44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 1, 2022
- 03:43:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting 41 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of October 31, the committee is meeting to begin its study of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.
On our agenda today, we will be proceeding to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9. If time permits, we will try to continue in camera our progress on our study of the draft report on the government's obligation to the victims of crime.
On our first item of business today, we will have officials from the Department of Justice with us for any technical questions.
I would like to welcome Shakiba Azimi, counsel, judicial affairs section, public law and legislative services sector; and Patrick Xavier, acting deputy director and senior counsel, judicial affairs section, public law and legislative services sector.
If we're ready to start clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9, I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed.
As the name indicates, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.
If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing each one to explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.
The chair will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly.
Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted it. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment has been moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.
Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the short title, the title and the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.
Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.
702 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:48:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
You should be done by now.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:48:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
I know we are all pretty well versed in this, but I feel that it's still my duty to go through it.
To begin the clause-by-clause study, the chair calls clause 1.
(Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 12)
The Chair: We have amendment NDP-1.
Mr. Bachrach, do you want to speak to it?
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:49:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm happy if you just want to call the vote, but perhaps I should introduce it.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:49:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Go ahead and introduce it.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:49:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee for allowing me to sit in for my colleague, Mr. Garrison. I'll do my best here.
NDP-1 is an amendment that Bill C-9, in clause 12, be amended by replacing the line 13 on page 6 with the following:
alleges sexual harassment or that alleges discrimination—or improper conduct that is substantially similar to discrimination—
I believe this was based on a concern brought to the committee by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which appeared before you as a witness during the consideration of Bill C-9.
The goal here, if I understand it correctly, is to avoid complaints being summarily dismissed at the screening stage. It's to ensure that complaints are heard and investigated through that first stage, to increase public confidence in the process. I think that's a summary of why that amendment was brought forward.
Thank you.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:50:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Okay.
Mr. Anandasangaree.
3 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:50:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm just wondering if we can hear from counsel on this.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:50:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Sure.
Would either one of you, Ms. Azimi or Mr. Xavier, want to comment on this?
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:50:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Sure. I'm happy to comment on it.
I think the term “substantially similar to discrimination” is a bit vague. It doesn't really have a clear legal meaning, so it's discrimination or it's not. For something that is “substantially similar” to it but is not discrimination, exactly what that means and how it could constitute misconduct would seem a bit unclear.
We're not aware of any kind of instrument that would define what constitutes “substantially similar to discrimination” and how it might constitute misconduct.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:51:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Is there any other debate on this?
Mr. Van Popta.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:51:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I just have a question for counsel.
Could we drop the second part of that so that all it reads is “alleges sexual harassment or that alleges discrimination”?
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:51:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I think the clause already reads, “that alleges sexual harassment or discrimination on a prohibited ground within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act”. I think that would revert the provision to the original wording.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:51:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
The question is whether it changes the import to drop the phrase that includes the term “substantially similar to discrimination”.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
