Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Issue 73 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Thursday, June 10, 1999

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-79, to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another Act in consequence, met this day at 10:48 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are meeting today to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill C-79.

Senator Carstairs: Madam Chair, I move that the committee dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-79 and report the bill to the Senate without amendment.

The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried.

Senator Carstairs: I should like to outline for the committee, because I suspect I have more information than anyone else, what I think may be happening and what might be coming to this committee.

Today in the Senate we will receive two new bills, both of which would, under normal circumstances, be referred to this committee. One is the drunk driving legislation, Bill C-82.

It is my proposal -- and I have spoken with Senator LeBreton about this -- that I move second reading of the bill, but that I then immediately defer to Senator LeBreton, and she will commence the debate on second reading of the bill. I think she has been more touched by the need for this bill than any other senator sitting in the chamber. I will make a few closing remarks, unless someone else wishes to speak. I would hope we could refer that bill to this committee as early as Monday.

The other bill is the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act upon which I need the advice of this committee. The committee has already reported. Is there any need for this committee to see that bill again, or could we dispense with the committee stage of that bill and go immediately from second reading to third reading, with a day in between?

Senator Nolin: Are we convinced that what is in the bill is exactly what we have approved?

The Chairman: It has to be.

Senator Andreychuk: Has someone from our staff actually compared it?

The Chairman: Yes.

The report was adopted. A report from the House of Commons was also adopted in that place. They have now passed the bill that incorporates the recommendations of that report, as well as our report. It is identical.

Senator Beaudoin: We want to be sure there is no mistake.

Senator Carstairs: I merely wanted your advice as to whether you wanted it to come back to this committee.

The Chairman: No.

Senator Andreychuk: I wish to put on the record that it has been scrutinized and compared one to the other. If there is a gap, we can say we delegated it properly down to the staff to check. Then if there is an honest error, there is an honest error. We do not want to be caught out saying we did not even compare the two.

The Chairman: We have been assured by staff that it has been compared and that it is identical to what we have approved.

Senator Beaudoin: My major concern is ensuring that the French and English versions are the same. I understand it read "five" years in English and "two" years in French.

Senator Carstairs: Madam Chair, I understand that you will sponsor that bill. Perhaps you could make it clear in your comments that it has been compared. Perhaps our staff could also, between now and then, examine the French translation.

The Chairman: It should not require to be referred back to this committee, as long as I can give an assurance, when I speak to the bill, that it has been compared and that it agrees.

Senator Bryden: With regard to the drunk driving bill we will be receiving, does it still contain the clause outlining a maximum life term in prison?

Senator Carstairs: No. The arrangement in the other place was that that provision would be withdrawn and reintroduced by the government in the new session of Parliament. They have agreed in writing to do that, so the debate can take place on that provision at that particular time. That is not part of the bill that will be introduced in the chamber this afternoon.

Senator Bryden: That was the only part with which I had some concern because drunkenness, in many cases, is a defence. It is a complicated issue.

I am often the one who does what Senator Carstairs just did in asking the committee to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. That is fine as long as there is nothing contentious in the bill. However, if it is a contentious bill, I think we need to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. Some senators have approached me and suggested that they could upset a report because there was no clause-by-clause consideration.

Senator Nolin: Are you referring to Bill C-79?

Senator Bryden: No, I am referring to any bill. If all members agree to dispense, and we believe there will be no problem in the chamber, I think that process is fine. However, if there is any suspicion that there may be a problem, I believe we must conduct a proper clause-by-clause consideration of bills.

Senator Beaudoin: There are many precedents. When we are unanimous, there is no risk; but if there is a majority vote, then we must proceed to clause-by-clause consideration. With respect to this bill, we all agree.

Senator Bryden: I am not talking only about problems that may arise in committee, I am including problems that may arise when we report to the Senate. I merely wanted to alert the committee to this matter.

The Chairman: There is a possibility that this may become a factor in the future.

Senator Bryden: Yes. Perhaps our staff could take a look at it. It would give them something to do over the summer.

The Chairman: With respect to an outline of proper committee procedures, I have a few comments I would like to add to that study as well.

If that is our business for the morning, this meeting is now adjourned.

The committee adjourned.