Evidence of meeting #138 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was version.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Niagara Falls, CPC
Well, all this is saying is that if they are, in fact, born, they are not caught up in this. I agree with Ms. Klineberg here that this would actually provide some clarification. I don't think this is controversial.
(Amendment negatived)
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, essentially, on CPC-2, we're looking to broaden the definition of the research to include conservation work. Ex situ conservation literally means off-site conservation. It is a process of protecting an endangered species outside its natural habitat by, for example, removing part of the population from a threatened habitat and placing it in a new location, which may be a wild area or within the care of humans.
With that, I propose that Bill S-203, in clause 2, be amended, by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:
Conducting scientific research or participating in an ex situ conservation program pursuant to a licence is-
(Amendment negatived)
April 2nd, 2019 / 3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, we've heard, from testimony, concern that someone visiting a show with cetaceans present could be unwittingly breaking the law. This amendment and CPC-3.1 are just two different ways to deal with this concern. If the committee has a preference as to which amendment works better, I will move the appropriate amendment and withdraw the other.
With that, we propose that Bill S-203, in clause 2, be amended, by replacing lines 18 to 27 on page 2 with the following:
(4) Every one commits an offence who promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive cetaceans they own, have custody of or control are used for performance for entertainment purposes.
(4.1) Subsection (4) does not apply if the performance is authorized pursuant to a licence issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province or by any other person or authority in the province that may be specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
(Amendment negatived)
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, in this version we're only adding the word “knowingly”. Again, we're just trying to avoid catching people who unwittingly attend events that include proscribed activities. I will bring us back to the testimony we heard previously with Justice Sinclair. In his final answer to the question I asked, he said, “I think so,” in terms of reading this piece of legislation.
I also asked Ms. Klineberg about that, and her comment was similar, in terms of ambiguity. Also, in terms of viewing, or knowingly selling or gifting animals to facilities outside of our country that participate in this, it would seem reasonable to not authorize the export of the animal. We're saying that there's ambiguity, and reasonable concern that Canadians could unwittingly take part and attend events that may be in contravention of S-203.
With that, Mr. Chair, we propose that S-203, in clause 2, be amended, by replacing line 18 on page 2 with the following:
(4) Every one commits an offence who knowingly promotes, ar-
We're inserting one word: “knowingly”.
3:45 p.m.
Niagara Falls, CPC
I think that's a pretty reasonable amendment. You want to make sure that anybody who might get charged under this is somebody who really is participating in this for the exact wrong reason. The amendment proposed by my colleague is saying that if somebody has to knowingly get involved with something like this, then somebody who's just being part of an entertainment package, or just wanders into something, shouldn't be convicted of a criminal offence on that.
This will help clarify that. This is good.
3:45 p.m.
Blaine Calkins Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC
At the heart of the question on this amendment is the issue of mens rea. I wonder if Ms. Klineberg can give us her advice on this. In an amendment to the Criminal Code, usually there has to be a wilful intent or intent to be shown in order for serious convictions or prosecutions to proceed.
Without the word “knowingly”, does that change the level of the bar for a criminal charge being laid and prosecuted, and would we indeed actually capture people who, without knowledge, are committing either negligence, recklessness, wilful blindness or the other types of mens rea?
3:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
While in our view it's always good drafting for Parliament to expressly articulate the mental element for particular offences, there are certainly examples in the Criminal Code of offences that don't have a particular mens rea articulated. The Supreme Court has made clear that when we're in the domain of criminal law, even if Parliament hasn't seen fit to articulate what the mental state is, the courts will determine what mental state is required, but it wouldn't be possible to convict someone who didn't have some blameworthy state of mind.
That said, though, sometimes one of the things we look to is the action verbs in a particular offence. Sometimes action verbs imply a mental state in and of themselves. It's difficult to conceive of someone promoting something or receiving money for something when they didn't know what they were promoting or what they were receiving money for.
There's a good argument that “knowingly” for sure makes the law clearer, but without “knowingly”, the sorts of action verbs that you have in this offence imply a subjective, knowing state of mind in any event.
3:45 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Hearing no further discussion, I will call the vote on the proposed amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
Shall clause 2 carry?
Mr. Fraser.
3:45 p.m.
West Nova, Lib.
I thought we were voting on that.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
(On clause 3)
3:45 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
On clause 3, we have amendment LIB-1.
Mr. Finnigan.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Mr. Chair, at this time I will withdraw my amendment.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
3:50 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
On new clause 3.1, amendment LIB-2, Mr. Finnigan.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Okay.
On new clause 3.2, amendment LIB-3, Mr. Finnigan.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Mr. Chair, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
(On clause 4)
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, I will turn it over to our colleague Mr. Nicholson.
As we heard during testimony on March 18, there was clearly an oversight in the Senate and the French language translation does not match the English version. Both this amendment and the subsequent CPC-3.3 are two different ways of tackling the same problem. If the committee has a preference as to which one they would like to see, I have no problem withdrawing one of the amendments.
With that, I will turn it over to our colleague, whose French is far better than mine.
3:50 p.m.
Niagara Falls, CPC
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, obviously both language versions have to be completely in line with each other. It's not easy to draw up legislation. As our official from the Department of Justice knows, you have two systems of law, civil law and common law, and you have French and English. Getting it right is always a bit of a challenge.
In fact, there are some legal words such as the word “mortgage” in English, in the common law or something, that are not quite the same thing en français. At the same time, this bill has two different versions here, and the amendment is just to try to align them.
I'm not sure if you got this, but there's a letter here from a former justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Major, who had a look at this and said we should make sure we align it.
As it stands now, the version in one language refers to a specific section of the bill and the other one doesn't. Therefore, all we have done here, in collaboration with Mr. Doherty and our colleagues, is come up with a way they will mean the same in both official languages.
It is straightforward, and certainly I hope there is support for it. As I say, it is agreed to by the Honourable Justice Major, formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada. He's the one who was saying, yes, we have to do this.
It sometimes happens. We've all encountered this, but a simple amendment here to make it coordinate is all we're asking for at this point in time and it's an important thing to do. We can't have a bill that's different in each of the official languages.