Justice Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, Mr. Moore, you're absolutely right.

Go ahead, Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise two points.

First of all, I understand that it is first and foremost the leaders of our respective parties that discuss the issue of legislative committees. However, I do understand, without having checked with my leader, that we are not very receptive to the idea of increasing the number of legislative committees, first of all because the same people will have to sit on them and also because there is no urgency requiring us to adopt the bills at the rate proposed by the government.

The government has already suggested that we establish a legislative committee to deal with reverse onus for extra-judicial inquiries. That is one thing.

Secondly, I am open to the idea that we should talk amongst ourselves. Ms. Jennings took me somewhat by surprise. This is a great side of her personality, this ability to come up with something new which makes her a somewhat unpredictable parliamentarian. However, I thought that the members from all of the parties wanted to study the issue of judicial selection, given the current roadblock.

You are aware, Ms. Jennings, as a legal expert, that there is a roadblock: the government is acting with arrogance that we cannot condone. So your friendship will be very useful to me as to the way that these events will unfold.

Mr. Chairman, we will discuss this matter on Thursday. But I feel it is essential that committee members be able to review the way that judges are selected. I think that we have some work to do on that issue. Moreover, my colleague from the NDP has also indicated that he shares this same desire.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard, in fact that is exactly what's going to happen. You have served notice on the committee to deal with this particular point; it will be debated and discussed on Thursday, February 22. It shall be so.

Getting back to Bill C-22, I think there is a need...and my understanding is that many in the opposition want to see Bill C-22 hit the floor of this committee. I'm trusting there's going to be some consensus here to be able to deal with that quickly.

Go ahead, Mr. Lee.

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

Speaking to the ninth report issue and our future agenda, the first point I've got to make is that when the House refers a bill to a committee, that bill has to have, at a minimum, at least some notional priority to other business.

I realize occasionally you get a little bit of a pinch point or a logjam, and there may be reasons to refer stuff out to a legislative committee. That has been done here on one occasion—for the second time, actually, in this Parliament--but the relative expertise in dealing with bills in this envelope is generally in this committee, and we ought to be making room.

I appreciate the efforts of Monsieur Ménard to offer business items and agenda items for us. As I look at this ninth report, I think three of the five items have been suggested by Monsieur Ménard. That's just wonderful, but the fact is that the government and the House have referred a whole bunch of other items to us, and I think we've got to work on those.

We've already done a side trip on another issue. We have to do that occasionally as a standing committee, but I want to see the age of consent bill get dealt with, Bill C-22. It's already been referred to us and it absolutely has to have priority over the issues of proceeds of crime or the appointment of judges. These are, of course, important public issues, but we have our work agenda established primarily by the House; we are a creature of the House. If we could find a way to wedge in a review of judges or proceeds of crime or other things, I'm happy to do that, but we absolutely have to get to the bills that have been referred to us. I would support any initiative that would get Bill C-22 in here right after Bill C-18, the DNA bill. Let's do our homework here, as the House wants us to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

I certainly know this committee in general wants to deal with Bill C-22 as expeditiously as possible. The problem now is before all of us, because I see that there's a general desire to see Bill C-22 in front of the committee probably ahead of Mr. Ménard's motions, I would have to suggest.

At the same time, the matter may end up being settled with a vote to do that very thing. If that's what the committee wants the chair to do or if there's some other way of coming to an agreement, let's do it now.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I would like to ask the Speaker of the House and our procedural experts to clarify certain points.

I think that Mr. Lee inadvertently misled the committee members. The committee is totally independent with respect to the way that it organizes its work. Of course, a government bill is given priority, but it is the prerogative of the committee to organize its work. Neither Marleau and Montpetit nor jurisprudence states that it is impossible for a committee to spend time on something other than the bill that has been referred to it for study. And yet, I heard comments to the contrary on several occasions. I am surprised that this is coming from opposition colleagues.

I'm going to ask for legal advice from the Speaker of the House. We are the masters of our work. When procedural issues are raised with the Speaker of the House, he reminds us often about this principle.

To conclude, I would like to point out that we are not responsible for the government's legislative activism. We are not responsible for the fact that the government has chosen, for ideological reasons, to create a bottleneck here, in the committee. Some committees have yet to receive one piece of legislation since the government was elected, whereas we have had to review nine. Consequently, the Standing Committee on Justice will never have any time to do something other than review government bills.

The government cannot be hegemonic. We have to strike a balance, and we have found it. We took upon ourselves to examine Bill C-9 and C-10, we looked at section 25 of the Criminal Code and now we are about to examine Bill C-18. Nevertheless, in addition to studying the government bills, it is understandable that parliamentarians, be they members from the opposition, make recommendations. That is part of our job.

I am not going to accept this analysis and I am going to raise a question of privilege in the House in order to have the Speaker validate this position. We are the masters of our business, and nothing compels us to organize our business according to the sequence of bills submitted by the government.

You should know, Mr. Chairman, that when people talk about me in Montreal or on Parliament Hill, I am defined first and foremost as a reasonable man. I will always live up to this reputation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard, you're absolutely right. This committee is the master of its own destiny, of its future.

