Justice committee  There's a distinction between the amendment and the bill in terms of their approaches to the disguise.

Justice committee  That's correct. The words “without lawful excuse” are not exceptional here. They appear elsewhere in the Criminal Code. Prosecutors, defence attorneys, and courts are well accustomed to interpreting that phrase in the context of each case as it appears before them.

Justice committee  I didn't take any of the remarks to be questioning anything I had provided to the committee. I'm here to serve as an aide, if I may, in terms of further explanation, if that's appropriate.

Justice committee  In Bill C-309, the way the bill is proposed, the offence that would be committed is first the offence of riot or unlawful assembly. Then the crown would have to show that the person wore the mask to conceal their identity. There were some questions, I understand, from looking a

Justice committee  As your remarks indicated, the distinction between the NDP amendment, which would not provide the accused with the defence of a lawful excuse, and Bill C-309 is that the lawful excuse defence is provided for in the bill. I understand, from looking at the comments made in previous

Justice committee  Good morning. My name is Carole Morency. I'm general counsel with Department of Justice, criminal law policy section. I believe the question was to explain or address the issue about the specific intent aspect of the amendment NDP-1. Is that correct?

Justice committee  I understand the NDP-1 is taken from subsection 351(2). In that section, and as worded in the motion, there would be a requirement for the crown to prove that the accused had the specific intent of committing an offence, in this case the offence under either the riot or the unlaw