JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES QUESTIONS JURIDIQUES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 6, 1997

• 1110

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): We're back. It seems like we just left. We're here to discuss a couple of things. The agenda reads “Future Business”, but we need to deal with our routine motions as well.

I asked the clerks to separate the motions, so you should have this list of routine motions for committees—

An hon. member: I haven't seen that yet.

The Chair: It's on its way.

While that's being passed out, let me say that having talked to you I assume these are the ones for which there will be no controversy. There are some other motions I have to recommend that we'll get around to in a minute.

If everybody has them now, I'll just run through them quickly.

I think this is the steering committee formula that committees generally have been adopting: chair, two vice-chairs, and parliamentary secretary. In this case, the justice department has the bulk of the legislation that comes to us, so the intention would be, I think, that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice would be named, but if we were doing Solicitor General's work, the other parliamentary secretary could substitute, or if we were doing work from PCO, Mr. DeVillers could substitute.

One member from each of the Bloc, the Conservative party, and the NDP are to compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Keep in mind that, first of all, there's not a government majority on the subcommittee. The subcommittee tries to reach a consensus to recommend to the main committee, which then has to ratify what they're doing. Second, if there isn't a consensus, it simply passes that on. In my experience, on a lot of things we get, like motions, private members' business, and requests for us to study a subject, we can often reach consensus at the steering committee and make a recommendation to the committee.

The second motion is for the appointment of our research staff.

The third is a motion for meetings in the absence of a quorum so that we can receive evidence when not everyone can be here. You all know that these things happen. We can sometimes be having a debate in the House on justice issues and have our committee operating on something else, and it's necessary for perhaps all of the critics to be out of the...or sometimes a particular party doesn't have a strong interest in a particular bill. But there would be no motions during that period of time and certainly no decisions could be reached during that period of time.

For witness expenses, it's a standard motion. I just note the limitation that we will pay for only two representatives of any one organization. In the past I think it's been our practice to ask whether two actually have to come. We usually admonish our staff to be careful about that.

With respect to staff at in camera meetings, the motion is that each committee member shall be allowed to have one staff person present at an in camera meeting unless we make a separate decision to exclude all staff, which in my experience has never happened, but it could happen, I suppose.

The motions on working lunches and purchases of documents are self-explanatory.

In regard to private member's bills, this motion is not standard, like those of other committees, but it has become the tradition with this committee. Those of you who were on the committee last time will recall that when we get such a large number of private members' bills, we put this procedure in place in order to show respect for private members and to make sure that, even if we aren't dealing directly with their bills or if we decide for some reason not to deal directly with them, they are at least addressed on a regular basis and each member gets an opportunity to explain his or her bill at the earliest possible time.

• 1115

Those I thought were fairly straightforward. Are there any comments on these motions?

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

With respect to the meetings in the absence of a quorum, I would suggest there be at least one member of the opposition included in those three members present. There should be a one-opposition-member minimum.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): I also had that flagged. That's parallel to my experience on other committees. I just think at least one member from any of the opposition should be part of that in order to conduct the business.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'll put that forward as a motion.

An hon. member: I'll second it.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Members should be careful to distinguish between a quorum for the conduct of business generally and a quorum for the purpose of receiving evidence only.

In my experience there are times when we have a matter before the committee, but perhaps it's not too sexy, perhaps there's a lot of business in the House and elsewhere, we have a witness present at 3.30 p.m., and we don't have a member from this side or that side. We have to explain that we don't have a quorum, even if it's a relatively non-controversial issue. I have found it embarrassing.

This motion is intended only for the purpose of hearing evidence. If members choose not to attend a meeting or come late, they surely must take the consequence and not voice that consequence upon a witness.

I'm suggesting that, as phrased, this particular motion doesn't deal with quorum for basic business. As I understand it, it's only for the hearing of evidence.

The Chair: It's for evidence, yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: I don't see the need for the proviso of having someone from opposition here just to hear evidence. If someone's not here from the opposition, it's because they're late or they've chosen not to attend. And similarly for the government. If there's nobody here from the government side, it's the same issue.

You count one, two, three if you have one or more witnesses waiting to give evidence.

I urge you to consider that and that we pass the motion in its current form.

The Chair: Did you have a comment?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): No.

The Chair: I thought you had your hand up.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: It was just normal practice within the committees I sat on that there would be one opposition member. I don't have any objections. I agree with some of the comments my colleague has made in terms of undue tardiness for the witnesses who have gone out of their way to be here on time, but in my experience, there's always been one member of the opposition present. This time we have four parties, so there should be at least one out of the four parties present. So I agree with putting in one opposition member.

But you're not suggesting three plus one. You're suggesting one of the three. So that's fine.

The Chair: Michel, did you have a comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): There are four opposition parties and I agree with the parliamentary secretary. If there are no opposition members present to hear witnesses it is that they are not sufficiently interested or that they already know the witness and know what will be said. It works the same way on the government side.

I would not make a fuss wether there is an opposition member present or not. During the 35th Parliament there was always an opposition member present at the beginning of every meeting because we were the Official opposition and we felt that it was our responsibility to be present. There was always at least one member of the Bloc at the meeting.

I imagine the Reform Party will do the same. In any case, there are three other opposition parties. I don't see the need to discuss this at great length. With or without a member of the opposition it takes three members to hear witnesses. It is simply a minimum.

I agree with Mr. Lee. For regular committee business it is another matter. We agree on that. But just to hear witnesses, I have no problem with it.

• 1120

[English]

The Chair: I just want to add something. I don't mean this in any hostile way at all; it's just that if there's nobody here from the opposition.... We as the government can pretty much control that; we can always get three people here, because we have a large number to work from and we have a whip who will do it for me. But I can't control who's going to come from the opposition side.

So the problem becomes, if we're sitting here and we have witnesses we brought from.... Sometimes we bring these witnesses from the Yukon or from B.C. and all over the country, and if we do that and for some reason we don't have any opposition members here and they continue not to come, then not only have we wasted money, but they're going to figure it out. They're going to know that the quorum.... I'm not saying I would say, “We can't start because there are no opposition members here”, but they're going to know, if all the Liberals are sitting on one side and there's nobody else, what's holding it up.

I guess it's up to you guys, but that's my concern. I'm more concerned about courtesy to witnesses than anything else.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): What would happen without this motion? If we didn't have this motion and there were only—

The Chair: You'd have to have nine.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: You'd have to have full quorum, even to take testimony?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I can understand that. The concern here from the opposition point of view is having evidence taken without opposition members present. You would then have the authority to do that.

The Chair: And we had it last time, Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes, but today is today.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I think that's what Mr. Forseth and perhaps Mr. MacKay were referring to. This would then authorize the committee to go forward and take testimony without the presence of any opposition members.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: That is a concern, and that concern would be dealt with if it included an opposition member.

I attended every meeting and I think there were opposition members at every meeting, so I don't think we have a problem with that.

The Chair: All right. We can revisit it. Is there consensus then on this?

Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): I guess what bothers me, if we get into that line of thinking, is we might want to say we have to make sure there's also a government member present.

