Evidence of meeting #12 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
If you're putting a time restriction on the amendments, then by logical deduction you're limiting the amount of amendments you can bring, or the discussion of the amendments.
Conservative
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
The motion is to have a time allocated to discuss clause-by-clause. In other words, we want to get to the merits of the legislation. We're waiting to get to the merits of the legislation. We want to go through it clause by clause. As long as we continue to debate this motion, we cannot get to that discussion. We are not limiting that discussion.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
By limiting discussions in the clause-by-clause consideration, we're limiting debate about the amendments. It's clear, to my mind, and I don't understand your argument. If we have only five minutes to discuss each clause, we will have less time to discuss any amendments we'd like to make to each clause. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reasoning. Though I'm certain I understand the essence of the motion. If you want to clarify things, you can do so, but otherwise, that's what I understand.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
I don't really understand why we're debating if I think my perception of this motion is okay or not. I think I should more—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Because what we're debating is the motion itself. We will debate the clause-by-clause if and when this motion passes. Failing that, what we're debating is the motion itself, which is—
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
But I am debating the motion, because to me this motion is limiting the amount of debate we can have on the amendments that we wish to bring.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Let me talk about that, please, because that's what I want to talk about, and that's what I've always been talking about.
By limiting the amendments, the debate on the amendments, we're limiting the voices of these academics, we're limiting the voices of the people who came here to testify. That's what we're doing. Whether you guys want to accept that or not, that's the reality of this motion right here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Put your comments through the chair, please, so that it's not personal. It's not personal.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
I'm going to continue stating my arguments for you.
You are limiting the debate on the amendments by setting 11:59 tonight as the cut-off for debate pertaining to clause-by-clause consideration. By limiting this debate about the amendments, we are silencing the voices of six researchers. François Chagnon, for example, says in an article on criminology that appeared in the fall of 2001 that minimum punishments don't work. In an article by Mr. Gardner, written just one month ago, he says that we are not holding enough discussions and that we have to listen to the experts in criminology. This is important. If we limit debate on the amendments, how can we claim to have held proper discussions and listened to these experts? As far as I'm concerned, it's not logical at all.
All these researchers, notably Marian and Katherine Rossiter, come to the same conclusion. I have in my possession 30 articles. These people who have appeared as witnesses will never be heard because we can't speak for more than five minutes on each of the articles. How long does it take to read an amendment? Depending on the length of the amendment, I'd say it takes about one minute. There you have it, one minute just to read the amendment. Then maybe there's time for one person to speak. That's not a discussion of ideas. In fact, it doesn't even allow us to present our arguments. All these researchers, sociologists and criminologists say the same thing. I invite you to read them if you're not convinced. But we can't put their opinions forward and present our arguments because we can't have more than five minutes for discussion. To my mind, this simply isn't enough; it's ridiculous. I can read some amendments that contain four provisions and that's going to take me five minutes. I don't see any debate here. Even if you want to oppose the amendment, you won't have the time to do that either. I don't see how we can be productive in this way.
I think that the amendments are an opportunity to express the opinion of those who have written these articles and who all reached the same conclusion: minimum punishments don't work, they don't contribute in any way to reducing the recidivism rate in Canada. The United States tried it, and we can see from that that we're headed in the wrong direction. By limiting the debates on these amendments, we don't get to hear the voices of all those who came to give their testimony. They had only five minutes to do so and we didn't have enough time for any debate either.
Here the debate is being limited in intellectual, scholarly, professional and even personal terms, within this House and this legislature, in this place that is supposed to have a wealth of debates and to offer solutions, conclusions and even hope to people. But we can't do it because we're limited to five minutes and because, for one reason or another, everything has to be said by 11:59 tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know about the government's plans. There must be something planned. I haven't the slightest idea why we couldn't carry on this discussion next Tuesday or Thursday, or even next week or the one after. There are still five weeks till the end of the session; so we've got lots of time. We can even start over again next year. I don't understand why we have to limit ourselves and act in such a way that the voices of all these experts who have studied the issue cannot be heard.
It must be admitted that we don't have the time to do this sort of research. We represent a lot of people and we're swamped with work. There are 308 of us, but we can't gather everyone's opinion. With these amendments, these people were able to express their opinion about this government, which doesn't even seem to read this sort of article because it wants to limit any debate involving evidence.
For us, it's completely ridiculous to say to this population, these experts and these researchers who have studied these issues for 10 years, that after so many years of dedication we're not even willing to take more than five minutes to hear the amendments they have to propose. I invite you to read these articles, since we can consult them all day until 11:59 p.m.
