JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 21, 2001

• 1533

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see we have a quorum.

[English]

In accordance with Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), your first order of business is the election of a chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I move that Mr. Andy Scott be elected chair of this committee.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): What a surprise.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare the Honourable Andy Scott chair of the committee, and I invite him to take the chair.

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Thank you very much for that enthusiastic vote of confidence.

The next order of business is the election of our vice-chairs. As you see in your notice, Standing Order 106(2) states:

Each standing or special committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen, of whom two shall be Members of the government party and the third a Member in opposition to the government....

• 1535

So I would entertain a nomination for the position of vice-chair.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): I nominate Mr. Chuck Cadman.

The Chair: Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Grose.

The Chair: Do we proceed on one motion at a time, as I believe?

The Clerk: One at a time. We can take the other one later.

The Chair: Mr. Myers' nomination is taken as notice. We'll deal with the nomination of Mr. Cadman first.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to endorse the nomination of Mr. Cadman as a vice-chair?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Congratulations, Chuck. Welcome back.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

The Chair: We have also received the name of Ivan Grose as vice-chair on the government side, and I'll call the question. Agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Okay, we've been sort of reconfigured.

The next series of items of business has to do with routine motions. You've all received, I hope, a notice from the clerk. We'll go through these one at a time. The instructions the clerk has been operating under are that we would bring these forward and propose them as they were when we left. That is the basis on which these things have been brought forward—the notice, the speaking orders, and so on. For reference purposes, this refers to routine motions moved and adopted in the 36th Parliament.

The first one concerns the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, the steering committee. Could I receive a motion in terms of the first motion, or do we want to dispense with it? The motion would be that the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretaries, and a representative of each of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and the Progressive Conservative Party will compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

I should point out that I don't believe that was our practice last time. I don't believe we operated as a steering committee, or if we did, it predated my being here.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): We were constituted, but I don't think we met frequently.

The Chair: Okay, I would take it as a motion that we be reconstituted, but I think you'll find that we work as a very friendly group most of the time. So it's been moved.

Is there any discussion?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Will you be allowing the parties to designate their own representatives, or would you like us to nominate committee members specifically?

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Will you be allowing the parties to designate their representatives, or would you like us to name the committee members selected? Do you want the members of the Bloc to decide amongst themselves, and for the Liberals and other parties to do likewise?

[English]

The Chair: We would receive names from the parties as to who those people would be. That's been the practice. Is that okay?

The second item is that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its works, at the discretion of the chair. Could I have a mover?

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Apparently as a result of that motion a researcher from the library has just appeared. Perhaps we could have a motion to have five researchers to see what happens.

The next item is motion three, that 24 hours' notice be given to the members of the committee before any substantive motion is considered by the committee unless the committee gives consent otherwise.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would propose that this regulation be changed, replacing the 24-hour provision with:

That 48 hours' notice be given to the members of the committee before any substantive motion is considered by the committee unless the committee gives consent otherwise.

That is my motion.

The Chair: Mr. Grose has suggested an amendment to motion three that would require 48 hours' notice rather than 24. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Réal Ménard: No.

The Chair: Agreed? Oh, sorry.

• 1540

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the role of committees is to respond to current events. They must serve as a forum in which all opposition parties - and government members as well - can introduce an item of business for consideration fairly quickly, and forty-eight hours... Most committees enforce the 24- hour notice rule. Mr. Myers will recall that that was true of the Health Committee and it never impeded our work. Therefore, 48- hours' notice is an excessive rule and unacceptable to our party.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Bellehumeur, welcome back.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Good day.

Mr. Chairman, the 24-hour notice of motion rule has been in effect since 1993 in the Justice Committee and often, this has benefited the government and not just the opposition parties. Moreover, I don't think we've taken advantage of this situation. I find the 48-hour notice rule to be excessive and I don't understand why the Justice Committee's rules of operation should be any different from those of other committees that are called upon to act quickly and to review draft legislation in depth.

