Evidence of meeting #62 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Okay, colleagues, I'll give you a moment to turn to clause 18.
Yes, Mr. Easter.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Are there any comments?
(Clause 18 agreed to)
Now, Mr. Easter, your amendment LIB-8, the new clause 18.1, is deemed inadmissible as it falls into the parent act that deals with the different elements...deals with the Criminal Code. Should you wish a further explanation, the—
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
No, I understand that, Mr. Chair. We're just trying to bring the Criminal Code that's already in place there into conformity with the other sunset clauses that we were hoping would pass.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I understand your intent, sir, but it does not fall within the parameters of our orders.
We have clauses 19 and 20, with no amendments. We can do them together, unless you want them dealt with individually.
I need unanimous consent.
Do you want a minute, Mr. Garrison?
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
If they are separate, I'm fine; together, I'm not sure.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Okay. Thank you very much.
We will deal with clauses 19 and 20.
(Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to)
Now we will go to amendment LIB-9.
(On clause 21)
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The officials may need to come in on this, but the current wording is the following:
The application may be made, during the proceedings, to the presiding judge
To me it makes more sense that the application should be made before the proceedings begin. It makes more sense, from our perspective and our discussion; no witnesses came in on this, so far as I'm aware.
Can the Justice officials indicate why it would say “during the proceedings” here?
6:25 p.m.
Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If we're dealing with proposed subsection 486(1.1), it reads:
The application may be made, during the proceedings, to the presiding judge or justice or, before the proceedings begin
So it allows for the application to made during or before, whereas I understand this amendment to limit the applications to be made only in advance of the proceeding.
6:25 p.m.
Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It may not be possible to know in advance of the proceedings in all circumstances whether an application should be made, and limiting such applications to before the start of a proceeding would be inconsistent with the approach taken in respect of other procedural provisions in current law that, if granted, enable a witness to testify with some form of accommodation. Reference can be made to section 486.1, testifying in the presence of a support person, or section 486.2, testifying via closed-circuit television.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you.
Colleagues, we will now go to the question on clause 21.
(Clause 21 agreed to)
Now we will go to amendment LIB-10.
(On clause 22)
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
What we couldn't understand here was why it includes an application by a witness, so we're narrowing it down to “application of the prosecutor”.
Why is “or a witness” in there?
6:30 p.m.
Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's my understanding that the provision is made for witnesses, including victims, and for prosecutors and judges to be able to apply for the imposition of measures to protect the security of a witness.
Existing Criminal Code provisions governing the application of testimonial aids and other measures designed to protect witnesses all provide for the possibility of a witness bringing an application, or for the prosecutor doing so on the witness' behalf.
This amendment would seek, it seems, to eliminate the possibility of witnesses making an application, which would be at odds with some other procedural provisions dealing with testimonial aids and the like; for example, those in which witnesses can make application or prosecutors can do so on behalf of a witness in respect of sections 486.1, testifying in the presence of a support person; 486.2, testifying via closed-circuit television; 486.3, restrictions on personal cross-examination; and 486.5, publication bans.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you, Mr. Easter. It is withdrawn.
Colleagues, now we have clauses 22 to 30. We can deal with them collectively or can take them one at a time.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Okay, then we will deal with clauses 22, 23, and 24 at this point.
Is there any conversation concerning clauses 22 to 24?
(Clauses 22 to 24 inclusive agreed to)
Now we will deal with clause 25.
Mr. Garrison.
(On clause 25)