Justice Committee on June 21st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Ms. May wanted to ask a question. I need the consent of the committee for Ms. May to speak.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Do we have the time, Mr. Chair, if we want to get to clause-by-clause?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Just give me a no, then--yes or no.

No. Okay.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Before we go to clause-by-clause, I'd like to raise a point of order.

Do we get to question the witness at all? If not, I don't know why—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We're going to be out of time; that's our problem. I think the bill's going to go back as it came to us if we don't get through the clause-by-clause.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay. But as a general point, when somebody speaks to the committee, is there normally a chance to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Normally, you would, but you're kind of in uncharted territory with this particular issue. The answer would be yes, and it would go in the normal format back and forth.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Could I have it on the record that I asked to be able to question the witness, but there isn't enough time to do it? It seems--

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'd like to speak to that point of order and make it plain, as I thought I did before, that my consent to allowing the witness to speak was on the condition that this would be a five-minute intervention. Clearly, that wouldn't allow time for questioning. There was no suggestion made by Mr. Hsu at that time that he would want extra time to question the witness. It was only about five minutes for the witness to make a presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We now are up to almost 12 minutes, so if we could move on to the clause-by-clause I think it would be appropriate, given the circumstances.

[Marco Mendicino]

Mr. Chair, I thank the members of the committee, not only for the time allotted but for the extension as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We'll carry on.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 16, 2011, we are dealing with Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code for mega-trials.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to)

Shall clauses 6 to 17 carry?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a question about inserting a definitional section into the act, and what clause that might be inserted under.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You'd have to do an amendment, but it wouldn't be in these clauses we're talking about.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Okay, so there's no definitional section at all that could be amended to include at least some guidance to judges as to what cases might be appropriate to include.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

My understanding is that would need to have been prepared beforehand. You can't draft it here at this meeting.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

So we're going to proceed without a definition of mega-trials. There's no opportunity to define this more, or at least to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You would have to have done it before you got here, to do that. That's my understanding.

[Mike MacPherson, Procedural Clerk]

We would need an amendment in writing for what you're proposing.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, point of order.

I don't think that's in order at all. I understand the 48 hours' notice in relation to substantive motions, but this is not a substantive motion. This is in relation to a bill that we're considering clause by clause, and amendments can come from the floor. I do not want to set a precedent in relation to that. I certainly would like to hear from the department in regard to that particular definition. Mr. Stewart and I are both in the same category. After hearing from the witness, we'd like to know exactly what that would be.

The other question is.... I would suggest it would be beyond the scope of the bill to add a definition section that's not within the section, as Mr. Comartin said, unless.... Of course I haven't seen the definition that Mr. Hsu put forward, or the definition section that he put forward that would be appropriate, but I would think it would be beyond the scope of the bill itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

My understanding is that I can't rule it out of order because there has been nothing proposed, nothing put before the committee.

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

But Mr. Jean is right: this is not one that requires 48 hours' notice; we're dealing with clause-by-clause. I agree with Mr. Jean; I'm quite concerned about this being a precedent.

With regard to an amendment, what's being suggested, by Mr. Cotler in particular, is that in section 551—clause 4 of this bill—we could insert a definition. I'm not saying I'm supporting this, but that's where it would go. In that paragraph in which we're talking about mega-trials, we would insert the definition, of course, of criteria.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Point of order.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

So that's where it would go.

Again, Stephen, I want to be clear. I'm not supporting—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

We've already passed clause 4, as I understand it. I thought we were on clause 6.