JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, October 25, 1999

• 1538

[Translation]

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

In accordance with Standing Order 106(1), our first item of business is the election of a chairman.

[English]

Honourable members, I see a quorum. In conformity with Standing Order 106(1), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

Madame Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I would like to nominate, if I can, Mr. Paul DeVillers, and I ask that he do take the chair as committee chairman.

The Clerk: It is moved by Aileen Carroll that Paul DeVillers do take the chair as the committee chair.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Monsieur Greffier, it's an honour for me to accept, but I just want to explain to the committee that I'm involved in a caucus election process. I don't want to accept it under false pretences. I'm prepared to accept, and subject to the results of the caucus elections—obviously there is a 50-50 chance I will not win because there are two candidates in the caucus election—I'd be honoured to stay on as chair in that event.

The Clerk: Merci, Mr. DeVillers.

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

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 1540

The Clerk: I declare Monsieur DeVillers duly elected chair of the committee and invite him to take the chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

[English]

Before we move on to the next order of business, which is the election of the vice-chairs, I would just like to say that it's my honour to serve as chair for however long that might be. I want to establish and confirm that I see the role of the committee as doing the work in as non-partisan a fashion as possible. I think everyone will find that when things are presented to us, I will respond in a businesslike, non-partisan fashion. I think you'll also find that I will not be as patient when I feel we're into partisanship.

So before we start any disputes, I just want it on the record that I think the opposition parties in particular will have no difficulty with me so long as we're trying to advance the business we're here to do in committee.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): We're never partisan.

The Chair: Not at all.

[Translation]

I wanted to be clear on that point.

[English]

The next business is the election of the two vice-chairs.

Is it the opposition chair first, or is it government?

The Clerk: There's no specific rule.

The Chair: Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I move that Andy Scott be elected a vice-chair of the committee.

The Chair: That would be the government vice-chair.

Are there any other nominations?

Do you accept, Mr. Scott?

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): I do, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: There being no further nominations, I'll call the question and confirm the election of Mr. Scott as the government vice-chair.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Now for the opposition vice-chair. Is there a nomination?

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott: I'd like to nominate Mr. Cadman as a vice-chair.

The Chair: Do you accept the nomination, Mr. Cadman?

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): I do, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are there any other nominations for vice-chair? If not, is the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Congratulations, Mr. Cadman, as the vice-chair.

Now we'll turn to routine motions. These are motions the committee will operate under if it's our will to do so.

The first one is with regard to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, known as the steering committee. The motion would have the chair, two vice-chairs, parliamentary secretaries—and bear in mind that although there are three parliamentary secretaries on this committee, the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General's parliamentary secretary would be the parliamentary secretaries referred to here—and a representative of each of the Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party compose a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Under the item Library of Parliament: 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 Chairman. Mr. Clerk, how many research officers did the committee retain in the past, one or several?

• 1545

[English]

The Clerk: Well, there is a senior analyst who is normally assigned to the Standing Committee on Justice, Mr. Philip Rosen, and he has colleagues who assist the committee, depending on the subject matter at hand.

I see in the room we have Marilyn with us. In the back there is Lyne Casavant, who is a researcher who has been helping with the subcommittee.

So this motion is routine. It's there because it highlights the discretion the committee has to either ask for the services from the library or not. It's at the committee's discretion.

The Chair: Will someone move that motion then?

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Okay. Maybe our researchers could join us at the table.

The third routine motion: 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 was a standard motion that we had last time.

Yes, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that the foreign affairs committee on October 21 this year decided to go to a 24-hour period, as opposed to a 48-hour period. So we have a precedent.

I recognize the reason for having a notice of motion. It allows a more orderly manner of bringing issues before this committee and properly gives the government an opportunity to review what it is that is going to be brought before the committee. However, I think that a 24-hour period is sufficient notice. I think that 48 hours is unnecessary and has the potential in certain situations that we could speculate on... Let's just say that it does have the potential to hamper the committee being able to respond in a timely manner to issues if they arise very quickly.