The Chair: Well, there will be. You can't hold a meeting without me.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I know, but there could be times you could be unavailable, Madam Chair. Then we could make the argument that since we're the government, we should have a majority of people present. The way it's worded right now, it removes all that.

We are tilting it in favour of making sure the witnesses get heard and go on the record. That's all we're doing with it. I like the present wording.

The Chair: We can't hold a meeting without giving you notice.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: How was it during the 35th Parliament?

[English]

The Chair: We had just a quorum of three for hearing evidence. We didn't have any opposition. We didn't say how many government and how many opposition; there just had to be three warm bodies in the room who were elected to Parliament.

Everybody gets notice. Everybody knows. It's your responsibility to get here. We could do this with three opposition members and me chairing, or if Mr. Maloney and I were both off, it could happen with all opposition members and Jack chairing that you'd hear evidence.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I don't recall having such a long discussion on this in the 35th Parliament. I don't know if the Reform Party as any complaints in that regard. I feel that things have always worked out well, given the subjects. I don't see any problem with a quorum of three.

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have expressed my views on it. I don't think we're going to run into that situation. We didn't the last time. As long as all parties are notified of the meeting—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: —then I don't see that we'll ever run into that type of situation. But it does authorize the committee to go forward and take testimony without the presence of opposition members. That's what it does do.

• 1125

The Chair: You know what happens, Jack. What if we're on the road, there's only one Reformer there, and you have other activities going on, as often happens when you're on the road, or you have to take a phone call, or somebody has to go to the john. If you were just called out of the room we could call the quorum, if we were in the mood, and say, well, we can't go on; there are no opposition members present.

Those are the kinds of things that can happen.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes, but that applies for all members.

The Chair: Of course. Not that I'm suggesting it would happen; I'm just saying this gives them maximum flexibility. Because there's never going to be a meeting that you don't get e-mail and a notice paper on.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I think one of the most important aspects of the committee work is the examination of witnesses, hearing their testimony. There is a very strong and vested interest for members to be here, and I think that will happen.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Derek Lee: If I may, the chair has raised a good example of a scenario where the quorum without the proviso would be pretty important—that is, when the committee is on the road, you have reduced numbers on the road, and something happens to cause the delay or unavailability of somebody or all of the opposition or all of the government.

I'm not suggesting the whole committee breaks down, but I've been in the chair myself when there has been a failure to show. What you end up with is the party whips running around saying, “We haven't got a quorum, we haven't got a quorum”. It's bloody embarrassing, on both sides. I've been on both sides of it.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I think it's embarrassing to the witnesses if only three of us show up.

The Chair: That's another issue.

Mr. Derek Lee: That may be embarrassing, but does it make any difference to the witness?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: You bet it makes a difference. If I was appearing before a committee and only three people showed up, when there's how many on this committee, I would think they weren't very interested in me.

Mr. Derek Lee: Embarrassment in terms of that issue is different. Does it make any difference to the witness if there's a chair plus two, or a chair plus three, or a chair plus four? I don't think so. I think the witness would like to give the testimony and move on. They probably wouldn't give any thought to the fact that there's somebody missing from here or somebody missing from there.

This proviso that we're inserting, this resolution, is meant to cover off a contingency to facilitate the taking of evidence. You would like to put a proviso on the proviso, which would reduce the workability or usefulness of the original proviso.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I don't know if that would be the practical outcome of it, Derek, but this proviso grants the committee the authority to take testimony without the presence of opposition members. That's what it does.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Or government members.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I think there should be a balance. I think what Mr. Forseth or Mr. MacKay brought up asks us whether we are going to guard against that. Yes, you can go ahead and take witnesses, but is that the proper way in which we should be doing it? We can take testimony under this proviso, but is that the proper way in which we should be doing it?

Mr. Derek Lee: No, the proper thing to happen is for all the members to show up at one time.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: That's right.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's the proper thing. But in the real world around here, there are days when it just doesn't fall together.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Should we be authorizing the committee to take testimony without any government members, on the one hand, being present, or, on the other hand, without any opposition members?

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes. We have done it in the past. We did it in the last Parliament.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But is that right?

The Chair: Mr. Mancini, then Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): It seems to me that the concern expressed by Mr. MacKay and others is a realistic concern, but I think it can be met by an indication of how much notice is given. Certainly the concern is, look, you can end up having three government members—or three opposition, as we keep going back and forth. That concern can be alleviated.

The argument I'm hearing is that the responsibility falls on us to ensure we're here, and it does. The concern, then, is that as long as we have sufficient notice, there's no excuse for there not to be an opposition member here. That may be what it boils down to. The concern can be allayed if we have an indication that there's not going to be a witness called at the last minute for three government members to hear.

• 1130

That would solve the problem.

The Chair: Do we have consensus that we pass the motion as is, or do you want to vote?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Is there discussion on any other points on this list?

Mr. Paul Forseth: What about where the speaking rotation stops?

The Chair: We're going to come to that. It's just this list here. I just want to make sure that—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Are we going to deal with legal counsel being present?

The Chair: We'll get to that. Let's do this.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have no problems with this.

The Chair: All right, then. Can I have a motion to pass this list of—

Mr. Derek Lee: I so move.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Let's do the opening statements and questioning of witnesses next. This is what they used to do, just to give you some assistance. It's really difficult chairing with this number of different parties. I'm concerned, first of all, that opposition parties get a fair shake, but also that government members get a fair shake. I'm not inclined to accept a motion for ten minutes, although I can't not accept it if that's the will of the committee.

I'm just saying it's a tough job. We don't do just one witness a day and have it open-ended. When you have a schedule of witnesses who have travelled lined up, I want to make sure we get the right balance and every party gets a fair chance and individual members do as well.

I don't know if we did this by motion the last time, in the old committee. I think we just developed a custom in the way we handled it. Certainly no motion was ever passed when I was chair. After Parliament prorogued no motion was passed. We had a custom we followed of going around once with one equal round and then we would go back and forth. I would like to suggest to you, given my undertaking to follow the procedure, that you let me have the discretion in terms of the amount of time we're going to designate to each witness. But I want to hear what you have to say, too.

• 1135

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Chair, we went through this exercise at the public accounts committee. On the first round, we went to eight minutes, and we also had instituted the practice that the third speaker be opposition, opposition then government, and then back to opposition, opposition, again. We had another rule, that nobody speaks twice unless all members have had a chance to speak.

The Chair: We do that anyway, but—

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: So one is the eight minutes, one is the government, then the third speaker, and then the other one is there so everybody gets a chance to speak.

The Chair: Thanks, Andrew.

Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It must be noted here that there is a great difference between the 35th and the 36th Parliament. During the 35th Parliament, there were three parties at committees. So the speaking rotation between government members and opposition parties was quite equitable. I don't think the same rules can be applied in 36th Parliament.

Personally, Madam Chair, I like the way you did it when we studied our last bill. You give the floor to the Official opposition, then to the other opposition parties and then to the government. You used a certain amount of discretion, as can be expected from the chair, from time to time. The committee can always bring you back on track if in some future discussion you tend to show to much favouritism towards the government party.

