[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, December 7, 1995
.1018 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Today we will be considering Bill C-232 clause by clause. I spoke to Mrs. Jennings just before the meeting. She wants a recorded vote on every clause, and that will be done. Unless there are any preliminary matters, we'll start with the clause-by-clause consideration.
Mrs. Jennings, did you wish to say anything before we commence?
Mrs. Jennings (Mission - Coquitlam): Yes.
This bill was passed by the House at second reading; therefore it has the confidence of the House in principle. I remind this committee that the bill is non-partisan and has been put forward in a bill or a motion by every party in this House, except the Bloc, who already have the legislation in their civil code.
The one concern raised during the year of debate on this bill, the information clause on page 1 of the bill, I have already discussed with this committee. I have prepared an amendment, which I hope all of the committee members have now.
As we discussed, I am prepared to accommodate the committee and delete that clause. All other concerns raised have been dealt with by the witnesses.
One of these concerns was whether or not it is constitutional. The committee's own witness, law professor Joe Magnet of Ottawa University, assured this committee that it was -
The Chairman: Mrs. Jennings, we're in clause-by-clause. You're really doing your presentation on the individual clauses. That isn't appropriate at this time. That was done previously.
Mrs. Jennings: These are just the concerns, not the clauses of the bill.
.1020
The Chairman: No. You've made these concerns known before to the committee and now you'd simply be repeating them. We are here to consider the clauses. You can raise your arguments on individual clauses - as to why they should or should not be considered - as we raise the clauses. At this stage, raising these particular matters is simply a repetition of what you've said in the past.
Mrs. Jennings: Actually, I haven't said this in the past because I wasn't aware of it until all the witnesses gave their evidence.
The Chairman: How much more of this do you have?
Mrs. Jennings: I asked you if I could speak for five minutes. I know we have the time this morning. I think this bill is very important to the people who are in this room with us right now and to Canadians who have been working hard on this for the last ten years.
The Chairman: Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): When we reach the clause-by-clause consideration stage of a bill, it means that we are prepared to vote on a particular amendment or clause.
Normally, we have been given some explanations regarding the amendment from the witnesses. We know exactly how we are going to vote and our mind is made up. I don't see why we should have to listen to another speech this morning. In my humble opinion, this is not the time,Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Ms Jennings, it's my understanding that in practice this is not done at the clause-by-clause stage. It's done prior to that when you make your opening presentation to the committee and it's done throughout the hearings on the committee and through your questions and comments.
Coming forward now.... This is not part of the clause-by-clause process, which this meeting is for. This is more like a dissertation to the people in the room. The people in the room are here to watch the clause-by-clause, not to have further arguments on this particular bill or to indicate how long this has been worked on, etc.
Unless you have anything to deal with on the clause-by-clause, I rule that giving a summary of this bill at this time is out of order.
Mrs. Jennings: So are you saying that I can bring up these individual concerns in the clause-by-clause as they come up?
The Chairman: I'm saying that as the clauses come up, if you wish to indicate - and I will ask you as each individual clause comes up - your proposal and the reason for the amendment, you can raise anything relevant to the reason for the amendment and why you are raising it. Is that okay?
Mrs. Jennings: All right. I would like to continue on to the end of what I have to say. I'm not going to go over all the articles.
The Chairman: Again, I don't know what the end is. I haven't seen what you have prepared as a dissertation. But if it has nothing to do with the clause-by-clause presentation, it is not proper to deal with it at this time. The matter has been dealt with through the witnesses, through the questions and comments and through your opening remarks to the committee.
Mrs. Jennings: If I may, I would like to say one short thing regarding my bill.
The Chairman: Okay, go ahead.
Mrs. Jennings: We have spent a great deal of time working on this and I think it's only fair that the committee hear it.
The Chairman: Go ahead.
Mrs. Jennings: It was suggested to me this morning that once again we postpone dealing with this bill. Grandparents are tired. It is Christmas time and once again many grandparents are facing another Christmas without being able to buy gifts for their grandchildren and with no hope for the future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Our colleague has clearly not understood the principle of clause-by-clause study. We have before us a motion for amendment that we should be discussing. I don't see why we should listen to a speech this morning, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Venne.
Ms Jennings, referring to a conversation you had this morning with respect to this meeting is not proper in the clause-by-clause.
Mrs. Jennings: I see. May I finish the minute I'd like to have? I've now been cut right down, so I literally have nothing -
The Chairman: It's not a matter of me cutting you down with respect to what you have to say, it's a matter of you delving into areas you should not be delving into on a clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
If what you are going to be presenting is similar to what you have just presented, then I would rule it out of order. I have not seen what you have and I do not know what you are delving into. Thus far, what you have delved into is not proper consideration on a clause-by-clause.
.1025
Mrs. Jennings: I understood I would be allowed to speak ahead of time. Apparently that was incorrect. I would like to explain, so perhaps I could just go on and finish and accommodate the committee.
