Public Safety Committee on March 4th, 2014

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm just suggesting that the original intent of the legislation was certainly different from this. I'm just making that point. It goes to the point that what I'm seeing, with these private members' bills coming forward, is that the government basically amends them all over the place, rather than doing a comprehensive review, as the government should do, and bringing legislation forward in a more comprehensive way.

My point is this. With the government amendments, the whole thrust of the promoter of the bill's intent has been watered down by the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, thank you very much.

I have Ms. James first, then Mr. Norlock.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I think everyone around this table would agree that the number one priority of any government is obviously the safety and security of its citizens. That includes all citizens. We recognize that under the emphasis in our judicial system and within our parole board system and everything else connected, victims in this country have not really had what I believe to be fair information being given to them and a role to play. However, there are situations in which certain information has to be considered, for the safety of the public in general, and that includes the offender, if they are released.

I think that anyone on this committee, had we not suggested this amendment, would have raised this issue as a concern. I just want to leave it at that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Norlock.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, every member of Parliament has the right. I think one of the reasons our constituents send us here is to legislate and to assist in legislating. Whether a private member's bill is from the government side or from someone else, the government, if it's from another party, can make amendments, and other parties can make amendments to a private member's bill of the governing party. To suggest that the government should stymie any kind of private member's bill from its own members would not only not be appropriate, but I don't think our democracy would suffer it to occur.

But the government also has an obligation, when its members submit legislation, to see that the legislation goes through the various hands of the bureaucracy to ensure that it covers the necessary areas, and these are the linguistic area and a whole bunch of others. Then this committee looks at it again with a finer-toothed comb.

So I don't understand. It goes to the old adage: if you're the third party, then everything the governing party says is bad and everything you say is good. That's why we have the officials here to help advise us. That's why we're here. To constantly say that this changes the.... Actually, I have spoken to the member who put forward the private member's bill—he was here—and he does not object to any of the amendments the government has made. So I think we've covered that territory.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garrison, please.

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

I think this is a technical point, but it may be an important one.

The amendment in English says, “a negative impact on the safety of the public”, and in French it says “la sécurité publique”. Those are slightly different. Also, in English it's slightly different to say “on the safety of the public” from saying “on public safety”.

I believe the intent of this was the broader term “public safety”, which would include the safety of the offender or of public servants. When you say “safety of the public”, it's not quite the same thing. In French the amendment uses the broader term; in English it uses what can be interpreted as the narrower term.

So I would propose a subamendment to the wording in proposed paragraph 6(2)(c), to strike, after “would not have a negative impact”, the words “on the safety of the public” and substitute “on public safety”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

On the subamendment, we'll hear Mr. Norlock first.

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

I thank Randall for that, but I'm not 100% sure that it does what we want it to do. I would ask the officials whether the current wording is, as Randall says....

Is there a discrepancy, in your view? Is the intent there? Does it require, in your view, a subamendment such as Randall has suggested?

[Daryl Churney, Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I'm not a legislative drafter or a jurilinguist, but having been in the drafting room on this issue, I think we can say that it does in our view sufficiently cover the grounds we wanted it to cover.

I think Mr. Garrison is correct that it is meant to apply to a number of different scenarios. If, for example, there is some kind of a threat to the offender's safety or by consequence to a staff person, that is meant to be captured within the umbrella of this term. But we were satisfied that it captured the scenarios we wanted it to capture.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You can continue, Mr. Norlock. Are you done?

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

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay.

We go to Ms. James and then to Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I actually didn't have my hand up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, fine; I thought you had.

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Randall raises an important point. The two terms do not really mean the same thing in both languages. “Public safety” and “the safety of the public” mean two completely different things. We need to agree on which definition is correct: the one in French, or the one in English. Here we have two conflicting terms that do not match. The safety of the public falls under public safety. But I don't want us to have a philosophical debate on the issue either.

What is the intent of the government amendment? Is it to talk about the safety of the public or public safety in general? We should have an answer to ensure that the intent is the same in English and in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Speaking further on the subamendment, we have Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you. I certainly don't want a discrepancy between the two different languages, between English and French. The English version is the correct version, so perhaps the analyst could tell us what changes would now be necessary for the French version to make it read as “negative impact on the safety of the public”.

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

That's not the question you asked me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Does our analyst have any comment at all on the translation? Are we talking about apples and apples or apples and oranges with the translation?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Mike MacPherson]

I think it may be better...[Inaudible--Editor].

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We've already asked the officials.

Carry on Mr. Garrison. Do you have another point?

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

I was just saying, with respect, Mr. Chair, that I think the question you asked the experts was different from the one we're asking now.

They confirmed that what they desired to have was the English wording. The point Madame Doré Lefebvre raised is that the French wording appears to be different from that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Did I not ask their analyst to compare—?