Public Safety Committee on June 1st, 2010

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is a problem. The problem is that this committee has no flexibility with respect to its timetable, an issue that was of great concern and great consternation to me at an in camera meeting that I can't talk about. But the end result of that was that this committee has an agenda—that's public, so I can talk about it—that sets certain days for certain matters. As I understand it—and any honourable members of the committee may wish to correct me—clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-391 was set for two hours for today and two hours for Thursday of this week. If my recollection is correct, next Tuesday and Thursday we are to give instructions to the analysts regarding a very comprehensive study on mental health and the state of corrections that this committee undertook last fall, October and November, with trips across Canada and to Norway and Britain, and hither, thither, and yon. I think it behoves us to move forward on that report, given the amount of time and money the committee has expended on studying mental health in corrections. I'm sure Mr. Davies, who's the mover of this motion, would not want to see all the work and time and energy and toil and labour he's put into studying the state of mental health in corrections be put off yet again.

I don't know how you prioritize the state of mental health in corrections versus Bill 391. Certainly the members on this side of the House are anxious to move forward. We support this bill wholeheartedly, at least speaking for myself, and I think I speak for all the members on this side of the table. The committee, as you know, Mr. Chair, is the author of its own procedure; it's the author of its own affairs. This committee has made a motion, and the motion was, as I understand it, to do clause-by-clause consideration today and Thursday. But there may be some technical problems with that.

I'm a little confused as to the starting lineup for today's match, because Mr. Davies—we welcomed him back a few moments ago when he made the motion—hasn't been participating in the hearing of the witnesses, and I was under the understanding that Mr. Comartin, the senior justice critic for the NDP, had a lead on this file. Is the problem that Mr. Comartin is not available today? I don't know. I would suggest, if that's the problem, that's not a legitimate or bona fide reason to adjourn what is to be clause-by-clause consideration from Tuesday and Thursday to Thursday and Tuesday of next week.

Maybe the amendments aren't ready. I don't know if the NDP needs more time. I don't know if the other parties are proposing amendments. I'm a little confused and I'm a little concerned by all of this. All that I do know—or I guess I might know more than this statement—is that the committee had resolved to do clause-by-clause today and clause-by-clause on Thursday of this week. This committee has set its own timetable, against this side of the table's strong opposition, essentially to the end of what was anticipated to be the spring session. So with Tuesday and Thursday already booked to do mental health and the state of corrections, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that this motion is out of order, and I'm sure my colleagues would like to support me on this proposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie, you're next on my list.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have previously discussed with Mr. Davies and with Mr. Holland what I thought the agreement was, to move today's agenda to Thursday and deal with the amendments that the NDP perhaps will bring forward and deal with them on Thursday.

Mr. Davies had indicated there had been some discussions with the House leaders, which I wasn't aware of. At this point, we're trying to get some kind of response. I do agree with Mr. Kania that the schedule was set—

[An hon. member]

Mr. Rathgeber.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I'm sorry. They look so much alike, Mr. Chair. And they're both pretty good guys, and not bad lawyers.

Having said that, at this point we're certainly reluctant to move today to next Tuesday. We've all agreed that we need to complete that report. There will always be something that seems to jump up to push aside the mental health issue and the prisons and addictions and all of a sudden we'll get to the point for the summer recess and the report won't be completed.

I think it's so important. It's something Canadians have been made aware of. Mr. Rathgeber so rightly pointed out that the committee put a lot of time and effort and taxpayers put a lot of money into doing that study. I think for the purposes of that study it needs to get completed sooner rather than later--rather than getting pushed off.

So if we're going to adjourn today's meeting and put it into Thursday's.... I can't see where it's going to hurt their cause. It's not a long bill. I think we've got in front of us a total of 25 clauses, all of which are fairly simple to deal with. Mr. Davies indicated that perhaps eight or ten amendments may be put forward by the NDP. I think we should be able to handle that in one day. But if we move ahead today on this I think they're going to lose some of their opportunity to bring their amendments forward, because we'll be past that.

So I understand their problem, but at the same time I think the schedule was set some time ago, quite understandably.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The suggestion has been made. I've got quite a list of speakers here. You've heard the suggestion that we leave the schedule the way it is for Thursday.

I just have a question for Mr. Davies. We have not seen any amendments. We could get this all done on Thursday if we would have the amendments tomorrow in advance and they could be translated and distributed. Then it would simplify things, as we could deal with this all in one day. Is that possible?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I can certainly bring that to Mr. Comartin. I'm at a loss, because I have not been privy to those discussions. But I'm happy to pass that on and to make that request. Obviously the amendments have to be drafted and circulated in advance. I don't see any reason why that couldn't be the case.

