Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I took the vote on one side and I was waiting.

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

Oh, you're waiting for the vote on this side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Well, I waited before I called the vote, but....

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

You're too fast for me, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'm rarely accused of that, sir.

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

No, again, we are objecting to the use of the term “record suspension”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

So you're opposed to clause 123?

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

Right.

(On clause 124)

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

We are talking about record suspension. It's the same thing.

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

For the same reason, Chair, we oppose clause 124. It deals with the whole notion of record suspension.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Okay. I've made another error, and I need to go back to clause 123.

(Clauses 123 and 124 agreed to)

(On clause 125)

Mr. Harris.

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

Chair, we agree with the proposal to allow a person the entitlement to make a representation, if the board is considering revoking an order that had been granted for a record suspension. But, again, we're opposing the use of the term “record suspension”, so we don't support the amendment. We support the principle of ensuring that an individual has a right to make representations at a hearing, but we don't support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

(Clause 125 agreed to)

(On clause 126)

Mr. Harris.

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

We oppose this on both grounds, that again it disentitles certain people to the record suspension. We believe that the earlier provisions that indicate what needs to be established before someone is entitled to a pardon, or a record suspension in this case, are sufficient to allow the board to make its ruling, and they're given the discretion to do so.

We think that this is adequate, and there shouldn't be a list of offences that the board takes into consideration, whether someone meets the test or not. If they do, fine; if they don't, then that's fine as well. So we oppose it, and we also oppose the use of the term “record suspension”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Shall clause 126 carry? Those in favour?

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

Oh, sorry....

You're playing tricks with us.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

You're very insistent. The first time it didn't work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I don't know if we ever accused the NDP of voting twice in the past.

(Clause 126 agreed to)

(On clause 127)

Clause 127.

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

Clause 127, again, uses the words “record suspension”. I don't think we're opposed to the principle contained there, but we're opposed to the change.

(Clause 127 agreed to)

(On clause 128)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Harris.

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

Again, we have to say we support the principle of the board disclosing decisions but not identifying individuals unless there's an authorization. Again, though, we have a problem, obviously, with the use of the words “record suspension”, so we can't support the provision, although we support the principle.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

(Clause 128 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Harris, would you help Ms. Borg?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That's all right. It's done.