Public Safety Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009
Evidence of meeting #41 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was method.
A recording is available from Parliament.
On the agenda
MPs speaking
Also speaking
- Clerk of the Committee Mr. Roger Préfontaine
- Mary Campbell Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
- Mike MacPherson Procedural Clerk
- Douglas Hoover Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
That is indeed what Mr. MacKenzie sent me in writing. After reading it, I agree. I thought that the addition was there, and I agree with that. I can let Mr. MacKenzie read the subamendment he proposed to me. I noticed that when he recites it from memory, the wording is a bit different.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Mike MacPherson Procedural Clerk
It's just to indicate that what we have received does not include the “if available” portion, so that would have to be submitted and moved.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
December 3rd, 2009 / 11:40 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have two questions. First, I think there will always be a method of operation, because every sex crime is committed in a certain way. There will always be something to describe what happened.
Second, if I'm not restating the obvious, who would draft that information and how would it get to the registry? Who would summarize it? Would it be summarized through the court decision, or how would one know how to put that in?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Douglas Hoover Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's primarily the issue we'd be concerned with. Right now the provision states that the person entering the information shall register the information, so there is a mandatory requirement.
We looked at section 17, the offence provision, to ensure that wouldn't apply. We're satisfied for the most part that they wouldn't be exposing themselves to the offence in the provision. But there are other liabilities that might be incurred.
So the issue is how does the RCMP get that at the NSOR centres where this information is entered? In many situations it's possible, but in other situations it may not be possible to get it at all or on a timely basis. You may have to get the recording of the proceedings transcribed. In other instances you may have to somehow get summaries from the files of the prosecutor, which may or may not be available in certain jurisdictions.
Our concern is that if it were mandatory it would present problems. It would also present the problem that they'd have to put something in. It could be bad information, which I think is worse than no information. So this would be an appropriate amendment. In almost all cases, if they have it or can get it easily it will go in. Eventually in the future they'll probably have systems in place that will allow for that information to be obtained where it's not available now.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Oxford, ON
Just for procedure, can we pass what we've already done and then make another amendment?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Procedural Clerk
We can deal with the subamendment and then add more to it.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Garry Breitkreuz
Okay, let's vote on the subamendment. I think we've had enough discussion.
(Subamendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Do we have to change it before we go to the main amendment?
Do you have another copy of what you've given to me, Mr. MacKenzie, or should I just read it into the record?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Garry Breitkreuz
Okay.
We're going to add the part after “method of operation” as an amendment, because we have already passed the other part.
Do you want to move that subamendment and read it into the record?