Evidence of meeting #1 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hours.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I would think in at least 48 hours. You folks have been through a lot of this already. I have not, but 48 hours should give everyone time to get a list of witnesses in place.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Do you mean forty-eight hours beginning right now, or at the end of this meeting?
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
We have no objection. We were going to suggest Friday, November 2, but just as a point of information to Mr. Keddy, the justice committee had begun hearing from witnesses on Bill C-27, for example, and the list of witnesses that had been agreed to by the justice committee, including which ones had actually been heard from, is available. I actually have a copy here. It's quite substantive. I would be surprised if it were not all-encompassing given that I think most, if not all, of the members on the justice committee did a very good job, including the government members, to ensure that all viewpoints were going to be heard on Bill C-27. Obviously our clerk and our research analyst can easily get this list. If they can't, I can provide it to them. Therefore I suggest November 2 for the list of witnesses.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Actually, I know that this will certainly be discussed at the steering committee, but I would have liked a look at it first. Do my colleagues want to see a list of all the witnesses? When we discussed it with our leaders, we definitely said that we wanted the committee to concentrate its efforts on the contentious matters from the previous session, that is to say Bill C-27.
I would not want us, for example, to hear again from all the witnesses that we heard in the last session when we were discussing Bills C-10, C-22, C-32 and C-37. I would like us to spend more time on Bill C-27 that caused us difficulty. I wonder if all my colleagues are of the same mind, given that it is more or less what the leaders agreed among themselves when they were discussing the legislative committee.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
My point is quite simple. We're only dealing with the number of hours, whether it's going to be 48 hours or 72 hours. I recommend 48 hours. That gives everybody time to get their lists in. It wasn't a point of debate; it was just 48 hours. If someone disagrees with that, that's their position on it. I think we can move on.
Conservative
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I share the concerns.
I have a correction for Ms. Jennings. Bill C-27 was actually in front of a special legislative committee as well; it wasn't in front of the justice committee.
It's a bit out of order, but for this item and I think the final one on the subcommittee, do we have any understanding...? I know a number of people on the government side did not sit through any of these bills. I think three of the six who are on the government side did sit through some of them. But do we have an understanding that we're not going to go back over four of the five and that we're only going to spend time, as far as witnesses go, with what was Bill C-27 in its former incarnation?
If that's the case, Mr. Chair, the reason I'm raising it at this point is that the witness list should only be addressing that portion of Bill C-2 that is reflective of the dangerous offender and recognizance sections.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I must say we're not dealing with the timeframe anymore.
On the amendment with respect to notice of November 1, can we at least vote on that? We'll then move to what sounds like an amendment that you'll make, Mr. Comartin.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
November 1 is the deadline.
(Amendment agreed to)
Mr. Comartin, are you prepared to move an amendment or further your point? Actually, you've made your point. I think we need to get general agreement from the group that this is how we're going to proceed, or we need to have an amendment on your point with respect to Bill C-27 and the additional bills dealt with in the previous session.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Perhaps, Mr. Chair, what we should do is finish the next two points. Maybe this issue should be resolved by the.... I don't know if we're going to set up an agenda and procedure committee, if that's necessary given the shortage of time that we're dealing with, but perhaps we should finish this and then add that for discussion.
Conservative
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I just want to be clear on one point, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
The point of clarification is quite simple. We're not precluding revisiting any witnesses. We're simply saying we'd sooner not go back over the information in the same groups we've heard from before, but we're not precluding that because there may be instances where we need to. We're not trying to tie our hands either.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
No, I would actually like to finish this and then come back.
On amendments, are we agreed?
