Evidence of meeting #51 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 offence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
With reference to Standing Order 108(1)(a), certainly Mr. Petit has a point. With anything that comes before the committee, the committee is required to examine “all such matters as may be referred to them by the House”.
But Standing Order 108(2) makes a further point. It includes additional powers granted to standing committees. In “addition to” the powers in this particular order, the committee is also
empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House.
In other words, a committee has those additional powers, which they can use to set their course.
I sympathize very much with Mr. Petit, because the government does have an agenda, and we're not getting to the legislation we should be getting to. That's my opinion, of course; however, the broad committee sees otherwise and wants to interrupt that agenda.
My next speaker....
In reference again to Mr. Petit's point, Standing Order 108(2) is an additional power granted to the committee to set our own course. I want to thank you, Mr. Petit, for bringing that up. I'm going to move on here, if you don't mind. We have a couple of additional speakers.
Go ahead, Mr. Petit.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I have an explanation to give. I also have a right to speak.
Line six or seven of Standing Order 108(2) states that we can deal with all matters so long as they are assigned to us from time to time by the House. It is always the House which assigns the work. The only place you will find any powers is under Standing Order 108(2)(e). But this power is subservient to that which is given by the House.
I don't care whether I am defeated or not. I'm just saying that that's wrong. I'm allowed to say so.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I'm allowed to say that the decision is wrong.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I speak from the Standing Orders themselves, Mr. Petit. I appreciate your bringing this forward, and yes, you have a right to do that. However, it does say that the committee is empowered to study and report on “all matters relating to the mandate”.
Now let's get on with the order of the day here.
Mr. Thompson.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I'm so bedazzled by the conversation that goes on from the legal system; the lawyers have me confused most of the time. I'm going to change the flow just a bit.
What I don't understand is this. Why would Mr. Ménard object to a police officer being part of an advisory committee in determining a list of possibilities to select a judge? Why?
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Well, “Whereas this modified review procedure bears flagrant signs of partisanship and ideological influence”....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Understood. We are going to vote either yea or nay for this motion. The content of it you may not agree with; then we will vote against it. Right now, we're not going to look at the content, apart from whether we agree with it or disagree with it. And that vote is going to be taken very quickly.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I'd like to see our legal system referred to as a justice system for once.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I would like to deal with this as quickly as we can. I want to hear about Ms. Jennings' amendment.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.
I've had discussions with both Monsieur Ménard and Mr. Moore about how there seems to be a consensus, on the part of the majority, at least, that the intent of Monsieur Ménard's motion has support from the Liberal members. I'm not sure about the government members.
However, I would propose that point two of Monsieur Ménard's motion--which stipulates that as soon as the study of Bill C-18 is completed, the committee devote three sessions to hearing witnesses who will inform the committee and so on and so forth--be amended in order to state that the committee would devote two sessions to hearing witnesses and that one session would take place the week coming up.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
If you hold on, it would be one hearing per week when the House is in session, beginning the sitting of next week. It would be in addition to the two regularly scheduled hearings of the committee.
This committee regularly meets on Tuesdays and Thursdays, from 9 to 11 a.m. The committee would schedule a third session in order to proceed with Bill C-22.
On the Tuesday beginning next week, we would hold our first session on the judges. The Thursday regular session would be on Bill C-22. We would add a third session that would be a second session for Bill C-22.
We would do the same thing the following--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
If I may clarify the schedule for next week, we have Bill C-18, witnesses on DNA. On March 1, which is Thursday, we have clause-by-clause.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
If the amendment and motion of Monsieur Ménard are accepted, we would add an extra session of this committee to begin the study of the procedure for selecting judges. When we come back the week of March 19, we would again add an extra session. The study of the selection of judges would take place on Tuesday, March 20, from 9 to 11 a.m. The other business that had been scheduled would be covered by the extra session and by the Thursday session. And then the same thing the following week.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I hear what people are saying. My thought is that we should stick to our regular schedule when it comes to the bill. So if we're scheduled to meet Tuesday and Thursday, we should meet Tuesday and Thursday on what we were scheduled for.
If we're going to study the judges, then I think that should be the extra day, not one of the days we've already scheduled to study Bill C-18 or Bill C-22. I don't want anything to impede our study of Bill C-22.
If we have an extra day to study this, as Mr. Ménard is suggesting, then I think that should be the extra day.
February 22nd, 2007 / 11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Well, look, we're talking about the amendment from Ms. Jennings.
Certainly, on this side, I'll tell you we're not going to support Mr. Ménard's motion, with all the “whereas the Conservative government” and all of that. If we strip all of that from it and just say this committee is going to study the judicial appointments on these extra days, that's one thing. If you want support from this side for the motion, we're not going to have one that has this slant to it. We won't support that, but we will support the study.
Conservative
