JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Á

1100

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East)

The Clerk

The Clerk

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Clerk

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

The Clerk

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Á

1105

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

The Chair

Á

1115

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

Mr. Vic Toews

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Á

1130

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Á

1135

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Á

1140

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Á

1155

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 064

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1100)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members of the committee, honorables membres du comité, I see a quorum. We can now proceed to the election of the chair. I am ready to accept motions to that effect.

    Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East): I nominate Andy Scott for chair of the committee.

    The Clerk: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this motion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Mr. Scott duly elected chair. Before I invite Mr. Scott to take the chair, pursuant to new standing orders, I have to preside over the election of the vice-chairs.

[Translation]

    I am ready to proceed with the election of the vice-chairs.

[English]

    The first is for government.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I nominate John McKay.

[Translation]

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

[English]

    If there are no other nominations, the nominations are closed for government vice-chair. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this motion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Mr. McKay duly elected vice-chair.

[Translation]

    We shall now elect the opposition vice-chair.

[English]

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to nominate Mr. Chuck Cadman for the opposition vice-chair.

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations? The nominations are closed. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this motion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare this motion carried and Mr. Cadman duly elected vice-chair.

    I invite Mr. Scott to take the chair.

    The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Thank you for that vote of confidence, or strategic voting, whatever the case may be.

    We had discussions previously about wanting to get as much work done today as possible, in the event that this session isn't as long as it might otherwise be. Consequently, I want to put before you a number of items for consideration in terms of a work plan, with the intention of leaving today with instruction to staff in terms of how we intend to proceed from now until the middle part of November. If anyone wants to add anything that they don't think would be on the agenda now, please do so. Otherwise I'm going to go to issues of future consideration. We've looked at this before. In fact, I think we've narrowed the field quite considerably, but I didn't want to leave anything off.

    I'm going to go first to legislation that is before us, starting with, if you look at the first page, halfway down under “government legislation”, Bill C-20, on which the minister appeared last week. We have Bill C-22, amendments to the Divorce Act; Bill C-23, the registry; Bill C-33, treaties and administrative arrangements in terms of international transfers.

    I'm looking for Bill C-45, criminal liability of organizations. That's Westray. Bill C-46 is coming. It's in the House still, but I mention it because there's a reasonable argument for combining our witnesses on bills C-45 and C-46. One of them has amendments to the Criminal Code in terms of capital markets fraud. The other one has to do with criminal liability of organizations. There may be some witnesses who could speak to both, if we were in a short timeframe.

    I'd like to hear from members of the committee in terms of priorities in government legislation first. I guess that's the best way to proceed.

    Mr. Marceau.

    I'm sorry. Mr. Macklin.

    An hon. member: Now, there's a confusion for you.

Á  (1105)  

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: That's how it goes some days. I feel very honoured, actually. It's very fine to be associated with Mr. Marceau.

    The Chair: And he's smiling too, Paul.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I know.

    I would like to express that I think it's important that Bill C-20 proceed as quickly as possible. Looking down the list, I would see Bill C-23 as having—if I recall correctly, we are almost ready for clause-by-clause on Bill C-23, so that is something we should be doing, dealing with the registry. I also would like to see Bill C-45 and, as you mentioned, Bill C-46, as soon as it's out of the House, go forward.

    Again, if we're looking at November as a point where we can turn some of these around.... We don't want to see all our time wasted in this process. We want to make sure that we get bills out of here in good form that can go back and be debated in the House and move forward. I would think something along those lines would be potentially possible.

    The other thing, of course, is that I think there are some reflections on where we should be with the same-sex work that we did. My concern is that I hate to see all of the work that was done by this committee not at least have some influence on the debate that's going to continue, although obviously we found ourselves, in some respects, interrupted in our deliberations by the courts, most specifically in Ontario. Still, we owe it to the people who came before us that we present at least, I would suggest, our findings of fact that we arrived at when going across this country. Maybe we don't need to spend a lot of time on that, but I think it would be a great disservice not to at least spend some time and make sure we move it forward.

