Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 10 - Evidence, March 2, 2000
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 2, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-202, to amend the Criminal Code (flight), met this day at 10:56 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill and to consider other matters.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, before we proceed to consideration of Bill C-202, an honourable senator has requested that we hold a discussion in camera.
The committee proceeded in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, are we prepared to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-202?
Senator Andreychuk: I think so, but from my own perspective there is another question in addition to those we have discussed about sentencing. If we perceive a single problem, there must be an act that we can pass to deal with it.
There has been comprehensive thought on this, but it seems to me that the bill should reference vessels of all kinds, if it is the actual pursuit that we are against. First, we put "vehicles"; then we had to include "motorcycles" and "snowmobiles"; next came "vessels". We can pass the bill as it is, but to be consistent, if the issue is fleeing from a crime with some operational mechanism, then we should include them all in the bill.
The Chairman: Yes, there was quite a bit of consideration of that. At any rate, I need a motion.
Senator Moore: In response to Senator Andreychuk's comment, we did not get this information from witnesses, but I think a number of those things may be covered by other statutes. I did ask the officials about that afterwards, but perhaps that should be a question for another day.
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Pearson made the point that certain things are covered by different acts. For example, border patrols and immigration issues are covered elsewhere -- perhaps not well, but they are covered. My concern was to make sure we have consistency in our communities. In the summertime, the issue is boats. In the winter time, the issue is snowmobiles. Automobiles are used all the time. It is a common link. If no one else is inclined toward an amendment, I am certainly not pushing it. I am just noting it.
Senator Beaudoin: At the beginning of the discussion yesterday, we had an uncertainty about the definition of "motor vehicle" but, in the end, the two witnesses from the Department of Justice answered our questions generally. We must take into account that this is a new crime. It is a particular crime, but nothing else has changed in the other contexts of the Criminal Code for vessels and motor vehicles, and so on.
For myself, I am ready to proceed, having heard from those two experts. After all, they know the Criminal Code.
The Chairman: Are you then moving, Senator Beaudoin, that we now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration?
Senator Beaudoin: Yes, I believe we are ready to proceed.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Beaudoin that we now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-202, an act to amend the Criminal Code (flight).
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried.
Does anyone want to move a motion to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration?
Senator Cools: We cannot dispense with clause-by-clause consideration, Madam Chairman. We must do it one by one. We cannot dispense with it.
Senator Nolin: We cannot dispense with the consideration, but we can do it in bulk.
The Chairman: Yes, that was what I meant, to do it in bulk.
Senator Moore: I would move then:
That the committee approve all clauses of Bill C-202, an act to amend the Criminal Code (flight), and that the Chair be authorized to report the bill without amendment, but noting the parchment error discussed at the meeting of February 23, 2000.
Senator Beaudoin: We had that problem right from the beginning; it is called a parchment error. In the House of Commons, they corrected that lacuna via the system. The Clerk there initialled it. Have we decided to do that in the Senate?
The Chairman: Yes, we directed our Law Clerk to do the same thing. It is agreed that this error was indeed a typographical error, which is known, I gather, as a parchment error. The correction cannot be done by this committee. This committee must pass the bill; otherwise, it is considered to be amending the bill. We must pass the bill as is, and then the correction of the parchment error is done by the Clerks before Royal Assent.
Senator Beaudoin: It must be done before Royal Assent.
The Chairman: The correction is initialled by both the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Clerk of the Senate. They have both have agreed to do so.
Senator Beaudoin: This is in the record.
The Chairman: This is known as a parchment error. I have documents with justification and past cases here. I would prefer not to have to read them.
Senator Beaudoin: That is fine. We have precedents.
The Chairman: We found two precedents in the last session of this particular Parliament.
Senator Cools: Madam Chairman, the essential point to be made is that steps have been taken in the proper manner to have the error corrected. All that needs to be done here is to note it, within the context of voting clause by clause.
The Chairman: Precisely. That is why the wording is:
...but noting the parchment error discussed at the meeting of February 23, 2000.
All in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Senator Nolin: I missed the meeting yesterday. I have a question regarding proposed section 291.1(4), which calls for a sentence of up to 14 years for causing bodily harm. There is no parallel with the current criminal negligence maximum sentence, which is 10 years, but I, too, would support the bill.
Senator Moore: It refers to a sentence not exceeding 14 years. We seem to be forgetting that that is a maximum. People act as if there is nothing in between. There are 14 years in between.
Senator Nolin: I know that, but we are moving from 10 to 14 years maximum. Why 14 and not 17? This relates to the discussion we had in camera. I am ready to support the bill, but perhaps senators who were here yesterday have an answer to that question. The real parallel with criminal negligence causing bodily harm would be 10 years or life, but not 14 years.
Senator Cools: Madam Chairman, we cannot proceed in the way we are proceeding. We must go clause by clause so that people like Senator Nolin can speak to any clause that is in issue.
The Chairman: The motion includes all the clauses.
Senator Cools: Chairman, you say "all the clauses." You should say "clauses 1 to" whatever.
The Chairman: I refer then to clauses 1 to 3. Senator Moore has moved their approval. That question was asked and discussed and answered yesterday.
Senator Beaudoin: The text actually refers to 10 years.
Senator Nolin: The bill says 14 years. Do we want to live with that discrepancy? I am not moving an amendment. I am just asking because I understand you have discussed that.
The Chairman: Amendments like this we cannot do on an ad hoc basis. That is part of the reason I have agreed to address a study on sentencing.
Senator Cools: Are you saying that the official yesterday made a mistake? If so, it is very important that it be recorded here.
