SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Randall Garrison

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2023
Context: Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (JUST) - Oct/19/23
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)
  • 03:48:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We have a large number of amendments before us today and we are working toward a deadline for getting this bill approved in Parliament. I have a concern, because the Senate has already passed it, that if we make extensive changes, we will endanger meeting that deadline. I'm not going to say this many times today; I'm going to say it once. I'll be voting only for amendments that I think are essential. We heard from some witnesses about some things that we definitely need to do. However, we have a large number of other amendments here, and I'm concerned that this will result in a delay when it comes to the House dealing with the Senate.
127 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (JUST) - Oct/19/23
Mr. Randall Garrison
  • 04:48:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to restrain my comments to this. I think that all the people around the table have heard testimony from victims. Some of us have dealt with them for a number of years before this bill came here, so there are obviously differences of opinion about what we can accomplish in it, given the time frames we are dealing with and the Senate. That said, PV-9, NDP-1 and the additional motion brought forward by the government are all very similar and try to accomplish the same thing. I've seen the government's motion. I believe it more simply accomplishes the same goal that's in PV-9 and NDP-1. I would ask the committee to defeat both and deal with the government's substitute motion on this section.
138 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (JUST) - Oct/19/23
Mr. Randall Garrison
  • 05:09:29 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I don't read this amendment the same way. What I read this amendment doing is precisely what the Conservatives are talking about. It removes any ability of the accused, by not including them in this clause, to make use of privacy rights in a case like this. I think it actually accomplishes exactly the opposite of what the Conservative members are arguing. I guess I'll be fair to the government. This was a government bill that was amended in the Senate, so this has gotten quite complex, because it has already been amended in the other House and comes back to us with those amendments in place. This I think clarifies the original intention, and I think it does what those who are survivors wanted: to make sure that the accused can't make use of privacy rights in these proceedings.
149 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border