Justice Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

To respond to what Mr. Lee said, as much as I would have liked this motion had we not heard from these witnesses on Bill C-9 and Bill C-10, I certainly understand what you're saying. It shouldn't be a precedent for everyone who has a pet motion to put forward that we would adopt this motion not having heard evidence.

The reason I support Ms. Jennings' motion is because throughout the last year, through the course of the study of different bills, we have heard these types of witnesses. We've heard from ethnocultural communities, we've heard from Correctional Service Canada, and we've heard from police departments. On the mounting evidence that we have, I'm able to support this.

I certainly wouldn't support a motion that we hadn't heard any evidence on. That may help to alleviate any fears, or it will maybe quell someone's idea to bring a motion next week on something we haven't discussed. But we have discussed a lot of this quite extensively, and I'm happy to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay. All those in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I've saved the best for last, Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, can the vote apply to my motion?

Can we apply the same vote to my motion, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I don't know, Mr. Ménard. I mean, it's kind of wishful thinking on your part, isn't it?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to briefly discuss my motion. I shouldn't need much time, because it is quite clear.

First off, we committed to completing our consideration of Bill C-18. I understand that that should take place rather quickly, that we only have one meeting left and that we will be moving to clause-by-clause at the same time as we hear from witnesses. All parties are in favour of Bill C-18.

You know full well, Mr. Chairman, that the government has chosen to change the rules of the game regarding judicial appointments and that this debate has triggered much emotion in civil society and caused a great deal of concern within the legal community. I think it is part of our duty as parliamentarians, and not only on the opposition side. I expect members on the government side to contribute. I think we need to make sure we receive information from a number of witnesses.

That is the purpose of my motion. I would be very disappointed if this motion was interpreted as a stalling tactic. It is the result of a genuine desire to do some serious work. The appointment of judges is an integral part of our democracy. If the government chooses to change the rules of the game, I think it is only natural for the legislative committee to be involved.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I have heard that some colleagues—Ms. Jennings may have a word to say in this regard—intend to amend this motion, and to consider that amendment. I am very open to that type of amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Are you suggesting you have an amendment?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I think Ms. Jennings has one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

To this motion?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I do have a few other speakers first, Ms. Jennings, if you don't mind waiting for a minute.

Mr. Petit.

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

With respect to the motion, I would like to get back to one point. Mr. Lee made a comment which leads me to wonder what the rules are regarding the tabling of motions, and whether they have a main or accessory purpose.

I've conducted research. I prepared information for everyone, in English and in French. I asked the House to give me the information I needed and I consulted two up-to-date sources, the Beauchesne and the Marleau Montpetit. What Mr. Lee said led me to this study. He said that the House gives orders to the Standing Committee on Justice. They are referred to as orders of reference. Section 108(2) of the Standing Orders clearly indicates that the House refers orders of reference to committees, as in the case of Bill C-22, C-18 and all other bills which we consider in committee. There are no motions attached to orders of reference. We may introduce motions on a bill itself.

For instance, we may introduce motions to hear from witnesses or motions to amend a bill. All of that is provided in the regulations. Nowhere is it mentioned that a motion whose main purpose has not yet been approved by the House can be adopted in committees. Otherwise, we would have more authority here than would the House of Commons itself. The House sends us an order of reference and we, working together in agreement, could somehow decide to set aside the House's standing orders! The House sends us orders of reference. The House is our boss and committees are creatures of the House. We focus on a given department.

I'm going to have these documents circulated so that you may consult the research I did yesterday evening, thanks to Mr. Lee who had me working all night. First, I'll give you a copy of the Standing Orders.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

It is important for us not to engage in a debate on false premises. This is a point of order and I'm asking you to rule once and for all.

I thank Mr. Petit for the efforts he's made, but the reality is the following. If the chair and the clerk consult Marleau Montpetit, they will notice that bills must be the subject of an order of reference from the House to a committee and that there are absolutely no timelines set out for this.

It is very important to understand that, Mr. Chairman, and I reiterate that this is a point of order.

In Marleau Montpetit, the only deadline the House must respect is that dealing with private members' business. That is the reason why, from time to time, there are requests for extensions made. Just yesterday, the finance committee voted in favour of such a request on private members' business.

That means that in all cases, the committee must always formally acknowledge the bills received by the House, but the order in which it chooses to do its work, be it related to private members' motions or government motions, has nothing to do with this order of reference. Besides, it is the prerogative of all committee members, recognized by their respective whips, to introduce motions. It is the committee's prerogative to defeat them, but the power to introduce motions is an integral part of the privilege of sitting on a committee.

Once again, I thank Mr. Petit for his research, but his argument is flawed in two ways. First, it is not pursuant to any provision in the standing orders. Second, if he were right, it would mean that a majority government—and thank God that isn't the case at the moment—could simply, due to the number of members it has in its caucus, decide on 100% of House business. It would constantly be tabling motions to direct business.

Mr. Chairman, I'll end by reminding you of two things. This committee is autonomous, and if it wants to carry out studies which take precedence over government bills, so be it. That being said, it is not the purpose of this motion. The motion fits within the framework of the consideration of several government bills which have been studied, and there will be others. Nonetheless, I call on you to indicate to the committee, based on an informed reading of our standing orders, that the information provided by Mr. Petit is unfortunately not well founded.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I reply?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Petit.

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

I understand very clearly what my colleague is saying. However, it is the mandate which dictates our business. Standing Order 108(1)(a) deals with the mandate. It states:

Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and inquiry into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House...

Matters are referred by the House, not by committees.

I understand Mr. Ménard's opinion about the fact that a majority government may choose to abuse of the situation. The opposite is true ?? is possible as well. The opposition could also abuse a minority government. It goes both ways.

Whether or not I am defeated is irrelevant. What is relevant is to know the rules. If there are rules, we need to respect them, be they good or bad.

The House sends me here. I got this information out for you. Marleau Montpetit and Beauchesne are up-to-date. There is no jurisprudence. You won't find any. I've done extensive research on this, and there is none. So, today it is unchartered area. In other words, the House gives me the authority, and I must consider what it refers to me.

Either way, if we adopt this motion, there is no purpose in my being here. I just have to follow along with the opposition's agenda and go where I'm told, there won't be any purpose in me... Although you may control your time, you do not control your purpose. The main purpose is determined by the House. Not by the committee. So, if we decide to start using section 108 ?? Standing Order 108 to do other things, there's no purpose in my being here. I'll just wait for their agenda and work on that, because we'll all get along. That's all I can say.

I'm trying to say his motion is no good. It's not about the substance. It's just that he is introducing content which was not referred to me by the House. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No, I'm not finished. There is no time limit on points of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We can go around on circles on this, Mr. Ménard. I don't want to go around in circles on it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Allow me to make my point of order. It is not up to you to discuss whether or not there is a point of order. Under the standing orders I am allowed to make a point of order, and I will do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Then we won't be able to get to the conclusion of this particular motion that's before the committee. Make your point quickly.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I've asked you to rule on the privilege members have to take initiative. That is what we should consider.