murphy — 7.

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

Clause 11 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 12 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

On Clause 13,

“13. Subsection 103(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of 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 two years.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Whereupon, Derek Lee appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Patrick Brown, Rob Moore, Daniel Petit, Myron Thompson — 4; NAYS: Larry Bagnell, Joe Comartin, Carole Freeman, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Réal Ménard, Brian Murphy — 7.

The question was put on the amendment of Marlene Jennings and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 13 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

At 10:58 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.