My instructions were to put a motion to defer the clause-by-clause until Thursday and Tuesday if necessary. I think we all acknowledge there's a possibility we could be done more quickly, but that's the wording I was given for this.

I will hold my other comments until I'm back in the queue. Certainly I'll pass that on, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The point is, on April 14 we sent out a note asking that all the amendments be submitted, and that was a month and a half ago. If your motion doesn't pass we'll probably finish today, and then there would be no amendments.

Next on my list is Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Much of what I was going to say has already been said. Here's the thrust of it. We can't talk about what was done in camera, which tied our hands as to what our scheduling would be. That having been the case, my preference is to go ahead until we can get this sorted out. But then in retrospect, if we knew what clauses the NDP intended to amend, we could deal with the other clauses. But I gather we don't even know what clauses are going to be amended. This leaves us in the position that we're going to cancel today, and each and every day is very valuable. So perhaps Mr. Davies does know the clause numbers, and if that's the case we can deal with the other ones.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I truly am quite amazed and in fact quite frustrated. As Mr. Norlock has so accurately said, we had an agenda forced down our throats that Mr. Davies was part of the coalition to make happen. For Mr. Davies now to arrive back, after we've spent the time we have listening to witnesses, doing all the review of materials, and coming prepared, on the schedule—we had no disagreement with the schedule as outlined—is to me a situation whereby we're put into changing the whole schedule.

We prepare ourselves as MPs to come and deal with the business of the day, as outlined in our schedules and agendas—which is, by the way, an agenda we had no input into, but that was forced upon us by the opposition. Mr. Davies played a key role in it, upon our return in this session. He played a key role along with other people on the other side of the table. It's unacceptable for me as a committee member to have him come back today and tell us that he's been given instructions by somebody outside this room that he is to come here and delay the business that's on our agenda for this committee.

In principle, regardless of what the issue might be—yes, it is Bill C-391, and yes, it is clause-by-clause—come on, stop playing games trying to juggle the schedule to whatever meets the needs of the NDP at this moment in time.

You can sense my frustration here. The games should stop here. Let's get to the work we had outlined doing. Let's review, clause by clause.

I totally agree with my colleague Mr. Rathgeber that this is totally out of order, in my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. McColeman.

Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too want to voice my displeasure at the fact that we are once again leaving the agenda and trying to make last-minute adjustments. We prepare very hard for these committee meetings. My desk is completely covered in documents. There are a number of reasons we do this. It's because we want to do a good job. I'm sure that all members of this committee from every party want to do a good job.

I am prepared on Tuesday and Thursday of next week to move forward on a mental health issue, and it is pressing. I'm going to tell you why I believe it is pressing.

We just recently saw in a newspaper yet another example of why that study could help save lives and could help to improve the system. I want to read from a newspaper article with regard to that very important case, which was captured by not only our nation, but nations across this world. It's an important case because it could happen again, and we have the power to make some positive changes to hopefully prevent that.

Let me read a few sentences, if you would allow me, Mr. Chair. This is from an article by Dean Pritchard from May 31, and it's from Winnipeg:

The doctor of the man who beheaded an innocent passenger aboard a Greyhound bus less than two years ago is recommending day passes for his client, Vince Li. The treating psychiatrist believes the man found not criminally responsible for slaying Tim McLean in front of a busload of horrified bystanders is ready to leave his secure mental health facility for hours at a time, provided he is accompanied by two “special constables”. Li's treating psychiatrist says Li continues to suffer hallucinations, but at a reduced intensity and frequency than at the time Tim McLean was killed. He said Li is assessed as a low homicidal risk and suicide risk, and he responds well to hospital staff.

Here's a quotation:

“His demeanour on the ward, he doesn’t argue with staff...he is responsive to their requests.” Meanwhile, McLean's family is lobbying to toughen the law against those found criminally not responsible for killing another person and was previously appalled when a psychiatrist commented that Li could be potentially...released within five years.

I might note that this is a case that happened in fact just outside Winnipeg, in my home province of Manitoba, and in fact the mother of the young man who was brutally murdered lives in our colleague Candace Hoeppner's riding, and we've been in close contact with her about this.

