Justice Committee on Nov. 24th, 2020

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the friendly amendment to this amendment, and I accept it. I am hoping people will support this amendment.

Given the clear objectives stated in the preamble related to protecting the human rights and inclusion of people with disabilities in respect of the charter and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, the minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities and the office of disability issues should be mandated to share in the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to Parliament on the MAID system.

This motion simply states that, in performing his or her function or duties under clause 3, the Minister of Health should consult with the minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities. Again, this is an amendment that was adapted from information sent to me by the Nanaimo Association for Community Living's executive director Graham Morry and information from Inclusion Canada and Inclusion BC.

I hope people will support this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Manly.

Mr. Virani, go ahead, sir.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much.

Again, I thank Mr. Manly for his contributions to this legislation and to this clause-by-clause discussion.

This is a very helpful idea that's being proposed. The nature of what I suggested as the friendly amendment that Mr. Manly is content with is circumscribing it a little bit. Part of my amendment removes the language that relates to the office of disability issues. I am advised that this office is not a legal entity and that the title and the name of that office may change over time, so entrenching it in a statute is not advisable.

Second is the language with respect to the nature of what the Minister of Health is required to do. In my view, the language should look something like “should consult” as opposed to “must, when appropriate, consult”. Over the past 48 hours, I've had some back-and-forth with different people about which language is most appropriate for an amendment that is amending the Criminal Code, so I'm going to ask the department to weigh in on whether “should consult” or “must, when appropriate, consult” is appropriate language for the purposes of coherence of the Criminal Code.

I'll go over to the department officials, who have been patient for many hours during the course of this clause-by-clause, and I thank them for their patience.

[Joanne Klineberg, Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We did take a look at and consider this language, and we had some discussions with the legislative drafters at the Department of Justice. We were unable to locate a provision in the federal statute book that said that a minister should do something. It's our collective view that the law directs what must be done or the law can permit what otherwise might not be permissible, but the law does not generally make a recommendation, because the law is there to be enforced when it's not followed, and it's not evident how you could enforce something that was just a recommendation about something that a minister should do.

The view of the Department of Justice is that it would be more appropriate and in keeping with the way ministerial consultations and other obligations on ministers are crafted that it be “must, when appropriate, consult”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much for that, Ms. Klineberg.

We'll go to Mr. Maloney.

You have your hand raised, sir. Go ahead.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for that clarification. In light of that, I would propose that we use the word “must” in the amended language that's contained in the November 24 email. If that requires a motion, Madam Chair, consider it so moved.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I have point of clarification, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Yes, Madame Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Is Mr. Maloney suggesting just the word “must” or “must, when appropriate”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thanks for that, Madame Findlay. I was actually going to seek the same clarification from Mr. Maloney.

If you can just clarify the exact language, sir, go ahead.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate Ms. Findlay's pointing that out to me. I believe it should be “must, when appropriate”.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thanks, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Virani, go ahead, sir.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Just so I'm crystal clear, we've heard from the officials, and I support, I think, what Mr. Maloney is suggesting.

The language would be pursuant to the email sent out by the clerk on November 23, at 1:26 p.m., tracking that exact language, but instead of the words “should consult”, it would say “must, where appropriate, consult”. Other than that, the language is intact in that email.

Is that what we are voting on now?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Again, I just have a point of clarification. I want to make sure I know what I'm voting on. Is the word “consult” or “collaborate”?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The language was “consult” in terms of—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

It's “consult”. Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Virani and Madame Findlay.

I'll turn to our legislative clerk to clarify the exact language that's before us right now.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question is more directed to the Department of Justice officials. If you will allow me, I'm going to read the English version first and then see what the French version might be.

The English version would read: “(6) In performing his or her functions or duties under subsection (3), the Minister of Health must, when appropriate, consult with the minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities.”

Is that correct?

[Joanne Klineberg]

As I understand it, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Mr. Maloney, can you confirm?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[Philippe Méla]

Now for the French version, if you have one, it would read:

(6) Dans l’exercice de ses responsabilités au titre du paragraphe (3)—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I can't understand.