Evidence of meeting #7 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
The minister was raising his hand to respond directly, and I didn't think you saw it. That's why I was pointing it out, Chair.
Liberal
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Far be it from me to guess procedure. We had a member who was in the middle of an intervention. I don't want to interrupt.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
The information we had was based on the public report. There was a dissenting report, which didn't flag opposition to the specific recommendations we had gone over.
For what it's worth, I've not discussed who voted which way with Mr. Housefather, if that was the implication.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I'll say the same thing. I specifically referred in my second question to the Conservative Party's dissenting report, in which the Conservative Party dissented on DEI. I noted that this was not a recommendation the Conservatives said they dissented on in their report. I think that is public information, because it was in the report.
Thank you.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Mr. Chair, I have the transcript right in front of me. With all due respect to Mr. Housefather, the second question he put to the minister made—
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Okay. I thought you said the second question.
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Okay. I don't have that transcript in front of me.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Perhaps we can take the time to review it. The clerk will get back to you with his review of the blues. You're free to look at them yourself.
Mr. Fraser.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
For clarity, I have not had any discussions with any members of the previous committee that generated this report about which parties voted which way. My comments were a reflection on the fact that the dissenting report did not include opposition to some of these measures. I have not had a single conversation about which parties voted on specific recommendations in the report we're discussing today.
I want to make that absolutely clear.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Thank you, Minister.
We'll suspend for a few minutes and come back with the second round of officials.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Time is running out. I call the meeting back to order.
As agreed, in the second hour of the meeting, we have back with us three witnesses from the Department of Justice, who testified in the first hour: Owen Ripley, senior assistant deputy minister; Joanna Wells, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; and Marianne Breese, counsel, criminal law policy section.
I assume you don't have a statement, as is customary. If you do, we will limit it to five minutes.
I see you shaking your heads emphatically, so we will go directly to questions. We have, for the first six-minute slot, MP Gill and MP Brock splitting their time, then MP Dhillon followed by six minutes for the Bloc Québécois. I'll announce the second round as it arises.
Mr. Gill or Mr. Brock, it's over to you.
Conservative
Amarjeet Gill Conservative Brampton West, ON
Thank you, Chair.
My first question is regarding the proposed intimidation offence, which includes a subjective test of intent and a relatively low harm threshold.
Is that threshold strong enough to capture generally threatening conduct, or could it unintentionally criminalize speech or protest activity already covered by subsection 423.1(1)? Was any consultation conducted with prosecutors or police to assess whether this new offence provides tougher penalties or merely duplicates existing tools?
Owen Ripley Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
Thank you very much, Chair.
With regard to the question about the intimidation offence, what will be important in that situation is that police see evidence of an intention to cause a state of fear in another person. In order for somebody to be charged with that intimidation offence, their motivation has to be to cause a state of fear. It's not a question of whether the individual trying to access a place of worship or cultural centre is afraid. We recognize that we all have different kinds of reactions of fear to different circumstances. What will be important is that prosecutors and police see evidence that the intention on the part of that person was to cause a state of fear to prevent that other person from accessing that place.
Conservative
Joanna Wells Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Mr. Chair, if I may inquire, is there a specific element that the member requires more clarification on? I would adopt Mr. Ripley's answer.