The Chairman: Mrs. Jennings, I'm trying to accommodate you as much as possible in dealing with this matter on a clause-by-clause. However, when we get into irrelevant matters, as chair I have to not proceed into such areas and to immediately get into the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
I'm not trying to, as you indicate, cut you down or cut you off on this matter, but if you have matters that are to be dealt with as to your opinions on the bill, then it's not to be dealt with at this time unless it's relevant to the individual amendments.
Mrs. Jennings: I really think I have to say that I'm prepared to accommodate the committee on this clause that's before us.
The Chairman: Which clause are you talking about?
Mrs. Jennings: The first clause, and if there are any other concerns -
The Chairman: I haven't called the first clause or the amendment to the first clause yet. I will call them, if you wish. I'm sure the committee wants to commence the clause-by-clause.
Mrs. Jennings: I really think I have a right to express this. If there are any other concerns, I have a right to work with the committee as well as I can. I have worked very hard for this committee, and I've gone along with everything. So all I am asking for is the right to tell them I hope we can work together. I don't think that's unreasonable.
The Chairman: Mrs. Jennings, this committee and I have never tried to stop you from working with this committee. We have tried to work with you. We have heard virtually every witness you have suggested we hear. We met with the minister to deal with this particular matter.
You made reference to an adjournment. In fact I requested an adjournment until next week of this particular meeting so that the Department of Justice could further research parts of this bill. You have refused to agree to this amendment, and we have tried to accommodate you in every manner possible.
At this stage, it is time that we proceed to clause-by-clause. I will call the first clause and the amendment to the first clause, and if you have comments you can make your comments with regard to that.
On clause 1 - Application by other person
The Chairman: An amendment has been circulated. It has been moved by Mrs. Jennings.
Do you have any comments with regard to the amendment to clause 1, Mrs. Jennings?
Mrs. Jennings: Yes, exactly what I was going to say. As I've already stated, I'm prepared to accommodate the committee and delete the information clause, which is what I was just going to say.
I move that clause 1 of Bill C-232 be amended by deleting lines 10 to 16 on page 1. I would like to move this amendment to delete the information clause.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments on the amendment?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly be voting against this amendment. In my opinion, the federal government has no business legislating in this area. This matter comes under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, I will be voting against this amendment.
[English]
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): I'd like more time to study this amendment and the implications of it and to consult with my colleagues, so I'd like to put forward a motion that we adjourn.
The Chairman: Do you mean to adjourn consideration of the amendment?
Mr. Knutson: I mean adjourn consideration of the whole bill.
The Chairman: We have a motion to adjourn consideration of the bill. Is there any discussion on that, or should we go to a vote?
Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): A few of us met with the Minister of Justice last evening, who was prepared to consider the subject matter with the possibility of amending this bill or coming forward with his own if he felt it was warranted. However, we are here now, and I think we should proceed with the bill and deal with it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this motion has been before us since November 3. Today is December 7 and our minds should be made up by now.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any other...?
.1030
Mrs. Jennings: This has been changed three times. I met with the minister almost a year ago, who said that he supported the bill in principle. I tried to reach him in the last two to three weeks, but I couldn't get an appointment. I tried to reach Mr. MacLellan, and I did talk to him on it.
There is a danger that the bill will just disappear. The grandparents worked very hard on this bill, and I feel strongly that -
The Chairman: So you wish to proceed?
Mrs. Jennings: Well, if it is the understanding right here that the government is serious in postponing it and is dealing with the issue seriously, then I think the grandparents would be in favour of that.
The Chairman: Mrs. Jennings, when I phoned the committee this morning and left a message with the clerk to contact you, I was serious. I do not ask for adjournments when I'm not serious.
It is you who said that you wanted to proceed this morning, and I think we should vote on the motion that's before us.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I would just like to reassure Mrs. Jennings and all the members that we are very serious about it and that I'm really asking for a week. I won't even put a time limit on it, but I'm asking you, please, to consider adjourning this.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I think there have been sincere expressions of support for this bill. That includes the request by members on the government side for further time.
It also includes my understanding of your request, Mr. Chairman, for further time so that the government can look at this bill and not simply relegate it to the dustbin, if I can use those terms.
I think that there is a sincere and genuine expression of support for this bill, but further time is required. If further time is required on the part of the government and that time might result in support of the intent of this bill or the bill itself, then I'll be prepared to grant the government side the time they're asking for. I'd be prepared to support that if it was clear to me that this is what is happening here. This is what I see happening.
Mr. MacLellan: I want to assure Mr. Ramsay that the Minister of Justice, when he said that he would look at this, was very sincere. Of course, with the workload that is in the Department of Justice, it can't be done. He said that it would have to be at least a week, and I think it may be longer. It's very difficult to reconstruct this bill.
Frankly, I think that the Minister of Justice can do it whether we adjourn or not. Now that we are here, we should proceed and leave Mr. Rock and the Department of Justice to do as they see fit.
The Chairman: We have a motion for an adjournment.
Do you wish to have a recorded vote on the adjournment too, Mrs. Jennings?
Mrs. Jennings: As I understand it, you are saying to me that at this time the bill does or does not stand a chance of going next week?
The Chairman: I'm saying that at this time we're considering whether we'll adjourn. That's the motion on the floor.
