Evidence of meeting #108 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair. It's pretty tough on the fly like this. I don't know if it addresses the concern that we had, since our goal is to simply delete the clause entirely. Without having the proper study, I'm going to unfortunately—which is not my preference to do and don't normally—abstain on this.
I will, however, just before you move to the vote, thank Ms. Damoff for her kind words about the work that has to happen when one is alone on committee.
9 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
This goes back to some of the concerns I expressed earlier on the whole clause 143 issue. I appreciate that we wanted to tighten up the language from your perspective. I'm not settled that I understand the explanation as fully as I might need to so that I can vote, so I can make an informed decision. Quite honestly, I think the explanation you gave even confused you.
9 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm still struggling. I respect Mr. Dubé's point, but this to me is weakening this as opposed to strengthening it, which is what I would advocate for. I would certainly have a Department of Justice official weigh in on that. I know this is a last-minute amendment, and I haven't had a chance.... I may be completely out to lunch on how I think, but initially, that's my first reaction to the amendment on the fly.
9 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'll just say that, with the proposed amendment, what we're trying to do is deal with the problem of the potential overlap that had been mentioned in order to ensure that an appropriate punishment can be put on someone who counsels the commission of a specific terrorism offence, whether or not the offence is committed, and they would be captured by section 22 and section 464 of the Criminal Code, so that the maximum five-year penalty would not come into play for that, which was originally in Bill C-59.
The current wording now is restricted to a particular kind of counselling of a specific terrorism offence where the specific terrorist offence cannot be identified, and that's getting to a particular kind of counselling where words are used that don't necessarily focus on.... They're not as specific as focusing on a specific terrorism offence in the Criminal Code, of which there are several, such as participating in the activity of a terrorist group, knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity, the terrorist financing offence, for example, or instructing someone to carry out a terrorist activity, but nonetheless, in all the circumstances, it's apparent that the person intended that one or more of those terrorism offences be committed.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
The way you spoke leads me to believe that you were aware of this language before tonight in this most recent amendment.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I guess that begs the question of how long ago you were aware that this language had been changed, if it's dropped on us right now. That's the question I have.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're not doing a cross-examination of officials here, and there's an argument of relevance to what we're doing. All amendments, once moved, are found in order. This is in order. As to when you decided, I might question your timing, but nevertheless....
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
That's all I'm getting at. It's just the timing; that's all.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I understand and even sympathize, but I don't think your question is relevant.
Mr. Paul-Hus.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, I'll be a good sport.
Given the situation—the last-minute changes to the NDP and Liberal amendments—there is confusion. It's 9 p.m., and I propose that we adjourn the study of the amendments so that we can analyze the situation on our side. In any case, there is little left to study. I think we could finish this study tomorrow in two hours at the most.
I would like to tell committee members that I want it to be finished tomorrow and not to worry. Tonight, we should adjourn to give us time, out of respect, to verify exactly what it is. For our part, we will be presenting aspects that the committee will have to look at, and that will take some time.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Yes, please. I move that the meeting be adjourned and that we resume at 10 a.m. tomorrow.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It's a dilatory motion, so there is actually no debate. You heard what Mr. Paul-Hus wants to do, which is adjourn the meeting to tomorrow, if I have that correct.
Those in favour of Mr. Paul-Hus' motion?
(Motion negatived)
We go back to the debate itself.
Mr. Spengemann.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, thank you.
I had wanted to come in with this question earlier, and maybe this is the right time to add some clarity. At the risk of not overly indulging in debate that has taken place previously and with witnesses, I wanted to ask the Department of Justice officials about the legal difference in the jurisprudence between the dissemination of propaganda and the act of counselling. If you look at it from a communications perspective—and maybe this is the sense that Mr. Motz had, and maybe clarification would be helpful to everybody here—it seems there's a sense that the dissemination of propaganda is a one-directional mode of communication such that you can stand in a town square and you can disseminate propaganda, whereas the act of counselling requires that somebody at the opposite end who is receiving information actually gives feedback to the person that's doing the counselling. That's actually a more narrow interpretation of getting somebody to engage in an act, be it terrorism or some other kind of hate crime or criminal act.
Is that a correct interpretation of the jurisprudence, or are the two things really much more closely connected than that interpretation would suggest?
April 25th, 2018 / 9:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
For counselling you're trying to counsel someone to commit an offence. The idea is that there would be a person who you're trying to effect, but it doesn't have to have an effect on that person. For example, if I were to counsel you to commit an offence and you're an undercover police officer and there's no risk at all of the offence being committed, I would still be guilty of counselling the commission of the crime. I don't know whether that answers your question.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
It does partly in the sense that.... If you disseminate terrorist propaganda, do you have to know roughly or even specifically who your audience is? In the act of counselling, you do have somebody who is your counterpart and who receives instructions, information, guidance, or suggestions.
9:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
My understanding is that you don't have to know specifically who it is you're contacting. You don't have to know the identity of the person who you're contacting. You can counsel generally to a group of people. One particular example in that regard might be.... You may recall the decision in the Mugesera case in which Mr. Mugesera had made statements to a large crowd, referring to Tutsis as cockroaches, for example. There was a court case to have him deported from Canada to face trial in Rwanda, although I may have some of those facts incorrect. Essentially the Supreme Court of Canada held that in the circumstances, that could be considered counselling to commit murder, even though his speech was to a large group of people.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I think that was extremely helpful, and maybe that's helping to narrow the gap in understanding that exists among us.
Thank you very much for that.
