Mr. Moore.
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.
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.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
On the issue, then, of meeting three times a week, one thing that concerns me a bit is that we have the subcommittee meetings, they come back with a recommendation, the committee adopts the recommendation.... We have a large workload. It's the same workload as we had last week. The bills are there; there are even more bills now. Why we would back down, when three...?
I haven't been around forever, but I've been around two years. I know that three days is not uncommon or unreasonable when you have a heavy workload. We still have the same workload. I don't see why we would back down from three days to two, because we have a lot of bills on the agenda, a lot of studying to do as a committee. Committee members have said we need to take appropriate time to deal with witnesses, and so on. If we're going to do justice to some of these bills, we need to meet three times a week; otherwise we're not going to be able, in my opinion, to do them justice.
On my first point, Mr. Chair, I think as members we come out of these meetings and we vote.... I have it right in front of me: it was agreed that we would meet Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, from 3:30 to 5:30, so we all schedule accordingly. Then we have members saying we need to meet less often.
Why would we change these things midstream? What has changed?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I'm going to just change a few points that I agreed to at the beginning. I think we should discuss points one and two on this motion.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
As I understand it, at this point we are in public session. The question is whether we want to deal with the subject of future business in public session. We normally don't; we usually go in camera. I don't think the public record has to be burdened by all this back-and-forthing on the subject of our intricate schedules.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Excuse me, I am making a point of order...unless you have a very, very important point of order.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Can I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee to address whether or not we could move in camera, as we normally do for this type of discussion?
I suppose it's a motion, but....
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
May I at least respond to Mr. Lee, please?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Yes. I would like the discussion to be held in public. There has been a request to reduce our hours of work. When I sat on the legislative committee on Bill C-2 with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Moore, the same request to reduce the hours of work was made by Benoit Sauvageau. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party agreed to keep up the pace of our work, because we had to be accountable to our constituents. So I would like this request today to reduce our workload to be made publicly. He is entitled to his own opinion. This is my request to you.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, first of all, we are not asking for a decreased workload; we are asking to meet according to our schedule. If the Conservative Party whip wanted three meetings, that's what he should have asked for when the decision was made as to the workload of committees.
Why the request? Because when the matter was discussed, we had four bills to consider. Now there are 12. We are not responsible for the fact that the government has failed to properly manage its agenda. Stop tabling bills. There's nothing forcing us to move along at your pace. Three out of ten Canadians supported your bills; in other words, 7 out of 10 did not.
If the Conservative Party whip wants to discuss this matter with my whip, and the Liberal and NDP whips, he can go right ahead. But for the time being, the rule is two meetings per week per committee. I want to be clear on this point, especially for Mr. Petit's benefit. All the members of this committee are here to work. The government simply has to stop doing such a poor job of introducing bills, as is currently the case. That is the problem.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
The issue we're debating is whether or not to go in camera. I'd asked for us not to.
You may well be right, but at least this way everyone knows about it. Our constituents have a right to know whether we will be sitting two, three or four times.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
On a point of order, can we vote on this, whether to go in camera or not? Is that the feeling of the committee? Let's just take a quick vote, no debate.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Are the committee members willing to bring the discussion in camera?
5:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
The consensus appears to be that we stay on the public record.
Let's deal with the first two points of this motion, because I think they are interrelated. The motion that Mr. Ménard has put forward is to meet twice a week after one more bill--that is, Bill C-17--is dealt with by the committee. The legislative calendar tells us we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of twelve bills--I believe it is closer to eight or nine--that are out of the House, or at least eight that are before the committee.
Part of your motion, Mr. Ménard, is exactly what we're talking about, to get the job done on the legislation that we have on hand, and meeting twice a week will not suffice. So please go to point two.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
The rule is that all committees meet twice a week. The government can introduce fewer justice bills, fewer other bills, but we are not responsible for the fact that the government is not managing its agenda properly. Twice a week, that's the rule. Before we move on to the second point, get your whip to discuss the matter with mine; they can look into it. As far as we're concerned, the rule is two meetings per week.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect for you and for all parliamentarians, I feel that if we do not set out some ground rules, we're going to be—and I mean this—bulldozing our way through legislation. That's not how we want to operate. I'd kindly like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that last time, you came to the steering committee and said there would be two meetings for the bill, despite the fact that we hadn't discussed the matter at all. I do not want the number of meetings to be pre-determined; I want us to see what type of information we need, which witnesses we want to hear from, and consider all the information the committee will need in order to adopt a bill based on accurate and compelling information. If it takes eight committee meetings, so be it; if it takes two, there will be two, but I do not want us to establish ahead of time that there should be two meetings for such and such a committee. That, Mr. Chairman, is unacceptable. Some bills we agree on and others not, but we should always ask ourselves what type of information we require.
Mr. Chairman, the government has to quit thinking it can force us into an inordinate amount of work just because it has a law and order agenda. That is not the committee's responsibility. The government is free to introduce any bill it chooses, but the committee is free to decide how it operates. I think that has to be the basic ground rule.
And in closing, Mr. Chairman, I should add I do not want to engage in a partisan debate on the issue, but that's democracy. Seven out of ten Canadians did not support your platform. We're not simply going to shove the legal system over to the right for Stephen Harper's sake. You can count on our cooperation to ensure the committee runs smoothly, but you are now looking at 12 bills out of 29. That is not a speed at which we are willing to work.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Mr. Ménard, obviously you're adding this point to the discussion, that this government in your opinion doesn't have the broad support of the people in the nation. And is this why there's going to be a limit on the time of discussion of the legislation that's coming before us?
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, I am saying that the government is free to table bills in the House. Our leader has reminded us that of the 29 bills tabled since the beginning of the 39th Parliament, 12 deal with justice. The government will have to do a better job of distributing the workload.
You want us to meet four times a week, ostensibly because the government has tabled many bills. That is its prerogative, but ours is to set the pace of our work.