Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like some assistance from our officials.

In the last night of testimony from witnesses, the B’nai Brith organization raised a point that had not been raised by any of the other witnesses, which we did not have time to explore, about whether private prosecutions would be allowed under this act. If so, those private prosecutions would require the permission of the Attorney General.

That is essentially my question. It's not an argumentative question, but since the witness raised something that we have not seen from any other witness, I want to know whether it is in fact the case.

[Douglas Breithaupt]

This isn't a prosecution, for one thing. It's an application for a terrorism peace bond, and it would have to be done with Attorney General consent. It says:

A person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person may commit a terrorism offence may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

We've been going at this quite a long time. I apologize for using the word “prosecutions” and I stand corrected on that. However, what would the result be of a private person's laying the information?

[Glenn Gilmour, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

[Inaudible--Editor]...to the Attorney General, and before anything could be done. A private individual could not on his or her own initiative go to the judge to ask that the terrorism peace bond be placed on a person. The person would first have to get the consent presumably of the relevant attorney general, which could be either the attorney general of the province or the federal Attorney General.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

The practical impact of that is very small, then, I guess I would say, because of that requirement being in place.

[Glenn Gilmour]

I would think it's probably very small. That would be my opinion, yes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay. Something was raised by a witness, and I just wanted to have a chance to explore it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Clause 25 agreed to)

Now colleagues, we will go to clauses 26 to 30, unless the chair is directed otherwise.

(Clauses 26 to 30 inclusive agreed to)

Okay, colleagues, I think it is time for a brief suspension while we grab a bite and maybe take a little health break. We will come back in approximately 10 to 15 minutes. The chair will be flexible. We'll see how everybody is making out for time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, colleagues, we're back in session now.

Yes, Mr. Norlock, point of order.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

On a point of order, I don't know what the parliamentary prosecution process is for one member of Parliament to mislead another member of Parliament, but Mr. Easter misled the parliamentary secretary who said that we were having pork tonight and it was not pork. It was turkey. I'll leave the punishment in your hands.

[Some Hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have to take responsibility for that. As a vegetarian I looked at it and reported to Wayne that it was pork.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Chair, to finish it all off I would have to say, from the opposition's perspective, it's the blind leading the blind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Let me suggest now that we are in such wonderful humour after...the old story of happy belly. We'll see if we can carry on as happy members now. We'll go through this as best as possible. I understand we'll probably finish this in the next 10 or 15 minutes.

(On clause 31)

We will start off with Ms. May, Green Party amendment number 36.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Continuing in the spirit in which Mr. Norlock has set us, I'd like to thank him for a fowl joke that was like casting pearls before swine.

Moving on, this is an attempt to remedy something that looks quite benign. Clause 31 of the act on page 40 amends the customs tariff. Essentially what it does is create the ability and the duty of customs officials to enforce the vague provisions about terrorism, in general in terms of propaganda, without judicial authorization. This was one of the clauses that attracted the attention of a number of critics, including Professors Roach and Forcese, who recommended that the provision should be rejected for enforcement by customs officials without judicial authorization.

What I've done, rather than delete it in its entirety, is to tidy up the language and to relate the acts or omissions to language that we understand in law—it constitutes a terrorism offence or a terrorist activity—and remove the reference back to the very vague terrorism in general provisions that are so offensive in this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I believe that the proposed amendment would make the clause too narrow, because what it does is require there to be material that's terrorist-specific activity, as opposed to general terrorist activity or promotional material. I think customs officials should have the power to prevent the importation into Canada of material that counts as a commission of terrorism offence and material that advocates the commission of terrorist offences in general.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 31 agreed to)

Now colleagues, we have clauses 32 to 39 and we can deal with them together.

Mr. Garrison, where are you at on this one?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I would like to deal with 32 separately. I don't believe I have any objection to dealing with the rest.

(On clause 32)

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, let's start there, sir.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you.

I have a question for our officials. Clause 32 amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and says that is replaces the section in the act. Unfortunately, I don't have the act in front of me. My question has to do with the idea of using recognizance with traditions for those who are under the age of majority. I wondered whether we have any jurisprudence on doing that, because it seems to me that the Youth Criminal Justice Act takes into account diminished capacity to make some decisions. That would seem to me to be in fundamental conflict with the idea of recognizance with conditions. I'm sorry, I don't have the Youth Criminal Justice Act here with me and perhaps I'm mistaken.

[Douglas Breithaupt]

Thank you.

The recognizance with conditions has never been used, so there's no established jurisprudence there. There have been peace bonds used involving youth.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act contains significant legal safeguards to ensure that young people are treated fairly and their rights are protected. This would provide that they would be dealt with according to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

What are we actually replacing here because I don't believe we've ever had this? What in the world are we replacing with this? We must be taking something out in order to put this in so that makes me wonder. And I'm sorry. I just don't have that act to hand.

[Douglas Breithaupt]

Just give me a moment.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I can't remember. I've dealt with that act forever, but I don't know what's in that section.