Justice Committee on Nov. 8th, 2017

[Matthew Taylor]

You'll carry that through. Then, as you've said, you'd make the same change in paragraph (b). Amendment CPC-2 also talks about, in proposed subsection 176(2), wilfully disturbing or interrupting a “religious service”. I'll point that out. You follow that all the way through.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

All the way through. That's what Mr. Cooper was suggesting.

[Matthew Taylor]

It would appear to address the issues raised in both of the amendments. As for one formulation over another, I think that's ultimately for you to decide.

The fact that you speak of an “officiant” who is performing a religious service, I think provides the context that is helpful from a criminal law perspective, versus whether you said “a religious official” performing a religious service. I think it takes you to the same place.

At the end of the day, your focus is the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I appreciate the attempt here, but, first of all, with regard to “officiant”, I don't think there's a hard time understanding what that means, especially when it's in the context of “an officiant from celebrating a religious or spiritual service”. The definition is there, and what follows the word “officiant”.... I mean, we are talking about the difference between an “official” and an “officiant”. I believe it is clear in what it says. I believe Canadians would understand what that means.

Rather than trying to play around with all the words in CPC-2, my take is that I will vote against CPC-2 in favour of LIB-2, which doesn't require all of these amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Clearly, in Mr. Fraser's amendment, he uses the term “religious or spiritual service”. In that context, by simply adding “religious or spiritual official”, frankly, it is a lot clearer in capturing the language that Mr. Fraser put in his amendment.

I would submit that CPC-2 is a lot clearer to understand, and it captures the language in Mr. Fraser's amendment, whereas his doesn't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay.

Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I think I've been convinced by Mr. Cooper's argument on the subamendment. In just following the language that Mr. Fraser used, it's a good argument.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Again, colleagues, so that we know what we're voting on, I will read it in its entirety so that everybody understands. It will now read, in subclause13.1(1), proposed paragraph 176(1)(a), “by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or attempts to obstruct or prevent a religious or spiritual official from celebrating religious or spiritual service or performing any other function in connection with their religious or spiritual office, or”.

Tell me if I am ever wrong, Mr. Cooper.

Then, in proposed paragraph 176(1)(b), “knowing that a religious or spiritual official is about to perform”. That's the only change in paragraph (b)

Then moving to proposed subsection 176(2), it would say, “Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts a religious or spiritual service or an assemblage of persons met for religious or spiritual worship”.

Is that basically correct?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Colleagues, those are the subamendments in each place.

Mr. McKinnon, did you want to intervene?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I also appreciate the attempts to bring everything into line, but I agree with Mr. Fraser.

There is more wording in this amendment. There are more wording differences than just that. Also, in amended 176(2), I don't think we need to have it in there at all. I think the original proposed subsection is broader, or at least as broad.

On balance, after hearing all of the excellent arguments, I'm going to support Mr. Fraser's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay.

Right now, colleagues, unless there's any other discussion on the amendment to the amendment, or the subamendment, I'm going to call a vote on the subamendment, meaning the changes I just read out.

It's Mr. Cooper's amendment to Mr. Nicholson's motion.

(Subamendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Now we come back to the principal amendment from Mr. Nicholson, as amended by Mr. Cooper's subamendment.

Mr. Nicholson, do you want to close?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think it's the right thing to do.

I'm very appreciative of all the individuals who have contacted me. I'm sure other colleagues here were quite concerned that in this day and age, we would be removing the specific protection for religious services and those who perform those services.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

We're voting on Mr. Nicholson's amendment CPC-2.

(Amendment as amended negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we move to the very similar LIB-2.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I don't think I really need to comment. I think everything was said while we were discussing the previous amendment, which was extremely similar. I reiterate everything I said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

That was brief and succinct.

Are there any further comments on LIB-2?

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you.

I wasn't sure if I should comment or not. I just think it's noteworthy to mention the amount of testimony we heard. One witness came in just after having testified at the heritage committee with respect to motion 103. That motion was referred to a lot during all the testimony we heard.

I'm very appreciative of this committee understanding what Canadians want and of our going ahead and putting this section back into the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

There are no amendments proposed to change “officiant” to anything else? No. Okay.

We'll move to the vote on LIB-2.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 14)

We have identical amendments, CPC-3 and LIB-3. Let me just explain what I believe is the effect.

CPC-3 and LIB-3 will essentially restore, except as we amended it, the previous version of section 176. LIB-2, which was just adopted, deals with the first parts but not the old subsections 176(2) and (3). In the event that CPC-3 and LIB-3 are adopted, we restore (2) and (3) as they originally existed in section 176 of the Criminal Code.

I think that was everybody's intention, but I just want to be clear to everybody that this is what I believe it means. Since they're identical, I consider them both moved, because one would defeat the other anyway.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

Colleagues, does anybody have an amendment for clauses 15 through 18? If not, is there any objection to voting on clauses 15 through 18 together?

Not seeing any objection, shall clauses 15 through 18 carry?

(Clauses 15 to 18 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 19)

We move to amendment LIB-4, which is identical to LIB-1 except in a different place.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks.

I'll reiterate everything I said in connection to amendment LIB-1. Basically, this adds the wording that clearly consent must be contemporaneous, at the time of sexual activity, and it must be ongoing. A person cannot consent in advance, which effectively codifies J.A. I believe this language will make it more clear by adding this wording before we get to the sections that are already in the bill. It clearly identifies that “whether no consent” is a question of law, and ensures that the defence is still available for a mistaken belief in consent as it pertains to a mistake of fact.

For those reasons, and similar to the reasons I gave in LIB-1, I would seek to have this amendment passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I'll just note that, if we don't amend it, then clause 10 and clause 19 will be different, which would also be problematic.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

That's a good point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are there any further comments?

I'll just note again that the word “termes” in the French has to have that “e” again. It's the same as LIB-1, the same error.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move to the next one on our list here, PV-1. Ms May, unfortunately, had to be at a different committee, but her amendment is deemed moved for discussion.

Does anyone wish to speak to Ms. May's amendment?

Mr. MacGregor.