JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 28, 2002

¿

0950

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Mr. John Maloney (Erie--Lincoln, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, PC/DR)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Maloney

The Chair

An hon. member

The Chair

Mr. Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Bellehumeur

The Chair

Mr. Strahl

¿

0955

The Chair

Mr. Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Maloney

The Chair

Some hon. members

The Chair

Mr. Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Strahl

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 067

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0950)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good morning, and welcome.

    I call to order the 67th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today, we'll be dealing with Bill C-217, An Act to provide for the taking of samples of blood for the benefit of persons administering and enforcing the law and good Samaritans and to amend the Criminal Code.

    As members are aware, the plan for today was to proceed with clause-by-clause on Bill C-217, but I think there have been some discussions.

    I turn to Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie--Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I have some preliminary comments before we move to clause-by-clause, if indeed we do move to clause-by-clause.

    I think it's apparent that, in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament, the committee heard from numerous people who feel they could benefit significantly from this legislation. There's certainly a lot of sympathy for their positions.

    On the other side, though, we've heard from many witnesses who also have serious concerns about privacy, federal and provincial jurisdictions, and, in fact, the bill's constitutionality. Because of these difficulties, Mr. Chair, I have two motions that this committee might to consider—and I say two, because I think they're connected, although we'll perhaps deal with them separately.

    As the first motion, I would move the following:

That Bill C-217, the Blood Samples Act, do not proceed to clause-by-clause consideration at this time, and that, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, the Committee recommend that the House of Commons do not proceed further with this Bill, that the Order be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn from the Order Paper.

    That being said, the second motion that I would propose... as I say, the subject is certainly one that could continue to be discussed. Therefore, I would move the following motion:

The Committee recommend that the Department of Justice place this issues addressed in Bill C-217, An Act to provide for the taking of samples of blood for the benefit of persons administering and enforcing the law and good Samaritans and to amend the Criminal Code, on the agenda of the next meeting of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Justice, Attorneys General and Solicitors General as well as on the Agenda of the Uniform Law Conference.

    These forums of federal, provincial and territorial ministers, officials, judges, and legal experts could then deliberate how to best promote uniform provincial legislation, and make recommendations for criminal law amendments.

    The Chair: So do I understand that once we deal with the first motion, it's your intention to then proceed immediately with the second?

    Mr. John Maloney: That's correct.

    The Chair: Basically, then, this is on the first motion.

    Mr. Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, PC/DR): Thank you. I have a further motion on which we've had some discussions, but I'll put it forward following our dealings with that first motion.

    As the person who brought this issue forward—or one of a couple, since Dr. Keith Martin also brought this issue forward in the last Parliament—I do want to thank the committee and Parliament for taking this bill to this level. As everyone seems to understand and have a lot of sympathy for, it is an issue that needs to be discussed, and it is an issue that's evolving because of medical knowledge and because of what is probably a growing and serious problem with blood-borne pathogens generally.

    People are concerned about this issue. Perhaps we're sometimes overly paranoid about it, but at other times front-line workers basically have to assume 100% of the people they are treating may be carrying a life-threatening disease, as we heard yesterday. For those people, it's a very serious issue, so I again thank the committee for taking it seriously and for getting the experts in to help us go through this.

    As we've heard from, for example, the International Association of Fire Fighters or the Canadian Police Association, there are concerns about the privacy provisions in the bill as it's currently drafted. I share those concerns, and I've said so all along, both in the House and in committee. It has never been my intention to compromise those privacy concerns, of course.

    If it's possible, I do think sending it to the attorneys general for their input will put the political animals to work to see if there's a political will to proceed with this. If we can then get the Uniform Law Conference involved, perhaps the technicians can tell us where best we should have legislation.

    There are possibly a couple of outcomes from this that I think could be very good. One is some kind of uniform legislative response at the provincial level, where necessary. Because a lot of these concerns are health-related, I think it's best to leave it with the provinces, in the hope that they can come up with something everybody is happy with, especially at the paramedic and health care worker level.

