Mr. Speaker, I am rising to supplement my comments made in an initial response to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Malpeque on Wednesday, April 9, respecting the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-483.

I will tackle two matters in these submissions. The first is to address the subsequent response made by the hon. House leader of the official opposition. The other is to offer some citations in support of my argument.

On April 9, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster intervened and said, “I found the point of order raised by the member for Malpeque to be very compelling. I did not find the intervention from the government House leader very convincing at all”.

I found something that the member just might find convincing: his own party's position at committee. On page 2 of the evidence of the April 1 meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the public safety critic, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, spoke to a question of the scope of the bill and whether the amendments proposed were within the scope of the bill. He said:

...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.

I will repeat that: “...seemed to meet the scope requirement. It has not moved beyond what was originally suggested”.

The member went on to say:

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.

If the NDP House leader will not find my arguments convincing, I do hope he will at least find his own colleague's arguments persuasive. I do find the arguments from his colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, quite convincing on this point.

It does bear an interesting question for you, Mr. Speaker, of who actually does speak for the NDP: the House leader or its critic. In this case, I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to their critic. However, I digress.

The second part of my submission relates to the assertion of the hon. member for Malpeque, that the amendments adopted by the committee go beyond the scope of the bill. This morning, on another matter, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons read from page 564 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition, on the definition of the scope of the bill. It states:

Any amendment (or new clause or new schedule) proposed to a bill must be within its scope. The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases difficult cases of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine its scope.

I would supplement that by reading from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, at paragraph 698(2):

An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.

Paragraph 5 of that Beauchesne's citation states:

An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to at the second reading stage is not admissible.

Despite these amendments, the bill's proposal to enable victims to participate in the hearings to be held by the Parole Board of Canada on certain applications for an escorted temporary absence is preserved. As I mentioned on April 9, the committee's amendments may in fact narrow the extent to which the escorted temporary absence regime in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would be changed, and thereby arguably narrow the scope of the bill, not broaden the scope of the bill or not go beyond it. It would narrow it.

What has changed is that these Parole Board hearings would not be required in every instance. If an offender is approved for an escorted temporary absence by the Parole Board, a warden could approve subsequent temporary absences, so long as the offender did not breach a condition of an earlier temporary absence. If anything, these amendments would actually strengthen the spirit of the bill, to respect victims. With these amendments, victims would have an opportunity to participate in this process, but they would need not fear being revictimized by receiving invitations to many repetitive and redundant hearings.

Nevertheless, while the scope or extent of the bill may be narrowed here, the amendments do not negate, do not overturn, and do not offend the principle of the bill. Therefore, the public safety committee's report is in order.

Peter Van Loan

Transcript

Routine Proceedings

Discussions (0)