Justice Committee on June 15th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is the 24th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Tuesday, June 15, 2010.

I want to welcome all our witnesses. I also welcome a new member, at least for today, Lise Zarac.

Mr. Dechert, you have a point of order.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Arising out of our discussion at the last meeting of the committee, I'd like to make a motion concerning how we deal with the witnesses and a review of the legislation on Bill C-4. If that's appropriate, I'd like to read the motion.

I move that in light of the significant number of justice bills and other important issues before this committee, and recognizing the substantial number of witnesses who have already appeared before this committee with respect to Bill C-4, it is resolved that the justice committee proceed on the basis of the earlier agreement of its members to sit for an additional half hour at each scheduled meeting in order to hear all previously scheduled witnesses and conclude the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-4 prior to the summer recess of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have a motion on the table.

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, we did not receive notice. This motion is not in both official languages. I think it is not admissible. This is the first we have heard of it. I think you should reject this motion, since we have not received a copy of it, and this is the first we have heard of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

It's my understanding, Mr. Chair, that the motion is in order, as it refers to committee business and it's arising out of the discussion of the last meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

The difficulty we've encountered is that we had a system set up and we had a deadline to submit witnesses. There were witnesses submitted after the deadline, so we agreed to accept them if we sat longer hours and put more witnesses in a day. Then certain parties reneged on that.

We have, all together, 39 people on our witness list already, many of them representing the same constituency. So I'm in favour of Mr. Dechert's motion and I would ask you to call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Just before we move on with debate on the motion, I've consulted with our clerk and I am advised that the motion is in order because it involves committee business and we're in the middle of a bill review. So the motion would be in order.

Next we have Mr. Comartin, Ms. Mendes, and Monsieur Ménard.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I definitely will be speaking and voting against the motion. Personally, there is no way I can extend my hours for this committee meeting. On Tuesdays I have an executive caucus that I have to be at, at one o'clock, so an extra half hour would make it impossible for me to be here.

Secondly, from the review I've been doing of the witnesses we've already heard, there are obviously several of them who I want to call back. We got nowhere near full or adequate information from them of the expertise they brought.

Obviously we can't do it today, and the last day of the House is going to be on Thursday, so the motion really is impractical with regard to trying to finish this bill by Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I don't think we even have a point in the orders of the day that allows for committee business to be dealt with today. I would suggest that, to be respectful to our witnesses, we let them speak and at the end of the meeting we reserve some time to discuss this—15 minutes at the most.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It's my understanding that there's nothing preventing a member of this committee from making a motion. The only issue is whether 48 hours' notice is required. In other words, do we require a notice of motion or not? In this case, because it involves committee business and we're in the middle of a bill review, it is in order and it can be discussed here.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

We did discuss this. We have already brought this forth; we spent almost half an hour on it last week. We did discuss the reasons that we thought it would be very difficult to prolong the half hour. Mr. Comartin made the point just now that we have other things in our schedules and it is difficult to adjust. We only have one more meeting, in principle. That's the Thursday one, so it's going to be really very difficult to prolong this. I really don't know why we are coming back to this on the meeting before the last one, which is next Thursday.

We certainly will vote against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay.

We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

First, where is the translation? I require a French translation of the motion Mr. Dechert has made.

Second, if you decide, Mr. Chair, that the proceedings can be interrupted at any time when we are here to hear witnesses, and if you decide that a motion can be made at any time to change decisions we have already made, that rule will continue to apply for the next two hours. So we could decide in a half hour, after hearing the witnesses, to make a motion that would be the opposite of Mr. Dechert's.

Do I understand the meaning of your decision correctly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

The only decision I have taken is that the motion is in order, and I would remind the committee that this would be the third time the issue has been discussed at this table. There was a decision made for two-and-a-half-hour meetings. There was a decision made that clause-by-clause would occur on June 15 and a number of other matters dealt with at that time. Then, at our last meeting before last, there was a different motion made. It was debated at the time. Today there is another motion on the floor.

It is my role simply to determine whether a motion is in order or not. I have consulted with the clerks and they advise that this particular motion is in order. It can be debated here. It can be disposed of here. Ultimately, it will be voted on by this committee, hopefully, in short order.