    Beyond that, I suppose it's a question of what time we have that we could meaningfully use to advance any other cause. I may be, quite frankly, open to considering what other aspects we might be able to deal with that would be meaningful after that. But I would see something along those lines as being a way in which I would like to see us proceed, if it's possible and agreeable by all sides.

    The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I support Mr. Macklin's comments on—he used the word advisedly—finishing our report on same-sex marriages as much as we can, given the context of what happened in June.

    You know my position. I think it's very unfortunate that we didn't appeal the Ontario ruling—the immediate effect of that ruling. In a sense, that made any recommendation to the minister irrelevant, I suppose. But I spoke with some other members of the committee on this. I think there's value in trying to give what I would call a summative report of what we heard. I think the witnesses deserve that. We were proceeding in camera and I would suggest that's probably, if in fact we agreed to do that, the way we should continue with our reports. We should proceed in camera and then release it for whatever the appropriate action would be. We could table a summative of the report in the House. It doesn't have to have recommendations. I've done that, as a chair. Likely you've done that as well, Mr. Chairman.

    That's my thought on the same-sex issue. Let me be candid. Although I think the government rendered the process a farce, to a large extent, by not appealing the Ontario ruling, I still see some value in trying to produce a summative report that would be tabled, so that we would have carried out our responsibility, which we were asked to do by the minister, by the way. And I had to press him at committee the other day to say that he saw value. After he consulted with one of his advisers, he did say that he saw value in our finishing off at least a summary of what we heard.

    On government legislation, I was concerned that the minister at the committee seemed to think the committee had decided Bill C-20 was its first priority. I don't know how he got that impression. We haven't discuss this government legislation until today. So I pointed out to him that fact. I think it's very important that we be careful to establish, as a bipartisan or multipartisan group, what the priorities of the committee are. I don't know that Bill C-20 is necessarily our first priority. Maybe it is, and if it is, I'd like to hear that. But obviously I assume, Mr. Chairman, that we would be calling witnesses for Bill C-20 when we got around to it. Yes.

    Okay, I'll leave my comments there for now. Thank you.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to add one other thing that I overlooked. I was looking at the solicitation laws and the appointment of that subcommittee, and I think we really need to make certain they are going forward, because I think there has been a lot of interest expressed in them. I notice it on here, with names. I just wonder, is there anything we have to do in order to effect that committee's action, and let them go as a subcommittee?

    The Chair: Notwithstanding my attempt to get government legislation first and then proceed to the balance of this paper, we have now also included M-192 on solicitation.

    For the moment, let's stay with legislation, because depending on the decisions we make on legislation, they will determine what time we have for other things—unless you want to challenge me on that.

    Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to challenge you, I would never do something so untoward, but I do believe the Board of Internal Economy decided that private members' bills might also be considered and that the legislative process in the House should not be strictly determined by the government's agenda. So you will understand that I am not completely unconcerned by this topic. Of course we should discuss motion M-192, but to say that we must first of all examine government legislation before studying private members' bills when there are so many of them would mean that we would never have time to make it to the members' bills, which would be shooting ourselves in the foot, in my opinion.

    I would like to draw your attention to the fact that thanks to the work done by my colleagues Messrs. Macklin and McKay, it would seem that the House will be consenting tomorrow to have motion M-288 on the judges' appointment process studied by this committee, and I would like us to keep this in mind in one way or another when we decide on the future business of the committee.

[English]

    The Chair: My apologies. I didn't intend to pre-empt it as much as just trying to put it in order.

    As the only one who's spoken specifically to the government's legislation, I guess what we now have is something around bills C-20, C-23, C-45, and C-46, just in terms of government legislation. We also have a proposal by Mr. O'Brien that we might give some time to finishing the same-sex union report and tabling something without recommendations, just to tell people what we heard while we travelled, and so on. We also have the solicitation laws, which Mr. Macklin brought up.

    Is there anything else we want to bring forth? Mr. Breitkreuz and Mr. McKay.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have a motion before the committee regarding the firearms regulations. I ask the chair's advice, but I believe there's a time limit on the consideration of that. I think it's one month, but maybe you can clarify that. How much time do we have to consider the government's regulations that are laid before the House?

    The Chair: Until October 27.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's the time limit; we have to do it before that.

