Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

The Chair: Ms. May wanted to ask a question. I need the consent of the committee for Ms. May to speak.

Brian Jean: Do we have the time, Mr. Chair, if we want to get to clause-by-clause?

The Chair: Just give me a no, then–yes or no.

No. Okay.

The Chair: Again Ms. May has her hand up. I need the consent of the committee for her to ask a question.

Do we have consent?

Voices: No.

The Chair: Okay.

The Chair: I think that brings our second meeting to a conclusion.

I want to thank everybody for confusing me entirely.

Ms. May, sorry.

Again, I have to ask for the consent of the committee for Ms. May to speak to the committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Elizabeth May: At least, Mr. Chair, now we can’t have the concern that we don’t have time to get through clause-by-clause.

I congratulate you on your election to the chair of this committee.

I appreciate members allowing me to join as an observer.

I merely want to observe that the Canadian Bar Association criminal law subsection, which was our only independent witness outside of federal government counsel, noted that the bill as written would not achieve its stated goals. I would ask this committee to be open to the possibility of revisiting this to insert the needed definition clause, to revisit how to handle mistrials, and to consider subsequent amendments, because I agree that the bill is important to pass. I would have preferred to see this committee pass it with amendments.

Thank you.

Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I find this very egregious that we have an observer who is making a suggestion that we should revisit decisions we’ve just made. I think that’s highly inappropriate. Quite frankly, if that’s what’s going to happen, you’re not going to be getting my consent to hear from Ms. May very often.

The Chair: Thank you.

Elizabeth May: I think I knew that.