JUST Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 9:05 a.m. this day, in Room 308, West Block, the Chair, Art Hanger, presiding.

The Committee resumed consideration of the motion of Réal Ménard, — Whereas respect for the French language should imbue all ministers and department of the federal government;

Whereas the Minister of Justice has at least twice made strategic appointments of persons who are unilingual English;

Be it resolved that, through the Chairman, the Committee write to the Minister of Justice to ask him not to make appointments of persons who do not have a working knowledge of French at the time of their appointment to strategic positions.

The debate continued.

Marlene Jennings moved, — That the motion be amended by adding the word “, as defined under the Official Languages Act” after the word “positions”.

The question was put on the amendment of Marlene Jennings and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Larry Bagnell, Joe Comartin, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Marc Lemay, Réal Ménard, Rob Moore, Daniel Petit, Alan Tonks — 9; NAYS: Rick Dykstra, Myron Thompson — 2.

Derek Lee moved, — That the motion be amended by deleting the words “the French language” after the words “respect for” and replacing it by the words “both official languages”.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Derek Lee and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

The question was put on the motion, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Larry Bagnell, Joe Comartin, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Marc Lemay, Réal Ménard, Daniel Petit, Alan Tonks — 8; NAYS: Rick Dykstra, Rob Moore, Myron Thompson — 3.

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

The witnesses made statements and answered questions.

The Chair called Clause 1.

After debate, Clause 1 carried.

Clause 2 carried.

Clause 3 carried.

Clause 4 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 5 to 11 inclusive carried.

On new Clause 11.1,

Réal Ménard proposed to move, — That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 35 on page 5 the following new clause:

“11.1 Subsection 487.01(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(4) A warrant issued under subsection (1) that authorizes a peace officer to observe, by means of a television camera, a global positioning system or other similar electronic device, any person who is engaged in activity in circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy shall contain such terms and conditions as the judge considers advisable to ensure that the privacy of the person or of any other person is respected as much as possible.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend a statute not mentioned in 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, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Larry Bagnell moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “subsection 487.01(4)” with the words “subsection 492.1(1)”.

Debate arose thereon.

By unanimous consent, the subamendment was withdrawn.

By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

Clause 12 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 13 to 17 inclusive carried.

On Clause 18,

“those official languages are different may constitute”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Bagnell and it was agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, carried.

On Clause 19,

“530.01 (1) If an accused has been granted an order under section 530, a prosecutor — other than a private prosecutor — shall

(a) cause any portion of an information or indictment against the accused that is in an official language that is not that of the accused or that in which the accused can best give testimony to be automatically translated into the other official language; and

(b) provide the accused with a written copy of the translated text at the earliest possible time.

(2) The original version of a document and the translated text are of equal value.”

Debate arose thereon.

Réal Ménard moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “(2) The original version of a document and the translated text are of equal value.”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Réal Ménard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

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

Clause 19 carried on division.

On Clause 20,

“(c.1) the presiding justice or judge may, if the circumstances warrant,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Bagnell and it was agreed to.

(a) by replacing line 17 on page 8 with the following:

“both official languages, as the case may be, and the justice shall use the official language of the accused when adressing the accused;”

(b) by replacing line 22 on page 8 with the following:

“may be, and the prosecutor shall use the official language of the accused when addressing the accused;”

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

Clause 20, as amended, carried.

On Clause 21,

“(2) Any order granted under this section shall, to the extent possible, respect the right of the accused to be tried in his or her official language.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Bagnell and it was agreed to.

“would otherwise be tried, the court shall, except if that territorial division is in the Province of New Brunswick, order”

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

Clause 21, as amended, carried.

Clause 22 carried.

On Clause 23,

(a) replacing line 8 on page 9 with the following:

“23. Subsections 565(2) and (3) of the Act are re-”

(b) replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 9 with the following:

“(3) Where an accused wishes to re-elect under subsection (2), the accused shall give notice in writing that he wishes to re-elect to a judge or clerk of the court where the indictment has been filed or preferred who shall, on receipt of the notice, notify a judge having jurisdiction or clerk of the court by which the accused wishes to be tried of the accused’s intention to re-elect and send to that judge or clerk the indictment and any promise to appear, undertaking or recognizance given or entered into in accordance with Part XVI, any summons or warrant issued under section 578, or any evidence taken before a coroner, that is in the possession of the first-mentioned judge or clerk.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, carried.

At 10:59 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.