    The Chair: The date specifically is October 27—or before.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: So if we want to call witnesses or something, maybe that's...?

    The Chair: We'll have to make a decision on whether we wish to deal with it; otherwise, it goes back without comment. I think we've had some experience with that. In any case, I'm in the hands of the committee as to where that fits in the list of things before us.

    So we now have Mr. Breitkreuz's motion.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I just have another point for clarification, but does the entire committee have to deal with those regulations or can a subcommittee hear from witnesses?

    The Chair: The committee will decide if that's its wish.

    Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay: I'm just looking at the parliamentary calendar here. First of all, we realistically have four weeks left, the next week and the three weeks after Thanksgiving break. Then we get into the rumeur du jour, and I have no idea whether we have the next four weeks or we don't. Then we get rumours on top of rumours for the following period of time. So if you're anticipating trying to accomplish anything concrete in the next four weeks, I would endorse Mr. O'Brien's comments with respect to finishing that report on marriage and same-sex unions, which will have no recommendations attached to it.

    In my view, a couple of the other doables would be Bill C-33.... That's ready to go, isn't it? We could actually do that if we wanted to take it on. We don't have to worry about it being referred to the House. And there is the other one, Bill C-45, and then I think Bill C-46 is on its way. So those are three little ones from the government that actually could be accomplished.

    Putting on my hat as the chair of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, it may be that Bill C-33 has some relevance to that, although I'm not so familiar with the bill as to know whether Taiwan would be included in it. Right now, we have all of Taiwan's bad guys show up here and we can't do anything with them. The next point has to do with the minister of justice coming a week Thursday. The Government of Canada has seen it fit not to grant him a visa, so he will not be able to attend. Apparently the “timing” is bad. So I just wanted to advise the committee of that, because it means we will have time on that Thursday morning that we might otherwise have devoted to the minister.

    My approach is that given the realistic political climate in which we live, the smaller stuff might be things that we could actually accomplish. I wouldn't even take a crack at Bill C-20 until we know what our time as a committee is going to be. I am also very intrigued by Richard's motion; I don't know how it would play through, but I think it's a timely motion, and one that I would be interested in going through with.

    So that would be my schedule.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I certainly appreciated listening to my colleagues on their order of preference and the reasons for it, so I'd like to state mine.

    I think we definitely, as a committee, need to pay proper public respect to the witnesses we heard during our study of marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions. It's clear, as has been stated by some of my colleagues on both sides, that any recommendations are moot, but to do a summative report I think would be beneficial. And I think we owe it to all of the witnesses who came before this committee, in some cases at certain cost to themselves, whether it was in terms of travel time or time spent in preparing their briefs and testimony.

    So I would certainly agree this is something this committee needs to get done and definitely can get done between now and the end of October.

    I also would agree we need to move on M-192 and that today, in this committee, we should do whatever needs to be done so that subcommittee can actually get up and become operational.

    I agree with Mr. Macklin on the issue of Bill C-20. I think it should be a priority for this committee, and if possible, it should be one of the first, if not the first, pieces of government legislation we work on.

    Then in terms of government legislation, after dealing with Bill C-20, we would move to Bill C-23. This committee did in fact conduct its hearings and was at the point of moving to clause-by-clause when the House adjourned in June.

    Anyone who reads the papers knows that the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice and the solicitors-general are meeting this week, and we've heard statements made by provincial and territorial ministers on the sex registry. So on the one hand we need to move on that, but I think it would also be very respectful to wait to see the outcome of those meetings. That's why I would see us moving on Bill C-23 to clause-by-clause once we've dealt with Bill C-20.

    Regarding Bill C-33, yes. And in answer to my colleague John McKay's question on whether or not Taiwan would be affected by it, having read the legislation, I feel it would allow the government to make administrative arrangements, which it cannot do right now, with administrative entities that are not recognized as states on their own. So I think that's something that needs to be dealt with as well.

    Then bills C-45 and C-46, once they're both ready to be dealt with in committee, would come afterward.

    Those are my preferences, and their order.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Is there anyone else?

    Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): In respect of the marriage and legal recognition of same-sex union issue, I don't really see any sense in going ahead. This is a government that has allowed the courts to pre-empt the committee, and all this will do is pay lip service to the representations that were made by Canadians across this country.

