Public Safety Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting number 41. We are dealing with Bill C-34, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts.

We again welcome as witnesses Ms. Mary Campbell, director general of corrections at the criminal justice directorate; and from the Department of Justice, Mr. Douglas Hoover, counsel for the criminal law policy section.

We are continuing clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. Hopefully you remember, from about three or four weeks ago, that we are resuming debate on the subamendment by Mr. MacKenzie.

Mr. MacKenzie, do you want to briefly remind us what that subamendment was?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I wish I could.

I believe we were discussing “modus operandi”. There was some debate about whether we could use Latin terms or whether we needed to use the two official languages. At that point I think we were suggesting we could change “modus operandi”, in English, to the person's “method of operation”, which would properly describe what I think Mr. Ménard had.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. The question is on the subamendment by Mr. MacKenzie. Are you all clear as to what his subamendment is? He's replacing the words “modus operandi” with “method of operation”.

Monsieur Ménard.

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

Mr. MacKenzie sent his proposal to me in writing, and I agree with what he has. It's their method of operating, is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes.

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

That's in relation to the offence or offences. I agree with this. In French, it's

“their method of operating in relation to the offence or offences”.

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

Mr. Ménard, your subamendment says, “the person's method of operation”.

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

I know, but my amendment used the expression “modus operandi”. Mr. MacKenzie moved a subamendment that seeks to avoid using the Latin words “modus operandi” and to use the English words instead,

their “method of operation”, in relation to the offence.

In French, it says “the person's method of operation”.

I agree with the subamendment by Mr. MacKenzie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Very good. I think that's clear.

Mr. Kania.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I'm not going to belabour it; I'm simply going to indicate that we agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wonder whether we could get a comment from the officials. It's been a little while since we were here. Could either Mr. Hoover or Ms. Campbell give us a comment on it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are you prepared to do that right now, Ms. Campbell?

[Mary Campbell, Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Yes. From a drafting perspective, I think there was additional wording, which Mr. Yumansky has, that refers to “if the information is available”. That would address those situations where it wouldn't be an absolute requirement to enter the information if it's not available.

Although it might seem implicit that one would not enter information that is not available, the drafters seem to feel that out of an abundance of caution the words should be there.

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

Mr. Chair....

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, Mr. Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, 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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacPherson, would you like to make a comment?

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, 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?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Hoover.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Just for procedure, can we pass what we've already done and then make another amendment?