Evidence of meeting #18 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
April 1st, 2014 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
I have just some further comments to Mr. Easter's concern. When we think back to the testimony that we heard from the witnesses and also the purpose of the bill, the biggest concern was for someone who had been declined or refused, or for whatever reason, the decision had been made by the Parole Board of Canada that, no, they should not have one, that the very next day potentially the institution has a warden who can actually turn around and authorize an ETA without any involvement from the particular victim or the victim's family, so that was the concern.
The amendment we put forward by the government actually speaks directly to that because in that last three-year period, when day parole eligibility begins, the Parole Board is the deciding factor, the deciding entity, that will determine whether an ETA is approved, and it has to be successful. If it's not successful it will not go back to the institution warden the next time. It will still remain with the Parole Board of Canada, so the point we have to make clear is that it enables the Parole Board to continue to be the deciding factor until a successful ETA has occurred, at which point it goes to Correctional Service Canada. The institution had to determine that. Now, should something be cancelled or there's a problem with that ETA, it will revert back to the Parole Board of Canada.
This amendment speaks directly to what those witnesses were asking for and the purpose of this entire bill.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
No, Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary handled that.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Fine. Thank you very much.
Is there further discussion?
Mr. Easter, please.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
When this goes back to the House, we'll need to know what the costs are. In the original discussion and certainly the witnesses who were before us were dealing with the original bill and not the amendments, but it was clear from the Parole Board of Canada that they were concerned. They did table some numbers about the number of reviews and Parole Board hearings that would additionally come into place as a result of this bill, which is a substantial cost.
Could the parliamentary secretary or the people that are involved give any indication to us at the committee as to how many fewer cases this will involve? What will the accurate numbers be in terms of additional reviews that the Parole Board of Canada will be required to do with these new changes to the bill? We have a responsibility, Mr. Chair, to taxpayers to look at the cost. The costs of this bill should, in my view, be accompanying it because, as several witnesses said, they could be substantial.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.
Is there any response or comment to Mr. Easter's concern?
Ms. James.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I don't have the exact numbers that you're asking for but we estimate that it will probably reduce the overall responsibility or number of occurrences by almost 74% for the Parole Board of Canada. I don't have the actual figure to provide that to you.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
That's an issue that certainly, when the bill is before the House, can be discussed at that point, Mr. Easter. But you've raised the issue now and I thank you for that.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Just so I'm clear then, Mr. Chair, what we're really saying is that it reduces the costs that the Parole Board indicated when they were here by 74%. That really means in effect the net consequence of this bill is that there is still a substantial cost to the bill of 26% of whatever the number would have been had somebody in government been able to give us the numbers. I just want it made clear that there is a substantial cost.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
It's clear but of course there was little challenge to do that when we didn't know exactly where we were going at that particular point and we didn't have a definition. Now we have a bit more clearly defined sense of direction and I think the costing can be made appropriately and accurately based on that.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? All in favour...?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 2 carry?
(Clause 2 agreed to)
Shall the title carry?
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, colleagues. We have now completed before this committee, Bill C-483.
I thank our colleague for introducing the bill and I thank my colleagues for all their cooperation moving forward.
We obviously have a full meeting scheduled for Thursday, I would assume. We can slip into committee business right now if you wish. However, it was my understanding, as carried forward, that we would proceed with the economics of policing and that there will be other business that we could of course introduce at that particular point. Are we all comfortable with that?
Fine. Thank you.
This meeting is adjourned.
