Evidence of meeting #14 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-9.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
No, ameliorate.
See, we're all learning things today.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I want to be helpful. When I spoke earlier, I was pointing to the policy intent and the purpose, mindful that I can't provide advice on this amendment.
Is there another specific question with respect to...?
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I'll rephrase it.
Do you believe that the amendment put forward by Mr. Baber is in keeping with the spirit of the policy in this section of the bill?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think that puts us in a bit of a difficult position in being able to respond directly to your question. If the committee thinks the amendment is consistent with the policy intent of the bill, we would invite you to proceed with your meeting.
I think we were clear, and Ms. Breese was clear, as to the original policy intent of the language. This would maybe narrow it slightly, but the provision would remain on the books to maybe provide some support to Crown prosecutors and police who are looking for guidance on what symbols would fall under the offence.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Okay. I don't want to do the thing that I'm sure frustrates people. I legitimately do not want to put words in your mouth, but would you view this amendment as diverging from the policy intention and legislative goal of the section as it is? That's really what I'm asking here. Do you believe that this amendment is fundamentally altering the policy direction? Do you think this is a divergence from the intention that you and/or the Minister of Justice had when drafting this section?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm trying to be helpful. I think the question is whether it is the committee's intent to change the policy the department has shared at the outset with respect to—
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off. I'm trying not to put you into that realm.
Let's go back to first principles. What is the policy intention of this particular section? What was the direction your department was given that led to that?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Perhaps what I can do is speak to what this amendment would do technically, as opposed to the policy intent behind the amendment that is being proposed.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If I were to read, for example, “that it is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b)”.... Did I get that correct?
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Yes. It's “that it is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b)”.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
At first glance, the “is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b)” would appear to mean the symbol described in proposed paragraph (a) or (b).
There is barely any difference.
I don't know how to say it. Basically, proposed paragraph 319(2.2)(c) would capture a symbol that resembles (a) and (b) and that is likely to be (a) and (b).
Again, there's not much difference, I would say, between paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). That's plain reading.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I realize you are not in law enforcement, but if this were to come before a courtroom you were working in, would you view this as being an amendment that provides greater clarity in how to interpret that offence?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think I'm delving beyond my role as a technical expert with that type of question. I can speak to the technical aspects, which I've just done.
If that is the committee's desired interpretation, then the committee would be best able to respond to whether that empowers law enforcement to better understand the provision.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I'm moving a subamendment to my colleague Mr. Baber's amendment.
I do this not out of disrespect to Mr. Baber. We're trying to come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone at this committee and also address the overall concerns I had at the outset with my original amendment, which was voted down.
I appreciate the input from both Ms. Wells and Ms. Breese. I hope you are not concerned about us questioning you. I appreciate that you can't give us legal advice; you can't provide us with a legal opinion. You are here to help. What I'm picking up when I read between the lines is some degree of hesitation. I don't think you would support or not support a potential amendment. It's the will of the committee.
I think there is a compromise here. I wish everybody would pay attention and hear me out on this. I propose that we take the existing language in proposed paragraph (c) so that it would now read, “a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b).” There's no further explanation beyond that.
I think that provides a very clear direction to law enforcement. We still get into interpretation issues in a trial in terms of a subjective or objective analysis, but we don't have to worry about that. That's for a different day and a different discussion.
I think it clarifies your concerns, Ms. Breese, that the amendment brought by Mr. Baber may be more confusing than clear.
That would be my subamendment. I don't have it drafted, but I can certainly do that when the bells are ringing. I understand that we are not providing unanimous consent. I think there's a will from both the Liberal team and the Conservative team to actually attend at the House for the purposes of voting. In the interim, I can draft this in both official languages.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I propose that subamendment would not be receivable on Mr. Baber's motion, which substituted words. You would be cutting off the entire sentence that Mr. Baber substituted. I don't believe that's a proper subamendment to Mr. Baber's motion.
I would ask you to rule that way, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
The bells are ringing, so we are going to suspend.
I have a solution that might get us through this, which we can do during the break.
We'll suspend until after the votes and ask everybody to be here 15 minutes after the last vote.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
It's until the tally of the vote is declared. It's not after the last vote, but the tally.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
If you want to get out of your chair before, that's fine. Go ahead, by all means.