In my opinion, however, the 10-minutes formula is even better, and I will tell you why. In justice related matters there are often very technical issues, many factors that bring us to ask many questions from a witness. With 10 minutes there is more time to delve into a particular clause or to stress a particular aspect of a bill.

From what I see here, the opposition parties will still speak first and the government party will come after. Then the time will be shared between the two sides and each speaker will have five minutes. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable motion for a committee such as ours.

[English]

The Chair: Derek.

Mr. Derek Lee: I don't like this particular draft at all. I think it's deadly. If we were to use this, I think it would hurt the committee considerably.

If the lead-off questioner for each party is to have 10 minutes, is the witness to have 10 minutes?

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: We're going to have 10, 10, 10, 10.

No, it's more than that, Mr. Bellehumeur. It's 10 minutes from the witness, plus 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, and I'm now up to an hour.

A voice: One hour.

The Chair: Order. Let Derek speak.

Mr. Derek Lee: You have all forgotten. You have to take account of what is called the roughage, or fluff time, the add-on, when the member manages to ask a question—

The Chair: For 10 minutes.

Mr. Derek Lee: —for 9 minutes and 58 seconds and the answer requires a few minutes.

Because the chair is not going to cut off the answer because the member asked the question in the last second, the full answer will come forward, and heaven knows, if there's room for a supplementary, or an interjection at some point.... This has happened.

Your 10 minutes is actually more than 10 minutes. So by the time we've done 10, plus 40, plus another 10 for an hour, plus you add in the fluff time, you're really looking at about an hour and a quarter.

• 1140

That's fine at first blush, but with a committee of this size....

I hope the opposition parties will note the number of government members sitting over here.

The first time we will have a meeting, most of us are going to be able to add and subtract and we will have sat with our issue for an hour or an hour and a half before there will be a chance of asking a question. What will happen in meetings number two and three is that we won't be motivated.

If your colleagues over here are not motivated, then the committee is not going to be motivated and it will die. It will rip the heart out of this committee, because what makes it work is a dynamic on both sides. So we have to find a way.

It's not the dynamic driven by just the opposition. It's both sides. If we don't find a way to involve the members on this side in a realistic way, then it's not going to fly.

Mr. Telegdi has mentioned the procedure used in public accounts. The health committee was considering something similar. The most essential part of it is that after the first rounds are dealt with there is a back-and-forth, across-the-floor movement, usually at the discretion of the chair. It has usually worked fairly well.

I'm concerned about all these 10-minute rounds. I don't think it's workable, and I would urge members to consider 5-minute rounds or, if necessary, an 8-minute...maybe 10 minutes for the official opposition and 5 minutes for the other parties. But we've got to compress in order to allow this thing to function properly.

I say this because if we go with the 10s, even I, as motivated as I am, am going to lose some of my motivation.

Maybe some of you think that will be helpful for the committee.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I don't think it will make any difference.

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, let's see.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Just on that point, with the greatest respect, the dynamics coming from the government side haven't helped to change very much in terms of the bills that come before this committee. We saw that the other day when we sought ways and means to have more time to examine probably one of the most controversial bills we've dealt with in a long time.

Just to cover that point, when the vote came it didn't matter whether you guys were half asleep during the discussion of the motion or the bill or you were as dynamic as you were, Mr. Lee. It didn't matter in the final outcome of the vote—just to put that point to rest.

From our side, from our point of view, to bring in the best kind of legislation that we can, we don't get very much help from your side whether you're sleeping or alive and awake.

I understand that we must be fair, and you're speaking towards that and I support that. This is why we as the official opposition, because of the make-up on this side, could ask for more time than our colleagues down the line, but I don't know if that would be fair.

So what we have to do is give, I think, the opposition to the government's bills a foremost opportunity, which I think was recognized in the past sitting of the House, because the oppositions had the first 10 minutes, then another 10 minutes, and then it went over to the government side, and it rotated back and forth. It gave the opposition that little bit of advantage that I think should be there in view of the fact that it's our responsibility to examine the government's bills.

The government brings in the bill. You're on the government side. I would think you have opportunity for input into the bill during caucus or committee, or whatever, on your own side. We don't have that, so I think that little bit of an advantage should be recognized and maintained in this committee.

The Chair: Just as a matter of clarification, you may have misunderstood Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee is happy to follow the old back and forth.

Are you not, Derek?

The old pattern is not a problem. It's the timing that's a problem.

I'm saying to you as chair that if we had this motion on a day when we had three witnesses, or when we had a round table, for instance, we'd never get through it.

I'll tell you that you've got 10 minutes, Jack. You'll ask questions for 10 minutes, and then we'll have to wait for the answers, and then the Bloc and everybody else won't have any time.

• 1145

I would like to see a pattern. As your chair, I would undertake to make sure that everybody has an equal kick at the can to begin with. Then I want to alternate, and I would like to have the discretion to do so.

For instance, yesterday there were some incisive questions from Mr. Lee. I didn't hear anybody objecting to him having a longer run, because what he was saying was quite educational.

I did the same with the Reform Party at one point and with the Tories. And I let Mr. Marceau, who seems to have some experience in criminal law, go on too because there was a good run of questions.

I think I've always been fair in terms of timing, and it would really help me and I think the spirit of this committee to let me give you that undertaking and have you leave it to my discretion. You can always move something later if you don't like the way it's going.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'd be willing to try that. It didn't work out too badly during the last couple of days. As long as the chair can remain as impartial as she was in the last two days it might work out well.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers and then Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): I just wanted to comment on Mr. Ramsay's point where in the last Parliament it was official opposition for 10 minutes and the third party for 10 minutes. That was 20 minutes. If we now extend that to two more 10-minute sections, it's going to be very difficult for witnesses to be under examination for that length of time.

But if we are looking at the opposition examining the government's bill, in the previous Parliament we had 20 minutes of opposition examination. It was divided by two instead of by four. So if you made that 5 minutes instead of 10 minutes, it's the same dynamic. It's still 20 minutes of opposition examination of a government bill.

I just think an hour and 15 minutes for the witness sitting there before you get into the actual exchanges is a very long time.

The Chair: It also allows me to estimate the time. When you're running on this kind of a schedule, somebody has to calculate roughly how many minutes we have left before the next witness starts and divide it up. That was what I tried to do yesterday. Sometimes we had 8 minutes, sometimes 7, and sometimes 5. I'm hoping that we're not going to have many situations similar to what we had yesterday.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I would be in favour of—

The Chair: Why don't you let us try? I'll experiment with different systems and see where we're going. I'll let you know if I'm going to change it and try something else—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: And if you would let us know at the beginning whether it's 5 or 6 minutes so that we can be guided that way—

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: —I'd be willing to try that. I don't know about the rest of the members.

The Chair: Sheila.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I'm sorry. I sat on a justice committee only in 1984 and 1986, so I'm very new here. Please forgive me if I'm out of order.

Notwithstanding that, in the experience I've had, which we've just completed with the Constitution committee—which will finish today I hope, if I live long enough—the official opposition and then the second party followed by the government side, then the two other parties in the House, then the government side...but the method, so that there is not this problem around timing, is a limit of two questions per person.

