Evidence of meeting #18 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Colleagues, we will call this meeting to order.
This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting number 18 for the session.
Today we will be doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-483. I'll just mention as we're proceeding that we do have votes today, so just consider that in your time for moving forward with this bill and for any other options the committee wishes to pursue at some particular point.
Mr. Norlock.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Chair, to be expedient, perhaps we could ask the officials to come to the table if we have to ask them any technical questions.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, I do have a point of order that is basically in the form of a question to the clerk of the committee.
I've had an opportunity to go through the government amendments to this bill. Given the very extensive changes, I wonder whether the clerk has assured the chair that the amendments are in order and do not create a bill substantially different from the bill that was passed at second reading. I submit they do. I'll refer to page 1197 of O'Brien and Bosc, which states:
The amendments made to a private bill by a committee ought not to be so extensive as to constitute a different bill from that which has been read a second time.
I would submit that I believe they do. Having said that, I'm basically asking the clerk to give us the assurance that at least he believes the amendments to Bill C-483, if passed, would not result in a substantially different bill from that which the House approved at second reading.
I will state this as well. It is my intention, regardless of what the clerk states, that if these amendments are in fact approved, to pursue the matter with the Speaker of the House when the bill is reported to the House. Therefore, I want the record of the committee to be clear on this point as to whether the amendments from the government, if approved, will or will not, in the opinion of the clerk, constitute a bill different from that which was approved at second reading.
There's no question, in my mind, Mr. Chair, that the amendments improve the bill substantially from what the bill was, but that's not the point here. The point is that this is a different bill. The committee knows I have concerns about some of these private members' bills and the number of amendments we're getting from the government side.
I'll conclude, Mr. Chair, by saying that if the clerk has any question as to whether these amendments, if passed, would constitute Bill C-483 having been so altered as to constitute a new bill as outlined in O'Brien and Bosc, it is my opinion that the clerk should so advise the chair and that as a result, a new bill would have to be brought in.
If you go through these amendments, Mr. Chair, there is no question in my mind. Number one, as I stated previously, this bill may require a royal prerogative in that it constitutes substantial spending other than what would otherwise be the case, and it changes, in my view, the intent of the bill.
That's my point of order, Mr. Chair. I'd like to hear what the clerk has recommended.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I will just ask our clerk to repeat what he just mentioned to me, but in essence, Mr. Easter, before I get to the chair's decision on the issue, I would just explain that where you are quoting from is with regard to a bill and not a private bill, and perhaps our clerk could just illustrate that point.
3:35 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Leif-Erik Aune
Mr. Easter, did I hear correctly, sir, that you were quoting from page 1197 from O'Brien and Bosc?
3:35 p.m.
The Clerk
I believe you were reading from the section regarding private bills and not private members' public bills, sir.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It's private bills, yes, private bill practice. It's the amendment at the bottom of page 1197.
April 1st, 2014 / 3:35 p.m.
The Clerk
C-483 is a private member's public bill. It's not a private bill, sir. Regarding the amendments themselves, the legislative clerk Mike MacPherson can advise the chair on the effects that the amendments would have to the bill.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Mr. Easter, the clerk has advised the chair that it is not the clerk's role to decide whether or not it is. It does fall to the chair, so I've heard your discussion on this and I would just ask the government....
I will open this to the floor for further discussion before the chair makes a ruling. As far as your request goes as to whether or not this is relevant and if it's a dramatic difference or change from what the original bill was proposed....
Ms. James?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you. I welcome your ruling on this. We obviously believe it is still within the same scope and the same direction of the original bill and giving victims a voice throughout the process and ensuring that the Parole Board of Canada has a say with their risk assessment process and the method they use to analyze whether someone should receive an ETA or authorize it, that they have that ability to make that decision within the last three years. I think that the principle and the foundation of the original bill are still present. I see no concern whatsoever at this point.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I do share Mr. Easter's concerns about committees making such extensive amendments that you could in fact have a different bill—especially when you're dealing with private member's bills. One of the few prerogatives remaining to private members is the introduction of bills.
So I do share that general concern. However I would have to say in this case, having spent a lot of time looking at the bill, I believe that the amendments by the government make changes that really amend the same sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and they do it by the same means. So to me it would technically seem to meet the scope requirement. It has not moved beyond what was originally suggested.
Now I have to say I'm very happy because we raised some concerns in the questioning of witnesses and the vast majority of those concerns have been accommodated in these amendments. So I would also be in a very strange position if I said the government actually listened and then I don't think procedurally they can do that.
I recognize that, but I do think it has amended the same sections and therefore done it in the same way. So in the very narrowest of senses, in my reading of the rules, it would still be the same bill, even though there have been substantive content changes.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Chair, there is no question that they appear to be significant, but the amendment solidifies the fact that the institutional head's authority to grant an ETA to a convicted killer will be limited. It further clarifies that the Parole Board of Canada will retain decision-making authority for ETAs for the inmates serving minimum life sentences who have reached day parole eligibility and that this is required to meet—and this is the important part—the sponsor's intended objective to ensure that the ETA decision-making authority stays in the hands of the Parole Board of Canada almost exclusively. I think the latter part is the most important part. So it retains the essence of the bill, although it better clarifies the intent.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
The Chair is prepared to rule should there be no further discussion on this.
Mr. Easter, thank you for bringing the issue up. I think if the situation were such that the bill were dramatically changed and/or the perspective of the entire bill was changed to such an extent that it would actually reflect something that is different from what was originally proposed, certainly the chair would agree with you. On this particular group of amendments that have come forward, it's the chair's opinion that the principles and the perspective of the original intent of the bill are respected at this point, so I would overrule your objection at this point and I thank you for your interjection.
We will now proceed to the study of the bill if there are no further questions. Seeing none, then we will now go to the line-by-line clause study.
(On clause 1)
We have a government amendment right off the bat on number one. You have a copy of it. It is 6494493 and the chair would note as well that there is a conflict with NDP-1 and NDP-2. The chair would also note that if the government amendment is approved, then neither NDP-1 or NDP-2 could be proceeded with. They would have to be dealt with as a subsequent amendment to an amendment.
Are we clear with that, colleagues? I'm glad you're clear because the chair is a little fuzzy on the issue, but I think I'm comfortable enough to be able to move forward.
Shall the government amendment as presented carry?
Excuse me, Mr. Norlock?
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
No, I'm voting.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you.
Shall Clause 1 carry as amended?
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
We will now go to government amendment G-2, number 6494495.
Should there be any subamendment this would obviously be—
Yes, Mr. Garrison.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I'd like to propose a subamendment to add in what is the text of the bill in proposed section 17.1 to add paragraph (e) after paragraph (d), stating that the institutional head may still authorize escorted temporary absences for medical emergencies or court appearances.
I have a written copy for you.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I believe that has been amended slightly. I will read the subamendment.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative