Evidence of meeting #141 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
As indicated here, we've recently seen the movement of inmates from medium-security to minimum-security facilities. Reclassifying facilities to get people moved to other facilities is not a good public safety policy. The inmate moving to a minimum-security facility should be a minimum-security-rated inmate, as we indicated before.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 31 as amended carry?
(Clause 31 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 32 to 38 agreed to on division)
We are at LIB-6.3.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Chair, you have potentially missed an amendment, PV-43.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It was included in error. It really isn't admissible. I apologize.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Well, if the clerk says it's admissible, I think it's good too.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Well, if you think it's admissible, you're the government.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I don't wish to be challenged twice in one meeting. That was a ruling I did not direct my mind to. It was simply provided by the clerk.
November 29th, 2018 / 7:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Could we have some clarification as to why it's not admissible?
The Clerk
The advice I gave was that the bill did not address parole, so it was beyond the scope of the bill, in my opinion.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'm going to challenge that decision. I feel like I'm on a....
The Clerk
Ultimately, the chair has the authority to provide that ruling, so it is just advice I have given Ms. May's staff. That's why she decided not to present it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Maybe it would be better if the chair read it first. Then we can decide whether it's admissible or it's not. Let me see what I'm apparently ruling on.
The issue here is parole boards and the fact that parole boards are not part of the bill itself, hence beyond the scope of the bill.
Before you try to challenge the chair, I just wanted to give you some rationale for why the clerk's advice has been that this is beyond the scope of the bill and therefore inadmissible. Having said that, the chair would be open to a challenge.
The officials are apparently waving their hands, jumping up and down and saying they want to say something.
Again, before we let Ms. Dabrusin make her challenge, let's see what the officials have to say.
Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
With all respect, I would say that there are two things to consider when you are making your decision.
One is that the major tenet of this provision is about “least restrictive measures”. You've just passed two amendments dealing with least restrictive measures, and you would want to have consistency throughout the act.
As well, one of the provisions in Bill C-83 dealt with audio recordings before the parole board, so in fact we have opened up provisions relating to the parole board.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I don't want to belabour this point. I'm perfectly willing to put it back on for discussion so that I don't get creamed twice in one day, because there does seem to be a will in the committee. Let's go back to square one and have Ms. May introduce PV-43.
Where does that leave me? It's a bit backwards. That's why I did what I did: it was included by mistake, which Ms. May confirmed. However, this is an opportunity to rectify mistakes, and we're rectifying a mistake in a mistake.
With that, Ms. May, do you wish to go ahead?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I don't want to belabour it because it appears to have good support, but I would say that the “least restrictive” language was included in Bill C-56. It was previously absent in Bill C-83. You now have put in “least restrictive measures” in a couple places. This does ensure consistency. Also, it is congruent with advice from many of the witnesses. I won't take time at this late hour to remind you of all the witnesses who think this is a good amendment.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you. Is there further debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay. There we are.
I think that technically I could still carry on with having.... They've already passed right through to clause 38, so we don't need to do that again.
(On clause 39)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Therefore, we are now onto clause 39 and LIB-6.3, standing in the name of Monsieur Picard.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
This is consequential to previous changes and is the referral of the paragraph. That's it.
Liberal
