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.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Can I ask the experts at the table—and I'm sorry to put them on the spot—where an appropriate place in the bill might be other than this place?
You have just said to us—and I know we're putting you in a difficult spot—it can be put here. You have not pointed out to us any deleterious effects from putting it here so is there another section in which I should be placing this?
I'm sorry to put you in that spot, but we have had this raised. We are rushing ahead so it may be our only opportunity to add this to this bill.
February 27th, 2014 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Chair, I believe the witnesses just finished saying that this part is already in the bill. It does allow it.
I could be wrong on that, but I understood there were provisions in the bill to already allow for what has been asked for, so therefore it can proceed.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you.
I'll let you finish your response to Mr. Garrison, and then we'll move on.
5:10 p.m.
Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Not to delay this, but could you just tell me one more time what your amendment is, Mr. Garrison?
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
The wording is now in the legislative clerk's hands. He could maybe show it to you. I think it's somewhat easier when it's in writing.
The intent is to add something here that does not exist. With respect, Mr. Maguire, I believe it is an addition.
Right now it's only in the case where people have been denied the right to go that they can ask for another means of participating. The amendment would say that even if they've not been denied, it's their decision as the victim as to whether they want to attend in person. If they don't want to be there because they don't want to face this person, or they have to take off from their job because they're in British Columbia now and then fly across the country, this amendment would say to them that they have that right to do so.
Right now the board has discretion to meet those requests, but it isn't obligated to allow those. It is an expansion of the right of victims to participate.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I think the short answer is that kind of amendment—I would have to defer to the committee clerk—could potentially be outside the scope of the bill.
As government has indicated, the Canadian victims bill of rights will be tabled at some point soon and will cover a comprehensive range of issues.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
I've looked at this also. I see nowhere, when the victim has not been refused, if they feel that they cannot attend the hearing because they would feel intimidated, etc...
I'm not aware of any circumstances where the board has said that if they want to take part in the proceedings they must attend, other than where there is a limit to the board's ability. For instance, if somebody says they want it televised, if they can't have it televised, it may be viva voce. In other words, they may only be able to hear it because there aren't the facilities to accommodate that.
I am unaware of, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, where the board has simply said, “If you can't come in person, we're not going to provide you with an ability to partake or at least hear what's happening in the hearings”.
That's why I suggested that I believe this to be superfluous, in that there is no reason that this should be accommodated in this section.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
I think we've had adequate debate on this issue and we've gone around the horn enough on it.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, for the record, I believe my thought process there was correct. The witnesses were indicating yes to my—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Fine, thank you. I thought you were finished.
We're not going to go on with this. Unless there are issues that are definitive, we're not going to go into repetitive points of view. We do have to move on.
Do you have another point to make, Madame Doré Lefebvre?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
I'd like something clarified.
I understand how it works, but the witnesses might be able to tell me something. A victim can participate in the hearing, unless the National Parole Board decides the victim cannot do so for safety reasons. Is that right?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
Under the CCRA, the victim has the right to attend and make a statement at a hearing. The victim would obviously have to indicate to the board that they want to participate and be there; they have to make that known. Unless there is some clear information that would lead the board to believe there would be some kind of safety situation that would preclude the victim...then the victim would be allowed to participate
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
So in situations where there are safety concerns, can the victim participate in other ways, such as providing a written or recorded oral statement? Would that kind of thing be allowed in a case where safety concerns were an issue? Would the victim still have the right participate?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I believe the board does make those other options available.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
This is on the subamendment by the NDP. Thank you.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
We are running out of time, colleagues. Do you wish to carry on with this study now or do you want to go to other business? I would have to have unanimous consent to move forward, or we'll just continue the study knowing that we have a fair bit of work ahead, by the look of things.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Chair, I believe we should continue on this. If we want to take perhaps three minutes at the end, I think that would be sufficient to look to the future.