Justice Committee on Nov. 17th, 2011

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

With respect, I've heard the same argument at least ten times and none of the ten times is in relation to the motion. They're in relation to the act.

I'd rather move on to the next speaker, if possible, so that we can hear something substantive in relation to the motion itself, if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

To the motion.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm happy to speak to the motion if I have a copy. I'll actually read it out, because I think the motion is important to read out so that people know exactly what it is we're talking about. I had a copy earlier, but I don't.... I think I may have given it to somebody when we were having discussions.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Here's a copy.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The motion reads as follows:

That, if the committee has not completed the clause by clause consideration of Bill C-10 by 11:59 p.m. on November 17, that the Chair put all and every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the Bill forthwith and successively, without further debate, and then the Chair be ordered to report the Bill back to the House on or before November 18, 2011; and that the Chair limit debate on each clause to a maximum of 5 minutes per party per clause before the clause comes to a vote.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'll second the motion, Mr. Chair.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

That's the motion that was put forth as soon as we opened our hearing this morning.

It effectively says that the job we undertook on Tuesday morning in a two-hour meeting, with a scheduled two-hour meeting today and other scheduled meetings next week, on Tuesday and Thursday, in a session of Parliament that just began a couple of weeks ago.... It says that this bill, which is composed of nine pieces of legislation, shall only be considered today and that it's going back to the House tomorrow in whatever form it is at 11:59 p.m. tonight. Debate on each clause is limited to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause, before a vote is held.

That's the situation we find ourselves in, and that's the situation we oppose, because clause-by-clause consideration can't reasonably be considered to be completed effectively and given justice in that time.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if there's a will in the committee here, but we've been considering this now, and question period is coming up in a while. Is it reasonable to suggest that we suspend now and come back at 3:30 to allow people to go to question period and prepare for question period?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I understand we have one more speaker on the list. Could we at least hear from that speaker before we have any motion to suspend?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We do have some names on the list.

The other part is that it is the will of the committee when you wish to suspend. There is food being brought in at one o'clock.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm happy to continue. I was responding to what I thought might have been a suggestion.

Do you have someone else on the list?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We would be prepared to suspend at one o'clock for 20 minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

For 20 minutes?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, I'm one of the speakers on the list and I have absolutely no problem with the suggestion from Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Did you have another speaker on the list there now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Casey, are you still on the list, or do you want your name off the list?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I'm still on the list, but if it is the will of the committee to suspend until 3:30, I'm quite prepared to speak at 3:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Madame Borg.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I think I'm also on the list. If it's the will of the committee to come back at 3:30 p.m., I can wait too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I don't sense that there's a will of the committee to suspend until 3:30.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'll defer to the next speaker, Mr. Chair, to allow some discussion to take place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Casey, you are now next.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sitting in for Professor Irwin Cotler, and while I'm sitting in his chair I won't pretend for one second that I am able to fill his shoes.

Thank you for allowing me to be here to speak to this motion. I bring 17 years of the practice of law in Prince Edward Island. The firm I was with, Stewart McKelvey, did all of the narcotics prosecutions for the Queens County area of Prince Edward Island. In the early part of my legal career I did some prosecutions, as well as a limited number of criminal defence cases. In a small community you generally take what comes in the door until you develop a bit of expertise in another area. That's what I bring to the debate.

I understand that what is under debate here today is a procedural matter that has been brought forward by the government members to limit the amount of time committee members are allowed to consider the clause-by-clause of this massive bill. I share the concerns of my colleague Mr. Harris, and I understand that Mr. Cotler has also spoken to this.

It strikes me that a bill as complex as this, with the ramifications it will have on our society, on our aboriginal community, and on the coffers of our provincial governments--I would suggest on our very fabric as a nation--is one that really shouldn't be jammed through.

My time at the bar of Prince Edward Island has told me that any time you get into any sort of a detailed analysis of any clause of any statute—if you have three lawyers, you have four opinions. To suggest that a piece of legislation with the ramifications this one has for our society can be done justice in a five-minute analysis is implausible. So I join Mr. Harris and Mr. Cotler in their opposition to this motion.

I had an occasion in the last month to meet with the representatives of the crown counsel association of Canada. There are actually parts of the bill that they like, but there are parts that cause them grave concern. They told me there seems to be lots of money for the police and the prisons, but in between we have a system that's stressed to the breaking point.