[English]

The Chair: Actually, I believe it was Mr. Grose who was the member of the government who put it at 24.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Yes, it was. If I might speak to it, it seemed to me like a good idea at the time. I don't consider it's a good idea now. Twenty-four hours is not enough time to notify everyone. It means that you have to get them by telephone or track them down somewhere, because getting them on paper just can't be done in 24 hours. That's why I'm proposing 48. I thought that 48 was excessive, but I've changed my mind. As everyone here knows, no one changes my mind for me; I change my own mind.

The Chair: It's not something we're going to debate for a long time. It has been moved that the notice be 48 hours. All those in favour?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I request a roll call vote.

[English]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 14; nays 3)

The Chair: The next is distribution of papers. It reads that the clerk of the committee be authorized to circulate the documents received only when they exist in both official languages.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Nest is hearing witnesses in the absence of a quorum. It reads that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On witness expenses, it reads that as established by the Board of Internal Economy and if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses invited to appear before the committee up to a maximum of two representatives for any one organization; and that payment for more than two representatives in exceptional circumstances be at the discretion of the chair.

Mr. John Maloney: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On the questioning of witnesses, it reads that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement; that at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven minutes for the first questioner of each party and that thereafter three minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between government and opposition parties.

Mr. John McKay: I'd like to move an amendment to that motion, Mr. Chair.

Is it a two-part motion—that the witnesses be given ten minutes and...? My amending motion is with respect to the second part.

• 1545

The Chair: Then we'll take your amendment and deal with them together. Generally, they're dealt with together.

Mr. John McKay: I would propose that the questioning of the committee be altered as follows: that the Alliance Party be given the first seven minutes of questioning; that the government side be given the next seven minutes of questioning; that the Bloc be given the next seven minutes; then Liberal, five minutes; NDP, seven minutes; Liberal, five minutes; PC, seven minutes; Liberal, five minutes. That's for the first round of questioning, and thereafter five minutes per questioner.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to this proposal. Often, a member of the government party appears before the committee to present a bill and to outline the government's position. The opposition then has an opportunity to put questions to the minister about the proposed legislation.

Government members have ample opportunity to question the minister, in this particular instance, the Justice Minister, give that she is a member of the Liberal Party, but in committee, the opposition should be first in line to voice its concerns and to debate the bill within a reasonable time frame.

As I said, the Justice Committee has been operating in this fashion since 1993 and has adopted this procedure for time allocation. I believe there was talk of allocating five minutes at some point. Now, it's seven minutes. It doesn't make any difference. The opposition goes first, followed by the government, and then the sides alternate. This is a very healthy way of proceeding. It would be a little ridiculous to give government members the chance to question a minister about a bill before the opposition members, especially since, as we all know, seven minutes is not a great deal of time. It's long enough to ask about two questions, and the minister uses up the remaining time giving his response.

I think the Justice Committee has proven that it can work effectively by following this particular rule. I for one object to any changes. There's no reason to change any particular provision respecting witnesses.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. MacKay and Mr. Blaikie. And I would advise that we have a vote in 20 minutes.

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

I would agree that there's no reason to upset the apple cart. We've had a committee that's worked fairly well. The flow that goes when you have the entire opposition given an opportunity in the first round to pose questions I think should not be interrupted.

On the point with respect to access to the minister or access to government, it goes without question that opposition members don't have the same access that government members would have to the minister—and access to departmental officials, similarly, I would argue. When it goes into the second round, clearly the government then has an opportunity and has the advantage of having a government questioner follow every single member of the opposition.

That system, I would agree as well, has worked fine, to the point where we have questions that are prepared for us by the government. So I strenuously oppose the government's amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I would like to register my opposition to the amendment. I'm not sure I understand the rationale for it. I assume that what we have before us is a reflection of past practice of the committee, which in my experience is consistent with the way I have seen committees operate on the Hill for a long time.

I have never, in any committee I have ever served on since 1979, been in a situation where the chair was compelled to go back to the government before all the opposition parties were heard. So this would certainly be a departure. If this is what the government has in mind when it says “parliamentary reform”, then we consider ourselves put on notice.

• 1550

This is not in keeping with any parliamentary practice or tradition I've ever experienced. I would urge members of the government, at such an early point in the life of this Parliament and of this committee, not to begin on this particular note.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Cadman, and then back to Mr. McKay.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to be on the record as opposing the motion. I would like to propose an alternate scheme. Would it be appropriate for me to do that now, or would that require another...?