Let me continue:

“Tim's Law” aims to set at least a minimum mental health facility term for mentally ill killers. Vince Li has been treated at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre since he was found not criminally responsible for the July 2008 killing aboard a Greyhound bus. Manitoba's Criminal Code review board will perform annual reviews of Li's mental health....

Now, I understand that this tacks on a very large responsibility to a provincial government. However, given that we took the time and energy and used taxpayers' funds to do an extensive study of the mental health system in our prisons, and of addiction, and of how they influence one another, etc., I am anxious to complete this study, not only because it's the right thing to do, but because this is a pressing issue. This is an article, as I stated, from May 31. This is weighing heavily on the minds of the family of Tim McLean and on the minds, might I add, of the family of Vince Li.

I believe it's incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to not only honour the schedule we have lived by, which we all know many of us did not want to agree to and were handcuffed into doing. However, we agreed to it because I am prepared for Tuesday and Thursday to address this very serious issue, which is pressing, which is at the forefront of some of the news articles that we've seen—and I'm sure there are more to come—if not for any other reason than to assure these families that someone is looking at this issue. I don't want to detour from our agenda, because I believe this is a pressing issue.

Those are my comments.

I would hope that members of this committee—although many of them aren't listening.... I want to implore you to think about these families. Were this your son or your daughter who was beheaded and cannibalized by an individual who was found not criminally responsible, who was then about to receive day passes when the psychiatrists have said clearly that there are still hallucinations—not to the same extent as when the homicide occurred, but there are still hallucinations—you too would be very concerned. It would rip at your hearts, it would rip at your very being and your very soul. I will not do that to these families without voicing very clearly here in this committee that it cannot be done. We cannot leave these families in that kind of a state. This study is important to them, and I thank the analysts and the researchers who accompanied us. I know you've done a lot of work to prepare a draft report for us. I want to proceed to evaluating it and to making some significant recommendations for not only this family, but for all Canadians.

Again, I know that many of the opposition members are not listening. I implore you to listen very briefly. You need to do this for these families. Please, Mr. Chair, I need for them to hear this. These families cannot be left in this kind of situation.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Ms. Glover. I think you've made some key points here.

I know the opposition wasn't as attentive as I was hoping.

Mr. Davies, you're next on my speaking list.

One of the options here—a compromise I might suggest as the chair—is that you could amend your motion that we deal with this on Thursday. Then we could accommodate the concerns here about finishing that report.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, right now, just to inform the committee, I'm seeking instructions from Mr. Comartin. I will be able to give a final answer very quickly.

As it is my turn to speak on this issue, I just want to quickly say that I think Mr. Rathgeber made some offensive comments about our study. He said in the mental health study that we travelled across the country, into Norway, into Britain, and “hither and thither and yon”. Actually, the committee went across this country and we went to Norway and Britain, and that was it. If he's suggesting that was not a wise use of resources of this committee, then it's certainly contrary to what his colleague just spent the last ten minutes prattling on about.

I think it's offensive to regard the work of this committee on mental health as something that is put in nursery rhyme terms. It was a valuable study, and it certainly was a good use of our time.

I also want to point out that we have time in June. I know the committee time has been allocated, but there are a few days still in June. The purpose of my motion would move things one day. This is a very important bill, Bill C-391. It deserves to have the full consideration of this committee. Mr. Comartin wants the opportunity to put some amendments forward. That was the spirit of my motion—to enable that to happen, so that this committee would be able to consider every conceivable aspect of the gun registry bill before a very important vote comes up in Parliament, and so that amendments would be put before this committee for all parliamentarians' consideration.

I'll point out that I hear one of my friends interrupting me, and it makes it difficult to speak, but I will respond. He asked why he is not here. I've explained why he's not here to the chair, but I'll do it again here, as I did to Mr. MacKenzie. He's not here because he was called to a meeting of the Afghanistan committee. Mr. Comartin is our party's nominee, and that's going on right at this moment. I might also point out that Mr. Comartin also advises me that he sent this request to defer this one day to the government House leader, Jay Hill, who didn't even give the courtesy of a reply. That's why I'm bringing it up at the committee here, but if we want to get into that kind of politics, I'll bring that forward for the record so everybody can hear.

As well, I would point out that I did talk to the chairman, I talked to the government leader on this committee, and I talked to all the other leaders. Frankly, before I moved this motion I thought I had the agreement of everybody on this. Apparently we don't. This is what I have to say on this subject.

In terms of the mental health committee study, of course I think we're all in agreement that it's a very important thing, and I think we can get that done by the end of the summer. I don't think one day is going to make that much of a difference on it. That's what I wanted to say to the substance of the matter.

