Evidence of meeting #68 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
This couldn't be managed effectively and provide an additional level of protection for the individual...I think is clear would be advisable. The committee heard testimony to that effect as well.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We will now move to a vote on NDP-5.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On Liberal-10, we have Mr. Fraser.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
This is basically intended to limit the use of the information collected to make it related to drugs or alcohol with regard to the reason that information is kept.
The purpose of this was to limit the scope within which the information obtained would be utilized, so that it would be utilized only in cases of drugs or alcohol. Currently, it says “a federal or provincial Act”, but that may go outside of the scope of drugs or alcohol, which is the purpose for which it should be used.
I feel that this reins in the scope of what the actual information can be obtained and used for.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I agree with Mr. Fraser on this one.
I just have a point of information. It says “provincial Act related to drugs or alcohol”. Would it be necessary to say “and/or alcohol” and “and/or vessels”? They are not just separate; sometimes they are combined.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Let's ask the department.
Is there a distinction in the wording based on whether we put “and/or” or just “or”?
8 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't believe it causes a difficulty to say “drugs or alcohol”. If they are combined, one or the other would cover it.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there a problem if we say “and/or”? Does it create a drafting issue?
October 4th, 2017 / 8 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't believe so.
8 p.m.
Liberal
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Would that be “and/or to the operation of a motor vehicle”, too?
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay, so two “ands” are now added to line 2 of the amendment.
It will now read, “enforcement of a federal or provincial Act related to drugs and/or alcohol and/or to the operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment.”
We'll move to a vote on LIB-10, as amended. It was a friendly amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
PV-5 was withdrawn, so we now move to Liberal-11.
Ms. Khalid, go ahead.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Liberal-11 basically seeks to work on the definition of what is an analyst. I think that it is not broad enough. As it is currently drafted, it talks about breath samples and blood samples, but I think the intent is to encompass all bodily substances, and an analyst should be able to do that. The amendment basically seeks to broaden what an analyst can be with regard to the act.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 15 as amended agreed to on division)
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Colleagues, would you mind if we group clauses 16 to 31 together and agree to vote on them all at once?
(Clauses 16 to 31 inclusive agreed to)
8:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to say I enjoyed enormously being with the committee this evening.
8:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
You are very welcoming, and, Mr. Chair, you do a very good job of guiding us through each of the votes. Not all committee chairs do that, actually making sure everyone understands which amendment we're on, so thank you for your good work.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
You're welcome, but before you begin, Mr. Julian, I just have a small question for you. In this amendment you used the word “Minister”, and the minister is not defined in the act. My belief is you mean the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada?
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Would you agree that where we say “Minister”, you would accept a friendly amendment to say “Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada” so we clarify that?