Justice Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2016

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

When you say there's nothing comparable, in British Columbia this is done routinely for regulations as per the Statutory Instruments Act and for legislation. It's routinely done by attorney general lawyers. Whether it exists as a practice or whether it is in statute, they provide, I'm told, a much higher standard than what exists under the federal 4.1 rule.

[Laurie Sargent]

We'd have to review again more carefully, but my understanding is that it would be their role as attorney general, which of course we also fulfill in advising all the time consistently as to what the likelihood of an adverse outcome would be. But it's not a statutory obligation on the attorney general, the minister in B.C., to report in the same way that we have here.

If you would indulge me, the international examples are interesting. If you look at New Zealand, you see that they have a similar statutory obligation, but it's phrased quite differently and talks about the minister reporting when something “appears to be inconsistent”. Elsewhere, in the United Kingdom and Australia, there are different types of standards whereby ministers or attorneys general are reporting on “compatibility”, as opposed to reporting on something being inconsistent.

It's just important to remain mindful of the way in which section 4.1 is framed, and that has, of course, influenced the way it's been interpreted. The issue is before the courts, though, and we will see, of course, how the Federal Court rules.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I would just say, as a matter of public policy, that we're spending a lot of money in the federal government in the last while by losing cases on the charter. I can think of many examples: mandatory minimum sentences, the Insite case, and so forth. To think that the check is working seems to me to be wildly counterintuitive.

I would suggest that one of the things this committee ought to do is examine whether a better standard would allow fewer cases to get through the sieve than get through now, because it's certainly costing Canadians a lot of money to lose these cases.

Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin.

I have just one small clarification question again. I'm sorry to do it.

I understand that there's a review done. Laws then come to committee. Let's say that this committee—for example, in the case of the assisted dying law—were to amend proposed legislation. Would there be a re-review of subsection 4.1(1) after a committee has made an amendment to a law?

[Laurie Wright]

The review would be done when the bill is tabled. If the government were proposing amendments in committee, there would be another review that would be done internally of the amendment at that time. Obviously, amendments that come from other parts of the committee wouldn't be subject to a reporting obligation, but advice could be sought.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much. I think we've now got to exactly when we're supposed to close.

I'd like to thank all the members of the committee for their good questions.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their excellent presentations and their clear answers.

The meeting is adjourned.