I'm awaiting instructions from Mr. Comartin right now. I'll certainly be able to advise the chairman right away if there's a way I can get this out of the way and move the committee business forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Next we have Mr. Holland, Ms. Hoeppner, Mr. McColeman, Ms. Mourani, and Mr. MacKenzie.

Mr. Holland, please.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I have a solution. What I would suggest.... I'm happy to just deal with this on Thursday. Given the fact that the committee is concerned about other business on the table, we could deal with it on Thursday with no time limit. In other words, the committee would continue sitting until such time as we were done with the bill.

I'll move that as a motion, first of all, that we deal with it Thursday with no time limit.

Now, if I can speak to the amendment, Mr. Chair, there was a concern posed by Ms. Glover around the study on mental health and addictions that I think we all agreed we needed to proceed with. Of course, there are many solutions to that, including having additional meetings. One of the ways we can ensure that we get this done and limit the propensity we sometimes see for filibustering is by having no time limit. Therefore, it would then be the choice of the committee and its members what time we get out of here. I think that would be a solution. Then next week we can continue to deal with the mental health and addictions, which I think is a concern for all of us in this committee, and it deals with the concerns of Mr. Davies of not proceeding today because Mr. Comartin is unavailable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You have proposed an amendment, which I have issues with, because I can't stay after 5:30, but go ahead and clarify your amendment.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

To clarify, my amendment would be that the committee deal with clause-by-clause on Bill C-391 this coming Thursday and the committee sit until such time as it has completed clause-by-clause deliberations. That would be the motion.

Good news for you, Mr. Chair: I am available until whatever hour the committee needs me. I'm sure that members have all talked about the importance of this bill and the urgency of getting it out. I'm sure all members are willing to burn the midnight oil if need be to be here. But it also provides an incentive to members to more efficiently utilize their time and their speaking if they know they're going to have to go until four in the morning the longer they talk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

I will speak to the original motion and to the amendment. I would disagree with both of them and recommend the committee not support either.

I would just say that all of us have been paying very close attention to this bill, not just those of us on this committee, but really throughout the country. We've been paying very close attention to the contents--those who are very opposed to the bill and those who support the bill. It hasn't come up by surprise.

I would very respectfully say to Mr. Davies, who has been put in a difficult position, that if Mr. Comartin is as concerned about this bill as Mr. Davies indicates, he would have been prepared. If he could not be at this meeting, it would have taken him maybe half an hour or maybe even an hour to prepare Mr. Davies to present those amendments.

All of us have worked in committees before. I also chair a committee. I chair the HUMA committee. I've seen the NDP before where they had amendments and the mover couldn't be there and that member really prepared one of his colleagues very well and she came and presented those amendments really with great excellence. So I don't think it's a stretch, especially when this is a bill, as I said, that has not just jumped up on us, or “oh, I didn't realize we were at this place”. We knew this was happening. I think Mr. Comartin could have prepared Mr. Davies to present any amendments.

This committee planned today and Thursday to look at Bill C-391, and I would respectfully ask that you follow through on the commitment that you made, not just to the House of Commons, but to all Canadians. This isn't just a few of us who are paying attention and who are affected. This is all Canadians who are affected.

Now, if Mr. Davies would agree that we could start going through clause-by-clause right now, and if we're not finished on Thursday then hopefully Mr. Comartin would be here.... If we are finished today, then that's kind of the risk you take. All of us know you just can't think that somehow everybody will change all of their plans and the whole country will just wait because you're not prepared.

Mr. Chair, I think you need to look at what this committee has made a decision on. The whole committee cannot stop because one individual is not properly prepared. That would be my respectful submission.

Again, I think Mr. Davies has been put in a bit of a difficult spot having to defend, in this case, the indefensible. I think all of us should just say let's start right now. It's ten after; let's start on the business. Let's get moving on this bill, clause by clause. Let's deal with it, and this committee can then move on to the other business you have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. McColeman, Ms. Mourani, Mr. MacKenzie, Mr. Rathgeber, and Ms. Glover.

Mr. McColeman, please.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mine is just a question on procedure. Maybe through you to the clerk, when amendments to this come forward, do they have to be reported through the committee chair prior to the meeting, as discussed earlier or suggested by the chair? Is this an absolute procedure that has to happen?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Just to clarify your question, you're asking if the amendments have to be submitted to the clerk before the meeting begins.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Yes, before the meeting begins.