Evidence of meeting #2 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 trial.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Right. Mr. Stewart tried to get the chair's attention as we were doing that. We understand we've gone through that clause, but we didn't get a chance to get your attention, Mr. Chair.
I'm not being critical of you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
The law clerk tells me you have to have the original drafted and presented here. It's not an amendment on the floor; it has to be drafted.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It could be read into the record, drafted here in English and then read into the record as an amendment. We've done that many times in many different committees.
I apologize to the analyst, but I would hate to set a precedent of that nature; I've never seen it done before. To suggest that we have to find mistakes in the legislation that happen before we actually deal with the bill and hear from witnesses is, in my mind, quite frankly a travesty of justice. I'm not prepared to accept that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
What the law clerk is saying is that he's not going to draft the legislation. Somebody has to have it and present it.
Conservative
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I'm not sure this would be precedent-setting. This whole scenario is somewhat unusual, in the sense that the legislation was sent back to us without the committee's having been constituted. I think it's an extreme circumstance; I don't think it would be precedent-setting as a ruling.
These are just my thoughts on it.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
There are two bottom lines. As point number one, I think this whole discussion is out of order, because we have already passed clause 4 without amendment. Secondly, I didn't hear Mr. Kennedy propose a particular amendment. All he has done is ask whether an amendment might be proposed.
Oh, I'm sorry; it's Mr. Stewart. I was thinking of my old friend Mr. Kennedy. I apologize to Mr. Stewart. I'm sure that's an invidious comparison. I didn't mean to make it.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
In any event, Mr. Stewart hasn't actually proposed an amendment. He has only asked if one could be proposed. I suppose that, at least from this point forward, if he has an amendment to propose, he knows he could, provided he has the wording.
But I don't actually see an amendment on the table. And it would be out of order anyway, since we passed clause 4.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Again Ms. May has her hand up. I need the consent of the committee for her to ask a question.
Do we have consent?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Okay.
(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to)
I understand that with the consent of the committee, we could group the rest, from clause 8 through to clause 17.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Surely.
(Clauses 8 to 17 inclusive agreed to)
Shall the short title carry?
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I have a question as to what exactly the title is. Is it “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)”? Is that what we're talking about?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Is the short title the “Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act” in clause1 of the...?
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Yes, and the title, which I think is what we're considering now, is “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)”? Is that the title we're voting on now, which contains the term that's not defined?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
The law clerk tells me that technically the title is “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)”.