Evidence of meeting #13 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
I'm disappointed to hear the parliamentary secretary putting words in my mouth. All of us here have questions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Madame Doré Lefebvre, we're not going to get into a tit-for-tat across here. We're going to leave the discussion to this bill. If you have a comment on the bill, the chair would certainly appreciate that. If not, we will go to a vote.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
Okay. No more speakers? We will have the vote on this amendment.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Yes. We'll have a recorded vote on this NDP amendment, reference number 6441401.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
We will proceed to the next one, but before we do that, the chair would just stop to comment very, very briefly. The chair certainly understands the emotion that's involved in this on all sides of the equation. The chair also is trying to keep this committee on track so that we don't get caught up in our emotions as much as we certainly feel that we should do that. We will just try to carry on and, if we can, keep our focus and attention on the actual amendments that are coming forward on this bill.
The next amendment before us now is an amendment from the government, amendment G-1, reference number 6437840. You have a copy of it before you.
Are there comments on this issue?
Ms. James.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
In this particular amendment that we're putting forward, we move that Bill C-479, in clause 2, be amended. We're actually dealing with three different pieces within clause 2.
I'll start with the first one. We're replacing.... I'm not going to read it unless someone wants me to read it into the record. I think we all have it in front of us. The basis for this is to clarify the definition of the offenders that these changes will impact. This ties in part and parcel to what Mr. Garrison brought forward a moment ago. Perhaps it's not exactly as he wishes, but it does clarify that.
Basically, we're changing it from “a sentence of at least two years following a review” to also include the phrase “or a sentence that includes a sentence of at least two years for an offence involving violence”, just so we're tightening up the offences that would be impacted by this change in legislation.
The second part that we're modifying with this amendment is on page 2, still under clause 2. That's on replacing line 9. This is just a technical amendment to clarify that the new delay in mandatory reviews for violent offenders occurs despite the existing wording of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which states that mandatory reviews will occur every two years.
The third part that we're modifying is a few lines down, replacing lines 13 and 14. Again, this ties into the same thing that was amended in the first part, which adds “or a sentence that includes a sentence of at least two years for an offence involving violence”. It has the same reasoning behind it that I put forward a moment ago for point (a) that was changed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
There are three parts to that amendment. You've heard them. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Garrison.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I read through these amendments. I don't see in any way how this restricts the number of offenders that it's being applied to. It still applies to the entire list of schedule I offenders that you added to.
It has in fact tightened some of the wording, but I would be interested to know which offences now have been removed. It seems to me that none have been removed from schedule I. It's still the full range of those. This simply cleans up the language about who would be captured in terms of sentencing, but all those offences in schedule I, it seems to me—the ones that are not murder or dangerous offender—seem to still be captured, even if this amendment is approved.
So it's a genuine question that I'm asking Ms. James: how does this in fact reduce the number of types of offences that would be applied to?
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Basically, it ensures that it's a serious violent offence, that it's not just simply an offence where someone has received a sentence for two years. It's one that is a violent offence.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Much along the same lines, does the government have any idea on the numbers that would be impacted by this change? Again, it comes back to not having the Parole Board here, because I do believe that there's going to be a very substantial cost to the Parole Board system as a result of this bill.
Do you have any idea of the numbers, of how many numbers less this will involve than previously? Because it is a very broad list. Now, I do think it's a good move to put in that it has to be offences involving violence. I think that certainly will limit the damage, but is it enough?
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
Obviously, I don't have that technical or that particular number with me. Perhaps we have some officials here who could answer some of those questions that I don't have readily at hand.
Is there...?
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm still posing the same question to Ms. James. I understand that point (a) is a technical improvement in the language, but by my reading I still don't see that it changes any of the offences that were originally listed in Bill C-479. What it does, I believe, is that it prevents inadvertently pulling someone into that net because it'll include their sentence, but it doesn't change the offences that are actually involved, so again I would pose that same question.
I would also like to go on to point (b) here. I heard the parliamentary secretary say that this was necessary because something would happen despite what it says in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. That was the question, of course, that I had here. Is this not creating a contradiction between the two acts? As for the failure of Mr. Easter's earlier amendments, which would have coordinated some of these things, I don't know whether that has an impact in this case, but it's another illustration of how these two are very closely related.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is, is this attempting to deal with a contradiction between the two acts?
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
One of the issues is that this bill actually modifies certain sections of the act itself, so the requirement for this is a technical amendment that has to be in there to ensure that it overrides something that may say “two years”. You may say that it's contradicting; we're saying that it's a technical amendment that ensures that this bill goes forward as the four and five years that we want it to extend it out to.
Conservative
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I'm still going to go back.... Perhaps there's someone here who can give us some advice. Does this do what the parliamentary secretary says it does, which is to limit the number of offences and offenders to be covered by this? We still have not had an answer to that.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I'll have to get a more definitive answer for Mr. Garrison. I move to bring some of the officials to the table so they can answer that technical question.