Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 12 - Evidence, June 18, 2009 - Afternoon session
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), met this day at 2:50 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
As agreed earlier this day, we have one agenda item, which is clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14.
Therefore, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry? In favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions? Carried.
Shall clause 2 carry? In favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions? Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry? In favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions? Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry? In favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions? Carried.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry? In favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions? Carried.
Honourable senators, we have 20 clauses. Do you want me to group them?
Senator Joyal: Not until clause 9, I intend to oppose.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry? In favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions? Carried.
Shall clause 7 carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 7 is carried on division.
Shall clause 8 carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 8 is carried on division.
Shall clause 9 carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 9 is carried on division.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 10 is carried on division.
Shall clause 11 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 11 is carried on division.
Shall clause 12 carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 12 is carried on division.
Shall clause 13 carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 13 is carried on division.
Shall clause 14 carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 14 is carried on division.
Shall clause 15 carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 15 is carried on division.
Shall clause 16 carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 16 carried on division.
Shall clause 17 carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 17 is carried on division.
Shall clause 18 carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 18 is carried on division.
Shall clause 19 carry? In favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Clause 19 is carried.
Shall clause 20 carry? In favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Clause 20 is carried.
Shall the title carry? In favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? In favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? I see no proposer of observations.
Senator Milne: If I had one word, if I had my head in gear, there would have been an observation because I feel very strongly about the definition of "firearm'' and the removal of BB guns and pellet guns from the definition within this act, which would have been an easy thing to do just in the definitions alone. I have not prepared anything, so I will subside.
The Chair: I do not have to report this bill back until Monday if senators do wish to append observations. I could report it today, but since we have not amended the bill, there is no urgency to report it today. If senators wish to append observations, we would have the time to prepare observations if you were willing to trust the steering committee to approve them.
Senator Wallace: I think it would be obvious that I would strongly prefer that we deal with it today and not defer until Monday.
The Chair: We may or may not get leave in the Senate, Senator Wallace, even if I do report it today.
If it is the will of the committee to append observations, there are no pressing reasons for us not to do so, and that will take a little time.
Senator Joyal: The points have been well made, and it is fair that it be reported. We will know down the road how the judges will interpret that, and it is there for the Senate's credibility to have that on the record.
The Chair: Have that on the record and urge vigilance. This was the issue Senator Baker was raising this morning, in particular, about the definition of "firearms.''
Senator Nolin: It is more than that. We have on the record that there are two sections, and one is already in the code, section 244, with a threshold of evidence which is higher than the proposed new section 244.2.
It does not take a magician to understand that. The Crown will go for the new section instead of trying to evidence section 244. If we start mentioning those things in our report, someone could ask why you approved the bill. Well, that is why we approved it on division. I think that is evidence that we had some concerns. Now I will let the courts do their job, and we will see in the next 36 months. We may have to revisit it because of section 12 of the Charter.
The Chair: Are you arguing in favour?
Senator Nolin: I am saying that we should report without observations because we will ultimately almost destroy what we have approved.
Senator Wallace: You did say "without observations''?
Senator Nolin: Without observations. We can line up arguments to say why we should not approve it. I understand why. We respect the will of the government. There is a policy question. We will have other bills with even larger manifestations of such a policy, and I think we should reserve our full fledged, in-depth analysis for the next one.
The Chair: Senator Campbell, you are the critic on the bill. Do you want to append observations?
Senator Campbell: I agree with Senator Nolin. This will go before the judges. Decisions will be made here in higher courts that may better define where we will go with this bill.
I would say, no.
The Chair: Senator Milne? Senator Joyal? Do you still want to do it?
Senator Joyal: I am ready to join the majority on this. Nevertheless, I think that at third reading, those points should be on the record in the Senate debates.
My honourable colleague on my left referred in his opening remarks in the Senate to how many times the court has quoted the Senate's work. If there is a point where there is room for interpretation, it is important that when the court has to define what the intention was and they look at our debates, they will see that that intention question mark had been raised.
It is important for the Senate's credibility in relation to the Criminal Code that this point be on the record.
The Chair: I am assuming, at this point, in light of what you say, that some of these points will be made in rousing speeches at third reading.
Senator Milne?
Senator Milne: No observations.
The Chair: You had initially said that you had not prepared any.
Senator Wallace: On Senator Joyal's point that in time down the road judges may be interested in the debate that occurred around this bill, the transcripts are there; are they not?
The Chair: They will be.
Senator Wallace: Obviously, they will, but maybe I am missing the point. I thought your comment was being made in the context of having observations on record.
The Chair: Senator Joyal had said that he was willing not to put in observations as long as the points were made on the record at third reading.
Senator Milne: Senator Wallace, when you have won, quit.
Senator Wallace: I want to ensure I understand where we are.
The Chair: Senator Milne gives good advice.
Colleagues, it is therefore agreed that the committee will not append observations to the report.
Therefore, is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I shall do so. I thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)