Public Safety Committee on Feb. 27th, 2014

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

What we're saying is that this can be changed by regulation. My worry here is that we're opening a door. What Parliament is granting could be taken away by regulation or changed by regulation at a further date, and I want some assurance that we're not doing that in this case.

[Daryl Churney]

No. Really, the regulations would only be used to just specify, really more around—for the Parole Board—the administration of how the statements would be submitted and timeframes and that kind of thing, but it wouldn't be to halt their methods of participation.

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

So it doesn't have the broader impact. It's simply form by being in this section?

[Daryl Churney]

That's correct.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, then.

We will now go to a vote on this clause before we entertain Mr. Garrison's subamendment.

First of all, on the amendment, reference number 6437852, with the three sections involved, are all in favour? On division? No?

[An hon. member]

We're all in favour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay. Good.

On division.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we will entertain Mr. Garrison's subamendment, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the assistance from the legislative clerk.

I would like to move that Bill C-479 in clause 4 be amended by replacing line 32 with the following: “hearing, or should a victim or family member choose not to attend in person, the Board shall provide for the victim”.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'm going to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You can present it.

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

—repeat. I think we heard a lot of testimony from victims' advocates and victims themselves about logistical problems, about taking time off work to travel. Sometimes—and it is true, as I know from my own experience—Parole Board dates shift and times shift due to the vagaries of Parole Board members' schedules.

If we would allow family members this broader discretion to choose to participate through whatever means.... And because we've already adopted another amendment, it isn't just video conferencing now, it's through whatever means the board considers appropriate, we have expanded, in fact, the ability of those victims to participate in a very significant way. I think this would be an important amendment to the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

It's open to discussion.

Mr. Norlock.

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

Based on what I just heard, I think it's superfluous. I don't think it's needed because there is an opportunity for the victims to attend through electronic or other means, and that's what this specific section does. It permits them to do exactly that.

I think by adding that it's superfluous, and I don't think it's needed. I think it just confuses the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Garrison.

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

With respect, Mr. Norlock, I think what we're saying here is the section very clearly says they have those rights to observe by other means only if the board has said they can't attend. I believe the experts confirmed what I was saying, that the impact of this amendment is to give that choice to victims not to attend in person, and therefore to be able to—and again we have now changed the wording—observe the hearing by any means the board considers appropriate.

Because we have that new wording, it takes care of that problem. Maybe video conferencing isn't available, maybe it's a telephone hook-up, maybe it's whatever, but I think it does significantly expand the ability of victims to participate in the parole hearings, and I would really urge the other side to consider supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Maybe I can get some clarification over here, but this section actually deals with the perspective from the board itself determining whether or not someone should be able to attend. This section does not apply to whether someone wilfully wants to come or not, or decides they don't want to come, or do want to come. So I don't think this would be the appropriate place to maybe put that type of amendment.

The other thing I wanted to mention is I know there were a lot of good suggestions and comments that were made during the testimony we heard from the witnesses, especially the victims' ombudsman. I just want to state that a lot of those considerations are being considered obviously in the greater scope of the legislation coming forward, but I don't think this particular section is where that should be amended or added to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Garrison.

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

With respect then, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to suggest which section she would like to see it in. We have heard from the legal expert that it can be put into this section, and it will accomplish the purpose. I haven't heard from them any downside to putting it into this section. With respect, if we have that, I'd be quite willing to consider putting it somewhere else in the bill.

We have been waiting.... Since you raised it, you opened the door on the victims rights bill that we have been waiting on for a year. With respect, the government seems determined to make sure this bill moves forward faster and sooner, so if this section is added it would expand the right of victims to participate earlier rather than waiting for a bill we still haven't seen.

I'm not trying to be offensive in stating that. I just think this is a real improvement in the spirit of the bill, and I would hope the government is not simply opposing it for the sake of opposing an idea that came from this side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

If I may, are there any situations now—maybe someone can answer this—where someone cannot attend a hearing and is given a choice?

[Daryl Churney]

I would go back to your earlier statement, Ms. James, that this particular section is only dealing with those situations where attendance by the victim has not been permitted, and there are specific criteria in the act that give the board that authority. It's generally around situations of safety, or security, or where there is some clear threat the victim might pose a safety threat at the hearing. So the exclusion of the victim's participation is made on the basis of those circumstances.

Here obviously there is an intent to permit the victim to still participate in some manner, and we're leaving it to the discretion of the board to determine that manner, whatever is the most reasonable in those circumstances.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Just on that we're not going to support this amendment being placed here in this particular section. I can't tell you where you need to place your amendments. I guess you can appreciate that.

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

You are telling me where I can place them.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

What I'm saying is we don't believe this is the appropriate area where that particular amendment should be placed so we cannot support that subamendment to the changes on this particular section.