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.
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It's the whole lot. Okay.
If you withdraw those, PV-41 and PV-42 would still be alive.
8:45 p.m.
Green
8:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
8:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
My apologies to Ms. May, but I'm just wondering if I can withdraw NDP-95, doing it somewhat under political duress—
8:45 p.m.
NDP
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
For NDP-96, the Liberals would have to support it, because they can't move their own amendment if we've dealt with NDP-96.
8:45 p.m.
NDP
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm sorry. I thought it was.
Why don't we suspend for five minutes and try to sort this out?
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Ladies and gentlemen, we are ready to resume.
I'm going to call the vote on amendment NDP-95 with all of the consequential amendments that I previously read out, but with amendment NDP-96 withdrawn, if that's agreeable to Mr. Dubé.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
No, you won't be able to.
Let me see if I understand this. We will vote on amendment NDP-95 with all the consequential amendments, except for NDP-96. Then, assuming a certain result, you will move your first motion with respect to clause 143, page 150, not numbered. Then we will deal with clause 143 as amended and we'll move to clause 144.
Mr. Dubé's NDP-96 takes precedence over Liberal this or that, on the theory of first up, best dressed. In this case, Mr. Dubé is first up and therefore best dressed.
Given the way in which we are going to go about this voting, is everybody clear?
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay, I call the vote on amendment NDP-95 with NDP-96 removed from the consequential amendments.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment NDP-95 is defeated. The consequence, as previously stated, means PV-41 is defeated as well. Therefore, it is in order for Liberals to move what is before members and is unnumbered, say LIB-A.
April 25th, 2018 / 8:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Chair, before I introduce it, I wish people could see how well committees can work together. This is an example of it.
I'm not trying to drag this out, but in particular to Mr. Dubé and Ms. May, who are the only members of their parties here and are handling every single clause, I want to thank you and applaud your being able to stay on top of it, because it's not easy for either of you.
Given all the procedural things we are doing, what we're trying to do is align Bill C-59 with the Criminal Code. My understanding from the officials is that the wording we have distributed will do that. Maybe justice officials could weigh in very briefly, because it is getting late, on whether this will solve the issue of aligning this offence with the Criminal Code.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm going to give a fair bit of latitude because this is a new amendment, so if members wish to discuss it, I'm perfectly open to that.
First of all, the motion is moved. It is in order.
Seeing no debate, who wants to respond to Ms. Damoff?
9 p.m.
Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can perhaps start.
As mentioned, problems arose in proposed paragraph 83.221(2)(b) from the wording “whether or not”. That is whether or not “(b) the person counsels the commission of a specific terrorism offence” and whether or not “(a) a terrorism offence is committed”.
That led to a conflict with section 464 of the Criminal Code, which is counselling an offence that is not committed. The proposed change would remove the duplication and overlap.
To explain the interplay among the counselling offenses, should this motion be accepted, section 22 of the Criminal Code would apply in respect of counselling someone to commit a specific terrorism offence, including a section 83.221 offence that is committed. Section 464 would apply in respect of counselling someone to commit a specific terrorism offence, including a section 83.221 offence that is not committed.
Section 83.221 would apply where a person counsels another person to commit a terrorism offence without identifying a specific terrorism offence, and such an offence may be committed whether or not a terrorism offence is committed by the person who is counselled.