    Whatever the committee decides on that issue, we will be putting forward recommendations. Whether the committee does or not, certainly as a caucus we will be putting forward recommendations, so we can proceed on that if you would like.

    In respect of--

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Excuse me. Are you saying we should proceed to generate a report in the way it was described earlier, or would your party insist on appending recommendations to it?

    Mr. Vic Toews: We will bring forward a dissenting report that will include recommendations.

    In respect of Bill C-20, there's a lot of work to be done on that in terms of witnesses. I don't know how much of it we're going to get done. It's an important piece of legislation. Our caucus has very serious concerns about the adequacy of that legislation, and certainly we'd like to hear from people about their concerns on it, but that will take a lot of time.

    I'm just trying to look at what I consider priorities or doable things, and regarding Bill C-23, I think it's clear where the government is going with that particular bill. We've heard a lot of witnesses. We certainly have some substantive concerns about that particular legislation and would be offering substantive amendments. But I think we should deal with both Bill C-20 and Bill C-23 if we can, or at least start on Bill C-20.

    In respect to Bill C-33, I don't think there's much opposition. We can see where we can fit it in. I might be speaking out of turn in terms of my caucus, but I don't see much problem with Bill C-33.

    I would like to see bills C-45 and C-46 proceed. We are in principle in agreement with those bills, although we see concerns that need to be addressed.

    Those are my comments on these issues. I don't think there's anything we've missed. I know there have been other issues, but we're simply going to be running out of time.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Mr. Toews, do I understand, then, that you would see us going to clause-by-clause on Bill C-23, understanding that you are going to be making a number of amendments? That puts that one there.

    When you say a lot of time on Bill C-20, what does that mean to you?

    Mr. Vic Toews: I've been contacted by numerous organizations that want to make submissions in respect of that particular bill. I don't know how many witnesses are being called by government members, but we certainly want to see a number of organizations present their concerns.

    The Chair: Mr. Macklin, and then I'll go to Mr. O'Brien, but I just want a response to that.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Again, I don't believe the witness list is that extensive, those that the government has in hand at the moment. I would ask the clerk if he could enlighten us on that number.

    The Chair: I have it here. We all received it, I believe.

    Let's distinguish this. You'll see three columns. The first means they have submitted a brief. The second column suggests they wish to appear, and the third column suggests they've been invited to appear. I think, as I look quickly through this, there are just two we've actually identified as invited. And we have five per page, 25 or 30 here.

    There may be some duplication, Mr. Toews, with names that you would have representation from as well.

    Mr. Vic Toews: In respect to that issue, organizations have approached me and indicated they were told they were not allowed to make representation, so I'll have to clarify that. I don't see that organization on here as having made a request.

    The Chair: They might have been advised that we weren't inviting anybody, perhaps, at that point. But we've taken all the briefs that have been submitted; we didn't kick them back.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I do see the organization I was referring to. All right, we'll examine this to see whether it satisfies our needs.

    The Chair: Phil reminds me that at our request--they solicited briefs last spring--if you recall, when we finished we asked them to begin to get ready so that we would be ready to move quickly in the fall.

    So the question I'm pondering--I see we go immediately to clause-by-clause in Bill C-23--is I still don't have a sense of the committee's view as to how much time we're going to be spending on Bill C-20.

    I would also like a response to the suggestion Mr. McKay made that bills C-45 and C-46 would probably go quite quickly, and if I don't see someone say that's unlikely, then I would assume that as well.

    So the only real question is how long we'll spend on Bill C-20, and then we'll move to the other issues that we would also like to fill in the space.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Also, it wasn't named as one of the important bills, but I think one that could get fairly speedy attention is Bill C-40, the amendment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

    The Chair: That's in the House. We don't have it yet. It has not been debated.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Okay. Is that down for this week, or next week?

    So the chances of that happening are--

    The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm going to go to Mr. O'Brien. I've jumped over him three or four times.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. I'm kind of speaking to the whole paper, because I think we almost have to.

    The Chair: We're all doing that.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, we've all been doing that.

    Maybe the opposition doesn't see any value in finishing that. I still think there is value in doing a similar report--almost a responsibility. I don't want to create a big, long process. I hope it wouldn't take too long. But I think perhaps the final comment of that report--at least I would support it and make it myself if necessary--is to decry the fact that the government rendered the process rather farcical, and any recommendation, as the minister had originally asked for...it rendered that irrelevant when it didn't live up to its vote in the House to take all necessary steps to defend the definition of marriage--which has now been reversed, but at the time of that report was still very operative. So I'll somehow or other make those comments in the House of Commons individually if necessary.

    So I still think there's some value in that. If we decide, I don't know how long that would take.

    In the spirit of trying to be multipartisan or as non-partisan as possible--and I think most of the committees try to do that, some more successfully than others, and I think we've been attempting to do that in my short time here--I want to support Monsieur Marceau's idea of looking at the appointment process for Supreme Court of Canada and courts of appeal judges. I don't think it's a secret that I'm not happy with three particular judges in Ontario and the incredible arrogance they showed in making such an important decision and having immediate effect. That's the point of arrogance, having immediate effect--not the judgment they made, which is their job, whether I agree with it or not.

    I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure you hear it, there is a tremendous concern about our courts and how they're appointed and how they function. I've had this expressed from even former ministers of justice in this government who were, quite frankly, surprised that it would have immediate effect. If I can be specific, people who support same-sex marriage, the redefinition of marriage, were still taken aback by the immediate effect of that judgment--many, many members of Parliament, well-renowned lawyers in their own right.

    You see information recently--in the Calgary paper, I think--where the impartiality of judges is being questioned, where they're seen at social functions with people who have appeared or are going to appear in front of them on very important matters.

    I think our colleague Monsieur Marceau is on to something important, and in the spirit of partisan cooperation around here and in that short timeframe that John McKay very realistically explained to us, it might be an issue we could bite into. I can tell you, I believe it's very relevant to the Canadian public right now, and after all, that's who we're here to serve. So I support that suggestion from Monsieur Marceau.

    The Chair: If we look at the list, I think we probably have a sufficient amount on the table right now to keep us busy until the middle of November, if that's the timeframe we're working to.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: How many times a week will the committee meet? If there are two meetings a week, could we increase that to three?

[English]

    The Chair: I'm prepared to suggest that we do five, that we start Tuesday morning at 9 or 11 a.m. and finish Thursday at 1 p.m. That would give us two on Tuesday, one on Wednesday afternoon, and two on Thursday. That would be five.

    All we get preferred space for is 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday. After that, we're basically negotiating, but given how much work we have, I think we could make a pretty compelling case.

    Does anyone object to what we're looking at?

Á  (1135)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: There will be no sitting on Thursday afternoon.

[English]

    The Chair: No, until one o'clock.

    There are two blocks of time on Thursday, 9 to 11 and 11 to 1 p.m. Wednesday afternoon and Tuesday morning, either starting at 11 o'clock, thereby giving us four, or starting at 9 o'clock and giving us five.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Fine.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

[English]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: If everyone on the committee is in agreement, let's try to get the 9 to 11, then we have our 11 to 1, say, on the Tuesday. That will depend on...one, I'm not sure how members organize their travel arrangements and, second, what other committees they are obliged to take part in.

    But if committee members are available for the Tuesday, 9 to 11, in addition to our regular block and the Thursday 9 to 11 in addition to the 11 to 1, that would basically give us two extra sessions per week. You'll have to poll the committee members to see whether or not they're available and whether or not they're interested.

    The Chair: We're never going to have a better turnout--

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Than right now.

    The Chair: --to get our minds around this than we do right now.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Exactly.

    The Chair: Unless somebody raises a flag, I'm going to assume that we can go 9 and 11 on Tuesday; 3:30 on Wednesday; 9 and 11 Thursday. That gives us five sessions a week. I think that's as much as we can ask others to try to keep up with. Do we agree on that?

    We have in play here the possibility.... Let me first identify what we have agreed to do for certain. Bill C-33, Bill C-23, Bill C-45 and Bill C-46 when that bill comes to us. There's interest in Bill C-20, but we have to deal with how long that's going to take, because that could pre-empt the other ones if we intend to put too much time on it.

    For 25 witnesses, that's a solid week. Is that what we understand as being a lot of time on Bill C-20?

    Do we all agree that this is what we're talking about? That makes it doable, to do Bill C-20, Bill C-23, Bill C-33, Bill C-45, and Bill C-46.

    We have on the table the possibility of finishing the report. In fact, I'd like to initiate this because we've already agreed on it, but we did it in June and then we didn't start. That is Motion 192 on solicitation laws. In fact, I'd like to initiate that subcommittee today if I can get unanimous consent to do so.

    Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: On that point, I'm going to guess that that subcommittee exercise is going to take half a year of work. Looking at the realities around here now, given what we're into in the House, I wonder whether the people who would populate that subcommittee would realistically hope to be able to finish their work.

    It would be a real shame to invest in that and not have it completed before the end of the Parliament. But that's something the members of the subcommittee would have to address. I don't think we should push the button on it and say, “Here you go, guys, go and do it”, if they aren't prepared to accept the realities and tailor their work schedules to make sure they finish the work before the Parliament dissolves.

    The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Nystrom, then I'll ask if anyone remembers the discussion we had about this in the spring. We started it, but I'm not sure how far along we took it. I think we were asking the whips to provide names, then once that happened we would strike a committee with those names. That's where we are right now. I don't know of any overwhelming reason that we wouldn't do what we said we were going to do. They'll decide, Derek, whether it makes sense in the present context or not.

    Mr. Nystrom.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): First of all, I apologize to the committee. I was late because the opposition day today in the House is under my name, so I had to stay in the House.

    Very briefly, Mr. Chair, the priorities that we have are Bill C-20 and Bill C-23, in that order. Also, Bill C-45, the Westray bill, is extremely important to us. I'd like to see that facilitated as quickly as possible, then Bill C-46, which is the capital market fraud bill, and other things that are included in it.

    In summary, Bill C-20, Bill C-23, Bill C-45, and Bill C-46. I don't know if anybody has mentioned Westray yet, but that certainly should be there.

    The Chair: Exactly. We're off to a good start.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I wanted to be on the record for that, Mr. Chair, and I apologize again for being late.

    The Chair: Also, Bill C-33, transfer of offenders. There doesn't seem to be a concern that there would be a lot of objection. Consequently, that is one we considered would be quite quickly done.

    On the question of the solicitation laws, Mr. Nystrom, that's in response to a private member's motion coming from your party.

    We have solicited names, and the committee decided we were going to have six members. They are Hedy Fry, Paddy Torsney, Richard Marceau, Chuck Cadman, Libby Davies, and Inky Mark. Can I entertain a motion to mandate the clerk to begin the proceedings to put that committee together? And Mr. Lee is invited to attend as a witness to advise them about their schedule.

    Can I have a motion? Moved by Mr. Macklin.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: We still have outstanding, then, Mr. Breitkreuz on firearms, Mr. Marceau on judges, and Mr. O'Brien on same-sex marriage.

    We don't have to reach a resolution, because we don't have to deal with those today. We have enough work to get us started, and members who feel strongly about those other pieces can perhaps speak to others and try to begin the process of generating the numbers. I'll go to Mr. Toews and then Mr. McKay.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I know that support was stated for the appointment process for the Supreme Court of Canada and courts of appeal judges. That's something my party is very interested in and we would certainly give some priority to that discussion as well.

    I wanted to put that on the record, but otherwise I agree with the comments of the chair.

    The Chair: Next is Mr. McKay, and then Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. John McKay: This is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. Can Bill C-23 be readied and available by this time next week?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

    The Chair: That will probably be right on our to do list.

    Mr. John McKay: Then maybe one or two or three of the other small ones. Then they're back in the House and then you could go to Bill C-20.

    The Chair: We have a couple of issues. One of them has to do with securing money to call witnesses. We have money for Bill C-23, but that's all. We have no witnesses. As soon as we can actually get that started, I don't know how long it will take for us to be ready and how much time the opposition intends to bring amendments to Bill C-23, although we were there in June, so presumably much of that work has been done. Am I right?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: We've heard some of the witnesses. There may be other witnesses we still want to bring forward who this summer showed an interest in--

    The Chair: I asked whether we were ready to go to clause-by-clause.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: That's what you're on about?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mrs. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My understanding was that this committee was prepared to go to clause-by-clause, had made that determination, and the only thing that stopped us was the adjournment of the House for the summer.

