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. 13

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 8:49 a.m. this day, in Room C-120, 1 Wellington Street, the Chair, Dave MacKenzie, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Françoise Boivin, Charmaine Borg, Hon. Irwin Cotler, Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Robert Goguen, Jack Harris, Pierre Jacob, Brian Jean, Dave MacKenzie, Brent Rathgeber, Kyle Seeback and Stephen Woodworth.

Acting Members present: Joyce Bateman for Robert Goguen, Joyce Bateman for Brent Rathgeber, Sean Casey for Hon. Irwin Cotler, Marie-Claude Morin for Françoise Boivin, Massimo Pacetti for Hon. Irwin Cotler, David Wilks for Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, David Wilks for Robert Goguen and David Wilks for Brent Rathgeber.

In attendance: House of Commons: Lucie Tardif-Carpentier, Legislative Clerk ; Wayne Cole, Legislative Clerk ; Mike MacPherson, Legislative Clerk ; Joann Garbig, Procedural Clerk ; Alexandre Roger, Procedural Clerk . Library of Parliament: Robin MacKay, Analyst ; Julia Nicol, Analyst ; Dominique Valiquet, Analyst.

Witnesses: Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: Larisa Galadza, Senior Director, National Security Policy, Public Safety Canada; Daryl Churney. Department of Justice: Catherine Kane, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; Carole Morency, Director and General Counsel, Cabinet and Leg, Criminal Law Policy Section; Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, September 28, 2011, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts.

Catherine Kane, Daryl Churney and Paul St-Denis answered questions.

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

The Committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 8 of the Bill.

On Clause 8,

Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 37 on page 7 with the following:

“section 6.1, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs shall, within the scope of their powers and to the extent that is reasonably practicable, assist any judgment creditor or the court that has rendered the judgment in identifying and locating the property of that foreign state or any agency or instrumentality of the foreign state.

(1.1) In this section, “instrumentality”, in respect of a foreign state, means a legal entity

(a) that is separate from the foreign state; and

(b) in which the foreign state has a direct or indirect controlling or majority ownership interest.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 37 on page 7 with the following:

“creditor in identifying and locating property — namely, financial assets that are held within Canadian jurisdiction or property situated in Canada — of the foreign state or any agency or instrumentality thereof, unless the Minister of Foreign Affairs believes that to do so would be injurious to Canada’s international relations or either Minister believes that to do so would be injurious to Canada’s other interests.

(1.1) In this section, “instrumentality”, in respect of a foreign state, means a legal entity

(a) that is separate from the foreign state; and

(b) in which the foreign state has a direct or indirect controlling or majority ownership or beneficial interest.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 8 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 9,

Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 16 on page 8 with the following:

“agency of a foreign state or in respect of proceedings that relate to terrorist activity or the support of terrorism engaged in by a foreign state.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 9 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 10 to 31 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 32 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

Clause 33 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 34,

Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 19 with the following:

“742.3, if exceptional circumstances exist that justify the service of the sentence in the community or if ”

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

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 19 with the following:

“742.3, if exceptional circumstances exist relating to the offence or to the offender that justify service of the sentence in the community or if ”

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

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 34, be amended by deleting lines 15 and 16 on page 19.

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

By unanimous consent, Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 34, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 20 the following:

“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “exceptional circumstances” includes where an offender suffers from any significant mental or physical illness or impairment, the proof of which rests on the offender on a balance of probabilities.”

The question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Clause 34 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 35 to 38 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 39 to 43 inclusive were stood.

After debate, Clause 44 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 45 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 46 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 47 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 48 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 49 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 50 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

Clause 51 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 52 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

Clause 53 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 54,

Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 54, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 31 with the following:

“(c) the Service uses the least restrictive measures that are con-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 54, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 38 on page 31 with the following:

“(c) the Service uses the least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of the public, staff members and offenders;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 54, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 4 on page 32 with the following:

“(d) offenders retain the rights and privileges of all members of society, except those rights and privileges that are necessarily removed or restricted as a consequence of the sentence;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 54 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

After debate, Clause 55 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 56 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 57 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 58,

Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 34 with the following:

“them with the least restrictive environment that contains only the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 58 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 59 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 60,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 35 with the following:

“administrative segregation at the end of the segregation period that was determined at the hearing conducted in accordance with subsection (3).”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Clause 60 of Bill C-10 provides for the institutional head to order an inmate to be confined in administrative segregation under certain grounds.

The amendment seeks to amend the bill to refer to a hearing held by an independent adjudicator who would determine if an inmate is to be confined in administrative segregation.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice (Second edition) states at pages 767-768:

“Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the appointment of an independent adjudicator would entail expenses not currently provided for and would require a Royal Recommendation; therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

The Chair ruled that the following two (2) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also inadmissible:

That Bill C-10, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 21 on page 35 with the following:

“(3) The Minister shall appoint an independent adjudicator who shall determine whether an inmate is to be confined in administrative segregation by ensuring that there is no reasonable alternative to administrative segregation and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that”

That Bill C-10, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 21 on page 35 with the following:

“(3) The Minister shall appoint an independent chairperson who shall be responsible for conducting a fair and impartial hearing before an inmate is confined in administrative segregation and ensuring that there is no reasonable alternative to administrative segregation and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that”

After debate, Clause 60 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

At 10:43 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 10:59 a.m., the sitting resumed.

After debate, Clause 61 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 62 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 63 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 64 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

After debate, Clause 65 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

After debate, Clause 66 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 67 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 68 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 69 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 70 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 71,

Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 71, be amended by deleting lines 8 to 11 on page 40.

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

Irwin Cotler moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 40 with the following:

“(c) parole boards make the least restrictive determination that are ”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 40 with the following:

“(c) parole boards make the least restrictive decisions that are”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-10, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 37 on page 40 with the following:

“limited to the least restrictive determination consistent with the protection of society;”

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

Clause 71 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

Clause 72 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 73 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 74 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 75 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 76 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 77 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 78 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 79 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 80 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 81 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 82 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 83 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 84 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 85 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 86 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 87 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 88 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 89 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 90 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 91 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 92 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

Clause 93 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 94 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 95 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 96 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 97 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 98 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

Clause 99 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 100 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 101 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 0.

At 12:28 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 1:07 p.m., the sitting resumed.

After debate, Clause 102 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 103 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

After debate, Clause 104 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

At 1:44 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Jean-François Pagé
Clerk of the Committee

2012/04/03 1:04 p.m.