Evidence of meeting #17 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Can I also ask a question of the department?
Is an amendment like this, where there's a time frame stipulated, uncommon?
7:45 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I couldn't comment. I'm not aware of it.
I know that in my appearances before this committee over the years, usually the debate has been over how many years should pass before Parliament undertakes a review of the subject matter or the bill's provisions, as opposed to the completion of the report. Again, I'm suggesting, based on my experience, that the parliamentary rules provide sufficient guidance to the committee and to the House in terms of how and when reports should be completed and/or submitted or extensions provided.
Perhaps the clerk would have more particular information.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
So when a committee is tasked with doing a review like this, it will automatically—for sure—generate a report?
7:45 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can only comment on the ones that I've been directly involved in where reports have been generated and have been produced. Sometimes they call for a response by the government. Again, there are rules that apply to how that is dealt with.
The committee, when it undertakes a report and study, could ask for the government to respond. I think there are rules that are in play such that when Parliament has been prorogued it can come back, and they can resume. A motion could be adopted to enable a committee to resume the work that was committed to in the previous session and just to adopt the evidence that's already been heard to that point. Certainly, that's been my experience. Maybe there's been some.... I'm aware of that happening in at least one parliamentary committee study; I think it was on prostitution, quite a number of years ago.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
My only concern with this motion, if we're going to do the review, which now we've committed to doing, is that there's actually a report. I would be flexible on a time frame, but we want a report.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Nicely said, Mr. Fraser.
Is there any further debate on this motion? Not hearing any, let's move to a vote on CPC-32.3.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next we move to CPC-33, which is Mr. Viersen's.
Is there any Conservative member of the committee who wishes to move this on behalf of Mr. Viersen?
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment would add the words: “recommends and, in the event of serious breaches of these provisions, providing for the possibility of imposing a moratorium”.
This comes out of having followed how similar legislation has played out in the Netherlands, just in my family's experience, essentially. Initially they brought in very similar legislation, and now we are hearing reports of several hundred people a year who are being euthanized without explicit consent.
I would say that if in Canada we are going to have one person lose their life without consent, that would be one too many. What I would like, after this review has been done, if there have been significant breaches and if maybe they find that there was a lack of consent in certain cases, is that they would impose a moratorium and therefore give them time to write up new law or change the law to ensure that we are getting consent in every case. This just allows the committee to impose a moratorium.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Who has the right to do that? The committee certainly wouldn't have such a right. Are you suggesting that it be drafted so that the government has this right at the recommendation of the committee?
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Yes. The recommendation would allow them to impose a moratorium—
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
The Minister of Justice at that point. I'm not sure. Again—
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Can I ask you to perhaps try to draft it in a way that I can receive it? Do you want to work with the legislative clerk for some help? I find this vague and I find it impossible to comprehend how the moratorium would thus occur.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I'm not sure how it ends up in this section. It was my recommendation to the drafters that it's for the minister to be able to impose a moratorium in the event of findings from the committee.
Page 12 is the committee report. It's the same section we just amended—
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'm confused by the whole issue, because the committee may recommend to somebody to impose it, but I'm still not clear who would be able to.
How could I receive this if it would create a completely unclear element of the law? Unless you redraft it, I think we should move on.
I defer to the mover.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Yes, there isn't clear direction given as to where this is supposed to land, and that's the issue here. I think the intent of the motion is good. It would give the minister a tool, so that if the report would reveal there's been some serious breaches procedurally in the administration of this particular bill, then the committee could, when reviewing the report, recommend to the minister that the minister impose a moratorium until the problems are fixed.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Can I ask the department, because I'm having trouble following how this would logically conclude, do you have any explanation of how this would work?
