Justice committee  That's right. I think the key thing is that, even at present in the Criminal Code with respect to protection of movable property, the law's not limited only to very minimal force. So if we were to introduce a rule, we would end up pretty quickly back in the same sort of situation the objective of simplification is seeking, which is a variety of different rules, depending on the circumstances.

Justice committee  That is actually one of the ways in which the language on that particular issue will be changed by Bill C-26. The multitude of provisions now in effect limit the responsive actions of an accused to the necessary use of force, that is, no more force than necessary. But it is all premised on the use of force.

Justice committee  I would just add that there is actually an offence in the Criminal Code for trap setting where there is the likelihood of causing bodily harm. Typically, the traps will be set in advance of there being a particular threat. So they wouldn't be temporarily connected enough with the threat that could justify the use of force in self-defence.

Justice committee  I believe the section you're referring to sets out what provocation may look like for the purpose of self-defence. That would not be part of the new law on self-defence. That's actually a provision that's invoked very infrequently. I'm not aware of any cases where it has actually been an issue in a battered spouse type of situation.

Justice committee  Again, it would depend on the evidence, but the general rule is that a person who does something with knowledge that they're aiding or abetting in a crime is guilty of the crime that they're aiding and abetting. If the evidence was there that these employees had become aware that they were facilitating the commission of the crime and they continued to do so, they could be found guilty of the fraud.

Justice committee  Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to speak to charging practices necessarily across the country. My understanding would be that it would depend on the evidence. The evidence would dictate what charges would be laid.

Justice committee  I can only repeat again that, as drafted, the mandatory minimum penalty, which would be proposed subsection 380(1.1), clearly states, “When a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of one or more offences referred to in subsection (1)”, which is the general fraud offence.

Justice committee  I can; unfortunately, it's somewhat complex. It basically boils down to the fact that if we leave aside the insider trading offence for a moment and focus on subsection 380(2), section 382, and section 400—section 400 concerns the false prospectus—each of those offences is essentially what you could call a preparatory offence.

Justice committee  As the bill is drafted, the mandatory minimum penalty applies only to convictions under subsection 380(1), which is just the general fraud offence.

Justice committee  We frequently encounter this question about the translation of “reckless” into “ne se souciant pas” in French. It happens in the drafting room, and then it happens repeatedly afterwards. The best answer we can give is that “recklessness” is a concept that has a long and rich jurisprudential history, as I am sure you are aware.

Justice committee  If I could make just one slight clarification about the Hamilton case, there isn't really a criticism of the definition of “reckless” in the Hamilton case. In fact, the Hamilton case was interpreting the offence under section 464 of the Criminal Code. The offence under that section is counselling an offence that is not committed, and the word “reckless” does not even appear in section 464 of the Criminal Code.

Justice committee  Do you mean the French version of the amendment?

Justice committee  I can certainly understand what the English motion to amend means. I think it is just one of those cases where the French is shorter than the English. It is unusual, but there are some expressions that are easier to translate or that come out shorter in French than in English. The English is clear to me.

Justice committee  If that brother really does exist, possibly yes, I would say. There's not a tremendous amount of judicial interpretation of the offence of personation, because it has not been charged very often. We do know that the person personated must be a real person, living or dead. We do know that there must be a real intention to pretend to be a specific person.

Justice committee  With journalists, no. But many members of this committee may recall a private members bill, C-299, from a few years ago. It dealt with identity theft, but it was tabled prior to Bill C-27. What that bill did was it said anyone who pretends to be someone else essentially commits a criminal offence.