Evidence of meeting #37 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right. Right now we have three more people wanting to speak on this.
Mr. Rathgeber, you're next. No? All right.
We move on to Mr. Petit. No?
Mr. Norlock.
October 7th, 2009 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Okay. We have an amendment on the table. It's Mr. Comartin's amendment as he has amended it. So it's as I read it earlier.
All those in favour?
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Could you not see that before we were made aware of the amendment? I made that point in my argument.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
I would appreciate it if you would write it down and then submit it.
We'll just take a break while he does that.
All right. I'm going to ask the clerk to read the subamendment into the record, if you could listen closely, those of you who don't understand French.
4:15 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Miriam Burke
The proposed subamendment would be inserted directly after the words “Emergency Preparedness” and would read as follows: “of Canada or the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Public Safety or the Solicitor General of a province or territory”.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Does everybody understand that subamendment?
Is there any further debate on the subamendment?
(Subamendment negatived)
We move now to the amendment, Mr. Comartin's original amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
We move now to the main motion.
(Clause 7 agreed to on division)
(Clause 8 agreed to)
(On clause 9)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
The NDP has an amendment, and the reference number is 4126771. Take that amendment out, please, and Mr. Comartin will want to present it.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's along the same lines as the previous amendment, in that I think the proposed change is simply too broad. As I indicated in some of the questions I asked when this issue was raised—I think two meetings back—there is a requirement for this section to be in here in order to get around the provisions of the Criminal Code's section 25, and more specifically section 25.1.
What those sections are about, and Mr. Ménard and Ms. Jennings have already referred to it, is that we passed those amendments in order to provide protection for police officers when in the course of their employment they were compelled—usually when they were undercover—to commit criminal acts. They were particularly concerned about acts that entailed violence or force. But the sections certainly go far beyond that, including, I believe, to catching this type of conduct of creating a false identity, now that we passed these amendments, for the rest of the act. This section is necessary, in effect, to extricate police officers from the provisions of section 25.1.
I don't think that is what is desirable in a democratic society; it extends too much authority, really, to individual police officers. What I have proposed with this amendment to proposed section 368.2, if I have the same version as everybody else—it's part of clause 9 of the bill—is to add to the end of it. What we're saying up to this point, in the amendment the government has proposed, is that if the police officer is doing this for the “purpose of establishing or maintaining a covert identity for use in the course of the public officer's duties or employment”.... This would add to that: “and if a competent authority, as defined in subsection 25.1(1), authorized the public officer to do so”.
What subsection 25.1(1) does is create really three categories of authority. One is a member who's a “public officer” or “senior official”, and then they go on to say in paragraph 25.1(a) that “in the case of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police”, it would be “the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness” who would authorize this type of activity to go on. Paragraph 25.1(b) goes on: if it's a police service at the provincial level, it's “the Minister responsible for policing in the province”. Then there's a third category in paragraph 25.1(c): “in the case of any other public officer or senior official, the Minister who has responsibility for the Act of Parliament that the officer or official has the power to enforce”. That would cover the mention we've already had from the officials of people acting at border service agencies or the Department of National Defence, and then you go down through the list of people operating in the field under the ministers of the environment or of natural resources.
It then goes on in that section to define “public officer” and “senior official”.
What we would be incorporating by this amendment is moving away from a police officer as an individual being able to make the decision as to whether to have a covert identity, to having that person make the decision but also having the authority from those senior members of the department. In fact, the way this has worked is that the authority is delegated down through the police forces and other agencies to the local level.
Those are my comments.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I would like to make you aware of a difference between the English and French wording, even though the end result is exactly the same. However, for the sake of those who will be called on to interpret it in the future, it might be preferable to say the same thing in exactly the same way, in French and English, in order not to confuse people trying to understand provisions which are already fairly obscure.
The fact is that comparisons are very often made of the wording in one language and the other. In this case, the French wording of the amendment does not refer to subsection 25.1(1), but only to “this subsection”.
The French wording of this clause begins as follows: “Le fonctionnaire public, au sens du paragraphe 25.1(1)”, whereas the English wording of the same clause begins with the words: “No public officer, as defined in subsection 25.1(1)”. So, it is clear that, if it is within the meaning of that subsection, it is also within the meaning of that section. However, I do not understand why the same formulation was not used in French. Personally, I prefer the French wording, although people trying to understand what this is all about will find the English wording clearer, since it specifically refers to subsection 25.1(1).
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I have other comments to make in other areas, but I will save them for later.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Are you referring to this particular clause, which is clause 9, or are you referring to a different clause?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Do you want to speak on this amendment after Mr. Woodworth is finished?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
First I want to commend Mr. Comartin. I find his amendments today to be lucid and very astute, even though I don't necessarily agree with them. I just want to make it clear that I respect his expertise in these matters.
In a way I'm sorry that this proposal in clause 9 regarding an exemption for public officers doesn't follow somewhat the same wording as in clause 7. Be that as it may, I don't think I can accept Mr. Comartin's solution, because subsection 25.1(1), in referring to the Minister of Public Safety and other ministers responsible, uses the word “personally”.
Although I stand to be corrected, because I may be outside my sphere of experience on this one, I don't know how that could be interpreted as to permit the delegation of that authority, as Mr. Comartin is suggesting might be the case. If I'm correct that personally means personally and not through a delegated act, then it would be far too restrictive to reference that section in this particular proposed amendment.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I agree with the amendment, which reinforces the certainty that it cannot simply be in the course of a person's duties or employment—in other words, that it also must have been authorized. If we can choose either the English or French wording, and if this can be expressed the same way in both languages, I will support the proposed amendment.
