Justice Committee on Oct. 4th, 2017

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Yes, I will accept that.

We have talked about transparency. Of course, through the course of the discussions tonight, we've also talked about going to the minister and raising certain issues that have come up that we're not able to resolve.

The NDP-6 amendment would provide for a two-year review of this legislation. It would seem to me that given the fact that there are some grey areas and some areas of concern, it would make sense to have that also. The new government has said it wants to be transparent so having a two-year review allows for that transparency around the act as well.

I'm hoping all members of the committee will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'm very much in favour of this amendment in principle. I do propose, though, that we change the two years to three years because I think we need to have more time to collect the data and to do the proper analysis.

Secondly, the amendment speaks to datasets collected by government and non-government agencies. The non-government part is not within the scope because it would entail finances using money.

Can the chair clarify?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I've discussed it with the legislative clerk. There could be occasions where it would fall in the department's regular operations so I think that's okay. I'll rule that's okay after discussion.

We'll put your other proposal to Mr. Julian, in terms of whether that's friendly or not.

I would note that I think they did a three-year review in Bill C-45.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Yes. It's a friendly amendment. I thank you very much, Ms. Khalid, for making the proposal, and I accept it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay. We can consider that a friendly amendment. The two is changed to three. The minister is changed to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. The rest stays the same.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 32 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We don't have any amendments going until clause 52 if I'm correct.

Is that correct, Mr. Legislative Clerk?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Would everyone agree that we group them together for one vote?

(Clauses 33 to 52 inclusive agreed to)

Now we move to the preamble, which would be LIB-12.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Obviously, we had discussion before about the potential impact of mandatory alcohol screening beyond just roadside checks. My amendment would change the preamble of the bill so that it would add that the exercise of investigative powers be in a manner that is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The intent is to highlight the fact—it's already implicit but to make it explicit—and state clearly that, obviously, any investigative powers must be done and performed in a manner consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that any irrelevant considerations being taken into account in the performance of their duties are unacceptable. I think that the preamble is an appropriate place to highlight that fact.

That's why I put forward this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Nicholson.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm not quite sure why it's necessary. It's implicit in every piece of legislation passed by the Government of Canada that it has to be consistent with parts of our Constitution, so I don't think it's necessary to put that. You're almost implying that we have problems in this area. We're confident that everything is constitutional—the testing. I don't see why it would be necessary to put this in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have to disagree with Mr. Nicholson on that. I'm not confident at all. I think the amendment may well be helpful, so I'm supporting it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Sorry to jump in; I know that I shouldn't be debating. I just want to point out that the concerns expressed by some but not the majority of witnesses, related to the mandatory new checks, were always related to charter compliance by the police, and I think this certainly reflects an intent that they “exercise investigative powers” consistently.

I'm flexibly allowing this to proceed, in itself, even though there weren't necessarily amendments. It's up to the committee.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the preamble carry, as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Shall the bill as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

May I report the bill as amended to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.