Justice committee  I would agree with everything the parliamentary secretary set out in her remarks. I would highlight that there are existing provisions that use that exact language in the code. Perhaps this may have unintended consequences for the interpretation of those provisions. They haven't

Justice committee  The intent of those three things is that it is a class of three. It's nuclear material, radioactive material, or device. It's to be read as a class of three. The way it's dealt with is consistent throughout the bill.

Justice committee  To be honest, as I read it here, I don't see that there would be an “or” after “nuclear material”, if, Madame Boivin, that's where you're suggesting it might be missing. I think as it reads now, “nuclear material, radioactive material or a device”, it reads correctly as a class o

Justice committee  Certainly. I'll just note two things. The first is that during the Senate consideration of this bill, there was a government amendment that removed the word “who” from the proposed offence at both sections 82.3 and 82.4. That was stuck in the middle of the offence. That was in o

Justice committee  Thank you for the question. Regarding the proposed extraterritorial jurisdiction as set out in clause 3, you did mention the jurisdiction for an offence committed by a Canadian citizen. That is, in fact, covered under paragraph (c) of that provision. I believe the other areas y

Justice committee  I'm sorry I don't have an exact answer for that full question. I just want to be clear that in the provision that's in the bill, all that's being amended is the reference to section 7. We've done amendments to section 7, so this actually was meant to fall within the sort of conse

Justice committee  It is part of the reason, but the making is only in relation to the device. Just for the record, it's just in relation to the device. One of the reasons that wasn't mentioned was that, as we all know, this is fitting in with the world structure. Other countries may use that term

Justice committee  That's correct. The nuclear facility definition was taken from ICSANT; the nuclear material definition existed in the Criminal Code from the 1980 convention and is consistent with the original CPPNM, article 1; the radioactive material definition was taken from ICSANT, article 1;

Justice committee  Yes, it is.

Justice committee  Yes, that's correct.

Justice committee  Well, I can speak to what we've attempted to do here. It's true that a plain reading of both British and Australian laws shows that they use much of the same wording—not just the subject matter of the offences, but the way it's set out in the convention. I doubt it was a cut-an

Justice committee  I don't think it would necessarily reduce duplication, because it's very specific. What this did do is tie it together. The British law is a number of pages and the Criminal Code is already quite thick, so we attempted to be as concise as possible while still capturing all the r

Justice committee  We can undertake to look for past cases, although in our research I haven't come across any. For example, under the original 1980 convention, I'm not aware of any prosecutions that were both successful or unsuccessful. With regard to ongoing cases, that's perhaps an issue best

Justice committee  At the time when we were contemplating the construction of this bill, we did, at the senior officials level, advise all the provinces and territories of Canada's intent to become a state party to the two treaties. We did that primarily because of the concurrent prosecutorial juri

Justice committee  Yes, that's correct.