Evidence of meeting #114 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
There are no amendments submitted to clauses 43 to 52.
Do we have unanimous consent to group them?
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Shall clauses 43 to 52 carry?
(Clauses 43 to 52 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 53)
Thank you.
That brings us to clause 53 and NDP-2.
Mr. MacGregor, do you wish to move NDP-2?
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
As members know, clause 53 is a rather large clause with all of those significant amendments to the Security of Information Act. I recognize that the sentencing is pretty strict in a lot of these, and I absolutely understand that for the crimes being committed, we do need to have those strict sentences, but I'm making some changes to make sure that instead of having the words “shall be served consecutively”, it will be “may be served consecutively”.
There's still an option for a judge, based on the circumstances of the case, to impose consecutive sentences, but there's also an option to give a little more leeway, because, again, the circumstances of each case can vary considerably.
That's what my amendment attempts to do throughout clause 53.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
Is there any discussion?
Go ahead, Mr. Gaheer.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We see that this motion would give a sentencing judge the express discretion to apply a consecutive sentence, but they wouldn't be required to impose one. We want to ask the officials what the thought process was during the drafting of this language.
June 10th, 2024 / 4:10 p.m.
Mark Scrivens Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
The provisions that require that a mandatory consecutive sentence be imposed for the new Security of Information Act offences mirror similar provisions in the terrorism offence regime in the Criminal Code and the organized crime regime in the Criminal Code that similarly require the imposition of consecutive sentences for convictions of those offences.
The intent in the act is to reflect the seriousness of foreign interference offences and to suggest that they are equally as serious as terrorism offences and organized crime offences.
I will additionally point out that paragraph 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code allows the sentencing judge the discretion to ensure that the overall total sentence is not unduly harsh or unfair in the circumstances.
Thank you.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you. Are there any further questions?
Are we ready to vote on this amendment?
Shall NDP-2 carry?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Let's have a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 53 agreed to)
There are no amendments submitted to clauses 54 through 60. Do we have unanimous consent to group them?
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Shall clauses 54 through 60 carry?
(Clauses 54 to 60 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 61)
That brings us to clause 61 and CPC-2.
Go ahead, Mr. Caputo.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At this time, I will be moving CPC-2. This is a very basic amendment that relates to essential infrastructure and at what stage in its development or construction it is.
Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to NDP-3.
Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Sorry, Chair. I'm just getting to the page here.
This amendment is based on the testimony we received from Ms. Emmanuelle Rheault. During her testimony, she was saying that if we didn't specify that it was the Attorney General of Canada, then it would be the Attorneys General of the provinces.
Given the seriousness of these Criminal Code changes on sabotage, I thought it best that we specify that it's the Attorney General of Canada that is actually referred to. It's a pretty simple amendment, just changing the reference to which Attorney General it is.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
The prosecution of most Criminal Code offences, as we know, including sabotage, is the responsibility of the provinces, but I'd like to ask the officials for their thoughts on the drafted language.
4:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Thank you.
It is correct that most Criminal Code offences—and the sabotage offence appears in the Criminal Code—are prosecuted by provincial prosecution services. Sabotage in its current form in the Criminal Code is prosecuted currently by provincial prosecution services.
The effect of this amendment would limit the consent for the commencement of a prosecution to the Attorney General of Canada, but does not specify that the ensuing prosecution would be conducted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The effect would be that the consent would have to be provided by the Attorney General of Canada, and the ensuing prosecution in most cases related to matters within the provincial jurisdiction or that are normally prosecuted by provincial prosecutors then would continue to be prosecuted by a provincial prosecution service.
That's my reading of the effect of the provision.
I will also add that in section 2 of the Criminal Code, “Attorney General” is defined as both provincial Attorneys General and the Attorney General of Canada.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I have a question for Mr. Scrivens.
Sir, you said that most offences are prosecuted by provincial Attorneys General. Can you clarify what the exceptions might be?
4:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
There are some exceptions.
For example, the terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code can be prosecuted by the federal prosecution service and in general are usually prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Chair, based on that response and the seriousness of existing Criminal Code offences that are looked after by the Attorney General of Canada, I think there is potentially an argument to be made, given these amendments to the Criminal Code and the seriousness of the offences listed. You could find an argument that's saying it's in line, but again, it's up to colleagues to determine whether that is so.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay.
Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
Shall NDP-3 carry?
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.