Mr. Fraser.
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.
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.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
On that, I agree with that sense, that this should be permissive language in order not to take away the discretion of the minister to make whatever regulations the minister deems fit and ensure that the permissibility is there for regulations to be made on these various matters.
I would tend to agree with the analysis of the department, then, and also note that it seems irregular that this would be anything but permissible language. I therefore would not support the amendment.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Would changing the word “shall” to “should” find more traction with the justice department, or is that also problematic?
5 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's my understanding that “may” is the standard formulation.
5 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Do any examples come to mind in which it's not permissive—in other words, in which the word “may” is not used—in regulation-making powers? I can't think of any.
5 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Unfortunately, this is where you hit one of the boundaries of my personal knowledge.
When we receive these motions, we do quite a lot of consulting within the department to get the views of the experts. I don't know of any—but I wouldn't, necessarily.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I have gone through the same journey as Mr. Falk, being also a non-lawyer, and I've come to understand that this is our opportunity to extend a role of discretionary power over aspects of the Criminal Code to the health minister.
We're basically offering to the health minister the ability to make such regulations as he or she sees fit.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Falk, do you want to close?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Yes. Notwithstanding what I heard from the justice officials, I think it would still be a good idea to give direction to the minister.
When you look at the content and the subject matter of the bill, it should be incumbent on somebody to make regulations, and the word “may” gives a person discretion not to do it, quite frankly.
Maybe at the end of the day it satisfies our needs here better if there are no regulations made and the thing just falls away.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay. We'll move to the vote now on amendment CPC-26.2
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now move to amendment CPC-26.3.
Is it withdrawn?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
This is on the same clause 3, under proposed subsection 241.31(3). What I'm proposing is actually to change the wording I had in the notice for amendment LIB-9, so that we would add a subparagraph 241.31(3)(a)(iv)—I believe it would be at line 28—and add the following words: “collection of information from coroners and medical examiners”.
Adding this as subparagraph (iv) would allow and ensure that all coroners and medical examiners are included, rather than use the language I previously submitted, which is to create a class composed of coroners and medical examiners.
We heard testimony to the effect that they should be added in order for the health minister to have the ability to make regulations in regard to working collaboratively with the provinces, and then ensure that the information relating to coroners or medical examiners—the terminology differs from one jurisdiction to another—is subject to the health minister's proper regulation.
I would propose the amendment in that fashion, which is slightly different from the amendment LIB-9 that I submitted.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Basically, as I understand it, the proposal is to add, after line 28 on page 9, the following: “(iv) collection of information from coroners and medical examiners”.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
Is there debate?
Not seeing any debate, we go back, Mr. Fraser, to you.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay.
We're going to proceed to a vote on this amendment, LIB-9.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment BQ-9, I understand, was withdrawn.
5:20 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay. Amendment BQ-9 is withdrawn, which brings us to amendment CPC-27.
Mr. Genuis.
Actually, amendment CPC-27 is very similar to amendment LIB-10, so LIB-10 cannot be put forward if CPC-27 works. I hope the two of you have worked together, perhaps, on a wording.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Excellent. I'm very happy for that collaboration.
Mr. Falk, will you move this so that Mr. Genuis can put it forward?
