Public Safety Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

Amendment BQ-1 I believe will also create a new clause. I'll give an opportunity for Monsieur Ménard to move the amendment.

Go ahead, sir.

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

I move that Bill C-34 be amended by adding after line 31 on page 28 the following new clause:

34.1 Paragraph 8(a) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (vi): (vi.1) the person's modus operandi,

We discussed this a number of times during testimony: we wanted information to be provided on how a sex offender generally operates so as to facilitate the work of police officers looking for the offender and for all the other valid reasons. In practice, it's true that the majority of sex offenders very often have one particular way of operating.

Mr. MacKenzie, I don't know whether you still want to bring up what you previously communicated to me. I took the opportunity to conduct some checks. We submitted these amendments a number of days ago. The legal drafters met and first thought that we could insert Latin expressions. In this case, this Latin expression is commonly used in both official languages. The term "modus operandi" also exactly describes what we want to express in the bill. Upon discussing and consulting on the matter, they agreed to keep the Latin expression "modus operandi" and not to suggest other French or English expressions that would mean the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, I'll let Mr. Holland make a comment, and then Mr. MacKenzie.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just before we begin debate, I recall that last time we got into a lengthy debate before deciding whether or not we could debate an item. I understand there are some objections—which I don't understand, to be clear—that need to be explored before we can debate this matter. I'm just wondering if we can expunge those before moving to debate.

I just don't want to see us debate something for a long time that we can't vote on. I think we need to determine the admissibility of the motion first. I don't understand the issues regarding admissibility, but it's been brought to my attention that there are some, so if we could deal with those first before engaging in debate, I think it would make sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Well, you're asking me to rule before it's all done.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

No, I'm just asking for that issue to be raised now, as opposed to our getting into a debate on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

If the committee approves this, I won't rule against it—if that's what you're asking.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

All right, on that basis, I would support it.

The objections that I've heard, to this point, rest with difficulty of incorporating the word “modus operandi” in the bill. That strikes me as odd. While Latin is not one of our official languages, there are many words incorporated into both English and French that are directly Latin. I would suggest that the word “caveat” is a perfect example of a Latin word that's often used in a legal context. In fact, there are many expressions in law that are directly lifted from Latin. So it's my understanding that “modus operandi” is a valid legal term. In fact, it's commonly used in both the English vernacular and

in French, in the vocabulary of people who speak French. Those people say "modus operandi", not something else, and the context is of course clear. That is why it is logical for me to support this motion of Mr. Ménard's.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, thank you.

I'm going to ask Mr. MacKenzie for a comment, and then, Ms. Campbell, you can comment.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes, absolutely.

Chair, the government does not support the amendments. According to Justice Canada drafters, the use of terminology that is not in English or French, such as modus operandi, is not permitted in drafting legislation. Moreover, modus operandi is not a precise term and would not lead to standardized data fields or descriptors in the national sex offender registry. Further study and consultation would be required with the provincial and territorial partners as well as the police community to determine precisely what is meant to everyone by the term “modus operandi” to identify clear parameters and consistency. I would ask that you defer to the officials, who I think can answer more of the issues that have been raised here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, I'll give Ms. Mourani a chance for a brief comment and then we'll go to our officials.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you.

I would just like to remind my colleagues that the modus operandi is fundamentally important for police the matter of sexual offences. The term "modus operandi" can be translated by "mode d'opération" or "mode opératoire" in French, or "M.O.", "method" or "method of operating" in English. Here's how a pedophile operates. For example, he goes around a school. That's how he recruits his victims. Afterwards he attracts them in some way so that he is in a better position to kidnap them, or he uses lures, for example. Thus, he says he is looking for his animal.

These guys can generally be identified by police not only for prevention purposes, but also for investigation purposes. Why for investigation purposes? Because, from the moment we know how a sex offender operates, we can trace not only a victim who might have disappeared, but also the pedophile in question. It's as basic as a make of car, a licence plate, his name and his address.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I was going to let everybody have their say and then get the legal opinion.

Mr. Davies, quickly please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I submitted an amendment that got to the stage to be drafted in this, and it's not in the package. I don't know why that is. It might have been my office.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

With regard to this....

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

The reason I put this forward is that it may help achieve what Mr. Ménard is trying to do. I used English and what I said was, "a description of how they committed each crime of a sexual nature of which they were convicted".

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'm not sure why it wasn't included.

[A voice]

It's not the same.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It's not the same? If that's not the same, I just thought it might be helpful. I don't know why that wasn't included.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'm told it was not received. So I'm not sure what happened.

You're sure you submitted it? Does it resolve this issue?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

They're shaking their heads no. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Was somebody over here...? Yes, Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I'm going to be very brief. I don't know if there was a problem with translation or what, but what Ms. Mourani was saying was not addressing the problem we have. The problem is in whether or not the wording itself and the Latin is acceptable. Everything she said.... No one has mentioned that. I just want her to know we're not disputing what she said. It's just the Latin translation that's the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Some are going to support the concept, the principles. I have no difficulty with modus operandi. It's interesting we allso use MO. I would say MO would be insufficient language, but that's the vernacular. Modus operandi I think is the phrase. If some experts have trouble with that, they may be the same experts who left out paragraphs we're now fixing. I want to be careful about always deferring to experts. I would like the concept in. I think the concept that Mr. Davies did is a very appropriate descriptor to go after “modus operandi”. It seems to me there could be a subamendment to the amendment, “modus operandi,” and then his phrase. I think it's the same thing. If not, it's very close.

I think police officers always use the term “modus operandi”. It's what I hear. So I want the concept in, and we're going to have to figure out how we put it in.

You use MO, don't you?