Public Safety Committee on Feb. 27th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, colleagues. We will call meeting number 13 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to order.

Today we are doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-479, and hopefully taking some time at the end for some future business in order to get our agenda set.

Without further ado, we'll head right into clause-by-clause. I would certainly like to thank our clerks and our analysts at this time for putting all the motions that were submitted ahead of time for the consideration and courtesy of the committee into sequence, which certainly will help us deliberate. We will certainly head down that road.

Of course, the first clause that we have before us in short order of sequence, of course, is consideration of the short title, C-479, An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders. At this point, we have consideration from our legislative clerk here that consideration of clause 1 is being postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).

We will go directly now to the new clause 1.1, and from the Liberals, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a point of order first, Mr. Chair. I think both the official opposition representative and myself at the last meeting just as we were closing, and it was closed rather quickly, were seriously suggesting that we should not go to clause-by-clause today. We're not ready to go to clause-by-clause. What is the rush, Mr. Chair? The fact of the matter is, this impacts the Parole Board. We haven't heard from the Parole Board. I see now we have a letter saying they couldn't come on February 25. Could they come another day? I don't know. I can't tell from the letter. I can't tell whether the Minister might have intervened. But if we're going to do our job in terms of looking at legislation properly, then the body that is most affected by this bill is in fact the Parole Board. We need some answers from them, Mr. Chair. If they're not willing to come in their own right, I would suggest we as a committee should subpoena them.

I know there are about eight amendments here from the government, which is an indication to me I expect the Department of Justice intervened on a private member's bill that has a lot of risks in it in terms of jeopardizing the Criminal Code, so the justice department is probably trying to clean it up. That's a good thing. But I really do not believe we're doing our job as a committee if we do not hear from the Parole Board before we do this clause-by-clause.

If you listened to the witnesses, the last witnesses, one of the things that was suggested the other day, there were quite a number of suggested amendments from the witnesses... I've got the blues, but we certainly didn't have time to prepare amendments based on those suggestions. We did have comments from two of the witnesses suggesting that this bill, as currently drafted—and I do think some of the government amendments will cure this problem, actually—could actually jeopardize, and those weren't their words, but that's what they meant, jeopardize public safety because people would get out on parole without proper hearings and they would not have the proper easing into society.

There are some real, severe implications here on public safety, and we need to hear from the Parole Board. That's my position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

We have two other people up.

Mr. Garrison next, please....

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

On his point of order, I have a procedural question—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Are you on Mr. Easter's point of order, or do you have a point of order yourself?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I just have a procedural problem here because from a point of order I can't make a motion for debate on the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's correct.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Easter won the draw on who goes first here, but I have to echo everything he said: we did try to have a discussion about whether it was proper, in terms of good governance and good management of legislation, to proceed in this very rapid fashion with a bill that clearly has flaws in it, as indicated by the number of amendments proposed by the government to a private member's bill.

I feel the same. I had the transcript of the testimony just about 24 hours before this meeting, and not in both official languages, in which witnesses made suggestions for amendments that they thought were necessary to the bill. There was absolutely no time to make sure we could do due diligence in drafting amendments that might have reflected the sentiments presented by the witnesses. I am disappointed that we don't have a discussion of committee business first so that we could have some discussion about when it might be appropriate to move forward on the bill.

I have concerns that not only have we not heard from the Parole Board, but we haven't really heard from Public Safety, and with this many amendments coming in to this bill I have the same question Mr. Easter raised. Does this mean that Public Safety Canada or the Minister of Justice have suggested these amendments? If so, we need to have heard from them as a committee before we proceed to deal with amendments to the bill.

I am very concerned about the idea that we're going to try to proceed today in the absence of the information we really need to have in order to make sure that we have good legislation in front of us.

I'll wait for another chance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to address the point that Mr. Easter has made, if you've had a chance to go through the amendments that we are bringing forward today, some of the concerns that were brought forward by the witnesses in our last committee meeting will be addressed. There are a number of changes that we have put forward that will take into consideration the concerns you have just mentioned with regard to security and so forth.

On the government side, we are ready to proceed with this. We put in our amendments in the required timeframe. They were translated into both official languages—as were the Liberal Party's. Mr. Easter submitted his amendments as well. They were thoughtfully prepared, and I appreciated his getting them in.

But on this side, we're ready to proceed with this private member's bill at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come back to the point my colleague Mr. Garrison made. We heard from the witnesses and received the blues only 24 hours ago, and the translation is not available yet. And as you know, most of the witnesses who appeared at our last meeting were anglophones. I did not have timely access to the translation, and now here we are today, being asked to do a clause-by-clause study. As a francophone parliamentarian, I feel I have been denied my rights. It is our right to have access to the information in both official languages before we take a stand on an issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much for your considerations.

The chair is guided by two principles right now. One, of course, is the motion to proceed with clause-by-clause examination today; however, I welcome the comments and concern from Mr. Garrison and Mr. Easter.

But I also am concerned that adequate time has not been given for translation. If that is the case, I would defer to our clerk right now to advise the chair as to whether or not adequate time was given for translation, because we cannot proceed unless adequate time is given for translation. That really is against the routine orders of this committee.

I've been advised by the clerk that the blues simply go through a matter of passage and that it is not required that they be translated within that 24-hour period. So at this particular point we can proceed on this bill. This is the indication that I have been given by the clerk on this.