If you limit it to two questions per person, you will find...and I think the committee was very disciplined in many ways. They did not repeat the same kinds of questions. They moved on to new territory. I presume you're a disciplined committee that looks for answers and you don't necessarily want to repeat what someone else has said. That was quite an effective way of working.

I don't know if this committee has used that system.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur, I don't know if you...

[English]

Anyway, that's a suggestion, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I think all of these suggestions can be accommodated. We can experiment with them. If you don't like them, just tell me and we'll move on to the next experiment. I'm afraid we're not ever going to find the rhythm of the committee if we impose something artificial on it.

In my experience, some members are happy to be here and don't always ask questions, and other members, like Derek yesterday, get a run on and you don't want to disturb it.

Mr. Derek Lee: If I may, this committee will generally do three types of work. Mr. Ramsay placed great emphasis on government bills. We will do legislation in legislative mode, but we will also do studies either on reference or self-initiated, and that type of activity is very different from the legislative mode. Thirdly, we will do estimates.

• 1150

Now, if Mr. Ramsay is talking about time for estimates, I will go over and sit with him, because when estimates are done the opposition has to dominate that process. It has to.

The Chair: If you've ever seen Mr. Lee in estimates, you would wonder sometimes why he's sitting on that side of the table.

Mr. Derek Lee: It's the opposition dynamic, Madam Chair, that drives the estimates procedure.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Derek Lee: So when it comes to estimates, take an hour, I don't care. You're going to get tougher questions from the opposition than the government.

In the legislative mode we have to accept that the footprint of representation in the House of Commons is going to find its way in here. It's inevitable. For a while our standing committees didn't do legislative work. The bills were referred to legislative committees, not standing committees.

The Chair: There are going to be other dynamics too, because there are—

Mr. Derek Lee: The chair, I know, can take account of that. I don't know whether you want to wing it or what.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: We can always come back and revisit this whole thing.

The Chair: There are other dynamics here too. We have this impaired driving thing now. It has been referred to us. There are, I think, five or six people on the committee with fairly extensive experience in the courts, in criminal law, at least three of whom are really current. I would hope Mr. MacKay is really current on impaired driving, and Mr. Mancini. I suspect they made a substantial part of their former living prosecuting and defending it. You're going to get another dynamic, because you're going to get Criminal Code nit-pickers versus people who are very concerned from a public interest point of view. It's going to change from day to day, who is opposition and who is opposing whom.

If you'll put that faith in me.... You can always deal with me after. Usually I find when I'm irritating one side I'm irritating the other.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I just wanted some clarification. First of all, whose motion was this?

The Chair: It was just a draft motion the clerks prepared for us.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think the key word in here is “discretion”. If it were dropped to 7 and 5 that would perhaps alleviate concerns on both sides of the table, the discretion being that you could extend it if there were a good run going, or if a person went the maximum 7 we're still under an hour.

The Chair: Peter, I think the problem is that yesterday I limited you to 5 on the first round, and if I hadn't we would have been here until...or we might not have finished. Then we would have had procedural wrangling instead of content. That's all I'm suggesting.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Of course when we get the government witnesses here, Justice officials, they can eat up an awful lot of time in their presentations and in their answers.

The Chair: Yes. I'm thinking of one witness one day when we all wanted to get out of here and somebody asked her a question and she just wouldn't stop. I would watch members go like this, thinking she was done, and she just kept talking. I thought, my God, when is this ever going to end.

Do we have consensus on that, or do you want to vote on it?

Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Chair, I want to know what the consensus is.

The Chair: I think the consensus is that the chair would exercise her discretion but the chair is undertaking to make sure that on the first round every party gets an equal opportunity. After that I would use my discretion to go back and forth.

Mr. Derek Lee: And the size of the rounds?

The Chair: That's the problem, Derek: how long does the witness go? Are we going to tell every witness, I don't care how big your brief is, you have only 10 minutes, or do we listen to them? When Alan Borovoy comes, for instance, I would rather listen to him all day than to almost anyone else. Even though you have questions he's so thorough in what he has to say that I always find the questions are the least fun of the whole session. Other witnesses we've had are just incredible. Others you just can't wait to get at.

Mr. Derek Lee: If the chair is accepting the lead role of the opposition in estimates functions and more time would be allowed to the opposition for that, and if we just roll with the rest of it, then I think I would be happy to join in that consensus.

• 1155

The Chair: I agree with your view of the estimates, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: But I think the opposition should confirm in this consensus its lead role. We're not saying whatever happens will happen. We have to start with the opposition almost all the time. Is that the consensus?

The Chair: Okay, it's on the record.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Chair, I wonder about the opening statements. Many a time the witnesses provide the written material, and most of us can read it a lot more quickly than they can say it. I wonder if we could compress some of their time in terms of the presentations, especially if we get it ahead of time, the night before or something.

The Chair: I would rather leave it, personally. Again, I'm not trying to cram this down anyone's throat, but I think as elected representatives it's important for us to show witnesses respect.

Sometimes that's what a witness wants to do. Even though they read their brief, they feel that we've given them a hearing. Sometimes that's all we do.

You know we hear witnesses who don't impact directly on a piece of legislation or a report, but it's part of our function to hear what they have to say. They've read it into the record, and that's important to them.

Having said that, when the clerks and the scheduling assistants speak to witnesses, they can give them some direction and suggest to them how we might like to have things go. But I'm not inclined to bang down the gavel and cut anyone off unnecessarily, unless they're really irritating me.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Are we going to give some direction to the witness as to how much time? Speaking for 10 minutes—

The Chair: We do that. It's part of the process.

Could you explain, Luc, what happens when a witness—

The Clerk of the Committee: Usually, when a witness is confirmed we will send him or her, by fax, a confirmation. The first paragraph of the confirmation indicates that you have up to 10 or 15 minutes for your opening statement, followed by questions from members. That's standard practice.

The Chair: I often tell them that when they come in.

We have experience with some witnesses; the same people keep coming back. My practice is, if I know I have one who's going to be long-winded, I might try to encourage them at the opening, at least, to.... But I want to be respectful of them because I believe that's part of our function.

You have two copies of a 48-hour notice motion. The big print is the original motion that we've always operated on. The small print is the new and improved version that the clerks have worked over.

The big print one was one we sort of winged in the last Parliament. We've always had this. First of all, it's there to prevent either side from hijacking the agenda—I want to be blunt about this. But it's also there because of the same level of respect we should have, I believe, for our witnesses. I don't like to get witnesses here and have a motion land that has to be dealt with immediately, because the witnesses have a limited period of time and they feel like we're taking from them.

I remember there was one fellow last term who was at a round table and said, wait a minute, I didn't get my full seven minutes. He thought each witness should have the same amount of time. Other witnesses will say to me, well, don't I have the full hour and a half? It's scheduled for an hour and a half and I want to stay and talk for an hour and a half...even though we didn't have questions.

With motions, I don't like to take away from the time the witnesses have. Also, if there's a contentious motion, I think 48 hours gives us an opportunity to either negotiate it or to prepare for it. So that's the history of this thing, and that's what it's there for.

The clerks are recommending procedurally that we look at the second one, that it fits more in keeping with the rules of the House and the rules for committees. It clarifies more for you.

