Evidence of meeting #78 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Matthew Taylor  General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Jean-François Lafleur

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Ms. May, I've been very generous. I'm going to call the vote for amendment PV-8.

I hear all “no” votes.

(Amendment negatived)

We'll go to PV-9.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Chair, Ms. May will appreciate this. I'm not trying to pre-empt what she is saying.

PV-9 and NDP-1 are very similar, but—

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

I was going to read that, actually. May I?

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

What I'm about to say may actually help you or solve a problem for you, anyway.

Through the machinations of the procedure, which I don't pretend to always understand, PV-9 ended up prior to NDP-1. I agree with the spirit of both amendments, but I have some subamendments to NDP-1. They would not change the essence of it, but I have some language changes that may help.

I raise that now only because the changes were to the wording of NDP-1, not PV-9. Maybe the clerk can help steer me through that problem.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Okay, members, we're going to do this pretty slowly. I have it on authority that I can do this.

If I can have unanimous consent to dispose of PV-9. then it can be disposed of.

4:45 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

That's not allowed, Madam Chair. That is not allowed under the motions that committees have. It's enough to take away my rights at report stage; you can't subsequently take away my rights summarily at committee.

I'm sorry. This is not something that you can do.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

You can speak to it, but I do have the right to ask for unanimous consent after you speak to it.

4:45 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

That's right. All I have is the right to speak to it.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Absolutely.

Go ahead.

4:45 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I can't vote on it. I can't do anything else but speak to it, so thank you, Madam Chair.

By the way, if this committee would like to remove that motion altogether and allow me to present my amendments on future legislation at report stage, that's fine with me.

Okay, Madam Chair, very quickly, PV-9 is to ensure that people who are acting in a role of support to those who are victims are not criminalized if they are communicating information to provide assistance to the victim or the witness.

I know this amendment is quite similar to NDP-1. The reason it's first in the package is that we got it in first. Although NDP-1 is a different attempt to do the same thing, I do think the language here, with all respect to the other amendment, is stronger. The effort here is to ensure that when it's not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known to the public but to provide support to the victim or the witness—and this is the category of people we're looking at—then legal professionals, counsellors, medical professionals or people in a relationship of trust with the witness or victim are not to be criminalized when acting in their interest.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Can I call the vote?

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll try to restrain my comments to this. I think that all the people around the table have heard testimony from victims. Some of us have dealt with them for a number of years before this bill came here, so there are obviously differences of opinion about what we can accomplish in it, given the time frames we are dealing with and the Senate.

That said, PV-9, NDP-1 and the additional motion brought forward by the government are all very similar and try to accomplish the same thing. I've seen the government's motion. I believe it more simply accomplishes the same goal that's in PV-9 and NDP-1. I would ask the committee to defeat both and deal with the government's substitute motion on this section.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Go ahead, Mr. Fortin.

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I support NDP‑1 and PV‑9 except for one thing. One or the other would need to be amended because there's a mistake in proposed paragraph 486.4(4)(c), which would be added to the Criminal Code through an amendment to clause 2 of the bill. It reads, “the disclosure of information is made for the purpose of providing support to the victim or witness by legal professionals, counselors, medical professionals or persons” and so on. It's the reverse, though. Instead of “by”, it should say “to”. The idea is to protect the victim's right to speak to their psychologist, doctor, lawyer or counsellor without violating the publication ban.

The French version is the same. It says, “par un professionnel du droit”, instead of “à un professionnel du droit”.

Respectfully, I propose that PV‑9 be amended by replacing the word “by” with “to” in the English version, and “par” with “à” in the French version. I'll let the English experts deal with the English version, of course, but in French, at least, I recommend replacing “par” with “à”.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Thank you very much.

I'm now going to ask if PV-9....

Mr. Fortin, did you submit your subamendment in writing?

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

No. I only noticed the mistake a little while ago. It's a drafting issue, so I wanted to make you aware. If the committee wishes to adopt the amendment as is, I'm fine with that, but we have to be consistent. I'll let you decide whether the wording should be amended or not.

It's not a substantive change. We all want the same thing. It just fixes a minor drafting problem.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Chair, I think our amendment would fix the problem Mr. Fortin raised.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Very good.

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Which amendment is that?

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

I believe it's G‑3.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

No. It's a separate document that the clerk has. It was sent to everybody at the beginning of the meeting, so everyone should have a copy of it.

A subamendment was provided to the clerk, which was distributed to the members immediately prior to or at the outset of the meeting.

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

I don't think I got it, Mr. Maloney.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

It would probably be in your email, Monsieur Fortin.

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

I don't see it. I'm sorry.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

The clerk is telling me that he has sent it to everyone.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.