Evidence of meeting #90 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 commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you, Mr. Moore. I appreciate that.
I'm going to move to the next speaker.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Chair, you just said to my honourable colleague that this would be the last time that you would give him the opportunity to speak. I'm curious as to where in the green book or the Standing Orders you find permission or direction as chair—
December 14th, 2023 / 3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm not done the point of order. Thank you for being respectful of my time.
I'm curious to know why you would rule that my colleague would be cut off and that he would only be able to raise a certain number of points of order or be able to speak a certain number of times. I haven't read that in the green book. I'm not aware of that being in the Standing Orders. I'm quite familiar with them myself, having been a chair previously.
I'm curious if you can point to the place in the green book where we would find that ruling.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you.
We've dealt with that last time and I will not entertain it again. I did point to the rule book and I want to move on now.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
You can challenge the chair. I've made my ruling. Please challenge the chair.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
You're referring to a decision that was made in the past, when I wasn't here.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
If you wish to challenge the chair, I will move aside and we will call this vote. Otherwise, I am moving to the next speaker.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I just wish to understand why you feel its your prerogative as chair to limit the number of times people at this table can speak. Are there only a certain number of points of order that we're allowed to raise?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
If I can lend a hand, the chair did not say that. She was really trying to move on from Mr. Moore.
At no point did she ever say to anyone here today or previously that people were limited in the number of their interventions. She was ruling on a specific point of order and addressing a issue of relevance. It's as simple as that. Let's not waste time. Let's move forward.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
If you'd like to challenge, do so. Otherwise, the next speaker is Mr. Garrison.
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
It's Mr. Caputo.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
I thought he was finished.
Mr. Caputo, go ahead.
Your name was scratched, so I thought you were done. Go ahead, if you're not done.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
That's fine.
I apologize. Frankly, I sniffle for about six months of the year. It's just something with my biology. I apologize to the translators. If I have to sniffle, I will try to mute myself because the last thing I want to do is harm the translators here. I'm getting a thumbs-up, so I apologize. Thank you for your work.
I'm going to start from where I left off.
I know both Mr. Garrison and Mr. Housefather to be conscientious members of this committee and of Parliament and both are persons of principle. Though we often will disagree, I think we all would say that we stand fast by our principles. I do not doubt where they're coming from.
One thing I was discussing was that as a defence lawyer, when I was dealing with a matter that wasn't really necessarily a serious matter in society's eyes, but a matter that nonetheless would attract significant liability before the court, it's my view that a miscarriage of justice occurred. That sticks with me each and every single day. It's not something I want to relive.
One thing we deal with in this committee—and perhaps this is even tunnel vision on our part as a committee, or maybe it's just where we get wrapped up—is that it's so easy to focus on the big cases. When I say “big cases”, I'm talking about the people who've been convicted and incarcerated for a great deal of time. For everybody who has their day in court, that's a big day, whether they're there for the first time or whether they're there for the 100th time. It's their liberty on the line. That is important. That's their day. Perhaps for some people, if they've been through it a number of times, it's not going to be the same as for the person who walks into trial for the first time. That isn't to say, though, that it's not important. It certainly is.
We frequently hear about people who were incarcerated on life sentences, for instance, whose exoneration came after years on parole and after they had served a substantial amount of their sentence.
That's one thing I wanted to state for the record. When we do consider wrongful convictions, we have to think about this in the grand scheme of it all. Second, I don't think anybody here ever would want to see that.
Mr. Garrison and Mr. Housefather bring forward two competing amendments. In my view, they generally do accomplish similar things. We've heard from both of them what their interpretations are, and I'll be very candid: I'm terrible. In trying to piece together what exactly LIB-1 says, I'm not the best person to look at that and say this is exactly what it is.
Ms. Besner or Ms. Dekker, could either of you tell us independently what the upshot of each of these amendments is, in your eyes, and where the substantial similarities and differences are, please?
4 p.m.
Julie Besner Senior Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
I'll only comment as to the effect of what the amendment appears to accomplish or its impact on other provisions within the bill. Obviously, it's for the committee to decide if one approach versus the other is the better approach.
I was listening a moment ago when Member Housefather was describing his amendment and I didn't see anything inaccurate in how he described it. I think that's all I can say.
The other day, I was asked at the end of the last meeting to describe NDP-1, and I did. I just identified one potential issue, which is that it only makes exception to (3)(a) and not (3)(b), so there's just a question there as to what would happen with (3)(b).
That's all I would want to say on that.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I'm sorry, but I'm not recalling that. Can you elaborate on that, please?