JUST Committee Meeting

     Honourable members of the committee,

I see a quorum.

    I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair.

    The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order, nor participate in debate.

    We can now proceed to the election of the chair.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party.

    Madame Boivin.

    I would like to nominate Dave MacKenzie.

    Are there any further motions?

    Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Mr. MacKenzie duly elected chair of the committee.

    An hon. member: If only all our elections were like that.

    The Clerk: Before inviting Mr. MacKenzie to take the chair, if the committee wishes, we will now proceed to the election of the vice-chairs.

    Monsieur Goguen.

    I nominate Françoise Boivin.

    Are there any further motions?

    Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Ms. Boivin duly elected first vice-chair of the committee.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Clerk: Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition.

    I propose Irwin Cotler.

    Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Mr. Cotler duly elected second vice-chair of the committee.

    I will now invite the chair to come forward.

    I thank the committee.

    I look forward to this session. I think we had a very good, collegial first session, and I don't see any reason why anything would change. The make-up of the committee is pretty consistent.

    We welcome Mr. Casey here to fill in for Mr. Cotler; I understand Mr. Cotler is away for good reason.

    If it's all right with everybody, we need to do this with unanimous consent, to move into future business. Typically we would do it with a subcommittee, but when the whole committee is present.... I don't think we need to be in camera. If that's all right, we can move right into it. That way, it will save the committee time. I don't know that we're going to be pressed for time in this session, but it always seems that there are things that come up. If we can save a day here or a day there, it's good for us. If there's some suggestion as to what we do for a schedule, please present it.

    Madam Findlay.

    I would propose that we move into a study of Bill C-36. I'm informed that the Minister of Justice is available for this Thursday, so he could attend for one hour. There are officials who could stay after, if necessary.

    It would then be my suggestion that we file our notice of witnesses on both sides by the end of the business day on Thursday. Next week, on Tuesday and Thursday, we would then be dealing with our witnesses. Depending on availability, we can either do a government witness day and an opposition witness day or we can do it half and half. Tuesdays and Thursdays would be the days. I know we have four witnesses we intend to propose. I understand there may be four or five on the other side. That will take us up to the break, which would then leave clause-by-clause consideration for the following Tuesday, which I believe is October 16.

    That would be my proposal.

    I just want things to be very clear. This Thursday, the minister is available. That's perfect; we can use Thursday for that. During our planned meeting time, officials could stay if we have other technical questions to ask them about the proposed bill.

    Unless I am mistaken, after that we have two days left before the break. If we have two days left, in my opinion, those would probably be two days to hear witnesses. You think you only need one day to hear your witnesses, the equivalent of two hours for your four witnesses? As I told my colleague, it depends, because we might have the same witnesses as well. So we will exchange that information before Thursday.

    For our part, we have already chosen our witnesses. We are already prepared to begin working on Bill C-36. If we happen to have the same witnesses, that could have an effect on the number and the length. Otherwise, we would just have to ensure we have two per hour, if that's right, unless it's four per hour. What do you suggest? Do you want us to plan for two witnesses per hour?

     It is two witnesses per hour.

    Okay, excellent. If we keep that pace.... I think we have five, if my memory serves me correctly, but if we have the same.... We all know to send it by Thursday.

    Just for clarification, you indicated next Thursday. Do you mean this coming Thursday?

    This coming Thursday is for the minister and Tuesday and Thursday of next week are for hearing witnesses.

    Yes, but it is this Thursday for providing the list of witnesses to the clerk.

    It is this Thursday for the list of witnesses. It may be that we already have them, so if we get them in earlier, that would be fine. I know the clerk would like that. However, it must be no later than the close of business on Thursday.

    It's always better to be safe than sorry. Let's say we send our list and you do the contact. It's not always easy for people; some might not be able to come on the Tuesday or the Thursday, so are we open to not freaking out when we come back from the break if we have to add maybe a Tuesday to accommodate some of our witnesses? Is that okay with you?

    That's okay. I think we anticipated it. There might be a need for using, say, the first hour on the Tuesday to deal with that. It's not a long piece of legislation, so we can deal with clause-by-clause study later on that Tuesday.

    Okay, perfect.

    Is there anything else?

    The meeting is adjourned.