To reiterate, I think 24 hours does the service to the government of having notice of motion, but it does not hamper the ability of the committee to respond in a timely manner.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Can the clerk tell me if this presents any procedural problems?

The Clerk: No, it's for the committee to decide.

[English]

The Chair: Any other comments on going from the previous 48 hours to 24 hours? Monsieur Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Up until now, we had 48 hours, and that seemed to work very well. I really see no point in changing this. I concur with the 48-hour notice provision.

[English]

The Chair: Any further comments or discussion?

Then maybe we'll consider Mr. Abbott's intervention as an amendment to the motion that's before the committee and deal with the amendment, which is to go to a 24-hour instead of a 48-hour notice.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Motion number four concerns the distribution of papers: that the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to circulate the documents received only when they exist in both official languages. That was the motion agreed to during the previous session. Mr. Bellehumeur is moving the motion. Are there any comments?

• 1550

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Next is hearing witnesses and absence of quorum. The motion is 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. That's a motion we had in the last session as well. Is there a proposer of the motion?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Motion number six concerns witness expenses: that, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and if requested, reasonable traveling, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the Committee up to a maximum of two (2) representatives for any one organization and that payment for more than two(2) representatives in exceptional circumstances be at the discretion of the Chair.

The mover of this motion is Ms. Carroll.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: On time allocation, the motion is that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statements and, 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 the government and the opposition parties. I think that is identical to the way the committee functioned in the last session.

Is there a mover of that motion?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I so move.

The Chair: Any discussion? Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, it seems to me, for the sake of the discussion, that seven minutes is a long time. As they say in church, if you can't get it out in about three, you've lost your audience anyway. I wondered if we could compromise and say five minutes instead of seven, and then three. I'd even go so far as to say the witnesses should be cut back on their time, but I'll go now with reducing the seven minutes to five.

The Chair: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I think we would find, in taking a look at the brief history, which I've been involved with in this committee, in any event, that this formula seemed to be the best compromise in the best interests of both the government and the opposition. While sometimes it's preferable, from an opposition perspective, to look at even more than seven minutes, we also have to recognize that fair is fair. I would suggest that five minutes, particularly in very detailed questioning of witnesses, considering that that is questions and answers from the witnesses, would be too little time. I think the formula we've had is a working formula. I would recommend we stay with it.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): I would similarly speak in favour of leaving the allocated time at seven minutes for the first round of questioning. I say this in a non-partisan way, but oftentimes we see members of the government departments, or ministers themselves, taking six minutes and 38 seconds to answer a question. It is, as has been put forward by Mr. Abbott, questions and answers, and seven minutes can go pretty quickly. You may end up asking only one or two questions in that time period.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): If I could add, the purpose is to examine the legislation. Often even when we had ten minutes I know that members on this side used to be left frustrated because there was insufficient time to examine the legislation. The purpose of the committee is to examine the legislation and make recommendations to strengthen it, support it, or whatever. If we reduce the time, as both my colleague and Mr. MacKay have indicated, I think we're defeating the purpose to adequately and properly examine a bill to ensure that the best possible bill goes forward when it goes back to the House.

• 1555

The Chair: Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: In a word, Mr. Chair, maybe in Justice it takes seven minutes; however, it is longer than any other committee I've sat on. Indeed, while we don't do all bills—nor does Justice, but Justice does more—we certainly have examined bills in my committees. We were 96 hours examining CEPA. Had we had seven minutes instead of five we'd still be there.

It's up to the committee to decide. I just thought I would mention it.

The Chair: Did you wish to make that a formal amendment, Ms. Carroll?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes, I would like to make an amendment that we change it from seven to five. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Could we have a mover for the motion as drafted?

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Motion number eight, working lunches: that the Committee authorize the Chairman, from time to time, as the need arises, to take, in conjunction with the Clerk of the Committee, the appropriate measures to provide lunches for the Committee and its sub-committees, for working purposes, and that the cost of these lunches be charged to the budget of the Committee.

