If you look at clause 2 of Bill C-257, you will see that the bill imports the word “Promoting” into the heading that begins the terrorist section. That's the key provision. CPC-2 is effectively doing what we intend to do with the heading.
CPC-1 is an ancillary or consequential provision of Bill C-257, adding proposed section 83.171 to the definition of a terrorism offence in section 2 of the Criminal Code. We know that section 2 of the Criminal Code, like most federal statutes, is a section that prescribes the definitions used through the act. CPC-1 amends the definition in the Criminal Code of specifically the phrase “terrorism offence” to include the newly created offence of proposed section 83.171.
CPC-3 is also an ancillary consequential amendment. It's consequential to the main provisions of Bill C-257, amending the definition of section 183 of the Criminal Code by adding proposed section 83.171. That is another provision in the Criminal Code that deals with definitions. Specifically, it codifies how investigations are run. The intent of the section is not to prescribe anything new. I want to be very clear. We're not inventing anything new here. We're simply saying that given that we have a terrorist offence here, it should be treated like all other terrorist offences under the Criminal Code.
Specifically, this is the one that deals with sentencing. I'm not proposing that sentencing be reformed in any way. All I'm saying in CPC-3, and what Bill C-257 is saying, is that, just like all other offences within Canada's terrorist framework are treated by consecutive sentencing, the new section will be treated in the same way. Again, I suggest that this is a necessary consequential amendment to the key operative amendment, which is really CPC-2.
Finally, CPC-4 is also a Baber amendment, ancillary or consequential to Bill C-257, amending the definition in section 83 of the Criminal Code by adding proposed section 83.171. That, I believe, is the one that deals with investigations of terrorist offences. Again, I don't venture to redefine how Canada security services investigate terrorism. All I'm saying is that this is the framework. Proposed section 83.171 is now a terrorist offence, and it therefore must be imported into the existing framework.
I think that is basically it, in terms of what I'm trying to do.
LIB-2 amends Bill C-9 by amending the hate framework and specifically creating subsections 319(2.4) and 319(2.5), adding to them, but again, does this within the hatred framework of the Criminal Code.
I would also note that there are a few key differences in the section proposed by my friend, which can be found on page 12 of the package. I note that there is no page 11 subsequent to the amendments. New LIB-2 does a couple of things. It amends the hate regime to include the wilful promotion of terrorism, but with three key distinctions.
Number one, Bill C-257 specifically omitted the phrase “other than in private conversation”, whereas Mr. Housefather's amendment maintains that phrase. This is something that Bill C-257 did deliberately because, if we think about it, we're trying to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism. What happens if it's a private conversation? One person approaches another person and tries to promote the activities of a listed entity. Just because it happens in a private conversation, in my view, respectfully, that does not make it excusable or defensible, given the environment we're living in.
I specifically distinguish this from the wilful promotion of hatred. It's very much worth bearing in mind that, to survive constitutional scrutiny, Bill C-257 imports the framework of wilful promotion of hatred and includes the same defences to avoid some of the criticism we had on Bill C-51.
I understand how private conversations involving hatred may be outside of the scope of the state, but I very much suggest that wilful promotion of terrorism in private conversations should not be excluded from the purview of the state.
The second difference—and there are a bunch of them that I'm seeing, but at least these jump out at me—is that Mr. Housefather's amendment prescribes a maximum penalty of two years for the offence he is creating, whereas Bill C-257 and specifically CPC-2 prescribe a maximum of five years. I suggest, regardless of the outcome, that we need to stick with five years, because all of the terrorism offences in section 83 of the Criminal Code prescribe a maximum punishable sentence of five years, so to remain consistent, I propose that we stick with five years.
Finally, in giving consideration to how this should be drafted, legislative counsel was very mindful of the fact that Bill C-257, or CPC-1 through CPC-4, need to survive constitutional scrutiny, which is why CPC-2 tracks the language of wilful promotion of hatred and prescribes for various defences.
I understand that my Bloc friend may have difficulty with one such defence; however, the balance of the defences, I suggest respectfully, should be maintained. Whether the statements are true or the statements were relevant to any subject matter of public interest or in good faith, they were intended to point out the wilful promotion of terrorism and for it to be removed, so I am concerned that what my friend is proposing is weaker in terms of its ability to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Finally, a fourth difference is that Bill C-257 and the CPC amendments prescribe that it would be criminal to wilfully promote terrorist activity, a terrorist group or the activity of a terrorist group, whereas the Housefather amendment, LIB-2, would only criminalize the promotion of terrorist activities or the activities of a terrorist group. Perhaps by omission or by inadvertence, my friend would not criminalize the promotion of a terrorist group on its own but just the activity of a terrorist group or terrorist activity, which I think is an oversight in his amendment.
I apologize that I was lengthy, but I'm glad that everybody understands what we're facing here. We're going to dispose of a lot of amendments if we give this due consideration.
The key question for the officials is this: Where are we doing this? I suggest respectfully that we're dealing with a terrorism offence and, therefore, we need to be doing this within the terrorism framework of the Criminal Code.
I understand that there are scope issues, and I don't concede the scope issues, because we're talking about terrorist symbols and we're talking about what's happening on the streets. This is what's happening on the streets in North York. However, my friend's amendment deals with the hate section that is otherwise already amended in this bill; that's something I concede to. Just because my friend Anthony Housefather wishes to include this amendment in the hate section, that doesn't make this a hate section. You can call a spade a club or a heart, but it's still a spade. It's still a terrorist offence.
Thank you.
