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.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I would just ask the department and the analysts what the nature of this offence is. What does this entail?
1:30 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
It's very similar in the sense that it particularizes a certain type of theft, in terms of lumber or driftwood or equipment related to the lumber industry. My hunch, again, is that historically its presence in the code relates to the importance of that industry in the early years of Canada as a country. That would be my understanding of how that offence operates.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Sorry, I have some further questions.
Do you know how many offences have been laid under this specific section?
1:30 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I don't have that data with me. I don't think it's many, but we would have to verify that with our colleagues at Statistics Canada.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
What is the maximum prison sentence with respect to this?
1:30 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
The maximum is five years.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
That's five years in prison for stealing lumber.
Thank you.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I will now move to a vote on CPC-70.
(Amended negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 126 agreed to)
(On clause 127)
Next we move to CPC-71, on clause 127.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This, again, is a reclassification amendment. Bill C-75 would reclassify the offence of destroying documents of title to a hybrid offence. This would maintain it as a strictly indictable offence.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion on CPC-71?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 127 agreed to)
(On clause 128)
On clause 128, we have CPC-72.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Chair, this amendment relates to reclassification. Bill C-75 would reclassify the offence of fraudulent concealment; namely, everyone “who, for a fraudulent purpose, takes, obtains, removes or conceals anything” is currently subject to a solely indictable offence, with a term of imprisonment of up to two years.
The bill would reclassify it; this amendment would maintain it. We do note that even in the case of two years versus two years less a day, a day is important. We're going to urge for the passage of this amendment.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion on CPC-72?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 128 and 129 agreed to on division)
(On clause 130)
On clause 130, we have CPC-73.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Chair, this amendment is again related to reclassification of offences. This particular offence involves an individual who has masked his or her face. It's the “Disguise with intent” section of the Criminal Code. Bill C-75 would hybridize this offence. We would urge that it be maintained as a strictly indictable offence, as it presently is under the Criminal Code.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion on CPC-73?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 130 agreed to)
(On clause 131)
On clause 131, we have CPC-74.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Chair, this is again a reclassification amendment, to maintain the offence of possession of instruments for breaking into coin-operated or currency exchange devices as a strictly indictable offence.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion on CPC-74?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 131 agreed to)
(On clause 132)
On clause 132, we have CPC-75.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Again, it's reclassification of the offence, to maintain the subject offence related to the selling of automobiles as a strictly indictable offence.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I have a quick question for the department. What's the maximum sentence for that as a straight indictable right now?
1:35 p.m.
Shannon Davis-Ermuth Legal Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
It's two years, per section 353 on selling an automobile master key.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I have another one for the department. My understanding is that if someone is convicted of an offence of two years, it would be possible to serve that sentence either in a provincial or in a federal facility. Is that correct?
1:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
If it's two years, it would be in a federal facility. If it's two years less a day, it would be in a provincial facility.