Evidence of meeting #55 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
In the opinion of the chair, this amendment would be contrary to the principle of C-59 and is therefore inadmissible.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We have a challenge to the chair.
Shall the chair's decision be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The chair's decision is sustained. NDP-3 is inadmissible.
Mr. Davies on 049.
9:45 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think 049 should really be read with 843, because 049 amends Bill C-59, and, if I'm not mistaken, 843 would make the consequential amendment to the Criminal Code. I have no objection to dealing with these together, in the interest of time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does exactly what I just said the previous amendment does. It puts the onus back on the offender to satisfy the board that, if released on accelerated parole, they're likely not to commit any offence, violent or otherwise. But this is a different approach that would give the judge the discretion at the time of sentencing to determine if someone would or would not be eligible for accelerated parole. By this means we still retain the concept of accelerated parole in our country but we give over to the judges of this country the discretion to apply this.
I have heard support from all sides of this room--clearly from the Conservatives--that when a judge gives a sentence, that should be respected. So if we respect the judge's length of sentence, we should also respect that the judge is able, with their independence and learnedness, to discern which type of first-time non-violent offender is a good candidate for accelerated parole if they meet these standards--they still have to apply and meet the burden--and which ones should be disqualified from that.
I urge all my colleagues to support this as a reasonable and intelligent approach to accelerated parole.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. We cannot deal with the two amendments together because the other amendment deals with a later clause, so we must deal just with this one.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Again, I'm advised that this would be inadmissible, so I will rule it inadmissible.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Again, we are being challenged. Shall the chair's decision be sustained?
A recorded vote again?
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: [See Minutes of Proceedings])
There's one more on that clause.
Mr. Holland, number 367.
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I'm not going to speak to it. I'm going to move it all. Should I just read it quickly?
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
You have it. I'll wait and see your ruling with bated breath, uncertain of the outcome, and I will speak to it pending your ruling.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right.
The decision of the chair is that this amendment is inadmissible, and again we have a challenge to the chair on a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think those are all the amendments to clause 5.
(Clauses 5 to 13 inclusive agreed to on division)
9:50 p.m.
NDP
9:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to question this amendment.
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Right now would be the time.
With the adoption of clause 5, this makes this again inadmissible. That's not the right word. “Nonsensical” would be the word that is used. Again, there are no sections 125 and 126.
But that still gives you the opportunity to speak to it, Mr. Davies.
Actually, no it doesn't. My decision is that this is now inadmissible because of those.... It can't even be put. So unless there is a challenge....
9:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Could I just have one second, Mr. Chairman?
What has happened to sections 125 and 126?
