[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
.1543 
Tuesday, March 4, 1997
[English]
The Chair: This afternoon, we are dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-55 and Bill C-254, Ms Meredith's private member's bill.
Our guests are Yvan Roy, senior general counsel on criminal law policy with the Department of Justice; Dave Whellams, counsel on criminal law policy with the Department of Justice; Michel Laprade, counsel in legal services with Correctional Service Canada; and Richard Zubrycki, director general of corrections from the Solicitor General's department. Also with us is Nick Discepola, in his capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor General.
Shall we begin?
Clause 1 agreed to on division
On clause 2
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada): With your permission, Madam Chair, I'd like to stay clause 2 until clause 19 is reviewed.
Clause 2 allowed to stand
.1545
Clause 3 agreed to on division
On clause 4
The Chair: Ms Torsney, could you speak to the amendments to clause 4?
Ms Torsney (Burlington): It's my understanding that G-1 deals with the sentencing window. Perhaps the officials could give us some more information.
The Chair: Mr. Whellams, could you enlighten us, sir?
Mr. Dave Whellams (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): I'll try.
Proposed subsection 753(4) is adequate when it talks about imposing a sentence in lieu of any other sentence when you're dealing with an ordinary dangerous offender finding at the time of trial and conviction. It says that the indeterminate sentence shall be imposed in lieu of any other sentence that ``might'' be imposed. However, we were concerned about the dangerous offender six-month window in which we would, in effect, already have a sentence imposed at the time of trial, with the dangerous offender application made six months later.
When that application is made and a dangerous offender finding is made - the indeterminate sentence - we should be clear that it substitutes or replaces the sentence that was given at the time of trial. So rather than saying ``might be'', we're essentially saying that the new proposed subsection (4.1) replaces the sentence. That's in the case of the six-month window resulting in a dangerous offender finding and in the indeterminate sentence.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any other comments? Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): You've just touched on a concern that I raised or which was raised by someone else. What you're proposing is interesting. What happens in the case of a person who, immediately after a guilty verdict, is sentenced to, for example, 14 years in prison, and who is given notice that within a six-month period, according to the conditions that are provided for, he is to be declared a dangerous offender and the judge who heard the evidence is no longer available? Does there have to be a new hearing just for that purpose?
That's where I have a problem. My preference would have been to allow the Crown attorney, at the time of sentencing, as is the case in parole when there is an arrest, to take advantage of a three-day delay that he could use in a peremptory fashion. In other words, I can delay my sentencing representations up to a maximum of six months.
The window would have been much broader. I would not have had to justify the special circumstances for which he might want to review that sentence. I could have said: Your Lordship, I will make my sentencing recommendations any time within the six-month period, while giving the defence reasonable notice.
I don't know why you didn't go for that option. I don't know why you're restricting the Crown's opportunities a bit too much in this case.
Mr. Yvan Roy (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): If I may be allowed to attempt to answer, you will have noted, Mr. Langlois, that there's only a window of opportunity in cases where, first of all, notice has been given and this happens within the six-month period and, second of all, there are new motives to justify all this.
.1550
We felt that there was no reason to wait to impose a sentence since we already know the facts at that point and that sentencing must occur as soon as possible in accordance with the principles of sentencing that came into force following a legislative amendment in September 1996.
Therefore, it was felt that it was important that the individual be made aware of his sentence quickly, that it be imposed since the facts are known at that time. Given the type of individual before the court, it was felt that it was appropriate to create that window of opportunity to allow for a request that the person be declared a dangerous offender, in case some things had been missed.
Therefore, we need new elements to change the status of the individual rather than to change his sentence. Since we're talking about the sentence, it had to be imposed at that point. The way this is drafted, it's as if there were an attempt to change the sentence, whereas in fact, what we're trying to do is recognize the individual has changed status. Proposed paragraph (4.1) is aimed precisely at changing the status, which is quite logical.
I think that the unamended wording would suffice, but the logic in it is not as pure as that in the paragraph being proposed here. This is why we've proposed this amendment.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any further comments?
Amendment agreed to
The Chair: Amendment G-2, Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney: I think G-2 is an important amendment. My understanding is that, when a dangerous offender application is not successful, this would allow that the victims would not have to re-give evidence when we're considering a long-term offender. I think it addresses some of the concerns that were raised by the Canadian Police Association and some of the victims groups when they came before us. It's therefore demonstrating that the committee process works.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Whellams.