The second one is the smaller print, with more words. Clerks are like lawyers; they like more words.

• 1200

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: The bilingual one.

The Chair: That's the thing about the development of this committee this time. The good news is there are more lawyers on the committee; the bad news is there are more lawyers on the committee.

Mr. Derek Lee: The old format, the large-print thing, is not very useful.

The Chair: Derek's a word guy too.

Mr. Derek Lee: The newly drafted proposed one is pretty sharp. We ought to make sure that it doesn't hinder the committee in dealing with work. The general intent is that we will all have notice of a motion coming before us so we can prepare for it.

As long as it doesn't restrict the committee from moving on and doing things, I'll move that the motion be adopted. It looks okay to me.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: In previous years many committees did not have this 48-hour rule. There are often things that can only be brought up at the last minute. And that is just as true for the government as it is for the opposition. Even you, Mr. Lee, have not always shared the views of the government. I have noticed sometimes that you didn't think along the same lines as the government. That is the way democracy works. You were representing your riding rather than the government.

So I am opposed to the 48-hour notice. The only criteria should be that when a member of the Standing Committee of Justice tables a motion it should be in both official languages, period. Those who come regularly to the committee's meetings are always prepared. We know our issues, we know the bills, we know who are the witnesses who are coming and we know what is going to happen for such and such reason.

In the past, the 48-hour notice slowed us down on some issues. Something happened and we had to wait. Then the House would adjourn. And in the end the issue isn't topical any longer and by the time you get to the motion it has become irrelevant.

During the 35th Parliament, many committees did not have this 48-hour rule. We shouldn't have it for the justice committee either. It would work better without it.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: On substantive motions it is useful to be able to look at them ahead of time.

Secondly, it would go to the steering committee where the opposition is represented. So the motion could not be delayed for more than 24 hours if there are three members of the opposition. The steering committee has four members of the opposition. How could you hold it back for any longer than that?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: What is a substantive motion?

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: That will be determined by the steering committee and you have four members there.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Is that so, Madam Chair? If it has to go to the steering committee yet before a decision can be made, we are no longer looking at 48 hours, but rather 72 or even a week and a half.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I find this 48-hour motion to be good because it might prevent having too much politics going on in the committee. The right place to play politics is in the House.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Oh, Lord!

Mr. Paul DeVillers: In committees we should have at least 48 hours to know what we will be doing.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. DeVillers!

• 1205

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: The motion obviously is that no one single member, no opposition party, no government party, is taken by surprise. The concerns of Mr. Bellehumeur can be alleviated by the unanimous consent of all parties to deal with it. So I think all sides are covered. If you feel you're being taken by surprise, you don't agree to unanimous consent.

The Chair: We did waive it several times last time.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If with three political parties in the last Parliament we never managed to have unanimous consent in this committee, we will never get it with five parties. I'll bet my last dollar on it.

[English]

The Chair: Michel, during the time you weren't on the justice committee, and I think while you were there, we many times waived the 48-hour rule last time. The rule last time was much more restrictive than this time.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mrs. Cohen, on hot issues, if I were the government I would want this 48-hour notice. This Parliament is different from the previous one. I feel that the rules should favour the opposition a little more because this Parliament is different, if only by the number of seats.

Mrs. Cohen, on hot issues we never did get unanimous consent to discuss them. Sometimes the motions were on relatively urgent matters, for example on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. On several occasions the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois tabled motions that we felt were urgent due to the timeliness of the issue. But because of the 48-hour rule, debate would be delayed. And even, at times, the subcommittee examined the motion before it came to the standing committee.

So in my view, the opposition parties should reject the idea of a 48-hour notice. If the government is open-minded and democratic, as you say it is, it will have to admit that it is not caught unprepared. It isn't true.

You have a lot more members than we have in the opposition parties. You have more research staff than we do. You can communicate directly with the departments, as we cannot do. Don't tell us that you cannot be prepared and you need 48 hours. Yes, you need 48 hours, do you know why, Mr. DeVillers? To play politics, precisely. Do not require the 48-hour notice and we will not play politics. We will do it cold. We will defend our issues, prepared or not.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I would like to point out that the motion deals only with substantive motions, not other miscellaneous business items. If you've ever been at a committee when, let's say, you have witnesses and you are starting at 3:30 p.m. and then somebody—usually it's a member of the opposition, but not always—will raise a motion, a tricky one, and you end up in a debate—

The Chair: Looking like idiots.

Mr. Derek Lee: —you've blown 20 minutes.... With the notice provision the chair knows it's coming, you make provision for it, you advise the witness, you plan for it. That's an important consideration here.

On the second part of this motion, referral to the steering committee, translation into the other language, these are not conditions precedent for the introduction of the motion.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Derek Lee: The fact that it goes to the steering committee is usually going to be subsequent to the bringing of the motion. So these do not interfere with the bringing of the motion. The only thing between the bringing of the motion and the consideration of the motion is 48 hours or the consent of your colleagues on the committee.

The Chair: If 48 hours go by before the steering committee meets, it goes to the main committee.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Chair, I sense we're going to have a real division on this one, so the sooner we proceed to a vote the more democratic—and the whip hasn't told me how to vote on it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi, but the Reform Party hasn't spoken out, nor have the NDP or the Tories.

Mr. Ramsay.

• 1210

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'm concerned about the requirement to move a substantive motion to the steering committee, because that in some cases negates the 48-hour period.

The Chair: No, it doesn't. If the steering committee—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Why are we changing it? There is a change here. Before we did not have to move a motion to the steering committee for consideration.

The Chair: What we used to do before, Jack, was if you wanted to prevent something from going forward, you'd just have a vote and refer it to the steering committee. Then it would come to the committee in 48 hours, go to the steering committee and come back. If the steering committee meets first, it has to go to the steering committee. If the steering committee doesn't meet, it has to be here within 48 hours.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If it's all within 48 hours then I have an no objection.

The other point I would like to make is this. Usually these motions come from members of the opposition to highlight a concern. But in order to get the motion passed, we must have support from the members from the government side. If it is simply a mischievous act on the part of opposition, we could load the agenda with motions.

When I look at the tool that these motions grant, it is that of highlighting a concern that perhaps we think the government is not addressing either in the House or in any other form. And it has been brought forward. The Airbus thing was brought forward and the UI thing in Quebec was brought forward by both the Reform and the Bloc in the last session of the House in order to highlight something that we thought should have been examined. We know full well that without the support of the government it's not going to pass, so we do it to highlight it, not to slow down the work of the committee...at least that wasn't my intent.

So we get a shot at it, it goes on the record and we're on the record as showing concern for an area that we think the people of Canada are concerned about and the government is not. It's politics, so—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: And that opportunity remains, but on 48 hours' notice.

The Chair: Plus you can keep it alive for two days. It's better.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have no difficulty with that. If we wanted to slow down the work of the committee...we saw what happened last time, just the day before yesterday when I passed a motion when this was not in place. If we want the committee to operate that way, where we can disrupt the work of the agenda for the day by allowing motions to come in, I don't know if that would be wise. I thought it was appropriate—

The Chair: That was a legitimate motion.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes, because it was one of those rare cases, and I hope it doesn't come up that often, where the committee had to consider asking the Supreme Court of Canada for an extension. We had to get that and the government had to have the opportunity, forced by the opposition, to look at that. They have turned it down. I think that was appropriate. I don't know how many times that will arise. If it does, then of course I would lean towards Mr. Bellehumeur's point because of the necessity to discuss it at the moment when the iron is hot and when it's necessary. Forty-eight hours might make it redundant.

