Evidence of meeting #52 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 information.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Joe Buckle  Director General, Forensic Science and Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Anne-Elizabeth Charland  Officer in Charge, Management Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
David Bird  Senior Legal Counsel, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
J. Bowen  Acting Director, Biology Project, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Petit.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

The parliamentary secretary talked about the fact that there were police officers sitting on a committee. Mr. Ménard gave a long statement that we were ideologues, etc.

Earlier, I simply wanted to know if the fact of appointing a police officer to this committee made us ideologues. When members from the Liberal Party appointed lawyers, were they ideologues as well? I would like to know because we need to make a decision. The members from the Liberal Party who appointed these people—and here I am making the same criticism that Mr. Ménard has made with respect to us—were they ideologues? Were they acting in a partisan way? I need to know that, because I am new to the government.

Mr. Ménard has been around for 14 years, he knows the entire system. Very often, even in my province, it has been said that certain federal judges have an Ottawa slant, because there is a perception. It is important that people appearing before these judges no longer have this perception.

So the member is saying that because we have appointed a police officer, we are ideologues. But I would ask him this question: when you appointed the seven other individuals, in 1993, were you ideologues, were you acting in a partisan way? I don't know.

I do believe you when you say that Ms. Jennings wants to make the same inquiry as I do. I want to know if this is true or false. I especially want to reassure the people that what Mr. Ménard and I have been saying is false and that we are all good people, good parliamentarians, and that we all want to have an impartial justice system. That's all that I want. That is why I wanted to hold a more in-depth investigation.

However, if you erect barriers, if you put the lid on the pot, it's very simple, things will continue to heat up underneath. Don't forget that. The only thing that's going to be said in the House and the only thing that the public is going to say is that we wanted to move, but that we only moved a bit. We are here, we have a unique opportunity in our career as parliamentarians to do some good work, to perhaps bring about a change, to make improvements that will ensure that when Mr. Murphy and Mr. Ménard become lawyers and that we make our representations before the judges, that we will have absolutely no doubts in our minds about them. That's all that I want.

I know that Ms. Jennings wants the same thing as I do, although we do appear to disagree about certain points. Moreover, I thought that this was what the Bloc Québécois wanted. I am pleased to see that Mr. Ménard is very abreast of events and that he is so supportive of what we call the Canadian courts. I know that this is not in line with his views, but I find it wonderful that he is able to get beyond this, to sublimate in order to help us.

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

If you are asking for a vote about me being wonderful, we will support you.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Order, please.

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Is there any further debate? First, we will have a recorded vote on the subamendment presented by Mr. Moore.

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Chairman, are we voting only on the withdrawal of the word “integrity”, or on the four points made by Mr. Moore?

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

No, the vote is on Mr. Moore's points, or the entire subamendment. There is no preamble or point 1; the minimum will be two days as opposed to three days, per point 2; and point 3 is about removing “the integrity of”.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Now on to Ms. Jenning's amendment of Monsieur Ménard's motion.

Noon

Liberal

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

A recorded vote.

Noon

Liberal

Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON

With “the integrity of” removed?

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

No, as it's presented before you by Ms. Jennings.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6 ; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Thank you.

Now to Monsieur Ménard's motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

That concludes this particular meeting.

We are adjourned.