Mr. Whellams: Just following up on Ms Torsney's point, this is a way of getting evidence that has already been on the record transferred to the subsequent hearing. Any new evidence from victims, of course, can be introduced already under the Criminal Code. Section 722 of the code allows other ways for new victim evidence to come in, so we're just trying to cover off material that has already been admitted.
The Chair: So if a victim is uncomfortable about testifying, the Crown has another alternative for getting the evidence there.
Mr. Whellams: Exactly.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Langlois?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: When a request is made within the six-month period in the specific time frame, ideally, the judge who will be called upon to rule will do so solely on the basis of new evidence, but in reality, the evidence presented during the trial will supersede everything. Will a new joint file be presented? How will this work in practice? Will we wait for the rules of practice of the courts to determine how this will work, or will we have to make new sentencing representations and rehear part of the evidence?
Mr. Whellams: The bill does not provide for any specific mechanism in such situations.
[English]
The fact is that, in the development of the case, we are obviously going to have the transcript, evidence, and material from the initial hearing, because it has resulted in a sentence at that time and notice will have been given at that time. I think those factors will indicate that the evidence is obviously relevant, but it would naturally be part of the evidence introduced at the dangerous offender hearing. I think that's the quick answer to your question.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy: Mr. Langlois, essentially, the purpose of this window of opportunity is to allow for a new process to begin. That process already exists right now. Right now, the person goes to trial, and at the end of the trial, if the Crown so requests, the judge must hold a new hearing and determine whether the status of this individual should be changed to make him a dangerous offender.
.1555
The window of opportunity only allows for this to be done within a six-month period. That's exactly the process that already exists.
The thinking behind this amendment is to provide some flexibility and also to spare victims who have already testified the first time by avoiding having them go through this process again. It should be noted that a judge continues to have full discretion in this matter. For instance, the offender could say: Look, I cross-examined those people on the basis of my guilt, regarding the crime, but this is now a somewhat different matter and I would like to ask them additional questions. I'm absolutely convinced that a judge has all the discretion necessary to bring forth these people and ensure that they are cross-examined on that basis.
All we're talking about here is adding a bit of flexibility so as to work in favour of people who've already testified once.
With regard to the process, namely how things will be done, under this window of opportunity, it is no different than what is done right now when a request is presented to declare someone a dangerous offender. The same rules will continue to apply. If the courts in various provinces deem that it is appropriate to have different rules of practice, I'm certain that they would not hesitate to adopt some. The creation of this window of opportunity that we're referring to is not required by the proposed amendment.
Mr. Langlois: In terms of the audi alteram partem rule and the duty to act fairly, it seems to me that we're one notch lower with regard to sentencing. We're talking about the judge's discretion, and you're right to talk about discretion rather than obligation. I do understand that in terms of the process, obviously the judge must give the defence every available chance. Even now, when the verdict is handed down, he can balance things out, because he no longer has an innocent person before him, but a person against whom a guilty verdict has been pronounced, and given the weight of the evidence, he will see what is the most appropriate sentence for that person.
I'm pleased with the clarifications you've put forward. That sheds light on the matter. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: We go on to amendment G-3.
Ms Torsney: I'll move that. I believe this amendment will ensure that if someone is designated a long-term offender, their previous sentence will stand, but the long-term offender time is added to their previous sentence.
You can elaborate on that, if you like.
Mr. Whellams: Amendment G-3 is complementary to amendment G-1. It's to clarify the situation where the delayed dangerous offender application results in a long-term offender finding.
As noted, we already have a sentence handed down in a kind of contingent, interim way at the time of trial. This amendment, as Ms Torsney explains, would not vacate the original sentence. It would simply confirm the original sentence and allow the court, as appropriate to an LTO, to add on the appropriate period of long-term supervision up to ten years. The alternative would have been to allow the court to vacate the original sentence and impose a new sentence and new period of supervision.
So a choice has to be made here, but in preparing this it seemed to us that the original sentence was hopefully a thoughtful one in relation to that specific sex offence and it probably should stand in the context of structuring an LTO/LTS sentence.
The Chair: Any other comments on amendment G-3?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Ms Torsney, amendment G-4.