    We heard from George Radwanski the other day, and I do think a Criminal Code provision may come back to us eventually. It specifically has to do with police officers in the line of duty. When someone is a victim of a criminal activity, a criminal sanction may end up being necessary. Again, as Mr. Radwanski implied in his testimony, that's another different kettle of fish. My bill didn't address that, and it was never intended to address that, so if it comes back or when it comes back—I think it will come back one day—there needs to be legislation specifically targeting criminal activity. But that's a separate thing. It was not my intention to do that, so to try to amend it to cover that issue would be improper at this stage of the bill's development.

    Just to put it on the record, I do want to thank the dozens of organizations that have put a lot of work into this. This issue is not being dropped. I think it has moved to its proper place now. The ministers, the legal experts, and the officials can now help to craft legislation that will be charter-proof and will get the job done. After all, getting the job done is what this is about.

    So, again, I want to thank everyone who has expressed their support in general for the bill. I do believe that where we're heading here today is the right way to discharge it. To those who have put so much work into this, the fight's not over, it has just moved to the level at which I think it will be most productive.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): If I could just add a comment, I agree. I think this is the appropriate way to go with this legislation.

    Is there any way we could ask the minister for some kind of report on what the outcome is or how it is accepted if it is brought before the federal-provincial talks? Could we just ask the minister to come back to us, or back to Mr. Strahl at the very least, to let him know what's going on with it?

    The Chair: Mr. Macklin, do you want to address that?

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I will pass that concern on to the minister.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Well, we've all heard that Mr. Maloney, the mover of the motion, has also expressed for the record that he believes it's a reasonable request.

    Having heard the motion, I'm going to call the question.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney, we'll now go to your second motion.

    Mr. John Maloney: I would move, Mr. Chair, that the committee ask the Department of Justice to place this issue on the agenda of the next meeting of the federal, provincial, and territorial justice ministers, attorneys general, and solicitors general, as well as on the agenda of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

    The Chair: You've heard the motion. Is there any discussion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I have a third motion that we could consider.

    Throughout the testimony, especially from the constitutional experts, it kept coming back to us that we needed statistical evidence to buttress this argument. That statistical evidence has been very difficult to gather. In fact, we heard from Health Canada yesterday that, after eight years of trying to do so, they have managed to get a dozen hospitals to report. I therefore have a further motion.

    Before this goes ahead, I think the AGs are going to need some more help on this, some more statistical evidence to either back up their arguments or dismiss them. Either way, it does seem to me that we need a little more help in that area. It seems no one at any level of government has the stats, so I have a motion for the committee's consideration:

That the Committee recommend that Health Canada increase its efforts to gather statistics on the number of front-line emergency workers, paramedics, police officers and medical and hospital workers who are exposed to blood borne pathogens in the course of their duties and that the Committee also recommend that the government allocate the resources necessary to achieve this objective.

    This is just a broad recommendation, but it may help Health Canada officials to understand the urgency or necessity of doing that. I don't know who else can do it other than Health Canada, because I don't think the justice department can gather the stats. It's going to have to be Health Canada.

    So it's just a recommendation, and it's obviously not binding on anyone. It certainly became clear, however, that the constitutional experts, the law society, Mr. Radwanski, and others, all said we need more statistical evidence. This could perhaps be part of our report to the House, in that we think those stats need to be forthcoming. They will certainly be necessary anyway if the AGs are going to proceed.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

    Are there any comments? No? There being none, I'll put the question to Mr. Strahl's motion.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney: Having proposed my motion, I'm just questioning whether or not we should give some direction to the Uniform Law Conference on exactly what we want them to do. I'm just wondering if I should revisit that motion. I would maybe suggest that I add to that motion the following words:

with the request that they then deliberate on how to promote uniform provincial legislation and make recommendations for criminal law amendment.

    Can we tell them what to do? If we can't tell what to do, I would certainly like to give them some direction.

    The Chair: This is procedural at this moment.

    I'd ask for the unanimous consent of the committee to reopen the second motion.

