Evidence of meeting #30 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bloc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Since amendment BQ-1 has been defeated, there is no longer any reason for amendment BQ-2. Amendment BQ-2 was there only if amendment BQ-1 had been passed. So, very sadly, I withdraw amendment BQ-2, which no longer has any purpose.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Seeing no further discussion, I'll call the question on government amendment number 1.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 3)
We have a Liberal amendment. Mr. Murphy, do you want introduce it?
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm interested, as a result of some of the evidence we heard, in proposed section 353.1. Some of the evidence would indicate, and my experience would indicate, that an excuse--in other words, “Every person commits an offence...without lawful excuse”--opens up to the defence reasons why a person might wholly or partially alter, remove, or obliterate a VIN number. The saving proposed subsection 353.1(3) lays on further that it is not an offence to wholly or partially remove or obliterate a VIN if you're doing it during regular maintenance or any repair or other work done on the vehicle for a legitimate purpose, including a modification on the vehicle. It would seem to me that if we're trying to write good legislation, that part is redundant, because “without lawful excuse” covers it.
What I'm interested in knowing, perhaps from Mr. Bartlett, is whether there is a reason for the exception that isn't covered by “without lawful excuse”.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
To a large extent, it is an illustration of some particular lawful excuses that would apply, but it makes it crystal clear up front that this offence does not intend to bring within its scope the kind of ordinary legitimate repair and modification that could result in one or more VINs on a vehicle being modified or removed entirely.
There are up to 17 VINs on vehicles. They can be on places like the door, so if a door is involved in a collision and is removed, then a VIN will be removed. The intent of this offence is not to capture that kind of activity, and it makes it clear up front so that the people engaged in those industries don't have to worry about going into court and defending themselves on the basis of this being a lawful excuse.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Can I follow up on that?
Mr. Bartlett, would defining a specific circumstance basically for the trade and the people involved in legitimate vehicle repair shops and so on exclude any other excuses, such as those for a home hobbyist person who unknowingly obliterates a VIN? If VINs are all over the place, a person could obliterate a VIN on parts, perhaps.
I'm not trying to get into quasi-criminal offence discussions, but this looks like a fairly strict liability offence in which “unknowingly” or maybe “without care” may not be an excuse. I would like your comment on that.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The offence is drawn fairly broadly because the only alternative to drawing it broadly and then providing for appropriate exemptions is to insert some sort of specific intent, which would make it very difficult to prove an intent to conceal the identity of the vehicle. That is the primary concern here. Inserting that sort of intent would make it very difficult to prove, so we've drawn it fairly broadly.
The exemptions come in two ways. The exception in proposed subsection 353.1(3) does not really limit the lawful excuse; it goes at it in a slightly different way. It simply says that despite the broad range of the activity set out in proposed subsection 353.1(1), it does not extend. It is not intended that this offence extend to those actions that result in a VIN being altered or removed in the course of regular maintenance or repair, including modification. The lawful excuse, however, will remain for any other case in which the person charged can give some explanation for the action that would convince a court that there was a lawful excuse. One doesn't limit the other, and they have the effect of making it clear what the intended and the effective scope of the offence is.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I think you said it clearly, but just to be clear, you don't think that proposed subsection 353.1(3) limits “without lawful excuse” for other reasons.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No. The defence of lawful excuse will still be there. You apply subsection 353.1(3) to subsection 353.1(1) and say subsection 353.1(1) simply doesn't include this activity: “Despite subsection (1), it is not an offence to...”. Then “without lawful excuse” remains as a residual defence that the accused can mount.
Proposed subsection 353.1(3) is something you would consider right up front. Is this activity something that was part of legitimate repair and maintenance? If so, it's not captured by subsection 353.1(1). The lawful excuse would kick in after you'd shown that the action that occurred under subsection 353.1(1) had occurred and that subsection 353.1(1) appeared to have been offended. Then the person puts forward some sort of lawful excuse.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy, did you actually make the amendment? You filed it with the committee, but I don't recall your making it. You're saying it wasn't moved, and that's it was withdrawn. That takes care of it.
We will move to clause 3.
Go ahead, Mr. Dosanjh.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Murphy is satisfied, but I am actually not satisfied. That's why I raised the question.
If he hadn't brought the amendment forward, I probably wouldn't have noticed it, but the way it's crafted is rather confusing. It would be my humble submission that a judge could, in fact, narrowly read the lawful excuse to include only what you mention in the subsequent subsection. You may disagree, but that would be my reading on the face of it.
Mr. Murphy's original suspicion is reasonably founded, and I'm going to leave it at that. I am not satisfied that this section protects the lawful excuse defence as fully as it ought to, because of the prescription that you have in the subsection.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can only say, Mr. Dosanjh, that we've looked at it pretty carefully. We're satisfied that the lawful excuse defence in proposed subsections 353.1(1) and 353.1(3) operate independently and that subsection 353.1(3) will not restrict other lawful excuses that could be put forward. Although subsection 353.1(3) will probably cover 99% of the possible grounds on which this sort of activity could occur legitimately, if somebody can advance something else that's not described in subsection 353.1(3) that a court would accept as a lawful excuse, that defence will remain.
Liberal
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The lawful excuse will remain for that 1%.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Given that we don't have an amendment now for clause 3 and we have no other amendments proposed right up to and including clause 11, are you willing to do this in an omnibus motion?
(Clauses 3 to 11 inclusive agreed to)
Shall the title pass?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
We'll suspend for five minutes and then move on to the impaired driving report.
[Proceedings continue in camera]