The mover of this motion is Mr. Martin.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: This is not one of the usual routine motions, but it deals with the reconstitution of the subcommittee on CCRA. The motion is that the subcommittee on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be reconstituted with the same party representation, that the membership be designated by the whips of the various parties, that the budget of the subcommittee be allocated from within the budget of the standing committee, and that the chair of the subcommittee be—and we need a name here.

Just by way of background, this is the subcommittee on CCRA that is about 95% to 99% finished its work. I think we are all labouring under the understanding that it would be basically the same people who would be reappointed and would be able to continue the work of that committee.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I don't know if you're calling for nominations on this, but I nominate Tom Wappel. Is he still going to be a member of the main committee?

The Chair: The way the motion is, the whips would do the appointment. I can inform you that I have been in communication with our whip and we will have the same composition on the subcommittee that was there previously. That was the understanding I thought we had with all parties.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So my question again is, are you saying that the whip is going to appoint the chair of the subcommittee?

The Chair: No, not the chair, but the members of the committee.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right. So the fact that Mr. Tom Wappel may not be a member of the main committee doesn't bar his participation in the subcommittee. Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes. He would be appointed an associate member of the committee and then on to the subcommittee.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: The question still remains, bouncing off where Mr. MacKay was coming from: Is it our place, as the standing committee, to name the chair?

The Chair: Yes, to name the chair, and then the whips of the various parties will fill up the other spots.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I understand then that Mr. MacKay has moved the name of Mr. Tom Wappel.

The Chair: I'm sorry. Was that as chair of the committee?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, that's correct.

The Chair: All right. I'm sorry. I thought you were nominating members of the committee.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): For my clarification, is there any difficulty, perhaps through you to the clerk, with the chair of the committee as a whole being also chair of the subcommittee?

The Clerk: There's no procedural problem with that.

Mr. John Maloney: Then it makes sense to me, if you're 95% or 99% finished with the report, that Mr. Paul DeVillers, as previous chair of the subcommittee, continue as chair of the subcommittee until it has submitted its report.

• 1600

The Chair: Well, we already had Mr. Wappel's name put into nomination—unless you're willing to amend that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm certainly willing to withdraw Mr. Wappel's name, as long as nobody tells him I'm withdrawing it. I'm only kidding.

I certainly have no problem with you continuing. I guess when I nominated Mr. Wappel it was on the understanding that you would be stepping down.

Can I ask what the timeframe is in which the subcommittee would be reporting?

The Chair: After the committee is constituted, there will be a meeting. At our discussions, Mr. Grose and I were in Saskatoon when the rest of the subcommittee wasn't, and there were issues that came up there. So we would be bringing to the subcommittee some of those concerns, which may involve hearing some further testimony or at least written submissions on a couple of points. Notwithstanding that, I still expect—and Phil might be able to help me out here—that we would be able to report certainly before Christmas.

Mr. Peter MacKay: My only concern, Mr. Chair, with respect, is that as a member of both the subcommittee and the main committee, I know personally, having been in that position, that there is sometimes a conflict as to when the two committees are meeting.

The Chair: Yes. I think we would try to avoid that at all costs, by going the Monday afternoons and perhaps even evenings, if the members of the subcommittee are agreeable, in order to get this work completed.

Do we have a nomination for the chair of the subcommittee?

Mr. John Maloney: Is the honourable member withdrawing his nomination?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I withdraw the name of Tom Wappel and substitute your own, Mr. Chair, if you would accept the nomination.

The Chair: Thank you. That wasn't too hard to arrange.

Any further nominations?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): The Liberals may already have decided which of their members will serve on this sub-committee, but my party has not yet come to a decision about this. It certainly won't be the same member who served last time around, because he is no longer the justice critic. I don't know whether the whips have come to some kind of agreement, but it seems to me that we are being asked today to select a new sub-committee. Shouldn't we wait until the whips have submitted some names before we proceed any further?

The Chairman: Last time, the whips had appointed...

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Have the whips supplied you with the names of those members who will serve on the Sub-committee on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act?

The Chairman: No, not yet, but the clerk will be in touch with them after our meeting.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Then, should we be selecting a chairman before the membership is even designated?