    An hon. member: No.

    The Chair: I don't have consent, so you have to put forward a fourth motion, Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney: I would move again, Mr. Chair, that the committee ask the Department of Justice to place the issue on the agenda the next meeting of the federal justice ministers, attorneys general and solicitors general.

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney, that motion has been passed. I think what you're trying to do is bring more clarity. Is that your intent? I can accept a motion that would bring more clarity, but I can't revisit the same motion that has already carried. And I'd need consent to amend.

    Mr. John Maloney: It would be better to withdraw the motion that I did enter in order to repass it with my amendments, then.

    The Chair: I will receive a motion to rescind.

    Mr. John Maloney: I so move.

    The Chair: There's a motion to rescind what would have been Mr. Maloney's second motion.

    Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier--Montcalm, BQ): A motion has been passed. Is the member moving a motion to rescind the original motion adopted? I'm not sure what exactly he wishes to accomplish, but that motion was unanimously endorsed by the committee. I think we're already giving the minister a lot to consider at the conference that will focus on this subject. If we start to add elements in an effort to come away with uniform legislation in all provinces, then you can be certain the Bloc Québécois and the Quebec government will not support this. I agree that we should discuss the matter and identify some major policy directions, all the while bearing in mind provincial and federal jurisdictions. However, the more precise your motion, the closer you come to crossing a line, the greater my concerns and the stronger my opposition.

    Right now, you have unanimous consent to debate an important matter. I think that's enough. Don't push your luck too far.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Strahl, I'd be curious to know if you believe we have enough right now.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm not exactly sure how much more the Uniform Law Conference will need. We have the subject matter before them and it may be broad enough, but I don't really know how they do their business.

    It does seem to me that the Uniform Law Conference... what we've heard from our testimony is that there are really three things involved. There's the provincial aspect of it or the health care aspect of it, on which there may or may not be universal or consensus. There's also the question of whether or not there is any federal jurisdiction required for either federally regulated industries or people like prison guards and so on, people who are under the aegis of the federal government. Finally, there's the criminal law aspect as well.

    The criminal law aspect may be something this bill doesn't really consider, so I don't know if we have to say more to ask the Uniform Law Conference to consider it, or whether we just ask them to re-read our testimony and look at the whole ball of wax. If that's how they would do it on the broad subject matter of blood-borne pathogens and the problems they present for society, perhaps the conference would dig into it deeply enough. But I just don't know how they work, so I can't make a recommendation.

¿  (0955)  

    The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Chairman, I made some inquiries, and in terms of the normal process that would be followed in this matter, we would be supplying copies of the transcripts and the materials to the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. They would then have the benefit of what we have had here in terms of testimony and evidence. In the end, I think it's likely that all of the relevant facts that we've heard will be there before them.

    The Chair: I think I see a consensus, Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney: In that case, I would move to withdraw my fourth motion.

    The Chair: That's the one to rescind?

    Mr. John Maloney: Yes, it's to rescind motion 4, which deals with my motion 2.

    (Motion withdrawn)

    The Chair: That's all right, I'm keeping track. I'll adjourn quickly.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: As chair of the committee, let me just say to Mr. Strahl and to the members of the committee that I would first of all like to extend my commendation to Mr. Strahl. He has been very determined with regard to this legislation, and has in fact caused it to find its place here today. And to the members of the committee, including those who aren't here today but generally would be here, and to Mr. Bellehumeur, Mr. Cadman, Mr. McKay, Mr. Blaikie, and others who participated in this exercise, I think we have once again done our work with a level of civility that is required to perhaps bring these kinds of issues forward in the interest of all Canadians, independent of partisan interests and so on. So kudos to Mr. Strahl and all the members of the committee for having done this.

    Mr. Strahl, you have the last word.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that you'll report this to the House. When might that be done?

    The Chair: The intention would be to report it tomorrow. Our deadline was early the week after next. Since we aren't here next week, we have to get it in.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, good. Thank you.

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.