Justice Committee on Nov. 25th, 2014

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Could you do it slowly in English or in French?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

We would say, “de porter atteinte au droit à la vie privée de quiconque de façon déraisonnable”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

What's your amendment?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

At the end:

…“de façon déraisonnable”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Oh, “unreasonable”. I didn't catch that. Sorry. Thank you.

We have an amendment to the amendment.

Are there any discussions on the amendment to the amendment?

Madam May, do you want to comment on the subamendment?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I think under the bizarre procedures in which I'm not really here, but my motion is deemed to have been moved, if I were allowed to speak to it, I'd be grateful to Madam Boivin for an amendment that I would be happy to accept as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

There's no such thing as friendly amendments.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Well....

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Really, there's a subamendment to the amendment. Are you saying you're okay with her subamendment?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

All right, now we're dealing with the subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived)

Now to PV-9 as presented.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now on amendment PV-10.

Ms. May, you have the floor for one minute.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, this is an attempt to create an additional sub-category that would constrain the ways in which the act is construed. One would be that the act should not be construed in a way that will impose an unreasonable financial burden on the provincial criminal justice system. I've heard members opposite invoke additional costs to the criminal justice system as a reason to reject some opposition amendments so far. This is one to ensure the act itself does not impose additional costs.

You may have noticed there was an article in the Calgary Herald in August that pointed out the cost to the Government of Alberta of Bill C-10 that was passed in the fall of 2012. The so-called Safe Streets and Communities Act was expected to put a cost of $18 million a year on the Province of Alberta's coffers. This is a check as we go through the implementation of this act that it's not creating an unfair burden on provincial governments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

All right.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I understand exactly what my colleague wants to do, but I will explain why I'll be voting against this amendment.

This is the heart of the bill, and that is the problem for our friends across the way. It's one thing to put a bill into practice or on paper, but the reality will be different.

I agree, and it is clear that the provinces will find that the cost will have an impact on the administration of justice. At least two ministers have said that, and I would certainly have liked to hear many more say the same thing. However, victims also told us that it was time to help them. If there is a cost attached, I would say to the government:

put your money where your mouth is.

This must be put into practice. Budgets will have to be allocated for this.

I don't want to start off by being defeatist, but my colleague will note that, under our other proposed amendments, changing the implementation of this bill will certainly be grist for the mill, meaning that a lot more money will be needed for the justice system.

I'm afraid the unreasonable financial burden on the criminal justice system will be a way out for the provinces. It will mean that they will be able to withdraw from applying the bill. We want this to work. They will put pressure on the federal government, which wants to implement this kind of system. Good for them, but the government will have to allocate money for this to work. Still, I don't want to defeat this straight away.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, madam.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on amendment PV-11, but just so the committee knows, if PV-11 is adopted, G-1 will not be able to be moved because you cannot amend the same lines twice.

The floor is yours, Madam May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Oh, Mr. Chair, the tension, the suspense. If my amendment is accepted, then a government amendment doesn't go through. This is an exciting moment for the Green Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I don't want to, either. I need my breath.

I'll make this quick. This amendment is to ensure something that was recommended by our Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, noting that this bill does make progress in permitting victims enhanced access to proceedings in a parole hearing. I'll just read what was said in the the ombudsman's brief:

It does not provide victims with a presumptive right to attend a parole hearing. As it stands, a victim must continue to apply to attend a hearing just like any other member of the public.

The Green Party's amendment PV-11 makes an attempt to create that presumptive right to attend a parole hearing for a victim of crime.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There you go. We are on amendment G-1 from the government.

Monsieur Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

This amendment proposes to amend proposed section 27 of the victims bill of rights, as introduced. It states:

Nothing in this Act is to be construed as granting any victim or individual acting on behalf of a victim the status as a party, intervenor or observer in any proceedings.

This amendment would make a minor change to proposed section 27 to ensure that it is clear that the Canadian victims bill of rights does not provide or remove any status provided to the victim under law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

This is for the witnesses from the Department of Justice.

Could you please explain the logic behind this amendment and what it actually means? “Provide” and “remove” are completely contradictory concepts.

Basically, the government amendment seeks to indicate that if there are situations in which a person can play the role of the party or of the observer, that would be fine, as well. In fact, this doesn't mean a thing. I am trying to understand how something can be provided and taken away at the same time. Could you explain it to us from a legal perspective?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Arnott.

[Pamela Arnott]

Ms. Boivin, you are correct to say that the intent of the clause is to specify that when observer status is granted by another act—take the conditional release act, for example—that status or regime is in no way affected by this clause.