Journals
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 36
2015-04-24 [p.2408]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal), seconded by Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria), Bill C-669, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2015-03-10 [p.2211]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Casey (Charlottetown), seconded by Ms. St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain), Bill C-656, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fetal alcohol disorder), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2014-01-29 [p.438]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Anders (Calgary West), seconded by Mr. Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia), Bill C-570, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mandatory minimum sentences for rape), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2013-10-16 [p.2]
Accordingly, Bill C-217, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials), was deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.
2013-10-16 [p.3]
Accordingly, Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment), was deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.
2013-10-16 [p.3]
Accordingly, Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), was deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.
2013-06-05 [p.3305]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca), seconded by Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford), Bill C-526, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2013-04-24 [p.3024]
Mr. Wallace (Burlington), from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented the 23rd Report of the Committee (Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), without amendment). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-220.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 69) was tabled.
2013-03-28 [p.2953]
Mr. Wallace (Burlington), from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented the 21st Report of the Committee (Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment), with amendments). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-212.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 64 and 66) was tabled.
2012-12-12 [p.2625]
By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That the Order made Monday, December 10, 2012, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, respecting the deferral of the recorded division on the motion to concur in the 16th Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, scheduled to take place later today, be discharged and the motion deemed adopted on division.
2012-12-10 [p.2571]
Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford), from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented the 16th Report of the Committee (extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, to consider Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment)). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-165.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 54) was tabled.
Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(3), the motion to concur in the Report was deemed moved, the question was deemed put and a recorded division was deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, December 12, 2012, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business. (Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 10)
2012-11-27 [p.2367]
Q-973 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the government's proposal to double the victim surcharge and limit judicial discretion in sentencing as is currently provided for by section 730 of the Criminal Code, and to eliminate the "undue hardship" defense, insofar as the victim surcharge is used to fund provincial and territorial victims' services: (a) on what data did the Minister of Justice rely in determining the specific amount by which the government proposes to raise the surcharge, in particular, did the Minister rely on data directly provided by (i) the province of Alberta, (ii) the province of British Columbia, (iii) the province of Manitoba, (iv) the province of New Brunswick, (v) the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, (vi) the province of Nova Scotia, (vii) the province of Ontario, (viii) the province of Prince Edward Island, (ix) the province of Saskatchewan, (x) the province of Quebec, (xi) the Yukon, (xii) the Northwest Territories; (b) did the Minister rely on data either provided or collected by the provinces or territories, (i) if so, did the Minister rely on data from the provinces and territories, (ii) did the government request this data from the provinces or was it provided to the government voluntarily, (iii) what individual or agency was responsible for the collection and analysis of any data regarding provincial and territorial victim services funds, (iv) has the government engaged in any dialogue with the provinces, territories, or any other private or public sector organizations involved in the provision of victim services in drafting the proposed amendments; (c) has the government reviewed any data indicating that there is a deficit in funding levels of provincial and territorial victim services programs and, (i) if so, on what basis has the government determined the extent of any deficit in the funding of victim services, (ii) if the government has determined there to be a deficit in the funding of victim services, has it been found to be consistent nationwide or to vary by province or territory, (iii) in reliance on what data has the government determined the doubling of the victim surcharge to be the appropriate level of increase, (iv) where the government has not relied directly on data provided by the provinces or territories, on what basis has any data actually relied on been deemed reliable, (v) insofar as the government has determined there to be a deficit in provincial and territorial victim services funds, on what basis has the government determined increasing the victim surcharge to be a sufficient response, (vi) has the government generated, or relied upon, any data indicating future projections of victims' services funding levels and, (vii) if so, will the doubling of the surcharge amount be sufficient to maintain adequate funding levels of victims' services in all provinces and territories; (d) has the government found any evidence indicating that increasing victim surcharge will affect the accountability of offenders, (i) has the government found any evidence indicating that the increase of the victim surcharge will deter specific offenders from re-offending, (ii) has the government found any evidence indicating that increasing the victim surcharge will have a deterrence effect on crime in general; (e) on what criteria did the government base its proposal to eliminate the "undue hardship" defense currently provided for by subsection 737(5) of the Criminal Code, and did the government consult with bar associations in deciding to advance this proposal in (i) Alberta, (ii) British Columbia, (iii) Manitoba, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Newfoundland and Labrador, (vi) Nova Scotia, (vii) Ontario, (viii) Prince Edward Island, (ix) Saskatchewan, (x) Quebec, (xi) the Yukon, (xii) the Northwest Territories; and (f) on what basis did the government determine that it is appropriate to maintain judicial discretion to increase a victim surcharge, pursuant to subsection 737(3) of the Criminal Code, but not to implement an exemption based on undue hardship pursuant to subsection 737(5)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-973.
2012-10-22 [p.2181]
Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford), from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented the 13th Report of the Committee (Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse), with an amendment). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-136.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 42 to 45) was tabled.
2012-09-27 [p.2081]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Dreeshen (Red Deer), seconded by Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford), Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2012-04-04 [p.1069]
Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford), from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented the Ninth Report of the Committee (Bill C-217, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials), with an amendment). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-79.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 28 to 30) was tabled.
Results: 1 - 15 of 36 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data