Evidence of meeting #38 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 recording is available from Parliament.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
We are going to proceed to our clause-by-clause review of Bill S-201, an act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination. We have one short item before we do that, which is the NDP is replacing its committee member, and Mr. MacGregor is now going to be joining our committee permanently. I'm going to turn it over to the clerk for one brief moment.
Mr. Clerk.
11 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Michael MacPherson
Good morning. We need to elect a new second vice-chair. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition. I'm now prepared to receive motions for the second vice-chair.
11 a.m.
Liberal
11 a.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
There are lots of nominations here. I welcome him to the committee and I'm going to support you on this vote.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It's seconded by Mr. Nicholson. We have warm-hearted people on this committee already.
11 a.m.
The Clerk
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
11 a.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
11 a.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you. I appreciate that. I got the news yesterday that this was going to happen. I've been the pinch-hitter for a few committees, and as we all know, some committees function better than others. In my short time in this committee, I have a lot of admiration for all of the members here, for how well we seem to work together, and especially you, Mr. Chair, in keeping us going. I know everyone here is very dedicated to the subject matter that we take on. It's a very real honour. I don't have a legal background, but I have a real love of the law. I don't know how long my tenure will be here, but I certainly have appreciated working with you, and I look forward to the future. Thank you very much for the warm welcome.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We all look forward to continuing to work with you, and it's a pleasure to have you here.
I would also like to welcome Mr. Clement, who is replacing Mr. Cooper today. Welcome, Mr. Clement.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you. I'm the new and improved Michael Cooper.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Exactly.
Mr. Fragiskatos, I believe, is replacing Mr. Hussen. Welcome, Mr. Fragiskatos.
11 a.m.
Liberal
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It's great to have you both.
Today we're proceeding with our clause-by-clause study of Bill S-201, an act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination.
From the Department of Justice today we have Laurie Sargent with us. Laurie, I'm not going to use your huge title today. You've been here enough times that everybody knows you now. We're joined by Élène Bérubé, by Peter Monette, by Lori Straznicki—and it's always good to have a second Lori here—and Barbara Moran.
Welcome to all of you. You're here to answer our questions with respect to anything that we have as we go through clause-by-clause review. Members of the committee can feel free to call upon you if they have questions or clarifications. Again thank you very much for being here.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to proceed to the bill.
Our first item is going to be clause 2, which is the interpretation clause.
Does anyone have any amendments they wish to propose to clause 2?
Not hearing any, I will then move to the vote on clause 2.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
(Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 6)
Mr. Falk has presented an amendment to clause 6.
Mr. Falk.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Chairman, I have presented an amendment, and I suppose there are two ways we could look at it. We could either delete clause 6, or in the absence of that, I have submitted an amendment which I think would satisfy my concerns with clause 6.
The reason I've submitted it is that, as it is written, I believe clause 6 is overly broad. I haven't heard any testimony to make me believe there's any good reason for researchers, or physicians, or pharmacists, or other health care practitioners to be exempt from the prohibition against discrimination based on genetic characteristics. Clause 6, the way it is written now, effectively makes physicians, researchers, and pharmacists above the law that we're trying to apply to everyone else. I believe that occupation shouldn't be an excuse for discriminatory behaviour.
What would be your preference, Mr. Chair, to vote on the clause, to delete it, or would I be better off to propose my amendment?
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Let me ask a question. I believe, Madam Clerk, that if he proposes to delete the clause, then there would have been an actual....
If you're against the clause and you just want to strike the clause, you would vote against clause 6. Clause 6 then disappears if you vote against clause 6. To strike it, you would vote against it.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
You can also separately move an amendment to clause 6. Then, if the amendment is defeated, then still vote against clause 6 if you want to strike it.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I guess my recommendation is that you move the amendment, because then you would have another opportunity to also vote against the clause itself.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Okay, then I will continue on with moving the amendment that I submitted, and for that reason.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
It still provides physicians, pharmacists, health care practitioners and medical researchers with the protection that they need to do their work, but it doesn't give them exclusion when it comes to any discriminatory behaviour against genetic characteristics.
