Justice committee  It's already there, and earlier testimony talked about a different overlap. The CBA's position is clear that where there is overlap there should be more clarification of “attempt” in the section. We are saying we should bring clarity to some of the overlap provisions of the code.

Justice committee  To try to make some clarity, page 3 of our brief indicates that such preparatory acts may already be prosecuted using general attempt or counselling provisions of the code. Given this overlap in the relationship between the proposed new provisions and the existing provisions, it

Justice committee  Thank you. The CBA position is very clear that one law should apply to everyone. We acknowledge that there are existing sections under section 25 of the Criminal Code, but those sections have procedural safeguards. Any time any individual breaks the law, there have to be safegu

Justice committee  In Hamilton it referred to another case at paragraph 33. The court went on to say that they were not going down that road of interpreting “reckless”. The concern is that given it hasn't been interpreted by the courts; it's an open question. You have an opportunity as a legislatur

Justice committee  Any time there is an interpretation, not certainty, there's that risk. Given that we're now at the legislation drafting stage, you have an opportunity to be more specific. That's what we're saying.

Justice committee  As I indicated earlier, there needs to be some clarity on this term. By fixing the clarity on that, you would strengthen the bill. The words in Hamilton are “substantial unjustified risk”. If I were making a suggestion to the legislators, that would certainly be more explicit lan

Justice committee  I'm very well aware of the common law. In fact, I'll give you a real-life example that happened 20 years ago. At that time, I actually was a legal aid lawyer. A person was charged with shoplifting a 2¢ screw from a store. The person was a 75-year old veteran who had never been in

Justice committee  It builds it into the statute, which makes it clear to all the players in the system that this type of situation would not be caught. I didn't mean to use up your time.

Justice committee  Yes, we are.

Justice committee  Because you have the exemptions and the procedural safeguards already in place in section 25. The Canadian Bar Association has been on record in the past not to support any more widening of this area. I think in the circumstances, given that you have section 25, it's not necessar

Justice committee  Of course, one is that the CBA's position is very clear that it shouldn't be changed. That's still our position. To answer your question in terms of the paperwork, from my personal perspective and experience I can tell you that whether it's more paperwork or not, the rule of law

Justice committee  That's correct. In other words, we want to be able to cut the market off so that people don't get duped by these things. All you have to have is one victim before you. You realize, yes, you will get a conviction, and yes, you will get a sentence, but there's no doubt that their c

Justice committee  Well, I think it's wide enough that the legislation may apply, and that's our concern. I think this situation should specifically be excluded so it doesn't apply. This is a good piece of legislation, and you don't want someone using it too broadly and making the mistake of prosec

Justice committee  It is obviously in our presentation, but thank you for the question. Obviously what was mentioned by the RCMP, which is an international strategy, is very important. I've had the opportunity of prosecuting cybercrime cases, and we might as well face the reality that these have

Justice committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the honourable members for the opportunity to make a submission today on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association criminal justice section. The Canadian Bar Association criminal justice section commends the efforts of Bill S-4 to add