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.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
February 15th, 2011 / 9:35 p.m.
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I don't want to derail the proceedings. I do recall that one of the names that has been mentioned, to the best of my recollection, was convicted only under provincial securities legislation, but I can't swear to that.
If there's someone in the room who has Internet access and wanted to confirm that....
I do recall that one of them was not convicted under the Criminal Code.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Even if they weren't, they could be convicted under provincial securities legislation and receive a sentence. Then this amendment wouldn't apply anyway.
9:35 p.m.
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That's my understanding.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We have a couple more.
Mr. Holland wanted to speak, and then we'll go to Madam Mendes.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, I move a subamendment to reduce the amount stated at $1 million to $100,000.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
If that's the only amendment, my understanding is that it would make it the same as the other. Is that correct? And it was ruled inadmissible.
9:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chairman, might I say that it's a different basket of offences in the two....
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
9:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Changing the figure does not make it identical, because my motion has a larger number of offences than Mr. Holland's.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Again, on the same principle of the decision earlier, in the opinion of the chair, by proposing a subamendment to retain sections 125 to 126.1, it's already....
This is a new subamendment, which I would rule out of order.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
To that point, Mr. Chair, because there was already a ruling of the committee to not overthrow but to overturn you.... We would never want to overthrow you, Mr. Chair.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
But we did overturn your decision. Therefore, the amendment is duly before the committee, and therefore, this amendment would be.... I'll keep it at $100,000, because it also deals with a different basket.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. If that's the case, then we have debate on the subamendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Rathgeber.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I just have a question. Have you ruled the subamendment in order?
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Is there any discussion on the subamendment?
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Are we ready for the question on the amendment, or do you want continued debate on the amendment?
The subamendment was defeated, so we will now take the vote on Mr. Davies' amendment.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to NDP-3. The reference number is 368.
Go ahead, Mr. Davies.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Briefly, we heard some evidence, and I think one of the problems with the accelerated parole system is that it puts a reverse burden onto the National Parole Board to prove on reasonable grounds that the person is likely to commit a violent offence.
With this amendment we've reversed the burden so that an offender who's applying for accelerated parole would have the burden of proof on reasonable grounds to satisfy the board. That's the first thing this amendment does, reverse it back to the offender. And then it would be to satisfy the board that if he's released he is not likely to commit any offence, not just a violent offence.
Presently the system, of course, is if the application automatically comes before the parole board, the burden is on the parole board to show that the person is likely to commit a violent offence. This leaves the unacceptable situation of a person who might very well be likely to commit an offence, but they still get accelerated parole.
I thought this was a way to right that wrong and make this system accord with what I think is Canadians' sense of justice.