Do you want a recorded vote on the adjournment request or not?
Mrs. Jennings: I would just like to say that if I vote in favour of the adjournment, then it's on the understanding that it will be brought up next week so that the bill will not be down.
I would like a recorded vote, please.
.1035
Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5
The Chairman: We're on clause 1 dealing with the amendment. Is there further discussion on the amendment? All those in favour of the amendment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, could we not simply apply the results of the vote that we have just taken? Is that possible?
[English]
The Chairman: I'm not sure it will be the same.
Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3
Clause 1 negatived: nays 8; yeas 3
On clause 2
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Mrs. Jennings: Is this the clause for which I said I had an amendment, which they said they would not accept?
The Chairman: Clause 2, unamended.
Mrs. Jennings: I would have to say no.
Clause 2 negatived: nays 10; yeas 1
Clause 3 negatived: nays 8; yeas 2
The Chairman: Shall the title carry? Do you want a recorded vote on that as wellMrs. Jennings?
Mrs. Jennings: Yes, please.
.1040
Title negatived: nays 7; yeas 3
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Bill negatived: nays 8 ; yeas 2
The Chairman: Shall the Chair report the bill to the House?
Mr. MacLellan: I am opposed to a report to the House, frankly, because as far as I'm concerned the matter is still before the Minister of Justice and I want him to be able to look at this with his department. I feel that a report to the House is not appropriate at this time.
The Chairman: I'll call a vote on that. Shall the bill..?
Mr. Ramsay: On a point of clarification, just so that everyone understands, could the chair place on the record what Mr. MacLellan means?
The Chairman: I believe his words are on the record.
Mr. Ramsay: He's opposing a report to the House. What does that mean?
The Chairman: When a bill is passed, as we did yesterday, the bill is then reported to the House. If the question of reporting a bill is defeated, the matter ends here and it's never reported to the House.
Mr. Ramsay: Hasn't the bill been defeated now?
The Chairman: There is still a requirement as to whether the defeat of the bill is reported to the House, and that's why there is this particular vote, because there still can be a report to the House indicating that the bill was defeated. That's why there's this particular motion.
Mr. Ramsay: I think the House should be advised of what has happened here in this committee on this bill, so I would oppose what Mr. MacLellan has suggested.
Mrs. Venne: Let's vote.
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Chairman, is there not an opportunity for me to also discuss this?
The Chairman: I wasn't aware you wished to discuss this.
Mrs. Jennings: I was just asking.
The Chairman: Yes, Mrs. Jennings.
Mrs. Jennings: I just asked you. I'm not clear on this, but -
The Chairman: You see, we're discussing this before I've even called the question. Let's discuss it and then I'll call the question. Okay?
Mrs. Jennings: Okay. It's my understanding that the House has the right to hear in the report stage on all the bills they refer to any committee. I would like them to have it, and I would like it on record that in fact we do have a day set aside next Tuesday. A private member's bill that was coming up has been given to me, so we have the day all set aside for the House to hear what happened in the committee. I think the House and the legislators have a right to hear that.
Mrs. Barnes (London West): On a point of information to another member of Parliament, a report is a report given at reports of committee stage. It takes about three or four minutes. It's a not a day of hearings. I think it's time to learn the rules around here. A report to the House means we do not report to the House.
Call the vote, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I'll pose the question first.
Mr. MacLellan: This does not interfere with Mrs. Jennings' right to have a private member's -
Mrs. Barnes: That's separate.
Mr. MacLellan: - to have an opposition day on this question.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you. That was my point.
Mrs. Barnes: Yes, but it has nothing to do with this report.
Mrs. Jennings: As clarification, it is not a day. It is just a private member's bill.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes. If I may, Mr. Chairman, all Mrs. Jennings has to do is, before 5 p.m. the day before, submit to the House leader on the government side that it will be the topic of discussion on that opposition day and that will be fine.
Mrs. Jennings: Or the private members' hour?
Mr. MacLellan: No. In private members' hour of course you have to go through the list and it's time-consuming. But on an opposition day you pick the opposition day and any of your allotted days can be used on this subject.
Mrs. Jennings: May I? I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but this is a really important issue. If I already have the private members' hour, I don't have to go through the process.
Mr. MacLellan: No.
Mrs. Jennings: Can I then...?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, that's entirely different. You can -
Mrs. Barnes: There are rule of procedure.
The Chairman: Order.
Mrs. Jennings: I just need clarification.
The Chairman: Yes, but you'll have to refer to the clerk's office in the House if you wish information on how to deal with House matters.
I will pose the question: Shall a report be presented to the House, stating that the committee has taken evidence, considered the subject extensively, and having gone through the bill clause by clause wish to report that they have disagreed to the same?
.1045
Question negatived: nays 9; yeas 2
The Chairman: That ends the matter. The bill is defeated and the reporting of the bill is defeated as well.
We have the beginning of the hearings on the Law Commission report. There was a notice sent out and it commences at 11:15 a.m. We hope the officials from the department are here at 11 a.m. We'll adjourn this matter until then.