Evidence of meeting #89 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
With the speakers list it wouldn't depend on whether I was making an amendment or just speaking to it. There's no advantage if someone is making an amendment.
Am I the next person on the list or not? I think my question is really simple.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
But if I'm not the first one on the list, then I shouldn't be recognized. That's fine. No problem.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
According to what I have written here, Mr. Moore is the first one on the list.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you.
No, Mr. Housefather's points are well taken, Madam Chair, because as was just mentioned, and it's important for us to know this....
I have a number of questions about NDP-1, but since you have ruled that if NDP-1 passes LIB-1 drops, it's impossible not to look at them together. Obviously, we would only want to go with one or the other—or neither, depending on our views of the legislation.
Turning now to our departmental officials and focusing on NDP-1, because that's the one we're on, a lot has been said about exhausting appeal. We heard witness testimony on that. There are, I think, significant public policy reasons and interests to not gum up our justice system and to not create a parallel justice system where someone could say, “Oh, I was convicted. Do I go the appeal route? Do I go the 'I was wrongfully convicted' route or 'I had a miscarriage of justice' route?” Lawyers would be advising their clients on which would be the most advantageous route to take.
Could the departmental officials maybe walk us through how NDP-1 would change Bill C-40 and maybe how it compares to LIB-1, if you're prepared to do that? I wouldn't want to think that LIB-1 was better or worse while we're considering NDP-1.
Could you just walk us through first the effect of NDP-1, as you understand it?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Yes. In terms of the description, to the extent that I can, I will.
5:25 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
As I see it, NDP-1 proposes to replace proposed subsection 696.4(4) entirely to allow the commission to decide that an application is admissible even if a court of appeal has not rendered a final judgment based on any factor that may have constrained the applicant’s ability or opportunity to appeal the finding or verdict.
In addition, the motion would amend proposed subsection 696.4(2) of that same provision, which is the exhaustion of appeals admissibility criterion to allow applicants to include information they believe should be taken into account by the commission in deciding whether to admit the application despite their not having exhausted their rights of appeal.
One thing I did observe, though, in the manner in which the motion is worded, is that the amendment to proposed subsection 696.4(4), the exception provision, says that it's “despite” proposed paragraph 696.4(3)(b), I believe. I'm trying to find the motion itself. It doesn't speak to what would happen with (3)(b), which is when someone had an issue that they could have appealed to the Supreme Court.
In terms of operationalizing that, I'm not quite sure what effect that would have.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Chair, on that, I think there's a lot to digest here with NDP-1. It's a substantive amendment, reconciling it with LIB-1.
At this juncture in the meeting, I know we were scheduled to go from 3:30 to 5:30, and I know some of our members have adjusted their schedules based on that, so at this point, I would make a motion to adjourn the meeting for today.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.