Evidence of meeting #13 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
February 27th, 2014 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
On the point of order, Mr. Chair, I may be mistaken but is a motion to table non-debatable and we must proceed immediately to a vote?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
No, if it was a simple motion you would be correct, sir, but being a substantive motion it is worthy of debate. It is a substantive motion that dramatically changes the timing and perhaps the purview of the study.
Go ahead, Mr. Easter.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will just re-emphasize that there are substantial changes in this bill. We've already made the argument as to why we really need to review.
Well, I've already reviewed some of the minutes—and some of them were in French—of the last meeting. We need to decide whether other amendments should be made, based on that hearing.
What really struck me about the last set of witnesses was their suggestion that there could be an impact on public safety with the way the bill is drafted. The amendments that are put forward may or may not change that, I'm not sure. But I think that is a serious concern.
The fact is that the Parole Board is the one impacted. They were invited. We still don't know why they didn't come, whether it was just a problem with the day. I would agree that we should hear from Public Safety as well, but we absolutely must hear from the Parole Board on the implications of this bill on their body and whether or not they view certain timeframes as causing a problem in terms of public safety.
On the public safety side I think there is a government amendment here that will kind of narrow the groupings of people that this bill would impact and that is probably helpful. But we really must hear from the Parole Board of Canada, no question about that, so I certainly support the motion put forward by Randall.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also support my colleague Mr. Garrison's motion. It is important because this bill would make changes to the National Parole Board and have implications for the Department of Public Safety. It is vital that we take a close look at the issue.
Barely 48 hours ago, we heard testimony that absolutely has to be examined. I want something rectified. I did not have access to that testimony in my first language, and that should not be the case. I cannot do my job as a lawmaker properly if I don't have access to the documentation in my first language, French. Had it been the other way around and if all the testimony had been in French, we would be having an entirely different discussion, and I wouldn't be the only one objecting so strongly. The government should understand my position here.
Mr. Garrison made a good point. We ought to know why the officials from the National Parole Board weren't able to appear the last time. We think the reason was that the date didn't work for them. It is imperative that we hear their views on the bill because they are the ones who will be administering it. We should also hear what the Public Safety Canada representatives have to say because the bill impacts public safety issues.
Look on the bright side. Even if we were to finish the clause by clause today, it wouldn't make it to the House by tomorrow morning. So we can take the time to deal with this the right way. As lawmakers, we have a duty to pass good legislation. We can take the time to study this bill properly and make the necessary amendments in due course.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you, Madame Lefebvre.
The chair obviously has no position to take on the issue other than, of course, to cast a tie-breaking vote on the issue.
The chair also has an expression of opinion in that there are two sides. One, the chair has a great deal of sympathy for the fact that truly we haven't had potentially adequate time for translation. That is of deep concern to the chair. However, the chair has to abide by the fact that a motion was passed to deal with that. That concern could have or should have been discussed at that time prior to the passing of that motion. It was not.
On the other side, the chair also recognizes that there have been significant amendments put in that I do think—certainly I can't pass judgment on it but I would hope that most of the participants around the table would see this as a very obvious and sincere attempt to deal with the realities of the testimony that we heard before that. So at this particular point, the chair will not discuss anything further other than to call for a vote on the motion.
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
Can we have a recorded vote?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
We will now proceed with clause-by-clause.
Mr. Easter, you had the first one in the order of precedence on the issue here.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm told that the Liberal amendments 1, 2, and 3 are probably not in order and the clerk will have to determine that. But I'll tell you their— I think they could be put in order if there was unanimous consent of the committee.
Basically, when Sue O'Sullivan, the federal ombudsman, was here, she and one of the witnesses on Tuesday were concerned that the amendments we're making under section 142 are not mirrored in section 26 of the act. They felt that for clarity purposes, there should be consistency between section 142 of the act and section 26 of the act. So that's really why they're there, for the need for uniformity and I know Sue O'Sullivan was very strong on that point.
So all three, and the clerk can tell us for sure, probably require unanimous consent before they can be moved, but that's the purpose of the amendments, Mr. Chair.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Mr. Easter, for your contributions and for the manner in which they were put to the committee and for your courtesy in dealing with the issue and yes, you have been advanced information from the clerk and that has given you some indication for the record. The chair will read in the reasons that they are deemed inadmissible at this particular point.
The amendment seeks to amend section 26 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 766 and 767:
... an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.
Since section 26 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is not being amended by Bill C-479, it is therefore, the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
Mr. Easter, that would go to number 1, number 2, and number 3.
Mr. Garrison.
4 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I understand the basis on which you're making the ruling, but I think it illustrates the dilemma we're in. We had testimony from Ms. O'Sullivan on the previous Thursday, which we did have time to consider, and what she's pointing out is that we're creating some kind of, at least, an anomaly—
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Excuse me, Mr. Garrison.
We can't debate the chair's ruling, however, if you have a point of order, you're free to make that.
4 p.m.
NDP
4 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I think that it illustrates the situation that we're in here where we're dealing with a bill that's very complex that deals with both corrections and parole in its implications—
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Excuse me, Mr. Garrison.
The chair has been advised as well that if you challenge the chair, there is no discussion; we just go to an immediate vote.
4 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Am I not allowed to state my reasons for challenging the chair?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
No.
Would you like a recorded vote? How would you like this, sir?
4 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I have been in this very committee when we've had a challenge to the chair and the challenger was allowed to state the reasons for the challenge. It's very hard for people to determine how to vote—
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Mr. Garrison, the chair has been advised by the authority of the clerk that it is not up for discussion; it is a matter of the vote.
4 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Absolutely, I would like a recorded vote then.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
We will now go to the next order of business and it is the NDP amendment, reference 6441401.
(On clause 2)
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
On a point of order or perhaps it's a clarification, do we have copies of that amendment? I certainly do not.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
The chair has no copy of that amendment.
Could we just pause briefly as copies are being circulated?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Copies were provided to the clerk in both languages this morning.