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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Ms. May wanted to ask a question. I need the consent of the committee for Ms. May to speak.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Do we have the time, Mr. Chair, if we want to get to clause-by-clause?
Conservative
Liberal
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—
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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--
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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--
Conservative
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.
Conservative
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.
President, Association of Justice Counsel
Mr. Chair, I thank the members of the committee, not only for the time allotted but for the extension as well.
Conservative
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?
NDP
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
You'd have to do an amendment, but it wouldn't be in these clauses we're talking about.
NDP
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.
Conservative
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.
NDP
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--
Conservative
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.
Conservative
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.
Conservative
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.
NDP
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.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
So that's where it would go.
Again, Stephen, I want to be clear. I'm not supporting—
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
We've already passed clause 4, as I understand it. I thought we were on clause 6.