    I suggest that the only reason we're not going to clause-by-clause by, say, Thursday, for instance, is because there is the FPT meeting and we know that the issue of the sex offender registry is on the agenda. So wait and see if anything transpires, is there a substantive change, support, whatever, because the sex offender registry was billed on the agreement of the consensus that was made between the FPT. So basically we should schedule it provisionally for next week, and if there's a major change, the Solicitor General will inform us of that.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: I got the impression from Mr. Toews that they had a number of amendments they'd like to bring forward, but that wouldn't get in the way of our proceeding as quickly as possible.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I've been following the comments of the provincial attorneys general on this issue. They're concerned about the present state of the bill. I don't know whether there will be amendments forthcoming as a result of that discussion. That may make some of our proposed amendments moot. I would agree with Ms. Jennings that we might want to put that down the list a little bit and wait and see what the fallout is from the meeting of the justice ministers.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: In answer to Mr. McKay's question as to whether or not Bill C-23 would be ready for this time next week, I would say Thursday of next week. That would certainly provide enough time to know the results and changes, if any, agreed to at the FPT. It would also allow time for members of the committee, whether opposition members or whatever, to prepare proposed amendments if they so desire and to get them before the clerk in time, etc. I think that would give more than enough time.

    The Chair: We see this unfolding. The problem is, of course, that we have a whole bunch of things that could start in about 10 days, and that will cost us the week.

    I would like to go with witnesses on Bill -20 this week, as much as we can fill it up. These people have submitted briefs. So we'll see as many people as we can get on Bill C-20 as early as tomorrow. They've already done their briefs. We have a list of 25 people who have done that. They all want to get in. This is their shot. So we'll do that as early as tomorrow.

    Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay: Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General ready to go on Bill C-33?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

    The Chair: So the minister would appear on Bill C-33.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We'll arrange--

    The Chair: Let me anticipate a problem and see if we can fix it right now. If the minister cannot appear, given the fact that this is not a contentious issue--

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Are you're talking about the minister appearing this week on Bill C-33?

    The Chair: We're talking about things that we could do this week. Is it necessary that the minister appear? No. That's my point. If we can get the minister, he'll appear. If he can't, we'll have someone from the department appear. That will initiate this. Is that okay?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: With regard to the witness list for Bill C-20, do I take it that we're inviting everybody who's on this list?

    The Chair: Right now we have 25 names. We have actually identified two groups, the Police Association and the Civil Liberties Association. I would take advice from members of the committee on the balance that are there and any that aren't there. What I'm saying is take a look at the list to see the people who have submitted briefs. It seems a lot less unfair to ask people who have submitted briefs over the summer to appear on one day's notice.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Is it routine to invite everyone who has indicated a desire to be a witness?

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: No, we don't have to. We'll decide that as a committee. All I'm saying is that--

    Mr. Derek Lee: The decision is still to be made on who will be the witnesses. That's fine.Thank you.

    The Chair: I would take advice from members of the committee to the staff as to those who are not on that list that they would want to make sure are included. That's my point.

    Is there anything else? Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear colleagues from the Liberal Party as well as my colleague from the Canadian Alliance say that they wanted to begin the study of the process to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and to the appeal courts. There will be a vote tomorrow. I would like us to examine this in advance with a view to having us begin this study before November 7 at some point, because I believe that whatever our position on same-sex marriage, we have heard a great deal about that now and the committee has also heard about the power judges wield, etc. I think that as this involves the very basic structure of our legal system, we should at least demonstrate that parliamentarians have heard the message and are ready to undertake this type of study.

[English]

    The Chair: I think there seems to be a lot of interest, Mr. Marceau. We don't have it yet. There are some issues in the House, I presume, that affect getting it here.

    Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I would hope we could pin down the work for the next month as much as possible today, and I know that's what you're trying to achieve.