The Chairman: That's how we proceeded last time around.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That doesn't seem right to me.

The Chairman: Well, that's what we did last time.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: As Tom Wappel was saying, he is not even an associate member. Do whatever you want, but this seems rather odd to me.

The Chairman: This is a sub-committee of the main committee, which can proceed whichever way it likes. The Committee is free to decide how to go about designating the membership of its own sub- committee.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We've just passed a motion agreeing to the reconstitution of the Sub-committee on Corrections and Conditional Release Act, with the same party representation.

The Chairman: That's correct, with the same...

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The sub-committee is composed of x number of Liberals, opposition party members and so forth.

The Chairman: Correct.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We've agreed that the membership be designated by the whips of the various parties. That comes later, although we do seem to be in the process of appointing the sub- committee chairman.

The Chairman: Perhaps we could add the words, "with the exception of the chairman".

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That would make a difference.

The Chairman: Then, let's do it.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Fine.

The Chairman: Mr. Clerk, we'd like to add the word "with the exception of the chairman", who will be chosen by this committee, whereas other sub-committee members will be designated by the whips.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Now you're talking.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Do we have a mover of that motion as clarified?

Mr. Andy Scott: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1605

[Translation]

The Chairman: Motion number 10 pertains to the purchase of documents: that documents for the use of the Committee and its members may be purchased from time to time, at the discretion of the Chair. Last time, we purchased copies of the Criminal Code. Is there anything else we might want to purchase?

The Clerk: Well, we purchased several copies of Derek Lee's book. There is also a new version of the Criminal Code in the works.

The Chairman: Yes, there is. The mover of this motion is Mr. MacKay.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: Number 11, presence of staff at in camera meetings: that each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings unless there is a decision for a particular meeting to exclude all staff. That's the standard motion we had last session as well. Is there a mover for the motion?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Motion number 12 pertains to the transcripts of in camera meetings: that one copy of the transcript of all in camera meetings be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation. The mover of the motion is Mr. Martin.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: Number 13, private members' business: that when a private member's bill is referred, the committee agrees to put the bill on its agenda in order to invite the member to explain the bill to the committee and to decide on its work plan. Normally that goes to the steering committee to fit it into the business of the committee. Is there a mover for that motion?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Motion number 14, order in council appointments: that the Clerk circulate to all Members of the Committee Order in Council appointments referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. So moved by Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Abbott.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would like to propose that whenever an Order in Council for appointment or a certificate of nomination for appointment is referred to the committee, a copy of the résumé of each appointee or nominee will be circulated.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Which documents are presently circulated, Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk: At present, order in council appointments are circulated.

[English]

The Chair: Phil is confirming that only the order is circulated now, not the... It's the bios you were looking for, wasn't it?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I believe the committee would be able to make a more informed judgment and have more informed discussion if the résumé of each appointee or nominee was circulated to each member of the committee.

The Chair: Okay. Any further discussion on that point?

[Translation]

Do you wish to comment, Mr. Saada?

[English]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes. I'm sorry, I don't have a hearing piece. Could you give again the reason why you would like to have that, please?

Mr. Jim Abbott: There is presumably some reason for these appointments to come before the committee: so the committee can take a look at them, perhaps pass judgment on them, whatever the purpose is of the coming before the committee. Therefore, rather than just the bare fact that John Smith is appointed to the position of A, we would have John Smith's résumé—these are the facts about him. So the members of the committee would be properly informed, so that if indeed the committee was going to be making any comment or whatever, it would be an informed comment. We would all be working from the same information.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: In theory, I don't have a problem with this request, but from a purely technical standpoint, there is a problem. I don't really see any point in our receiving a large number of curriculum vitaes. If we're interested in a particular appointment, then obviously we should a copy of that person's c.v. I simply want to avoid receiving countless copies which we might never have time to consider. I have a problem with this on a practical level, not on principle.

• 1610

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Researcher, for information, how many are there? Is this something that could be a problem, cutting down a lot of trees?

