Justice Committee on May 9th, 2017

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I would eliminate all of the sentences that deal with acknowledging the hard work of the ministers. There are varying opinions on that. I agree that both ministers are very dedicated to their departments and to their craft, but if we're trying to craft a letter that is unanimously supported at this table, I think it's alway best to just get to the point, without flowery language, and just tell the ministers what we would like them to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I appreciate the comments from Mr. MacGregor.

I recognize that it's not a unanimous decision of the committee, but I do think we should outline the problems we heard from witnesses at our committee that caused members to vote against it in the majority. I think it's important to outline that in this letter. I don't agree with deleting that section on page one, ending on page two. I think that's an important part of the letter, to ensure that it's crystal clear why the majority of members of the committee did not support Bill S-217.

I will concede that we can remove the language thanking the ministers for their hard work. The point of this isn't to pat the ministers on the back, necessarily, but to acknowledge that there is work being done, and obviously to make some recommendations about how we would see things as a committee. I recognize, of course, that this will be on division.

I take your points, Mr. MacGregor, and I would support removing the acknowledgement of hard work and thanking the ministers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

So basically as I understand, it would read, “Notwithstanding the foregoing, we were pleased to have considered the Bill, and it is in that vein that we would like to submit a number of recommendations.”

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Yes, exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. MacGregor, I'll let you continue the back and forth.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Okay, so I have a question, Mr. Fraser.

Who is the intended audience of this bill?

I'm pretty sure that both ministers were aware before this meeting even started as to why the majority of the members are not going to be supporting this bill. I think your side has been keeping the cabinet up to date on the proceedings. Indeed, they've been held in public. The testimony, the witness briefs are all available online.

I'm not convinced by your argument that we need this reasoning in the letter. I think it's quite evident from the committee's proceedings as to why we are proceeding with not recommending that the House pass this bill. I won't make that a hill to die on if the committee wishes to keep that language, but I just want to get on the record that I don't think it's necessary.

With regard to my second part about acknowledging the hard work, I say this with all due respect: I think that both ministers are very dedicated. I'm just in favour of making a letter that gets straight to the point, and that's why I raised that particular point.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, that's why I agree with the removal of that acknowledgement on hard work. I recognize that to keep some collegiality here, obviously it would be beneficial in that regard.

On the point, though, we've discussed this and contemplated it, and individually put all of our independent thoughts on the record. I believe this sums up the position of the majority of the committee. I don't think that the ministers are necessarily going to listen to the audio transcript of today's proceedings—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

No?

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

—so we're putting it in this letter to make it crystal clear why the majority could not support the bill. I don't think there's anything untoward with doing that.

On one other point, I thank Mr. MacGregor for mentioning the fact that, of course, any letter or documentation that is distributed at committee should be done in both official languages. I hesitated as to whether I should actually pass that letter out. That's why I read it into the record in its entirety, to make sure that through simultaneous translation, anyone, in both official languages, could understand what the letter said.

It was a courtesy to committee members that I passed it out. Given the short time that I had to put together the letter, I couldn't get it translated. Of course, any time that a document is handed out, I take your point that it should be in both official languages. However, I want to make the point that it was done by reading it into the record with simultaneous translation, so anyone could understand it in both official languages.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We have Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. Fraser, you have a point of order?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

On a point of order, I don't believe there's a requirement in the rules that individual committee members circulate documents in both official languages, because there's no requirement for individual committee members to be bilingual. My understanding of our rules, and I stand to be corrected, is that if you read into the record for translation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Again, we often do this collegially. There's no rule that requires him to move a motion in both languages. We would have the obligation to translate it, and we would.

That being said, again, we would explain that. I don't want to ever tell a member that they're wrong. It's fine. There's a way to do it. We always want everything to be in both official languages.

I want to assure our francophone audience that it really is true.

We'll pass it over to Mr. Nicholson.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you.

On that particular subject, I acknowledge that my colleague Mr. Fraser, number one, read it all into the record here, which is the appropriate way to do this. Anything else is just a courtesy. I appreciate his comments as well as Mr. MacGregor's comments. To the extent that we can, we want to see any document in both languages, because they're not exactly the same and the translations have to be. However, it was read into the record here, so after that it will be translated.

Colleagues, we don't agree with the principle of this letter, which is that somehow this bill doesn't work. I will make only one point on that, and that's with respect to some of the comments that more defendants will be released on bail.

Mr. Fraser gave an example of a crown attorney being asked to provide the information on this, and if the crown, for whatever reason, has made a mistake or doesn't have the information on there, that somehow the individual is going to get released. I don't think that's the case.

I suppose in different parts of this country, it may happen differently. But I know in the part of the world that Mr. Bittle and I come from, if you had a requirement like that for the crown to come up with that in the morning, if they didn't have it, presumably they would put it over to the afternoon until the crown got the information, or possibly the next day. I can't imagine, wherever it is, that the judge or the justice of the peace is going to say, “Oh, you're required by law to give me that information.” If he doesn't have it, he's not going to tell the guy he can walk out the door. I don't think that's what would happen.

I just wanted to put that on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I'm wondering if our colleagues Mr. Falk, Mr. Nicholson, and Mr. Cooper would support this letter if Mr. MacGregor's amendments were adopted.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. McKinnon, the premise of the bill is that somehow this bill doesn't work, and so we would ask and we believe it would be wonderful if the minister would look at it and study bail reform, etc.

We don't agree with the premise of this bill. We do believe this bill would be effective, and that's the position we've taken, and we want that part on the record here so there's no confusion on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Understood.

Mr. McKinnon again.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I'm not sure that answered my question. Given that the majority of the committee has already decided the question in fact, and this letter says the majority of the committee has said this, I'm wondering if you would be amenable to supporting this letter, given that that question has been decided on division, if Mr. MacGregor's changes were adopted.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Because we support this bill, we are not supportive of any other information that is going to go to the minister, or that is in a press release or anything else that suggests there is some belief that this bill is flawed. So, you know, you can put anything you want, quite frankly. You can say it's wonderful that the bill is not going forward and offer all the praises you like of the minister, but in the end we're not supportive of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I think it's clear. I think from what I understand right now, what's on the table is the letter that now includes....

Can those who want to follow please look at the letter?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Do you want us to leave the room?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

No, no, I fully respect your position. As you say, I don't think you care so much what's written here—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, maybe it would actually be more appropriate if the letter would just come from the Liberal caucus of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I believe Mr. MacGregor is carefully considering it as well, so basically, “Dear Minister Wilson-Raybould and Minister Goodale,” stays the same.

Paragraph 1 stays the same.

Paragraph 2 stays the same.

Paragraph 3 stays the same.

Paragraph 4 stays the same.

Paragraph 5, the word becomes “fewer” instead of “less”.

Paragraph 6 stays the same.

Paragraph 7 stays the same.

Paragraph 8, the wording from “we acknowledge” to “up to date” is deleted.

In the first recommendation, the words “would like to” are deleted, and in paragraph 2, the word “would” in the fourth line is deleted.

Mr. McKinnon.