Private Members’ Business / Consideration in committee

Committee amendments: consistency with principle and scope of bill

May 2, 2014

Debates, pp. 4880–1

On April 9, 2014, Wayne Easter (Malpeque) rose on a point of order with respect to Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), standing in the name of Dave MacKenzie (Oxford). He explained that the purpose of the Bill was to transfer to the National Parole Board the power to grant or cancel temporary escorted absences to inmates convicted of first- or second-degree murder. By adopting amendments that would allow institutional heads to retain that power in certain instances, Mr. Easter reasoned, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had gone beyond the principle of the Bill. Other Members made submissions to the Speaker on that day and on April 28, 2014. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

On May 2, 2014, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He explained that it was his authority to determine the admissibility of amendments. The Speaker concluded that Bill C-483, as amended by the Committee, did not alter the aims and intent of the Bill, namely limiting the power of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences and providing a role for the National Parole Board in the granting of such absences. He therefore found that the amendments adopted by the Committee were in keeping with the scope and principle of the Bill as adopted at second reading. Consequently, the Speaker deemed the amendments admissible.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Malpeque on April 9, 2014, concerning amendments contained in the Third Report from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), presented in the House on April 2, 2014.

I would like to thank the Member for Malpeque for having raised this important matter. I would also like to thank the Government House Leader and the House Leader of the Official Opposition for their contributions.

In raising his point of order, the Member for Malpeque argued that the amendments adopted by the Committee had significantly altered the intent of the Bill and that these amendments were not in keeping with the principle of the Bill as adopted at second reading. In making his argument, the Member referred to the second reading debate, during which the sponsor of the Bill had indicated its intent as being to provide the National Parole Board of Canada with the authority to grant or cancel escorted temporary absences for offenders convicted of first- or second-degree murder. The Member asserted that the Bill’s main purpose was to remove the ability of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences for such offenders.

It was the Member’s contention that the amendments adopted by the Committee, specifically in allowing institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences once the Parole Board had granted an initial absence, were contrary to the principle of the Bill. The Member is asking the Chair to declare the amendments in question null and void and to direct that they no longer form part of the Bill. The House Leader of the Official Opposition rose in support of the Member’s point of order.

In his intervention, the Government House Leader contended that the amendments in question were both consistent with the principle of the Bill and within its scope. Several procedural authorities were cited to bolster this opinion. He also noted that the Chair of the Standing Committee had ruled that the amendments were in order and that this ruling should be respected.

The Government House Leader pointed out that the intent of the Bill was to involve the National Parole Board of Canada in granting the escorted temporary absences, which would, in turn, involve the victims by providing them with an opportunity to participate in the hearings during such a process. The new provision, in his view, meets that requirement.

Before addressing the particulars of this point of order, I would like to remind the House of the Speaker’s authority in dealing with a report on a bill containing inadmissible amendments. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at page 775:

The admissibility of ... amendments ... may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

I have examined the Third Report of the Standing Committee, as well as Bill C-483, both in its first reading version and in the reprint containing the committee’s amendments. The intent of Bill C-483, as stated in the summary to the first reading copy of the Bill, is as follows:

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to limit the authority of the institutional head to authorize the escorted temporary absence of an offender convicted of first or second degree murder.

The amendment to clause 1 of the Bill restructures the Bill so that the provisions with regard to the National Parole Board of Canada are removed and later inserted in the subsequent new clause 1.1.

New clause 1.1 of the Bill provides that the National Parole Board of Canada is involved in the granting of the initial escorted temporary absence. This process would be very similar to the original provisions previously contained in clause 1. The key difference is a new paragraph that the amendment also added, which provides that:

If the Parole Board of Canada authorizes the temporary absence of an inmate under subsection (1) for community service, family contact, including parental responsibilities, or personal development for rehabilitative purposes and the temporary absence is not cancelled because the inmate has breached a condition, the institutional head may authorize that inmate’s subsequent temporary absences with escort ... 

This would mean that once the authority is granted by the National Parole Board of Canada for an escorted temporary absence, it remains in place unless it is cancelled. The institutional head may grant subsequent escorted temporary absences only if the original authority from the National Parole Board remains in place. If conditions are breached and the absence is cancelled, authority must be sought anew from the National Parole Board of Canada.

This appears to me to limit the authority of the institutional head in this regard. Escorted temporary absences must still be authorized by the National Parole Board of Canada. What appears to be different in this new provision is the frequency with which authorization must be sought. I can see nothing in the Bill as amended by the Committee which would alter the aims and intent of the Bill, namely the limiting of the power of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences and providing a role for the National Parole Board in the granting of such absences. Therefore, I find that the amendments adopted by the Committee are indeed in keeping with the scope and principle of the Bill as adopted at second reading and are, therefore, admissible.

Accordingly, the House may proceed with its study of the bill as reported from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I thank the House for its attention.