JUST Committee Meeting

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Meeting No. 48

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 8:40 a.m. this day, in Room 269, West Block, the Chair, Hon. Andy Scott, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Garry Breitkreuz, Chuck Cadman, Hon. Hedy Fry, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Peter MacKay, Paul Harold Macklin, John Maloney, Richard Marceau, John McKay, Joe Peschisolido, Hon. Andy Scott, Kevin Sorenson, Vic Toews.

Acting Members present: Yvon Charbonneau for Pat O’Brien, Réal Ménard (8:45 a.m.) for Robert Lanctôt, Bernard Bigras (9:40 a.m.) for Robert Lanctôt, Larry Bagnell (9:45 a.m.) for Irwin Cotler.

In attendance: From the Library of Parliament: Philip Rosen, senior analyst, Kristen Douglas, analyst.

Witnesses: From the Department of Justice: Donald Piragoff, Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; Julie Besner, Counsel, Criminal Policy Section; Normand Wong, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; David Daubney, General Counsel, Sentencing Reform Team; Michael Zigayer, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section. From Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: John Weigelt, Senior Director, SIT & ICP; Rhonda Lazarus, Senior Counsel, Legal Services Branch.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee considered the Process of Private Members' Business.

Vic Toews moved -- That, in relation to Standing Order 97.1, the committee apply the 60-day and 30-day extension deadlines to all options provided to the committee, including a motion to report a bill to the House with or without amendments and a motion recommending not to proceed further with a bill, and that, accordingly, all questions regarding any private member’s bill shall be decided without further debate or amendment before routine proceedings on the day the 60-day or 30-day extension deadlines expire.

Debate arose thereon.

CHAIR'S RULING

First of all, let me say I share the concern of Mr. Toews, Mr. Lee--and I suspect most of the committee--around the situation we find ourselves in. Mr. MacKay has spoken to it, too, but I also share Mr. MacKay's view that this is not our decision to make. It is not our place to make these remedies.

So for the first part, I don't agree with Mr. Toews on the question that the committee has, in fact, two options. Clearly the rules anticipated other options than reporting with amendment, or reporting the bill or not.

One of the options outlined clearly in the standing orders--as you read them, in fact--is, if no bill or report is presented by the end of these days, that it would be deemed to be reported without amendment. That is, in fact, one of the options that is available according to the standing orders and we would in fact be eliminating that option and I don't think we have the authority to do that.

I also don't think this is the venue to deal with what is obviously a problem that was created with all the best intentions. Let us remember that until this new rule took effect, a private member's bill might have sat in committee forever and that was one of the ways that private member's bills weren't, in fact, dealt with.

This rule was brought forward with the intention of making sure that didn't happen. It brings with it, its own problems and I accept that those problems exist and I think they should be remedied. In fact, as a committee who has been faced with those problems, I would suggest we might wish to dedicate a meeting to that process issue and everybody can get on the record.

As it stands, for the reasons I've just outlined, I cannot accept Mr. Toews' motion for the reasons I've outlined, and because to some extent what it really represents is closure on a private member's bill after 45 minutes of debate. Granted, Mr. Robinson has taken up those 45 minutes, but I think this place is familiar with a filibuster and it is in fact part of this process, a legitimate part of this process.

At some point it can be seen as being, let's say out of control or obstructionist. At some point I'm sure that all the committee members would feel that but certainly I wouldn't give that definition to 45 minutes. This very committee spent 28 hours, I think--or something like that--on the young offenders legislation and I didn't feel comfortable at that point bringing closure on that.

For those reasons, I'm going to rule Mr. Toews' motion out of order.

Whereupon Vic Toews moved, -- That the Chair's ruling be sustained.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

Yeas:                                                                                       Nays:

Larry Bagnell                                                                            Garry Breitkreuz

The Hon. Hedy Fry                                                                  Chuck Cadman

Marlene Jennings                                                                      Kevin Sorenson

Derek Lee                                                                                Vic Toews

Paul Harold Macklin

John Maloney

Yvon Charbonneau

Réal Ménard

Richard Marceau

Svend Robinson

Peter MacKay

(11)                                                                                          (4)

At 8:54 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 9:03 a.m., the sitting resumed.

The Order of Reference dated Monday, April 28, 2003, being now read as follows:

ORDERED, -- That Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The Chair called Clause 1.

Donald Piragoff made a statement and, with the other witnesses, answered questions.

At 10:23 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Patrice Martin

Clerk of the Committee