Mr. Philip Rosen (Committee Researcher): They could be sent to you electronically. You receive Order-in-Council appointees to the National Parole Board, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, certain deputy heads of certain agencies, Security Intelligence Review Committee, and so on. I don't know what the numbers are, but there aren't hundreds and hundreds; there are probably more like dozens. A lot of the CVs that I've seen are very often just a page or two.

The Chair: Okay. Would you like to make that an amendment, Mr. Abbott, to the motion?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Whatever the appropriate wording would be. It would be that whenever an Order in Council for appointment or a certificate of nomination for appointment is referred to the committee, a copy of the résumé of each appointee or nominee be circulated to all members of the committee.

The Chair: Okay. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Yes, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: In the past we have had the appointees appear before the committee. I think the committee has a right to make that request of all appointees except to the bench. So in terms of time and so on, this is much less cumbersome than calling those people before the committee, as we have done in the past.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: That brings us to the end of the routine motions.

Yes, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I'm not quite sure where it's appropriate on the agenda to raise the issue, but on routine motions appears to be appropriate. After two years of sitting on this committee, I've come to the view that this committee needs independent counsel. First of all, I'd like to put that on the agenda as a matter for discussion by the committee, but also to see whether there is money in budgets to retain independent counsel.

The issues we are constantly facing are potentially litigious and frequently are issues on which reasonable counsel can disagree. I don't know that the committee has ever retained independent counsel to give it advice. So I think this would be as good a time as any to discuss whether we should, as a point of budgeting and also as a point of principle, put on the agenda whether we should have independent counsel to exclusively advise the committee on not only charter issues but on other issues of a technical nature that come before us. Clearly, we get the government's position frequently well articulated and frequently well presented from a legal standpoint, but we don't necessarily hear from other counsel who make take another view except insofar as they are witnesses. So I'd like to put that forward as a point of discussion for the committee.

The Chair: Well, we do have the services of the research branch in the Library of Parliament. I sort of look upon Mr. Rosen as our independent counsel for one, but I don't know...

Mr. John McKay: I don't think Mr. Rosen would describe himself as independent counsel to the committee, as capable a lawyer as he is.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: We did at one time have independent counsel. We had two of them. I think what blew them away was the number of interventions members of the committee asked during the examination of Bill C-68, the firearms bill. But we did have them. I agree with Mr. McKay. They served a very valuable service to the committee. Members of the opposition ask often for the opinion of the committee's legal counsel. So I would certainly support us going back to what we had in terms of those legal services for the committee.

The Chair: Are you referring to legislative drafters? We have that now. That's a service here.

• 1615

Mr. Jack Ramsay: No. These were legal counsel.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, I think it is a very user-friendly non-partisan motion that's been put forward by my clansman here. I mean that in the Scottish sense.

An hon. member: We knew that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Having independent counsel here, we've even run into situations in the two years that I've been here where I think witnesses have been under certain pressures as to what they can and cannot say and what they choose to say. I think in particular it's non-partisan, because we often are faced with a barrage of justice department lawyers. I'm not going to get into any commentary there, but having an independent counsel here to answer questions in a non-partisan, strictly legal sense I think would be very helpful to all members of the committee, regardless of political affiliation.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I object to this proposal. I think it would be extremely difficult to find an independent expert who would be paid by the government. Each party has its own advisors. Soon we will be examining the Young Offenders Act and hearing from numerous witnesses, including lawyers. I think some of them have nothing to lose by giving us a very independent opinion of this draft legislation.

In my view, this proposal entails an additional, unnecessary expense and we should forget about it. Let me give you the example of an independent expert whom I remember quite well. This person appeared before the committee during the 35th Parliament. He acted as an independent export in the Jacob affair. As the members of the Justice Committee will recall, the services of this independent expert had been quite costly. I respect the views of this individual who is an expert on House procedure, but when there was a possibility that his responses might not please the government, then his comments were much less detailed.

