Public Safety Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order. This is meeting 38 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, June 8, 2009, we are dealing today with Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts.

We'd like to welcome our witnesses, who are here to give us advice as we proceed through this bill. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Ms. Mary E. Campbell, who is the director general for the corrections and criminal justice directorate; and from the Department of Justice, Mr. Douglas Hoover, counsel in the criminal law policy section.

Welcome to our committee. We appreciate your being here to advise us if at any point we need to ask you questions.

The plan here is to go clause by clause through this bill, and as we get to clauses with amendments we will pause and have the person or party who is introducing those amendments do so.

I don't want to move too quickly. If I'm doing so, please raise your hand and make a point of order, and I will slow down. We will try to move expeditiously; however, we don't want to overlook anything. We want to get it right.

Let's begin.

We're going to stand clause 1, which is the title clause.

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Do you have a question, Mr. Davies?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I have just a quick question. I'm a lawyer by training and I refer to these as sections. When you say “clause”, do you mean what I would refer to as section 3? Do you mean clause 3? I just want to make sure I'm on the right track.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Bills have clauses, and the clauses each have sections. According to the legislative clerk who is advising me here, we're referring to the Criminal Code, which has sections, and this we deal with clause by clause.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

So your clause would be the number on the far left, number 3. When you say clause 3, you're referring to the paragraph that begins:

Subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition “primary designated offence”

Is that what you're referring to as clause 3?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Monsieur Ménard, do you have a question?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

It's “article” in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are you asking the same thing?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The word “clause” also exists in French. If I understand correctly, the word “article” covers both. Is that right?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Roger Préfontaine]

Yes, Mr. Ménard. If you look at the agenda, “clause by clause” in English is translated as “article par article” in French.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

But, normally, “article” in French is translated as “section” in English.

[The Clerk]

Or “paragraphe”?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No, “paragraphe” is “paragraph” . The same in both.

[Mike MacPherson, Procedural Clerk]

You would have to look at the legislation. The bill clearly says “article”, but the act uses “paragraphe”.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No. I guess that's part of the beauty of it. “Part” is “section”, and “section” is “article”. I would have thought that “clause” was “clause”, but you say it's not.

[Mike MacPherson]

“Clause” in English is “article” in French.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I see here that everywhere it says “clause”, you translated it as “article”. Let's go with that for today.

[Mike MacPherson]

Yes, that's true. But, in the act, the English word “section” is equivalent to “paragraphe” in French.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No, usually, “section” is “article” in French. The word “paragraph” is “paragraphe” in French.

[Mike MacPherson]

Perhaps “subsection” is “paragraphe”. In any case, that's how it is.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

“Subsection” is “paragraphe” in French.

I understand, from what it says here....

So there is no need to go through all the....

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

If there's any more confusion, just raise your hand if you're not sure what section or paragraph or whatever it is.

Are there any more questions on clause 3?

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)

For clause 5, the NDP have submitted two amendments. I'll allow Mr. Davies to bring them forward. I will tell him in advance that they are inadmissible because they're contrary to the principle of the bill. But if you would like to discuss them anyway, you have an opportunity to do so.

Do you want to know the reason for their inadmissibility before you submit them, or does that change anything?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm in your hands, Mr. Chairman. I will proceed with discussing my amendments, but of course, I would be most interested in hearing the reasoning behind their inadmissibility. This is the first time I've heard that, and I would like to hear the reasoning and I would, in all likelihood, challenge that ruling.