Yes.
Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
March 8th, 2012 / 12:40 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
—whereas
“de façon légitime” in French
or “lawful”, can also incorporate the common law. Here I think the idea was to incorporate a broader notion of what the conduct might include.
I'll end there.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I don't think I can add to that. In essence, basically, I understand the spirit of what's intended, but for the sake of consistency, the word légitime is used throughout the Criminal Code. The consistency is what requires that it remain as such. It's called la légitime défense, self-defence. That's what we're talking about here today.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Chair, having heard the officials and much of the exchange, I will withdraw the amendment.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I just want to make sure that I understand. I think everything I heard makes sense. “Unlawful” in English means it doesn't need a legal text or anything.
The French word “légitime” has the following meaning. If I commit an act that is “légitme”, it can mean that the act is acceptable. You don't need the idea of legality with that word. That may be the reason for the question about the words “unlawful” and “légitime”. I find it satisfactory; the French word “légitime” is so much broader. I will not object if we want to let someone use that defence.
However, is the word “unlawful” a term that has nothing to do with the law?
12:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It would have to do with the law, but it would not be limited to statutory law.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
So it could be jurisprudence, it could be whatever, but “légitime” doesn't have that full extent. Let's all agree that it is a bit different, so if I were to go in front of a court, I would argue the French text on behalf of the accused anytime, if I'm not a crown attorney.
12:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In response to that, I would only just relay again that it's my understanding that the drafters, when they received the Barreau's submissions, looked quite closely at this issue and looked at terminology throughout the Criminal Code—
12:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
—and they were satisfied that this was a term that's consistent with other areas of the code.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I think the point, as I understand it, is that for “authorized by law”, you might have to look to a particular law that makes the authorization, whereas in English, if you say “lawful”, it just means “not unlawful”. That's all it really means.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
If Liberal amendment L-3 is adopted, NDP-7.1, NDP-8, NDP-8.1, NDP-9, and LIB-4 cannot be moved.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the amendment that I proposed outside of the meeting today, except that we're talking here in terms of the defence of property. The view here is that, again, it's preferable to legislate in the positive rather than the negative in regard to these defences. In this instance, I said in relation to the defence of property.
The current bill begins in section 35 by noting, “A person is not guilty of an offence if”, and then it goes on to discuss something which denotes a misconduct from which they are being excused. The amendment that I'm proposing just puts it in positive language: “Everyone is justified in acting to protect their property if”. It's just an amendment to restate the same principle in the positive rather than the negative.