Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I know these things begin to appear to be technical--and in one sense, they are--but they also then become matters of principle, although not overriding principle. Let me explain what I mean.

I state in my amendment that clause 71 should be amended by deleting lines 8 to 11 on page 40. I'll just read those lines in the bill:

The protection of society is the paramount consideration for the Board and the provincial parole boards in the determination of all cases.

When I say they should be deleted, I'm not saying they should be eliminated. My next amendment, right after that, would be to add those same words after line 25 on page 40. I simply want them inserted after proposed paragraph 101(a) instead.

So it seems technical in terms of the fact that I'm asking that those lines be deleted, but there is a purpose behind it. I want it inserted as one of the principles that guide the board and the provincial parole boards in achieving the purpose of conditional release, which are all listed there.

I just want it put back to where it was, in that list of principles; that's all. I'd also like you to consider my first two amendments at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find this issue intriguing, because it was frequently raised in relation to another part of this act, which we will be coming to, and that is to do with young offenders. Witness after witness came before us to accuse the government of making protection of the public paramount in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, when in fact it wasn't. It was just one factor among many.

This case is distinguishable because it does in fact, in the government legislation, make protection of the public paramount when it comes to parole. Quite frankly, I don't find anything offensive in that. I think once every consideration has been given in the questions of sentence and conviction, the decision of whether or not to release someone on parole should in fact be guided, in a paramount way, by protection of the public.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I don't think my proposal was offensive. I think my proposal was basically intended to say I agree with this principle. I simply think it should be put among the set of principles so listed, as it was before. I'm only objecting to the removal of it from the inventory of principles and singling it out as the overriding principle, when I think we had an approach whereby we would permit the appreciation of a set of principles. Therefore, again, I'm not eliminating that principle. I'm not saying it should be deleted. I'm saying it should only grammatically and technically be deleted from where it is, to be put in the set of inventory of principles, where it belongs.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Briefly, I'll withdraw the word “offensive”. I simply meant to say I didn't find anything wrong or inappropriate or untoward or unacceptable about keeping protection of the public the paramount consideration above any others when it comes to parole.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

There's a question in my colleague's statement. Again, I don't impugn the government's intention or bad faith. I simply think it would be a preferred drafting approach to keep all the principles together, and it would be a preferred principled approach to group all the principles together. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I want to speak briefly in support of the combination of amendments 28 and 29. We do recognize that one of the parole board's paramount considerations has to be the protection of society. Clearly, parole has much to do with sentencing: it's the protection of the public that has to be achieved in the best way possible.

Obviously the rehabilitation of an offender is a goal that establishes, promotes, and enhances the protection of society, so we ask parole boards to exercise their judgment in that regard. We ask the courts and judges to exercise their judgment in that regard. That's the purpose of our justice system, and the principle of sentencing and the principle of parole involves trying to figure out how to best do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Shall Liberal amendment 28 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

We almost had one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Cotler, you have amendment number 30.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment number 30 really seeks, with respect to parole boards again, to insert or reinsert the principle regarding least restrictive determination.

We have discussed this before in our previous approach to this matter. Again, I want to reiterate that this is not simply an idle drafting amendment, but this goes to the issue both of principle and the issue of policy and in fact operational management.

For reasons of constitutional principle, as well as policy management within the parole board, I would recommend again that the principle of least restrictive determination be included as the normative principle in this regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, can I have some help from our advisors here as to how these several amendments on clause 71 interact with one another? We have two as well, one of which appears to be exactly the same as Liberal 30. Is that something where if one is defeated, the other one can't be discussed, or is it...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

They're not identical. I think you've got a word different.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We have one word different--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

The French is different.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

--and the French is different. Okay, the French certainly is different.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

We can have another crack at it. .

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

They're pretty close.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

They're pretty close. I think it's the principle that's similar. I just didn't want to be precluded from speaking to our own amendment--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You can speak to it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

--if this one fails. That was my issue. We'll speak to our own amendment, I guess, even though it's along the same lines.