The Chair: The flip side of it is that you can issue your notice of motion with a press release and keep the thing alive for two days if you want to.

Just a second, Mr. Lee, because I just want to find out if Mr. MacKay or Mr. Mancini want to participate in this. They haven't had an opportunity.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think the motion itself is unduly restrictive. We are putting more and more rules in place to potentially muzzle the opposition, I guess, and I guess some of the good faith is wiped out for the reasons articulated by Mr. Bellehumeur. I'm not in favour of the motion.

The Chair: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I find myself following my colleague from Reform on this in that I think I could support it...but rely on some good faith.

The Chair: Okay.

Now, Mr. Lee, then Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Derek Lee: If I may comment, it's not quite as gloomy as Mr. Ramsay makes out. At the point in time when a member seeks consent to place a motion to waive the 48-hour rule, there is an opportunity to state reasonably concisely—depending on how much time the chair's prepared to give—what the issue is. If it is urgent, there will be an opportunity to address the substance of the motion in any event. If consent is denied, you go and do your press release. But you do your press release anyway. It's not as if there's a muzzle here.

• 1215

I think we could fly without part two of this thing anyway. Part two doesn't impair the 48-hour rule in the first paragraph.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: I think the 48-hour rule is a good thing, and some day we will thank each other for this because one day the government is going to want to make a motion.

The Chair: And you guys are going to have to make a flight 48 hours—

Mr. Derek Lee: And we have a majority, and they say, oh, that's not fair.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: No, we will agree—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, I'm going to give you the last word.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: From my modest experience in the last Parliament I would say that even with that motion, Mr. Lee, whether you are from the Reform or from the Bloc, you will never be thanked for giving 48-hour notice because it will only help the government. I don't understand that the Reform party doesn't see it. It's as big as an elephant and they don't see it. In any case, we will have to live with it.

Something wrong was said earlier and I think it came from you, Mr. Lee. If you recall, in the last Parliament, when we gave a 48-hour notice it did not in any way delay the hearing of witnesses. We waited until the witness had appeared and only then, even if it took an hour and a half, would we debate the motion that had been announced in the 48-hour notice.

We could do exactly the same thing with motions that do not require a 48-hour notice. We could table the motion at the beginning, hear the witness and then debate on the motion. A 48-hour notice has absolutely nothing to do with showing respect for the witnesses and I think you know that, Mr. Lee.

We have always shown the greatest respect for witnesses, at least in the Bloc Québécois, and God knows it. I have asked questions from many witnesses, I have participated in meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice, and I have always been extremely respectful of witnesses, when they showed respect for the Bloc Québécois and Quebec, of course, and I will continue to do so.

This idea of respect has nothing to do with the 48-hour notice, Mr. Lee. I am opposed to the 48-hour notice because it is not democratic. The government sends notice that it will bring forward an issue that we disagreed with, no matter what the topic. That is what happens, isn't it? Usually this 48-hour notice, the motions that the opposition tables, deal with extremely hot issues, topical issues.

Madam Chair you were right in saying that it would give us at least two days. The 48-hour notice rule will prevent us from alerting public opinion within a reasonable amount of time. I know the government well enough to know that usually things will be corrected within 48 hours or the issue will not be as hot 48 hours later because you will be prepared to respond. You can present any argument you want, I will not go along with this.

With regards to the 48-hour notice, you mentioned the steering committee. I am reading the motion, in English and in French, but I see no mention in it of the steering committee. It only mentions the standing committee. You referred to the steering committee, but I don't see it mentioned here at all, unless I'm mistaken.

The motion says that as soon as the committee receives notice the clerk will ensure that the motion is put on the agenda of the next steering committee meeting. Will the steering committee meet every day?

[English]

The Chair: If the steering committee doesn't sit, it has to come to the main committee.

[Translation]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: If the steering committee isn't sitting, it will automatically come here. That is the difference, I think.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Why should it go the steering committee? So that you can better prepare for it and better play politics? It doesn't make sense. Let's call spade a spade and a cat a cat. I think we're all old enough to know what will happen.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: We have a motion on the floor. If we have a seconder, I would suggest you just call the question.

• 1220

The Chair: This motion was moved by Mr. Lee.

Some hon. members: You don't need a seconder.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Madam Chair, could I have a clarification? It has to do with the distribution in both official languages. Is that the responsibility of the clerk?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay, that's clear. Thank you.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: The last motion we have is Mr. Bellehumeur's motion. Can I have unanimous consent to deal with this not on 48 hours' notice?

We have unanimous consent.

Can I ask you something? Have you considered the Official Languages Act?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, certainly.

[English]

The Chair: I think the Official Languages Act states that citizens have the right to come before Parliament in either official language. If you would address that for me....

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: There is a difference between what you have just said and what is in the Official Languages Act. In any case, Madam Chair, unless some committees are presently breaking the law... I was told recently that the standing committee on agriculture and agrifood had adopted precisely the same motion and, in fact, it had been introduced by a member from the government side. I think there is the difference. In the standing committee on agriculture and agrifood the motion was introduced and defended by the member from Bourassa, Madam Chair.

That being said, when a witness comes to the committee, anglophone or francophone, and speaks only one of the two official languages, we will obviously hear him or her. There is no problem there. If the witness has a brief written in only one of the official languages, the brief cannot be tabled: the witness will read the brief and give it to the committee who will then have it distributed to the members after it has been translated in the other official language.

That is exactly what is expected of opposition parties. When I sat on a committee that worked on the lobbying issue, in the previous Parliament, I worked all night with a translator. We had agreed on the final report, but when I saw it written I realized that it said the opposite of what had been agree upon after months of discussion. We were then given 24 hours to present a minority report in both official languages. And I did it, Madam Chair.

We are not preventing anyone from appearing in front of the committee. We accept all witnesses, whether they speak English or French. But it is different when it comes to briefs. I understand that witnesses do not always have the time to get them translated. But some of them or not that long and I feel that with a little effort they could have been translated in time to be tabled in both official languages.

• 1225

When a witness comes with a brief that is not translated, we will simply have to be content with an oral presentation only. The witness can then submit the brief for translation and it will then be distributed to all members of the standing committee on justice, after it has been translated. All members will then be on the same footing when it comes to questioning the witness.

You said that the Quebec Bar Association had presented a brief in French only. Well, next time the Association comes in front of the committee the rules will be the same as for everyone else. The brief will have to be done in both official languages or we will only hear it orally, period. The brief will not be distributed until it has been translated in the other official language. And then everyone will be treated in precisely the same manner. Then, Madam Chair, we will have truly applied the Official Languages Act when it comes to the rights of committee members.

And we will not be setting a precedent. As I said, other committees did the same thing in the previous Parliament and it is still being done in this Parliament, with the support of government members, for example in the standing committee on agriculture and agrifood.

