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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Let's have a vote.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to)
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We have 17 minutes and 22 seconds before the vote. Do we want to try to handle Liberal-1?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
October 4th, 2017 / 4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I think this specific clause is missing a cross-reference to samples of blood that are taken under proposed paragraph 254(3.1)(b), which authorizes the arresting officer to demand a blood sample to determine blood drug concentration. The proposed amendment would add the missing cross-reference and ensure that these blood samples are subject to the same protections as any other bodily substances.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Are there any further comments?
Ms. Khalid, do you have anything to close with?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you for your support in voting for this amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 9 to 14 inclusive agreed to)
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Colleagues, given that we have multiple amendments on clause 15 and I don't want to short-shrift anybody, let's suspend and return right after the vote.
Thank you for moving through this quickly, colleagues.
The meeting is suspended.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you, colleagues.
We are now reconvening the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights meeting as we deal with Bill C-46.
(On clause 15)
We will continue where we left off, which is with clause 15. We have multiple amendments for clause 15, the first one being Liberal-2.
Mr. Fraser.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We heard evidence from the Canadian Safe Boating Council, which had expressed a reservation about the change in the definition of the term “vessel”.
I am therefore proposing an amendment that may not entirely satisfy what they were seeking, but will at least address the fact that they were asking for “but does not include a vessel propelled exclusively by means of muscular power” to be deleted, and to leave it the way it is now.
Therefore, I would be changing slightly the LIB-2 that I provided, and it would now read that Bill C-46, in clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 14 with the following, “vessel includes a hovercraft”, and basically leaving it at that, so deleting everything after the word “hovercraft”.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Correct. It's a modification to the amendment that I had submitted, LIB-2.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Let's call it a new amendment called LIB-2 that replaces the old LIB-2. That makes it cleaner for the clerk.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Instead of saying that it's deleting lines 5 to 7, we would say that it would be replacing lines 5 to 7 with the following,“ vessel includes a hovercraft”, which is the current definition, but not keeping the words that were proposed in the bill, which said it excluded vessels propelled by people. I don't have it in front of me.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Just add some clarification for me while you go back and forth.
It seems to me that if you have somebody in a rowboat, or a canoe, or whatever it is.... There is an example. In fact, my colleague, Tony Clement, was just the other day telling me about a terrible accident. Somebody was impaired and somebody in the boat was killed. It wasn't a motorized boat, but is that going to be excluded from this?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'm sorry, I'll go back to you. I don't want to overstep my bounds, but I just want to make it clear.
The complaint we had to the bill was that it specifically excluded manually propelled vessels. What Mr. Fraser is doing is removing that from the definition to say the vessel includes a hovercraft, as it does currently in the code, and not excluding those vessels.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Exactly, and I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear, because there was a slight change to what I had previously put, but yes, it answers that very point and allows the case law to develop what the definition of a vessel is further than that.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
So it's still going to be a crime to paddle a canoe impaired?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Or at least the police would be given the means to charge, should the police so interpret that a vessel includes a canoe.
Are there any further thoughts on this one, colleagues?
Ms. May, perhaps you have a lot of thoughts about canoes and rowboats. Do you have anything?
5:15 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It's kind of new, although the terms of the motion that you all passed, which forces me to be here today, don't give me that latitude. But I actually have nothing but support for the Liberal amendment.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Not hearing any other comments on the new LIB-2, can we have a vote on LIB-2?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now move to PV-1.
Ms. May.
5:15 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I hope it's not too grim.
First of all, with respect to all members of this committee, I need to put on the record that the motion that brings me here is one that I do not find helpful, but rather coercive. I would have rights, unrestricted rights, as a member of Parliament for the Green Party but not in a recognized party to provide substantive amendments at report stage—other than, I imagine, the PMO telling all of you in every committee to pass the same motion that was drafted under Stephen Harper to make sure I couldn't present amendments at report stage. There's never been a time in Canadian parliamentary history when a majority party has gone to such lengths to deprive a party of one MP, already with very few rights...to have even fewer rights and have to show up for clause-by-clause in this restrictive capacity. I need to put that on the record every time, but with that I will speak to my amendment, which is deemed to have been moved, because I'm not a member of the committee.
We've heard evidence from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association about this particular section that we're dealing with in clause 15. I'm proposing to change lines 5 to 6 on page 15, lines 9 to 10, and lines 14 to 15, for the purpose of alleviating what the Canadian Civil Liberties Association described as an attempt to fix something that has an extremely rare chance of ever presenting itself, but which results in a shortcut in proving criminality and a reversing of the onus of proof that are not justified. The purpose of all the various sections that are amended in amendment PV-1 is to restore the crown's responsibility, and not to reverse the onus of proof.