Have you a point of order, Mr. Garrison?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Well, what the substantive point means is that we only had the blues to deal with. We had very technical testimony on the bill and these amendments, but we did not have a translation of the blues so that we could all work in our first official language in order to determine the detail of the amendments. It's one thing to hear a translation, a verbal presentation; it's another thing to sit down with it and see what amendments and sections of the bill would be affected and how you work with it. We did not have that in both official languages in time for this meeting today because of the rush nature.

I have to say that the parliamentary secretary made somewhat disparaging remarks saying she and the Liberals had gotten the amendments in in the required timeframe, but there was no required timeframe and there was no deadline set for amendments because there was no time allowed for the preparation of amendments.

I take exception to the implication that somehow we were not preparing amendments in a timely fashion. We were waiting to hear the testimony of witnesses and to hear their suggestions for amendments before we decided whether we could proceed with any of our amendments because they could have been something we changed our mind on or they may have been affected by the testimony of those witnesses. There was literally no time available on a very complex bill that purports to change some very important things about our parole system.

The main concern of everyone here is public safety, and it's my concern that this bill go through in a proper form that does not have a negative impact inadvertently or through errors in drafting or errors in amendments on public safety. We all know that private members' bills have a fixed schedule, so there is no urgency for us to be doing this today. This will not come back to the House any sooner because we do clause-by-clause today, so I don't understand why the government is pressing ahead with the danger that we will do a poor job of legislating here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

Mr. Norlock.

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

Thank you very much.

I hear Randall's issue. The translation of the blues, which come out very soon after the meeting, is an issue that I've heard in this place before, meaning to say in public safety as well as in other committees I've been involved in. The same arguments were put forward, and the clerks in those circumstances came through the chair with the same results.

With respect to the issues surrounding more properly putting together a piece of legislation and making sure that adequate amendments are put in, I will observe, even though my friend, Mr. Easter, may interject and say I'm interpreting things wrong from his perspective, that he did put forward, as has been mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, in both official languages, some well thought out amendments. Whether or not we agree with them, that remains to be seen. We'll see how this goes forward in the clause-by-clause.

So to suggest somehow that the opposition didn't have a chance to put forward... When they saw originally the original text.... While there is some substance to it, I think that substance is rather weak, because we can go through this clause-by-clause today based on what we heard yesterday and what we've heard individually from other witnesses. I just don't see why we can't begin the process of clause-by-clause when we talk about the urgency and need to expedite things.

There are some things sitting on our plate that I think I share Randall's wish to be expedited, and that's of course our study into the economics of policing. If we can get this off our plate, I think we might be able to address that before we see some other things come our way. That's sort of my submission, because I see other things coming down the pipe that this committee will be dealing with, and I think this is a good way to expedite it. I can say that the observations that were made with regard to putting.... Private members' bills get put forward by every party and, Randall, I think we see quite a bit coming from your side of the fence, so to cast aspersions on private members' bills raises a very dangerous thing.

But here's what's happened with this bill. It was overseen by the government once the private member put it through. It does go through a screening process, and once it goes through, it goes through an even finer screening process, and the observations that the government has amended some of their members' own private member's bill legislation isn't strange. That occurs in this place very often, so I don't think that argument carries a lot of weight. I think what it shows the citizens is that the government is going through it with a finer process to make sure that it does do what it purports to wish to do and that it does meet everything from constitutional requirements, etc., including language. I think all of those aspects have been covered and I leave it there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Of course, the chair is guided by the principles of the standing orders.

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Norlock's comments and, as we clearly established before, that this committee could have made a decision to proceed with the economics of policing report and I would like to have seen us do that. There is no reason, again, that this bill had to take precedence. There is a fixed schedule for private members' bills returning to the House so we could have dealt with the other report and then this bill. We could even have dealt with that report today and put off clause-by-clause.

What I want to emphasize again is that we had very moving and very expert witnesses appear at this committee in our last session. I'm being quite serious when I say to Mr. Norlock that I wished to consider very carefully the suggestions they made before submitting amendments. We had worked on amendments, that's true. We have some drafts. Some of those we have decided, having heard the testimony from the witness, not to introduce. Others we've decided might need changes. We brought one that we think was not affected—having read through in my best French—by the testimony of the witnesses at our last session, and we did bring that to the chair and if you force us to go ahead today we're prepared to discuss that.

But I simply haven't heard any reason why we aren't taking the time that I think this bill deserves. We've said nothing on this side against private members' bills or this bill. What we're talking about here is the process by which we make legislation and I think it's one of the most important processes, obviously, in this House. I feel that we're proceeding in a manner that could possibly lead to errors and if so, a damage to public safety. That's why I'm making—as I think Mr. Norlock is implying—a big deal out of this. I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Is there any further discussion on the issue?

Seeing no further discussion, the chair is guided by the principle that a motion was made to deal with clause-by-clause today. Given no exception to that from the clerk with regard to the translation of the blues, we will proceed with that unless we have a motion to deal with it otherwise.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I would move to table our discussion of clause-by-clause until this committee has had the opportunity to review the testimony of the previous witnesses, and also to hear from the Parole Board and the Department of Public Safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The motion is before the committee. Is there discussion?

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

We will not support that motion on this side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I certainly support the motion. As I said in my earlier remarks in the point of order, I do believe that we absolutely—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Point of order, Mr. Richards....