Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 67
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Public Safety committee  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 p

April 25th, 2018Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Public Safety committee  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

April 25th, 2018Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Public Safety committee  I'm somewhat reluctant to give a legal opinion on that type of issue.

April 25th, 2018Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Public Safety committee  I would answer that simply by saying I think what has been proposed would help strengthen the ability and not weaken it. It would strengthen counselling, let's put it that way. It would strengthen the ability to use counselling.

April 25th, 2018Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Public Safety committee  This one, yes.

April 25th, 2018Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Public Safety committee  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,

April 25th, 2018Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Public Safety committee  I'm Glenn Gilmour, legal counsel with the criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice. I work with Mr. Breithaupt. The terms “promotion” and “advocating” are terms that have been judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Promoting was examined by the Su

April 25th, 2018Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Justice committee  That's essentially what would happen. The principle behind both this amendment and the coordinating amendment is that, at all times, there would be consistency with the definition of “identifiable group” as it exists in the Criminal Code, either as it currently is right now or as

March 9th, 2017Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Justice committee  This would propose to add the concepts of age, sex, or mental or physical disability to what had been proposed originally in Bill C-305. It makes no reference to the concept of gender identity, but for a particular reason. This amendment would make the hate-motivating criteria in

March 9th, 2017Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Justice committee  Well, there is a difference, of course, between a building being “primarily used”—that means, presumably, the main reason that the building is being used is for that particular purpose—versus just “used”. “Used” could be someone using that particular building several times, infre

March 9th, 2017Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Justice committee  That's correct, yes.

March 9th, 2017Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Justice committee  As you know, Bill C-16 refers to both gender identity and gender expression. To the extent that this bill only refers to gender identity, it is inconsistent with current legislation in the Senate, which has been already approved by the House. I'm certain that the government is aw

February 23rd, 2017Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Justice committee  Thank you.

February 23rd, 2017Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Justice committee  My understanding is that the reason it was originally limited to property primarily used for religious worship was that, in particular, could interfere with the freedom of religion in the charter. In a sense, it was tied to the charter right of freedom of expression. You're absol

February 23rd, 2017Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour

Justice committee  I have a couple of comments. I'll just reiterate that even under the current law, without Bill C-305, those sorts of incidents could be caught by the sentencing provision in subparagraph 718.2(a)(i). If the desire of parliamentarians is to expand the scope of the bill so that t

February 23rd, 2017Committee meeting

Glenn Gilmour