Justice Committee on June 19th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I believe it's a consequential amendment, then, to what was already done. It makes sense to me that....

[An hon. member]

Let's vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The question is on Bloc amendment BQ-4.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Ménard said it was consequential, and I agree that a portion of it is consequential to the amendment we already made, but does it go beyond? I see it's replacing lines 18 to 22 and then deleting lines 13 to 21. I just want to make sure it doesn't go beyond what is consequential.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Just for clarification, Mr. Ménard says this is consequential to clause 2. But clause 2 was defeated. Is this consequential to the fact that clause 2 is no longer part of Bill C-32?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

That's what we're trying to determine, just how far it goes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

That's what...because we want to be doubly sure here.

I agree that part of it is, but I just want to make sure it doesn't go beyond what is necessarily consequential.

[Greg Yost]

The heading would have to be adjusted. I'm not sure that's been done.

So proposed subsection 259(1).... Right; sorry, this is the wording we have in the code now. It's there. No need to replace it in this act with the very same words. So I would suggest it's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Then I will take the vote on amendment BQ-4.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 11)

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Can you pass clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14 at the same time? No?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

No, we have something in between.

(Clause 11 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We have a new clause pertaining to amendment Lib-10, clause 11.1.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I just took a standard clause we put in other legislation that was somewhat controversial, so that there would be a review.

I'm not set on the nature or the details of the motion. I just took a motion section from another act so that it would at least be legal, and because we've had a long discussion today about things that we think are potentially controversial. We have placed a lot more onus on a machine which, according to the evidence we had this afternoon, wasn't even maintained properly, according to schedule, and which cannot even be videotaped. I think there's a lot of potential.

A number of the witnesses—people who are practising in the courts every day—said that there are all sorts of problems that are going to be raised because of this bill. I'm not always in favour of reviews of a bill, but I think within five years we can revisit it and see if it is actually—Of course we have the DRE, the whole drug thing, which in itself is a new type of mechanism to solve the problem that we want to solve. All these things raise a lot of questions among the witnesses. I think we should review it to see how it's working out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard, the question has been put. You're on the list.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I have two questions.

First of all, I congratulate Mr. Bagnell because we should increasingly get into the habit of reviewing legislation—we did so for reproductive technologies. Mr. Chair, you are aware that your government has appointed extremely conservative people to the new Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada, but clearly that is a debate for another day.

My question is as follows: are we studying the act only or the act and the regulations? The regulations are quite important, especially for training. When I was health critic, we studied the act and the regulations on tobacco, for example. In some pieces of legislation, the regulations are just as important as the act. I wonder if this committee would accept an amendment to this clause so that it refers to the act and the associated regulations. We could discuss it. Is it desirable to look at the regulations as well? On two or three occasions, we have referred to the regulations, particularly for the reproductive technologies and training. I put that before the committee for consideration, and before the mover, of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

If I may point out, Mr. Bagnell is asking for a comprehensive review of its provisions and the effect of its implementation. Would that not include the regulations?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Correct. I am asking if we should not include the regulations. I am just asking the question. I have not moved an amendment yet, but I would be happy to hear what my colleagues have to say on the matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I think, Mr. Chair, you're correct regarding the provisions and the effect of its implementation. To me, that's a broad look at how the changes that we've made are playing out and how they are working.

I'm prepared to support Mr. Bagnell's amendment as it is. Obviously, we'd want to study the impact of these changes, and we'd include anything that we could contemplate that's relative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

I believe the scrutiny of regulations committee also has a review of all regulations pertaining to any legislation.

Mr. Lee, you're on the list.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I haven't thought this through. I'm in favour of the proposal, but I wouldn't want the wording we select now to obstruct the committee in looking at the whole impaired driving, drunk driving, “over 80”, drug-impaired driving package just because we didn't cover something in particular in this bill, although we seem to have covered quite a bit in the bill.

If there were other wording—This particular amendment refers to the comprehensive review of what we legislated in this act, whereas the whole drunk driving, drug-impaired driving piece is bigger than just this act. If we're going to look at it, we might as well look at the whole policy window rather than just this act. We may unnecessarily constrain the committee that's looking at it. I wouldn't want to tie their hands.

How would it be if I were to propose a friendly amendment that would refer to this act and its associated provisions in the Criminal Code?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

There is a subamendment on the floor that would basically state, on the fourth line down, “this Act and all associated provisions”—

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

In the Criminal Code.