Public Safety committee  That's right.

Public Safety committee  In criminal law, it's not uncommon for the English and French versions not to be identical, or even for there to be a difference between them. According to the principles and protections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the most favourable version for the accused prevails, but only in criminal law.

Public Safety committee  The simple answer is yes.

Public Safety committee  I'll be brief. Actually, I'd like to apologize for the question Ms. Zahid asked me. Intimidation is covered in section 423 of the Criminal Code. However, this clause details the techniques that can be used and that constitute intimidation. To answer Ms. Zahid's question, I'd say that I'm not sure to what extent the description of intimidation in the Criminal Code could apply to another piece of legislation.

Public Safety committee  That's one of the best things to focus on, especially in the last three lines of that paragraph. Proposed section 52.1 needs, in my humble opinion, to be looked over again by the committee. It's the one that adds a section to the Criminal Code. It's more problematic. It's too large.

Public Safety committee  Also, with proposed section 52.3, if the the committee wants the federal government to stay in control of those articles, 52.3 needs to be changed by adding “Attorney General of Canada”. Otherwise, you would lose all control. The provinces would get control of those.

Public Safety committee  Certainly, threats and violence are defined concepts in criminal law, whereas intimidation is not. If Parliament does not define it, it opens the door to the courts, which will then have the opportunity to define it themselves and have the definition go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Public Safety committee  Based on my knowledge of Bill C‑70, the list you mentioned would not have any consequences on the Criminal Code or the Canada Evidence Act, logically, since the Criminal Code applies to offences committed in Canada, with certain exceptions. In addition, it focuses primarily on individuals, not entities.

Public Safety committee  You have to understand that, basically, I'm a defence lawyer. So my practice is always guided by the humanistic approach I take with my clients. Of course, traditionally, offences punishable by life imprisonment involve violence. These are offences that pose a certain risk to someone's life or a very high risk to their physical integrity, or terrorism offences.

Public Safety committee  You're probably referring to the Security of Information Act. I'm sorry, I may not know all the terms as well as some of your guests. I have limited myself to the sections of this act that are incorporated into the Criminal Code. For example, I took a closer look at proposed subsection 20.4(1) that the bill proposes to add to this act.

Public Safety committee  Let's simply look at section 52.3, which the bill proposes to add to the Criminal Code and which deals with the consent of the Attorney General. It says that “No proceeding for an offence under subsection 52(1), 52.1(1) or 52.2(1)”, that is, sabotage offences, “shall be instituted without the Attorney General's consent”.

Public Safety committee  Yes. I'll wrap up very quickly. With respect to proposed section 52.3, which deals with the consent of the Attorney General, if you want the Government of Canada to retain some jurisdiction over those provisions, you would have to add some missing words.

Public Safety committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, I want to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to speak to you. I have been a lawyer for 10 years and I exclusively practise criminal law, on the defence side. The Criminal Code and certain sections of the Canada Evidence Act are therefore part of my daily life.