While ideally, it would be nice to retain the services of an independent expert, I contend that such an expert is impossible to find as long as he or she is paid by the government. Any expert who happens to be on the government payroll will always have a tendency to speak from a government perspective. I understand that a government member is the person responsible for making this suggestion. If I were in your shoes, I would be making the same request. No, I'm staunchly opposed to this suggestion.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Well, the first point is that I don't believe they will be paid by the government. They'll be paid by the committee. There's quite a distinction, in my mind, between what the government wants and what the committee wants.

The committee is independent—in theory, at least. We review legislation by both the government and private members and we review it impartially and we arrive at our decisions. I'm not going to get into the theories and the realities, but my first point would be that it's paid by the committee.

The second point is that justice department lawyers are very good, but they're also captive of their client. When you are a lawyer, as Mr. Bellehumeur well knows, you speak on behalf of your client. You may think differently and you may believe differently, but you speak on behalf of your client. This is a not a direct or indirect implied criticism of justice department lawyers. I think they do a fine job.

The third point is that witnesses who appear before us as counsel—and we have very valuable witnesses who come here as counsel—are coming with a particular viewpoint, and it is a viewpoint that is not necessarily independent. So I think, as a point of principle and as a point of budgeting, that we should keep the notion of an independent counsel in place and that we should refer to our independent counsel. That independent counsel is independent of the government, independent of the witnesses, and independent of the justice department.

• 1620

The Chair: Okay. I see that other people want to intervene, but at this point I'd like to suggest that this be a matter that we refer to the steering committee. We can get advice on budgeting, on committee procedure, and what the precedents have been in the past. We'd invite you, Mr. McKay, and any other committee members who might be interested, to come to that steering committee and make your argument there.

First of all, we need a clarification of whether this is something, apart from the principle of it, budget-wise or procedurally, that is doable within the committee structure.

Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, can all of us be advised of the next meeting of that steering committee?

The Chair: Yes. We'll call it a steering committee meeting. That was the next order of business, to set that first steering committee meeting to be able to determine the business of the committee.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have a request of the committee, and I don't think we need a motion on this. As the committee may be aware, my colleague Val Meredith has a point of privilege before the Speaker with respect to certain conduct that she was concerned about as far as CSIS was concerned. As part of the intervention, at the conclusion of her remarks, which were very substantive, I drew to the Speaker's attention the fact that when Mr. Elcock appeared as a witness at budget, I believe it was non-partisan, that every party was concerned about his reticence to answer the questions. My comments about that will be my comments about that.

I mentioned that. I gave him the date of that meeting. He was going to be getting the Hansard from that committee meeting. I also mentioned that as a result of the non-partisan concerns about his reticence to testify, we had had an in camera meeting. Of course, it being an in camera meeting, none of us have minutes from that meeting, which is very understandable.

I wonder if there would be any problem—whatever procedure we need to go through here—for me to suggest that the Speaker, and the Speaker only, be given a copy of the minutes of that in camera meeting as they relate to him taking a look at this point of privilege currently before the House.

The Chair: Any comments on that point?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Wouldn't it make more sense for the Speaker to make whatever request he needs to make, instead of our requesting something?

The Chairman: Are you referring to the Speaker of the House?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes. That would seem to make more sense to me.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: If that's the case, that resolves the problem, but it was my understanding, from Mr. Marleau, that the Speaker could request until he's blue in the face, but the committee, being master of its own destiny, would decide whether the minutes would be available to the Speaker. I was simply trying to expedite this, this being the first meeting of the justice committee.

Mr. Jacques Saada: You're putting two problems at the same time. One problem is the prerogative of the Speaker of the House to ask for any document from any committee, and the second is whether or not we should release in camera documents. My statement had nothing to do with the actual position I would have on the release of such a document, but as to the process. I would certainly suspect that the normal way to go would be that if the Speaker needs to have a document, he would ask for it from the committee. That's all.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: As I recall, during the 35th Parliament, minutes of proceedings were drawn up for every in camera meeting and members all received a copy.

The Chairman: Perhaps the clerk could enlighten us on this score.

