Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
In light of that, Mr. Chair, I would propose a new proposed subparagraph, 34(2)(g)(i), which would read:any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Mr. Cotler, we have a couple of questions.
Are you replacing what's there, proposed paragraph 34(2)(g), with...?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
No. Proposed paragraph 34(2)(g) would become proposed paragraph 34(2)(h), proposed paragraph 34(2)(h) would become proposed paragraph 34(2)(i), and I would be recommending the insertion of a new proposed paragraph 34(2)(g) as I stated it.
March 8th, 2012 / 12:20 p.m.
Lucie Tardif-Carpentier Legislative Clerk
Could it be proposed paragraph 34(2)(f.1)? Would it come before?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We're going to ask Mr. Cotler to read his amendment.
Please read it slowly so that we'll be sure that we have it exactly.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Okay.
As amendment LIB-1.1, it would be added as proposed paragraph 34(2)(f.1). It would read in English:
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
In French, it would read:
l'historique des interactions ou communications entre les parties en cause.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Maybe for my colleagues who are better in English than I am, would somebody sending harassing e-mail, really scary ones, be considered inside of a relationship? Could we see it as written in proposed paragraph 34(2)(f) already, without adding the amendment that my colleague Mr. Cotler is suggesting?
That's the only thing we were trying to cover, because “relationship” for me—maybe it's my bad understanding of the language—meant something more personal between two people. Let's say an MP, or whoever, keeps receiving really threatening e-mails and doesn't consider there's a relationship with the person whatsoever.
That's my question.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
Relationship, in the English context, means really any interaction. It does have that very broad meaning. It doesn't mean an intimate relationship; it does mean any connection.
You might call that relationship a distant relationship—
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
--or a one-off relationship, but there is still something that is bringing these two people together.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The definition in the dictionary is “the state of being connected or related”, and there are others. In English “relationship” can mean anything. That's why I oppose Mr. Cotler's suggestion. If I were a judge and it said “relationship”, and then proposed paragraph 34(2)(f.1) said whatever it says, it would indicate to me that you couldn't go past the history of the parties.
We've already heard courts that have interpreted not just the history of the parties as a relationship, but also the reputation, as they understand it, of a certain individual forming part of that relationship, because it's past history. It goes beyond just the history between the two parties.
That's why I oppose that amendment. I think it restricts what we want “relationship” to reflect, which is interaction between two individuals beyond just their immediate interaction or history. It goes to the understanding of that person and who they are.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
With respect, I don't agree with my colleague Mr. Jean. This is a non-exhaustive list. It's a list of factors. I don't think putting it where it's being discussed is limiting the definition of “relationship”; it's just adding factors in a non-exhaustive list. I don't see it as something that would take away from that broader word.
