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.
4 p.m.
NDP
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I have just a quick note. I did miss Tuesday, but it seems to me that it's beyond the scope of the bill when you talk about multiple grievers, isn't it?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It is close. It is, and now that we're looking at it, I'm actually questioning it myself. But I've said that we're going to go ahead and move quickly to a vote.
All in favour of the Liberal amendment that we've just discussed?
(Amendment negatived)
That is substantially defeated.
We'll now move to the last Liberal amendment. This is amendment 5507970, which deals with the review.
Mr. Scarpaleggia, would you like to speak to your amendment, please?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
We just feel that, as with many bills, especially if the bill is being pushed into the realm of regulation—in other words, it's really being taken off the table here—if there is a review of the bill, then there will be an opportunity to discuss it, and even the regulations, perhaps even before the scrutiny of regulations committee gets to it. In terms of a bill that can have such an important impact on the safety of our correctional officers, and on the well-being of the inmate population that we're trying to steer onto the right track towards rehabilitation and integration, we feel it is in order for the committee to have a look at the bill two years from now or two years from the time it receives royal assent.
As I say, it's even more important now that the bill has basically been erased, in some ways, and driven into the realm of regulation-making, which can be quite an opaque kind of sphere. We just feel that it should be reviewed. I don't know why anyone would oppose this.
4:05 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Okay. Well, I guess Mr. Norlock will have the floor next.
But many bills have statutory review provisions in them. I've seen so many. Also, it might be a review that would take very little time, as opposed to some reviews like the review of the Endangered Species Act, which took weeks and months and I don't think was ever completed.
I think it's a measure of accountability. I know the government understands that accountability is important.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Scarpaleggia, you hit the nail right on the head. We are very much aware of that. I can recall when I was first elected to this place in 2006, we had to deal with the Anti-terrorism Act, which had a sort of sunset clause, and Parliament had to keep revisiting it because the committee never really got around to it. So when somebody says, it wouldn't take long and a committee could do that.... This place moves in terms of years not months.
This is what I call a quasi-sunset clause. It's compelling Parliament to look over pieces of legislation. Well, if we keep doing that, we'll never get anything done because there are so many exigent things that we have to deal with as a Parliament.
I don't think this is as earth-shattering as you make it out. Many things that happen in our penal institutions are very serious by their very nature. Everything that we do and say with regard to prisons has a quotient of danger and life-threatening proportions to it, whether it be to the inmate or to the people that guide them. So really, to say it's relatively iniquitous is an exaggeration around this place.
I just think compelling Parliament to revisit what I consider to be small pieces of the huge Criminal Code sets a precedent that everything you do can be revisited, and the truth is that by putting this into regulation, it facilitates an easier look at it. So personally, I would have to vote against this measure.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My Liberal colleague's amendment could have been incredibly effective. We would have liked to support a review of the act, but I don't think we can here. The amendment says that the review could be done by the Senate, and since the Senate is not an elected chamber, we will not support this amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All then in favour of the Liberal amendment, signify please.
(Amendment negatived)
The amendment is completed. Now we go to the clause.
Shall clause 2 carry—
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I think it will cover off through most of the rest of these sections.
What we have been trying to talk about here is a fair and accessible and expeditious complaint process, and that makes a great contribution to the system. So we believe this bill wrongly focuses on a few offenders who are labelled as vexatious.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Even if they were removed from the system, we would still have the greater problems in our complaint system. So our reason for opposing this is that we believe that it does not address the real problem, even as amended.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
Then if we're ready for the question, all in favour of the clause as amended?
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Shall clause 1 carry? And I perhaps should have done that initially, but there may have been something consequential there, too.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
Shall the title carry?
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
