Evidence of meeting #14 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Okay, colleagues, we'll call this meeting number 14 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security together.
I would like to have consent from the entire committee to call our witnesses to the table so that we're not going to be playing musical chairs. Are we all comfortable with that?
3:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Please, perhaps the witnesses would come forward and be available.
Thank you very much.
Just a little point of clarification, there was an expression of concern with regard to the validity of proceeding without having the translation. The chair was obviously uncomfortable, as well as some of the members, and we were advised by the clerk at that time of the ruling that we would be proceeding, so the clerk has provided a raison d'être for that ruling. I'll just read it in here briefly so that the chair and future people can be also guided by that, because the chair was uncomfortable as many other people were, and hopefully we just won't have that again.
It was from a study on Bill C-7 on June 3, 2003. It says:
I really do feel uncomfortable when hon. members do not have the transcripts. However, I am guided by the precedent of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton. I am guided by the fact that the rules are silent as to the form of printing. Therefore I must decline to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. member that transcripts of proceedings in committee must be available before the House can proceed with a bill. It is not uncommon for bills to be called before committee proceedings have been completely transcribed and are available in both official languages let alone one. Accordingly, while I have great sympathy, and I know there are dozens of members of the House who want to read these proceedings of this committee, I am afraid that I am not able to accede to his request. Accordingly, it would not be out of order for the House to proceed with the bill at this time, barring some other problems that may arise.
I just felt that the committee deserved to have an understanding of the reasoning behind that, of course provided by our excellent staff, because the chair was as uncomfortable as some of the other members. On the point of consideration that was put forward, I thought you were owed that response. I just table that for you here. I guess we don't have to table it, but it is here for your consideration.
We will now go right back to where we had left off on the clause-by-clause study.
We had discussed clause 4, and we were at the point of calling a vote for clause 4.
The chair will proceed.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
(On clause 5)
The government has put in an amendment numbered 6437853.
Yes, Ms. James.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, I won't read the entire amendment because we have all of it in front of us, but it moves to amend clause 5, after line 19, on page 4, by adding three points.
On those three particular points, I don't know if you've had a chance to read them. I hope everyone on the committee has.
Those three additions that we're making will basically allow the board to remove from the transcripts any discussions that would have occurred in a hearing where observers where asked to leave; where there is any personal information about a person other than the offender, the victim, or a member of the victim's family. Additionally, it clarifies that the information contained in hearing transcripts is not publicly available information, which could otherwise be obtained by any member of the public through the Access to Information Act or Privacy Act requests.
That is the purpose of the government amendment, to add those three points into this particular clause.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on that?
Okay, we will certainly wait, Mr. Easter.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
On the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act, what's the concern there?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
As the amendment reads under point 3:
Information discussed or referred to in the transcript of the hearing are not publicly available for the purposes of the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act.
This particular piece of the private member's bill was not included. The government felt that it was necessary to ensure that information is not accessible.
I don't know if you require any further—
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 5 then carry?
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 6)
We'll now move to clause 6.
We have a government amendment, reference number 6437854.
Ms. James.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
Again, I will not read the entire change to this, but this particular amendment amends clause 6 by replacing lines 20 on page 4 all the way to line 1 on page 5 with one line, which is before you, which is basically “Paragraph 142(1)(b) of the Act is”. So the entire section from line 20 all the way to line 1 on the next page has been removed.
The second part of that is to replace line 10 on page 5 with the following text, which you all probably have realized includes much of what was removed from the previous paragraph, with one particular addition that I'd like to just read out. That is (c), which says:
shall disclose to the victim any of the following information about the offender, if, in the Chairperson’s opinion, the disclosure would not have a negative impact on the safety of the public:
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
I'll give you a couple of minutes to digest that, if you wish.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
—is there reason to read into this that it is really the chairperson who will make the decision?
The intent of this bill in the beginning was to provide more information to the victims on a number of things. But what I'm finding with all the amendments, mainly from the government, is that it's more a “may” situation than a “shall”, if I could put it like that. I know that my own amendment on that lost, but it comes down to whether or not information will be made to the victims. It basically comes down to regardless what the legislation says, it's the chairman's opinion. Is that correct?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would really like to understand. I don't know if this government amendment was poorly translated, but the information is not the same in English and in French, especially after “(b) replacing line 10 on page 5 with the following:”. I am referring to subclause (2). I don't see the same information. In French, paragraph (c) says “lui communique tout ou partie des renseignements”, but, unlike the English text, it does not say who is supposed to receive the information.
Do I have to rely on the amendment as written in English instead of the French translation?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
At this point, then, I'll ask our clerk or analyst to give us an understanding of the difference between the French and English. Obviously I don't have the capacity as a chair to be able to translate effectively. I ask for comment.
3:35 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible--Editor]
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Okay, we have a level of comfort there now? Fine.
I thank our analyst for the explanation.
Now, Mrs. James, please.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just in response to Mr. Easter's comments, there could be situations where that information should not be disclosed, so it is up to the discretion of that particular individual. The original bill basically said everything would be given automatically, more or less. The amendment modifies the mandatory disclosure to allow the board not to disclose certain information, situations where informing the victims of details regarding an offender's release would endanger staff or the offender's safety. So we wanted to make sure that this safeguard measure was in this particular piece of legislation.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I hear what you're saying, but this says “would not have a negative impact on the safety of the public”. I know what the promoter of the bill said about providing information to victims and the need to do it, and I know that the whole thrust of the legislation was to see that this information was basically to be made available.
Now what I'm finding, with the government amendments, is that much of that is all smoke and mirrors. It comes down to a very discretionary position, in this case based on the chairman's opinion, as to whether that information will be made public or not.
This comes to my point on private members' bills. We're right back to where we started. The private member's bill has such and such an intent, but it now is being amended downward by the government so that the information being provided is really discretionary, according to the viewpoint of somebody within the system.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Mr. Easter, if the chairperson, then, does not have that authority, how are you suggesting it be handled?