Ms Torsney: Amendment G-4 clearly defines who the parole supervisor is. I think it's a technical amendment. It gives a broader scope to who are parole supervisors for the purpose of this legislation.
Mr. Whellams: It was actually a bit of a drafting error in the sense that when we're talking about who the parole supervisor should be in the circumstances described here, the existing draft of Bill C-55 refers to ``paragraph 134.2(2)(b)''. The definition is intended to include paragraphs 134.(2)(a) and (b). All we need to do here, then, is to say ``subsection 134.2(2)'' to include those concepts of who the parole supervisor should be.
.1600
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Ms Torsney, amendment G-5.
Ms Torsney: Amendment G-5 ensures that should somebody be asking for a reduction or termination of their long-term offender designation the provincial Attorney General is notified. It doesn't address fully what CAVEAT and some of the victims groups were concerned about, which was that someone could continually apply for a reduction, but it will at least ensure that the Attorney General is notified and can make representation.
Mr. Whellams: There's not much to add to that. It was indeed a suggestion made by a couple of witnesses that because reduction or termination of a long-term supervision period, or the order, is a fairly serious change in the overall sanction imposed on the long-term offender, the Crown - namely, the Attorney General in the province - should have the opportunity to be represented at the formal hearing. This ensures that notice is given at the time.
It's not just the Attorney General's department that can make the application, obviously, but also the offender and the parole supervisor. This is to make sure that the Attorney General is fully aware of the application.
The Chair: Any other comments? Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I need some clarification regarding subsection (4). If I'm an inmate pursuant to 753.2 and I want to use...
[English]
The Chair: We're on amendment G-5 now.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Yes, but I'm on page 8, in what would be added just before 753.3, correct?
Mr. Whellams: It's subsection (4).
Mr. Langlois: There would be a subsection (4)? So if I act pursuant to subsection (3), I'm subject to a supervision order and if I want to go to the Superior Court, I have to serve my notice on someone. I won't have it served on the reeve of Saint-Isidore-de-Prescott. I have to send it to the attorney general in any event. What does that add? Would the attorney general be the respondent in my procedure?
Mr. Roy: Not necessarily, not according to what we have in the wording that was presented as C-55. The attorney general is no longer a party in this procedure from the moment where the sentence is to be administered, and the person to whom you would have served notice of your procedure is most likely the person supervising you pursuant to the provisions we have here. The individual is under strict supervision and will indicate that he is undertaking this procedure to the person supervising him, essentially to Correctional Services Canada, who has jurisdiction to handle these affairs under this bill.
The attorney general of the province, who was at the basis of the imposed sentence, was expelled from the process. The proposed amendment brings him back into the process. From a political standpoint, that may have made some sense, since this is at the sentencing stage, but from the standpoint of sound public policy, the presence of the provincial attorney general is probably a good idea. This notion was accepted following the comments made by numerous witnesses who appeared before you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 9
The Chair: Ms Torsney, amendment G-6.
Ms Torsney: I'll propose amendment G-6 but I'd like to have more comment on it from the officials.
Mr. Whellams: The concerns that caused this motion came from a number of police groups and from consultations we've had with prosecutors since Bill C-55 was tabled.
As written, Bill C-55 requires or allows the Attorney General to lay the information that initiates the judicial restraint order process. The comment was made, and we felt validly, that it's not appropriate for the Attorney General to be laying an information.
.1605
First of all, it's not common. Secondly, just as an example of the problem that could be created, the Attorney General swears the information and thus becomes, in effect, a compellable witness to the bona fides of that information. That leads to a rather awkward situation.
As well, as Chief Fantino and others pointed out in the hearings, it is more common for an individual to lay an information that is, in effect, working with the police with a complaint. Subsection 810.1 allows any person to lay the information, and we're proposing wording that is quite close to 810.1, with one added check and balance or screening mechanism, so the underlined portion of amendment G-6 reads ``with the consent of the Attorney General''.
Later in the process the Attorney General can always intervene to stay proceedings, but once again we think the prior screening or consent of the Attorney General up front is appropriate. So this is a significant change in terms of who lays the information, but it is close to 810.1.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I think this is a step in the right direction. I don't know if we're doing enough. We will have to think about it before the report stage. We were instituting as a general rule - I was going to say as a rule of public law because the attorney general applied it - the peace bond that has existed for a few centuries in our criminal law.
