SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Committee

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 1, 2024
The Chair (Ms. Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, Lib.))
  • 08:17:22 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on June 21, 2023, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation on miscarriage of justice reviews. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. We have members on Zoom and others are in person. I believe we have a new member with us. Marilyn Gladu, welcome to our committee. I believe all members are knowledgeable about the technology and how it works and about interpretation. Just as a reminder, all comments are to be addressed through the chair, please. We have members in the room. For those on Zoom, with the help of the clerk and the Table, we will watch for hands going up on the screen to ensure that we don't miss anyone. I wish to inform you that all the sound tests were completed successfully. With us in person today is Madam Anna Dekker. Ms. Anna Dekker is Senior Counsel and Deputy Director of the Public Law and Legislative Services Sector. We may be joined by someone else, but right now we will continue with our study. We will resume consideration of Bill C-40 and resume debate on clause 3. NDP-1 was withdrawn by unanimous consent on December 14, 2023. I will ask Mr. Housefather if he wants to move LIB-1. (On clause 3)
274 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.)
  • 08:19:27 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. We've had some extensive discussions already on this amendment. The essential purpose of LIB-1 is to allow the most vulnerable people who couldn't have appealed to the court of appeal to have the same right, as under the current version of the bill, that they would have had if they had not appealed to the Supreme Court. Essentially, it is entirely consistent with the language of the bill. It just adds a further avenue for those who didn't appeal the original judgment to appeal on the same grounds as allowed for those who didn't appeal their court of appeal judgment to the Supreme Court. Given how much discussion we've had already about Mr. Garrison's amendment and this one, I don't think I need to prolong this. I would recommend that we support it. Thank you.
148 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border