JUST Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 3:30 p.m. this day, in Room 306, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Dave MacKenzie, presiding.

Kim Pate and Sharon Rosenfeldt made statements and answered questions.

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

Carole Morency answered questions.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

Clause 2 carried.

On Clause 3,

“(3) Subsection 737(6) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(6) When the court makes an order under subsection (5), the court shall state its reasons, in writing, in the record of the proceedings.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-37 amends the Criminal Code by, among other changes, repealing subsections 737(5) and 737(6).

This amendment proposes to replace subsection 737(6) with a text similar to the current Criminal Code text, and where the effect of the replacement would be to negate the repeal of the subsection.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the reinstatement of a key element being repealed is contrary to the principle of Bill C-37 and is therefore inadmissible.

“are replaced by the following:

(5) When the offender is sentenced by a court in a jurisdiction in which the program referred to in section 736 — or a similar program — is not available, the court may, on application of the offender, make an order suspending the requirement to pay the victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that undue hardship to the offender or dependents of the offender would result from payment of the victim surcharge.

(6) When the court makes an order under subsection (5), the court shall state its reasons, in writing, in the record of the proceedings.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-37 amends the Criminal Code by, among other changes, repealing subsections 737(5) and 737(6).

This amendment proposes to replace subsections 737(5) and 737(6) with a text similar to the current Criminal Code text, and where the effect of the replacement would be to negate the repeal of the subsection.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the reinstatement of a key element being repealed is contrary to the principle of Bill C-37 and is therefore inadmissible.

“are replaced by the following:

(5) When the offender is sentenced by a court in a jurisdiction in which the program referred to in section 736 — or a similar program — is not available, the court may, on application of the offender, make an order suspending the requirement to pay the victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that requiring the offender to immediately pay the surcharge might have a negative effect on his or her rehabilitation.

(6) When the court makes an order under subsection (5), the court shall state its reasons, in writing, in the record of the proceedings.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-37 amends the Criminal Code by, among other changes, repealing subsections 737(5) and 737(6).

This amendment proposes to replace subsections 737(5) and 737(6) with a text similar to the current Criminal Code text, and where the effect of the replacement would be to negate the repeal of the subsection.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the reinstatement of a key element being repealed is contrary to the principle of Bill C-37 and is therefore inadmissible.

“(3.1) Section 737 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (8):

(8.1) For greater certainty, an offender who fails to pay the victim surcharge referred to in subsection (1) because he or she is unable to do so is not subject to imprisonment as a result of that failure.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Irwin Cotler and it was negatived.

“placed by the following:

(10) Subsection (1) does not apply to an offender who demonstrates that he or she is

(a) in a state of extreme poverty; and

(b) unable to make use of the fine option program provided for in section 736.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-37 amends the Criminal Code by, among other changes, repealing subsections 737(5) and 737(6), and 737(10).

This amendment proposes to replace subsection 737(10) with a text similar to the current Criminal Code texts, and where the effect of the replacement would be to negate the repeal of the subsections.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the reinstatement of a key element being repealed is contrary to the principle of Bill C-37 and is therefore inadmissible.

Whereupon, Françoise Boivin 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: Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Robert Goguen, Deepak Obhrai, Joe Preston, Brent Rathgeber, Kyle Seeback — 6; NAYS: Françoise Boivin, Raymond Côté, Irwin Cotler, Pierre Jacob, Craig Scott — 5.

Clause 3 carried.

Clause 4 carried.

Clause 5 carried.

The Alternative Title carried.

The Title carried.

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

At 5:04 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.