I think that you've taken into account many of the opinions expressed here and that you're bringing the nature of the peace bond back to private considerations, since the "any person" is no longer the attorney general. The attorney general must be informed. I think that we're exposing ourselves to far fewer constitutional challenges from that standpoint.
However, "any person who fears on reasonable grounds", when he applies to a judge in a criminal jurisdiction, could be questioned by the person, I presume?
Mr. Roy: Indeed. In fact, that's the general idea of a peace bond. You have to be able to satisfy a judge. Generally speaking, this will be done under oath, and whenever there is testimony under oath, there is also permission to have a cross-examination. You know as well as I do that there are rules of natural justice that must apply: the parties must be present and some sort of minor adversarial debate could take place. That is what is provided for in section 810.2, and that is also the way to proceed for two other types of instruments that are being created, namely those under section 810 and section 810.1.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you for having taken into account several of my concerns regarding section 810.2.
[English]
The Chair: All right.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Are there comments on amendment G-7?
Ms Torsney: I believe amendment G-7 is just consistent wording and changes ``shall'' to ``may''. Let me confirm that.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Are there comments on amendment G-8?
Ms Torsney: Amendment G-8 is just a clarification of a little drafting technicality. Wouldn't you agree?
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Mr. Justice Rideout agrees.
Ms Torsney: They got their numbers right.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Are there comments on amendment G-9?
Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): Madam Chair, I'd like to speak to this. It refers to proposed subsection 810.2(6). I move that we amend that by replacing lines 20 to 25 on page 13 with the following:
- authority, and where the provincial court judge decides that it is desirable for the defendant to so
report, the provincial court
.1610
I think this is a balance. By maintaining the merits of proposed section 810.2 but deleting reference to what I've indicated, this certainly resolves the problem the committee is facing with this clause.
The Chair: Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney: I want to clarify that while we've removed electronic monitoring from the actual bill, it effectively still could be used as a tool or as a method of monitoring people if it's available and in good working order.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Ms Torsney, amendment G-10.
Ms Torsney: I'll propose G-10. Obviously, all members of the committee can see it relates to Bill C-27, which is not in force yet but soon will be, we hope. It adds part of that to the criminal harassment proceedings, making aggravating factors should you be convicted of one of those charges.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I don't want to put a wrench in the system, but G-10 doesn't seem to fit where it's supposed to. If it's on page 14, after line 31, then it comes before clause 10 but after proposed subsection 810.2(5.2).
Mr. Whellams: The answer to that, Ms Meredith, is that this is a new subclause, not a new subsection. It references a couple of pages back to clause 9 on page 12, which means this would become new subclause 9(3).
Ms Meredith: Would you want to change the bottom of page 13 to subclause 9(2)?
Mr. Whellams: It is subclause 9(2). What we're proposing in the motion is a new subclause.
Ms Meredith: Okay. Was that changed, in a previous motion, to subclause 9(2)?
Ms Torsney: It is subclause 9(2).
Ms Meredith: Okay.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 9 as amended agreed to
The Chair: We now go back to clause 2.
Am I right, Mr. Discepola?
Mr. Discepola: Not yet.
The Chair: Okay.
Clause 10 agreed to on division
On clause 11
The Chair: Amendment G-11, Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney: There's a whole series of amendments here. I'll need some clarification from officials.
If G-11 passes, then amendments G-12, G-13, G-14, G-16, G-18, G-20, G-21 and G-22 also would be in order. Does that mean we want to move them all together or do we just want to move G-11 now and when we get to G-12, move it and the whole package?
The Chair: We can do them together. Let's speak to those nine amendments.
Ms Torsney: The amendment basically clarifies something related to the long-term offender applications and the appeal process.
Perhaps the officials would like to say more.
Mr. Richard Zubrycki (Director General, Corrections, Department of the Solicitor General): This clause adds a definition of long-term supervision to the definitions section of the CCRA, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, by referring to section 753.1 of the Criminal Code. For greater certainty, this amendment will also make reference to long-term supervision orders made on appeal. That same clarification is added in the other clauses.
.1615
The Chair: Okay.
Shall amendments G-11, G-12, G-13, G-14, G-16, G-18, G-20, G-21 and G-22 carry?
