Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on Oct. 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

You have had a chance to do that.

On the amendment, is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Let me read the amendment. The original motion is as follows: Ms. Jennings moved that clause-by-clause begin on Tuesday, November 20, from nine a.m. to one p.m., and that if not completed we would resume sitting on Wednesday, November 21, beginning at 3:30 p.m., and we would sit until clause-by-clause is completed. The amendment Mr. Moore moved was that the committee meet on Wednesday from 3:30 to 5:30, if necessary.

On the amendment, is it agreed?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

The original motion as I read it is what we are now voting on. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed?

It's a tie.

[An hon. member]

I had my hand up.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Pay attention, guys. You only get to vote once.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy. We do need to make sure that when we are voting we nail this thing so that I don't make any mistakes. I'd hate to do that and have a vote go in a way that causes all kinds of consternation. So when I do call for the vote, I would appreciate you voting when you need to.

Those in favour of the motion proposed by Ms. Jennings? Those opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I want to raise an issue that may result in my putting a motion before this committee, and it has to do with the work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

We're basically finished with our agenda, so we're into other business. As long as we're able to get it done fairly quickly, Ms. Jennings, please proceed.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Very briefly, a number of members from all of the different parties have raised the actual substance of what the committee should be doing when we're hearing from witnesses. If my ears do not betray me, I think I actually heard that the three parties--and if we include the official opposition, four parties--are in agreement that this committee should be hearing witnesses on Bill C-27. That's my first point.

Secondly, while we would not call back the witnesses who were already heard by the special committee on Bill C-27 before the prorogation of Parliament, there could be the possibility of calling them back.

The third point is that given that there was already a list of potential witnesses prepared by the previous special committee on Bill C-27, and we already know which witnesses were heard, which were not, and which had declined, I would suggest that this committee use that list as a basis for our potential witnesses.

I would propose that this committee agree that it will work on the Bill C-27 portion of Bill C-2, that it will use the potential witness list prepared by the previous committee as its witness list, and that the testimony--the transcripts of the testimonies--of witnesses heard by the previous committee be deemed to be part of our transcripts and therefore can be used by the members to refer to, etc.

I haven't worked it all out, but substantially it will be that the work that was done by the previous committee be deemed to be part of this work. Therefore, we can go to the transcripts, we can refer to them in our debates, in our discussions, if necessary in proposed amendments, you name it, and if the committee feels that because Bill C-27 has been amended by the government and it's necessary to bring back the previous witnesses who have already testified, that could be a possibility as well. But I would suggest that rather than ask witnesses to come back, we propose that, unless they desire to come back, if they have comments on the government amendments to Bill C-27 found in Bill C-2, they make their views known on paper to the chair, through the clerk, and then to the members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you.

On the point of additional witnesses, when we were dealing with witnesses, the suggestion was made by Mr. Keddy I think that we not deem anyone inexcusable from any of the other bills. There was general acceptance from the group on that. I hope you're incorporating that into your thoughts.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

That's what I am doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Ménard and Mr. Moore.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I have three comments to make.

First, I agree, the committee should not go back over the work it has already done. However, we do wish to add names to the list of witnesses.

Then, I have two requests for our research service. I would like a table comparing the old Bill C-27 with the additions the government has made. I have asked the Department of Justice to provide it, but I do not hold out any great hope that we will get it. I want to have a table showing the additions to last session's Bill C-27.

In addition, I would someone to make us a table showing how things work in a court of law and the steps needed to declare someone a “dangerous offender”. I want a table that sets out the sequence of events for us, a summary, including the sections of the Criminal Code, of course.

Finally, the reason I wanted a steering committee—though I respect the committee's decision—is that I think that the government has been influenced by the American experience. I wish that we could hear from people from the United States who could tell us whether it worked or not. I would ask the research analyst to prepare for us a list of American scholars, jurists, and people responsible for administering the law who could come and share their experience with us. We know that Bill C-27 deals with matters in which the United States has had a lot of experience. The former clerk has already sent us studies, but I would like us, and the research analyst, to consider the possibility of having those three documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Before we move forward, Ms. Jennings, we're dealing with committee business here. Have you formulated into a motion the suggestions you've made?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

No, I haven't written anything down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Okay.

Maybe you can work with the clerk. She's been taking your comments to try to form them into a motion.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

On the floor right now are three things Ms. Jennings said and then three things Mr. Ménard said. We have a lot up in the air.

Number one, based on what Ms. Jennings said, we wouldn't even be hearing from the minister or from the experts within the department, because you're saying not to hear from witnesses we've already heard from on Bill C-27. There have been some amendments, as all members know, from what was in Bill C-27 to what is now in Bill C-2. Obviously, when we heard witnesses in the previous meetings, those would be eminent experts on this law. We need the benefit of hearing from them on the amendments that were made and on the bill. I don't think we should be limiting ourselves in that way.

Obviously, as a committee we're going to come to some agreement on who we should hear from, but we have to be careful before we come out with a broad motion that says we will not hear from certain witnesses we have heard from already. That sort of motion hamstrings us too much and limits potentially valuable testimony when we may need the benefit of their advice on the amendments that might be helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

If I understand the motion correctly--and we're working on it here--that's not the case in the sense that it allows for, and we have agreement on, witnesses to come forward if they feel there is an issue or a point within the context of the bill they would like to speak to. That would not preclude them from coming forward.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Chair, isn't that always the case, that a witness will decide whether they are going to appear or not? We can ask them. Obviously, we don't force people to appear. That's always the case, that they would appear only if they wanted to speak to the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

I think our motion goes beyond that to exclude people who have already given their testimony.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, is the research service going to provide us with the tables or not? We do not need a motion, but will we get the information I have asked for?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Mr. Ménard, could we get through this first, and then we'll deal with your issue as soon as we've finished this?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The last thing I want to do is hassle you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

I would never forget you; you know that.