Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Ms. Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I think there is some confusion caused by the reference to a marginal note and maybe not everybody understands what a marginal note is. Basically, as I understand it now, it's referring back to the titles, the area it's affecting. It doesn't change 153.1. There is no judicial interpretation of titles, or in this case being the same as a marginal note. It's not something a lawyer could use to change an outcome or that a judge would be interpreting. In fact it is impossible: the judicial interpretation act says titles and marginal notes are not part of the jurisprudence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Ms. Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Very briefly.

I think we all understand that none of this changes the wording dealing with the offences, which is clear and precise. But there is a principle in law that states that Parliament does not speak in vain. Perhaps we do not need to be so careful in this particular case, but, under that principle, just to put our minds at rest, we should ask our experts and our jurists to look into it quickly so that we know why the two headings are so different. But there is still a subtle difference that is interesting. If I say…

“sexual exploitation of person with disability”, that's kind of the section.

In French, it says: “personnes en situation d'autorité”. Those are two different concepts. In a way, one is talking about the victim and the other is talking about the criminal.

We may have stumbled on this purely by chance, but it is something that should be corrected. If we cannot correct it in this process, through Bill C-10, I mean, someone should at least come back to us at the end to tell us if it is appropriate to bring forward some amendments.

I am Joint Chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. That is where we spend our time studying regulations with a view to finding words here and there that are different in French and English and to making sure that they are correct, in headings or anywhere else. Headings may not have the force of law, but people often use them anyway.

Though we are told that we must not use headings, can we at least make this amendment to put our minds at rest in this case? I would even accept being told that we are going to make an amendment in a future bill to correct something that everyone would agree with, given that it makes no sense now. For heaven's sake, it seems to me that it should not be rocket science for us to be careful and wait until tomorrow.

Sometimes people ask me if I think I can get amendments passed. In cases like this, cases where we should be able to amend headings that contain such obvious errors, but we are not able to—surely you agree that the changes are superficial—then we have a problem. Maybe it is because we have no way of changing anything to anything. But come on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I don't want to go into the whole business here of what the different wordings mean, but I do want to ask further explanation from the officials here.

There's a significant number of changes being made to schedule I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, adding offences such as high treason that weren't there before, renaming others, adding new offences that I guess didn't exist before, such as the child luring sections, etc. There's quite a number of them that are not new at all, but are being added to schedule I.

I wonder if the officials could explain what the purpose of adding all of these offences is, and what the consequences of including these offences in schedule I would be. Most of them are.... They're all to schedule I itself, it seems to me. Could we have an explanation for that?

[Daryl Churney]

Mr. Chair, there was really no other reason than simply updating the schedule in the CCRA to make it consistent with new offences that have been brought in under the Criminal Code and other pieces of legislation.

It's really just a technical updating of the schedule. There was no real substantive change to the schedule as a result of anything else.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

But you're adding high treason, for example, and uttering threats and aggravated assault, kidnapping. What's the purpose of including them in schedule I? What are the consequences of having them there, as opposed to not having them there?

[Daryl Churney]

We can go back to the drafters, and get back to the committee on that point. As far as my understanding, the update to the schedule is really just to make it consistent with other schedules that appear in the Criminal Code. But we can certainly provide a more fulsome explanation to the committee.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

It's not very helpful to.... The schedule is there, but what is the schedule used for, I guess, is the question. If you can come back with that explanation, I'd certainly appreciate it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I know I'm on the speakers list. I'm curious as to whether or not—even if we find that it is inconsistent—it would be within the scope of the ability of the committee to amend it as suggested, to actually make changes that to bring in consistency. Or would it be outside of the scope of the...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

The section we're dealing with is the only section we can change at this point on an amendment. We can't deal with the Criminal Code.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

If we amended the references in the margins, for instance, in this case.... As somebody who used the Criminal Code for a long time, I would look at the references to sort of find where I was in the Criminal Code, because it's quite lengthy sometimes. I certainly didn't use it for arguments with judges or justices.

I wonder whether the proposal by the NDP, even if they were to make that proposal...would it not be outside of the scope of this particular bill? And would we not be seized with having no ability to change it? That's my understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I think the legislative clerks have indicated that you would be changing something that we can't change.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

So we're stuck with it, no matter whether we want to wait or not, if I understand that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I have Mr. Goguen on that.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Based on the discussion we just had, clearly we can't change this and it's just an interpretative note. You have the Interpretation Act, which makes clear that you can't rely upon it as any kind of an argument in law.

So I would ask that the vote be called, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Okay.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I guess we're talking about two different things, because I didn't speak to this issue of whether the reference in English and in French is appropriate or not. I spoke to the question as to what the effect of the entire clause 103 was in terms of the changes being made to the schedule. What is the effect of those changes, what does that do, and what is the schedule used for?

Our witnesses from the department were unable to answer that question and offered to provide an answer after doing some further investigation.

Someone is trying to play music here. I'd better stop it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

It's yours.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have it on vibrate. I don't know why it--

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Now we know what you like, Jack.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I don't know why it does that even though it's on vibrate. Maybe I need to revise my options.

We've been told by our experts that the explanation will be forthcoming, so I would ask that we defer that until they can provide that explanation. That's what they're here for.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, even if we defer it, we can't change it, so what difference does it make?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

If you're looking for the information, I think we can get you the information. But I agree with Mr. Jean. The legislative clerks have made it clear that we can't change it here anyway.