Amendments agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 11 and 12 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to on division
Clause 15 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to on division
Clause 18 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 19 agreed to on division
On clause 20
The Chair: Clause 20 has amendment G-15.
Ms Torsney: I believe amendment G-15 clarifies a drafting error.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 20 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 21 to 29 inclusive agreed to on division
Clause 30 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to on division
The Chair: We now have new clause 32.1 being proposed in amendment G-17.
Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney: I propose amendment G-17. This relates to some changes we made in the first Bill C-41, which relates to conditional sentencing. Perhaps the officials want to add some additional clarification.
Ms Michel Laprade (Legal Counsel, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Justice): This new clause is to amend the CCRA with regard to conditional sentences and automatic revocation under chapter 22, which introduced conditional sentences.
As the CCRA currently reads, if the paroled offender is on release and is given a conditional sentence while under release, he must be revoked automatically, which is somewhat contradictory to what the judge intends. We're asking for this clause to make the revocation not automatic, although of course it would still be left to the discretion of the board to revoke it if they thought it was necessary.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 33
The Chair: Ms Torsney, would you speak to amendment G-19?
Ms Torsney: Amendment G-19 relates to what occurs when someone is in breach of their conditions. It clarifies that it's custody rather than a federal penitentiary. In some cases, that may be a local jail. So it broadens the definition of custody to allow for local conditions as they occur in different parts of the country.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 33 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 34 to 36 inclusive agreed to on division
Clauses 37 and 38 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 39 agreed to on division
Clause 40 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 41 agreed to on division
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
A voice: We have to go back to clause 2.
.1620
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Mr. Discepola: Madam Chair, clause 19 carried, so by inference clause 2 should carry. It's just a technical adjustment.
Clause 2 agreed to on division
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
Ms Torsney: Madam Chair, I would like to move that the bill as amended be reprinted as a working copy for the use of the House of Commons at report stage.
Motion agreed to
Ms Torsney: I would like to make a second motion, Madam Chair, that you report the bill with amendments to the House as the ninth report of the committee.
Motion agreed to
Ms Torsney: Thank you.
Finally, I would like to make a motion to thank our officials for their hard work and our researcher for putting together the analysis of what the various witnesses said and how we could amend the bill to improve it.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Mr. Discepola.
Mr. Discepola: If you will permit me, Madam Chair, on behalf of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, I would like to thank you personally, as well as committee members, for their hard work.
The Chair: What a day.
Mr. Discepola: It has been a super job, and both ministers asked me to pass on their remarks. Thank you very much to all of you.
The Chair: Let's rise for a minute so we can pull things together. We'll consider Bill C-254 next, in two or three minutes.
.1622
.1630
The Chair: We'll now go to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-254. You have four amendments. Is that correct, Val?
Ms Meredith: Yes.
The Chair: All right.
I understood there were clauses you wanted to delete. Did you want to speak to them first?
Ms Meredith: Do we want to go through them or shall I...? I have no problem with clauses 1 to 13.
The Chair: No, 1 through 12. Doesn't R-1 relate to clause 13?
A voice: No, it's a different R-1.
The Chair: Let's just go step by step.
Shall clauses 1 through 12, which have no amendments, carry?
Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive negatived
The Chair: Clauses 13, 14 and 15 have amendments.
Do you wish to speak to R-1?
Ms Meredith: Yes, Madam Chair. I'd like to omit clauses 13, 14, and 15, the reason being that since my introduction of this bill into the House of Commons the Solicitor General has introduced Bill C-45 dealing with those issues.
The Chair: Okay.
Ms Meredith: Because the government saw fit to take something out of my legislation and enact it, I will withdraw those clauses.
The Chair: Well stated. I don't think anybody will object to those three clauses being withdrawn.
Shall clauses 16 through 32 carry?
Clauses 16 to 32 inclusive negatived
The Chair: Shall the preamble, R-4, carry?
Ms Meredith: Madam Chair, I'd like to omit the fourth paragraph from the preamble because the government deals with that issue in Bill C-45.
The Chair: Shall the preamble as amended carry?
Ms Meredith: Can I speak to the preamble, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Sure you can.
Ms Meredith: I would like to bring to the attention of this committee that there were a number of witnesses who did support Bill C-245. It would appear from the various witnesses that the one -
The Chair: Do you mean Bill C-254?