The next one I have is Mr. Dechert, and then we'll move on to Monsieur Ménard again.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The reason I brought this motion forward today is that I certainly was under the previous understanding that this committee did want to deal with this bill expeditiously in the people's interest. It's obviously a very important issue for the people we all represent, and we had agreed to sit extra time. Certainly, there was the half hour tacked onto each scheduled meeting. I personally would be quite prepared to sit other hours as well, such as are necessary, because we have this looming deadline of the summer recess, and I think this is such an important issue for the people of Canada that we should be prepared to put in a little extra time to deal with this issue.

We've heard from many witnesses, many of them, as Mr. Woodworth pointed out, coming from a very similar constituency. There is still time to have some of those other witnesses back, if Mr. Comartin wishes to recall one or two. We have extra time in the evenings and other times when we could hear this. It is very important for the people of Canada that we move this bill forward, especially given, as everyone knows, that we have a great deal of additional legislation--private members' bills and government bills--coming before this committee. We have reports to consider. I think we're getting bogged down and we need to move forward.

It was my understanding that everyone had previously agreed to sit the extra half hours and to try to deal with those witnesses whom we had already scheduled before the end of June. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

So I appeal to the members of this committee, in the interests of the constituents who we all serve, to make a statement here that they're prepared to work a little extra time to deal with the important justice issues that are before us. This is legislation that, in my opinion, will protect Canadian citizens and prevent future victims, and it is very important to the Canadian people that we are very diligent in our review of this legislation. For those reasons, I would ask each member of this committee to support this motion, and hopefully we'll be able to move this forward. By the time we return in the fall, we will be able to deal expeditiously as well with the other important legislation, both from the private members' side and the government side, which I know will be coming before this committee very soon.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

The clerk's list shows Mr. Norlock, Mr. Lemay, Ms. Mendes, and Mr. Woodworth.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I am still waiting for the translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We're going to go to Mr. Norlock and then Mr. Lemay.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My apologies to the witnesses.

I somewhat agree with Ms. Mendes with regard to the witnesses being here, but if the chair has decided that this issue is a point of order to come first, we'll just simply say that Mr. Dechert said most of what I have to say, so I'll keep my comments rather brief.

My comments are not for the members of this committee. My comments are for the people of Canada, if they're listening to this. I've been on other committees. I'm on one other very important committee, public safety. We have agreed to sit longer hours. Members are able to get replacements, as we can see around this table, whenever it's necessary to get replacements if we have other exigencies of our positions as members of Parliament. We can sit longer. It is possible to sit longer. The House itself sits longer when it's necessary to do so. The argument that we don't have.... We are all very time-constrained and we have other members of our caucus to rely upon. This is, as I said for the people of my riding and the people of Canada, an obvious attempt.... We see it on other committees and we're seeing it in the House. This is an obvious attempt by the official opposition to slow down government business so that it can say nothing got done in this Parliament.

We had a previous agreement on this committee to sit longer hours. If that's the wish of the opposition, to listen to more witnesses, we can do so by sitting longer hours. I know our witnesses care very much about what evidence they're going to present to us and that they would accommodate us in order to do that. This is an obvious attempt, and I'm not going to say it again, but this is an obvious attempt to slow down the business of the governance of this country and the legislation we pass, for political reasons.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, we are probably going to vote on this motion in a minute. I think the motion will be rejected and I hope it will be rejected quickly. We have witnesses who are waiting and waiting and whom we did not warn that there would be a motion, unlike what we did last time. We informed people at the beginning of the meeting that we would be making a motion to revisit decisions, and we did not even adopt the motion, Mr. Chair. This committee has never agreed to the possibility of sitting for two and a half hours in the evening. That was the first point.

What is even more distressing is to hear members of this government tell us they have the will, they are nice, they are intelligent, and they are ready. And yet, gentlemen, you know it was your government that prorogued the session and made us start six weeks late. Imagine where we would be on this bill if we had started in January. You know very well that the bill would have been passed. That was the second point.

On the third point, I invite you to listen again to what I said in the House concerning this bill. You don't often listen to what we say. If you did listen, you would know that I said it was an extremely important bill, that it deserved our full attention, and that we were going to take the time to study it carefully. Unlike some of you, I have already sent the list of witnesses I want to recall before the committee. There are far too many. I can assure you that none of those witnesses comes from my riding or from around my riding. Now stop going on about this. We have work to do and we have to do it right. It will take the time it takes.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I think we should vote on this motion immediately so we can hear our witnesses, at last.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Mendes.