Justice Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I don't know about that, because not everybody is here. How do you know that everybody knows they were supposed to be in room 208? That's my point of order, I guess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

They were all notified.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

How were they notified, Mr. Chair? Maybe the clerk can assist.

Maybe we should just wait until everybody is here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

A notice has been sent by the clerk to all the committee members.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

When was that sent? Do we have proof of that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It was sent five minutes ago. The clerk can verify it. It was done electronically, I'm advised.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I tabled the motion, that you are all familiar with, with the firm conviction that the committee should take the time not to review what occurred in the past nor to examine what occurred 10 years ago. The action taken by the government will change the judicial selection process. As we know, this is an extremely sensitive process because it is a pillar of democracy.

Mr. Chairman, the motion seeks to ascertain whether the nomination of the members from police departments is very wise given the balance that we wish to preserve. My motion called for three meetings to hear from witnesses. Moreover, I have spoken to Mr. Antonio Lamer, and to Ms. L'Heureux-Dubé. Both would be prepared to meet with us. I know that many people would be prepared to appear before the committee. I am aware of the affection and respect that all members of this committee have for Mr. Antonio Lamer and Ms. L'Heureux-Dubé and I can assure you that they will both be prepared to share their 10 years of expertise with us.

Nor did I wish, Mr. Chairman, to take up too much committee time unduly. That is why I thought that we could have three meetings, plus one more to draft the report.

I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that under our standing orders, we will be voting on the four motions; the preamble is never part of the vote. The preamble has interpretative, explanatory value but is never part of the vote. Obviously, I do not intend to withdraw it. I think that the government action falls in line with a very known ideological orientation. We accept that, but I think that that must be part of the terms of the debate. I don't understand why Mr. Moore is so sensitive, why he wants the preamble to be withdrawn. My objective was not to hurt the feelings of the government members, but I do think that we need to say things as they are.

And why, Mr. Chairman, appoint police officers? Why not nurses, professors, teachers or other people who, in society, also have things to say about the administration of justice? The government intentionally chose to appoint police officers because that falls in line with its ideological orientation. We respect that. We can understand that, in a democracy, but we are saying that this is the work of the opposition and the committee to debate the issue.

I would conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying one thing. On several occasions, I have heard government members say that they had an agenda. Yes, and we respect the fact that the government is the government. This is a minority government—and God forbid that it should ever become a majority one—and we have reviewed five bills. We reviewed section 25 of the Criminal Code, conditional sentencing, Bill C-9, Bill C-10 and, on Thursday, we will be dealing with Bill C-18. Therefore, it cannot be said that the official opposition was choosing not to follow the government's agenda. It is normal that there be, within a committee, a balance between the work that the opposition would like to see done and the work that the government would like to do.

Why can't the government use 100% of its time to implement the government's agenda? Because it did not elect 100% of the members. The answer is as boring and as parliamentary as that.

Mr. Chairman, if the government wishes to support my amendment, I would be very happy. Moreover, I am going to support the amendments tabled by Ms. Jennings. It is not our policy in the Bloc Québécois, to sit in committee longer than planned. This is coming from our whip, because we are very, very busy. Basically, the opposition is working to make the government better. This is obviously full-time work, and there is not one day where we are not exhausted, Mr. Chairman. That is why our whip does not authorize us, generally speaking, to sit outside of normal committee hours. It is because our services are required elsewhere. However, in the spirit of good cooperation and cordiality, in the spirit of mutual respect and reciprocal affection, I will bow to Ms. Jennings' amendments which would authorize the chair to hold an additional meeting.

Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that this amendment, along with the initial proposal, will garner the support of all committee members and we will be able to shed some light on this matter in committee. We all know that these are issues that stir up a great deal of passion in the House. The Leader of the Bloc Québécois and the Leader of the Liberal Party have asked many questions. The NDP has asked questions about the selection process. It is only normal that we do our job as opposition parliamentarians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Jennings.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Réal Ménard for his comments. I can tell you that we Liberals are in support of Mr. Ménard's motion, first of all because we believe that the objective is quite commendable and also because it is a topic on which many parties, both within and outside Parliament, have already expressed an interest, namely to obtain a review of the judicial selection process that the current Conservative government has set up.

Nevertheless, given the objectives and priorities of the Liberal caucus regarding strategy and justice, we have a liberal justice strategy by which we have given priority, ourselves, to government bills presented last spring, after the opening of Parliament. In the fall of 2006, we had very clearly identified bills with which we were in complete agreement and we offered our collaboration and cooperation to the government so that we could fast track these bills so that they could be debated in the House, referred to committee, studied in committee, referred at report stage to the House, etc. Unfortunately, the government did not feel it necessary to accept our offer, which dealt with several bills, including Bill C-22, which concerned the age of consent. It was only in February that the government finally saw fit to put it on the calendar for the second reading debate.

We want to see the work of this committee progress, with respect to this bill. That's why, despite the fact that we are supporting Mr. Ménard's motion in the name of the Bloc, we members felt that it would be wise to make or suggest amendments to his very motion. Our objective was to enable the committee to continue its work and follow its regular calendar, to proceed with the second reading examination of Bill C-22 on the age of consent, but at the same time, to take into account the importance that many interested parties are giving to the review done by the government of the judicial selection process, without any consultation.

I should add that I am not the one saying this, nor is it Mr. Ménard, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Murphy, Mr. D'Amours or Ms. Barnes. This is coming from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada herself, who stated publicly that if the government wanted to change or review the judicial selection process, it was obliged to consult. However, this consultation was never done.