The Clerk: When members request a transcript of an in camera meeting, I forward it to their office. As is spelled out in motion 12 which we passed today, I receive a copy of the transcript of the in camera meeting. Only one copy is produced, I keep it in my office and I destroy these documents at the end of the Parliament.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Therefore, if I want a copy, I call you and you'll arrange to send one to me. Is that right?

The Clerk: Yes, if you attended the meeting as a member.

• 1625

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Where's the problem?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Abbott, are you...

Mr. Jim Abbott: I take it then that proper procedure would be if Mr. Speaker is interested in receiving a copy, he would send a request to... Would it be to the clerk or to the committee? To the committee.

The Chair: The clerk has just enlightened me. If as a member of the committee you request a copy of that meeting, the clerk can provide you with a copy of it.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Just so I know, so that I don't step in it somewhere, what are my restrictions with that copy? Can I give that to the Speaker of the House? I don't want to step in it.

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott: Mr. Chair, it seems to me that by order of proceeding here, the committee will be asked to make a decision when the Speaker requests the transcript. So we wait. The Speaker is now seized with an issue and he has to decide how to proceed. If he decides that he wishes to seek a copy of the transcript from the committee, we are the masters of our destiny and we'll decide at that time. To debate it in advance of having received the request doesn't seem to be a good use of our time.

The Chair: Is it your understanding, Mr. Abbott, that that request will be forthcoming to the committee?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I can just tell you that the Speaker, when I made my intervention, asked me in the House if I could provide him with copies of both of the meetings, and one of them of course was in camera. I took my advice from Mr. Marleau that I relay it to the committee.

The Chair: I think Mr. Scott's point is that the Speaker should make that request.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: If I can just address Mr. Abbott's request...I don't want to get myself in trouble.

I believe if we have a meeting in camera and a participant in that meeting requests a copy of the transcript, fine, but I think it is incumbent upon that individual that it go no further than his eyes only. To do otherwise would be very inappropriate and a breach of the confidence of the committee.

Have we finished with Mr. McKay's point yet? I think your intervention was eminently wise, but—

The Chair: We will refer it to the steering committee and then invite all members to come out to discuss that point at the steering committee.

Is that your understanding, Mr. McKay?

Mr. John McKay: That's my understanding.

The Chair: I guess our next order would be to determine the appropriate time for the steering committee meeting.

Do we know yet, Mr. Clerk, when our regular committee meetings are going to be, within the scheme of the committee structure?

The Clerk: No, we don't. Now that you've been elected chair, you can call committee meetings. Committee meetings are called at the call of the chair, if I can put it that way.

The Chair: Yes, but within the committee structure there are parties who get together and committees get together.

The Clerk: We are free to proceed as we see fit.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Again, on Mr. McKay's issue, would it be possible to have some type of preliminary report that we could examine covering the issues we discussed, like costs and—

The Chair: Yes. We are going to look into budgeting and what the process is, etc., so we can be prepared for that steering committee meeting.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: In addition to that, could that report also include the past record of this committee with regard to independent counsel?

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott: Mr. Chair, would it be possible for the clerk to provide that meeting also with some sense of the secretariat capacity inside the Library of Parliament?

I can recall, for instance, when we did the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the counsel who was available to the committee and the justice lawyers went at it with a level of intensity that would speak to some level of independence. I would like to know how that works and what's available through the normal course of things before making the decision as to whether that's sufficient. If you could come prepared to give some answers around that, I think it would be helpful to inform the discussion.

• 1630

The Chair: How does Thursday morning sound for the steering committee meeting?

[Translation]

Does that leave you enough time to prepare your report?

[English]

We won't call it a steering committee meeting; we'll call it a future business in camera meeting of the entire committee. That will be Thursday morning at eleven o'clock.

A voice: Is that sufficient time for the report?

The Chair: Yes, it is. We'll have that report ready, and we'll discuss that issue as well as future business at that time.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is it possible to have that meeting earlier than eleven o'clock?

The Chair: Ten o'clock on Thursday? Okay. The notice will be sent out by the clerk's office in the usual fashion, but it will be ten o'clock on Thursday morning.

[Translation]

Is there anything further? No?

[English]

The meeting is adjourned.