The parliamentary secretary was telling me that during the 35th Parliament, it was also the practice of the standing committee on immigration. I feel it would be fair to adopt the same practice here as well, particularly in a committee such as ours, where there are so many technical issues and points of detail. When I question a witness, I want to be on the same footing as everyone else.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: [Editor's note: Inaudible]...just as well as almost anyone else at this table, so don't play that chord. You can play the other but don't play that one.

The Chair: I'm not arguing; it's just a point of information. Yesterday I think we received two briefs in English. We've received three briefs over the last two days in English only and one brief in French only. We would not have been able to accept any of those briefs.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That is exactly what I've just said, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Under no circumstances.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We wouldn't accept the brief. We would accept to hear the testimony and the brief would have to be given to the committee to have it translated and it would not be distributed to members until it had been translated in the other official language. I'm not asking any more than what the government demands from me when I present documents to the committee. I'm not asking anything more, but I will take nothing less. I must enjoy the same treatment as everyone else.

Those situations are exceptional. Witnesses usually receive more than two days notice. Usually, they come well prepared. Sometimes they even have up to three weeks to prepare and some groups may not have the financial resources to pay for translation. I'm not an idiot. I can understand.

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from being heard, from explaining and presenting their views, but the brief simply wouldn't be distributed to members as long as it hasn't been translated in the other official language. And that applies to the Quebec Bar Association as well as to the AFEAS from Saint-Glinglin, Quebec, that would come here with a brief written in French only. It would apply to everyone. Everyone would be treated in the same manner. Neither of the official languages would be seen as having more or less weight than the other in the standing committee on justice.

Of all committees, the justice committee should surely give the example when it comes to the Official Languages Act, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I understand where Mr. Bellehumeur is coming from. When a witness appears before the committee and they have a brief in only one of the official languages, it does place some of the members at a disadvantage. But I would not agree to further disadvantage the committee by denying the members who can access the brief and question the witness from the brief, thereby allowing testimony based upon the contents of the brief to be placed before the committee. I wouldn't want to further disadvantage.... If the witness whose brief you received appeared here with a brief only in the French language, I would not wish to further disadvantage Mr. Bellehumeur as part of the committee by denying him the right to question the witness based upon the contents of that brief.

• 1230

I think this issue can be alleviated by our witnesses being granted sufficient time to submit their briefs in either one of the official languages and to have them translated by the people here and in our hands at the time the witness appears. I think that really is the answer to this.

I would not support this motion because I would not want any members or the committee further disadvantaged. We are working as a committee, and I would like to see as much information on the record from each witness, even though the questioning may come from a brief submitted in only one of the official languages.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I happen to agree with Mr. Bellehumeur. I don't think any member should have to make a motion like this. If his motion hasn't been seconded, I'm going to second it. I don't think we should have to spend a whole lot of time talking about it.

I don't think our clerk should be asked to participate in a one-language distribution, and if a witness has a brief in one language only and hasn't provided a copy in sufficient time in advance to allow for translation or hasn't translated it themselves, then the witness can make it available on the table. They can even put it up by the clerk. But I don't want our clerk participating in a one-language distribution, unless there has been unanimous consent of the members around the table. If on occasion some of the members will say go ahead....

We can't stop the witness from passing around a piece of paper in one language, but we can say our procedures are such that our clerk must operate in both languages, and if he or she can't do it, then we won't do it. The brief's there, you can take it. You can read it if you want.

So I'm going to agree with Mr. Bellehumeur, and I regret that we have to go through this procedure.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have no problem with that.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, then Mr. Mancini, then Mrs. Finestone.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Chair, in principle, what really should happen is the briefs be submitted and the translation be done by our people, because you never know what the quality of the translation you might get will be. There's a certain standard we can provide. That's one.

In a perfect world that's what the situation would be. We'd have all briefs in both official languages. I think I tend to agree, though, on the practicality side. Let us suppose we have a witness who's making a presentation and their brief is only in French versus English. I would rather have that available because of the facility of some of the members of this committee in the French language, and I think it could enhance the interaction with the witness. So even though it's not what I would like to see, it's better than not having anything at all, because I do believe that a contribution can be made by all members around this table. I'd rather have some of them have that advantage, if you will, so they can better ask the questions from the witnesses we have before us. Otherwise, we might not end up with the same quality of questions to the witness and we therefore won't end up with the same quality of records in the minutes. I think it's important to best utilize what we have at that point in time.

If you want to say we will not hear a witness unless they have both of those, then it would make sense. But to limit ourselves in a practical sense I don't think would be useful, even though you're standing up on a matter of principle.

The Chair: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I would speak, I think, in favour of this motion, but I do have one question, being new. I would assume that witnesses get plenty of notice when they're going to appear before the committee, and I think we should have no problem saying that if they don't have the means to translate their brief, we would like it in here so we can provide the translated copies at the time you specified.

• 1235

The Chair: Just as a point, we haven't come to future business yet. When we do, you're going to see what we have on our plate.

One of the reasons we didn't meet early on was that once it starts, it's relentless. We drive things fairly fast. We move things through quickly, so it does happen that sometimes we have witnesses who come on short notice. Once the word gets out that we are holding hearings on a certain piece of legislation, a new group may spring up. Somebody may come to Mr. Ramsay's office telling him that they would like to get a word in on it, and he tells them he can arrange for them to be a witness. So we are pretty open in terms of the number of witnesses we receive.

I was just checking with the clerk while the debate was going on, because we sometimes have delays in translation from our translators. It's a tough motion, but he has a point. There are some—

Mr. Peter Mancini: There are clearly substantive briefs from the Canadian Bar Association, from interest groups that are long-standing and that would provide us with substantive briefs. They have notice, and I would guess it's tradition that they would provide for both copies.

The Chair: Could we just hear from Mrs. Finestone? She is the chair of the official languages committee.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Not only am I the chair of the official language committee, but both Mr. DeVillers and I have to leave. We have to go to the final drafting.

I think the motion as presented is fine, but I think you need a notwithstanding clause in case of an unusually short delay. You have to allow for certain circumstances. At that time, I think you ask for the permission of the floor. I do not think you can leave it as tightly as this. The principle or philosophy is there, but when you are in the circumstance that you are going to have a special 48-hour something and are going to have hearings, you can't always have it that way.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, would you accept an amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I believe that Mrs. Finestone sits on the joint committee on official languages and that committee has passed a similar motion. It does not contain a notwithstanding clause. Mr. Telegdi, I am not saying that people shouldn't be heard if their brief is not written in both languages, contrary to what you said earlier. But enough of that.

The standing committee on agriculture and agrifood and the joint committee on official languages, the one she chairs, Madam Chair, have passed an identical motion, without notwithstanding clauses or anything of the kind for short notices or other circumstances. Why would the joint committee on official languages proceed in a certain way, while the justice committee, where we are supposed to deal with all matters regarding justice on Parliament hill—where the rules should be perfectly legal all the time—would not apply the same rules?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Bellehumeur, don't put words in my mouth.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: So what dit you say?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I said that there were circumstances...

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: In the motion you passed Mrs. Finestone, were there any special circumstances?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes, I believe we should have...