If someone were to propose a motion to deal with Bill C-22 ahead of Mr. Ménard's motions, then we would vote on it.

It's that simple, right, Mr. Ménard? You said it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I think that you are right, Mr. Chairman. You have clarified the matter to us with the wisdom that we would like to see on a regular basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I raised the issue of Bill C-22, it was not at all my intent to delay the review on the judicial appointment process suggested by Mr. Ménard in his motion. It was, in fact, because we felt that these two issues were equally important. The review of the appointment process was done by the government without any consultation.

This was, moreover, what prompted me to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that the government consider referring Bill C-22 to a legislative committee, despite the fact that the House had referred it to the Standing Committee on Justice. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that associate members of a standing committee can sit on legislative committees. So it isn't true that only the regular committee members can sit on it.

I would also like to correct a statement made by Mr. Moore to the effect that legislative committees are established further to an agreement or consensus amongst the parliamentary leaders. If that were the case, there would not have been the government motion before the House on Bill C-35, which is aimed at reversing the onus of proof in cases awaiting trial. The parliamentary leaders were not consulted: the government acted unilaterally.

If committee members feel that Bill C-22 is as important as we, the members of the opposition, feel it is, by agreeing to study the judicial appointment process which was done unilaterally by the government, I move that Mr. Moore go back to his minister, his parliamentary leader, and, if necessary, his Prime Minister, and suggest that the parliamentary leaders consult with one another during their meeting on Tuesday afternoon. A suggestion could be made that another motion be tabled in the House requesting that the House review its decision, namely, that it refer Bill C-22 to a legislative committee rather than the Standing Committee on Justice.

In my opinion, that would suit everybody. The government would ensure that Bill C-22 is examined without delay and all of the members of this committee would be able to review the judicial appointment process, which was reviewed by the government without any consultation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Jennings. I don't think that's the government's intention, or they would not have sent it here.

Mr. Comartin.

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

I'll pass.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Petit, quickly. We're running out of time.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Lee's way of stating the problem, i.e. that we must set the priorities. We are dependent on Parliament, that basically consists of members elected by the people. The agenda and the priorities are set by Parliament.

Regarding this, I must say that I disagree with you, because Mr. Lee is right. Parliament sends us bills to study and decides the order in which the committee studies the bills.

A problem came up, and members of the Liberal Party are practically obsessed with the motion to study the appointment of judges. This means that tomorrow morning, as the committee is free, the agenda proposed by opposition members would be contrary to the will of Parliament. Therefore, tomorrow morning, members could decide that the motion on the appointment of judges is the priority. Consequently, instead of working on Bill C-22, we might have to work all the time because it is their agenda, their problem, and because they are obsessed with studying the appointment of judges, and we will have to follow suit.

I agree with Mr. Lee's proposal. The bills that are sent to us must be studied according to their merits and following the schedule set by Parliament, and not vice versa. Otherwise, I can simply close my books tomorrow morning and they can simply present their agenda. In such a case, there is no need for Parliament to sit, if they are the ones who decide here, in this committee, and if their decisions are contrary to the decisions made by Parliament. Therefore, I agree with Mr. Lee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Mr. Moore is next, and then I'll come to you, Mr. Thompson.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

That's fine, Chair.

I think Mr. Petit summed up my thought, which is that we should get on with moving the bills that have been put before us by the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Thompson has a motion.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I would move, Mr. Chairman, that Bill C-22 be moved forward immediately, ahead of the motion by Mr. Ménard. Let's get down to business. That's what we're here for, so let's get somewhere.

I don't know how it should be worded, but that's my motion.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

First, let me remind you that the committee rules require a 48-hour notice. Secondly, we cannot treat each other like this.

Every parliamentarian has the prerogative to table motions. If Mr. Petit has just realized that he belongs to a minority government, good for him, but we will work according to the wishes of the majority in this committee.

If the majority votes that we should study the appointment of judges, our colleagues from the party in power will have to accept it. I want to work in a cooperative spirit, but no one can stop the opposition from tabling motions, and we do not intend to stop the government from doing so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard, what is on the floor of this committee is a schedule and a future agenda. Mr. Thompson's motion is in order.

Those in favour—?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

I want to understand your decision and I want to challenge it.

The steering committee has set a working agenda. If you find that Mr. Thompson's motion is in order, we will also vote—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The steering committee has decided on everything up to the DNA bill, Bill C-18. There have been no specified times allotted for your motions, because times were going to be something that would be discussed. Now Bill C-22, even though it was discussed earlier at the steering committee, is on the floor here as well.

A motion has been put forward. We'll deal with the motion. There has been no decision on either of Mr. Ménard's motions that are on the agenda here as far as time is concerned.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No, Mr. Chairman. I sent a notice of motion that we will discuss tomorrow. Even before considering this motion, you are ready to receive a motion from my colleague Mr. Thompson and to set my motion aside. I think that this is a breach of the standing orders. We cannot accept it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Lee.

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

Clearly there's not a really good consensus here on the future agenda. I think we need some more discussion. The ninth report as drafted is probably not ready to be adopted. As long as we know what we're going to do for the next two or three weeks—