Evidence of meeting #35 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mike MacPherson  Procedural Clerk

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

It's “complainant's”. Okay.

Could I speak to...?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Go ahead, Ms. Hoeppner.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Okay, thank you.

I'll address a couple of concerns Mr. Garrison brought forward, and then I'll speak to the amendment. I think they're related.

First of all, we appreciate and understand that the opposition, while likely in agreement with stopping vexatious complaints, does not support this bill. We understand, as well, that this amendment wouldn't necessarily make them support the bill. On the government side, obviously, we're saying we support the bill; we want the intent of the bill to go forward, but we believe putting it into regulation, like the rest of the act, is more workable, and it's more of a logical step.

As for his concerns that there is no kind of a public process or oversight to the regulations, I would just reminder him that the regulations are all public. Again, they have to go through the committee on scrutiny of regulations. That's where they're looked at. They can be reviewed very closely there. As well, they can come back to this committee. I think that's important.

In keeping with that, we would disagree with the issue of mental health or education being enshrined in the legislation. Obviously, it's taken into account with every decision that is made. I know the commissioner testified that for every decision that is made for any reason concerning an inmate, mental health and those factors are taken into account, but I would not be supportive of that being enshrined in the legislation, really for the same reasons that we are making this amendment right now. We want to give the basic abilities within the legislation, but then be able to do the procedures in regulation, and these are details that might be better addressed in regulations.

There's just one more thing from Mr. Garrison, again on the six months versus one year. I want to make sure that everyone is aware that if this passes and if a commissioner says, “prohibit an offender from submitting any further complaint or grievance except by leave of the Commissioner”, the intent of that is not that the person could never put in a complaint within the next year. In fact, it's the opposite.

I'll just repeat this. The regulations would also articulate the process for granting leave to file a grievance—even within that one-year span—for example, where it's determined that the grievance is not an abuse of process and that consideration be given to life, liberty, and the security of the person.

So the intent would be, within those regulations, to make sure there's a clear and straightforward process so that there would still be an ability. As we talked about when we looked at this bill, even if someone had been designated a vexatious complainant, none of us wanted that to mean that person would never be able to make a complaint within that year, if there was a legitimate complaint to be made. So we want that, again, to be laid out in regulation, because that's the way the rest of the act has been laid out.

Unfortunately, we would not be able to support your amendment. We don't see that it should be in the legislation. But I hope that I possibly addressed some of your concerns.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Yes.

There's one other thing, as far as process goes. It really behooves the committee on the scrutiny of regulations to take a look at the sense of what the former committee talked about. If they have questions on that, part of their responsibility is to go back and ask if this is in accordance with what the original committee talked about. So when they come up with the regulations—and as Ms. Hoeppner correctly pointed out—there is that opportunity, once the regulations are brought forward by the scrutiny of regulations committee, for them to come back to committee.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Maybe you could tell me, because I'm not sure myself, whether the committee on scrutiny of regulations has any backlog. How long does it take for these regulations?

I sat on it once as a substitute, and we were dealing with a regulation that went back years.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

I don't know the answer to that.

Mr. Norlock.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

I think it all depends on the workload. I do know, from having sat on that committee for about a year, that some of the issues are never dealt with, and those are the ones that are very old. But the committee does have, through their counsel, an ability to bring matters forward in conjunction with the co-chairs of the committee, one from the Senate and one from the House.

As well, any of the members of that committee, through the committee process, I believe, can speed up or can.... If they see something in regulation or in law, whether it be a linguistic issue or a charter issue, they can bring the matter forward to the committee. The committee can therefore be seized with it on a more expeditious basis.

I believe the legislative clerk may be able to add a little bit more to that, if he so chooses.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Do you choose?

3:50 p.m.

Procedural Clerk

Mike MacPherson

I'm not really a spokesman for the committee, but....

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

I'm not asking you to speak for the committee. I'm just saying that the committee, like every committee in the House of Commons, can bring things forward.

In other words, if the opposition chose to make leave to the committee to have something happen, it would happen in committee, just as it would in this committee. I wouldn't see where the government, having made a commitment—and the blues will reflect that commitment to do so.

If I can go a little bit further on the difference between legislation and regulation, I would think that if I were the opposition, I would much rather something be in regulation, because it's much easier to change. Once it's enshrined in legislation, it must come, therefore, before the House, whereas in regulation it can be changed much more easily. It facilitates change in that way.

So I really think it's of benefit to do that, and furthermore, it meets with Mr. Sapers' own evidence before this committee that he believes these matters are better dealt with under regulation.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Also, just from conversation here, generally these regs can be changed in just a short period of time, but as already pointed out, they will indeed want to know what the spirit of the committee was. There will be letters and there will be things, and so it can be prolonged, but....

Mr. Garrison.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

I have no doubt that those who are in government like regulations better than legislation. So in 2015 we might be happier to have it in regulations—

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

—while you would be happier to have it in regulations now. The ease of changing regulations for the government is quite simple. For the opposition, it's not quite so simple.

The fact is that it's an after-the-fact process. In terms of the committee on scrutiny of regulations, regulations are made, and then the committee looks at them. It's an after-the-fact process. So I'm not sure, in this case, whether that is in fact an improvement.

My point here, Mr. Chair, is that we've departed from the subamendment and we're back on the main amendment.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Yes.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

We should go to the subamendment.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Seeing no other debate on the subamendment, are we ready for the question? We are?

I'll remind you that it says that the proposed amendment be amended by adding the words, “taking into account the—

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

It says “complainant's”.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

—complainant's education and mental health”, at the....

Mr. Garrison, your writing is worse than my doctor's.

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

I know; tell me about it.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

It's at the end of new proposed subsection 91.1(2).

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

I'm not a pharmacist, I'm sorry; I couldn't read that.

All in favour of the subamendment?

(Subamendment negatived)

The subamendment is defeated, but thank you for so ably explaining your desire to have that put in, Mr. Garrison.

Are we ready for the question on the main...?

Before we vote here, you need to know that if G-1 is adopted, the following four amendments cannot be proceeded with: NDP-1, which we dealt with, 5507648; amendment 5515285; amendment 5521292; and amendment 5507767. There are a couple of Liberal amendments that we still can deal with.

Are we ready for the question on the main amendment?

All in favour, please signify.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That carries.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Can you go over which ones are out of order now, again?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Yes. Voided are NDP-1, which is 5507648, then 5515285, 5521292, and amendment 5507767.

It leaves two amendments, which would appear at the end of the bill. One is the review.

So take a look at what I've called Liberal 4, which is number 5508656. You've just received it here.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, did you want to speak?