SECU Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Meeting No. 55

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security met at 6:35 p.m. this day, in Room 237-C, Centre Block, the Chair, Kevin Sorenson, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Don Davies, Mark Holland, Andrew Kania, Ben Lobb, Dave MacKenzie, Phil McColeman, Alexandra Mendes, Maria Mourani, Rick Norlock, Brent Rathgeber and Kevin Sorenson.

Acting Members present: Serge Ménard for Roger Gaudet.

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Lyne Casavant, Analyst . House of Commons: Mike MacPherson, Legislative Clerk ; Miriam Burke, Procedural Clerk.

Witnesses: As individuals: Pierre Gravel, Norbourg Victim; Jackie Naltchayan; Ali Reza Pedram. Association des avocats et avocates en droit carcéral du Québec: Stephen Fineberg, President; Jacinthe Lanctôt, Vice-President. Office of the Correctional Investigator: Ivan Zinger, Executive Director and General Counsel. Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies: Kim Pate, Executive Director. Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: Mary Campbell, Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate. John Howard Society of Canada: Ed McIsaac, Director of Policy. Church Council on Justice and Corrections: Lorraine Berzins, Community Chair of Justice; Richard Haughian, Vice-President. Office of the Correctional Investigator: Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, February 15, 2011, the Committee commenced consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The witnesses made statements and answered questions.

At 9:01 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 9:07 p.m., the sitting resumed.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

Clause 2 carried on division.

Clause 3 carried on division.

Clause 4 carried on division.

On Clause 5,

Mark Holland moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 2 with the following:

“5. Subsection 125(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a.1):

(a.2) convicted of an offence under section 380 of the Criminal Code, if the total value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds one hundred thousand dollars;”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-59 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide for the elimination of accelerated parole review through the repeal of sections 125 to 126.1 of that Act.

This amendment proposes to leave intact those sections and amend section 125 to include offences under section 380 of the Criminal Code wherein the total value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds one hundred thousand dollars.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice Second Edition states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair, by proposing to retain sections 125 to 126.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the amendment would be contrary to the principle of Bill C-59 and is therefore inadmissible.

Whereupon, Mark Holland appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division: YEAS: Ben Lobb, Dave MacKenzie, Phil McColeman, Maria Mourani, Rick Norlock, Brent Rathgeber — 6; NAYS: Don Davies, Mark Holland, Andrew Kania, Serge Ménard, Alexandra Mendes — 5.

Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 2 with the following:

“5. Subsection 125(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a.1):

(a.2) convicted of an offence under section 380, 381 to 390, 392, 394, 394.1, 396, 397, 399, 400, 402, 402.2, 403, 405, 407 to 409, 411 or 422 of the Criminal Code, if the total value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds one million dollars;”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Don Davies appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Ben Lobb, Dave MacKenzie, Phil McColeman, Rick Norlock, Brent Rathgeber — 5; NAYS: Don Davies, Mark Holland, Andrew Kania, Serge Ménard, Alexandra Mendes, Maria Mourani — 6.

Debate arose thereon.

Mark Holland moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “one million dollars;” with the words “one hundred thousand dollars;”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Mark Holland and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Don Davies, Mark Holland, Andrew Kania, Alexandra Mendes — 4; NAYS: Ben Lobb, Dave MacKenzie, Phil McColeman, Serge Ménard, Maria Mourani, Rick Norlock, Brent Rathgeber — 7.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Don Davies — 1; NAYS: Mark Holland, Andrew Kania, Ben Lobb, Dave MacKenzie, Phil McColeman, Serge Ménard, Alexandra Mendes, Maria Mourani, Rick Norlock, Brent Rathgeber — 10.

Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 2 with the following:

“5. Subsection 126(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Alexandra Mendes appealed the decision of the Chair.

Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 2 with the following:

“5. Subsection 126(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Notwithstanding section 102, if the offender has satisfied the Board that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender, if released, is likely to commit an offence before the expiration of the offender’s sentence according to law, and if there are no stated reasons or recommendations from the sentencing judge regarding the eligibility of the offender for accelerated parole review, the Board shall direct that the offender be released on day or full parole.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Alexandra Mendes appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division: YEAS: Ben Lobb, Dave MacKenzie, Phil McColeman, Serge Ménard, Maria Mourani, Rick Norlock, Brent Rathgeber — 7; NAYS: Don Davies, Mark Holland, Andrew Kania, Alexandra Mendes — 4.

Mark Holland moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 2 with the following:

“5. Subsection 126(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Notwithstanding section 102, if the Board is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender, if released, is likely to commit an offence involving violence before the expiration of the offender’s sentence according to law, it may, if it is in the interests of justice, direct that the offender be released on full parole. ”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Mark Holland appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division: YEAS: Ben Lobb, Dave MacKenzie, Phil McColeman, Alexandra Mendes, Maria Mourani, Rick Norlock, Brent Rathgeber — 7; NAYS: Mark Holland, Andrew Kania, Serge Ménard — 3.

After debate, Clause 5 carried on division.

Clause 6 carried on division.

Clause 7 carried on division.

Clause 8 carried on division.

Clause 9 carried on division.

Clause 10 carried on division.

Clause 11 carried on division.

Clause 12 carried on division.

Clause 13 carried on division.

Clause 14 carried on division.

Clause 15 carried on division.

Clause 16 carried on division.

The Short Title carried on division.

The Title carried on division.

The Bill carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Ben Lobb, Dave MacKenzie, Phil McColeman, Serge Ménard, Maria Mourani, Rick Norlock, Brent Rathgeber — 7; NAYS: Don Davies, Mark Holland, Andrew Kania, Alexandra Mendes — 4.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill to the House.

At 9:57 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Roger Préfontaine
Clerk of the Committee

2011/02/17 11:36 a.m.