Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'll call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, June 20, 2006, Bill C-17, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in relation to courts.

I have a point of order from Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I've spoken to the parliamentary secretary about this, and what I'd like to suggest is that we spend a few minutes before we go into the formal part of clause-by-clause on some discussion--informally. I have a couple of proposals I would like to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Is this in reference to the amendments you submitted?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes, and not only mine, but also the amendments of the Bloc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I suspected that there would be a little bit of a discussion. I'm going to address the amendments. Then before I give any ruling, there will be some discussion. Is that fair enough?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Before you do that, I think we should share the information we have on the position of the government in terms of whether they're in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I see. You're talking about that particular aspect.

All right, Mr. Comartin, go ahead.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

In effect, what we have--and I'm addressing this to the whole committee--are two sets of amendments: mine, which would have the effect of reinstating the commission report, and the Bloc amendments, which would have the effect of linking, and I guess reinstating, it to MPs' salaries.

I'm going to suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that the position the minister took when he was here with regard to the issue of royal prerogative--because obviously my amendments would require a royal prerogative, there's no factual issue over that--was indeterminate as to what they would do, but he also indicated a willingness to consider recommendations from this committee to change the numbers, the dollar figures, if I can put it that way.

I've spoken to the parliamentary secretary, and he's indicated that the government is open to listening to that at report stage and making a determination at that point.

In that light, and not knowing entirely what certain members are going to do and whether they're going to support my position, I think at the very least we should have a discussion about them and an indication.

Then, Mr. Chair, and I think this is true of the Bloc ones, if we get over the procedural problem of whether or not they are in order--and I'm arguing that they should be allowed to go if they pass this committee--there should be no ruling by the chair until we see the outcome. And your ruling should be, if my amendments pass, to allow it to go to report stage and to let the government determine at that point whether they're going to accept the recommendation from the committee or reject it. Obviously, if they're going to reject it, they'll do it on the basis of saying that it is out of order, that royal prerogative is necessary, and that they're not giving the royal prerogative.

Mr. Chair, the other point I want to make, and I would invite some discussion on this if people are feeling uncomfortable about it, is that the amendments are basically all the same.

Point by point--and that's necessary because of the procedural aspect of the bill--we're just putting the numbers back in, what the commission had originally recommended. I believe that's true of the Bloc's amendments as well. In that light, rather than having to have a discussion, a debate, on every single point, let's have the vote apply to all of them after we have the initial discussion. That will save a tremendous amount of time, certainly in terms of the number of votes we would have to have if there was debate on each point. I think that would be applicable to all the amendments, the two sets we have.

I would like to suggest that, and I'm hoping the committee would entertain that we do it that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'm just going to have a discussion here, briefly, on the side.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, personally, I agree with the arguments put forward by our colleague, Mr. Comartin. We agree with the idea of grouping amendments together for voting purposes.

All of the Bloc's amendments, from 1 through 56, can be grouped together and a single vote taken, because they all have to do adjusting the Prime Minister's salary and the remuneration of judges. However, we will be calling for a separate vote on BQ-57, which defines the scale. Therefore, there might be two votes, in so far as the Bloc's amendments are concerned.

Summing up, we agree with grouping like amendments together for voting purposes. However, we want a separate vote on amendment BQ-57, because it comprises a separate category.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

If I understand what you've asked, it's that these amendments move forward with the bill out of this committee to the House and that the House address them. Is that correct?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

No, that we would have votes here, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We would vote on them here, and basically with the set-up here, they would move on to the House. Is that my...?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Amendments here can't be proposed in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

No, but if they are against the.... If it's a money issue, they will be stripped from the bill.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

If they're not adopted by committee--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

If they are submitted along with the committee's report, they will be stripped from the bill when they reach the House.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Who's going to strip?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The Speaker, because they require a royal recommendation.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

And if the royal recommendation doesn't come, he'll inquire whether it's...and you're assuming there will be no royal recommendation. Yes, okay.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Hanger, I think what my two friends were proposing isn't the heart of what happens on that. It was the fact that instead of going from 1, 2, 3, all the way up to 57, they just do one vote, because if you approve one, you--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, I understand that. That's a secondary issue here--

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

But the other one is about your ruling, and my understanding is that royal recommendations can be given by the government right up to third report stage, but at committee they'd be out of order.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Let's just do our job now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

That's true for a private member's bill, but not in this case.