The Chair: If you want to amend Mr. McKay's amendment, you have that prerogative, I believe.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'd like to propose an amendment to the amendment. I think this would more accurately reflect the makeup of the House from the opposition's perspective. I would propose Alliance ten minutes, Liberal ten minutes, Alliance ten minutes, Bloc ten minutes, Liberal ten minutes, NDP five minutes, Progressive Conservative five minutes, and then a second round in the same order but with five minutes each.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That would make the government look reasonable.

The Chair: I'm going to have get my pen out for this. Could we try that again, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I would propose Alliance ten minutes, government ten minutes, Alliance ten minutes, Bloc ten minutes, government ten minutes, NDP five minutes, and Progressive Conservative five minutes. That would complete the first round. The second round would be five minutes each in the same order.

The Chair: Mr. McKay. No, sorry, it was Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, it has been my experience that when it comes to the questioning of witnesses, the system we have in front of us is a workable one. It has in fact worked in the past, not only in this committee but at other committees as well.

I agree with Mr. Blaikie. In my experience and over the life of this Parliament, we have seen a system.... We can vary the times, and we can say seven minutes, six minutes, five minutes. But I think we have a model here that is pretty effective in terms of what it represents. I think it has worked pretty well, and I think we should maintain it. I don't think we should get into any of this number game stuff. I think this is pro forma and standard, and I think we should deal with it.

The Chair: I think we've heard from all sides on this. First I have to call the question on Mr. Cadman's—

Mr. John McKay: I didn't speak to it. I just proposed it.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: First of all, I would dispute that the committee was working well toward the end of the last Parliament. I think it was getting close to being a dysfunctional committee.

I think past practices are only a marginal guide, not necessarily a guide. It came up in the subcommittee on organized crime, and we went back and forth, and it worked very well indeed. In fact, it elicited good participation on both sides. There's nothing cast in stone. In my view, this is hardly an intrusion into opposition rights to question.

I'm prepared to move times and things of that nature, and I'm even prepared to consider a more weighted formula with regard to ministers or officials appearing before the committee because that's truly the area in which the opposition should have more access to questioning. But as to ordinary witnesses who come before us, I can't quite see why under the present system Liberal members should sit here for four questions before they get to question. Then it goes back to the opposition, and then we sit around for another two or three questions before we get another chance to question.

This was an attempt to redress the balance. I'm open to other suggestions, but going back and forth is, to my mind, something of a necessary—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's what happens after the first round, isn't it?

Mr. John McKay: What happens, Bill, is that by the time you get through the first round, we're changing witnesses. If there is a panel of witnesses, and we usually see two or three at a time, our time is exhausted by the end of the first round. So the real effect of not dealing with it in the first round—

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's not true.

Mr. John McKay: It is true.

The Chair: Let's put the debate through the chair, please.

Mr. John McKay: The result is that we have a new panel of witnesses after having exhausted only the first round.

• 1555

My view of it is that we should introduce equity between the sides. After all, we're 172 members on our side of the House. Hence the genesis of the motion and the rationale for the motion. As to the actual time slots, I'm prepared to be flexible on that. I'm not quite prepared to be as flexible on the point of going back and forth, though.

The Chair: We have an amendment to the amendment from Mr. Cadman. I'd like to deal with that first. I'm going to put the question on Mr. Cadman's subamendment. I think we all understand what it is.

Mr. John McKay: Just repeat it so that everybody understands it.

The Chair: It would be—and you check this, Mr. Cadman—Alliance ten minutes, Liberal ten minutes, Alliance ten minutes, Bloc ten minutes, Liberal ten minutes, NDP five minutes, and PC five minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And we have to sit outside when we ask our questions.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: The second round would be in the same order but five minutes each.

(Subamendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll go back to the original amendment by Mr. McKay.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: That puts us back to the original way of doing business—

An hon. member: Call the question.

The Chair: —which was essentially the way we did it before, with seven minutes by party and three minutes back and forth.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next item is working lunches. I think we all understand what that is. We have the motion in front of us.