Ms Meredith: I'm sorry about that. The number was changed.
It would appear that the witnesses who did support this legislation are the experts who deal with dangerous offenders. The law enforcement community and the victims rights organizations are very concerned that society is still releasing people who pose a serious risk to the community and who are likely to reoffend in a violent way against innocent community members. They are concerned that these offenders are going to be allowed back into the community and that the government has failed to address post-sentence detention. As I said, there is a concern among victims rights groups and law enforcement agencies, as well as from experts who deal with dangerous offenders, that this issue has not been dealt with and will have to be dealt with at some point in the future.
.1635
So I just want to go on record as saying that although it's obvious to me that this committee is not prepared to accept this piece of legislation, this issue does need to be addressed down the road.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall the preamble as amended carry?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I would like to ask our clerk, Mr. Dupuis, whether we need a title to present our report. If we don't adopt a title for the bill, how can we report it?
The Clerk of the committee: You can vote for or against the title. If you report, I will answer at that point.
Mr. Langlois: What will you answer me?
The Clerk: I take it for granted that you will report, but you could also not report.
Mr. Langlois: If we decide to report but there is no title, we will say that Bill C-254 no longer has a title, that all its clauses have been defeated and that some have been withdrawn.
The Clerk: That's correct.
Mr. Langlois: Period.
The Clerk: Period.
Mr. Langlois: In your opinion, as procedural clerk, do we need a title?
The Clerk: Well, you see, there are no more clauses.
Mr. Langlois: Yes, but there is a title to the bill. Personally, I would be in favour of maintaining the title. I would like us to write in the report that we studied Bill C-254 Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, and that we rejected its clauses. That seems more logical to me than saying that Bill C-254, for which we've even deleted the title, has been defeated. It seems to me that we should keep the title for our report. That would seem more logical to me.
The Clerk: That's a very good point.
Mr. Langlois: I would suggest we keep the title and say that we've defeated it.
That's as if we pulled a file entitled "Nick Discepola, RCMP", and that there was nothing in the file. At least we have a title. We'll see the number of the bill. We're not deleting the number of Bill C-254, but we've defeated it. It would seem to me that it would be clearer for anyone consulting the archives. Today, we all understand that we're defeating it. This is solely for research or archival purposes. At some point, someone will wonder why there is only a title of a bill. They will then have to look at the minutes and proceedings.
It's for the sake of clarity. I have no hidden agenda.
[English]
The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Langlois.
Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: We can't do anything about it. We should be against "as amended" since there is nothing left in it.
[English]
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): I move that we don't report the bill.
The Chair: There's a motion that we not report the bill. Those in favour of the motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I would like to speak to that. We've had lengthy debates at the Standing Committee on Justice, in the House and at the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business. The House adopted a motion and I think that we have to report to the House regarding the decision we've taken.
The decision of the Speaker, Mr. Parent, is quite clear. The House always has the right to gather information, but we have examined it. It has been on the agenda for many meetings, and out of respect for the House, we must inform it of the status of our work right now.
That's why I would like us to report to the House to tell it that we have not adopted any of the clauses of bill C-254.
Thus, everything will be in order and it will clear. It will avoid frustration in some places.
Our colleague from Sarnia - Lambton, Mr. Gallaway, was very clear about that when we intervened to find out if we were reporting or not. Apart from that, it seems this goes without saying. Fundamentally, I was putting the question to the clerk. When we finished the examination of a bill, can we keep it here or isn't it courteous on our part to inform the House who sent it to us and tell it that we finished the work that had been given to us and that we do not deem it appropriate to recommend adoption of the bill?
.1640
The Clerk: Mr. Langlois, the issue is controversial here. But one thing is certain and the Speaker, Mr. Parent, has established it clearly: a bill is the property of the House of Commons; a bill is sent to a committee; the committee disposes of it and reports to the House.
Some say: Yes, but there's nothing left in the bill. Others maintain that in fact, the committee is reporting on the process even if there is nothing left in the bill. I think it's up to you to make the decision.
[English]
The Chair: Those in favour of the motion of Mr. Rideout to not report the bill?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: That's our work for the day.
Because we were such good members of Parliament today, we don't have a meeting tomorrow afternoon. We're adjourned until Thursday.