Evidence of meeting #1 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was estimates.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I see.
All right, then, with that amendment, which was moved by Monsieur Ménard, I'll put the question.
(Motion as amended agreed to)
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Next is private members' business. I'll get someone to move it. I have to read it myself.
It's not clear what the intent is. In any event, it looks fairly harmless, and if someone wants to move it, we'll adopt it.
Mr. Brown is moving it.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
The motion for transcripts of in camera meetings looks pretty standard.
It is moved by Mr. Comartin.
Any discussion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Next we have notices of motions. This one sometimes gets a little debate.
Mr. Moore is moving this one. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
Is there any debate on this 48-hour notice provision? In my experience, it seems to have worked well.
Mr. Thompson.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I know a new committee has been struck this session regarding safety and security. Police officers and the correctional and parole services are now under a new group of people, where they used to be in this committee. The reason I'm talking about it is that I want to remind myself that this has now happened and that when we present motions to this committee, they are applicable to this committee and not the other one.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Is there any further discussion?
I will put the motion.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Madam Clerk, that exhausts the routine motions.
At some point, as much as members may not want to, we have to address future business. We have to go to work.
Could the clerk tell us what's in the hopper--what has been referred to this committee by the House, if anything?
3:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes. We already have received the Anti-terrorism Act revision. Also, there's another statutory requirement on organized crime that has been sent to the committee. The minister also sent two bills this morning, Bill C-9 and Bill C-10. I have to remind myself what they are.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk
That's it.
So that's where we are.
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk
No.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Actually referred to this committee so far are the Bill C-36 review and the organized crime review.
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk
You also have the main estimates.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
The main estimates--and aren't there two others? Yes, two other justice bills on the order paper have not come through yet.
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk
They have only had first reading in the House.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Okay. We have four bills in the House that have had first reading only. They're not here yet. We have two statutory reviews and the estimates.
Already we have a full agenda, I regret to say.
Monsieur Ménard.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I was genuinely surprised to see the study of the antiterrorist legislation referred to the Standing Committee on Justice. When the Justice and Public Safety Committee were one single entity, we truly felt that this bill was first and foremost the responsibility of public safety officials.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can tell us why the government did not deem it advisable to refer this bill to the Public Safety and National Security Committee which generally has less on its plate than the Justice Committee. As you know, six or seven of every ten bills are referred to the Justice Committee for review. Moreover, security certificates are the responsibility of the MInister of Public Security, Mr. Stockwell Day.
Unless we receive new information, I'm tempted to make representations to my party's leader in the House, Michel Gauthier, asking that the process of referring bills to committee be reviewed.
I realize that it's the government's prerogative to select the committee to which it wishes to refer legislation, but could someone explain to me why, in this particular instance, it chose to refer this bill to the justice committee rather than to the public safety committee?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Mr. Bagnell is next, and then Mr. Thompson.
By the way, not to embarrass anybody, is there a parliamentary secretary in the justice envelope here? You are, Rob. Sorry. If you would like to speak to this, you could, now or later.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Part of the rationale--of course, there is some overlap, as with many other issues--is that overall, it came to our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights because it deals with rights. With these certificates and so on, a lot of rights issues come into play, and that's why it was referred to this committee.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I've actually raised this with the House leaders, because I agree with Mr. Ménard--it really makes no sense that it be here.
I'm the only one from public security from last time. We spent a whole year doing that review. It clearly had more relevance to the security area than it did to the justice area, in spite of the fact that Mr. Moore's point that it has relevance to justice issues--civil liberties and civil rights issues in particular--is well taken. The reality is that's how it was handled in the last Parliament. There are still three of us who went through that review left on the public security committee, so there is a corporate history there that just makes sense.
In any event, I did raise it at the House leaders' meeting on Tuesday. Whether they're going to review it and perhaps send it to public security is under consideration.
The argument I made at that point I'll repeat here. We have already seen what our agenda is like. If we're going to do an adequate review, as we are legally mandated to do under that statute, we're looking at the better part of six months or more, even with heavy hearings, to get through all that evidence again. I don't think the government is prepared to wait that long on this.
I have one final point, Mr. Chair.
This issue may be better dealt with if we met as the smaller group, the agenda and procedure committee, to try to hammer out priorities.