Evidence of meeting #17 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-14.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Acting Senior Counsel, Youth Criminal Justice Division, Department of Justice
Because courts are already familiar with the provision under the Criminal Code, it's possible that if it's not modelled quite as closely, that may signal that a different interpretation is to be given to the provision being proposed in the YCJ.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
That's why I wanted to clarify that. I understood that BQ-11 was substantive and that BQ-12 is going to be a question of....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay. It's not a translation issue. It's a substantive issue.
We've already voted on it.
Shall clauses 64 to 69 carry?
(Clauses 64 to 69 agreed to)
(On clause 70)
Now we get to clause 70 and BQ-12, which is Mr. Fortin.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, BQ‑12 is kind of the same thing. No, actually, that's not true. Earlier, we were talking about the interpretation. Now we're talking about the substance. With all due respect to my colleagues who said we were dealing with the substance earlier, I think that's what we're dealing with now.
The proposed subsection 110(4.1) in clause 70 reads as follows: “que l’urgence de la situation est telle que la publication immédiate est nécessaire pour les raisons suivantes”. As we understand it, proposed subparagraphs 110(4.1)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) are not three separate options, but rather a set of reasons. That's why we want to add “l'ensemble des” at line 19 so that it reads “publication immédiate est nécessaire pour l’ensemble des raisons suivantes”. In English, it would be “for all of the following reasons”.
That's it.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Maybe this is a question for Ms. Lattanzio.
Did this provision not mean to be effective if one of the criteria is met? If we adopt Monsieur Fortin's motion, you need all three criteria to be met. I'm not sure that's what the government intended.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I think the motion would add language to clarify that all the conditions must be met in urgent situations before the police can publish a youth's identity without a court order. That's my understanding. Therefore, the wording in the motion would clarify the intent of that provision and the exceptional nature of that publication.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm not sure we're here to ask how people feel about it. We can ask factual questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall BQ-12 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 70 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 71 agreed to)
Clause 72 takes us to BQ-13.
February 5th, 2026 / 12:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall clauses 72 to 81 carry?
(Clauses 72 to 81 agreed to)
There is a new clause. Clause 81.1 takes us to BQ-15.
Mr. Fortin, go ahead
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
BQ‑15 is our proposal for what's known as a sunset clause, a five-year review of the provisions of Bill C‑14, which we are about to adopt.
The amendment would add the following wording:
Review of Act 81.(1) As soon as possible after the fifth anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the provisions enacted by this Act are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the provisions. (2) The committee to which the provisions are referred is to review them and submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends.
You may recall that, during the minister's testimony, I asked for his thoughts on the possibility of including such a clause in the bill. I don't remember his answer word for word, but I believe he said he might consider it, or something like that.
We think it would be a good idea. This is a very serious bill. It would put more people behind bars. I think we need to handle this with as much due diligence and caution as possible.
I therefore propose this sunset clause.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
For the benefit of others, if BQ-15 is adopted, CPC-13 cannot be moved, as they seek to add the same provision to the bill.
Shall BQ-15 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
(On clause 82)
Now we're on clause 82, which is G-13.
Ms. Lattanzio, go ahead.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
The motion amends the transitional provisions in clause 82 in order for the National Defence Act to align with the approach taken for the Criminal Code regarding prospective and retrospective applications—the provisions that govern how the proposed amendments would affect matters before the courts at the time that a bill comes into force.
As drafted, there is an inconsistency between the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act. New aggravating factors under the Criminal Code would apply retrospectively, while corresponding National Defence Act provisions would apply prospectively. This motion ensures that the aggravating factors being added to the National Defence Act apply retrospectively, as it is proposed in the Criminal Code.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall G-13 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 82 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 83 and 84 agreed to)
Are you ready for this?
Shall the short title carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I want to hear a little more enthusiasm in this part.
Shall the title carry?