    I heard a mixed message on the same-sex marriage issue. My preference would be to finish the report, but I don't think it's a big deal whether we do or don't. That would be my preference, but if we're going to do that, if the decision is to do it, then let's do it. That's the piece of work that's been before us most recently that's unfinished, so I would say to tackle that if we're going to. If we're not, it doesn't break my heart. I think the message was all too clear in June, when the government rendered the process, as I say, pretty much a farce.

    I very much support Monsieur Marceau's initiative and I applaud it. At least two or three of us on this side have spoken in favour of it; the official opposition did, and obviously Monsieur Marceau did, and I think we ought to get to that sooner rather than later. I think Monsieur Marceau's initiative is a very good piece on the process.

    The Chair: Again, I'll remind everybody that we're waiting for it to get here.

    Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Everyone is eager to go, but it will be difficult.

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the possibility of beginning to hear witnesses with a single day's notice. This isn't really fair to the witnesses if we want to begin studying Bill C-20 immediately, for instance.

    In light of the fact that even though there may not be unanimity, there is a consensus, I believe, on the issue of marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex couples, we could prepare a report that would be a type of summary. We don't need to hear anyone. We have already heard witnesses and we had reached the point of finalizing the report, without, however, having reached the stage of recommendations. I think that this is something we could move to this week and this would give us time to contact witnesses, or the first witnesses, for our study of Bill C-20. This would give them enough time to prepare to appear perhaps at the beginning of next week, since this is already Tuesday.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm looking for a reaction, but for my part, given the fact that briefs have been prepared, expressions have been made, and we have a field of maybe 20 to work from, I think we can probably get a couple of panels in this week. That's one.

    The second thing is that we can get the officials to come in on Bill C-33 if we can't get the minister. We should be able to arrange that on very short notice. Consequently, given that we had more to do than we had time to do, I was trying to find those things we all wanted to do to fill the space, because ultimately that seemed to be the fairest way to proceed.

    The one thing that's outstanding is the fact that Mr. O'Brien and others...although no one has made a passionate case for this, and Mr. Toews and I think the Alliance have expressed less interest in this.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Vic Toews: Let's put it this way. I don't want to simply pay lip service to work Canadians have put into making representations. I think they've already been slighted very badly. I don't see how, by just drafting a report that is essentially milquetoast, we will be very clear in our position, and we will make our recommendations and issue a dissenting report. Some of the things I've heard from Mr. O'Brien indicate that we may have support on the other side for some of our recommendations or the positions we'll be taking.

    It does in fact tie in the issue of how judges are appointed in this country, which is a very important issue for us. I don't know whether our doing anything here at this time is going to advance that, but certainly, if this committee wants to proceed on that, we will be ready to proceed and we will have our report and recommendations done as quickly as possible.

    The Chair: Now, we have enough to get us started. I'm not asking for a decision to be made on that subject today unless somebody wants to pursue it more aggressively.

    I'd like people to talk, I think everyone knows where we're going from here, and we're going to go as quickly as we can. We have as possibilities for the balance of this week witnesses on Bill C-20 and the minister or officials from the department on Bill C-33. Do we all agree?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Based on the discussion we've had today, I'll fill out the balance and come back to you in the meetings this week with something that will articulate how we'll do the rest of it.

    It's my understanding that the subcommittee will name their own chair on the solicitation laws in M-192. We don't have to do anything other than pass a motion asking the clerk to call their meeting.

    Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I didn't hear a definite answer, or if we did, I missed it. Are we then saying we're definitely committing to those five meetings?

    The Chair: Yes. I'm sorry, that's the impression I got. Nobody objected.

    These are the five meetings. From now until the middle of November we're going to do 9 and 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 3:30 on Wednesday, and 9 and 11 on Thursday. Please understand that 11 to 1 on Tuesday and Thursday is our designated time, so the place we'll have will be what we're accustomed to, while the rest of it is going to be a scramble.

    The other thing is that we're going to need a resolution on budget. Because it'll have to be prepared based on the decision we've taken today, at the first meeting we have after today we're going to be coming forward with a budget proposal so we can get the money to call the witnesses we need to call. So please come with the same level of interest we have here today so we can actually make decisions with quorum.

    If there's nothing else, the meeting is adjourned.