Perhaps you'll understand the importance of listening to these voices. If we don't do so, we aren't taking our responsibilities seriously. These are Canadians and Americans who have studied the system. So we should begin by listening to these voices. If these people are proposing amendments, it's because they are having a hard time with this bill as it stands. They realize that it's not perfect. I also encourage you to say what isn't perfect. We need more than five minutes to debate the amendments, otherwise how can we come to a conclusion?
We don't have more than five minutes to discuss them. Members from three parties sit on this committee. Let's say we take one minute to read an amendment and you take another minute to oppose it, does the third party have time to say what it thinks? I don't think so, and this does not create openness.
This is the question I ask myself. Do we really have the time to study that? There are five members on this side of the room. We should all have an opportunity to talk more than one minute. In fact, one minute doesn't give me enough time to express myself, or to express the opinion of all those who are familiar with the issue. There are a lot of people who know about this issue and who are against this bill.
Once again, I want to emphasize that the NDP members tried repeatedly to have certain aspects of this bill of which they are in favour adopted, but you didn't even give us the chance to put our motion to a vote in the House of Commons. That would have been a way to extend the time devoted here, in committee, to clause-by-clause consideration. Some parts of the bill would already have been passed if we had been able to split it up. But you were completely against this way of doing things.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Something has been brought to my attention. For anyone in the audience, you are not allowed to take photographs of the committee, and you're not allowed to post the motion. The members have not seen the motion yet; it's improper to post that motion on the Internet.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I'm sorry, I used the wrong term. Anyway, it's just precautionary.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Some people wanted to proceed quickly. Mr. Harris said repeatedly that it was his intention to adopt certain aspects of this bill more quickly. So why can't we discuss this possibility instead of imposing five-minute time limits on us? I repeat, it's not enough.
I repeat, this bill is over 100 pages long and has 150 clauses. You don't have to be a genius to understand that more time is going to be required to study it. We're not being unreasonable. It's simply logical, in my opinion. Of course there will be a lot of amendments to be made, because this bill is going to change the direction taken by our judicial system. There will be real repercussions on people's lives. If we can't study the true impacts of this bill and take the time needed to re-evaluate it, I think we can't take our responsibilities as elected members of this House seriously.
That is my conclusion, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you, Ms. Borg.
I have three more names on the list.
My understanding from the clerk was that we anticipated there would be food delivered at one o'clock. The anticipation hasn't been fulfilled, so we will carry on. If the food shows up shortly, then we can perhaps take a break and return after question period.
Mr. Jacob, you're on the list.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Like my colleagues, I think that it is not appropriate to put the bill to the vote before November 18, by limiting debate on the amendments to five minutes today, Thursday, November 17, until 11:59 p.m. At school I learned that from the clash of ideas were born new positive solutions. This means that it's from talking and discussing that we are going to move the debate forward and find quality solutions that will meet everyone's needs, including those of victims and the population.
In five minutes, we can't discuss what the experts say. Ms. Borg's riding has three penitentiaries; mine has one. The experts have confirmed that prison is not a panacea and that the construction of mega prisons is not the solution.
In five minutes, we can't express our point of view, demonstrate how prison will become the university of crime and will not be good for the victims, since the long-term crime rate will rise, as will the recidivism rate. In five minutes, we can't say that this won't be good for detainees, when there will be heavier caseloads, over-population and lack of privacy. This is going to create tensions. There's little hope for the detainees in such prisons, because they have very little access to rehabilitation and social reintegration programs.
In five minutes' discussion, we won't be able to talk either about the budgets of the provinces concerned, even those that were in favour of the bill, who have already asked the government how this whole system, which is going to increase the provinces' budgets, is going to be managed.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, there is no relevance here to the motion. We're not talking about the bill; we're talking about the motion that was moved today, and we're discussing that motion. We are not talking about the bill and we're not talking about any of the information that this colleague of mine brought forward in the last speech.
Could he remain centred on the motion, Mr. Chair, and speak relevant to that, please?
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
I don't have the motion in front of me. One day, it will be translated into French. In the meantime, I stress that I am not in favour of limiting debate to five minutes per clause. With all the experts, the people present on this side of the table who have some ideas to put forward to enrich the debate, we cannot allow ourselves in five minutes to debate, advance and improve this bill, which is very complex since it amends nine acts. In five minutes, we cannot advance the debate.
To conclude, I will day that this does not correspond to our role as elected representatives. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to debate and advance files, whether in the House or in committee. I too was elected recently, but I noticed that, in the House, we were allowed 30 seconds for each oral question and 60 seconds for each statement by a member. Here, in committee, I expected there would be a little more time to debate the issues.
So I will continue through the day to oppose this determination to limit to five minutes per clause the debate on the amendments, that is, until 11:59 p.m.
