Justice Committee on Feb. 9th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Obviously it's a good motion and I think the Liberal side would agree with it. Unlike some motions, it doesn't have within it the estimated number of hearings. Perhaps that's because we will submit it to the subcommittee or the steering committee.

But I would wonder what was in the mind of the parliamentary secretary in terms of who he'd like to meet. We have had a go at this and we have had a number of witnesses, and it might be useful for the education of the steering committee to submit each party's vision of how many days might be required and what witnesses would be required. Is that the intention?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I think we could study this for three meetings--in light of the fact that most of us around the table have already done some study on impaired driving--as long as the steering committee, as well as the committee, felt we were getting a broad enough spectrum of witnesses and were able to do the issue justice. But in my view, three meetings on this subject would be worthwhile.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, and then Mr. Comartin.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The Bloc Québécois is also of the opinion that any study under way should be completed before a new one is undertaken. The only thing that worries me is the wording of the motion. There is no mention made of the fact that the Chair shall report back to the House. Would the parliamentary secretary like a proper report, that is would he like to be mandated to report back to the House? Or is the objective simply to hold consultations? If that is the case, then I think we should amend the motion. The clerk can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the motion needs to be worded in technical terms so that the Chair is required to report back to the House. I saw no such wording in Mr. Moore's motion. Perhaps he does not want the Chair to report back to the House. If so, that needs to be clearly stated. Do you in fact want the Chair to report back to the House?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

For now, I'm happy with the motion as it is. I think for us to get into drafting a report and findings takes additional time. I'll certainly consider that, but I'd like to see us bring forward some witnesses who are dealing with the subject matter at hand. There are some topics here that we haven't really delved into much as a committee. Most of our focus in the last session of Parliament focused on drug-impaired driving, and this is dealing with impaired driving and blood alcohol levels. It's something that interested committee members when we had witnesses here speaking about drug-impaired driving.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm merely trying to understand what point there would be to not having a report. Will we simply have the committee's minutes of proceedings to refer back to? What will be the purpose of this whole exercise? It's not that I really object to the fact that there won't be a report, but in my view, we need to be aware that the scope of our work will be more limited in that case. Do you not think that our ultimate goal should be to produce a report?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

What I'd like to suggest is that we move forward with the motion as presently drafted. When we move in camera and we discuss the work plan, we can also talk about whether the work to be done on the impaired driving study will actually form the basis of a report and be reported to the House.

Is that acceptable? We're going to have an in camera meeting—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

It is not the usual way of doing things, but if this is what the committee wants, then I will go along with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Actually, Mr. Comartin was next, and then Mr. Dosanjh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have various motions here today, so perhaps we need some direction from you as to how these are going to be prioritized, in terms of which one is going to get on the work schedule first. I don't know if we should be dealing with this issue as each motion is dealt with, or if we should come back to it.

Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with dealing with this one first in terms of our work schedule on matters other than government legislation. But I think we should be indicating that if we approve this, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be the first one we deal with; that issue will be determined at some point in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, and I didn't make that assumption either. However, in the steering committee, Mr. Comartin, you will recall that we did agree that the next three meetings after the Director of Public Prosecutions appears will be occupied with the impaired driving study. We can always change that, of course, but I would suggest that we go ahead with the motions and find out which one we're going to move forward with and then decide where they fit into our work study. And that, of course, is going to be done by consensus at this table.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have a motion on the table. We can do it by consent. Is everyone amenable to accepting this motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

There were four other motions. Are there any on which you expect there will be consensus?

I know, Monsieur Ménard, you had put forward a motion regarding a study.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Earlier, I spoke to the parliamentary secretary. We put some questions to the minister about organized crime. I think there might be a broad consensus on this matter, but perhaps you could check with our Liberal colleagues. Obviously, my motion calls for a report to be tabled to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Does everyone have a copy of this particular motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

What's your wish?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I know that Mr. Petit has some opinions on the subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I don't see Mr. Petit with his hand up.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

The scheduling of meetings remains the responsibility of the subcommittee. However, we support the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. Do we have a consensus then?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move forward with this study as well.

Now, there are three others. What's your wish? Those of you who have tabled these as notices of motion, could you let me know?