If that's the state of the justice system in Canada now and we are bringing in a piece of legislation...it appears that we're on a fast train to bringing in a piece of legislation that will further burden the justice system between the police and the prisons, and I would suggest in the prisons as well. It's absolutely irresponsible of us as legislators not to give this its due.

With regard to the concerns raised by the prosecutors in this country, it strikes me that it's better to go slow and get it right. We owe that to our constituents and the people involved in the justice system.

This in an enormously complex and lengthy piece of legislation. It amends nine acts. It has over 150 clauses. The examination of each clause in isolation requires discussion and requires one to think about how that clause affects others. Five minutes simply doesn't do it.

You've heard, and we've heard in debate on this bill, that we are experiencing a declining crime rate. Yet, in the face of that declining crime rate, we seem to be in a great rush to jam through tough-on-crime legislation. If ever there was a time to take it slow and ask all the questions, to understand all of the nuances, to look at how clauses relate one to the other, and to look at the impact that each clause will have on our aboriginal communities, the justice system, and on the vulnerable members of our society, that time is now. It strikes me that this is the type of legislation that ought to command our closest attention.

There has been plenty of debate on the legislation in predecessor parliaments and predecessor bills. That's a justification for the fact that the Conservative majority wants to impose a five-minute limit on each clause. Well, I am one of the rookies. I am one half of the Liberal class of 2011 right here. I have an interest in this. My constituents have an interest in this. My professional colleagues have an interest in this. I want to fully participate. I think I'm entitled to, and I think they are entitled to have me do so. I speak to you from the perspective of a rookie. To my mind, it's unfair. It's not right. They deserve better, and I deserve better. This is a complex, involved, impactful, expensive piece of legislation and we have to give it its due. With the greatest of respect, you owe new parliamentarians like me that courtesy. I owe that respect to my constituents and to my professional colleagues. That's why I'm here. I would hope and expect that the partisan blinders would come off long enough for everyone to appreciate that.

I've received some correspondence in the last few days from some of my professional colleagues back in Prince Edward Island who are involved with the Canadian Bar Association. As you must be abundantly aware, the Canadian Bar Association has some serious concerns about this legislation. I expect that we have many people in the room who are members of the Canadian Bar Association—they represent over 37,000 lawyers. These are people who work with the law every single day.

They have concerns with the pace being set here. They have umpteen concerns. The document that was sent to me most recently has ten reasons to oppose Bill C-10. It strikes me, and I know we have members of the legal bar in the room on both sides of the table, how do you face your colleagues and say we're shutting down debate on this?

Your colleagues, the people you worked with, the people you spent time with in the courtroom or in the boardroom or in your law firms, have concerns. They want those concerns aired. To jam this through...well, I ask the question: when you go back to your ridings, when you go back to Fort McMurray and the other areas in which you practise, can you look your colleagues in the eye and say to them--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I can.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

--yes, we've overhauled the criminal justice system and we got her done within 100 days, and we made darned sure that when we went through the thing clause by clause, nobody had a chance to talk about it for more than five minutes? Is that a source of pride?

This bill will result in new prisons, mandatory incarcerations for minor, non-violent offenders. It will justify the poor treatment of inmates. It will repeat an experience that has been shown to have failed in Texas and California. Pretty big stuff.

New prisons are going to be a significant demand on our coffers. But what I'm concerned about more than the new federal prisons is the impact on an already overstressed provincial system. Given that we haven't seen price tags--we haven't seen a price tag for how this is going to affect the provincial penal system--I know myself, in my little province of Prince Edward Island, and I fully expect that it's much more pronounced in yours, that the provincial government, the prosecutors who try these cases, are concerned about the impact of this bill. You need, I need, we as legislators need, time to hear from them. We need time to weigh their advice. We need time to incorporate it into whatever sensible changes there should be. We're cheating ourselves of that opportunity by putting this through at the pace you want.

If we really want to address criminal behaviour in this country, if we really want to do what you profess to want to do, which is to put victims first, we need to be addressing child poverty, we need to be providing services for the mentally ill, we need to be diverting young offenders from the adult—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Casey, I think we need to stay on the topic of the motion.