Justice Committee on March 8th, 2012

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I just want to say technically that the line numbers are wrong. It should read that the clause “...be amended by replacing line 28 on page 2 to line 14 on page 3...”. Also, “35” should be changed to “35(1)”.

In the French, it should say

“et se terminant à la ligne 16”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

In our view, the current wording as proposed is clear and is the best approach. The new defence of property provision in Bill C-26 is intended to clearly establish that the person is not guilty of an offence when the person acts to defend the property in accordance with the law.

Mr. Cotler's proposed amendment would characterize the defence as a justification, for the same reasons as given in relation to the same proposed changes to section 34.

We don't agree with this. There is nothing special about a justification defence relative to an excuse or other types of defence. We feel that a modern criminal law need not continue to use this terminology. It's clear that if the elements of the defence are present, a person then is not guilty of the offence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it's basically reframing and restating the same arguments we made earlier, so I think we know where we're going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Seeing no further interventions, I shall put the question on amendment LIB-3.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on amendment NDP-7.1.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Amendment NDP-7.1 is similar to the other two amendments, the first of which was defeated, so we will not be moving this one for obvious reasons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Next is amendment NDP-8.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Amendment NDP-8 is similar to the previous one: “circumstances as perceived by the person”.

We will move this, but we won't debate it any further.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

The question is on amendment NDP-8.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is amendment NDP-8.1.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We are not moving amendment NDP-8.1, for obvious reasons.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

You are not moving it?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We are not moving it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Next is amendment Liberal-4. Mr. Cotler, are you not moving it?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It has been overtaken.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Next comes amendment NDP-9.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We're not moving it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You're not moving it?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

You're doing a great job there, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Shall clause 2 carry as amended?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Well, no, we're not finished yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We're just finishing clause 2.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Oh, clause 2? I see. I'm sorry, sir.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Oh yes, that's true.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

The clerk has the chair in order—