Evidence of meeting #75 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.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Mr. Chair, I agree with Mr. Nicholson on this. I think it's already covered but we may be getting in there a subjective element about the complainant's individual expectation, which could pose some problems for a court trying to determine that.
I think it's better not to accept this amendment.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Maybe I could clarify this with the officials. In the proposed amendment on the complainant's expectation of privacy, as I understand the law, there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's not the complainant's own expectation if it's unreasonable.
Am I correct that this would change the law or potentially create an element that is, as Mr. Nicholson said, subjective no matter how unreasonable it is?
4:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I have to agree that it does say something very different from what section 278.1, which defines “record”, does. That section refers to a reasonable expectation of privacy and to privacy statutes as well, so you're looking at a very particular type of information. I also agree that it might be quite difficult to ascertain what the complainant's subjective perspective is, particularly since she or he would not be a compellable witness at the voir dire.
I'd also point out that this list is informed by lists that occur in other locations in the code and particularly in the third-party record, so there would be a discrepancy between the lists. As we know, discrepancies can have unintended effects in terms of interpretation. I suggest that as well for consideration.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Nothing further.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 25 as amended agreed to)
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Colleagues, there are no amendments proposed between clauses 26 and 43. Does anybody have any amendments between clauses 26 and 43 that they would like to raise now?
If not, does anyone have any objection to lumping together clauses 26 to 43 for the purposes of the vote? I am not seeing any objections.
(Clauses 26 to 43 inclusive agreed to)
Next, we move to the new proposed clause 43.1, which is LIB-8.
Mr. Fraser.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
This is basically a technical amendment. The current bill gets rid of subsection 376(1) of the code dealing with trading stamps, and it leaves in, at section 379, the definition of a trading stamp. It serves no useful purpose, and therefore this amendment would delete the part that's not necessary anymore.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Between clauses 44 and 81, again, there were no amendments proposed. Does anyone have any amendments that they would like to propose between clauses 44 and 81?
Colleagues, would you be willing to lump together clauses 44 through 81?
Yes, Mr. Nicholson.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Exactly, please do.
(Clauses 44 to 72 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 73)
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Thank you very much.
This is the new requirement that charter statements should be put into the legislation. I really think this is unnecessary. The Minister of Justice gets advised on all pieces of legislation and takes those into consideration.
Clause 73 imposes a requirement to table a statement setting out any potential effects on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of any bill introduced in the Senate and the House of Commons. This means that, regardless of whether the minister finds any inconsistencies, or any questions at all, they have to table this legal opinion.
First of all, I don't think it's necessary. The minister—and indeed all ministers—is advised, and certainly the Minister of Justice has a special responsibility of that. To have this now as part of the legislation.... Do you want to add the Canadian Bill of Rights or the British North America Act? You could put everything in there that complies with the Criminal Code. Do you know what I mean?
These are all important constitutional measures, though not the Criminal Code, which is a piece of federal legislation. However, that being said, I don't believe it's necessary and I can't support that. I would like to remove that.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
The way to do that would be to vote against the clause.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Exactly, and that's the reason I'll be voting against it.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Colleagues, do you have comments on what Mr. Nicholson mentioned?
Ms. Khalid.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was actually very happy to see this insertion, because I think it gives Parliament and our minister more accountability in respecting our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the important legislation that we put forward. I think this is a great step for our current minister, and ministers who may come forward in the future.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Following up on what Ms. Khalid said, we don't know what future governments may be like and what their intentions may be, but codifying this requirement gives Parliament that extra bit of oversight, which is a very important role that we serve in. Yes, I certainly appreciate receiving those charter statements. We may not always agree with them, but at least the effort is being made.
Thank you.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
For the purposes of clause 73, which we'll now vote on, if you agree with Mr. Nicholson's comments, you would vote against it carrying, and if you don't agree, you'd vote in favour of it, unless you have different reasons for why you don't want it to carry.
(Clause 73 agreed to)
Now we have clauses 74 through 81. Again, colleagues, does anyone have any amendments or proposed comments about clauses 74 through 81? If not, may we put them all together as a group? Okay.
(Clauses 74 to 81 inclusive agreed to)
Now we move to the overall bill.
Shall the title carry?
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.