The Chairman: No, Senator Nolin was not here yesterday.
Senator Nolin: No. Mr. McTeague said they paralleled criminal negligence in framing the sentencing in this bill. If that is the intent, there is a discrepancy between the proposed section 249.1(4)(a), found in clause 1 of the bill, and that which is actually found in the Criminal Code for bodily harm caused by criminal negligence.
Senator Cools: Madam Chairman, we would have to look at the record, but I was under the impression from yesterday's session that the officials addressed this. They told us that the maximum sentence for dangerous driving causing death is 14 years. Is it not?
Senator Fraser: There are two categories of offences. One is dangerous driving and one is criminal negligence. Criminal negligence causing bodily harm does not carry a 14-year term; dangerous driving does.
Senator Cools: Mr. McTeague was right yesterday and Senator Nolin is also right.
Senator Nolin: That is why we need a study.
The Chairman: Absolutely; we need a study.
Senator Beaudoin: We may be against a term of 14 years; that is up to us. Yesterday, we discussed that and, rightly or wrongly, they say this is a new crime and the proposer is suggesting 14 years. We debated it and the witnesses said very clearly that such a sentence would never be given. That is hardly a strong argument, because you just never know. That is the kind of answer I do not like: "It will never happen." However, nothing precludes us from amending it.
Senator Nolin: I am not proposing an amendment. I understand that the motion will carry on division and everyone will live with it.
Senator Beaudoin: If there are many people who are against a term of 14 years, we should speak to that.
Senator Cools: We cannot proceed like this. If there are objections to one particular clause, each senator must have the opportunity to speak to that clause. The members of the committee have to be permitted to vote on each part. Under the motion of Senator Moore, one can only vote for or against the bill.
The Chairman: There has been no evidence before us whatsoever against this bill, absolutely none. We were not able to find any witness to appear before us who would speak against this bill or disagree with it. We invited a whole list of people and they all agreed; they did not want to come.
Senator Fraser: Madam Chairman, for what it is worth, I was the first person to say "on division." I therefore should note that, while the heart of my objection relates to a specific clause, the bill is sufficiently interrelated among its various parts that my "on division" applies to the whole bill and not just to one clause.
Senator Cools: That is different. We can vote on the motion as it is, then.
Senator Moore: I repeat my motion:
That the committee approve all clauses of Bill C-202, an act to amend the Criminal Code (flight), and that the Chair be authorized to report the bill without amendment, but noting the parchment error discussed at the meeting of February 23, 2000.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Senator Beaudoin: I would like to know how many senators are saying "on division."
The Chairman: That would require a recorded vote.
Senator Beaudoin: It seems different today from yesterday. Senator Nolin has that sentiment, too, I think.
Senator Cools: It is up to the senators who have called "on division" to request a recorded vote. Otherwise, the majority carries.
Senator Nolin: The report will mention that the bill is adopted on division.
Senator Cools: That is right.
Senator Fraser: I said "on division" three times. Senator Joyal said it twice.
The Chairman: The bill is carried, on division. I will report this bill this afternoon in the Senate.
Senator Beaudoin: What is done is done, but I am a bit surprised by this discussion. If someone is not ready to accept a 14-year term, there should be an amendment.
Senator Fraser: Senator Beaudoin, if there is an amendment, this bill will almost certainly die, because it is a private member's bill. It will go back into the hopper in the Commons and it will never come out again.
Senator Cools: It is passed now.
Senator Andreychuk: That explanation troubles me even more. If you have a fundamental objection to the bill, it is your obligation to amend it and let the bill take the consequences of that. Otherwise, vote in favour. We are all weighing the pluses and negatives. One negative is that the bill would die.
Senator Fraser: Without getting into a profound discussion, I had other problems with this bill.
The Chairman: While we were in camera, we spoke of a future study that this committee will undertake. It is needed, but I thought we had settled all these problems in camera.
In any event, we turn now to our budget, copies of which have been distributed. The total budget is $29,150. This budget must go to the Internal Economy Committee by March 3.
On page 3, you will see a comparison of the proposed budget to our actual budgets for the past three years. I will speak only to the items that are different from last year.
Last year, we budgeted $5,000 for professional services. This year we are budgeting $2,500 for a total, under "Professional and Other Services", of $15,600. Last year, we only spent $794.46. There certainly is enough of a cushion for us to cover any expenses we might have on a special study.
Senator Beaudoin: If the sentencing study goes ahead, will it be covered by this budget?
The Chairman: If we do a study, we will prepare a separate budget. The Senate will have to approve the special study and we will have to present the supplementary budget to the Internal Economy Committee.
Under "Transportation and Communications" the per diem amount for travel expenses has risen from $610 last year to $650, although that amount was not used last year at all.
Under "Videoconferencing" we have increased the budget from $2,500 to $5,000 in case some of the bills that come before us require it. It may be cheaper to videoconference than to travel.
The expenditure for books and periodicals has been reduced by $50 to $1,500. Last year, we spent $535 to purchase copies of the Criminal Code.
The total amount is $29,150, which is $10 less than last year's proposed budget.
Is everyone in favour of presenting this budget to the Internal Economy Committee?
Hon. Senators:Agreed.
The Chairman: I shall go and fight the hard battle again.
Senator Nolin: Someone may laugh, because last year we asked for $29,160 but we only spent $2,329.46.
The Chairman: yes, that is all we cost the Senate last year.
Senator Beaudoin: And look at what we have accomplished. We should receive a medal.
The Chairman: I agree. I will report the budget as approved.
The committee adjourned.