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I believe.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: ... a notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Did you include a notwithstanding clause in the motion you passed in the joint committee on official languages or not?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I wasn't there.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Well, I am telling you that the motion was passed without it. If there are any notwithstanding clauses today, that is another matter. In any case I have learned that even in this standing committee on justice notwithstanding clauses are used as rarely as possible.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Bellehumeur, I haven't been on this committee in years.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: And what about Mr. DeVillers?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Let me finish. This committee examines issues that are extremely complex and that affect everybody's life. If something happens and after a 24-hour or a 48-hour notice, we decide to hear a witness, that person will not have the time to write a brief in both official languages. It's different.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: They come as witnesses. Are you telling my that the more important the issue the less bilingual we should be?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, sir. I'm not trying to restrict anyone.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: People come to be heard and we apply the Official Languages Act.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I would not object to this language, Madam Chair, and you can take my vote in favour of it. I thought it was something that was worth discussing. I gather it's not.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I have two points. I would like to request that the question be put.

Secondly, I think we are talking here of a very rare occurrence. If it occurs, the witnesses will give oral testimony. There is translation. Ninety percent of the time, they read the briefs. They can come in and can be dealt with, and the documents will then be distributed later.

• 1240

[Translation]

I agree with the motion as it is written.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Ramsay, but Mr. MacKay has not spoken on this. I'd like to hear from him first.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would support the motion as put forward by Mr. Bellehumeur. I think Mr. Lee's reference is to the fact that in the way it's worded here, we're talking about the authorized distribution of documents. There is nothing to prevent any member of this committee from receiving those documents personally from the witnesses when they come in. I certainly wouldn't expect the clerk or anyone else to go up and snatch them away from committee members if they've received the documents.

But, in principle, I support this motion in its present form.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, then Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I can support this motion as well, as long as it doesn't preclude the kinds of circumstances that occurred when we were discussing Bill C-16, when the witnesses didn't have the time or capacity to present their briefs in two official languages. As long as the motion doesn't preclude those who want to use briefs handed directly from the witnesses, then I have no problem with this. I agree that the clerk of the committee should be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only once they've been translated in both official languages.

The Chair: Do you want a voice vote? Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now, on our future business, let me just give you a list of what we have, and I'll tell you that there are some other things that are coming as well. I think you have a list there from the clerk. This is the legislation before the committee: Bill C-3, An Act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other Acts. This is the DNA data bank.

In addition to this, I want to point out that we have an obligation to review the DNA sections of the code that we did in the last Parliament. We didn't get to it before the election. I'm suggesting to you that we do the two at the same time because the witnesses are the same.

An hon. member: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. Next is the Act to amend the.... Why do we get this? I would have thought this would go to government ops. We're getting the RCMP Superannuation Act. Why don't we just get the budget and the CPP as well?

The draft regulations on firearms are time-sensitive. We have thirty days to do those. It's my recommendation that this is the first piece of business we do.

In addition to that—and let me use my power as chair to say this is one of my personal priorities because of undertakings that I've made to some people as a private citizen—I would like to see us deal with victims' rights issues. You have the interim report. I had it circulated so that you could take a look at it. I'd like us to have a planning session to figure out how we're going to do that in the most cost-effective and extensive way we can, to see if we can be cost effective and have a national consultation on it.

We have the impaired driving sections of the Criminal Code. On that, I'm suggesting that you let me have a chance to sit down with the clerks and with our researchers to see if we can't recommend something to the steering committee. The steering committee could then work on something to see how we do that.

We have something else. Help me here. I've forgotten what else. Oh, yes, we have invitations from the Solicitor General and from CSIS itself so that we can visit facilities. I think you're going to want to visit prisons. I think you're going to want to visit CSIS headquarters. I'd like to get that organized, so if you would, let me know what you want to do. Are there specific prisons you want to visit? Do you want a cross-section of them? Let the clerk know perhaps, and we'll deal with the minister's office on this so that we're not all wandering in and out of these places and inconveniencing them.

• 1245

We also have some statutory reviews that we have to do. You have a list of those in your briefing book.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Where's the briefing book?

The Chair: It was sent to your office.

We have to deal with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; the Seized Property Management Act—that's money-laundering and proceeds of crime—and DNA provisions of the Criminal Code. But if we're agreed, we'll just do those with that legislation.

We've also received supplementary estimates, which are time-sensitive. I'd like you to take a look at those. I think the way we did the estimates last time was that you told me who you wanted to hear from.

So if you look at the supplementary estimates and tell us who you want to hear from, we'll see if we can tee that up. If there's any argument or you have any suggestions for ongoing work, we'll deal with it at full committee, but some of this stuff I think we can do by consensus, through the clerk's office.

That takes us to June. We're going to get new estimates in March.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: There are many things on the agenda right now, but one is very important. I'm thinking of the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code. It is a very wide topic. Have you thought of the possibility to strike a subcommittee to work on the issue or, as Chair, do you want to follow all these issues?

There is also the matter of firearms regulations. I have started to read the draft and it is heavy going, I assure you. I thought that it would be sent to the joint committee on regulations, but it is coming here. Have you thought of striking a subcommittee to look at any of these issues, to lighten the load somewhat for the standing committee? That subcommittee could, for example, deal with the Criminal Code because our report on impaired driving has to be ready by May 1998. And as we will get other bills as well, we'll end up having to sit 24 hours a day.

[English]

The Chair: The exigent circumstance we have right now is gun regulations. The clerk has gone ahead and drafted a list, so I think we need to get to that. I'd like to put the rest of it to the steering committee to see if we can set our priorities.

I personally am kind of excited about the impaired driving sections. I think they are overdue. I think they were overdue when I was practising, which is getting to be further and further in the past. I'd like to have an opportunity to think about that.

It's open to us, Michel, to set the parameters. The parameters are not set by the motion of reference to us. It's open to us to set the parameters of that discussion. I think that's something the steering committee can take a look at and recommend.

Peter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Chair, I've tabled some motions. By doing so, I'm giving you 48 hours' notice. They seem to dovetail with what you've put forward here, specifically the victims' bill of rights and a review of the Criminal Code as it relates to drunk driving.

The Chair: I think this has to be in both official languages. Is it?

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's why I'm doing it now.

The Chair: It is in both languages?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, it will be by the time we bring it back. I'm tabling it now, so it will be at the next committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: On a point of order, Madam Chair, we're steadily losing members. I would prefer that this discussion take place at the steering committee, where there is representation of each of the opposition members.

The Chair: That's fine, but—

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: I have to leave as well.

The Chair: —Eleni, we have to deal with the gun regulations.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: I said on that point, yes, but not on the other points.

The Chair: That's what we're getting to.

If we can get working on witness lists and so on on the gun regulations—Jack, I know you have some, and other guys probably do too—we should get those in as soon as possible, please, to the clerk.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If we could get a copy of those, we can just add to it.

The Chair: I think that's the best way to do it. We'll circulate that. Let's get that going. I'm going to ask the clerk to start teeing that up now. We'll put the rest of it to the steering committee.

Is there agreement on that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Great. Thanks.

The meeting is adjourned.