Public Safety Committee on March 25th, 2014

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

No, you're right. I think that the issues are legion out there with respect to people who have been granted temporary absences and/or whatever. People are shocked then to find out that those people are in the community, but it's because the community or the victims have never had an opportunity to have input.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay. The second one we looked at was the question of whether institutional heads would still be able to allow temporary absence to attend court. I've reviewed the document again and I do not believe that is there. So my question was whether you would support an amendment—if I'm correct—that would say that institutional heads can still grant approval for escorted temporary absences for court purposes.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

In my opening address I believe I said that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay, we'll have some professional people look at the drafting, but I believe that is, perhaps inadvertently, not there, and that would create a real problem in the court system. It would simply be impossible for the Parole Board to hold hearings each time someone was going to be called to court.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

No, I understand that. I believe it's there also for medical reasons.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

It's only there for medical reasons, but I think we can seek an amendment to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Garrison, I think your point is made.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I think we all heard our witness offer testimony that this was his intention, but of course should it not be picked up in the wording of the bill, and certainly if an amendment is in order or a clarification is necessary, the committee would certainly look at that, as could the perpetrator of the bill.

You still have another minute and a half, should you wish—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

No—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Oh, no. Excuse me. You went over.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

My apologies. We're into a different timeframe now.

Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witness, thank you for appearing.

Would you not agree with me, Mr. MacKenzie, that one of the reasons people send a member of Parliament to Ottawa is to be a legislator—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Absolutely.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

—and that a legislator brings forward legislation to Parliament? That is not only his duty, but his right and privilege.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Absolutely.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Do you believe that if a member of Parliament is part of the governing party that member of Parliament should have fewer parliamentary rights with regard to legislation?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

They should not have any less than anyone else. I would welcome the members opposite the governing party to bring forward private members' bills, which they do.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Would you also agree with me generally that most of the time—if not all the time—when a member of the governing party wishes to bring forward legislation that impacts a particular minister, and in this particular case, the Minister of Public Safety, the governing member brings that legislation, that private member's bill, to the minister involved, to the minister, his staff, and his people? In many cases, as I suspect in this case, their lawyers look at it to make sure that it does what the member intends it to do, and this committee, after that process, then has the opportunity to look at it and make any amendments they feel are appropriate, provided it doesn't change the actual essence of the bill. Is that correct?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I can tell you that in this case I discussed this with staff members of the former public safety minister, Minister Toews, who has left, and I've discussed it with members of the current minister's staff. Where they take it to, I'm not sure. I can't confirm that, but certainly, you know, it wouldn't be right for me to bring forward a bill that impacts a minister's files without having some consultation, whether it's with Public Safety, or Finance, or Health.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Would you, having been a parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Public Safety, agree with me that generally any of those different pieces of legislation that come before that minister are in keeping with the general thrust and the direction that the government wants to go in and that it's complementary to the government's agenda?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes, I would agree.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Would you agree with me that this piece of legislation is intended to assist victims with regard to the appreciation of the system by which people.... Let's start at the beginning. We have a person. In this particular case, you have said that this legislation is designed to deal mainly with murders of police officers and prison guards, and that those victims, the family members or people who are victims around that, serve a life sentence, or in other words, the person who you're dealing with will be forever without her husband—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes.