Public Safety Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

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.

On the agenda

Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kim Pate Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies

Ed McIsaac Director of Policy, John Howard Society of Canada

Lorraine Berzins Community Chair of Justice, Church Council on Justice and Corrections

Richard Haughian Vice-President, Church Council on Justice and Corrections

Pierre Gravel Norbourg Victim, As an Individual

Ali Reza Pedram As an Individual

Jackie Naltchayan As an Individual

Howard Sapers Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Ivan Zinger Executive Director and General Counsel, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Stephen Fineberg President, Association des avocats et avocates en droit carcéral du Québec

Jacinthe Lanctôt Vice-President, Association des avocats et avocates en droit carcéral du Québec

Mary Campbell Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

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.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC

I challenge the chair.

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.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Okay.

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.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC

I challenge the chair.

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.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Am I not allowed to speak?

9:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

You have no right to speak on the challenge to the chair.

9:45 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

That's fine.

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.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

You don't even have to read it.

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

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to add new section 13.1.

9:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Davies.

February 15th, 2011 / 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?

9:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

They have been deleted.