Evidence of meeting #41 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mackenzie.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Procedural Clerk
We can deal with the subamendment and then add more to it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay, let's vote on the subamendment. I think we've had enough discussion.
(Subamendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Do we have to change it before we go to the main amendment?
Do you have another copy of what you've given to me, Mr. MacKenzie, or should I just read it into the record?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay.
We're going to add the part after “method of operation” as an amendment, because we have already passed the other part.
Do you want to move that subamendment and read it into the record?
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
We are amending clause 34.1, section 8 of the act, to say:
in relation to the offence or offences if that information is available to the person who registers information.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
So we're simply adding that to the part we've already passed.
For clarification, let me explain that we have passed the subamendment so it says “their method of operating” instead of “modus operandi”.
We are now going to add to that as follows:
their method of operating in relation to the offence or offences if that information is available to the person who registers information.
The committee will now decide whether they want to add that last part of the sentence to what we've already passed. Is that clear?
(Submendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Now we'll go to clause 35. I have amendment BQ-2, which is on page 3 of your list of amendments.
Monsieur Ménard, when you're ready you can move that amendment to clause 35.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
It is in order to be consistent with the amendment that we have just adopted. I propose that we add “the person's method of operation”. I had already proposed that we add the words “modus operandi”. I have no objection to changing it to “the person's method of operation”. I have no objection to amending it as we have just done with the subamendment to the previous amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
You've all heard that. It's very similar to what we've just done. Is there any further discussion on that?
Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
What is the opinion of our counsel? Is it his view that this is just a consequential amendment that is consistent?
December 3rd, 2009 / 11:50 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I appreciate that the department is your counsel. I'm not quite there yet.
This is necessary to reflect in these other provisions that are applicable, for example, to the Department of National Defence. So it's to be consistent.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 35 as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
We have a new clause 35.1. It is created by amendment BQ-3, which is on page 4 of your list of amendments.
Monsieur Ménard, when you're ready to move that amendment, please.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
It still has to do with being consistent with the amendments we have just adopted regarding the expression “the person's method of operation”. I propose that it be added to subsection 8.2(1) of the act. After paragraph 8.2(1)(f), there is 8.2(1)(f.1), “the person's method of operation” and, in English,
“the person's method of operation”.
I do not object to someone logically proposing a subamendment to use the same terms that we used in section 8. Instead of “the person's method of operation”, we used “their method of operating”. To me, it practically amounts to the same thing. In English, it says:
“their method of operating” au lieu de “person's method of operation” .
Once again, I do not object to using the same terms to express the same idea, so as not to confuse people.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Does anyone think we need to add:
--if that information is available to the person who registers information--
I do not think so, because I think that after reading it the first time, they will understand that the same conditions apply.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Although he is not nodding, I see that our counsel appears to have some doubts.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I would like their comments. I was actually indicating they could comment on this, whether we need to do more.
Mr. Hoover.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In the first place, if it says it in one provision and not in another, it very clearly would be an intent of Parliament to express two different things, so to be consistent I think you would require it in both, if you want the same thing to happen in both.
I have to confess, I am getting a little mixed up. I'm not sure whether we have everything covered in terms of the consequentials, but I'm trying to keep it straight with the various documents.
We had a few additional minor comments regarding replacement of.... For example, in section 8, I am not sure this was done properly. We wanted to suggest striking out “and” at the end of paragraph 8(1)(a) and then adding the modus operandi or method of operation clause, and then we would make sure that the grammar functions properly and we would be following that same process in all three. It is not clear to me that we were able to accomplish that. I don't know that it would be fatal if we didn't, but I think that's correct. We're trying to figure that out.
Conservative
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We have some proposed wording on that, just to make sure the sections flow, because we're changing some of the subsections. It's hard to follow right now.
Conservative