So not only do we support Mr. Ménard's motion, but we have also brought forward our own amendment. You heard Mr. Ménard state that the Bloc will be supporting the Liberal amendment, presented by me, to his motion.

I move that a vote be held.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Go ahead, Mr. Petit.

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

When came back here, I was suppose to speak first. You gave the floor to Mr. Ménard and Ms. Jennings, when in fact it was my turn to speak; that is what had been decided earlier. I am not finding this funny one bit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Petit, my apologies. You have the floor.

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

To begin with, I read Mr. Ménard's motion, which I find very interesting. I also read Ms. Jennings' amendment, which I find even more interesting.

If you read Mr. Ménard's motion—and he has said that the preamble will be retained—it says the following:

Whereas this modified review procedure bears flagrant signs of partisanship and ideological influence; It is moved: 1. That the government postpone the reform made to the composition of the judge selection committees and that it restore the previous procedure for these committees.

Up to that point, I can read it, it is comprehensible. Nevertheless, if you want to say that we are partisan, we have to know what happened previously. I think that this is logic itself. If you want to say that we are partisan and that we are ideologues, I want to know what occurred from 1993 to the present.

At that point, I began to consider the possibility of getting behind what Ms. Jennings was saying, that is that we should study the issue in-depth. I sincerely believe that the Liberals, like the Conservatives and Bloquists, want to know what has gone on since then. We are trading insults, accusing each other of being ideological or not, of being partisan or not. I don't agree. We must get to the bottom of things. To do this, people have to have an opportunity to say that the judicial system is impervious to partisan and ideological decisions.

I share the position taken by Mr. Ménard of the Bloc Québécois, but I also agree with the Liberals who want to investigate what occurred between 1993 and today. Certain things have been said in the House, and I will ascertain whether or not this is true. I'm still a lawyer, I still practice in Quebec, I still appear before judges and I do not want to have any doubt in my mind when I go before the court. That also applies to the future lawyer that Mr. Ménard will be, and to Mr. Brian Murphy, who is a lawyer as well. He does not want to have any doubts when he appears before the court about there possibly being any partisanship on our side, or ideological problems, as Mr. Ménard asserted. I don't want that. Justice must be impartial.

If you read my amendment, which I had translated into English as best I could because I didn't have access to all of the services last evening in order to have this done, you will note that I am in reality proposing a subamendment. Under this subamendment, we would start a subcommittee. I think that this issue is too important to deal with it in two or three meetings and then adopt it very quickly. No, we must study the issue in an in-depth manner. This is an important aspect under section 100 of the Constitution. We are the ones who appoint all members of the judiciary. We must therefore study the issue in an in-depth manner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Order, please. Mr. Petit has the floor.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

On a point of order, is the amendment in order?

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

If I may, I would first of all like to provide some explanation. I haven't even presented it yet. Why would I proceed quickly? There are no time constraints on me, Mr. Ménard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

On a point of order, one moment, please.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, is the subamendment in order?

You cannot explain a subamendment that is out of order. If it is, we will listen to you for 10 hours, it that's what you choose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard, wait. I will rule on that once I've listened to the entire presentation.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No. We will not listen to the explanation of the subcommittee if it is not in order. What is the reasoning for this? Is it in order, yes or no?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'm looking at it right now. He's presenting in the meantime.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

All right, we will wait for your answer. We will suspend the meeting and wait for your decision.

If it is in order, we could listen to you for 10 hours, but it has to be in order. Personally, I don't think that it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'll rule on the subamendment presented by Mr. Petit.

The subamendment is not acceptable. It would be acceptable as a motion, but not as a subamendment. It tends to enlarge on the amendment and on the motion itself. It introduces other foreign aspects to the amendment and to the original motion.

On that basis, Mr. Petit, your amendment will not be accepted.

Going back to the discussion on the amendment, Mr. Moore, you're on the list.

Mr. Petit, do you want to continue discussion on the amendment?

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

With respect to Ms. Jennings' amendment, I am entitled to move a sub-amendment which should be in order for the following reason.

I do not agree that there should be a minimum of three meetings. We can see that she wants to hold more than that, and I would like there to be many more because the issue is too important. I will not tolerate this situation where, after two or three sessions, we all decide, as a group, to scratch our backs. We are serious parliamentarians, I have no doubt about that, with respect to both the opposition and the government members. I think that we should cast our net further afield and not simply invite those witnesses that may want to make disclosures that could suit us.

I would imagine that we will have to obtain a budget for this purpose: there are many services required to do this. I could easily see us holding many more meetings than just these three, which alone represent six hours of debate. That is not enough. I would suggest that we plan for about ten meetings where we call witnesses. It is not true that they will call only those they want to hear.

I understand that I am in a minority and that they can do what they want. However, as parliamentarians, I really believe that we should ensure that everything is done properly and that public confidence in the process is restored. Indeed, if people are saying that we are partisans and ideologues, I may want to know what happened before, during and after my stay here. That's what I would like to know. And isn't it true that, in order to get a good answer, three meetings are not sufficient.

You said that the Honourable Supreme Court Justice spoke in your favour. I have a great deal of respect for Mrs. Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, who is a lawyer from Quebec City. Indeed, she was my family's lawyer for a long time. So I have a great deal of respect for her, but we are parliamentarians. We are not...

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

On a point of information, the Supreme Court Justice is Beverley McLachlin.