Evidence of meeting #19 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
Shall Conservative amendment 14 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next we have NDP-2. This was given yesterday. I think all of you should have received it. It's on page 66 of the package.
I will ask Mr. Garrison to say a few words.
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There is actually no change to the amendments I submitted. It had been my intention to submit these two amendments separately, but I guess I didn't give clear instructions to the drafters, because the two things that were in the original NDP-2 as submitted are quite different things.
The one we're voting on now asks that we amend clause 20 by deleting lines 26 to 28, as follows:
Subsequent charges not invalidated
(2) The failure of a peace officer to consider the options set out in subsection (1) does not invalidate any subsequent charges laid against the individual for the offence.
In reading that, I think I understand where it came from, but in fact it undoes the whole purpose of this bill, in my view. In other words, it says that we want you, as police, to consider diversion, but if you don't, that's okay; go ahead anyway, just like you always did—the charges can proceed.
To me, including this clause in the bill actually undoes everything else that we're laying out in the bill. That's why I'm proposing that we simply delete the proposed subsection that says subsequent charges are not invalidated if you didn't consider diversion, because in fact we're trying to make sure that diversion is considered.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want a little bit of clarification. Right now in NDP-2 we have (a) and (b)—
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Mr. Cooper, do you have the one that was given yesterday? We can give that to you.
Shall NDP amendment 2 carry? It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next we have NDP amendment 2.1. It was also given yesterday. It's on page 66.1 of the package.
If anyone needs a copy, Mr. Clerk will hand it out.
I want to remind members that if NDP-2.1 is adopted, then Green Party amendment 44 and Liberal Party amendment 2 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.
Go ahead, Mr. Garrison, if you'd like to say something.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, this is simply a division of the original NDP-2 into two separate parts so that (a) was in the one we just previously defeated, and (b) is in this one.
The concern that we've heard quite often in this committee and that I've heard quite often in both my previous times on the public safety committee is that, in our criminal justice system, discretion is important. We have discretion for prosecutors and for police that already exists, but we don't have any way to monitor how that discretion is used. If one of the major purposes of Bill C-5 is to make sure that we're combatting racial injustice and the disproportionate incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians, other racialized people and, in fact, poorer Canadians as well, then we need some mechanism to find out how that discretion is being used.
The bill as it stands doesn't require keeping records, so my amendment says that records shall be kept so that we can use them for research purposes and for accountability purposes in seeing how the discretionary power that police will have, which will be greatly increased here, is used and make sure that the discretion doesn't always go simply to the most privileged in our society.
At the same time, there is always concern that, if we're trying to divert people and we're creating a record, this will somehow be used against people in the future, so my amendment in the second part says that it does not, in fact, include any information that would identify individuals to whom the warnings or referrals relate, unless that information is necessary for public safety.
In other words, my intent there is, yes, you can use it in the case in which they were being diverted because you need that for public safety to carry out the conditions, but, no, you can't use it in future legal proceedings. That's why there are two pieces to this, requiring police to keep records and then allowing that those records can be used for research and accountability but not in future court proceedings.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
I have Mr. Anandasangaree and then Mr. Brock.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to confirm that we support the amendment in principle, but we believe that the language could be strengthened with some important safeguards that speak to what Mr. Garrison intends to do here.
I don't know if you want me to read this out or if you'd rather I table it for circulation to members, but the amendment is quite extensive, and I believe it is something that does cover the intent but definitely puts safeguards into place so that information cannot be abused or used in an improper way.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Okay, you can circulate the hard copy. Do you have it electronically or in printed format?
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Yes, I think Mr. Clerk will be sending it to everyone. It's coming here right now.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
In the meantime, should I go to Mr. Brock? He had his hand up, but I guess it's gone.
The clerk will be emailing it out to everyone who is on virtually. Hard copies will be coming to your P9s.
Hopefully, everyone was able to have a quick read of it. We will vote on the subamendment first and the same applies. If the subamendment is—
3:20 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I just received it and would like a few minutes to read it. Earlier today, I received NDP‑2.1, which is simple and has only two paragraphs. Now, there are two pages of text, and I haven't had time to read them. I'd need about 10 minutes to read them, Mr. Chair.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Monsieur Fortin, we'll suspend. Is five minutes enough, or do you need 10 minutes?
3:20 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I would need 10 minutes, Mr. Chair. There are still two pages of text.
Thank you.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chair, I'm just pointing out that there's a typo on the last page regarding the word “individual”. I'm sure that's not a big deal, but....
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I'll now resume the meeting.
We are going to be voting on the Liberal subamendment to NDP amendment 2.1.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, it's a Friday heading into the long weekend. This meeting is scheduled to go from one to three, your time. It's currently four o'clock, so we're an hour over. There was no motion to extend the meeting. I think we've all been operating in good faith, but now we're seeing amendments.
I remember the clerk asking for amendments, through you, Chair. You asked for amendments last week, which the Conservative Party provided. Now we're seeing amendments that have just been recently tabled and we're continuing to see amendments.
If I thought there was a chance it would pass, I would move a motion to adjourn, but I suspect that the NDP would support the Liberals in keeping this meeting going into the evening, as they did last time. I'm just a little concerned as to how many more amendments we are going to see.
To do this job properly, as I think Mr. Fortin had said, we need to see and study these amendments. Unless it's an emergency, we don't drop amendments as we're dealing with the clause. That's just asking for delays. This meeting has already been delayed for over an hour.
I fear that we're going to have more unnecessary delays if we continue to table-drop technical amendments that have an impact but that have not in any way, shape or form been explained to us. I would ask for an explanation of these amendments and subamendments and then an undertaking for, in the future, when we have government legislation....
Remember, this is government legislation and now we're talking about government amendments. We need to get them in on time.