Evidence of meeting #114 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion on CPC-62?
Mr. Clerk, can we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 117 agreed to)
(On clause 118)
We'll now turn to CPC-63.
Mr. Cooper.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
This is an amendment addressing the reclassification of offences in Bill C-75. This amendment would be to maintain the offence of pretending to solemnize marriage as a strictly indictable offence.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 118 agreed to)
(On clause 119)
Let's look at CPC-64.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
This is another reclassification amendment. This amendment would be to maintain the offence of marriage contrary to law as a strictly indictable offence.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion on CPC-64?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 119 agreed to)
(On clause 120)
We move on to clause 120 and CPC-65.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is another amendment dealing with reclassification. Bill C-75 would reclassify the offence of libel known to be false from a strictly indictable offence to a hybrid offence. This amendment would maintain the status quo of its being treated strictly as an indictable offence.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion on CPC-65?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 120 agreed to)
(On clause 121)
Next we move to CPC-66.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Not to continue sounding like a broken record, but this is another reclassification offence, in this instance dealing with the offence of extortion by libel. Bill C-75 reclassifies it to be a hybrid offence. This would maintain it as a strictly indictable offence.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion on CPC-66?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings)
(Clause 121 agreed to)
(On clause 122)
We go to CPC-67.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Chair, this amendment deals with reclassification of the offence of advocating genocide.
Mr. Chair, I don't think I need to explain why advocating genocide is a serious offence, and I would certainly hope that the members opposite would do the right thing and maintain this offence as a strictly indictable offence.
I would ask for a recorded vote on this one.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I made statements earlier, at the last meeting, regarding both terrorism-related offences and this one, regarding advocating genocide. For those reasons I will be supporting this amendment.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
What we saw in Pittsburgh really moved me in a way that I feel we need to do more. We need to continue to be really strong advocates against genocide. In understanding the nature of where we are right now—and keeping in mind Mr. Fraser's comments about the very small number of offences that are prosecuted under this provision—I feel this should not be included in the hybridization section. I am really in solidarity with all those who have experienced genocide, and I will continue to do my part, as I know that all of our members will do their part, to ensure that we don't face this again.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We've asked for a recorded vote, please, Mr. Clerk.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 122 as amended agreed to)
Clause 123 is carried. There are no amendments.
(Clause 123 agreed to on division)
(On clause 124)
We'll now move to clause 124 and CPC-68.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Chair, this is again related to reclassification of offences. This amendment would make the offence of theft a strictly indictable offence, as opposed to what Bill C-75 proposes, which is to make it a hybrid offence.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion on CPC-68?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 124 agreed to)
(On clause 125)
Next we move to clause 125 and CPC-69.
Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
This is another reclassification amendment. This would maintain the offence of fraudulently taking cattle as a strictly indictable offence.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Can I ask the department for just a little bit of clarity about what, actually, the offence here pertains to?
1:30 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Just very quickly, it's all related to conduct around the theft of cattle, whether it's defacing a brand on an animal to deceive other people that the cattle actually belong to the person who's defaced the brand, or just the fraudulent taking of cattle. It's a historical offence. It relates to early Canada and property interests in cattle, and the importance that cattle had in the lives of many individuals. That's the rationale for this distinct offence.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, in light of those comments, it would appear to me that it's appropriate that there can be a range of ways that this type of offence could be completed, and therefore having it as a hybrid offence would make sense to me. Therefore I won't support the amendment.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Chair, just to respond to Mr. Fraser's comment, that may or may not be so, but that's really the problem with Bill C-75. The government has just copied and pasted dozens and dozens of sections of the Criminal Code and simply said, “We're reclassifying all of them” to make them hybrid offences, without anything more. I say that's not good enough. It's not good enough in the face of no evidence, no consideration given in the course of the committee to this particular section, why Parliament at one time treated it as an offence that should be solely indictable, and what the government proposes to do today.
On that basis, we are taking the position that we are going to maintain the status quo in respect of all of these offences. If there comes a time when there is a place and a time to actually look at this offence and hear some evidence and get an understanding of the history of this particular section of the Criminal Code, maybe that could be done. That's not the approach that this government has decided to take.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay. Everybody's comments were made.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 125 agreed to)
(On clause 126)
Next we move to CPC-70 and clause 126.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment, again, deals with the reclassification of an offence. This offence is taking possession of drift timber. For the same reasons I provided in the case of the offence related to cattle, I would similarly urge that this offence be, at this time, maintained as a strictly indictable offence.