Evidence of meeting #23 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Does this mean, Mr. Ménard, that this committee cannot resolve a matter on meeting to deal with the legislative material that's coming before it unless we run to the whips to get their permission to do it? Is that what you're saying?
Bloc
Bloc
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I don't want to put words into Mr. Ménard's mouth, but I am sympathetic to the critics on justice. It's not just the work in this committee; it's the work you have with bills in the House that you're often—because the government does media and talks about their legislation before it's tabled in the House—getting media requests to deal with. It's the same people who deal with it.
The concern Mr. Ménard raised with me was that he's hearing now that we're going to have legislative committees, and it's the same people who have to go and be the critics on those legislative committees on bills. You can't be physically in two places at once.
It seems that we gave some undertaking here saying we would up it to three. We were not aware at the time that legislative committees may be utilized to deal with more pieces of legislation, using the same people. This is the point he raised with me, and I think it's a valid point.
The point that I think he's making with respect to number two, and I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong, is that the way of going about figuring out how many meetings to allocate to a specific bill, and coming to us, as happened the last time on judges, when we haven't even determined--and a call hasn't even gone out from the clerk--what witnesses we would like to input into the system, has it a little bit backwards.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
The steering committee dealt with that, Ms. Barnes. In fact, the steering committee has dealt with a number of things, but unfortunately even the steering committee members suddenly want to change their minds on how the matter is to be handled. We can't get any business done in that fashion.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
We're getting business done, actually. We're doing quite well. We've had a lot of stuff through the House.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I would like to remind the committee that even in the previous government, the justice committee has always been one of the busiest committees, if not the busiest. Nothing has changed. The members are still under a substantial demand to get the job done, and this is not getting the job done. We can't even decide, as Mr. Ménard points out here, to deal with the legislative information that's coming at us, but want to go back to two meetings instead of the usual three that we're dealing with right now. You can't get the job done doing that.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
The government has to control its own agenda. We're not responsible for that. You could table nine bills; we're not responsible for that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I hear where you're coming from, Mr. Ménard. I can read between the lines.
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Is there any other discussion on this matter? We're still dealing with points one and two.
Mr. Moore.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I am still addressing the first point. In fact, the second and third points, in my opinion, are somewhat less important. The first point is of great interest to me. I think the issue is the work that will have to carry out over the course of the mandate that we have been given.
I understand that Mr. Ménard has decided to go back to two meetings, but I would like to point out to him that we have three days. If he cannot come on a given day, we could pass an amendment stipulating that there will no votes on that day. He would not have to be there and we could get on with our work. I am attempting, in fact, to bridge our positions. You want to stop completely, whereas I want to continue.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I am not indispensable; neither are you. If we have quorum, we can continue to sit for three days. How often are you away? How many times have I been away? There is no problem. We can still meet three times a week and keep things moving forward, in order to achieve results.
I am worried, but not about our agenda. We belong to one of the most important committees. We were not obliged to stand, neither you nor I. We accepted. If we increase the pace to three meetings of approximately three hours in length, between you and I, it will not kill us. You have worked much harder before. Perhaps you have personal activities; so do I. We have to forget about them, because we are at the service of the people. I believe that three days will be adequate. If you cannot come, Mr.Lemay will be present. Someone will replace you and will let you know what happened, as is sometimes the case for me. That is all.
Conservative
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I do have a concern. Are we going to be revisiting this type of thing weekly? I'm wondering why we even have a steering committee, if every time.... It is our job as a committee to come up with our terms and agenda; we set that. The steering committee sets how long we're going to study a particular bill. We agree on witnesses, and then week by week, we have to revisit it all. If that's going to be a recurring theme, I think it's a problem.
It concerns me that we've already agreed to meet three days a week, which in my opinion is very reasonable.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
With the calendar...and I know the previous parties had the same consideration, as to the legislative level that the justice committee ends up with. You cannot work without steering committee direction. That's Mr. Moore's point; I can understand it.
Points have been brought before the broad committee that the steering committee already established. They didn't seem to be good enough. That's not to say that they should be ratified totally, but it does speed things up and helps get the job done.
Mr. Bagnell.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
On number two, I have no problem. It's motherhood, and that's the way we operate.
Related to number one, this may be a question for Mr. Ménard. If this is your party policy for all committees now, I agree with whoever said that this has to go back to a discussion among the whips and House leaders, because we can't decide for all the committees. If this is going to be your stance towards all the committees, it has to be decided higher up than in just one committee.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm in favour of the change, Mr. Chair, because of the indication we now have that Bill C-27—and I have to assume that the government will be using this tactic on an ongoing basis—will be sent to a special legislative committee. This will make it impossible for me to maintain any kind of schedule to sit on that committee as well as on this one and public safety. Mr. Ménard is going to get caught in a somewhat similar situation.
It is important that the people sitting on justice continue to deal with all of these bills, if they come. Certainly the dangerous offender provisions have some overlay with a number of other bills—with Bill C-10 in particular, which is coming next—and to have different members of whatever caucus sitting on these different committees just begs for inconsistencies to crop up.
If, as the government has already signalled, it is going ahead with putting Bill C-27 into a legislative committee, it's logical that we make it possible for Mr. Ménard and me to be on both that legislative committee and this one, on an ongoing basis.
As I said, I will support this motion.